Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’


By: - Climate DepotJuly 6, 2015 8:34 PM with 940 comments

Climate Depot Exclusive

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.

Image result for ivar giaever

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Ivar Giaever und König Carl Gustaf auf der Nobelpreisfeier in Stockholm im...

Ivar Giaever and King Carl Gustaf at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm in December 1973

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Ivar Giaever

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.

#

Ivar Giaever (2008): "Seit 19 Jahren gab es keine Erwärmung mehr", sagt er....

Ivar Giaever in 2008

Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared.I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

Related Links:

On Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 36 signed the declaration. As is typical of the suppression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the [nearly equal] majority. Today, one of the Nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.

In Lindau Giaever speaks to young researchers and other Nobel laureates. In the second row: Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy in Barack Obama’s first Cabinet, where he drew a lot of money in research into renewable energies. The Nobel Laureate in Physics sinks deeper and deeper into his purple armchair, runs his fingers through his hair, scratching her on the forehead, shaking her head.

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’ -When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable – Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

Giaver: “I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”


  • Milty

    Backing Barry just goes to show that even really smart people can do really stupid things.

  • therealviffer

    AGW is a perfectly sound theory. It merely requires heat to flow the wrong way, from cooler (atmosphere) to warmer (surface). 97% of climate ‘scientists’ depend on this sophistry to pay their mortgages.

    • Seeker6j
      • therealviffer

        Looks like an interesting site. Animations don’t work in Chrome >42 (NPAPI not supported).

    • don

      its liken to their hocky stick lie

      • therealviffer

        It’s all a lie. Designed to secure untold wealth for banks, corporations & governments via a global carbon tax

      • plusaf

        And as _I_ learned at RPI, ‘if the graph is shaped like a hockey stick, you’ve chosen the wrong kind of graph paper.’
        That was my first reaction when Gore presented the First Hockey Stick.
        Graph 2^n versus n on linear-linear paper and you get a hockey stick.
        Graph it on semi-log paper and it comes out a straight line. Which one can be easily extrapolated?
        Math-phobic, math-illiterates believe Gore and the Warmites.

    • James

      I am sorry that you never had a science class. The troposphere is warmest at the bottom and coolest at the top. The sun heats up the surface of the earth, the air raises but cools as it expands in the upper atmosphere. According to you, sticking your hand out of an airplane it should be warm rather than instantly freezing at 50 below zero.
      It is OK that you do not know anything about science, but what is frightening is that you think you do.

      • therealviffer

        You are agreeing with me, Einstein. In a standard atmosphere, surface at +15C, tropopause at -56.5C, in which direction does heat flow?

        Clue: if you say heat flows from something at -56.5C to something at +15C, you’d be wrong, like those Nobel prize winners. You’re welcome.

    • UrabanoMucho

      Idiot–The surface is heated both water and land–The CO2 just traps it. It doesn’t require any flow the wrong way. You denies learn a lot of terminology but basic principles seem to trip you up.

      • therealviffer

        Cretin. You can’t even parrot the IPCC’s back-radiation schtick properly. Heat isn’t trapped in nature – that’s why whatever is put in a Thermos ends up at ambient temperature.

        Learn some thermodynamics. The CO2 (what there is of it) re-radiates surface LWIR, but, it can only do this at the CO2’s local (cooler) temperature. The atmosphere can’t make the surface warmer than it started.

        H2O vapour, when it changes state to form clouds, can significantly reduce the rate of surface cooling, but even that can’t make the surface warmer than it started. I realise this is beyond your mental capacity. You could have a career as a climate ‘scientist’.

        • UrabanoMucho

          Ok let me lay it out for you. Heat arrives at the earth surface as infrared radiation of all wavelength, as well as visible and ultraviolet. All this radiation heats up the surfaces which in turn heats up the air around it in the day time. At night the temp difference between the earth and outer space causes cooling as the heat in the form of longer wave infrared, radiates out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb and block this radiation, hence the earth doesn’t cool off as much the more greenhouse gases there are. This heat spreads by convection and conduction to the land and water mass of the earth. Exactly what law of thermodynamics does this violate? The Thermos analogy is totally irrelevant. I actually got A’s in physics but probably Al Gore got in time machine and paid my instructor off so that I would be a GW advocate 20 years later. This wasn’t general physics either but calculus based.

          • therealviffer

            Dear Mucho Clueless, the Thermos reference wasn’t an analogy. It is a fact, from which you could learn mucho. No insulator ever makes its heat source hotter than it started. If you insulate your house, it doesn’t make your central heating boiler burn hotter. Your rooms merely cool at a slower rate than they did before you applied the insulation. Heat can’t be trapped.

            You seem to indicate that the earth only cools by radiating to space at night. Hilarious. “GHGs” don’t “absorb and block” anything. They absorb and spontaneously re-radiate LWIR, but, at their local temperature. This, being cooler than the surface T, precludes any surface heating by such means.

            What, with all your sciencey and calculus training, you will have no difficulty in understanding the heat flow equation: Q ~ (TH^4 – TC^4). Note that Q is a vector, with directionality from H to C. (Where Q = heat flow, T = temperature, H = hot, C = cold (constants removed for simplicity))

            To match your apparent IQ, think of the laws of thermodynamics as follows:

            0. Temperature is a physical quantity in its own right.

            1. You can’t win, you can only break even.

            2. You can only break even if you can get to absolute zero (0K).

            3. You can never get to absolute zero.

            All that means is that any heat flow, which results from any objects being at different temperatures, is always from the hotter source to the cooler source, without exception, unless new work is done on the system. The atmosphere is not a source of new work.

            You’re welcome.

          • UrabanoMucho

            What you are saying is correct but again ignores the overall picture and misses the point. The earth looses all of its heat to space by radiation because there is no media for conduction or convection, the other possibilities. In the case where there are few Greenhouse gas the atmosphere is more transparent to the radiation leaving the earth and cooling it. In the case where there is more Greenhouse gas some of radiation is reradiated back down to the earth. Regardless of the temperature of the gas when it reradiates the infrared back down, it is much hotter than the 4 degrees above absolute zero of space. Hence more of the total radiation coming in from the sun stays in the surface and the atmosphere, leading to a higher temperature than the first case. We are not talking about passive insulation but an active process. We are not talking about more work, we are talking about loosing less. If by work you mean the energy source of the heat.

          • therealviffer

            The “overall picture” is simply this: Q ~ (TH^4 – TC^4). Saying “Regardless of the temperature of the gas when it reradiates the infrared back down”, belies your cretinism. That statement is in direct contradiction to the heat flow equation, which describes a key element of the universal laws of thermodynamics. “Climate scientists” don’t get a freebie from the LOT. You speak pseudoscientific bollocks. You espouse a faith, which wouldn’t recognise standard physics if it bit it in the ass.

        • UrabanoMucho

          I have learned some thermodynamics–an A in calculus based physics-You are just trying to throw in irrelevant info and mix in thermodynamics whenever it suits your arguments. Applying thermodynamics isn’t the test. Its the same as any other calculation–Garbage in — Garbage out.

          • therealviffer

            5 months – and that’s the best reply you can muster. Pfffttt.

            If you’ve “learned some thermodynamics” you’d know which way heat flows. Stick to finger painting.

          • UrabanoMucho

            The mistake I made was thinking there was really any kind of debate here. Al the site supporters here are only interested in put downs due to fact that they are paid shills. And the “I’ve learned some thermodynamics” was meant ironically, which you didn’t pick up on, nor did you discuss any qualifications you might be bringing besides experience as a troll.

          • therealviffer

            Dear God. The implied assertion that heat flows from hotter to cooler is “irrelevant”, tells me all I need to know about your intellect and motives.

            Watch energy prices rocket as a result of this madness. Yes, your energy prices. I’m sure you have some colouring in to get back to now.

            “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

  • Bjorn Ramstad

    Ivar Giæver probably could have been a much richer man, had he, like disappointing many others, joined “the other side”.
    He’s an honest man. So honest that mainstream media blocks him from saying the truth. There’s a consensus. Not about science. They agree to mislead People for political purposes. This is a sad time.

    • James

      If you get this before the comment is deleted. Of course you know that Climate Depot is funded by Climate Change deniers that are busy making money destroying the planet. You have been had. Look it up.

      • Bjorn Ramstad

        You are the misled here sir.

        • James

          Yes yes
          Gravity is just a theory
          Man never landed on the moon
          9/11 was a CIA plot
          Cigarettes causing cancer is just a left wing plot

          I am so sorry that so many are incapable of rational thought or missed that day in school. It will be our burden to carry you forward and save you from yourselves, But we will.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html

          http://climate.nasa.gov/

          • Kermit

            Did you just use ‘huffingtonpost’ as a source?

          • TennesseeRedDog

            Yes, yes he did.

          • James Simpson

            LOL. Credible source – that is if you believe in UFOs and global warming. This is the Left’s biggest money scam yet.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Agreed. You know what I find most amusing here is this.
            1. We are supposed to buy into the global warming because 9000 scientist state if to be a fact. We are supposed to swallow that fact
            2. We supply over 31000 scientist who dont agree with the global warming and countless other articles to support that.
            3. we are told our finding are garbage and easily proven wrong, yet their data is supposed to be solid.
            4. these are the same people supporting this that scream of their freedoms and having their voice to be freely heard yet very few of those actually have served our country in any capacity, and rarely ever will
            5. These are the same people that support taking away your second amendment rights calling them antiquated and not necessary.
            These are the same people that support the illegal/unlawful supreme court rulings and base their decisions on political agenda rather than actual law. They have thus destroyed the first amendment on Government will not interfere with the Church. They make rulings on a marriage issue that has no right to be enforced by the Government, when the marriage act is a Church function. (stand by for the fallout on this)
            These are the same people that will love Obama and Hillary, despite once again Obama’s pure hatred for this country and it’s system destroying the constitution and this country’s laws and regularly signing (unlawful) executive orders to support their pure leftist agenda.
            6. These are the same people that brought you the next ice age theory of the 70’s and 80’s (that proved out well didn’t it) to the Ozone Hole garbage and banning of R12 to only replace it with a refrigerant that was more costly and a carcinogen, also the so called aerosol replacement with yet another propellant that was more costly and more harmful. (who profited from that?)
            7. these are the same people that call me stupid and ignorant, yet they do not know me, they fail to realize I am a member of Mensa scoring far higher than most of them ever will, and I hold multiple degrees in theology and political sciences. yet it does not fit their agenda so I am a moron to them. I hold a very esteemed position at a leading University however.
            8. These are the same people that deny the Creation of this world by God the father, they deny his existence yet put their trust and faith in man who cannot explain anything other than bring me the money. Lets see who is thinking they are so smart on the day you meet him.
            9. these are the same people that scoff and call us conspiracy theorists, yet they believe in Big Foot, Yeti, UFO’s, Global Warming, Ozone Hole, Ice Age predictions, the Loch Ness Monster. Yet we are fringe lunatics to them.
            10. Lastly, you can never convince them with all the data in the world to show that all this is garbage science because they are a hive collective mentality. They follow what is supposed to be the popular truth to them and provides avenues for many many people to Capitalize on the sale and manufacturing of further lies, more products to “save the earth” and in the meantime only profiting them. Yet we are the evil capitalists getting filthy rich on oil profits, natural gas drilling etc..(hmmm see a little bit of a conflicting). To them the 31000 scientist debunking this are absolutely merit-less in their statements and they are not qualified to make those statements. Yet these so called merit-less scientists are some of the leading minds in the world. Funny thing is they can believe a scientist that states he is a climatologist who created all his tables and formulas to support their theory. Kind of like supporting the Easter Bunny, Big Foot, and the tooth fairy. You can create a science, anyone can, and if you have popular names to buy into it then it is supposed to be credible.
            I am most sure however I will get the same three people to attack me on this (they attack everyone..hmmm silly liberal tricks are for kids) and tell me how ignorant, silly and stupid I am.
            All I can say is if they feel they have a big enough pair, identify yourself and I will gladly do so as well, then we can have a real debate. If however you decide to hide behind your moniker and say you are rocket scientists (one of them did) and that you are somehow a climatologist with actual knowledge, then you are nothing more than a blowhard and I cannot even honor what you say.

          • 44nhj45HF

            I noticed that, too. Kinda takes the wind out of his sails when he uses such…uh, well, “scientific” sources. And, if I may add, so “un-biased.”

          • James

            It is a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists

          • old guy

            The UCC is comprised mostly of non-scientists posing as scientists. They proved this by stating,”Global warming is a closed topic”. The only people to make such a statement are non-scientists. EVERY THEORY, including Einstein’s singularity, gravity, big bang, string, evolution and a creation by a GOD are in constant question by ALL real scientists.
            THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED THEORIES.

          • James

            “Gravity is just a theory” – OK Got it !

          • old guy

            I am assuming that you have much evidence (as do I) to support this theory.
            However, if you have access to “The Encyclopedia of Physics, you will find several examples (or anomalies) that question its universality of the theory. I still believe that it is generally correct.

          • UrabanoMucho

            No that’s not why they are called theories. Theories are frequently established science. The word is used differently in science then in everyday speech. Strange you don’t know that after all the huffing and puffing you do on this site about data and qualifications.

          • old guy

            OK, YOU HACK. I will go by dictionary definition and you go by whatever cockamamie world you live in.
            WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
            THEORY:
            1The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
            2a belief, policy or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
            3. A hypothesis
            ON and ON and ON.

          • RealMrTea

            Yes….

            “Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report revealed that ExxonMobil — then the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company — had spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on a network of more than 40 front groups to try to discredit mainstream climate science. Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, meanwhile, were outed by a 2010 Greenpeace report revealing they spent significantly more than ExxonMobil between 2005 and 2008 on virtually the same groups. Many of those groups and the scientists affiliated with them had previously shilled for the tobacco industry.”

            Do you deny the facts it contains? Or do you just like to cast dispersions?

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

            Think really hard about that…

          • yfdgjr

            I think he was referring to the dozen or so actual sources from the huffingtonpost article, not the huffingtonpost itself.

          • MetricButtload

            Not very familiar with making an argument are you? What does the fact that climatedepot.com shared this have to do with the validity of the person who it is quoting? Nothing at all. Does it help you to know that many other news sources are sharing this article as well? It was not created by climatedepot.com. So, if you’d like to refute someone, how about you provide actual facts that discredit the Nobel scientist on whom this article is reporting? You ridicule others intellect, but then you’re just a dullard who has to copy and paste articles from Huffington post. No way they have a political slant, right? NASA, and NOAA have been caught multiple times, and have even admitted in the past to issuing fabricated, modified, or incorrect information, which the article noted if you had bothered to read it. You’re just a dumb monkey w/ a keyboard who just figured out how to copy and paste, nothing more.It’s comical that you believe you are part of any cause that will save anyone from anything, even if it were true, it’s quiet clear they don’t need you, you’re just along for the ride and the weakest link, parroting what other people say w/o an original thought of your own

          • DrCroland

            Metric Buttload is a very fitting name for you, pal. You can call us any names you want, but unlike you and that nerdball “scientist” with his pocket protector who probably hasn’t gone outside his basement for 30 years, we like to face facts. And to go with the opinion of the 99% of other scientists.

          • MetricButtload

            What argument are you making other than you’re stupid and going along with other people who also don’t bother to think for themselves?” The fact you are quick to dismiss a distinguished scientist because his facts based argument differs from your completely uninformed, idiotic opinion is very telling. It seem s calling names is quite appropriate for you because you are showing it is completely accurate. 99% of other scientists don;t agree with you, and far from it, you’re just too dumb to know that has been long ago debunked, and even a very basic internet search could tell you that. BY all means, make your argument, even better, do it with facts you don;t have to copy and paste form another source and have someone much smarter than you think for you… Proceed.

          • plusaf

            99%? First, that’s a preselected group. Second, Consensus is NOT the same as Truth.
            At least that’s one thing _I_ learned at RPI.. (where he’s from.)
            Assertions are not Proofs. And Huffpost as a primary source of Truth or Accuracy?! Surely you jest!

          • planet8788

            The fact is only Mann-ipulated surface temperature data shows warming.. satellites don’t… for 18 years… Why are you a denier?

          • RealMrTea

            Ohhh really….

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/26350/20150604/global-warming-pause-actually-didnt-happen-new-study-reveals.htm

            You should actually look at some science rather than the fossil fueled denier sites…

            http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

            Deniers are funny… If only the topic weren’t so serious….

          • troll e troll

            Ocean ‘weather balloons’ detect cause of global warming pause

            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150710-story.html

          • forevergeeky

            Just not true at all.

          • planet8788

            Yes it is. And the past gets colder every month… used to be every year or two.

          • forevergeeky

            Is not.

          • Clyburn

            99%….qualify that. You would have to survey every scientist on the planet to say that and that has never been done. Your statement is an unqualified and misleading one for the sheep.

          • RealMrTea

            What is absolutely quallified is 97% of all documented climate science…

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

            And EVERY major science agency in the WORLD

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            Which is not difficult to see or understand..

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

            FYI: You are the unqualified sheep….

          • Clyburn

            There was a lawsuit launched against the UN Panel by over one thousand reputable scientists , some from the most highly regarded Universities from around the world , who see serious flaws in the alarmists theories. The UN panel itself has admitted to screw ups and fudging of numbers. these esteemed scientists have been completely shut out of the debate and harassed for wanting to debate the situation ,as they really should. The alarmists have become bullies. No, there is not a consensus on this subject.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            they really are bullies. Have you seen the way those three gang up on everyone one in here that does not agree with their junk science? Amazing that they are cowards that hide and call us all stupid, silly and ignorant. I am quite sure however we are more intelligent that all three combined.
            The rest on their agenda are bullies and cannot debate.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Sheep. I think not. I think we are the dragon slayers, the mighty the strong. And the week such as yourself, shall perish beneath our trodden feat. I can honestly say that because I can self sustain, I can survive, I am a leader and sheep are not leaders. I and my fellow brothers in here are of a mindset of truth and not theory. Got sell you B.S somewhere else and liberalize another country. I once took an oath to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, I and everyone else that took that oath still holds true to that. Did you?? You are my sheep now. say Baaahhh!

          • http://djsistawhitenoise.com DJ Sista Whitenoise

            *weak btw

          • cheyenne-Jim

            yup thank you. The voice to text application needs some work, I should have proof read though. Thank you.

          • oldtimered

            Another big lie “97% of scientists agree with global warming caused by humans”. Plus you make it 99%. Guess you can’t even check your phony facts correctly.
            By the way over 31,000 scientists 9000 of them PhD’s have signed a statement that human caused global warming is not a viable theory.
            Maybe your religion should be based on the Bible not Al Gore and the corrupt politicians.

          • RealMrTea

            Again…..Ohhh really……

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2389.html

            You are batting ZERO…..

          • oldtimered

            That is an old article. Since then NASA has shown the temperature of the Oceans is not warmer on the surface as this article says, nor is it warmer in the depths as AGW make believers have tried to say before.
            Please get a new religion, science and the weatherman say you are being deceived and are deceiving others.

          • troll e troll

            Ocean ‘weather balloons’ detect cause of global warming pause

            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150710-story.html

          • cheyenne-Jim

            LOL, that is good. You are right on keep it up brother.

          • Sandy

            hmmm…funny how the Bible said the earth was round “a blue sphere..” and the “scientists” said it was FLAT….”scientists” in the 80’s said butter bad, eggs bad, statins and margarine (one molecule away from being plastic and a trans-fat)=good…hmmm…seems that all changed back to butter and eggs good, statins and margarine bad…and what GOD provided was good. You pesky atheists still think the Earth was a random act, thus violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. “Religion without scince is blind;science without religion is lame”. Albert Einstein
            http://www.bibleevidences.com

          • UrabanoMucho

            You realize that Einstein refused to believe quantum theory because he didn’t believe God would play dice with the universe? That is his a priori beliefs prevented him from grasping the other bedrock theory of physics. Maybe if he hadn’t been religious he would have succeeded in his goal of a universal theory.

          • Sandy

            Space and Time

            Prior to the discovery of quantum physics, most scientists believed that time and space only existed in a linear, continuous fashion. One scientist in particular, Albert Einstein, whom spent much time studying quantum physics, made a parallel discovery that time and space were relative, not absolute as they were believed before (the Theory of Relativity). After spending may years trying to refute his findings in quantum physics, Albert Einstein conceded to this phenomenon and was quoted as saying “For us physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion.” From that point on, scientists began to accept the truth they witnessed within the quanta particles and they acknowledged that even time and space contain the smallest possible values. It is by God’s design that our minds transcend space and time, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8 NIV. We are reminded of His majesty in Job 36:26, “How great is God—beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.” NIV
            Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Galleries/How-Quantum-Physics-Proves-Gods-Existence.aspx?p=4#Sh1FuDPmQTiKtKCm.99

          • UrabanoMucho

            Einstein was a brilliant man who was also a believer. But none of the bible quotes or idea of God itself has anything directly to do with his theory. The ones you quote at the end say nothing about the subject but seem to assume you have said something and now I’m supposed by awed or amazed–I’m not, and I have no idea why people still are so fixated on this ancient and increasingly irrelevant ignorance.

          • Sandy

            the problem is that no one is studying that material because of their fixation of rejecting GOD so they can live their lives as they please not realizing that their will be ultimate accountability. All the great scientists were Christians and studied through a Christian worldview. You might want to look that up.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            You are wrong again. Einstein was not a believer, first off he was Jewish background and did not grasp Christianity at all. Christianity is equated as Believers. He believed in the pantheistic god of Baruch Spinoza but not in a personal god. Last I looked that is not Jesus the almighty son of God and therefore did not hold a foundation of belief in the God of our Bible. You state that you don’t know why people are so fixated on the ancient and irrelevant, yet you use an argument from the ancient Greeks. Ignorance I don’t think so. You cant disprove the Bible or the salvation teachings of Christ, you simply cant. Try as you might, you cannot prove the Bible wrong. So who is ignorant now?
            Do some research before you blatantly come out and say someone was a believer before you post it. Or did you hear that on PBS too. You want to have a theology debate I can do that too.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Ok so now Jews are not believers. You should clarify because this sounds antisemetic.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            I am going to respond to all your threads at the same time in this posting first off thank you for posting your credentials, much appreciated. Secondly AntiSemetic, no I am not. I have a profound love for the Jewish people, after all Christ was a Jew also. On that note you used the term believer in your statement that Einstein was a believer. Most practicing Jews are not believers as in equated to believers in Christ. There is a movement of messianic Jews that are believers in Christ as their savior. You state believer and that is what it equates to believers in the gift of salvation from God through his son Jesus Christ. Einstein did not believe in the Christian Judeo God Jehovah God or Abba God (meaning father) In fact practicing Jews (not messianic) are in the practice of not even stating God’s name and abbreviate id G_d and do not even say the word God in the strictest sense. I say Christian Judeo because Allah the Muslims worship is not our same God that Christians and Jews know. The difference is the Jews Christ was their messiah as they expected a King to be delivered to them much like David was. (although Christ was of the lineage of David)
            Now to answer you further, to touch a raw nerve.. never.
            Some of the hottest summers on record, that is odd as there are approximately 110 years of recorded weather however; throughout history people have written of extreme hot summers as well as cold winters, and going back to writtings even in the dead sea scrolls. Even accounts in the Old testament writtings which are of the dead sea scrolls.but the aproximately 110 years of recorded weather show those same patterns.
            And lastly you state I am a liar, I am not a liar or spreading lies, I state the truth in facts that are recorded, or proven; If you however choose to not believe that it does not make me a liarust says you are entitled to your opinion and that is ok.

          • UrabanoMucho

            I’m not interested in theological hair splitting or advocating one religion over another. You go so far off topic, I have perversely grown to wanting to provoke you just to see what you will say next. You’re still wrong on GW of course, but interesting responsies.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            I found your statement of “I’m not interested in theological hair splitting or advocating one religion over another” and stating I go so far off topic very amusing given that I too was not interested in a Theological debate given the topic is climate change, however; you made a statement that Albert Einstein was a believer, and I responded to you that he was not and provided the information as to why he was not. You then stated that I sounded antisemitic and said I needed to clarify. I did and now you take and turn it back on me stating I went so far off Topic.
            However you actually have gotten to where I needed to be and where you have steered us towards. Funny thing is you didn’t realize you were doing it however I will point it out for you.
            When you stated Einstein was a believer, you were wrong in that statement and I took the opportunity to steer you towards some truth here, and you walked right into it. Einstein was not a believer as I stated and pointed out the background of the term believer that you referenced. However you pointed out in your last thread about hair splitting of one religion over another, and I was most hopeful you would go there.
            You see religion is man made. In an attempt for man to push his greatness on other men and women he has created various religious organizations, all of which are made up of bylaws, member laws, Church bylaws, what is taught as biblical or what they consider to be Gods laws and so on. However each can get to a point to where they steer people away from FAITH (which is God given) and try to steer their flocks to what man says is best and what they perceive in THEORY what God wants. Now there are many people like myself that have went to many years of seminary, went on to practical teachings, but always stay in the fundamentals of researching what is known, what is written, and what (if you will) God would have us to do. I study with people of many different faith backgrounds all of which are based on the teachings writings and information we have from God the father, fundamental Judaeo Christian God of Abraham.
            I said all that to say this. When man gets involved in something relating to his understanding of this world and bases it on Theory and not any actual kind of solid evidence, no matter what it is the information and the following masses become corrupted. However to have faith (look up the Greek meaning of faith to give you a better definition to not relate to (HOPE) is a solid knowledge that what one is stating can be factually proven, and not involving a man made theory.
            I and many others in this posting have said they decide to be on the side of the 31000 scientists who are brilliant men and women as well that simply do not believe the climate change theories. And in fact there has been a transition shift with an article put out on the 7th that now says we will be back to a full time forever winter because the Sun will wink out (their term) in the next 15 years. Does it make us wrong that we believe or have Faith in the information we have at hand? No it does not. However, in your statement and a few others in this string we are simply wrong and could not possibly be correct.
            So this president has stated that the largest threat we are facing is Climate Change, yet all the rest of us can see that one of the biggest threats we are facing is religion based and it is called radical Islam. That is a fact and nothing can change that, Another threat is Russia and Korea, that is also a fact. Climate change in mine and obviously many others is nothing more than smoking mirrors and too much emphasis is placed on trying to prove it by in comparison is a very, very small percentage of followers, compared with people that have faith in facts, and FAITH in God the creator.
            I pray that you come to some understanding and salvation through God, and not of men, they perish God does not.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Awesome!! Well stated.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Yes Jesus knew the world was round because the Greeks had discovered it’s shape and size previously. Old testament writers not likely they thought about it much. The flat Earth stuff was mainly due to the lack of learning, communication, and general civilization that occurred in the dark ages. The stuff about dietary recommendation is confusing however, it is because the causes of artheriosclerosis were refined as time went on. There is nothing wrong with the initial recommendations, in fact the rate of early heart disease did start coming down, but it turned out to be stricter than really necessary.

          • Sandy

            Well, you certainly show that you have never studied the Bible….Jesus never talked about the earth being round….all of it was in the OLD Testament….The Law of Non-Contradiction. LOOK it up…..how old are you, kid? Come back when you can make a cogent argument.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Jesus knew the World was round because of two things. His father in heaven created it so he knew it. Jesus existed in the trinity always. and two our Bible (old testament) tells us the World is a blue sphere. Long before the Greeks stated a thing. Now you are on my turf I have multiple degrees in theology, also political science. I am art of a major university and can tell you that your statement is absolutely incorrect. The earth was stated as flat because once again man (scientist of that time) stated it was. the dietary argument is with Merritt because he is correct that scientist back just over 30 years ago stated that eggs, butter, and dairy were bad for you, that cranberries caused cancer, that saccharin was good for you, that NutraSweet is good for you. Sugar is bad. And here is a good one that CFC’s created a hole in the Ozone and by 2020 we would be living in a desert wasteland, yet here we are 5 years away and nothing. The only thing all that junk did was sell products that were worse for the human body, and that were worse for the environment.
            Jesus never ever said anything in scripture about a round earth however. I can most assuredly tell you that.

            I am sure you will attack me on this however and tell me I am ignorant and stupid. And remember Religion is man made, Faith however, the word of God in the Bible, and the gift of salvation is all of God. Man has since the beginning of time tried to explain away God, everything from the Pharo’s magicians, and his so called astrologers, to now the left scientists. Funny thing is they are still pretty much the same now as they were back in the day trying slight of hand with a new twist.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Let
            us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
            without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
            national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

            George Washington
            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#xzDiRItKOVgi88DB.99
            (Although I am sure ou know who will ague with me on that too.

            Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.

            George Washington
            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#xzDiRItKOVgi88DB.99

            Religion
            is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot
            exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in
            attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a
            Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had
            been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.

            George Washington
            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#xzDiRItKOVgi88DB.99
            and finally.

            Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.

            George Washington
            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#xzDiRItKOVgi88DB.99
            Did I copy and past? you are dang skippy I did.

          • Sandy

            to get a new idea, read a history book! Well done…

          • UrabanoMucho

            What is the exact wording of the passage that contains the “a blue sphere” This could so easily be way out of context that you should know better than to just give that little bit. This is all you interpretation and nothing Bible at all.

          • Sandy

            why don’t you try looking it up and stop being so lazy…that is your biggest problem. LOOK IT UP

          • old guy

            BRILLIANT.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Don’t worry Oldtimered, Real MrTea, is like that to all of us. He can only insult and supply the left sposored results from copy and past the link. yet he will fault you for copy and past a link. Lol this is funny.

          • troll e troll

            The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

            http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

            “An Unverifiable Mess

            Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.”

          • cheyenne-Jim

            LOL. Their religion is the god of b.s. Abba God created this and they too will meet him one day and have to account for Why did they find it necessary to follow the deniers of God the creator of it all.

          • forevergeeky

            Recent surveys suggest that it is 99% of scientists agree with human-caused global warming. That is a pretty amazing level of agreement.

          • RealMrTea

            You are over 12 ….. Right?

          • Sandy

            no, 99percent of climate scientist FUNDED by global warming theorists FUNDED by the UN whose spokeswoman admitted that this was about wealth redistribution….Al Gore said we would be underwater by 2010…hmmmm….

          • UrabanoMucho

            Just plain wrong Sandy, much of it came from university sources or US government sources that have no financial relationship with the UN.

          • Sandy

            the universities were FUNDED by the UN…as well as donors like Soros. Instead of denial, try looking it up.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Where do you think universities get their grant money for these studies? Are you really that naive that you believe there is a magical money tree or source that universities tap into. It is all Government funded and funding from UN.
            Come on do some research before you spew junk from your mouth and write it.

          • UrabanoMucho

            I have been directly involved in medical research myself, but have been indirectly involved in many institutions that do research. It just doesn’t work like you suggest. What do you think–Siemens and GE paid off AL Gore to write Inconvienient Truth? Glaciers are melting and Spring comes earlier. What did they pay off mother nature also? No all money does not come from government or the UN. You tell lie after lie after lie and yet something in you fails to sense the absurdity of your assertions. The internet is somewhat to blame as it is a giant pile of information that is not sorted out in time or quality of its sources. For those with special axe to grind and those without special training anything can be made of anything. Degrees in Theology and Political Science give zero background to understand complex natural phenomena, so perhaps if the future consequences weren’t so serious you could be forgiven. But you are in fact a danger to your children and grandchildren.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            I tell no lies. You obviously are way out of the loop. All the major universities doing Global warming and now called climate change studies are funded largely by our own Government, and side organizations funded through the UN.
            Now Siemens and GE are doing this out of the kindness of their heart? No they look to profit from it. Look at all the products they can look to produce. And you place your faith in One Movie? the inconvenient truth. And your statement of paying off mother nature, well first of all if you believe there is a mother nature then we really need to talk, but if you imply paying off the climate, then of course not.
            What I know to be true is this. I tell no lies, the absurdity of this is, there is a real small percentage of people on the far left screaming and kicking that all the people that differ in their findings are liars, and have absurd assumptions. Those same far left people are the same ones that will find fault with the articles presented stating all you did was copy and paste, when in fact every single time you all “copy and past ” a link for us to counter what we said. The further fact is the far left shoving this at us are far fewer than the rest of us who don’t believe it, however like all the far left junk you all get attention by screaming louder, trumpeting your own theories and stating it is fact, and further getting derogatory in your statements and writings calling people liars, and unintelligent.

            You state degrees in Theology and Political science give zero background to understand a complex natural phenomena, so tell me how your medical research background works into complex natural phenomena regarding climate change. But see you don’t fit that same argument that you just presented on myself do you and you are somehow above that, and how could you possibly be misinformed, you are an expert in this becasue you follow to 9000 climatologist, and the 31000 scientist who refute that are simply as well in the zero background to understand complex phenomena. So please answer me what makes you special. Climatologist..medical research… hmmm sounds suspect to me.

          • old guy

            I suggest that you should update your information. The glaciers are very little affected by ambient atmospheric conditions. Scientists have now measured the temperatures UNDER the ice and have found them to be rising. I wrote on this 35 years ago and urged mire research, but none was done at that time. Unlike the anthropogenic climate change nonsense, this is a SERIOUS problem. If it is caused by a thinning of the Earth’s mantle and a rising of magma, It is, most likely, also the cause of increased volcanic and earthquake activity. But you can’t make money off of it.

          • UrabanoMucho

            So 35yrs ago you discovered that the glaciers were melting because the mantle is thinning? Like everywhere at once? I suspect you are intelligent but live pretty much in your own world or maybe just paranoid schiz. Whatever it is, this is getting tedious. This ultimately will be solved politically, in the meantime I’ve got better things to do, and so should you.

          • old guy

            Have fun in your ivory tower, after that irrational response.

          • UrabanoMucho

            You need to present your thesis better. A statement that appears to say the glaciers are melting all over the world because the mantel is thinning, needs clarification to avoid sound completely improbable. I’m giving you credit for being sincere and not just saying things to provoke responses that you can then make fun of. If you are bitter about not being influential in your field–the answer is not to go on a climate denier and make comments that could be taken any number of ways. But of course the fact that you here may mean that you don’t care what most people in your field think.

          • old guy

            Very coherent. so I will respond.
            1. In 1962, when I was running the Earth Orbiting Geophysical Observatory we found the world wide DATA to indicate a 6″ loss, in depth of glaciers in glaciers beyond the arctic and antarctic circles, in summer and a regain in depth, each winter. LOGICAL
            2.What we couldn’t explain was the cause of about 1.5 inches per month movement downslope until one of my bright guys suggested that we measure substrate temperatures. We were able to take them for about a year. The data showed the temperature rose about .3 degree, F. per year. We could not do more due to funding being transferred to APOLLO.
            3. To my best knowledge, no further data was taken until the recent confirming report.

          • forevergeeky

            -Dr. Singer has made many, many specious arguments, and they have been refuted. https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm
            -The quote is taken out of context; nothing said about global warming not being true.
            -Dr. Curry is part of the <0.01% of scientist that question the science behind the conclusions of over 20,000 studies, that based on what I've read–and more important, scientists and science reporters who's lives are spent reading, studying and thinking about all this–overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real. Still, it's good to keep thinking, studying. That should not stop up from acting when necessary.

          • old guy

            You make the same mistake the open borders people do. when you leave out the word ANTHROPOGENIC as they leave out the word, ILLEGAL. None disputes climate change. It has bee going on as long as there has been geologic age analysis. For example we now believe that there is a thinning of the Earth’s mantle, bringing magma closer to the surface, causing glacier movement an possible increased geologic (volcanic and earthquake. When I tried to bring this to the attention of the UN, years ago, they said it was PURE CONJECTURE, yet their stand on “Global Warming” is Led by,’ It is the OPINION of….. and that is not conjecture?
            Incidentally, that “Skeptical Science” said about anything that Dr. Singer said, was, essentially, “No it Isn’t. NONSENSE.

          • forevergeeky

            That you actually have studied issues related to the earth and glaciers, is fascinating, and I respect that. That is something you have done, and I have not.

            When you say, though, that ‘we now believe’, please exclude myself, and many others. If you have any references that this is a generally accepted theory, I would be interested in reading more, as I do feel it is important to read, comprehend, and discuss.

            I referenced the ‘Skeptical Science’ because they had taken the time to gather together many well-researched counters to Fred Singer’s arguments. I did in fact, click through to the evidence (yet more reports), and to the best of my ability, try to keep reading until I came down to the point of data collection. Often, I reach my limits of being able to digest the data when it reaches matrix algebra/differential equations, as that was one of the last math classes I took (and I think the only one, every, that I got less than a B).

            And no, i did not do all of this just to respond here; I had investigated this previously.

          • old guy

            Please try the experiment thatI recommended to “forevergeeky” and please,advise me of your results

          • old guy

            Let me suggest an easy experiment.
            1. Freeze several ice cubes to a plate, in 2groups (or 2 plates)
            2.Tilt the groups at a very shallow angle to level, representing 2 glaciers.
            3. With a heat source (like a spark lighter, warm the top of one group for about 30 seconds. Note result.
            4. With the lighter at the same flame height, warm the pan UNDER the second group for ½ the time, Note result.
            5. Compare results and please advise me of your findings.

          • fierro1944

            “Like everywhere at once?” You say you’ve done medical research so you must know that a boil or carbuncle does not appear over the entire body just like a volcano does not cover the entire Earth’s surface. Weaknesses in the Earth’s mantle do occur and there is an example of that phenomenon taking place right now in the north Atlantic Plate movement where a relatively new volcano is active just a few hundred miles from the Greenland ice sheet. Could it be the Earth’s mantle is thinner there and, thus, the melting of the ice sheet is coming from below the ground and not above the ground due to your AGW hypothesis? Just wondering.

          • forevergeeky

            And in 35 years, there haven’t been any scientists investigating, expanding, questioning your research? Must be a conspiracy…

          • old guy

            Data is solid. Opinions change I produced data. My most recent was substantiated, LAST WEEK, by scientific MEASUREMENTS under the Antarctic ice cap. BUT, if your”green” religion, led by your deity, GORETHEWHORE, says we are wrong, we SCIENTISTS will demur.

          • UrabanoMucho

            See my post re noble prize winners and credibility above–strangely you seemed like you were going to put forth a correct “argument” and then just go off on same old denier rant.

          • RealMrTea

            I wonder who else won a nobel prize? Ohhh yahhh… Al Gore… and HIS was about climate change…. (An Inconvenient Truth)…

            ROFL….

            Concensus never exists

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

            Science agencies of the world however ALL agree… ALL OF THEM..

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            Silly science deniers……

          • Dc

            I though Al Gore got the Nobel Prize for inventing the Internet?

          • cheyenne-Jim

            By the way I am most curious and want to ask. What are your credentials that give you the knowledge and ability to stand on what you are saying? just curious?

          • Jae Gregory

            Except that the so-called quote they are sharing is not at all accurate. Is it really a quote when you alter it to suit your agenda? Or just another talking point like the phrases I see repeated here over and over that are right from the newsmisinformation channels? Climate science religion, excuse for economic redistribution, et al. Don’t you know these phrases are coined, tested, and marketed for you to redistribute? Or are you one of those paid to pass it along?

          • RealMrTea

            LOL… Pretty funny coming right after a guy getting BLASTED in numerous posts simply for linking a story in the huffington post…

            Pot… Meet Kettle….

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Amen brother good job and well stated.

          • don

            i.m so sorry for you –sorry that you eat from the table of lies that the climate changers tell you—but if we was to look deeper maybe your into making money off these lies to- every day you lose more to our side—truth shall prevail on this lie you an your likes tell

          • T.G. Crewe

            I never saw people cry for the Typewriter manufacturer, or the Horse and Buggy guy, why all the love and disinformation for the Oil industry. Funny to see people defending billionaire’s and the FF companies. If you don’t want the wealth to transfer from those that hold it right now get on board and invest in green tech, otherwise move out of the way.

          • michaelmousedisqus

            what about the evil windmill companies, the evil solar panel companies enslaving people to pay for other’s ele. bills. You are topped off with it!

          • plusaf

            Mickey, have you noticed that places like Germany pay 3x as much for their ‘clean, green’ electricity than we do in the US, and people there are finally beginning to notice the unintended consequences of that decision?
            What caused ALL of the Major Ice Ages? We’re more likely to encounter one of those in the future than thermal runaway. Check the Vostok Ice Core graphs. Or continue to follow your religion.

          • quarkie009

            Green energy, solar and wind do not live up to their hype of being cheap and a lofty goal. As the truth comes out, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, thermal, water are far more efficient than the so called green energy that touts itself as the wave of the future. Mankind has been given the brains to improve the lifestyle for all people in the world, but the climate change group wants it their way or the highway and are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the gears and make the people pay for their misguided efforts to control the world.

          • RealMrTea

            What they do isn’t frying the earth??? That could be it…

          • oldtimered

            Please, the earth isn’t frying and the real scientists think we are approaching another mini ice age. That may be why the hottest temperature in the last 2 decades was in 1997.
            Oh well.
            The fuel from corn industry expends more fuel than it makes and causes food prices to rise and kill a million poor people a year do to high unaffordable corn prices.
            There is not anything good on the surface of this communist inspired profiteer motivated false science of AGW.

          • planet8788

            Yes, because no money changes hands when you buy a solar panel… BAAA HHHAAAAA HAAAA

          • troll e troll

            go home planet, you’re drunk

          • cheyenne-Jim

            What is wrong with wealth? Or is it that you don’t have it and you want it? Capitalism is what made this country. People investing their money to make more money. That principle is what made America unique in building this country. Then come along the socialist who really just wants no one to make money or to advance and to share the wealth. One of the biggest phonies on this, Al Gore. Look at all the money the man has, and the biggest supporter of the so called climate change. Yet he wastes energy flying the planet in comfort of a private jet wasting all that fuel and making a huge so called carbon foot print. And his massive estate which he reports himself as paying in excess of $10,000 a month light bill. (big carbon foot print) but yet he has all of you twisted into believing wealth is a bad thing when he swims in it. And good for him and anyone else that drives themself to make wealth. After all any of us can do it.

          • T.G. Crewe

            There is nothing wrong with wealth, especially when you have it. Part of what made America great was innovation and development of new, better technology. However there has been a stagnation in certain industries due to the interests of a few, you are pushing their agenda.

            Al Gore is a great punching bag for you, I get it. He is not my god, but he certainly is your boogy man.

          • Cheyenne-Jim

            man you are really stupid. He is not my boogey man. However I can see King Obama is your savior with his made up Nobel peace prize. Does that make him an expert in anything?
            Wealth is attainable by all who wish to pursue it. tell me Liberal do you see any of your libtards giving away their fortunes to better your silly way of life. Answer is no they earned it they can keep it and profit from their work. Grow up and do some real studies. If you want to have a debate I can handle that as well as I am quite confident I am smarter than you, and can handle myself well in any debate so bring it.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Am I a liberal? One can be into conservation and a conservative, more folks are understanding that every day.

            Are you smarter than me, who knows. For all you know I am Stephen Hawking just trolling you. Perhaps I am a 9 yo girl playing with my lego’s. That’s the funny thing about the internet.

            I will say this calling a person stupid, attempting to bully them with claims of superiority and labels really does not help you appear intelligent. Well except on FOX news, they seem to think it is a good form of “debate”.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Stephen Hawking I seriously doubt it. And as you pointed out before about stating that the article stating Nobel Price Winning scientist does not know what he is talking about because he is not a climate scientist, the same goes for Hawking as he is a cosmologist. Where is the relevance? I see it suits you to use names when you think it suits your cause, but everyone else is incorrect in their statements. Only the Liberals are ever correct. very much like “We are Borg, Resistance is futile”. Liberals for as long as I can remember buy into the fantasy science and shove it down the rest of our throats. You must have a real hard on for Fox news because you insinuate I watch Fox. Well here is a shocker for you, I don’t watch Fox. I get my news from many media outlets. I research them and go from there. I can believe the 9 year old playing with LEGO’s though as children are easily mislead, and Naive.
            You see I am willing to bet that you have never served your country, never done a thing to stand up for it. However grasping on to the freedoms like I and others fought for. I say that because most military people are out of the box kind of thinkers, they take command and roll with it. So while you live in your fantasy world of the sky is falling mentality and failure to really prove anything at all. I am growing tired of your conversation without providing any substantive evidence.

          • T.G. Crewe
          • oldtimered

            As stated the renewables are starving 1 million people a year in increased food prices. Fuel that is less efficient and costs more in energy to make than it delivers.
            If the civilian government is idiotic communist socialists and sends the military a few gallons of “renewable”
            fuel to use compared to the rest of the usage of gas and diesel, then that is the civilian government forcing the use., not the military choosing it.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Um, no.

            From a tactical standpoint it makes total sense and is being driven by top brass not the President.

          • oldtimered

            Is that the top brass that has replaced the 200 or so generals and admirals that Obama got rid of or quit in disgust at the liar in Chief.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Not at all, it is some forward thinking individuals that recognize the need to reduce their costs shipping fuel and having power in case of a blackout to name two ideas that are part of the plan.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/08/06/u-s-military-opens-up-16m-acres-for-renewable-energy-projects/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/04/1749741/why-the-us-military-is-pursuing-energy-efficiency-renewables-and-net-zero-energy-initiatives/

            What is this story about renewables starving a million people?

          • Sandy

            it is the President’s DIRECTIVE as CINC….

          • Sandy

            yes – you the taxpayer are paying for JP-4, jet fuel and fuel for gas turbine engines on all the new ships at 58 dollars a gallon. Well done…Obama.

          • T.G. Crewe

            You are ignoring the whole scope of the projects for forward deployed troops and domestic Military bases just to single out that?

          • Sandy

            12 million dollars a day for three ships and a squadron of aircraft for this biofuel crap….yeah, I’m singling it out.

          • troll e troll

            You are hilariously misinformed or just choose ignorance, sad really.

          • Sandy

            …and your Naval experience, is….what? Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Navy will spend $12 million to buy 450,000 gallons of alternative fuel for aircraft, ships and unmanned vehicles, the biggest government purchase of advanced biofuels, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said.” Back to your XBOX, troll….

          • troll e troll

            It’s troll e troll, thank you very much.

            Why are you afraid of the future? A clean environment is what we should all strive for. God would agree.

          • Sandy

            Really? HE put coal here for us to use, not to live like Afghanis do – ever been to Kabul in the winter? It was like Pittsburgh in the 60s. Nope…….go ahead and live somewhere else….GOD Bless America

          • troll e troll

            You are crazy.

            Coal, no matter how clean, is still a toxin.

            God wants us to be stewards of the earth, not rape it.

          • Sandy

            so are synthetic fuels, as I said, at 4 times the cost….go ahead, write the check….oh, forgot, you want to use other people’s money….

          • troll e troll

            You use my money everyday by promoting your desires. Healthcare costs are up, military costs are up, fuel cost are up. You are the one writing a check none of us should have to cash.

          • Sandy

            you just made my points….

          • troll e troll

            You are a charm, pretending to win when you obviously lost. LOL

          • Sandy

            so are synthetic fuels at 5 times the cost….

          • troll e troll

            4 times or 5 times?

          • Sandy

            depends on which biomass you use….algae, switchgrases, or calimena….all far too expensive.

          • troll e troll

            Using Afghanistan as a comparison shows just how perverted you will get in order to attempt to make a weak point.

            So sad, especially so because you actually think you are smart.

          • Sandy

            again, stick to the point…..

          • troll e troll

            You have no point so I am trying to educate you, sorry if that is tough on you.

          • Sandy

            sonny, you are in need of experience and an education….citing National Geographic…LOL….I gave the stats, and you deny…

          • troll e troll

            Sonny, hilarious.

            You have no idea what my background is, and I assure you it is wide and far superior to you. I exist to taunt you and drive you mad.

            My side is winning, all you can do is spout off nonsence from your handlers. Sad really, drinking the Kool aid while the world moves along.

          • Sandy

            you have no background. So tell us your military background and Master’s degrees? Once again, you provide no arguements..you should not get your education from the back of a Hillary poster…..back to your XBOX…..

          • troll e troll

            There you go again with the Xbox, I gave up video games decades ago.

            My education is relevant to the discussion and background would tick off the boxes you desire.

            You guys are like the flat earth society, it is cute.

            I will run circles around you. You have no background in relevant topics, for if you did you would not argue with what you know is right. I am no Democrat, this I can assure you so leave that by the wayside. I am a real conservative who understands the folly of the New Morality that is stuck in last century and the dangers they present. Advocating for the holders of the old way of thinking will be your downfall.

          • Sandy

            sure sonny, sure…we are arguing because you are wrong, and you are no conservative if you are for total green and against coal…you have no understanding of basic economics…. back to your mirror and impress yourself. You libs are a hoot… you want to present some facts, come back….BTW…”science” said the earth was flat….GOD said it was round….try reading Genesis….

          • troll e troll

            One does not need to be a liberal to understand a future free of FF. Your shrinking way of thinking is diminishing, thank heavens.

            Name calling does your argument no favors, in fact it diminishes it.

            I am the real conservative. Good has no place in DC, as your god does not speak for all religions.

          • Sandy

            well, we agree DC is an evil place now…but Jesus is a live Saviour…all other religions worship dead prophets. Define your “conservatism.

          • http://djsistawhitenoise.com DJ Sista Whitenoise

            In Genesis 1:6-8 God created a firmament (which he named “Heaven”) to divide the water on earth and the water in the sky. Do we really have a solid sky holding water over us? How the heck did we get to the moon? Does the space shuttle have a “firmament opener” on the front of it? This would explain why every time it rained in the Bible, that God had to “open the windows of heaven” (Gen. 7:1 and Isa. 24:18 are examples). These openings allowed all the water above the solid sky to leak out. Maybe we broke a window on our first space mission, and have flown out the broken window every time since.

            Snow and hail are mentioned in the Bible. It is also mentioned that they are stored for future use by God. In Job 38:22 God asks “Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail”. I can’t believe that we are so naive as to think snow and hail are formed by freezing water vapor. Someone should inform these radical meteorologists that it’s all in God’s storage areas, and that he throws him down when he sees fit.

          • Sandy

            actually that hail and snow to which you refer to are in a hypothesis for a book that a scientist has found that series of comets not seen before have been used by GOD for past and future judgements. I am hopefully getting that book today.

          • http://djsistawhitenoise.com DJ Sista Whitenoise

            Proverbs 8:27- When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

            Isaiah 40:22- It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it’s inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

            But anyone with a basic grasp of geometry knows what a circle is. It’s a flat, two dimensional object. According to these scriptures, the earth is shaped like a CD. Again, as much as many people want to believe this proves that the world is a sphere, they are only proving the Bible talks of a flat earth. There are many who say “it says circle, it got the shape right”. But this was also a common mistake of the day. People thought the earth was shaped like a plate. They got this belief because if they pointed at the horizon and they spin while tracing the horizon, it appears that they live on a flat circle. And they could travel 1000 miles and do the same thing and they got the same result. It made sense.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Sandy you gave no “stats” at all, and the above shows your attitude but is totally irrelevant.

          • Sandy

            yah, I did…you are amazingly intellectually lazy. DO some homework, lazy lib.

          • brian hodge

            this is proof for Ramakrishna’s claim that ” there can be as many Hindu gods as there are devotees “

          • Sandy

            yes….330million “gods” at last count.

          • UrabanoMucho

            So does the Pope for what that’s worth. But I’m sure someone paid him off too.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Ha Ha Sandy why call out someone about “Naval experience” when one, it doesn’t really matter, and two, you probably don’t either.

          • Sandy

            HAHAHA…yah, I did 20 in the Navy and 9 as a contractor. and your experience is…..what…..besides picking up a welfare check?

          • UrabanoMucho

            Dude the military is taking global warming seriously. They do not publically take sides but they are preparing for it — so why would they be doing that if they didn’t believe the data. Oh let guess Al Gore somehow scammed the military also. Let me tell you that reading over your remarks, they are obnoxious and hypocritical, you demand facts but don’t provide any yourself.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            the military is not political? Who are you trying to kid? the military is all political, so this is an obvious over reach on your part. this also shows you have never served because if you had you would not make such a silly statement. I have provided several examples of proof, you however call me obnoxious. real good argument there. lol.

          • RealMrTea

            LOVE your name calling…. It makes you sound SO… “over 12” LOL!!

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Name calling, I am surprise that you can dish it out all day long with the names and the assaults, yet when someone throws some back at you then you decide to call someone “over 12” Again I have asked you cordially in links here. What credentials do you have that make you able to stand on your authoritative stance on global warming. Also I wanted to “past this in”

            10 Most Controversial Nobel Peace Prize Winners.http://www.cheatsheet.com/politics/10-most-controversial-nobel-peace-prize-winners.html/?a=viewall

            again I am quite sure you will find fault with that too. Oh wait a minute I see from your multiple responses to people that this is largely your response to all that have a differing opinion from your way of thinking. You continually berate and bully people in here in an attempt to give the illusion of superior intellect.. So liberal what way do you think you or your other liberal friend (libtards) think you can scam out of real work, live off the Govt tit, and shove some more “THEORY” down our throats. I am waiting for your answer and have been.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Oligarchy now for some? Level the playing field?

          • Sandy

            Al Gore said in ’98 that by 2010, the East Coast would be underwater….hmmmm….he’s a boogey alright….LOL….

          • RealMrTea

            No… That is just a well worn lie….

          • Sandy

            yah…when you can’t make an argument, just call someone a liar, acis, etc…libs are so predictable.

          • troll e troll

            When you reallize you are beat you resort to cherry picked notes from your task masters. So predictable.

          • Sandy

            troll..you were beaten…get over it. Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
            The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
            This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.”

          • troll e troll

            And?

            Don’t you want to leave the world better than you found it, do you not like your kids?

          • Sandy

            yes…that’ why we need to get rid of you socialists….Gore and Obama especially.

          • Sandy

            Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
            The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
            This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.

          • troll e troll

            Blah blah blah, Marc told me so.

          • Sandy

            wow…that was a really interesting and cogent argument…..run along, now. The candles on your Gore Obama altars are about to go out.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            You sound like an Austerity guy, No? No taxer? Just maybe?

          • cheyenne-Jim

            not sure what you are getting at but here is the definition.

            conditions characterized by severity, sternness, or asceticism.
            plural noun: austerities”a simple life of prayer and personal austerity” so if you are saying am I stern then yes. No taxer? I am not sure what that means, however; I pay more than my fair share of taxes and am about sick of watching others sick back while all the rest of us work. Lazy libtards.

          • oldtimered

            Yup Al Gore suckered the suckers and now has 200 million dollars and still expends energy as you said.
            His obvious fraud should mean jail, no?

          • cheyenne-Jim

            you are so right my friend. But here is the difference. If you or I had done a deception such as that we would be sitting in a prison cell rotting away. Think of all the money he literally scammed people of, and in addition all the companies that bought into it, and now the federal government buying into it. However Gore the liar he is is nothing more than a con man. Look at the company he is in though. You have a friend of his Hilary running for president. She and Obama are literally guilty of murder for not providing the aid needed and requested by our embassy, or her lies on the email server, or the lies yesterday on never receiving a subpoena, or Obama’s lies on the IRS.
            It absolutely sickens me that people like Gore and other liberals live outside the bubbles they create and yet make made up junk science to scam money from people, I truly feel sorry for all the libtards that bought into this but that is not a new deal either they have been doing that for a long long time. It is all the rest of us that pay for their ignorance and hive collective mentality.

          • UrabanoMucho

            What about the Republican congressional investigation into the Bengazi incident that has gone on for years now and been unable to come up with anything. What about the 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths that occurred under President Bush? You are just another right wing Obama basher whose only criteria for truth is that it can made to be look like something bad that can be stuck onto “liberals.” You don’t care about scientific truth and wouldn’t know it if you tripped over it.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            oooh, ouch, I am so wounded. lol. I am an Obama basher his record speaks for itself. oh and the George bush bashing, yeah he sucked as a president, however excelled compared to old Obama. and that is the only argument you libtards can do when you get backed into a corner. the congressional investigation of Benghazi has produced tons of information that point back to Obama and old Hilary (remember that illegal email server) that emails were just pulled out on that incident. ill give you this congress is a joke and the republicans need fired as there is no reason to drag this out for years when the evidence spoke for itself on Benghazi. I don’t care about scientific truth? I certainly care about scientific truth and what can be proven and not a theory or junk science.

          • UrabanoMucho

            They still have made no conclusions and Obama and Hillary are not blamed. Obama made the mistake of speaking up immediately In the aftermath when nobody knew what had happened, but he corrected himself later. This is one report from PBS. In case you want report from Fox they have been silent since this came out

            “A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

            Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria” The fact that you think “the evidence spoke for itself” means that you buy in as soon as it can me made out to be some liberal or Obama thing and then don’t care about an exhaustive review by people who would only be too glad to lay it at Obamas feet. Now that’s what I call willful ignorance.

          • RealMrTea

            No… No you don;t care about scientiic truth…

            Climate change has been proven dozens of times, by numererous science groups, and various ways…

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            Including (again) just recently

            http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-change-scientists-witness-greenhouse-effect-action-n312811

            Every science agency in the world knows this….

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            And almost every 2nd year physics student in the world does variations of this experiment…

            The fact that you don’t know any of this just shows you don’t want to know the truth…. And instead, you spend your time listening to the output of this despicable cabal of scum…

            http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

          • cheyenne-Jim

            You know what I think, how? You are an expert in this how? and what are your credentials that make you an expert on what people think? Bottom line, you cannot produce anything other than completely liberal biased media outlets or studies that are subject to interpretation. So liberal, leftist, socialist or borderline communist, why is it that if people don’t agree with your liberal way of thinking that there is this belief that you know me?
            Read my threads to give you some background on what I have been saying. If you care to have a realistic CIVIL debate than let’s go. Otherwise go cry me a river over your..climate change theories.

          • RealMrTea

            “I discovered, to my amazement, that all through history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance … to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money…as a result of the change. Although they never advanced this as their reason for resisting it. It was always the good of humanity that rested upon their hearts.”

            ISAAC ASIMOV, lecture at Newark College of Engineering, Nov. 8, 1974

            Very prophetic when it comes to the fossil fuel companies….

            And they are behaving VERY predictably…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

          • John Galt

            That wasn’t any kind of high-level wisdom, just a basic knowledge of human nature. It may have been an epiphany to Asimov, and you may see it as a superior knowledge of some future fossil fuel debate masked by idiotic environmental sky-is-falling hyperbole, or…it could be, and this is just a thought now, that the sky isn’t falling, and your theories of oil-induced Armageddon are just…wrong.

          • Sandy

            oh, you mean like give taxpayers money that was supposed to go to “our crumbling infrastructure” but given to companies like now-bankrupted Solyndra who kicked it back to Democrats…you mean like that?

          • T.G. Crewe

            LOL Solyndra. How about the 1.1 Billion wasted on Clean Coal in Illinois. That is more than 2x the money. Or the 2.7 billion in cost overruns, so far, at the Southern Plant on the Mississippi river. All to develop a technology that is a failure. The only up and running one is in Canada and that will operate at a loss.

            BTW the overall fund that gave money to Solyndra is making money for the Federal Government.

          • Sandy

            “the overall fund that gave money to Solyndra is making money for the Federal Government.”…LOL…it’s only making money for Obama and his cronies….our coal is clean enough already…Obama lied about that too – he wants to destroy the coal industry.

          • troll e troll

            Coal is clean, lol.

          • Sandy

            it is very “clean” now, as clean as you can me it without going to “gasification”. So prove it wrong.

          • troll e troll

            As clean as you can get it, I agree. But not clean enough to keep relying on it. It pollutes the environment and kills people. Prove me wrong, you can’t.

          • Sandy

            it kills people? ROTFLMAO….yep, if you throw a piece of coal at someone’s head, yes. Where do you think the electricity comes from for your XBOX? COAL. Wind dies, the sun goes down. GREEN fuels also pollute, or maybe you’d like to take a swig of ethanol? No coal, and you can’t text your little buddies….go on now, back to your XBOX…

          • troll e troll

            Please do some reading, outside of Marc’s thought pieces, to educate yourself.

            Oh and the Xbox comments, hilarious. Implying that I spend time playing video game is quaint, just like your thinking.

            Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution
            http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VaRchYEo7qA

            Even Fox news gets it. .. Why mining and burning coal could slowly be killing us http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/06/why-mining-and-burning-coal-could-slowly-be-killing-us/

            Coal-Burning Shortens Lives in China, New Study Shows
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/07/130708-coal-burning-shortens-lives-in-china/

          • Sandy

            coal in China…last I looked, Communists didn’t have controls..ya see, they don’t care. National Geographic….ah..yah….back to your Weekly Reader, sonny.

          • troll e troll

            So, Commie Coal = Bad / American Coal = Good?

            You can not reasonably make that claim.

            “Fossil fuel combustion harms air quality and human health. A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually.”

            http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-health_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions

          • Sandy

            Commie coal plants don’t conform to any standards – start with them first instead of us as we have extremely effective cleaning measures in coal-fired plants – electro-static precipitators, et alia. The Clean Air Task force is a socialist joke created by Obama.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Destroy Coal, or is Coal relegating itself to the proverbial Historical Dust Bin?

            “Energy poverty is a pressing issue for billions of people. Despite the efforts of a range of organisations and improving technology, energy poverty will remain a problem for years to come.

            While coal will be a significant component of world electricity generation for some years, coal-fired power has little to contribute to energy poverty alleviation. The up-front costs of coal-fired generation are prohibitive for most developing country governments and where grid
            connections are not immediately available cheaper off-grid and mini-grid solutions are already available.

            This reality is demonstrated by the fact that not even coal companies use coal in the energy poverty projects they support. We could not find a single example of a coal company supporting an energy poverty alleviation project that uses coal-fired power, despite extensive
            searching and contact with companies and industry associations.

            This shows that coal industry public relations materials relating to energy poverty are just that – public relations spin. The claims that coal is vital to economic growth, quality of life and environmental improvement are not supported by data or analysis, but are designed to
            influence public opinion and government policy.”

            http://www.tai.org.au/content/all-talk-no-action-coal-industry-and-energy-poverty

          • Sandy

            we have n energy poverty in the US…in other countrie, yes, because they don’t have the moneyto lay electric lines – same with land-line phones. Cells have been a boon to Africa because it is easier to install a tower. BTW….conservatives were all about nuke energy, and so was Obama in his election – another lie. France has developed nuke power and recovering/reusing spent fuel rods – libs blocked all of this. We haven’t built a nuke power plant in three decades.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Well I don’t believe it. Something I have to agree with. Yes nuclear should also be part of the mix. The new designs are much better. Chernobyl was just pile of uranium bricks, and should not be compared with proper technology.

          • Sandy

            we have n energy poverty in the US…in other countrie, yes, because they don’t have the moneyto lay electric lines – same with land-line phones. Cells have been a boon to Africa because it is easier to install a tower. BTW….conservatives were all about nuke energy, and so was Obama in his election – another lie. France has developed nuke power and recovering/reusing spent fuel rods – libs blocked all of this. We haven’t built a nuke power plant in three decades. Build more nukes…

          • T.G. Crewe

            And it is easier to install a solar panel that build a coal fired plant. Solar will be a boon for Africa, just like Cell Phones.

            Who blocked Nuclear? Fossil Fuels have been fighting Nuclear since day one. Plenty of Green’s would welcome Nuclear as a way forward away from Coal. http://seekerblog.com/2010/09/23/are-the-anti-nuclear-activists-funded-by-coal-interests/

          • Sandy

            DEMS and their lobbies like the Sierra Cla blocked nukes at every turn.GREENs, especially GREENPEACE, has ALWAYS blocked nukes. Solar cells for the outback are good, but expensive, and they are very environmentally poor for disposal, unfortunately…many heavy metals.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Coal is clean enough? Ok now we know that you go beyond climate denial. You are in la la land.

          • Sandy

            yes, coal-fired plants in America are….plants in Mexico City, for example, and in Communist countries, such as China. are not.

          • RealMrTea

            So help me with this…. You don’t like the prescription for the illness, so you deny you have the illness?

            That makes ZERO sense….

            You may not like chemotherapy, but our climate very demonstrably…. through mountains of science…… Undoubtedly has cancer….

          • Sandy

            “Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let’s take a look.
            The Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.
            This year’s sea ice surge is no trifle. The U.K.’s Daily Mail notes that NSIDC’s numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI’s statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.”
            >>>> You libs better wake up and smell the coffee – you are being duped – Al Gore learned to be a crook from the Clintons….and he is getting his PhD in being one because of you all. Why do you think his wife of 40 years, who was a pretty good person, split? Al “married up” to the dark side….

          • forevergeeky

            To the contrary, the Arctic ice cap shrunk, and temps in Greenland were way above normal…http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

          • Sandy

            Satellite data has found that the mean global temperature has been sitting on a plateau for more than 18 years now, which is in stark contrast to official government numbers. Just this week, NOAA reported that, at 1.33°F (0.74°C) above average, last month was the fourth warmest April recorded globally, and 2015 so far is the hottest on record. But as we’ve documented, the agency is currently mired in allegations of misconduct after it was discovered that historical data was manipulated to make post 1970s/1980s warming appear more alarming. And more and more foreign government agencies are engaging in the practice. Last year, “The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was … forced to admit it alters the temperatures recorded at almost all the official weather stations in Australia,” H. Sterling Burnett with The Heartland Institute wrote in September. Now, “Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instrument,” Burnett revealed this week. Interestingly, he notes, “Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.” Ironically, even data tampering can’t hide one inconvenient fact: Temperature trends are defying the science community’s predictions.

          • forevergeeky

            The statements you make amount to flat-out ‘mis-truths’, or downright lies.
            The Heartland Group has zero standing when it comes to the truth; its lies have been discounted numerous times. Repeating a lie, over and over again, may give it credence in some people’s minds, but I prefer to cross-check both the sources, and the data. I have taken the time to do so, and either everybody in the world except The Heartland Group is lying, or THG is.

          • oldtimered

            Wrong again. Although chemo therapy for cancer is the “settled” therapy, it is used 10 times the necessary dose by doctors and pharmaceutical companies that make huge profits on killing the whole body rather than just defeating the cancer and building the bodies health. The second method is done by the challengers of the settled science and are curing people of cancer and building bodies back up rather than destroying them with chemotherapy at the doses the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies mandate.
            In cancer treatment for decades we can follow the money of “settled” science to the greed causing the huge suffering of chemo and the high percentage of deaths from it.
            In AGW we can follow the money to the pockets of expensive treatments and rich politicians and other criminals in the cash line from taking our wealth and distributing it through the politicians and crooks to the dictators of third world countries.
            So since you use cancer as your same theory for global warming we can know you are wrong on both.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Very selective Sandy. Lets calculate the cost to the taxpayers of all the indirect support for oil exploration, drilling, refining, transport, and cleanup. Solendra was bad news, but ultimately has nothing to do with anything

          • Sandy

            Solyndra was a fraud – it has to do with the corruption of the Obama administration…nice rationalization. It produced nothing but money for Democrat coffers. The drilling currently is being done on PRIVATE lands, costing the gov NOTHING.

          • michaelmousedisqus

            James the naysayer: Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. LIberals think that what ever they feel makes it true, there’s science at work….

          • RealMrTea

            Yes there is…. It is here…. and it says you arew wrong…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

          • cheyenne-Jim

            the IPCC?? come on that is like having a used car salesman saying “honestly you can trust me this car was driven by a little old lady once a week to Church”

          • RealMrTea

            The IPCC is the collection of the worlds climate scientists…. 4000+ climate scientists, form 93 countries, and over 1000 universities and science agencies….

            http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

            All working in teams, and voting transparantly on what goes in the reports…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml

            The fact that you discount this says everything about YOU and nothing about them…

          • cheyenne-Jim

            it says nothing about me. YOu give some facts out here to make yourself try to appear more superior.

            31,000 scientists say “no convincing evidence”.
            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

            Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

            http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

            Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

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

            The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics

            http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7

            How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

            The 97% consensus on global warming

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

            There is no consensus
            The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere …”.

            So you see I can provide proof too. Problem is you will refuse to accept this evidence as again it does not meet your silly agenda.

            I will pray for you that you can read this and accept that God is and always has been in control and that I hope you will come to know him, it is obvious you dont as you place your trust in man.

          • troll e troll

            “An Unverifiable Mess

            Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

            Easily Debunked.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            More propaganda memes, reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm. This time a flaccid attempt at broad brush.

          • Joe

            What’s even funnier is you listed NASA as a source. They’re a government agency, the most politically influenced area there is!

          • RealMrTea

            Ummm… You know they make satellites right? That measure climate?

            Because you are a science denier, you obviously denounce scientists… The people at NASA have more brains in their pinky’s than you do in yiour family

          • cheyenne-Jim

            lets use your NASA argument for a minute here. First off NASA subcontracts satellite construction to outside contractors, so don’t kid yourself into thinking they do it. Secondly using your NASA argument NASA scientist debunked the whole OZONE hole depletion scheme years ago and called it a Naturally occurring even and that as it approached the poles the hole got smaller, but key point they made was that the so called ever expanding ozone hole (do you remember that it was supposed to cause the earth to be a desert wasteland) never got any bigger. They also went on the say that Cows and Volcanoes give off more chlorofloro carbons than anything man created by a long shot. Just like the Ozone Hole junk science (which you hear nothing about anymore) so is the Climate change, global warming etc. Yes climate changes, there are seasons, and there are patterns of bad weather. I have heard you all state that the storms are worse and oh no the super cell hurricanes. however do some research look at the hurricanes from 1893, 1896, and 1898, they literally wiped out entire regions on the east coast from Florida to North Carolina. Let’s try the horrible heat patterns from the early 1900’s, or go back to the severe drought that hit California in the 1870’s. You all cant stand it when someone can counter you on some credible FACTS, versus junk science, made up numbers, lack of controls, and theories. BRING IT BUDDY!!!!

          • UrabanoMucho

            You don’t hear about the ozone hole anymore because the problem has been fixed by banning CFCs, fortunately an early public consensus was obtained and regulations adopted. Also you are confused between methane and chloroflourocarbons. I suggest you are talking too much and revealing that you really can’t keep things straight that you have read but instead buy into the denier arguments because they are simplistic. Unfortunately for global warming it is complex and mixed up in right wing politics.

          • RealMrTea

            1. You have ZERO real information. NASA subcotracts parts, just like a home contractor subcontracts windows….

            2. I know NASA satellites exceedingly well…. including specifically

            http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco2/index.htmlOCO-2

            3. Again, you are worse than ignorant on the facts including Ozone… (funny that you picked that one)

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/30oct_ozonehole/

            4. If you knew anything at all about science, you wouldn’t be trying to use anecdotal weather instances as “evidence” of anything….

            The thousands of examples of climate data however is incontrovertable….

            http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/30yearsofabo.png

            http://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-above-average-temperatures-climate.html

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            Lets not get down your rabbit hole though…. Lets start by detailing your accusation about NASA.

            The measurements taken by NASA, and documented by NOAA are excedingly clear… NASA’s position on climate change (based on the science) is also exceedingly clear…

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            As is the position of EVERY major science agency in the WORLD

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            PLEASE explain to me what specific fraud you are actually accusing NASA of, and how that is being perpetrated.

            When you are done there, you can explain why teams of scientists from over 1000 universities and science agencies from AROUND THE WORLD independently come up with the same detailed results…. and why EVERY science agancy on the planet agrees

            Face it…. the Jig is up…. You are just a science denier at this point. You can’t get to where you are any other way…

          • cheyenne-Jim

            there is no jig to be up. and read what I sent you on the other thread you attacked me on.
            Oh and now you are a rocket scientist? You have nothing, Rocket man.

          • jjolla

            actually, up until certain points in time, cigarettes were thought to be desirable and critics of them were actually the loony minority

            similar for:

            (i) the “food pyramid” which places grains as at the prominence in our diets – who were the idiots who dared challenge that in the last 40 years?

            (ii) why should women have the vote, they belong in the kitchen to serve man

            (iii) blacks need to segregated in their own schools. *you* were a commie if you disagreed

            (iv) the earth is at the center of the universe. what insignificant minority would possibly challenge that? oh yeah, Galileo. He was gay so he really did not count at all, right?

          • RealMrTea

            And why were cigarettes thought to be desirable? Scientists?

            NOoooo….

            The scientists were clear on this LONG before that…

            It was lobbyists… PAID by tobacco companies, to create disinformation, bribing people to lie about cigarettes and cancer, creating fake protest groups, fake reports, etc. etc. ….

            And guess who the Oil companies pay TWO BILLION a year to create disinformation, create fake groups, and fake blogs, and fake reports?

            The SAME scumbag lobbyists

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

            And there are dozens of them, which in turn create 100’s of fake groups, a thousand fake pundits, pay the politicians, create fake reports etc. etc…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            Only THIS time they have the Internet… and 100X more money than the tobacco companies doled out..

            It is sickening to watch…

          • planet8788

            And you apparently believe the UAH and RSS temperatures sets or rigged? And you believe all the adustments made to the historical temp record every year are legitimate? BAAHHHAA

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Yes the temps and results are rigged. Let me give you a history lesson.
            All the liberals screamed in the 70’s and 80’s that the next ice age would hit us by 2015 and we would be plunged into what can be equated to nuclear winter. This all was working for them at the time and people were screaming the ice age is coming the ice age is coming. Then nothing supported their made up sciences, and so they needed to gravitate away from that myth, and started with the Ozone Depletion (which was proven to be a false statement as well as the ozone hole does not and did not get any bigger it gets smaller as it approaches the poles) and we would be an arid desert (the whole planet) by 2018. Then came the goof balls who wanted to sell their crap to us and said oh global warming is affecting the whole planet and that we have seen unprecedented storms and global warming is the cause..(yet 1893, 1896, and 1898 provided super storms that devastated the eastern sea board from Florida to North Carolina) and that these storms would cause us to have the polar caps melt (yet there is evidence that supports that this has happened in the past in cycles). Bottom line you cannot measure a carbon foot print from Ice core shafts and have an accurate measure. The rate of nuclear decay differs in different places all over the world, and you must have a known control sample from that area to measure carbon measurements. To date I know of no one that can say definitively that the control they are using is x amount of years old in order to make a base line for that particular area.
            You have to have fact to make a statement and all the junk so far I have stated on the next ice age of the 70’s and 80’s to the ozone myth, to the global warming is nothing more than fabricated science. Furthermore the Record snow falls and record cold temperatures blew the myth of global warming out of the water and to further support their misguided attempt to prove the earth was warming the name was changed to climate change, and you use the record cold and snow falls as an attempt to say well yes, because of climate change this is what we have. Climate change is the biggest B.S lie along with many others fabricated by liberal professors and so called mythical scientist to explain away something to bring about global change. You all want a place like the federation of planets on star trek where everyone shares in everything, no one advances for gain, and everyone is a base socialist. Remember the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Wrath of Khan start trek.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Dude you are so confused. Maybe if would help some if you didn’t pre- catigorize people into groups but tell us who actually said what and didn’t believe everything you read on the internet as “science.” One thing I’m sure of is that you have no science background and therefore should not be arrogantly putting down the science community. I’ve been around for a while and am familiar with some of conclusions you cite except they were never made in the manner you present. Instead you set them up for your straw man arguments. I mean talk about hysterical.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Man you are so misaligned I am not sure you can debate ANYTHING! You cite me for what you believe I read on the internet, yet what credentials do you have? where do you get your information. I am as much a man of science as Al Gore.

            You state ” you are sure I have no science background, and should not put down the science community. I am a man of a science background and it is of theology which translates down to “the science of things divine”. I also carry a degree in Political Sciences as well. however; I am quite sure that is not good enough for you and you don’t or wont recognize that at all.

            You further state in your conversations back with me that I have to offer proof to you, to which I say that I have offered plenty of scientific FACT (proof) to you throughout my strings here to which you reply that information is not good enough.

            You and others however are trying to sell this climate change junk science, to which I say; you have the opportunity to provide your proof to which you are trying to debate, you have to sell me and others on this on this. I don’t have to sell you anything, I supplied examples of scientific fact.
            The only thing I am stating is that there is nothing that has changed or anything that will change that God does not allow. You state man is having an impact on the climate. I say that God is much bigger than all that and man is not changing a thing. That climate does change itr is called seasons. You simply come back at me with your maligned ignorance and follow the puppet strings of junk science and cannot provide proof of any change. So I say this to you sir, it is your responsibility to provide that proof which you and your socialist (leftist) group shove or attempt to shove down the rest of our throats.

            You state in one of your threads that there are no conclusions that Obama and Hillary are at fault for Benghazi, you cite your news source as PBS. nice move there using a publicly funded media outlet who will always side with the Government. You are misinformed to state there is nothing that has been found on them. Just last week many many emails were discovered and made public with regards to Hillary knowing about the attack and doing nothing, and the white house (Obama) knowing as well and doing nothing. There is a complete disregard for the fact that we left our people to die in the fight of their life, and the fact that Hillary and Obama knew of the attack and did nothing and in fact ordered down our military from responding. There is evidence that came to light two years ago that intelligence warned of the increased possibility of attack several days prior and yet did nothing. Also look up 13 hours in Benghazi. I am quite sure you wont even look at that as you wont believe that either. You also stated the Military is not political. I have walked the walk there as well and can tell you that it is ALL Political. You have never served otherwise you would not say that

            Obama is pure socialist (borderline communism) Hillary is all right in lock step with him. There is no secret there it is well documented. yet you will argue that too as not being true and you wont believe.
            I have no straw man arguments, I cite what has been proven as fact. You have yet to cite one thing as fact only some misaligned theories. I look at reports and data from many outlets, not just one. I look at Government data as well, however they have a single agenda and that is to push another round of climate change down everyone’s throat.

            You are allowed to have your opinion, that is completely OK and acceptable, I fought and served for people like you to have your voice. You are welcome.
            As far as a two year investigation, Ill give you this (as I stated before) it is ridiculous to have taken so long for them to investigate this when the evidence is overwhelming as to Obama and Hillary’s dereliction of duties, and blatant refusal to supply military help when needed and had the carrier group stand down for supplying aid, as well as air forces to supply aid. In mine and many other veteran service members opinion, they were simply knowingly left to perish which amounts to manslaughter. you can nay say all you want. There is TONS of damning evidence (look it up) against those two. I can only surmise that prosecution is withheld because of the high potential for riots that would ensue because going after Obama would bring that. After all look at what happened every time he chimed in on the past big riots. Had he been a white man he would have been impeached and prosecution trials would have been started long ago for multiple violations of law. Benghazi is just one. (oh and don’t call me racist as you don’t know if I am black or white, Hispanic, or Asian.)

            So in the meantime I will offer this The almighty creator Jehovah God is in control of this world, not man. Man has taken steps to remove God from everything in an attempt to prove that man is in better control than God. We founded a nation (a republic) one Nation under God. Yet we removed him from everything. We have justices who have made law based upon a political agenda and not basing anything on law.
            I am not confused on anything contrary to your statement. I will pray for you that when someday when you meet God that you are on the side of salvation and not different. I pray that you will be enlightened with some level of knowledge that allows you to accept fact, and not theory.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Wow that must have really touched a nerve

          • planet8788

            They stopped in 2005.

          • 44nhj45HF

            So tell us, o wise one, what ended the last major ice age? And whatever it was, why should anyone doubt that it could do it again, without any help from homo sapiens?

            p.s. or was that last ice age something you forgot to put on your list?

          • Cheyenne-Jim

            Save us from ourselves? that is the problem with you libtards. You all think that this is one big happy socialistic domain, and we need saving. And as far as missing a day in school? I missed no days in school and have a far greater intelligence than you. I have been educated and advanced through the system with many degrees. So wake.
            Now there are known scientific facts, such as gravity, why the sky is blue, what water is composed of, effects of the sun on exposed skin. Yet the climate change. aka Global warming, aka, the ozone hole myth (debunked) and the next ice age coming are all THEORIES not supported by any factual data. You can take any data and adjust it to give you what you want. Hence we get the THEORIES on climate change, global warming etc. It is pretty moronic to believe that MAN can have that much of an impact to change the weather patterns and cause the seas to rise (yet they are not rising) and the surface temp of the earth to rise which is reported to be anywhere from .3 degrees to 1.2 degrees (depending on which so called scientist wishes to claim that) yet recorded temps in the 110 years of documented weather do not support that claim. You call us all freaks because we don’t support your fake science, and we believe that Obama is pushing a global agenda needlessly and call us conspiracy theorists. Yet you do the same thing stating the sky is falling and that the seas will rise, and the earth will be an overheated greenhouse and the atmosphere will ignite into flames (and so on). So where is your solid PROOF and do not provide a theory as you cannot support a theory.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Neither can you Cheyenne? Do something don’t just sit there arguing a fool’s errand! Study LENR for a solution to our energy problem only if you can? What is the Hot E-Cat series being developed?

          • troll e troll

            I’m smart, I say so on the internetz!!!!

          • RealMrTea

            LOVE your name calling.. It makes you sound so “Over 12” ROF:L!!

          • cedamon

            Scientists make predictions (hypotheses) and then conduct experiments to prove or disprove their theories. When the observed data don’t support the theory, which is wrong? Gravity is a theory that’s been tested and proven. The same with cigarettes and cancer. Moon landings and 9/11 are historical facts, not scientific theories. Same with the Holocaust. Denying or twisting history is different from continuing to believe a hypothesis that’s not supported by the date. The AGW crowd has stated a hypothesis, obtained data relevant to the hypothesis, found that the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, and yet continues to insist the theory is right, that it’s the data that are wrong. That isn’t science. It’s a belief that its adherents stubbornly refuse to let go. Why? Follow the money. Al Gore has gotten very rich with this scam, and I’m sure he’s not the only one. All the researchers who feed at the public trough have a strong incentive to perpetuate the lie. And how may times do we have to hear “internationalists” demand that “rich” countries have to pay for “poor” countries’ compliance before we begin to understand the shakedown that’s going on? And who’s going to say how much, and handle the huge wealth transfer? Naturally it’s the very people who are making the demands. Money again. Do you really think none of it will detour into their pockets? Maybe you’re that naive. I’m not.

          • RealMrTea

            Yopu started off correctly…. and I am sure you impress your “buds”. but climate chnage is a proven fact…. Not jusyt the physics of it in the lab…but in situ…..

            Actually beginning long ago

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            And repeatedly since, by various science teams, in various ways…

            http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-change-scientists-witness-greenhouse-effect-action-n312811

            The experiments showing the physics is actually repeated year;y in labs by THOUSANDS of second year physics students around the world…. And has even been repeated on TV LOL!!

            And the details from thousands of climate scientists running studoes are collected periodically by the IPCC and put into a report….

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

            So what were you saying about discarding a hypothesis if the data does not support it? CLEARLY you need to discard your denier hypothesis

            ROFL!! Nice try though…..

          • cheyenne-Jim

            well for every experiment you have to have a static control. and based on your statement of this was beginning a long time ago is a false statement. Based on the numbers the climatologists state with their phony junk science, if this started a “long time ago” then if it were true the planet would be a wasteland and life would not exist. And mythbusters?? that is a joke and there is no real controlled lab environment there. So if your scientific data is from mythbuster tv program I feel sorry for you. I have some choice prime land in mountainous Louisiana that is also ocean front for you.

          • RealMrTea

            (shaking my head)…

            What I “said” was that the proof started a long time ago. If you had read the link I provided, it is of a study over 17 years, where they used satellites to measure all incoming and outgoing energy of the earth.

            They found that the earth had an energy inbalance, where it was retaining more energy than it was re-radiating, and documented what frequesncies the raditions was being kept at. Notable was the known greenhouse gases, CO, CO2, and CH4.

            The performed the SAME expoeriemnt over a decade later, and found that the enrgy inbalance had increased… AND that the additional retained heat was specifically at the wavelengths of CO, CO2. and CH4.

            These findings including sensitivities, math, etc. were all blind peer reviewed by people not knowing what the premis of the study was or why. All of this is published in the Journal Nature, and has been there a LONG time…

            It is quite simply…. Proof…

            The recent study I linked was performed by a completel;y different group, using completely different methods, from ground stations on earth… and found the SAME thing with acontinuation of the energy inbalance, and the cause… Almost two decades later

            Again… Proof….

            I showed Mythbusters as an example of controlled experiments run by every physics student on the planet (they copied UC Berkleys experiments) . The fact that you don’t know that bnearly every physics student performs these is hillarious…

            You continually avoid the science…. Though REAL scientists don’t.

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            And the VAST majority of the climate scientists of the world also agree, which is also documented and published in the Institute of Physics journal….

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

            As well as a thousand other places…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            In short, the “proof” has been there for the last 20 years. Scientists know it, and now most intelligent people do as well…

            Just not you….

          • cheyenne-Jim

            shaking my heat now at you.
            I have stated before on this site and will do so again. My credentials speak for them self and of my intelligence. I need not prove anything to you, as once again you have not provided me with any professional background about you. 20 years of so called studies as you have pointed out do not make a case. again what you provided as results is not actual science but more of a so called study open to interpretation. You can call me not intelligent, I really don’t care as I am not alone in my thought process of there is no climate change as you people portray it, and if I don’t agree with you does not make me not intelligent. The fact that I can look beyond the liberal crap shoveled out for generations about the next ice age, then the ozone hole, then global warming, then climate change all of which have been debunked by major climatologists as well. It is unfortunate you wont believe in them though, and only believe the results that fit your agenda.
            you sir are no better, but fully entitled to your opinion.

            I could be your neighbor, I could be the man at the supermarket next to you in the isle, I could even be employed by a major university in this great nation. But one thing I full understand is the left’s agenda to control items based on theory, furthermore it amazes me how you all state big business is making all this money on destroying the environment. Yet your cause if successful will generate all kinds of (evil money as you all put it) to further your controls placed on this planet. In other words your cause generates the profits you are all seemingly against.
            If you truly had an understanding of this planets creator, God, you would realize that we as humans have no control over this planet and he is in control. Only he can save you, not the junk science interpretive experiment or theories you keep stating. I feel sorry for you that you place your faith in man and not in God or his plan he could have for you. I am most sure though you feel you are too educated for God and his salvation plan. You could not believe in him and put faith in these theories.
            so at the end of the day, wake up and look at the real data that has been provided by leading climatologists out there that you can look at and see that over the period of recorded weather patters and climate, that the earth has always went through periods of climate change (using that loosely). Again, after all how can man even think to understand this planets design and effects that man himself cannot truly explain and God is in control.
            Peace out.

          • cedamon

            You had me until you started LOLing and ROFLing. Seriously? You cite the IPCC as a serious source? The prediction is ceaseless warming due to ever higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s what’s not happening. So the infamous CRU at East Anglia cooked the inconvenient data. Still there has been essentially no warming in the last, what now, 18 years? Talk about an inconvenient truth. The “global warming is a proven fact so let’s stop talking about it and do what we say” crowd plows ahead, with or without observable-in-nature evidence. But because we know that CO2 can cause warming we ignore the fact that it’s not. The Earth’s climate is evidently far too complex to reduce to simplistic formulas, no matter how insistently they’re propounded.

          • RealMrTea

            Laughing out loud at ridiculous things is quite normal. When they are proven numerous times to be ridiculous, I sometimes roll on the floor (figuratively speaking).

            The IPCC. Yes. The IPCC represents the VAST majority of the worlds credentialed climate scientists. The fact that you reject this and the IPCC only shows your ignorance, and bias toward corportae controlled interests over real science…

            The “prediction” is nothing of the kind… Again, your ignorance and bias is blatantly showing. The “projection(s)” are an array of potential possibilities, based on various factors, much including variables such as CO2 emissions, but also including natural variablity such as El Nino/La Nina.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com//images/ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif

            And you continually show your low information and incredibale bias, this time by trying (erroneously) to indicate fraud on the part of climate scientists including those at CRU. The FACT is that while climate scientists have endured a never ending barage of accusations, hacks, etc. from corporate interests. They have NEVER been found to have doctored data to support climate change. NEVER…. Rather, they have absolutely been exonerated, inclusing the case you just LIED about…

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

            “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct”

            Who exactly are you “quoting” when you quote imaginary assertions?? ROFL!! I am sorry…That is really funny, as apparently you don’t understand what quotes mean… Or possibly you have someone talking in your head that you are quoting?

            And OBVIOUSLY… you failed to even look at the “proof” I provided…. and yet choose to blather on, further demonstrating your ignorance, your bias, and unwillingness to change either.

            “plows ahead, with or without observable-in-nature evidence. But because we know that CO2 can cause warming we ignore the fact that it’s not”

            I showed you articles with links to peer reviewed and published science, and the actual reports themselves.. Here they are again…

            http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-change-scientists-witness-greenhouse-effect-action-n312811

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            BOTH of which prove climate change IN nature…. NOT in the lab.

            The first study looked at incoming and outgoing energy from the sun, and compared the two, showing that the earth has an energy, inbalance (it is retaining more heat than it is emitting) That the heat is being retained specifically at the wavelengths of CO, CO2, and CH4…… AND that more than a decade later when the experiemnt was repeated, that energfy inbalance is higher, and at the same wavelengths…. That is PROOF….

            The second study was performed by a different team, and did essentially the same thing from ground stations. PROOF…

            The reality is that climate change is being reliably observed now in several hundred measures…. From sea level, to ocean heat content, and many dozens more..

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

            The unfortunate reality is that climate change is so scientifically obvious to anyone trained in any almost any science, and the scientific process, that EVERY major science agency on the entire planet has now agreed (officially) that climate change is a reality, is caused by humans, and is very dangerous…

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            FYI: The individual science agencies of the world typically also have stronger statements of their own… And they vote on them. The vote on at least these four were nearly unanimous…

            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

            American Geophysical Union
            “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”

            American Meteorological Society
            “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

            American Physical Society
            “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

            The evidence is exceedingly clear… So yes, your ignorance combined with brashness is funny. You would be downright hillarious, if the consequences weren’t so dire…

          • Fortified I am Buzzlightyear

            Realmr. tead off still thinks that starting with a jab, tossing in a bunch more, screaming about the usual boogyman, (Koch bros), five page copy and paste dump he gives out every week will mean something.
            Uhhhhh…Mr tead off….Your first chart… the “predictions”
            Yes the predictions that you seem so proud of…
            A chart that ends in 2007, that was made in……drumroll here….2007
            is not a PRE….ANYTHING.
            AR4 —-the IPCC report was in 2007, and that’s where the chart ends.

          • RealMrTea

            Funny… you demand evidence… I give it… You complain….

            The AR5 report was released less than a year ago, so I gave you the previous report. I could give you the new report and the associated projections, but you will still just complain about something… ANYTHING…..

            http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

            You are like a bad defense attorney…. No morals, and no logic… just try to find something to pick at and cast doubt…. ANYTHING…

            Here the projections are discussed by NOAA
            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

            And the Union of Concerned Scientists

            http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VaPoX8_BzGc

            And National Geographic

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121108-climate-change-clouds-science-model-relative-humidity/

            And NASA

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121108.html

            Again… The REALITY is that science is so obvious at this point that EVERY science agency in the WORLD is ON RECORD that they agree that climate change is a reality, is dangerous, and is caused by humans…

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            I post verifiable science, and links to it. You continually post lies and misinformation. I have therefore concluded that you are VERY likely part of this…

            http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

            regardless of whether you are, or are just incredibly ignorant and dtermined to stay that way, while also excedingly prolific…

            You are very demonstrably wrong…

          • Fortified I am Buzzlightyear

            THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!!
            I love you mannn!
            I explained to you that a chart ending in the year it was made is not a prediction.
            So, what do you do?
            The same thing …..as if?
            You then go off on many other talking points……all while calling me immoral.
            MrTeadoff…. This is why I don’t go down the rabbit hole with you.
            If you can’t understand (even after I explain it to you), that the past is not the future, and you then go off on five different subjects, nothing positive will ever happen.
            Your angst is having its way with you.

          • Fortified I am Buzzlightyear

            Oh look…..You are the lucky one this week. You get the real mr tead off, and running off the rails, five pages of crap dump for the week.

          • RealMrTea

            You are over 12 right? Let me know when you have some actual science to present…

          • troll e troll

            Ocean ‘weather balloons’ detect cause of global warming pause

            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150710-story.html

          • UrabanoMucho

            So your really just mad because climate change has gotten caught up in global politics, and then some people make something out of it to demand money. Far as I know no ones gotten much of anything. I can’t blame you for that but you have to be able to sort things out. These results have nothing necessarily to do with the research or the scientists. The science is good and getting better and eventually its going to be established if not already.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-save-our-United-States-Postal-Service/274848372536954?ref=hl ET-10 Simmons

        It’s all part of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’, the tri-lateral commission, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, etc. Yeah, yeah, sure, you betcha. That’s why manbearpig Al Gore is now worth over $200 million, up from less than $2 million when serving as VPOTUS. Great, great sandwich. Why delete something which so profoundly and eloquently makes our point? Go preach your fakakta religion somewhere else before you accidentally learn an actual fact…

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          “The Planet is Warming! Buy My Indulgences – I Mean Carbon Credits – and Save The Planet!” – Church Of Global Warming Head Priest Al Gore

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

        • DrCroland

          Listen asshole, why don’t you go back to your job cleaning toilet bowls at Wal-Mart. I have good news for you — your boss is offering you a $1 bonus if you clean his toilet bowl extra good by licking it.

          • plusaf

            When you run out of facts to argue your point, resort to ad hominum attacks…
            Carry On, Dr….

          • nunyafreakinbiznezz

            Yawn… Is that all you can come up with?

        • RealMrTea

          Who knows or cares why they are lying…. The fact is fossil fuel industry is lying and paying billions to generate denial….. Including disparaging every real scientist in the world…

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

          And EVERY science agency in the world knows it…

          http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

      • Cris Cassity

        Who funds global warming propaganda? George Soros.

        • don

          an who pays for the lies they tell us on global warming? we do–me you -us–i.m tired of their lies

        • troll e troll

          Who funds denialist propaganda? the FF industry.

          • whiteaglesoaring

            “We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the
            number is not important: only whether they are correct is important” Giaever said. Shows how little you understand about science. Politruks care about swaying public opinion as the primary goal, not if the science is correct..

          • RealMrTea

            Of course he says that…. What else is he going to say?

            PS: These guys say the same thing…

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

            They also call themselves scientists…

          • cheyenne-Jim

            no one funds us. We have a mind that is capable of thinking and exploring unlike the Borg (hive) Collective mindset you all share as liberals.

          • troll e troll

            lol

          • RealMrTea

            BIG BS…. easily proven

            http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

            Your credibility now? ZERO…

          • cheyenne-Jim

            My credibility Zero?? typical liberal. You want me to believe your junk science, but discredit EVERYTHING outside of what you will consider as being anything other than what fits your agenda. So rocket man where to now since all you can do is say I have no credibility and you are the worlds source on credible people and facts. All hail Mr. Tea. What a joke. Give us some more liberal euphemisms.

        • RealMrTea

          Show me….

          I will show you who funds made up climate denial propaganda to the tune of 2 BILLION a year…

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

          http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

          http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

          Notice the peer reviewd and published science….

          OK… Your turn….

      • Gus

        The “Climate Change” cult is plain, old fashioned racket: extortion of public and private monies under false pretenses. Huge sums are involved, powerful companies, like General Electric and Siemens that make killing on peddling wind turbines–who cares that it’s all tax payers money down the drain; it’s money in the bank for them. It’s good money for oil companies too. The killing of the coal industry is all gain for them, as coal, which they don’t produce, is being replaced with natural gas. Is it an accident that Sierra Club has received $25 million from the gas industry, that BP is “business partner” of Nature Conservancy and that America’s Wetland Foundation is supported by Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and BP?

        • DrCroland

          So what’s it like under the desk at Koch industries?

          • whiteaglesoaring

            Ad hominem is a non-argument. In a real debate, you lose.

          • planet8788

            Which fact was false? ANy?

          • Gus

            So what’s it like under the desk of Tom Steyer?

        • Jae Gregory

          It’s getting frightening to see how rampantly false information is spread by those such as yourself who are most likely nice, intelligent people. I doubt you can help it, when surrounded by powerful mechanisms whose only job is to disseminate false information from those with no ethics at all – the power in what they put out to you is nearly irresistible. It feels a bit like Nazi Germany, the way they’ve sucked you all in. And yes, they may have even bought out some former good guys like NC and Sierra Club. What a coup. How scary.

          • planet8788

            Which fact was false?

          • Gus

            Nothing makes it feel more like Nazi Germany than hordes of enviro-fascist thugs assaulting our country, people, traditions and economy.

        • UrabanoMucho

          Although there are subsities involved they are not enough nor do they last forever. The change to alternate energy is driven by technological change and other environmental changes besides climate. Of course you probably thing anything environmental is some kind of liberal plot.

      • mattwm

        James, you are just as wrong as Obama and all the other climate change alarmists.

        • don

          eeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaa

      • John Galt

        …he says, not addressing a single point made by Dr. Giaever.

        If I might paraphrase your argument; “OIL IS EVIL!!!! PROFITS ARE EVIL!!!!…unless those profits are made by someone on our side of the argument, like Al Gore.”

        • RealMrTea

          You aren’t paraphrasing… You are quoting…. And the only person saying that is the strawman in your head…

          Here is the reality….

          “I discovered, to my amazement, that all through history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance … to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money…as a result of the change. Although they never advanced this as their reason for resisting it. It was always the good of humanity that rested upon their hearts.”

          ISAAC ASIMOV, lecture at Newark College of Engineering, Nov. 8, 1974

          It describes the observed behavior of the fossil fuel companies PERFECTLY!!

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

      • don

        your ate up—-you eat the lies they feed you

      • TennesseeRedDog

        Yes. destroying the planet is a viable business model that makes everyone rich. I personally do my part to destroy the planet. I take every opportunity to run over animals that stray into the roadway.

        • cheyenne-Jim

          I hunt animals and put their flesh in my freezer. I do more to maintain the environment than any liberal ever will. My parents were some of the first hippie types liberal save the planet, and I was sick of it with their junk back in the 70’s of we are facing a new ice age and we will have nuclear winters by 2015. No proof no statistics to back it up only made up crap. Then the scientists realized the rouse was not working so they changed strategy it is warming our planet and we are experiencing global climate change; Yet we experience some of the coldest winters in a long time and record snow falls. I haer the freaks say well that is because of climate change. They try to have it both ways and cannot even back up anything with a shred of evidence. Yet we can look up the recorded weather patterns and see that this is a cycle and there is nothing different. This is only a sad attepmt from this president and leftists to maintain control and power, and try to stay in power by doing magician tricks with numbers. We are smart enough to research and see what they say is purely B.S.

          • TennesseeRedDog

            1,000+

          • Jae Gregory

            How can you say there is no proof no data? Where are you all getting this from? There is TONS of proof, TONS of data dating back thousands of years. I’m sure you’re very nice, open your mind to some new ways of looking at things – research the real data!!

          • planet8788

            I have 18 straight years of satellite data showing no warming at all. Put that in your pipe… And I can clearly see that the surface temperature record is continually manipulated to make it look worse and worse.

          • troll e troll

            No you don’t, you have a specific graph that supports you position.

          • planet8788

            woodfortrees.org. RSS and UAH satellite data. RSS probably shows slight cooling at 18 years… UAH slight warming.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015

            Your turn…

          • troll e troll

            Ocean ‘weather balloons’ detect cause of global warming pause.

            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150710-story.html

          • planet8788

            LOL, Surface temperatures not playing along so you go looking for it elsewhere… inventing new ways to find warming… Sorry. your instruments aren’t that precise. Your talking about changes in the .0x C range… And your sampling base is very limited. FAIL. Do you have ocean heat data from the MWP so we can compare it?

          • troll e troll

            Sorry if the new information bothers you but it’s true.

          • planet8788

            Again. No new information

          • UrabanoMucho

            The coldest winters have happened only on the East Coast – Great Lakes region. You are pulling unrelated issues out of the past and confusing them together. You are also suffering from a personal viewpoint problem – somehow this denier, conspiracy stuff helps you make sense of your personal history and unable to appreciate anything outside of it.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            I guess you forgot to mention Oregon, and Washington State as having extreme cold weather also Montana and Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota (last I looked they are not great lake region) Also Russia, Belgium, Germany, Canada and Alaska and several others if you want me to point out more. Your data and information is extremely flawed

          • UrabanoMucho

            And I guess that you forgot to mention that many of those places also had some of the hottest summers on record.

      • PierceEye

        Fools fools!

      • DrCroland

        How refreshing to see one informed person here who hasn’t drunk the Koch brothers’ right-wing Kool-Aid. Interesting how they managed to find one “scientist” to support their views, probably after paying him a hefty sum under the table. May I shake hands with you, sir?

      • whiteaglesoaring

        Then the Nobel Committee where he spoke is a “Climate Change denier” on the take for Big Oil? You didn’t see how illogical your assertion is? Just a boiler-plate PC statement?

      • planet8788

        Why are you a satellite-data denier.

        • UrabanoMucho

          Maybe because one satellites data do not a big picture make.

      • Just call me Joe

        James, you are right. It is really hard to come up with solid arguments against what Climate Depot posts, because it is so darn factual. It is really awful that none of the predictions by climate researchers have ever come true and that their models have failed their validation tests. It is a good thing people have short memories and don’t remember that what the researchers predicted before, so they don’t know it didn’t happen. If people started using their brains instead of their emotions, a whole lot fewer people would believe that human emitted CO2 has become the dominate driver of the climate. Bringing up funding sources for the skeptics, and not mentioning funding sources for the believers, is a good way to keep emotion in the debate and logic and reason out of it. A lot of people distrust big companies, so use that emotion so they don’t take the time to actually look at the arguments, because that would be a losing proposition.

    • don

      its the money man–its the money–get it—-they have been lying

      • RealMrTea

        Yes…. yes they have…

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

        Only it is the guys with the money…. Just like tobacco, etc. etc. etc…

        • CB

          What a surprise!

          The PhD quoted in this dishonest propaganda piece doesn’t actually study the subject he’s voicing his opinion on:

          “According to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Oslo, and Google Scholar, Ivar Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.”

          http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            “CB” … you spend countless hours every day “voicing your opinion” on global warming.

            What are YOUR credentials to discuss the subject?

            How many peer-reviewed/published articles do YOU have?

            Or are you simply a mindless internet blowhard who spends your days quoting faux science and repeating dishonest and dishonorable AGW propaganda/talking points?

            If your credentials couldn’t hold a candle to those of this honorable and respected PhD, why are you attempting to belittle him while hiding behind your anonymity?

            Pumping up your own ego to slime someone better than you … what a pitiful existence.

            Still crazy after all these years.

          • CB

            “What are YOUR credentials to discuss the subject?”

            I would suggest a person doesn’t need one if her citations are valid and verifiable.

            Do you have any such citations, Geezer?

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            I’m not the one dismissing a PhD from ‘voicing an opinion’ on climate because he hasn’t published on climate … YOU ARE!

            If a PhD is ‘unqualified’ to voice his opinion, then how do YOU ‘qualify?’

            Nobel prize-winning PhD
            – – – – – versus – – – – –
            Dishonest internet science wannabee blowhard

            No contest … zip, zilch, nada.

            Of course you use a faux non-scientific alarmist survey to bolster your faux non-scientific alarmist ‘science.’

            Still crazy after all these years.

          • CB

            …so no?

            Not a single scientific source to back up your deranged claims?

            If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

            Who’s going to take you seriously?

            Who’s going to pay a propagandist so incompetent?

            “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            I have linked to numerous scientific sources, over the years … which you always ignore. You’ve never tried to refute them … you simply refuse to acknowledge them. It’s another sign of your basic dishonesty.

            Why are you changing the subject, then demanding that I answer YOUR question? Not going to happen.

            Answer MY question …

            YOU dismissed Giaever … a PhD and recipient of a Nobel prize … as unqualified to voice his opinion.

            What qualifies YOU to voice an opinion?

            Is it because you are …

            Still crazy after all these years?

          • CB

            “YOU dismissed Giaever … a PhD and recipient of a Nobel prize … as unqualified to voice his opinion.”

            On climate science?

            Of course!

            He’s not a climate scientist.

            …now why would Marc Morano be quoting him on a subject he has absolutely no experience in?

            If the Climate Denial propaganda machine hasn’t purchased another unscrupulous PhD to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuels, what explains Dr. Giaever’s comments?

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

            climate.nasa.gov/causes

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            If you weren’t still crazy after all these years, why would you pretend to be more qualified to understand, let alone voice an opinion, on climate science than is a PhD with a Nobel in physics?

            YOU are not a climate scientist. By your own criteria, you are unqualified to voice an opinion.

            Climate science is considered a joke by most scientists in the hard sciences. You, too, are a joke. A coincidence … I think not.

            Still crazy after all these years.

          • tim r.

            YOU ALL have missed that in a thermodynm. vessel a reduction of vol. = a increase of temp. earth is a vessel in the solar system. stored compressed atmos./and many other ways we do , have reduced the atmos. by ten miles (NASA). when used by industry and construction it re-enters Free atmos&.=’s increased weather response! we put more&more heat/entropy/energy into the atmos.,greenhouse if you please, so its exponential response. This the missing piece of the puzzle NOAA asked for in “05”. OR the bigger primary cause!?
            “Yahoo search”- compressed atmos. or wunderblog,122100 entry-honey we shrunk the world- Anyone bold enough to reply Thanks tim r. (timsinaustin@gmail.com)

          • Philip McCorkle

            Hay, CB, if I wanted to go to school to become a “climate scientist”, what would I study?

          • forevergeeky

            So…where’s your PhD?…?…waiting…
            The latest survey of peer-reviewed climate studies suggest that it is no longer 97% agreement (that global warming is real), but over 99.9%…
            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            I’ll show you mine if you show me yours …

            Why do I need a PhD? I’m not the one who claimed that PhD Giaever is unqualified to voice an opinion on climate science … “CB” made that claim.

            OMG, you’re linking to MSNBC for yet another faux survey on global warming?!? And you expect to be taken seriously?

            Get serious.

          • forevergeeky

            It was not a ‘faux survey’; it was a well-documented, peer-reviewed research into the opinions of 10,000+ scientists. But no, I do not expect you to take anyone serious who disagrees with your faith.

            As far as Giaever, he is entitled to ‘an opinion’. Given that there are over 10,000 opinions of people–scientists at that–who are more qualified than him who disagree with him (given that their field of study is climate), either one man with a PhD in a different field is wrong, or 10,000 people with degrees relevant to the topic are.

            As to why I asked you where your PhD was, it’s because you claim to know more than 10,000 (really more than that) people who do, in fact, have degrees.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            “It was not a ‘faux survey’; it was a well-documented, peer-reviewed research …

            Well, no, not so much. It’s an article described as a ‘draft,’ and says nothing about it being either well-documented or peer-reviewed.

            Interesting methodology, too. If the author(s) stated neither explicit acceptance, nor explicit rejection, of AGW, he counted them as explicitly accepting. Not very scientific … or honest, Geeky. But considering his obvious bias, and the fact that he is a well known AGW alarmist/extremist, it’s what we would expect from him.

            MSNBC demonstrates their gullibility (or disingenuousness) by publishing this crap without asking any questions … and yours, by linking to it. I knew that article was going to be a complete waste of my time.

            As for the rest of your rant, is it your contention that those who accept the theory of AGW are, by definition, smarter than those who question and/or reject it? I notice that most of you alarmists seem incapable of discussing the actual issues … you’re satisfied with smearing dissenters by calling them names or implying that they’re just not quite as smart as you are.

            Not very scientific … or convincing.

          • Curtis Conway

            Outstanding – Context is Everything!

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            Thank you!

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            BTW, Powell is not a climate scientist, either.

            He’s a mere geologist and geochemist.

          • old guy

            You hit the nail on the head. The IPCDC did NOT draw their conclusions from data (as I did) but OPINIONS. Let me give you some random widely held opinions that I have heard or witnessed in my lifetime.
            1. The TITANIC is UNSINKABLE–London times early 1912.
            2.The stock market is SOUND— N.Y TIMES 2 DAYS BEFORE THE 1929 CRASH.
            3. WE WILL HAVE “PEACE IN OUR TIME”—-PRIME MINISTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN 1 MONTH BEFORE THE NAZI invasion of Poland.
            4. Dewey will defeat Truman in a landslide. New york World-Telegram—1 week before thew election
            5. New york will be UNDERWATER by 2010–Al Gore— 1992
            You can probably come up with many more. OPINO)N is NOT DATA or FACT.
            Also, please see my responses to CB and others to draw YOUR OWN conclusions

          • CB

            “The IPCDC did NOT draw their conclusions from data (as I did) but OPINIONS.”

            The data suggest CO₂ is warming the planet.

            We can actually see that happening from space.

            If you ever actually did work for NASA, isn’t that something you should already know?

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

          • old guy

            Check my EOGO data of 1966, which refutes this.

          • old guy

            Let me tell you something that you may, or may not accept. When NACA became NASA in 1958, I was asked to join as an experimental aerodynamicist. A close study of the new charter (which was very broad), the stress shift from A/C to space and the huge new hierarchy dissuaded me. I knew many of the principals and, even then, there was a fear of political takeover. It has taken many years but that is what has happened. Examine the budget content and the current leadership and you just might not be as trustful of their statements. The bureaucracy has overwhelmed the scientists. Incidentally, my daughter is an administrator of one of their departments.

          • CB

            “When NACA became NASA in 1958, I was asked to join as an experimental aerodynamicist.”

            …so why don’t you know what their satellites are recording?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da44f12a47b976c480d655d79a0672a36e50a27c57b9c59c0080a39ad0a2303c.gif

          • vetww2

            I do. The problem lies (appropriate words) in the juggling of the data. I operated 3 orbital geophysical observatories (OGO, Polar OGO and Earth OGO. back in the 60s. UNCORRECTED, their data belies the current B.S. AT 88, I have little to profit from, except the hope that people will resist the sheep (I wanna belong) syndrome and analyze inputs independently and impartially.

          • DMN

            I personally know a scientist who quit NASA about 2 months ago because of the reasons you talked about in your comment.

          • vetww2

            WOW. at last a cogent and coherent poster. I went back and reviewed all of his comments that I could find and I’m convinced. All of you youngsters better review your opinions.

          • DMN

            pseudoscience is the word of the day

          • brian hodge

            Well ,Well ! If msnbc reports it , it must be true . Their totally unbiased reporting is the benchmark for journalistic standards . (!)

          • WhiteEagle

            That’s just plain stupid.

          • DMN

            she will just change the subject when she hits snag in her rhetoric.

          • old guy

            THATS MY DATA you are quoting, obtained by MY OGO, POGO, and EOGO satellites. It has nothing to do with ANTHROPOGENIC causes. PLEASE read my other posts and revisit the chart in the article.

          • yfdgjr

            Yes dear, but this man with the phd is not qualified to give scientific mandates on climate change. His field of study was physics, not climatology. Yes he is a brilliant man, but he admints publically that he doesn’t really know much about climate change. Sure he can give his opinion, but the weight carried with that opinion really falls far short from people who actually have dedicated their lives to studying climate.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            Utter nonsense. A physicist is fully qualified to research the science and to understand it … and to determine whether or not proper scientific methodology has been followed.

            Did you disqualify the pope as ‘not a climate scientist’ when he came out with his encyclical? A very great deal of weight is being given to him … even though he has NO background in science, let alone climate science.

            If the study of the effects of gases in the atmosphere isn’t based on physics, what is it based on?

            Sheesh. Stop parroting “CB” and Desmogblog!

          • yfdgjr

            A physicist is certainly qualified to do actual research and understand it – but that’s not what this scientist has done, by his own admission he spent some hours on google before speaking at the panel that these stories have spawned from, and that is how he based his opinions. Speaking of research, you might want to do some on the background and context of where the information is coming from. And more importantly, regardless of how you feel about climate change being a hoax, it doesn’t matter – change is coming. Our cities are becoming more and more renewable and we are shifting away from fossil fuels, slowly but surely. And we won’t stop.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            Blah-blah-blah … and we won’t stop.

            The ‘truthiness’ of the matter means nothing to you? You and your type plan to force additional $trillions of wasted expenditures on the world, while limiting individual choice … and damaging the environment in the process … based solely on your ideological fanaticism? The truth be damned … we believe!

            How tyrannical of you.

          • old guy

            You mix up tne good with the bad. No thinking person would denigrate the improvement of any system. The problem is NATURE is PERVERSE. If you try to push too hard you get a SOLYNDRA. If you work within limits you get Niagara Falls Power generation. All Feasible sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. For example;
            1. FLOWING WATER POWER– plus FREE POWER INPUT, minus, HARD CONTROLLABLE EQUIPMENT, UNEVEN LOCATIONS,
            2. SOLAR -plus, FREE POWER INPUT. -minus, Limited photoelectric substances, intermittent availability-HUGE CONVERTERS
            3. TIDAL CHANGE- plus, FREE POWER INPUT, minus, Only coastal availability, Vulnerable equipment
            4. GEOTHERMAL-plus, FREE POWER INPUT, omni present availability—-minus very expensive conversion equipment
            5. WIND–plus, Free power input, locatable, minus, intermittent operation, large installations, High maintenance,
            6. FOSSIL plus, Convenient, locatable, established, minus, pollution, waste, finite sources
            ALL have Power transmission shortfalls, including fossil
            FORTUNATELY, we have sufficient available fossil fuel energy to bridge the gap that MUST be solved, but with a rational approach. Polution can be minimized by S extraction, precipitators, exhaust condensers.
            I hope this helps.

          • Curtis Conway

            The question is . . . IS the Scientific Method . . . which they USED to teach us in school . . . THE method?!

          • old guy

            F=Ma. After that everything is easy.

          • plawler

            Nobel prize in what? Anything to do with climate? Oh right. Quantum mechanics. How, exactly, does that qualify him as an expert on climate? Oh right. It does not.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            When did I claim Giaever was an “expert” on climate?

            “Oh right.” I didn’t.

            As a physicist, however, he does have a sufficient body of knowledge to be able to understand the principles of AGW science. After all, climate science does have a basis in physics, does it not?

            “Oh right.” It does.

            Do the laws of physics change when applied to climate science?

            “Oh right.” They don’t.

            Did I insert enough “oh rights” in my comment to give it proper gravitas?

            No? How about one more?

            Is Naomi Oreskes a climate scientist?
            David Appell?
            Dana Nuccitelli?
            Bill Nye?
            John Cook?
            Stephan Lewandowsky?
            Barack Obama?
            Pope Francis?
            Al Gore?
            “CB?”

            “Oh right.” They’re not.

            Apparently, you DON’T have to be an expert in climate science in order to qualify to “voice an opinion.” All you have to do is AGREE with you and “CB!”

          • old guy

            WELL SAID. Be careful you are treading on their religion.

          • Curtis Conway

            Too bad the average Joe can read the data and figure out the truth. Once has to be an academic (neigh on a specific kind of academic) to see the TRUTH ? ! …and the administration wants to take guns from Social Security recipients because they can’t balance their check book? What kind of world is this?

            Think we are getting close to the end!

          • old guy

            Looks like the optimum time for the Messiah to,”COME ON DOWN”!

          • Curtis Conway

            I think it time to put an AMEN on that!

          • old guy

            We may get an aster to the Creation/ Evolution controversy, yet.

          • Curtis Conway

            I’m assuming your are not talking about the ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) . . . LOL . . . but the other definition . . . LOL!!!

          • old guy

            I edited my remark LOL

          • Curtis Conway

            The Bible study note this morning (which is randomly selected by my phone) was for 2 Peter: 3. Let us hope that is not immediately prescient, but prophetic in general.

          • forevergeeky

            Still waiting to see how you are more qualified….Since you seem to imply that anyone without a PhD should shut up, maybe you should take your own advice.

            Not my opinion, I welcome logical discourse, just reflecting back your thoughts

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            Either you have not followed the conversation, or you have a serious reading comprehension deficit.

            My replies are in response to the empty-headed numskulls who mindlessly quote Desmogblog that a PhD in Physics is unqualified to ‘voice an opinion’ on climate science.

            If Giaever, of all people, is unqualified to voice an opinion on the validity of climate science, then “CB” and “plawler” are certainly unqualified to voice their opinions … by their own standards.

            I didn’t set the standard … they did!

          • old guy

            Respectfully, you are probably not a physicist, but you must realize that physics is a lot more wide ranging than simply F=Ma. It covers ALL aspects of physical activity. Quantum mechanics (look it up) is particularly applicable to climate.

          • DMN

            She is not even a science wannabe. She lacks basic knowledge of the scientific method.

          • DMN

            So Nobel prize winners in Physics do not know what they are talking about, yet you, who lack basic knowledge of the scientific method, know better.

          • Fartion
          • old guy

            Please see my comment to “CB”. The 97% he quotes, is a spurious number. Just made up I have a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists that refute ANTHROPOGENIC (man-caused) global warming. If they represent the 3% contrarians, that would say that there are ~970,000 proponents. The subject would disappear if the biased grant funding went.

          • yfdgjr

            The OISM study that you are citing has been debunked and is not made up of scientists. FOX news reports signed that petition. There is ample evidence and consensus in the scientific community, but people who still deny that man-made pollution and decades of destruction have any impact on the earth or the climate. Your grasping for straws with this comment man.

          • WhiteEagle

            You guys don’t seem to ‘get it’. Theres plenty of pollution to fight, think of Chemtrails using heavy metals and oil spills caused by idiot managers that don’t follow safety guildlines or take proper precautions. Even the EPA created a spill of toxic water into a river by ignoring warnings by others. But besides that… there will ALWAYS be climate change, ..with or without mankind adding or subtracting from it. Find out WHY the Farmer’s Almanac is so accurate, it has to do with solar cycles, Astronomical alignments and orbits and other things factored in that they don’t exactly tell us about but that enables them to be pretty reliable.
            We are still coming out of an ice age.
            Retreating glaciers are uncovering fresh frozen vegetation.
            Once the Earth was warmer than it is right now. Once Dinosaurs roamed a tropical Antartica, and early navagator’s maps also showed an ice free south pole. The North pole supposedly had a ice free area though it , and early explores from Europe looked for what they called the ‘North-West passage, some ending up rather disasterously part of the icy scenery.
            Perhaps we would be better served finding out what caused these non man-made climate change incidents in the past rather than trying to pass legislation that burdens us and actually might be down right disasterous.
            We do not need legislation that turns a part of the population into ‘useless breathers’ as a modern equilivant to old Nazi Germany’s ‘Useless Eaters’.
            Warmer can be survived a lot more than colder.
            If anything , we should wonder WHY there was an ice age.

          • MyrnaMMurray
          • CB

            “I have a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists that refute ANTHROPOGENIC (man-caused) global warming.”

            The fact that humans warm the planet when we produce CO₂ was first proven by someone named John Tyndall in 1859.

            His findings have remained the undefeated scientific understanding ever since.

            If one scientist had overturned this understanding, she would immediately be given a Nobel prize.

            …so why hasn’t that happened?

            “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

          • old guy

            Rational argument, EXCEPT. Tyndall’s experiment showed that water vapor absorbed ~10,000,000 X /MOL than ANY other elemental or compound gas. That means a cloudy day equals about 50 years of a 120% rise in CO2. He did nit have chloro-flouro-carbons (CFC( freon.

          • CB

            “Tyndall’s experiment showed that water vapor absorbed ~10,000,000 X /MOL than ANY other elemental or compound gas.”

            It’s true that water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂!

            …it’s also a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂:

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

            What’s your point?

          • old guy

            What they neglected to tell you (or you missed it) iOS that the transition from water (clouds( to vapor requires 80 calories per gram, a tremendous heat absorber. This FACT counters any other statement regarding vapor.

          • CB

            “the transition from water (clouds( to vapor requires 80 calories per gram… This FACT counters any other statement regarding vapor.”

            lol!

            Well, no, pumpkin. The fact that it takes a lot of energy to generate water vapour from liquid water is not the only attribute water vapour has.

            It also absorbs infrared radiation, which means it insulates the planet and keeps it from cooling down.

            We can actually see water vapour slowing the rate at which Earth cools from space.

            If you really did work at NASA, why don’t you know this?

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

          • old guy

            AH c’mon, your contorted argument makes no sense at all. The rotation is NOT slowing. If it was we could use it fir our weight gain. But even if it were, how in hell could you assign it to the microscopic increase of ONE gas.

          • CB

            “your contorted argument makes no sense at all. The rotation is NOT slowing.”

            Didn’t say anything about rotation, pumpkin.

            Whose argument doesn’t make sense, again?

            “While the dominant gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are transparent to infrared, the so-called greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapor (H2O), CO2, and methane (CH4), absorb some of the infrared radiation. They collect this heat energy and hold it in the atmosphere, delaying its passage back out of the atmosphere.”

            http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

          • old guy

            I quit. There is an old adage, that goes,”Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It provides no music and annoys the piog.” GOODBYE, HAPPY OINKING.

          • CB

            “Don’t try to teach a pig to sing.”

            lol!

            You aren’t a pig, and I’m not asking you to sing.

            I’m asking you to think.

            Why is that giving you such difficulty?

            Why are you having difficulty with concepts children can figure out?

            “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

            climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

          • Sabretruthtiger

            Sigh….
            You’re describing CO2 in an isolated experiment to test the infrared forcing. As a trace gas in a massively complex H20 dominated system it’s completely different.

            Really, this is basic stuff…

          • Sabretruthtiger

            CB spouts lies and scientific innaccuracies. He’s a shill. Ignore him

          • fromthesidelines

            I have looked at peer reviewed papers on climate science for 40 years, written by scientists at U. Mich, Harvard, U. Fla, Georgia Tech, among others. Thousands of scientists around the world study climate change and publish their research. There is enormous consensus among them that it’s real. And It’s not secret – you are free to
            read the literature,too. (P.S. It’s just science. Politics has nothing to do with it.)

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            This thread is a year old. You’re a little late to the party.

            “Peer review” is broken. It is now referred to, by people in-the-know, as pal review.

            The “consensus” is phony. It has no meaning and it never did … science is not governed by democracy. And as Einstein said, it doesn’t matter how many agree or disagree, it only takes one to prove a theory wrong.

            You called “it” climate change, so I assume you are referring to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If you think politics has nothing to do with “it,” you need to broaden your horizons. Pick up a newspaper … “it” has EVERYTHING to do with politics. The PhD in this article figured that out after a very perfunctory glance at the so-called “science.”
            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
            Why are you virtually non-existent in Disqus? What are you hiding?

          • planet8788

            You don’t need to publish squat to detect hand-waving and data manipulation.

          • Philip Shehan

            You do not have to have a PhD to be able to analyse scientific data and argument. But it helps.

            I have examined Giaever’s argument (above) and consider it hand waving, cherry picking of data, and a failure to recognise the limitations of conclusions drawn from data with large error margins. And I do have a PhD.

          • CB

            Dr. Giaever has made bald-faced lies, easily detectable by anyone with even the briefest acquaintance with google.

            There’s no pause.

            It’s pretend, like almost everything Climate Deniers believe.

            “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

          • old guy

            I suggest that you look at the graph in the article.

          • planet8788

            I agree. But he is the one seeing the hand waving… He’s the one seeing satellite data ignored. He’s the one who’s seen the MWP wiped out of the Climastrology history books. He’s the one that sees how much the temperature trend just from 1880 to 1980 has evolved to make the warming look worse. HE’s seen the .5 to .7C cooling from 1940-1975 also vanish from the record.

          • planet8788

            And then (speaking of large error margins), there’s the latest “ocean heat” craze… trying to detect .01C changes across the whole depth of the ocean… LOL.

          • old guy

            Only an idiot would question a man of his stature. I have been in the science game for over 60 years, published over 30 papers, all classified (except my graduate thesis). I retired as the NAVY’s Director of Science and Technology and can tell you that Dr. Giaever is as solid a scientist as you will find in ANY subject that he cares to comment on.
            I am an AeE and have Worked three orbiting geophysical observatories (OGO, EOGO, and POGO) and agree with him 100%.

          • yfdgjr

            Quote from the man: ”

            “I am not really terribly interested in
            global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But
            in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn
            something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on
            Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to
            explain to you why that was the case.
            Read more at http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/#KUHyVtjFl5RVcOTA.99

            Question EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. As a scientist, you should know that.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            “Question EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.”

            That includesSnopes.

            Snopes.com is a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

          • UrabanoMucho

            The only question is, is that quote accurate or not. No the qualifications of Snopes.com. You climate deniers are very good at throwing distractors out there.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            (You’re missing part of a sentence …)

            Climate deniers are very good at throwing ‘distractors’ out there?

            Really? And what do you think this entire thread is?

            It’s one long litany of “Oh, he’s not a climate scientist, so he’s not qualified to voice an opinion.” Not one of you has attempted to dispute anything he actually said … all you’ve done is imply he’s not smart enough to understand what’s going on.

            As I noted elsewhere on this thread, climate science is based on physics. Unless the laws of physics change when they’re applied to climate, Giaever is fully qualified to understand it and to have an opinion.

            Your quote from him is only a partial quote, as demonstrated by the last sentence: “And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.” Then you, and Snopes, just stop right there.

            Snopes devotes a large portion of that article to the petition that was signed by 36 of the Nobel Laureates at the conference. What they failed to mention (as are many other alarmist pundits) was that there were 65 attendees … which means 29 dissented. That’s 47%.

            The failure to put that number into full context is typical of the kind of incomplete and outright disingenuous information that is put out there by alarmists, including scientists, that we skeptics have to wade through on a daily basis.

            Snopes also expressed outrage that Giaever insulted climate scientists by saying that AGW resembles a ‘religion.’ Well, what else would you call it when it’s declared by alarmists that “the debate is over, the science is settled?” It certainly isn’t science!

          • UrabanoMucho

            Like I told the other guy, you are becoming very tedious and no longer entertaining. In the end this will be solved politically. In the meantime, take your meds and try not to bust an eye ball vessel over this gigantic conspiracy and find something more productive to do. I’m sure you have other things to do. I sure do.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            There, there, little man. Wipe those tears.

            YOU decided to insert yourself into this conversation. Nobody’s fault but your own if you can’t keep up.

            It is interesting, though, how the alarmist camp is divided into two different camps. One, like you, who don’t give a damn about the science … only the political solutions drive your ideology. Two, the camp that pretends to focus strictly on the science, and claims that the political side has no bearing on the issue.

            Kinda schizophrenic, if you ask me.

          • Curtis Conway

            Sanity at last, but remember, facts, data, and truth mean nothing to these people.

          • old guy

            I call it “The Galileo Effect”. Zealots, like you will cling to your argument despite facts, often citing OPTNION, lie it was data. I would like to hear your ravings over this FACTUAL global temperature chart, It is peer-reviewed and published in the “Journal of Physics,”

            The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

          • old guy

            So what,
            I never published a paper on.”IDIOTS OF THE WORLD>” but I bet thatI could identify them. Don’t worry, I won’t leave you out

          • Antigone
          • danram

            Something tells me that if he were instead raving about the dangers of global warming … oops, climate change … you wouldn’t have any problem at all with his credentials.

          • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

            I see this argument all the time.

            If a layman says they are skepitcal about AGW, then they are told they don’t understand science.

            If a scientist says they are skeptical about AGW, then they are told their opinion isn’t valid because they aren’t a Climate Scientist.

            If a climate scientist says they are skeptical about AGW, then they are labeled a crackpot.

            See how that works? It’s called a chilling effect (ironic), and it is used to stifle debate and keep scientists in line. Why would a modern climate scientist want to risk their career over it? Why would other scientists want to risk being labeled a “denier” or “unscientific” when it isn’t even their field? The few that do are either so well established or old that they simply don’t care what others will say about them.

            Now, it does help if a person is a scientist or at least well educated in the sciences, regardless of their specific field of study. Someone like Giaever has the ability to read a technical paper and understand it and be able to point out what might be questionable in it. The average person might have difficulty doing that because technical papers aren’t something most people read outside of school if ever.

            I’d also point out that he is a physicist, and that the very mechanics of AGW are explained by physics. I am sure Dr. Giaver knows enough about molecular bond energies and absorption of electromagnetic radiation to have a rather educated discussion about it.

          • Sabretruthtiger

            Scumbag troll shills like you always commit the argumentum ad vercundiam logical fallacy, and misuse it at that. As physics incorporates all key aspects common to the vast majority of sciences, i.e. systems anlaysis, physical properties of elements, mathematics etc then he as a Noble prize-winning genius is extremely able to see through the political scam that is global warming.

        • old guy

          I agree. Probably where the brokers would come from.
          Incidentally, have you noticed that oil prices are plummeting, while gasoline prices are skyrocketing?

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            Did you forget a /sarc tag???

        • Sabretruthtiger

          Wrong.

          The funding for alarmism via governments and their banking owners are billions of times the skeptical side.

          All the science supports the skeptics.

          You lose.

          • RealMrTea

            Quite the contrary. The obvious is true. Oil/Coal/Gas companies have many billions to lose grime the tradition to energy that won’t cook us. They therefore spend billions a year to maintain profits. Meanwhile the entire s identification community (much including scientists that get ZERO in funding from any grants) agree on the reality of climate change. http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php this alone proves your baseless statement wrong. These science agencies also don’t just have “opinions” as you do. They look at the mountains of scientific data available from hundreds of sources (around the world) that have been collected (for decades) by thousands of science teams. Your meme of scientists (all of a sudden) becoming massively corrupt and (somehow) in collusion is not only unsubstantiated. It is laughable. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming.

          • http://tharsishighlands.com Rod Martin, Jr.

            “Big Oil” is behind the climate change hoax. The Rockefellers can offload their fossil fuel portfolio, but they are still “Big Oil” in my book. They would be nobodies if it weren’t for their stake in Big Oil.

      • old guy

        Here’s how it would work.
        1. A UN panel allots carbon quotas to all countries, based on population.
        2. The industrialized countries will exceed their quotas.
        3.The “Third world” counties will have have a surplus allotment.
        4. Brokers will transfer these credits to deficit countries, FOR A BIG FEE.
        5, You Are right, there is NO difference in the amount of carbon released.
        6. There is NO incentive to reduce the emissions.
        7. Fortunately, the whole anthropogenic effect is B.S. and there is NO data to the contrary.
        (SEE THE CHART IN THE ARTICLE)
        so the only result is more rich crooks, like GORE.

        • UrabanoMucho

          What rock are you living under–or has dementia set in?

          • fierro1944

            Tsk, tsk, just how I’d imagine an immature pre-pubescent type would react to being proven less capable than his opponent; throw an insult or a rock and hope for a direct hit.

            You lose.

      • Alice W. Nixon
    • Hammer 24

      Climate Demanders are nashing their teeth. You’re not supposed to point out opposing data and facts. I will give them political credit for changing the movement from Global Warming to “Climate Change”. Now they can argue any day of the year as evidence. i.e. Any given day is record hot SOMEWHERE, Climate change!. (granted, last record was 80 years ago) No records? Make one up. “Hottest 3rd Tuesday of a Month ending in letter J EVER!” I’m tired of it. Climate Demanders…..Now that’s a religion.

      • yfdgjr

        So is denial. This entire website is paid for by a man whose mission in life is to deny climate change. It’s complete propoganda.

        http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a7078/marc-morano-0410/

        • TeaPartyGeezer

          Are you denying that there are websites dedicated to climate alarmism? And that they don’t engage in propaganda?

          Your issue isn’t the use of propaganda so much as whose side is using it and how effective they are.

          The fact that Morano disputes climate hysteria, and is very effective at using satire in combatting it, seems to drive you to distraction. All I can say is … HOORAY!

          • UrabanoMucho

            My young kids respond to accusations this same way–you did it, no you did it and so on.

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            So?

            Irrelevant … unless you are denying that the pro-AGW side engages in propaganda.

            ‘yfdgjr’ came on this website and complained that “it’s complete propaganda.” Do you think that propaganda on this issue has been, heretofore, completely unheard of … and/or used only by skeptics?

            If not, what’s your point?

          • forevergeeky

            I applaud that there are websites dedicated to informing the public as to the truth of a changing climate…

          • TeaPartyGeezer

            As do I. This is one of them.

    • RealMrTea

      Peer revbiewed science… Published in the Institute of Physics Journal.

      Showing 97% of the actual published science agrees…..

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

      Anecdotal information is not evidence, which anyone actually involved in science would instantly recognize….

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

      There is never 100% concensus, and 97% is a phenomenally large, almost unheard of percentage.

      And every science agency in the world agrees on this….

      http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

      Science is simply not on your side…… So whos side are YOU on?

      http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

      Hmmmm….

      • Bjorn Ramstad

        There should be a 100% agreement about climate change. The climate has always been changing. It is changing, and it will change in the future. Get used to it.
        Another question is if the change we have vitnessed the past 100 years or so is the effect of humang activities, and if this change is fatal for the globe.
        Numbers (which are the only thing to trust in science) show there’s no cause for alarm. Only the output from the IPCC models are predicting catastrophy. All measurment show the models are wrong.

        • UrabanoMucho

          Which measurements are you referring to? The thermometer outside your window? The models have gotten better as more powerful computers and better modeling software have become available. They all show the same thing global warming with melting ice, changes of ocean temperatures and currents, rising sea levels, melting permafrost, destruction of habitat, etc . All corresponding to the accelerating concentrations of CO2 among other gasses since the industrial revolution. So maybe if you have bought a lot of land in the foothills anticipating it becoming sea front property, it’s not catastrophic.

          • Bjorn Ramstad

            If you really seek the truth about climate change and temperature, I’m sure you find data which the internet offers on may be thousand sites.
            E.G. NIPCC and climate4you.

      • bunnyb0y

        The “97% of climate scientists agree”, is an outright lie or deliberate ignorance repeated by the useful idiots.
        To quote Richard Tol:
        “The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
        Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”

        • oldtimered

          Excellent.
          The sane people of the world thank you.

    • Jeff Christie

      Dr. Giaever, a multi-millionaire, shared his 1973 Nobel Prize with two other scientists for experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. This has nothing to do with weather and climate. Shock media is reporting this as if it were a standalone news item. What is not being reported is that at the same meeting, 36 other Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015
      to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.”

      http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mainau-Declaration-2015-EN.pdf

      • Bjorn Ramstad

        Global co2 emissions should not be limitted.
        Co2 make the globe greener, and increases agriculture yields.
        Co2 optimum for most plants is probably around 2000 ppm.
        Co2 is no pollution. It’s beneficial for life.

        • oldtimered

          And don’t forget CO2 rises after temperatures rise and if the temperature rises too high CO2 naturally helps lower it.
          Check that science out and forget making Al Gore rich.

        • UrabanoMucho

          Yes lets go back to CO2 levels of the late Paleozoic about 1500 ppm and the temperatures which were over 12 degrees warmer. Interestingly enough as the plant life bound CO2 and it was buried to turn into oil later, the temperatures came down to todays levels. By burning that oil we are putting that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            We are not. Your theory is ridiculous and provides no basis to support your theory.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Not theory at all. Geologic fact. Look it up.

        • troll e troll

          excuse me but…

    • Curtis Conway

      When Al gore left the white House as vice President he was worth about $8 Million. Within less than a decade he was worth $100 Million. The topic of this article (mostly Carbon Credits) is what made him rich when the Europeans bought the argument, and they have been paying for it ever since, and going broke doing it with the ever increasing regulations.

    • https://www.facebook.com/FarRightOfLeft Farrightofleft

      The MSM is PBS for the easily misled.

    • delireweb

      This article puts a lot of emphasis on his Nobel prize. What it doesn’t say however, is that Giaever’s shared his Nobel prize, specifically for his *experimental* discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. Scientists are human beings : many of them count on funding for putting a steak on their table. Since researchers are more and more dependent on private funding, even in Universities, it became quite easy to break a scientist integrity. Some even get their “recognition” solely after agreeing to publish stuff that are complying to business or lobbying agendas.

  • MikeW

    The Global Warming Religion should stop taking money from unbelievers.

    • don

      think about what you just said–please WHERE would they get their billions from–IF THEY WAS TO TELL THE TRUTH

  • Gus

    A simple, elegant paper by Chilingar et al [1] (three of the paper’s four authors wrote a classic book on climate [2]) disproves the whole CAGW baloney in just a few equations and a couple of graphs. Brilliant. Every climate “scientist” should read it.
    [1] 10.4236/acs.2014.45072 (ACS, 2014, 4, 819-827)
    [2] ISBN-13: 978-0444528155, ISBN-10: 0444528156

  • RALPH ANISMAN

    BECAUSE OF THE HIGH PROFILE OF THIS NOBEL LAUREATE, I AM SUGGESTING THAT THE CBC (CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) DO AN IN DEPTH INTERVIEW OF THIS MAN TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY AS HE HAS BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

    • T.G. Crewe

      Like his day, maybe less on Google to come to his concensus?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-save-our-United-States-Postal-Service/274848372536954?ref=hl ET-10 Simmons

      I am suggesting that you disengage the CAPSLOCK key. If you have to ‘yell’ to make your point, maybe it’s not worth making?..

  • FrackmanGasser

    When the UN itself admits that ‘climate change’ is not about the environment, but rather is a smokescreen for economic redistribution, you really have to wonder why anybody buys into it: IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” And more recently: At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      It’s easy to understand why they buy into it – ‘economic redistribution’ is seen as a positive good.

      And that they seek to ‘transform the economic development model for the first time in human history’ shows they’re a lot more interested in forcing others to believe as THEY do, than actually having something that works.

      • don

        they are liars money only goes into their lying pockets

      • troll e troll

        I am with you, the future is scary please let me stay in the past.

    • Susan Wood

      Perhaps we should start with their wealth–but that will never happen. It’s not just wealth they’re interested in, it’s power.

      • plusaf

        Follow the Money, Follow the Power, Follow the Desire to Control and Manipulate!
        => Find the Warmites.

        • UrabanoMucho

          I did and it lead to the Koch brothers

    • Jae Gregory

      Your quote is not accurate. You are spreading misinformation. Stop it.

      • plusaf

        Casual observation belies your assertions. Stop it.

        • UrabanoMucho

          No ones ever seriously proposed paying for health care with “global warming taxes” whatever those are. Since you don’t give any context, I’m guessing that the senator made some off the cuff speculations in response to some question and since it lit up two right wing hot buttons, national health care, and some kind of tax associated with global warming, the s—-t began to fly and the truth will never be known. I mean talk about fear mongering.

    • oldtimered

      Senator Nelson of Florida said that too. He was in Tallahassee Florida at a democrat meeting, he did not know he was being filmed. He also said that global warming taxes will pay for national health insurance.
      Well Nelson and the other communists lost that tax,. So what are they doing to pay for the socialized medicine of the USA. They are taking over $600 billion from Medicare. So all of the elderly and about to be 65 kiss your ass goodbye if you are depending on the promise of Medicare. You don’t matter. The unemployed and lazy will get the money you paid in to Medicare in your taxes.
      Don’t we just love the democrat politicians and there superior attitude. BS.
      Pray for the USA and the world.

  • Marko Knežević

    GW is used to coin a CO2 tax. Enough said. Al Gore can stick that platform that he uses to make his chart more important up where the sun never shines.

    What I find most worrisome is the fact people are effectively, day in day out, being brainwashed into being afraid of weather. “Heat strokes, red alert, purple alert, stay in your homes, whatever you do don’t get out” kind of bullcrap can be heard about every 5 minutes from various weather “forecasts.” Hey man, you’re forecasting weather, I don’t need to hear how today, tomorrow and 6 more days during the following week will be the warmest days since your “scientists” started forging data. I don’t need you tell me what I should be doing and how should I be conducting my daily affairs. Give me the forecast, that is your best guess based on the weather during the last 5 minutes, and shut the hell up.

  • Seeker6j

    This says it all. Look at the chart.http://scotese.com/climate.htm

    • James

      You must really hate your descendants to subject them to what is unfolding. All this nonsense has been debunked by real scientists.

  • themacabre

    The most disappointing aspect of this are the so called ‘scientists’ who support Man Made Global Warming and use absurd phrases like – the science is settled, or all the polls support our view…any ‘scientist’ that puts his ego above their search for facts should lose any scientific credentials they possess.

    • PartyOfLincoln

      They support themselves. If global warming is proven to be a farce, like I know it is, they would be out of a job!

      • don

        your right-eeeehaaaaa—-lies keep them in money

  • adrianvance

    Bingo! Perhaps this will start a movement! The facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, the longest in history.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    • zlop

      “CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition”?

      CO2 interferes with and modulates the effects of H2O — has weather effects, perhaps Cools the surface a little, by lowering clouds.

      • Bjorn Ramstad

        Genuin scientists say science is numbers.
        The numbers say IPCC’s models are wrong.
        Numbers say temperature stable for more than 18 years.

        • zlop

          For the more than $100 billion spent, trying to prove that CO2
          increases the greenhouse effect, therefore warms, perhaps,
          an actual experiment could have been done for a few million.

          Build a large well insulated centrifuge (mapping of centrifugal
          and gravitational force is one to one and onto) put a
          Sun lamp in the middle and try various gas combinations.

    • James

      Do you like it when an auto salesman or snake oil salesman rips you off? You are just a pawn of the Koch brothers and their phony front organization and paid off climate change deniers. But then again you probably believed the “Doctors” that said tobacco was good for you.
      People who do not accept the science are very foolish and obviously hate their children and grandchildren to leave them a planet worse off than the one they lived on

      http://climate.nasa.gov/

      • MetricButtload

        you’re just a dumb monkey on a keyboard aren’t you? Just figured out copy and paste?

      • planet8788

        Satellite data shows no warming for 18 years… why are you a denier?

      • adrianvance

        I happen to know and understand the real science and am not buying the sham science, as are you. I note you have dealt with one fact I have posted above.

    • Michael Long

      The irony with the vegans not eating meat is that more large herbivors are then free to roam the planet and produce more methane. If they truly believe their theory then they should instead be on a strictly carnivorous diet in order to better control those environment destroying animals…

    • UrabanoMucho

      Ok here we go again a denier that gets carried away with the greenhouse metaphor, but really doesn’t get the science. Its all about the radiation. Infrared is absorbed and reradiated by greenhouse gases. That rewarms the surface and the atmosphere. Water vapor increases the effect. Just simple reading of charts can be misleading especially if that’s what you want if to mean in the first place.

  • zlop

    Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever understands not;
    Climate Science is Mind Control.

  • James

    Ah yes, the satellite graph is back. The satellite measured temperatures in the troposphere – not at the surface. Totally debunked
    Climate Change is very real and this nobel laureate obviously does not care for the survival of his descendents.

    • bunnyb0y

      By using the phrase “Climate Change” instead of man made global warming, you have already admitted defeat. Climate is always changing, we don’t debate that. What we do debate is whether man has any overall impact on climate & if so, is the change good or bad. We then need to decide “if” bad does the cost of “fixing” the problem cause more long term damage then if those resources where used for other advancements. You could mandate that all vehicles run on solar power by 2020 but the damage done to our economy and mass starvation would far outstrip any potential “good” environmental change.

      • James

        Got it. It is OK that your descendants suffer and die as long as you do not have to make any small sacrifices now.

        • bunnyb0y

          No James you didn’t get it. Keep trying though. Maybe have a parent or teacher explain it to you? Seriously, the number of deaths due to climate is at a all time low! We actually cause suffering and death when we try to fix a non existent problem. When European countries in an effort to comply with the ill conceived Kyoto treaty reduce power production it resulted in between 40,000-70,000 deaths in 2003. That is a whole bunch of people who need not have died. More and more people have a chance to HAVE descendants nowadays due to our use of fossil fuels.

          • T.G. Crewe

            How was the heat wave and it’s deaths caused by Kyoto?

          • bunnyb0y

            The Kyoto treaty forced many European countries to lower power production to meet the reductions in co2. This ended up rising the price of electricity which many elderly & poor could not afford (even if they could afford there would not have been enough power).

          • bunnyb0y

            European countries in an effort to comply with the treaty mandated co2 reductions began reducing power production. This increased an already very high cost of energy. Many poor & elderly could not afford to turn on a/c & even if they could, the power supply would not have been able to meet demand.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-save-our-United-States-Postal-Service/274848372536954?ref=hl ET-10 Simmons

      Global mean ‘surface’ temperature… You’d apparently rather snowball Earth?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        You will NEVER hear what temperature the Earth is SUPPOSED to be at from an AGW believer. Do they want global temperatures like during the 1800s? How about the 1920s? How about during the Medieval Warming Period? Or the Little Ice Age?

        All they know is that they’ve got to force people to conform to their ideas to avert some unspecified change. They have no knowledge of positive or negative feedback systems, they just know “OMG! LOOKIT DA GRAPHS! WE GONNA BOIL IF SOMEONE DON’T DO SOMETHIN!”

        And they’re just waiting for someone to tell them what to do to be ‘saved’. They should have gone evangelical Baptist for that…

    • Cheyenne-Jim

      Climate change is real? Why because you say it is? Again where is the proof. Ah that’s right none exists.

  • Mick

    As a visiting biologist at the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St Petersburg fifteen years ago, I had had a conversation with one of their meteorologists. He told me the following ‘ The contribution of human CO2 emissions to global temperature lies in in the second place of decimals of a degree centigrade, they may reinforce natural warming, or mitigate natural cooling by a few hundredths of a degree, but they do not drive our climate. Following the issue over the last 15 years, I think he was spot on

    • James

      So you are relying on an anecdotal account of an unqualified biologist that you met in the Arctic 15 years ago? God help us (If there was a God)

      http://climate.nasa.gov/

      • MetricButtload

        any you’re relying on an equally unreliable source if you are using NASA. Do a little bit of your own research and see how many times NASA’s data has been discredited, even by the climate change scientific community. Even thy know it’s not worth anything. Apparently a scientific body subject to political agendas is somehow superior to independent scientists. Greta logic, Sure glad no one relies on you for anything that matters

        • UrabanoMucho

          Everyone’s paid off and there is no scientific honesty. NASA can’t make a good climate model or is also on the take, but they can create Opportunity Rover and the Pluto flyby. What have the rest of you “independent scientists done? Oh wait a minute didn’t Bush try to suppress global warming when it started coming out from NOAA? Obama must be doing the same in reverse right. Actually he’s the only president who made a point of saying science should be restored to its rightful place. Bush didn’t understand or trust it.

      • cheyenne-Jim

        Oh there is a God. Explain random whatever coming together and creating life and complex organisms. If that were the case not only would life be just dropping out of the sky and crawling out of the oceans, but the rest of the universe would have random life popping up everywhere. Yes there is a God, and his name is Jehovah.

      • don

        beats hell out of what your people lies about

      • MH

        I have spent more than 40 years developing and using computer models of star atmospheres, earth’s atmosphere, airplanes, space station environment. I learned long ago that a computer model that makes a prediction that can not and is not duplicated by an actual controlled measurement is worthless. The climate models you seem to think are so scientific predict a hot spot in the atmosphere which several attempts failed to find. They predict increased temperatures that have not happened for 18 years. By their own admission the climate scientists ackowledge use of “fudge factor” which are obviously not well understood. Most people do not comprehend how complex the earth’s atmosphere is. I once had a professor that said that a model running a “full-up, realtime” model of the earth’s atmosphere would require the fastest computer known, solely dedicated to the model. It would have to start running the day the earth formed until today and it would still not be done. Think about that for a while.
        As far as God is concerned- perhaps you need to remember how many climate change conferences have been conducted during snow storms. The only one I recall was in Tahiti. Always knew God had a sense of humor.

      • Mick

        I am the qualified biologist, the man I spoke with was the meteorologist for the Arctic Research Institute. You are obviously unable to read and understand my post.

      • whiteaglesoaring

        You don”t read for comprehension, do you! Mick is the biologist. The information came from a meteorologist

      • planet8788

        biologist? what?

    • UrabanoMucho

      Also are you talking about St Petersburg Russia? Some of their science is way off.

      • Mick

        Vague and unspecified criticisms have no value. The Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute have been publishing papers in peer reviewed scientific journals for decades, and have the highest reputation

        • UrabanoMucho

          If you want specific comment then you must give something specific to begin with like sources for the actual research. All you have is a personal conversation from fifteen years ago– in which time much more data has been accumulated. I mean give me something within the last five years.

          • Mick

            What evidence can you produce to support your claim that the AARI science is way off

  • Mike_Hohmann

    THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS is explained at http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68 , and public acknowledgements by the IPCC itself that the whole global warming prestidigitation is a complete swindle is recorded at http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf

  • Mervyn

    It is good to know that high profile scientists are speaking out against the flawed global warming doctrine. It really has become a religion … and now religion has truly moulded itself around it in the form of the Catholic Church, which has lost its moral compass.

    If the Paris climate conference in December achieves an international agreement limiting fossil fuel energy use, and effectively giving the green light to the imposition of the UN’s AGENDA 21, coupled with the ‘European Soviet’ that has adopted the ideology of environmentalism, the world will undoubtingly enter an era of authoritarianism and tyranny.

    • Jae Gregory

      Climate Science is a religion, you’re perhaps the 50th person on here to use that phrase. Wonder who put it in your head? Hmmmm can’t imagine.

      • planet8788

        It’s a consensus…. and it’s the truth in this case.

  • PartyOfLincoln

    Thank God! Liberals almost had me convinced the sky was falling. I calibrate lab equipment and I know 2°C is well within the allowable error of the measurement device. We need to focus on the Toxins we pump into the environment and protecting wildlife!

  • sth_txs

    It was a money scam from the beginning. Also, none of the dire predictions every came true. Hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires are no worse. World crop production has been increasing so no starvation at this time. The surface ice and snow cover are fine with no decreasing trend. No ice free Arctic or climate refugees.

    • James

      Been watching False News have we?
      No evidence whatsoever. As for climate deniers they are funded by the Kochroach brothers or their phony front organizations. All their claims have been debunked.
      Or do you think that God will save you?

      • sth_txs

        You can use Al Gore’s invention of the internet to see any of those numbers of over the years. Only an idiot thinks there is GW. If you really believe it, put a plastic sack over your head for a few minutes and save some resources for the rest of us.

      • cheyenne-Jim

        Climate deniers? You get a leading Nobel award scientist stating that this is a farce and the left still will not accept it. You are given scientific data showing the earth has cyclic climate patterns and you wont accept it. The climate change garbage is just that. In the 70’s it was oh no we will be going through the next ice age by 2015, then when they seen that was a big oops, they decided to go the other way with it. By the way this article was carried by MSN, Yahoo, fox Washington Times, and more. So are they all wrong too?
        And as far as thinking God can save you? the answer is yes. However if you choose to debunk that you will meet God one day and I will laugh to see you deny that.

        • T.G. Crewe

          Are they all wrong, when you are peddling/linking to an op ed/blog piece written by CFACT as a legitimate news story… well, you decide.

          This Nobel Winner said clearly that he knows nothing about the Climate Sciences because as a Physicist he did not need to know about it but spent a day, maybe less Googling things at home before he made the speech, then Marc grabs you twits in with the inflammatory “Obama is dead wrong” and you guys lap it up.

          It would be cute if it were not so dangerous.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            He’s seeing the equivalent of people insisting that 2+2=5.

            How much Googling does it take to figure out that’s wrong?

          • T.G. Crewe

            What sources did he use – CFACT and Climate Depot. or actual peer reviewed science done by people in the field of climate science?

            If I spent a day on Google I could show you that a family of Yeti’s are running a Nazi Moon base, does that make it true?

          • DrCroland

            Thank you TG, for pointing this out. That crackpot knows absolutely nothing about climate science. “Climate Depot” (a division of Koch Bros. Enterprises) had to use him because no real climate scientist would go along with their bullshit propaganda.

          • planet8788

            Yes,,, because physics has nothing to do with climate science…. BAAAA HAAAHAAA

        • Kori

          There’s scientific data on both sides suggesting what they believe is happening, and I suppose both can be credible.

          However, it’s difficult for me to think that anyone can be okay with polluting the air and then breathing it in. Carbon dioxide is a known toxin to humans. Dr. Giaever brings up a good point that plants breathe it in (hooray for elementary science!), but humans are destroying forests and harming vegetation by a) not knowing how to rotate crops correctly and b) removing species from these ecosystems that encourage plant growth. We can’t expect to keep spewing carbon dioxide into the air while also destroying the plants that take it in.

          Also, Venus is an excellent example of what happens when the greenhouse effect goes haywire. The Earth is not the only planet that can hold carbon dioxide into its atmosphere. (And a side note: Dr. Giaever fails to mention the other harmful gases like methane and nitrogen oxides. He also fails to bring up that in excess, these gases -are- harmful. Currently, these gases are in excess in our atmosphere.)

          To answer your question of “can a news source be wrong”: of course they can. Human error exists and you’d be mistaken to believe that all news sources just can’t be wrong. I mean, just look at FOX; they can get away with being right only %18 of the time.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
          • Kori

            I, too, can look up a graph depicting sea level rise showing what I believe.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            All this proves is that both sides have evidence backed by experiments and data.

          • planet8788

            From NASA,
            Decreased snow cover
            Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.16

            What they fail to tell you is Fall and winter snow cover is increasing… LOL. Proof of bad intent

          • Kori

            Is that them failing to tell me, or you trying to tell me that climate change is disproved just because you see more snow?

            Fall and winter snow is increasing because there is more moisture in the air that allows for more extreme precipitation. So, in areas where snowfall generally occurs, you have massive amounts when the season comes, and everything melting in the Spring much more quickly than it should. That right there is cause for alarm, and you’re just laughing at it.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

            That link might help you with the confusion you’re experiencing.

          • planet8788

            Except… it still has to be cold for snow to accumulate… and satellites show no warming at all for 18 years. So if it melts earlier in the spring… why wouldn’t fall snow also be affected?

            That website is as corrupt and biased as NASA.

          • Kori

            Climate change doesn’t mean it gets colder OR warmer. It’s getting hotter in the summer AND colder in the winter. This allows for much more extreme weather to happen, which is why you see more snow in winter and hotter days in summer.

            I’d be less concerned by your argument if you posted credible sources to what you say, instead of just repeating the 18 years stat.

          • planet8788

            RSS and UAH data sets at woodfortrees.org.

          • planet8788

            They said the same thing in the 1970’s about global cooling. Seriously… So increasing heat doesn’t make it warmer… Okay. I’ve got a bridge at the north pole to sell you.

          • UrabanoMucho

            The 70’s was the 70’s. Much harder to get all the data together back then and no way to model the climate nearly as well as now.

          • planet8788

            All the models have been wrong… Not hard to get data… you actually had more data in the 1970’s. Now there are fewer and fewer stations… Totally bogus comment.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Now I see why you are planet8788, because you live in your own world–I mean you make no sense whatsoever–ever heard of big data? That’s now, I was in college in the seventies and they could only crunch a very small amt of data at a time.

          • planet8788

            Yes… Averaging is really intensive mathematics… LOL…
            And yes… all those fancy models… are all wrong.

            Big Data is worthless when it’s run through a poor model. LOL.

          • UrabanoMucho

            LOL except that’s not true. Proof of your bad intent.

          • planet8788

            Yes it is true.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Yeah, where did this come from, what were the methods used? I guess we can loose gigantic chunks of Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves and not have any sea level rise.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Satellite measurements. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

            Their main site is http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

            And they’re invested in the OMG WE’RE GONNA ALL MELT! theology.

            You DO know that geologically Greenland is a massive bowl, correct? And the extended ice shelves off of Antarctica are already floating on the water, so their sudden loss wouldn’t affect sea level, any more than the melting of ice in your glass would cause the liquid level to rise.

          • UrabanoMucho

            So the chart showing the decrease in polar ice area means something else besides melting. Other data show that is it also thinner. The sea level has risen–fact dude–maybe someone got the rational wrong but it doesn’t change the fact.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Oh, I’m not denying it’s risen – there are roman-era seaports that are well under water. But catastrophic “OMG WE’RE GONNA LOSE FLORIDA!” scenarios are so much junk, and you can look at the Dutch to see what can be done to prevent flooding.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Really? Seawalls, Dikes, and Dams all around Florida? Wouldn’t be easier to stop all the problems at once by stopping global warming?

          • DrCroland

            Thank you Kori, I am encouraged to see that there are at least some people here who are actually willing to see what’s happening around them and face facts. These other people probably just sit around all day pleasuring themselves while watching Fox News.

          • Kori

            See, saying that as part of your argument doesn’t help the problem either. To keep debate alive and thriving with conversation, you need to treat the opponent with respect even if they choose not to show it to you. This whole topic doesn’t have to be a discussion revolving around who’s the better insulter.

          • Jae Gregory

            Here here!!!

          • oldtimered

            He can’t be respectful. His nature is to accept the big lie for profit or power or just being popular at liberal cocktail parties.
            His argument fails and he has to follow his communist base plan to just denigrate the truth and the person responsible for disseminating it.
            The evil of this administration is being held back, but not enough.
            If the lie of global warming is presented to the children the law wins.
            My grandchildren are becoming sure global warming is false. They are still a little afraid of telling the truth in public and have been advised to just be quiet in some classes or debates.
            The evil of government is in the schools and has been for too long.
            The new law will give the Secretary of Education almost unlimited power even over parochial, private schools and home schooling if it passes.
            Our children and grandchildren will be taught lies and false history. They will be neutered Americans. Make sure you watch this and make sure congress does not pass this law.
            When our children were taught about the trial and tribulation and faith and law we did become the best the world has ever seen; even though we were made up of the worlds populations.
            Now the communist evil has captured our scientists, government, bankers, schools and almost our military.
            Tell the children the truth and get the communists and rino’s out of government or prepare for the third world country called the USA,
            Pray for the USA and the world.

          • planet8788

            Venus is hot because it has higher pressure in it’s atmosphere… it’s not a runaway greenhouse. 18 years of satellite data… no warming.

          • Kori

            The dense atmospheric pressure comes from the continuous release of carbon dioxide gas from Venus’ surface to its atmosphere. If Venus had oceans and plant-life, this greenhouse effect wouldn’t happen. Basically, if it were more like Earth, it would have survived because oceans help to absorb carbon dioxide. We’re also lucky that the carbon dioxide reserves beneath our surface are in the form of rock shale, unlike on Venus. It’s pretty awesome how important oceans are to a planet and its atmosphere.

            This article is useful in that it helps break down what went wrong with Venus: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm

            I highly suggest reading it to get some perspective.

          • planet8788

            That’s fine… but it’s no because of greenhouse effect.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Hey planet, higher pressure doesn’t equal higher temperature. Its the process of compressing gas that causes an increase in temperature. For what you say to make any sense the atmosphere of Venus would have to be continually being squeezed to higher and higher pressures by some outside force. That’s not happening, the volume of Venus atmosphere is stable regardless of its pressure. It is the CO2 and the proximity to the sun that causes the high temperatures. Basic physics dude.

          • planet8788

            Pressure affects volume… volume affects pressure. Both affect temperature. Basic physics pV=nrT

          • UrabanoMucho

            Ok so you copied the ideal gas law from somewhere–but you don’t get how it works. Something has to CHANGE to make the temperature go up or down, just because the pressure is high doesn’t mean the temperature is high. The equation describes any equilibrium in an ideal gas. The heat in Venus atmosphere comes from the sun and possibly from geothermal but has nothing to do with any particular pressure.

          • planet8788

            so the pressure of the atmosphere has no effect? not even on the concentration of CO2 molecules? You’re special.

            So why is it colder in the mountains? than at the beach?

          • UrabanoMucho

            The total amount or heat is less the less dense the gas is starting at , so there is less to begin with even at the same temperature. Yes the concentration of the CO2 makes a difference it contributes much more per unit of mass to the insulating effect than oxygen or nitrogen.The less dense air at altitude has less gas between it and outer space which is only 4 degrees above absolute zero, so is a infinite heat sink. Warmth at the surface of the mountain radiates away very quickly compared to warmth at the beach at sea level, and the thin air had less heat energy to begin with so everything gets colder faster the higher you go.

          • planet8788

            So i was right.. thank you

        • DrCroland

          Jimbo, that “scientist” may have received 10 Nobel awards for all I care, but I am not impressed because he is a lone crackpot. And he’s working for a special interest group that is paying him to say this. Unlike you, I am intelligent enough to pay attention to the overwhelming consensus of real scientists who acknowledge the truth. I am saddened that you can’t handle it.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            So Dr. here we go.
            Oh and by the way just because you place a Doctorate before your name does not make you intelligent or knowledgeable on anything.
            So based on that where is your proof of environmental or global change. It is all smoke and mirrors and readjusted figures. You state the polar cap is melting in discoveries but fail to state that it is refreezing at an unprecedented rate. They even found an old sailing vessel in an area of the once frozen polar cap area as to also indicate it had to get there somehow by sailing in at a time when the ice was melted. if you look at the history of recorded weather patterns about 110 years, you will see there is cyclical temperature (hot summers for periods of a few years) yet scientist cannot even back up what they are saying with it is getting hotter and hotter, storms are more severe but there is no evidence that they are any greater than what they were 100 years ago. The claims that the world is getting hotter, while we have record snowfalls and record cold temps. (you know that warmer means warmer right?). You have no proof that the world is getting hotter at all. In fact the same liberal pundits such as the believer you tout yourself to be stated in the 70’s that climate change would bring on the next ice age by 2015 as the world was getting colder. So which is it? Oh yeah like all liberals you cannot even come up with a good answer, just attacking us conservatives and Christians. stating we cannot handle it. I provided you with several examples but unlike you, you have given NONE!. All you all want to do is limit gas fired vehicles, coal power plants, save the fish by denying California the ability to store the runoff water since the late 50’s and then cry oh my we have a drought that has never been seen before. You forget the 1870’s when there was massive drought then. Don’t quote me hurricane super-cells and say they never have been like that before. Because there were devastating hurricanes on the east coast of 1893, 1896 and 1898 wiping out most of Savannah lowlands Tybee island and Hilton head which also stretched as far inland as Middle Georgia. So I will say again Dr.. you want to have a debate let’s go, Ill even bet you my IQ is higher than yours and as a member of MENSA I am proud to say that doc.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Ahem.. That old sailing vessel was trapped and abandoned in shifting ice until it was pushed to the bottom. Ice moves around up north. Are you familiar with the story of the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror and the search for the Northwest Passage? It truly is a fascinating story of courage and, some might argue folly. These men were looking for a faster way to the far east for trade and failed many times over.

            It has not been until recent times that successful navigation has been a regular thing, they are even looking to put together a yacht race now because it is reliably ice free, unlike the past.

          • planet8788

            NOt this year…. Not last year. you are a liar.

          • Jae Gregory

            Actually, receiving a doctorate degree does indeed make you quite knowledgeable in your field. If he’s a Dr, which is moot really. Climate change is not about anecdotal stories of record highs and lows in the last 100 years – though if you read actual factual studies instead of foxstudies that is quite compelling. Its thousands of years of records via ice core samples and the like. Why not take a week and open your mind, research the “other” side, see the scientific data, use a neutral (if only there were such a thing) source. Use your mensa gift with an open mind. The data is there, and even though science is not always exact and sometimes has an agenda, most of it is incontrovertible.

          • planet8788

            Record highs and record lows aren’t anecdotal…
            Are the trees popping up underneath the Mendenall glacier anecdotal too?

          • Michael Long

            One must also evaluate the methods and controls used in collecting the data, and any techniques or algorithms applied to adjust it. The final analysis must be performed with an open mind, allowing your theory to be proven or disproven by facts and not a political agenda to redistribute wealth to third world countries.
            The data used by all of the “climate scientists” on both sides of the argument (it can’t be called a debate, because the political left shuts that down) all comes from the same sources. When you see a graph from a publication which shows an outcome contrary to the political agenda, that graph is pulled directly from the research findings of the government funded paper promoting global warming.
            Anyone who actually bothers to read the papers published by the leading research teams simply cannot reconcile the predictions with the anomalies in the underlying data, even before taking into consideration the flawed methodologies in altering data to better fit the intended outcome.
            Collection of water temperatures includes both automated and manual sampling, with the latter based on drawing buckets of water, taking the temperature using a thermometer, and recording it in a log. Because the data did not trend with the expected outcome, the data collected using the bucket method was adjusted upward on the false assumption that the water in the bucket cooled while sitting on deck in the brief time required to take the temperature. If anything, the water would have warmed (anyone who lives near an ocean can try this experiment).
            Also, the sharp increase in CO2 levels does not trend with the modest increase in temperature, which indicates that CO2 is not the primary driver. However, the political agenda for wealth redistribution requires that man made CO2 be the primary factor.
            The most ardent proponents of global warming have caught red-handed falsifying data, after which the movement became “climate change.” News flash – the climate is always changing, with or without man. The baseline temperatures taken in the 1800’s and established as the “normal” are indicative of the end of a Little Ice Age, which began about 1300.
            Long before man could have had an impact on the environment, there were periods when the Earth had polar ice caps and periods when it did not. Claiming the “normal” temperature of Earth to be baseline established in the 1800’s and being alarmists over a 0.8 degree increase over the last century and a projected 0.8 degree increase over the next isn’t just junk science, it borders on the insane.

          • UrabanoMucho

            You started off sounding reasonable but then end up discussing whether a bucket of water on a deck would be hotter of cooler than someone claimed. No ones predicting 0.8 degree over the next century. They’re trying to stop it before it goes up over 2.0 but predict 4 or more degrees if nothing drastic is done. I don’t know where you get this stuff. I guess when you start dismissing NASA and International climate science organizations, you have to go scrape up something from the internet.

          • planet8788

            WHo is a climate scientist? What are the qualifications? It’s too complex for anyone to be an expert.. which is why maybe one model out of 70 has got it right.

        • UrabanoMucho

          He is not a leading noble scientist. He won a quarter of a noble for quantum tunneling. About the furthest thing from climate science I can imagine. No one would be paying any attention to him if the climate deniers weren’t so desperate to have some legitimacy.

      • planet8788

        no… been watching all the sites that monitor the arctic for the last 3 years whining about how the ice stopped disappearing.

      • planet8788

        Do you have any evidence whatsoever?
        Koch Brothers fund the UAH and RSS satellites?
        Strange… They don’t seem to know that.

        • James

          Here is perhaps the most infamous “prostitute” (climate denial for dollars) paid by the Kockroaches
          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

          As for the others you can Google “Koch funding for climate change deniers” as well as anyone

          • planet8788

            Strange… i didn’t find anything in there about the satellite data being controlled by the Koch brothers… If your models worked, it wouldn’t matter how much funding the Koch brothers gave…. but your Climastrology models are broke… because the science isn’t science… it’s activism.

  • Randy Hall

    I’m Going to call them prophets of doom. End time extremists.

  • T.G. Crewe

    Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever:

    “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google.”

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      And when HE could see how bogus it was… well, what’s the excuse for the believers?

      • T.G. Crewe

        lol, now that is funny but not surprising.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          When you have to constantly ‘adjust’ the raw numbers like a chiropractor on meth in order to make the theory look plausible, there might be something wrong with your theory.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

            A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides “goals, norms, and standards”. A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            And when the facts don’t conform to the theory, change the numbers so they do.

          • Michael Long

            Did you see the explanation by NOAA as regards why they’ve adjusted the numbers for the seawater samples? They’ve assumed that the water *cools* while sitting on deck before the temperature can be taken. Now there’s a theory that has no basis in reality. Any lay person can easily disprove this claim.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I saw that. You’ve got to just shake your head – they’ll take a long-established data station with high quality measurements, then ‘adjust’ the raw data so it merges with data from other stations of lesser quality.

            Seriously, if you’ve got to take the raw temperatures and ‘adjust’ them so they show a warming trend, you’ve gone from doing science to writing science fiction.

    • cheyenne-Jim

      Funny. Hawking is a cosmologist, but he says global warming is a serious threat. I suppose though that your view on this is Hawking is far more knowledgeable that Giaever. Where are your facts man, come out with them.

      • T.G. Crewe

        Stephen Hawkings was used in a tongue and cheek fashion.

  • Helen Jackman

    This so called expert is 100% wrong regarding the California drought, my large family are all California natives(75 yrs myself)and California is in the worst drought in history, no rain, no snow for five years. Our wonderful state is in real trouble.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Aided and abetted by the environmentalists in Sacramento who have been busy destroying dams, emptying reservoirs to help the ‘delta smelt’, and ignoring plans drawn up in the 60s and 70s to increase water storage because the planners at the time knew that more water was going to be needed for agriculture and an increasing population.

      Plus – if you look at California’s history – a lot of it’s a damn desert except near the coast. It was only dams, aqueducts and planning ahead that allowed California to grow as it did – and the ‘environmentalists’ have been busy rolling that back.

      That’s ‘progressives’ for you – to hell with the future, it’s all about getting votes from the idiotic ‘greens’.

      Take the money being spent on HSR and build dams and reservoirs – California’s going to be a lot better off.

      • T.G. Crewe

        To hell with the future. Only a hard core FF supporter could come up with that canard.

        A future of cleaner technology not reliant on the polluting factors of the old ways that creates jobs and a better environment for all is a better future than what the old guard espouses.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          So what’s the excuse for fighting nuclear power tooth and nail? Very manageable from a pollution standpoint, abundant energy – and solar and wind would never be sufficient.

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/gates_renewable_energy_cant_do_the_job_gov_should_switch_green_subsidies_into_rd/

          “Gates has said a lot of this before. The main new thing is the firm assertion that renewable energy technology as it now is has no chance of powering a reasonably numerous and well-off human race. This is actually a very simple thing to work out, and just about anybody numerate who thinks about the subject honestly comes to the same conclusion – examples include your correspondent, Google renewables experts, global-warming daddy James Hansen, even your more honest hardline greens(they typically think that the answer is for the human race to become a lot less numerous and well-off).”

          I think a whole lot of the greens would simply LOVE to see most of the population die off. Leaves more room for them, don’t ya know… and they never think that THEY might be part of the great die-off if they should get their way.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Who is fighting Nuclear? It was the FF groups that fought hard and funded some green groups in order to demonize Nuclear because they knew it would negate the need for coal and other dirty fuels. Add to that the threat of weapons, well it has made it difficult to move forward.

        • Michael Long

          The new technologies do not create long term jobs. Look at the outcomes in Europe.

          • T.G. Crewe

            don’t create long term jobs?

          • Michael Long

            No, they do not. Both wind turbines and solar panel systems have been proven to create short term jobs, many of which are temporary. Also, when the government subsidies run out the longer term full time jobs disappear.
            Like I said before, take a look at the outcomes in Europe. You could also look at every single investment by the Department of Energy in this sector, starting with Solyndra.

          • T.G. Crewe

            lol Solyndra there she is, was wondering how long before that name was thrown about.

            Green Job Growth outpaces losses in Coal industry – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article24783388.html

            Think Green Jobs Can’t Grow? 6.5 Million Workers Think You’re Wrong. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/12/think-green-jobs-cant-grow-6-5-million-workers-think-youre-wrong/

            I wonder what would happen if the Government stopped subsidizing the FF industry. I wonder how much faster the renewable market would grow.

      • James

        You cannot store water that is no longer coming from the snow melt.
        Or do all the lefties go into the mountains in the winter and melt it with their hair dryers?

        • cheyenne-Jim

          the snow melt runs to the ocean. research it.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          That’s why you plan ahead – plan a LONG way ahead and build reservoirs in areas that are prone to cyclic drought – like CALIFORNIA.

        • Michael Long

          They’ve let over 1 TRILLION gallons go straight into the ocean rather than being diverted for human use. Why? All to improve the habitat of the delta smelt.
          You have a man made water problem in California. When it begins to really annoy you people, then vote the fools out of office and defund the agency responsible.

          • T.G. Crewe

            ahem, there are more residents on the earth than just Humans. Allowing that water to flow helps all species. There is a ebb and flow to the earth, some are large cycles, some small but it all connects. Bio diversity and habitats are amazing things when you look at the loops.

            https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and that area changed.

          • Michael Long

            The water in California has been diverted to human use for decades. The current water shortage results both from drought, but is made far worse due to restricting the historical use in order to protect the delta smelt – a creature which had been surviving even with the prior use of water for agriculture and household consumption.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Do you think that a booming population beyond what was originally planned for may be a contributing factor?

            Why do Humans get first right of use?

    • PartyOfLincoln

      Your water problems have NOTHING to do with global warming and everything to do with over population and water mismanagement. Liberals in your state have killed every new water project since the 50’s because of environmental concerns. You keep voting Democrats into office, so choke on the dust!

      • cheyenne-Jim

        yeah man! good reply. It amazes me how moronic behavior now gets labeled as climate change. so go save some fish now and quit your whining about lack of water. Let’s do a test let’s look at documented heat for periods of 5 year stretches. Take the same summer month’s from 1900, now go to 1920, now jump to 1930 and so on. You will see there is not a temperature climb that is at all significant. Now take into effect they say that there is a .3 degree increase over a period of time. Well when you factor in digital measurements that did not exist as they do today. You can of course start to back up the smoke and mirrors of Climate change. But look at the last 100 years of 110 years documented weather and you will see if is a farce. Now it will take time, but make an excel spreadsheet and document it that way and you will see.
        Man thinks that we can have that kind of effect on this world? come on grow up.

      • planet8788

        That and the man made drought about 500 years ago was much worse.

    • MetricButtload

      First of all, you’re state is a toilet, it is not wonderful by any stretch, and you can thank the people you guys keep putting in office for that and you can blame the fact that you can read this type of article and think your point is relevant, that your anecdotal, one-off, unqualified opinion trumps a noble prize winning scientist. It’s this type of self deluded thinking that has caused the problems of your ‘wonderful” state

    • cheyenne-Jim

      Worst drought in History of 110 years of weather patterns documented. so that is not much history now is it. There are stories back in the 1870’s stating accounts of people talking of drought then too. Or go back further let’s talk about the drought documented in the Bible during Joseph’s time. Whether you believe the bible or not there is writing documented in that book stating drought and famine existed then. Here is the thing about climate change. It has existed since the beginning of time for the earth going from Cold to Steamy hot to cold again.

      California has had periods of moronic behavior and with the population expansion of California, the environmentalists blocked the building of aqueducts and holding areas for water runoff because of so called endangered fish and allowing the snow runoff from the mountains to flow to the sea. So in times of lack of rain, you now pay the price. So how is that endangered fish doing now? bet you wish you had approved the expansion of water reservoirs now don’t you?

    • planet8788

      About 500 years ago, the entire Southwest was almost totally uninhabitable due to drought.. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

  • JimmyChonga

    Communists are trying, best they can, to create an alternative economic system based on the false presumption that people are manipulating the climate – they’ll manipulate people to steer them into a false argument for their own gain. That’s the whole goal of “green science”; deception, manipulation and the destruction of freedom, personal property, self-determination and individualism.

  • ge556

    I’ll see your 1 non-climate scientist Nobel laureate, and raise you 35.
    http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I’d say, as a physicist, he knows a little bit about theories, numbers, data collection, and the testing of theories against collected data to verify whether the theory is true or not. Cook the data before presenting it, and you too could persuade a lot of scientists that something’s true when it’s false.

      The problem arises when they start seeing the real numbers, and they start to question the ‘consensus’ they signed off on. So here’s the question – would you WANT a scientist who’ll be too afraid to go “Hey, you know that thing on Global Warming? I’ve re-examined the data, and I’m wrong. It’s not anything out of the norm historically, and nature copes with it.” Or would you rather have scientists who are afraid to be seen as ‘wrong’?

      http://canadafreepress.com/article/9764

      [ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]

    • cheyenne-Jim

      I will see your 35 and raise you 1000. Read the article

  • Conservative Biker

    I love how Facebook does not show a preview pic or synopsis card for this link when I repost it….hmmmm….

  • James Azanza

    Man caused global warming is NOT science; it is religion. For crying out loud, we can’t even make it rain when we need it with all the technology we have and some peipole say we can affect the entire global climate?! Nonsense. THINK!!!! Don’t let others think for you.

  • Max Hauser

    I still think clean energy is better than pumping noxious stuff into the air….and some of his statements are really simplistic. But it’s true that global warming and many other scientific paradigms are basically religions.

    • James

      Global Warming is a religion? What complete and utter nonsense.
      It it were a religion is would be fake (like all religions).
      Instead it is very real.

      • Charlie Foxtrot

        “What complete and utter nonsense.”

        And based upon his previous postings, I think that James, is quite the expert when it comes to complete and utter nonsense.

      • planet8788

        The satellites… say it’s fake… Why are you a denier?

    • zlop

      “basically religions.”?
      Religion is mystical – cannot be disproved.
      Climate Science is a certified fraud — Pope has become part of the fraud.

  • http://johnturmel.com John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

    “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.” Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling.
    Jct: What a deserved beating of the alarmists. Nice to see real scientists finally kicking some ass. Remember, of the 97% of Climate Scientists in the consensus, not one has a degree in Climate Science since there’s no such thing as Climate Science! Har har har. Just like there’s no such thing as a climate change denier. Ask an alarmist to name just one denier that climate changes and their stupidity becomes clear.

    • James

      I would have thought that an Engineer would know better than to think irrationally. You should have your degree recalled for being such a fool for being taken in so easily.
      Here is your Dr. Giaever problem. He admitted that he doesn’t know anything about Climate Change and all his “opinions” have been scientifically debunked:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

      • zlop

        “all his “opinions” have been scientifically debunked”?
        Name one, instead of link baiting.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          He doesn’t have to prove it – it’s enough to state that they’ve been debunked… whether they have or not.

          • zlop

            Ridiculing, they announce that you have failed, when you have not,
            Certified liars are promoted to advance Mind Control science.

          • T.G. Crewe

            You are talking about Marc right?

            That’s his MO, just cast enough doubt.

        • Jae Gregory

          1. “The comment about the ozone hole reveals his ignorance. The hole began shrinking only after
          measures were taken to reduce ozone-depleting substances in the earth’s
          atmosphere, exactly the sort of action being proposed in response to
          the global warming crisis. The shrinking and disappearance of the ozone hole is a testament to the success of such techniques and evidence in favor of the methodology which recommended them and which recommends similar actions with regard to GW.
          2. His comment about the inability to measure the temperature of the earth is not correct.

      • planet8788

        Yeah right… and all the climate models have been spot on.

      • RealMrTea
        • James

          Well done ! but many incapable of rational thought

    • zlop

      Climate Science belongs in Psychological Operations — Mind Control.

  • Mr_Blonde57

    just watch the last 10 seconds. You people are fools.

    • zlop

      Who pays for their vacation and expensive video equipment?

      • Mr_Blonde57

        It is an independent film with no sponsors but the people who made it. It was made by a nature photographer who is best known for his role in exploring the relationship between humans and animals. Global Warming is happening, and this IS proof.

        • zlop

          “It is an independent film with no sponsors”

          I am suspicious that it is connected with the Rothschild,
          Gore and Blood Carbon Tax Extortion Racket. Perhaps
          some goofy foundation associated person?

          “Global Warming is happening, and this IS proof.”
          Brain dead, Common Core Indoctrinated Zombies
          imagine Global Warming proof everywhere.

          • Paul McCormick

            The Unicorn Theory?

          • Mr_Blonde57

            Be suspicious all you would like you have nothing to back that up with. What did happen however is the ice sheets retracting more than it did in the past 10 years than it has in the past 90.
            You think switching the renewable energy is good for our economy? You believe theres more money to be made over it than oil? You are insane. Between solar, geo thermal, wind, hydro..etc the oil companies would go out of business if green energy was really pushed. (not good for capitalism, corporations. or rich people) You don’t hardly need much man power to run these operations compared to oil fields. Regardless peak oil is happening, renewable energy sources are needed or this country will be left behind in our own dust bowl.
            LOL at tax extortion. Thats what our defense budget is for.

  • Sunny Li

    Why did this Nobel laureate (with 70 others?) ever think that Obama as a Illinois Senator in 2008 had promise as a “leader” in the first place? They should be careful next time they endorse a candidate of any party. Obama’s CV is quite unimpressive (like many other senators, BTW).

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      A lot of people were conned – and to be honest at the time I thought he might not be so bad. After all, he wouldn’t have made it to the level he did if there hadn’t been SOMETHING more than a lot of charisma and a media that was totally in love with him.

      Well, I was wrong. He didn’t have anything more than a lot of charisma, and a media that’s been completely invested in protecting him from any criticism. And 8 years on, we’re a lot worse off for it.

  • James

    Here is all you really need to know about the phony claims by Ivar Giaever – who is NOT a climate scientist. After all folks would you go to you Dentist and ask him or her how to diagnose a problem with your car?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

    • MetricButtload

      yet you have no problems accepting endorsements of climate change from non climate scientists and apparently Huffington post and other questionable sources. You have no argument because you already admit to accepting opinions from non climate scientists. Your argument is downright stupid, and this man’s opinion is far more relevant than agenda driven “news” sources you are regurgitating because you have no thoughts of your own, from non climate scientists btw. If you’re going to troll, at least be smart enough to do a decent job of it.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        It’s all depending on discrediting any dissent. That site is dedicated to the idea that science is not understandable by the layman, and any suggestion that it CAN be is obviously heretical, possibly sinful.

        They depend on a priesthood to tell them they’re sinful towards the planet, but they may be redeemed (and excused their sins and transgressions) by pushing for the ‘proper’ beliefs. Oh, and paying ‘carbon taxes’ and buying ‘carbon credits’ – like a medieval indulgence.

        Heaven forbid the laity get the idea they can look at graphs and numbers and determine for themselves what to believe. Because then the priesthood might have to find real jobs…

        http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    • http://johnturmel.com John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

      James: Ivar Giaever – who is NOT a climate scientist.
      Jct: I’ll give you $50 if you can name one university that gives out degrees as a “climate scientist!” Har har har har har har. Just one. Pretty easy to duke it out with imaginary foes, eh? Just one name! Har har har har har har.

    • Cheyenne-Jim

      problem is Climate scientists have literally made up the rules to support their myth science. There is absolutely nothing to support it other than a theory. Look up how they predicted in the 70’s and 80’s that the next ice age was coming by 2015. Or the Ozone Hole Myth, or Global warming which they changed to Climate change. Yet we have had record cold temps and record snow fall but yet we are now told yes that is because of climate change. What happened to the global warming?

  • muhfugger

    Climate change is real. It’s been going on for billions of years here on Earth and will continue as long as there is water on the surface of the planet. “Global warming” is just a wealth transfer scheme cooked up by elites (e.g. Al Gore) and sold to the parasite class and other dolts who will believe anything their ideological heroes tell them.

    • Jae Gregory

      Poor Al Gore, can’t you folks find some other people to blame? Surely there are other well-known names among those who believe in global warming?

      • planet8788

        The rapist Pauchari?

  • TC123
    • zlop

      What is your point, that you think is important?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        That site is dedicated to the idea that science is not understandable by the layman, and any suggestion that it CAN be is obviously heretical, possibly sinful. They depend on a priesthood to tell them they’re sinful towards the planet, but they may be redeemed (and excused their sins and transgressions) by pushing for the ‘proper’ beliefs.

        Heaven forbid the laity get the idea they can look at graphs and numbers and determine for themselves what to believe.

        http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

        • zlop

          Nothing can cure them until Ice marches from the Arctic?
          “Experts – Food and Fuel Shortages Imminent as New Ice Age Dawns”

          Post traumatic 9/11 denial applies also to Science denial.
          “Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f462ya0DC0g

  • proudamerican9

    Climate Depot is a shill site for conservative causes and as such lacks credibility. The ignorance about science and how scientists go about their research and publication here is unsurprising, given the general anti-intellectual, ignorant and arrogant tenor of most of the conservative Right regarding the actual practice of science. Dr. Giaever is not a climate scientist, has no knowledge of climatology and his speech above is riddled with fallacies, short circuited faulty reasoning, absolutely no evidence and no scientific research, expertise or knowledge. “The argument from authority is the weakest sort,” especially when the “authority” is not even an authority. BOTH “sides” of the climate change debate are guilty of this kind of rhetorical BS. But if you cut through it all and just look at the facts and go to the original publications by climatologists using extraordinarily sophisticated methods and deeply complex analysis, if you just stop the spin machine and go straight to the actual publications and take the time to study the methods, data, conclusions and so on, and take the time, with an open mind, to understand the basic principles of climate science, you will absolutely and indisputably find that a). global climate change is occurring in direct correlation to an increase in greenhouse gases, most likely explained by human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution, b). the implications of a warming planet for increased environmental stochasticity, extinction, economic effects on coastal areas cascading to the global economy, etc., are very grave and c). there are definite and productive steps we could take over the next century to ameliorate these effects. I have done the research for myself and it is neither easy nor pretty. But it is worth the time and completely by-passes these idiotic and irrelevant conversations. Go to Google Scholar, search “climate change” or “global warming” and study, study, study. Original publications, not the New York Times OR the Washington Times. This is called learning about something. I recommend it.

    • zlop

      Have you learned that Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation,
      near the surface? Net warming of the near surface zone is from above,
      where the Potential Temperature is higher.

      This chart is key to understand — 3 kilometer 700 millibar is warmed, both from above and from below https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/moist-potential-temperature-mp2008.png

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Lot of AGW believers don’t science. It’s hard. They need someone to tell them. And they’ll believe the sky is falling over someone who tells them that is isn’t.

        • T.G. Crewe

          You think Marc Morano is a reliable source correct?

          • planet8788

            Marc Morano doesn’t generate any of this. He’s like Drudge.. he just links to it… you are a moron.

        • zlop

          No wonder that the sub-human dunderheads
          are to be Georgia Guide Stoned.

      • UrabanoMucho

        Not true. Its all about the radiation the net result is more heat trapped at the surface and the atmosphere.Thermodynamics may effect the distribution but not the net heat gain. If anything thermodynamics confirm the predictions of global warming. Most of these laws pertain to isolated systems however and therefore are difficult to apply except for the obvious. You present the above data with no explanation or how this might reduce overall warming.

    • planet8788

      Can you explain the pause in the satellilte data? Does climate depot control that data?

  • zlop

    If you do not appreciate that, clear sky optical depth has remained, long term, stable,
    you are missing the negation of the CO2 scam.

  • TennesseeRedDog

    But most importantly, what do Michio Kaku and Neal De Grasse-Tyson think of Dr.Giaever? LOL

  • http://none.com Mitchell Findlay

    Dr. Giaver may not be the best expert to quote here. Almost all climate scientists believe in global warming caused by green house gases (CO2 and methane), much of which is released by manmade activities. We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

    “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

    That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers. Too bad Fox does not give us both sides of the story. Only one side means an unbalanced truth.

    • T.G. Crewe

      Marc is not interested in the truth, only to muddy the waters for his corporate masters.

      • planet8788

        LOL. YOu are the only servant here.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      In other words – it’s beyond our meager understanding, and we have to be told by the anointed just what we must do. Do not think, do not question, because it is beyond your understanding.

      Dude. Religion much?

      Giaever saw the numbers weren’t adding up. You’re saying only a ‘climate scientist’ can understand the holy numbers, that nobody else can.

      • http://none.com Mitchell Findlay

        I don’t trust just one source for my world view. I do note the world is getting warmer. I have visited glaciers 30 years apart and seen recession. I read a lot of material and I can understand the concept of green house gases warming a planet. I trust science and scientists when their theories and models explain what is happening in the world around. us. I accept I am not the smartest guy around, and do trust those who have more training and experience in specialty subjects. I certainly don’t follow party dogma or scientists who get paid by big oil to deny the obvious.

        • planet8788

          Of course, we went through a warming phase after a cooling phase from 1940-1975… You’re an idiot. What proof do you have of any payments from big oil? Why are you a satellite data denier>

          • http://none.com Mitchell Findlay

            Science is incredibly complex, and scientists, are incredibly specialized. I wouldn’t go to an orthopedist doctor for a lung problem, and I wouldn’t put too much stock in a scientist’s opinion in a field they have not spent years researching. Here is Wikipedia’s description of Dr. Giaver’s background. Note the details of his physics research (has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, geology (the carbon loop) or anything else related to earth science):Early life and education

            Giaever earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim in 1952. In 1954, he emigrated from Norway to Canada, where he was employed by the Canadian division of General Electric . He moved to the United States four years later, joining General Electric’s Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady, New York, in 1958. While working for General Electric, Giaever earned a Ph.D. at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1964. The Nobel Prize:
            The work that led to Giaever’s Nobel Prize was performed at General Electric in 1960. Following on Esaki’s discovery of electron tunnelling in semiconductors in 1958, Giaever showed that tunnelling also took place in superconductors, demonstrating tunnelling through a very thin layer of oxide surrounded on both sides by metal in a superconducting or normal state.[5] Giaever’s experiments demonstrated the existence of an energy gap in superconductors, one of the most important predictions of the BCS theory of superconductivity, which had been developed in 1957.]

            Giaever’s research later in his career was mainly in the field of biophysics . In 1969, he researched Biophysics for a year as a fellow at Clare Hall , University of Cambridge , through a Guggenheim Fellowship, and he continued to work in this area after he returned to the US.[4]
            *Global warming*

            Giaever has said man-made global warming is a “new religion.” In the minority report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in March 2009, Giaever said, “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

            In a featured story in Norway’s largest newspaper, *Aftenposten *, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”
            As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting , Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a “religion” and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.” Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina ) picked and chose when he gave his talk.” Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience ? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

            Giaever is currently a science advisor at The Heartland Institute , a think tank known for its conservative stances on man-made climate change and for its skepticism of the links between smoking, secondhand smoke, and health risks. According
            to Greenpeace, the Heartland Institute received around $676,500 in donations from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2007.

          • planet8788

            Science is simple. It’s a 4 to 7 step method.
            Climate is complex.
            It takes a real scientist about half a day to figure out this is nothing but handwaving and fraud. Or that they really don’t know what they are talking about. It’s also easy to tell they aren’t following the steps.

        • planet8788

          And their theories cant explain why satellites report no new warming in 18 years.

    • planet8788

      How is physics not a climate field? The Greenhouse Effect has everything to do with physics.

  • bbplayer5

    This guy is no more qualified to speak about climate change than your dentist is. Last I checked, your dentist’s opinion on climate change is a pretty irrelevant to you, right? How about we listen to actual climate scientists instead of people touting their doctorate in completely different fields of study?

    Oh but that’s right, it doesn’t agree with your world view so lets just listen to any unqualified voice.

    • planet8788

      Where does one go to study climate science? Expertise in how many branches of science are required? How accurate have the models been of these so called expert Climatologists? BAAAA HAAAA

      • bbplayer5

        I’m not sure if you are being serious, or if this is a terrible attempt at trolling. I am just going to assume you are trolling because the answer is more obvious than the color of the sky.

        How accurate is the mapping of the human genome? You know, an entire map of our DNA? Can you verify it is inaccurate? Of course not, you aren’t a PHD in genetic research. So I am supposed to come on here and discredit climate change because a Physicist with absolutely zero climate knowledge said so?

        Fun read for you: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

        Keep at it lemming, I am sure that cliff will be upon you shortly.

        • planet8788

          First of all your analagy sucks. DNA is a digital code. Temperatures are analog. Second of all, your supposed to base your belief on the preponderance of the evidence. The only thing that says there has been any warming in the last 18 years is a bunch of continually manipulated data.

          • bbplayer5

            You will have to forgive me. I am not going to take your climate expertise when you fail to spell the word “analogy” correctly.

            You are not a climatologist nor is the man who happens to be the subject of this article. I value your opinion on climate much as I do his.

            Zero value.

            Have a good day.

  • muhfugger

    Ivar Giaever got his nobel prize for PHYSICS (that is science for those who don’t know). Obama got his prize for PEACE (nobody has ANY idea why). Scientist VS. political hack. I know which one I would pick

    • T.G. Crewe

      My dentist is a Dr, but I would not want him to look after my heart.

      Ivar Googled, by his own admission, for a day maybe less to become informed and accept nice speaking packages. The President has a large supporting cast of scientists from varying areas of expertise to inform him about these things. I’ll go with the President and his cadre of experts over one man and his laptop.

      • planet8788

        LOL… One of which was on the global cooling bandwagon 40 years ago… BAAAA HAAAA

  • brianl@morrellco.com

    When they tell you that when you exhale you are polluting doesn’t the lights come on in your head? CO2 is required for plant life on earth, so this can’t be considered a pollutant. I am from Minnesota and recently the air quality has been the worse it has ever been in our history, because of a forest fire in Canada. So a forest fire in Canada has created the worst air quality in our history, more than 150 years of industrial production, millions of automobiles, and coal fired power plants. Green has become the new Red, This is an attempt to control the lives of every person on earth. They want to tell us where and how we will live, where we travel, what we eat, complete control. We need to stand up to these people before they put the shackles of slavery on us.

    • T.G. Crewe

      Nice work using a unique event like a heat wave/drought inspired wildfire caused by funky climate to show that you feel the climate is not funky.

      Bravo, that’s a new one.

      • brianl@morrellco.com

        They were babbling on and on about the air quality going off the chart, caused from a forest fire over 600 miles away. Heat wave drought in Canada, now that’s a good one. Look at a hacking map. Anything to deny the point, Millions of cars, coal fired power plants, 150 years of industrial production and we have never come close to damaging the air quality, like one fire over 500 miles away.

        • T.G. Crewe

          These wildfires in Alaska and Canada are caused by increased average temperatures, snow cover melting earlier in the year, and drought. Add to it the size and scope of these wildfires is immense and unprecedented, you do understand that. You are talking about a specific short term event that will go away vs a long term issue.

          BTW, what is a Hacking Map?

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            exactly it will go away. Just like all pollution with dilution it is no longer a problem. Remember the oil spill in the gulf, wailing and crying about the gulf will be destroyed for generations they said. Here we are things are all cleared up and back to normal. Remember the scientists heading to the polar ice caps in their attempt to prove global warming, when they where trapped in the ice and had to be rescued. Man made global warming is a myth. The earth has amazing ability to recover from incidents, just like the forest fire. No need to panic man is small in comparison to the earth and its atmosphere. No problem with recycling, no problem being a good steward. We do need to resist those who would attempt to enslave every person on earth based on faulty concepts. Green is the new RED. Have you ever been to Canada?

          • T.G. Crewe

            Eventually dilution no longer does the trick and things start to change, drastically.

            “Remember the oil spill in the gulf, wailing and crying about the gulf will be destroyed for generations they said. Here we are things are all cleared up and back to normal. ” – Really? I have heard BP say it is but not many other people would agree with you the after effects are lingering, certain groups are struggling, and we don’t know the exact toll that has been taken on the Gulf.

            “Remember the scientists heading to the polar ice caps in their attempt to prove global warming, when they where trapped in the ice and had to be rescued.” lol, that is so funny using that weather event as an example, it is almost as funny as Jim Inhofe bringing a snow ball onto the floor of the Senate. It showed nothing.

            Enslave?

            Have I ever been to Canada? not sure what that has to do with anything.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            Don’t take my word for it, take a trip, google earth it, check out the white sandy beaches, the gulf is in great shape.. Canada is a beautiful place full of forests, lakes and rivers. The point there is it is not turning into the Sahra.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Clean beaches are not indicative of a healthy environment, only that they cleaned the beaches. There are still far to many unknowns about what the long term effects will be. I have sailed the Gulf Coast before and since the BP Blowout the Gulf it has changed. Also know a few folks that relied on the sea for generations to make their livelihood, they continue to suffer. I don’t need to look at tourist brochures to make me feel okay about things.

            Regarding Canada, I know it well as it is the country of my birth and I have many relatives that live around the country. The western provinces are warmer and dryer than usual and the Tar Sands are ripping up the Boreal Forests in Alberta. Sure it is not the Sahara, that would take quite a spell to turn those forests to sand, but it is going through some tough times right now.

            You use two pretty images to try to make it seem okay. Like showing a movie star smoking in order to hide the truths. You can always throw lipstick on a pig but it still is a pic.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            a picture is worth a thousand words, but when people are unwilling to believe what is right in front of their own eyes, what is in plain sight, there just isn’t anything more to say. When people are back vacationing, sailing and fishing in the gulf, this claim that it is forever changed just doesn’t add up. if you are so concerned about the environment go ahead and start holding your breath now. I would prefer that you wake up and realize that the ideology of global warming is not to save the earth, but it is an attempt to redistribute wealth. Don’t be suckered in to their nonsense.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Nonsense?

            Redistribution of wealth? If they don’t want to lose their wealth they should be leading the revolution of renewable not fighting it. Buggy Manufactures, Typewriters, Abacus… all technology that was supplanted. Some families lost, some made out. It is funny to hear, what I assume is a Republican, fighting against capitalism in favour of monopolies and stagnation of new technologies. It’s funny actually to see the party of free enterprise try so hard to stifle competition and hold on to the old days. Add to that we are America, we once lead the world in innovation, now the world is leaving us behind. Why wouldn’t we want to shove some new technology down the rest of the worlds throat in order to dominate and make money, oh that’s right the sheep are following their Billionaire Masters will.

            You do understand that clean beaches are simply that clean. What about the sea floor, cancerous growths on fish, dolphin deaths, families that lost their business because they could not ride out the years where they could not fish/shrimp/clam or those that still have not got back to pre spill levels? How about the issues in the Mangrove swamps and nesting areas that no longer host colony’s of birds away from the resorts?

            Clean beaches mean cleaned beaches. Clean beaches do not mean a healthy environment.

            Your clinging to the comparison does shed light on the ease at which you swallow Marc and the Koch Bro’s show though. Look it’s clean, don’t look under the rug though… yikes

          • planet8788

            WHo do you think sells windmills? solar panels?

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            If the new technologies were better that would be one thing , but they are not and I would argue that they are worse. Where to begin? Solar farms. Solar farms heat the air to over 1000 degrees. a bird cannot fly over a solar farm. If they do they call them streamers because they combust and fall to the ground. We also know that when hot air runs into cold air it causes????? high winds & storms. So you tell me how this is going to help the environment. Secondly the chemicals in the solar panels are extremely toxic, They are so toxic that they cannot get permits to even make them here, that’s why it all comes from China. A little hypocrisy there don’t you think? Ok for China to put their people at risk making them, when we are not willing to touch it ourselves. Wind, they have built wind farms here in Minnesota and they are killing birds like crazy. We have many migratory birds that fly through our state. It is also completely in efficient source of energy. They are very expensive to install and maintain. I am in the trucking industry and we haul cranes. It takes 14 trucks to haul the crane large enough to service the wind tower. each time the crane needs to be broken down and moved and re-set up to go to the next tower. Bio fuel, the government has spent billions promoting this product and it is complete crap. It has the same freezing characteristics as water, being from Canada, water in diesel is bad in cold weather. The by product and the large amount of water needed to make it is completely counter productive to the said environment. As far as the ocean floor from the spill. lets get something really clear, What actually spilled in the gulf? Where did it come from? It came out of the ground!!! IT is as mother earth as it gets. It is like saying dirt/soil contaminates the ground. You can go to any lake stir up the bottom and the water will get cloudy, then it settles and the water will become clear again and that is what happened in the gulf. There is not a problem with the nesting areas. All business face tough times. Unfortunately some of the families through in the towel because they where told that it would be ruined for generations, misinformation from the green people. I hope this helps you see that they are full of crap. The situation in the gulf is a prime example of that fact.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Wow 14 trucks to set up a wind turbine, once. When you compare it to the 1600 trucks for a single fracking instillation http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article10216172.html it seems, well, not nearly as scary.

            Solar farms or Solar arrays?

            Wind and birds, let that one go away. FF extraction cause far more avian deaths than Wind could. If you are so concerned with birds, and other living things you would want pollution levels to drop. Continuing to burn FF is not the answer.

            Oil on the sea floor is not the same as oil on the ground, wth kind of argument is that. Sweeping dust under your rug does not mean your house is clean.

            Yes there are many places that are affected and will continue to be affected.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            Once the installation is completed then how many trucks? always trucks during construction. My situation was for routine maintenance. Do your research on solar farms, they are not the answer. The only people sweeping anything under the rug are the green people, things like facts. Our government has spent billions on these projects and they have more negative affects and they cannot produce the power we need. Again Green people call co2 a pollutant, plants need it to grow, so how can it be a pollutant? again what spilled in the gulf came right out of the ground!! Came right out of mother earth how can it be a hazard to the earth?? We don’t like to step in the mud either but that does not make it a contaminant.

          • T.G. Crewe

            How often does the posse roll for maintenance?

            Negative effects, Negative compared to what?

            CO2 is awesome for the plants! Sure CO2 is used by plants but you are aware that too much of anything can be a bad thing. Carbon dioxide is known as an asphyxiant, which is a substance that bonds with your blood in place of oxygen cases of CO2 poisoning have been linked to central nervous system damage and permanent deterioration of respiratory functions. Because of these findings, CO2 is considered not just a simple asphyxiant, but a gas with acute systemic effects as well.

            I like the “It came from the ground, it has to be safe!” argument, it says so much. Just like uranium, arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. Oil is a poison, you would not fare well if you drank, nor do sea animals do well when they are bathed in it, or ingest it.

            How Toxic is Oil – http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/exxon-valdez-oil-spill/how-toxic-oil.html

            Toxicity of Oil – http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/toxicity-oil-whats-big-deal.html

            Oil and Gas Pollution – http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/oil_and_gas_pollution#.VZ5_Q19VhBc

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            6-9 month maintenance, so when you see the hill covered with wind towers, a crane set up and take down for each one. The more co2 the more the plants gobble up, that is how amazing the earth was designed. The hysteria concerning oil and gas are written by those who would like us to go back to the dark ages. Nobody is saying that exposure to all things is good for you. Poison Ivy, mushrooms, snakes, scorpions, etc. I live with in 10 miles of Sherco one of the largest coal fired plants in the upper Midwest. I drive by the stacks everyday. This single plant produces power for over 5 million people. It is on a relatively small parcel of land. How much land would we have to commit to solar and wind to produce the amount of power that Sherco produces? Sherco is not killing migratory birds in fact they flock to the river near the plant. Places like California and their green (the new Red) government leadership has had to deal with rolling black outs because they refuse to build power plants. In Minnesota rolling black outs is not acceptable, like Canada it gets cold in the winter and that power supply needs to be solid. Coal is organic matter we control the burn and produce huge amounts of power from it. is there ash yes, does it put particles in the air yes, but when they cool they settle back to the earth from which they came. the co2 produced is used by the plants, so what’s the problem. The west has become wealthy because we figured out how to generate massive amounts of power at a very low cost, that is safe and it is has minimal impact to the world around. Again the Greenies think solar is the answer??? It would take thousands of acres of land to produce the power sherco produces. Heating the air to 1000 degrees over that large space, that will change the weather patterns. No natural thing would change the air temp over such a large area. That would alter the environment.

          • T.G. Crewe

            mmmmmm Mercury laden fish. Living within 10 miles of a Coal Plant, sorry to hear that. Um yes, coal fired plants do kill, they kill way more than wind or solar.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            Well again you hang your hat on speculation by greenies about the evils of coal and gas. You can actually go pick up the dead bodies at the wind and solar farms, so it is a little difficult to deny. What can you say to somebody who is willing to deny the body count and base his decisions on speculation. How many people in Minnesota died because of the smoke from the forest fires in Canada? You know we had the worst air quality in recorded history!! But the bodies do not seem to be piling up. again those particlles will cool and fall back to the earth from which they came. No long term hazard.

          • T.G. Crewe

            The negative effects on the environment from burning FF are not speculative at all.

            Canada’s fire I am sure had an adverse reaction for many people. Asthma and others. That said it is not the same as the toxins released by coal plants.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            what is coal, where did it come from? it is organic matter not un-similar to what is burning in Canada, just older. adverse reactions, we have an adverse reaction when you bump your knee on the table, no long term reaction or imminent death like the birds flying over the solar farm or wind farm. I thought we cared about the ecosystem? Why the denial of the actual affects of these alternative energies? Who is attempting to get rich by having these changes legislated? The reason they have to legislate them is because they are crappy and people would not buy in if it was not for large government subsidies. So here we go again just like government mandated and subsidized bio fuel. Spent billions and it is a failure. a recent study I read said that actually bio fuels released more CO2 than regular gasoline. Not that I am afraid of a little CO2. But wasn’t that the goal to reduce co2 and in affect destroy plant life by reducing the CO2 levels I guess that last part is just a side affect to the nonsense.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Oh Man…

            How do you expect to have a rational discourse when you fail to understand the difference between burned wood and coal, oil in the ground vs. on the ground, claiming that coal ash and byproduct from burning FF is harmless, or that there is no long term effects from burning FF. I don’t even know where to begin with that line of thinking.

            Coal deaths – Human toll – http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
            from generation. Why are these people dying, must be the Liberals right?

            Regarding the Solar Towers incinerating birds – http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/one-weird-trick-prevents-bird-deaths-at-solar-tower-power-plants-98846
            they are actually working on that and have reduced the deaths.

            Bird Deaths by sector –

            Solar – 1k – 28k
            Wind – 140k – 328k
            Oil and Gas – 500k to a million
            Coal – 7.9 Million
            Nuclear – 330k

            I am not denying the fact that birds are hurt by this new technology, I am not hiding my head in the sand. But anyone can see that the number of deaths by the new is less than by the old. So yes I am concerned with the ecosystem.

            Bio Fuels are a waste of money and not a good use of the recourse. Similar to oil used as gasoline.

            Side effect of the nonsense is the plants are going to die if we don’t keep burning FF. This one should be on ‘Really? With Seth and Amy’ because Really?!? I’m sorry but how on earth did you come up with that chestnut, a bigger fallacy could not be proffered in this conversation. Well outside of FF are natural so they can’t possibly hurt us.

            Who is attempting to get rich with Renewables? Many players both new and old.

            How about who is attempting to stay rich by legislating against Wind and Solar? Many old players.

            Your redistribution of wealth argument is silly, anyone in America has the right to make money as you say and I agree with that 100%. What
            they do not have a right to stay wealthy if their products relevance is fading, they can adapt and create to stay there but they cannot legislate against competition which is what they are looking to do.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            How can you even buy this nonsense, so this study claims thousands have died from fine dust particles from power plants give me a break. They use this study in an attempt to prove their regulations are working, in order to justify their existance. if fewer people are dying from lung related illness, don’t you think it may be from the reduction in the number of smokers during this same time period. May be the indoor clean air laws? I am not against scrubbers to be used to reduce particles, no problem there. To claim people are being killed by power plants is pure dramatized speculation. These so called scientific studies, just like the global warming studies that this conversation started with are fabricated to fit the agenda. How else could you justify selling solar panels made in China? These numbers of birds killed by coal they are attempting to justify the agenda. The birds dropping dead at the solar and wind farms are dead on the spot as opposed to speculation of what caused these birds to die from possible dust particles. I am glad they are working on reducing bird deaths at the solar farms, never fear they will be successful. Over time their will be fewer deaths, because there will be fewer birds in the area!!!

          • T.G. Crewe

            You honestly believe that there is no correlation between proximity to power plants and illness/death?

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            absolutely, people who live by a power plant aren’t just flopping over dead. People have lived here their entire lives, their parents before them. The wildlife around the plant is unbelievable, people stand in line to get an opportunity to hunt that land. The deer are thick in there, wild turkeys, etc…

          • T.G. Crewe

            Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

            Viewed in this way, the totality of coal’s impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.

            Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect normal lung development in children.

            Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality.

            Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. Coal pollutants also act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.

            http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

          • T.G. Crewe

            Far to many studies have been done over the past few decades that show that pollution form power generation and vehicles is detrimental to the health of humans and the environment.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            It would be detrimental if you are sucking on tail pipes of cars, yes. There are two plants with in 10 miles of each other, Sherco and the Monticello Nuclear plant. wildlife is booming in the land around the plants. The river that divides them is full of ducks, geese, and swans. Live with your eyes open. If the evidence of what you see in front of you does not match up with the “study,” then stand up and call it like it is. How is it that people are living longer now than ever before, if the pollution is choking out life on the earth? The greenies want to enslave you, tell you where to live, how you travel, what you eat. Screw those people.

          • T.G. Crewe

            oh, okay your eyes trump science. got it

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            Its not science, remember it started off as global warming, ops could not make the data work at all there, so it changed to global climate change. They are manipulating data to fit the agenda. One thing is for sure the weather changes, we have four season’s. etc… Like anything you read look for your self to see if it matches up with reality, if it makes sense. The earth is an amazing place. Man is very small part of what is happening on the earth.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Wait a sec, we were talking about health issues and environmental damage near power stations.

            Now you are going for some nebulous we are small what could we possibly do, it’s not science.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Brian, You will never be able to debate people like T.G. They are hard left and live in the hive collective mindset, They will refute any evidence that you may provide calling it garbage science, yet produce results from their so called left scientists that we are all supposed to just be in awe of and worship as gods of science. He will decide as a last ditch effort to say that what we produce is our Boogie man and try to make others just scoff at the results we produce.
            What my boogie man is; the hard left who fantasize and get orgasms from socialism views, also from the junk science that they produce and twist time and time again when it does not fit their agenda. Remember the next ice age science of the 70’s and 80’s, and the junk science that was proven wrong of the so called ozone hole joke? then that turned into the global warming that would leave the planet as an arid desert wasteland bu 2020, and now the so called climate change. My boogie man is that kind of mentality where they get people like Obama or the Pope on board who are oblivious of any kind of fact finding to sell their junk science. My boogie man is the hard left that make laws for our nation such as the supreme court just did that are illegal and not based on law that do as our president has done for the entire term, in disregarding the laws of our land and act on political gain rather than the law. My boogie man is the destruction of our nation and our laws and the disregard of our laws to make this a socialist nation. To sell this so called green agenda that cannot and will not support our power needs anytime soon with the technology that exists. Rolling black outs due to lack of power to supply the demands by the so called conservatives. My boogie man is the hippie mindset leftist (socialist) that force these changes down the Americans throats to only bring about their agenda, and damn the rest of us. They will not look at viable energy sources that can sustain the demand such as nuclear. Their argument is that it is unsafe., however; the department of defense has successfully ran a fast breeder reactor program for many many years and no accidents. They scoff at coal fired power plants and state that they give off massive hydro carbons and pollute giving off mercury and other pollutants. Yet the mercury reports and other pollutants recorded by them are yet again junk science going back to results from an ere in the coal power industry that predates the cleaner running plants that now exist. And yet still fail to point out to any degree that mercury, and the arsenic that they point out was produced is also NATURALLY occurring and the results are mostly inconclusive because of the old results they produce (decades old) and or pulling from areas that are known the NATURALLY produce the results to advance their agenda.
            They fail to tell you about the poison chemicals used to produce the solar panels that are tier 1 carcinogens, and harmful to health of people producing them, and or living around them. They fail to state that the solar cells or super cell farms create huge problems with heating the surrounding areas of air pockets making a hot zone requiring artificial cooling for homes and industries close by. They fail to state that the heat generated from a super cell farm flies and incinerates flying birds who fly into the area and is also being looked at as dangerous to aircraft flying in the area. They fail to tell you of the dangers of that technology. They fail to tell about how all the maintenance that is required for wind farms make them very very expensive, and in a lot of areas like off the coastal areas where they are or were planned that people protest them because they call them an eye sore, and they take up a serious amount of real estate to produce a minimal amount of power.
            My problem is the liberals who shove their junk science down our throats, and demand that we all accept it because the sky is falling, yet many many generation of their so called science have been nothing more than smoking mirrors. My problem is the liberals who absolutely deny there is a creator most of us call God, but yet try to explain away everything based on their junk science, but have yet to produce any evidence as to how they can explain how the universe was created, and how all life was created and yet with their junk science expect the world to accept their junk science as fact, and disallow the rest of us from speaking what we know to be fact, and has been proven time and time again as reality and not theory.
            You will never convince T.G that his theories and junk science are not reputable and they will continue to make up newer and newer junk science theories to try and run the next scam on we the people. It is people like him on the far left that have run wild and caused this country to be in the sad, sad shape that we are now in. It is all about them.

          • brianl@morrellco.com

            Couldn’t agree with you more. I realize that some conversations maybe futile. Trying to give him some hope that the world is not coming to an end by the hands of men. The world will not end until the One who created this marvel called earth makes that call.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            Oh yeah the cost for Wind and solar for long term power is not even a reality. The amount of space needed for the windmills is astounding and the power generation is not that much in the scope of things. After all how will the liberal scientist use their computer algorithms, with no power. Solar is a joke and requires miles of panels to power one factory, and that is peak sun times, what do you do in the winter.
            So where is your mercury laden fish at? Mercury is not a byproduct of coal burning for power. Facts man where are the facts.

          • T.G. Crewe

            How Does Mercury Get Into Fish?

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-mercury-get-into/

            Mercury in the fish we like to eat is a big problem in the United States and increasingly around the world. Mercury itself is a naturally occurring element that is present throughout the environment and in plants and animals. But human industrial activity (such as coal-fired electricity generation, smelting and the incineration of waste) ratchets up the amount of airborne mercury which eventually finds its way into lakes, rivers and the ocean, where it is gobbled up by unsuspecting fish and other marine life.

          • Michael Long

            Reading comprehension problem? The cranes need to be set up each time that major maintenance is required, not just once.
            If wind energy was a commercially viable alternative then the government would not need to be providing massive subsidies. It isn’t, so the industry will only exist so long as the redistribution of wealth continues.
            Hell, we couldn’t even have this debate on most days if all of our electricity come from wind and solar. We’d have to wait for a rare day when there was sufficient excess power available to run our computers.

          • T.G. Crewe

            If FF energy was a commercially viable alternative then the government would not need to be providing massive subsidies.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Does a wind turbine need 114 + visits over the course of its life? I doubt they roll 4x a year for massive maintenance.

          • cheyenne-Jim

            actually I can reply to this as I live in wind turbine country. They require a lot of maintenance and they are inefficient the way they have them set up. They constantly need to send a stop command to them and they rotate them (using outside electricity) to get the peak wind for the blades. They stop them several times a day and as such require a lot of maintenance for the braking system, turbine repair etc. They are in no way efficient at all. Even the smaller units for a home cost $16000 a piece and 2 to 3 are needed to power an average home. Then the battery packs are required and an inverter at about $8500 for the base unit which requires replacement about every 8 years. It is not a feasible energy source or affordable. I worked at a coal power plant years ago and with the scrubbers they have in place they are very clean burning and the most efficient.
            But I suppose you will argue with me and tell me the wind power is my boogy man or something, and provide nothing for your statement to stand on.

          • Michael Long

            I didn’t provide an estimate of how many visits will be required over the life of a wind turbine, but it is certainly more than one. If you drive past any major wind farm you will note a significant percentage of units which have remained inoperable for more than a year.

          • Michael Long

            Without massive government-backed redistribution of wealth the new renewable energy sources are neither commercially feasible nor reliable enough to serve as a mainstream source of energy. The U.S. government has started including an old energy source in its renewable energy metrics in order to make it look like there is major growth. Hydro power has been a significant and reliable part of man’s energy sources for centuries, whereas solar and wind remain unreliable alternative energy sources which are far too expensive to manufacture and deploy and account for less than 3% of total electricity produced.
            If you want to go broke, then invest in a solar or wind energy company. Once the government subsidies run out then the plants will close. Consumers will then have units installed which can no longer be supported and which will have to be removed at substantial cost.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Redistribution of wealth? You all have the boogie man going there. If FF owners want to stay on top they can get in the green business.

            The corner has turned, hold on!

          • cheyenne-Jim

            you live in a fantasy world. And Obama himself stated the redistribution of wealth, as does George Soro’s, so it is funny how you throw insults out of boogie man , because people don’t believe as you do, however we are supposed to just jump up and down and fall in step with you and your thinking. Green business is a joke, get with reality.

          • T.G. Crewe

            What is the old adage in business – adapt, develop, and grow or die.

          • Michael Long

            The immediate redistribution of wealth comes in the form of government subsidies to the manufacturers and the industrial and home consumers of the products. Without the subsidies, there would be no products due to the exorbitant costs.
            This is crony capitalism at its finest, enriching the few at the expense of society as a whole. The insane part is the Obama Administration has managed to get a large faction behind him who are otherwise fervently opposed to the greedy capitalists who benefit from these deals.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Kind of like the Rockefeller’s back in the day huh, dang Government.

            Actually the cost of solar keeps dropping, unlike that of FF’s which fluctuate. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/22/solar-parity-coming-faster-expected/ Look out for Solar Parity.

          • Jae Gregory

            “an attempt to redistribute wealth” – I’ve got to google that phrase since so many are quoting it, just as planned, implemented, marketed, and coached.

          • Jae Gregory

            “Attempt to redistribute wealth” – who’s making up these catchy kool aid phrases – Frank Luntz? What does that even mean? As soon as the final pieces are in place to reap massive financial benefits from climate change – and I’m sure the opportunity is there – I expect we’ll hear the talking heads spreading a new, exciting, catch phrase. What will it be what will it be

          • planet8788

            Your kidding right. not this year… it was one of the coldest winters and latest melts in a long time.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Maybe where you live, but this is not about your local area.

            Why Alaska Is Warmer Than the Continental U.S.
            http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/alaska-compare-east-winter

          • planet8788

            And 1000 years ago there were forests in Alaska where now there is melting glaciers. So even if you make it about Alaska you lose the argument.

          • T.G. Crewe

            I lose, how? You said it was the coldest winter and latest melt this past winter, I showed you were wrong on that detail.

            So if you are incorrect on that what else are you wrong about? Hmm…

          • planet8788

            Easy. It’s clearly colder then it was 1000 years ago. It was the coldest winter and lates melt in most of the country. And in Alaska you still have ice where there were forests 1000 years ago. Which means Alaska hasn’t melted in a 1000 years.

          • T.G. Crewe

            We were talking about Alaska having a warm winter, not 1000 years ago.

            Yes it was chilly in the Midwest and East Coast but world wide temps were up.

          • planet8788

            And I’m telling you the winter in Alaska was much colder than the winters 1000 years ago. Just like there is still ice in Boston… There is still ice in Alaska.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Again, I was not talking about 1000 years ago. My comment was to another poster about the warm temp, drought, and early melt off in Alaska and Western Canada being the cause for the rampant forest fires.

            Ahh!!! the weather stations plummeting – http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html Huh, not some great conspiracy, just better technology.

          • planet8788

            How many in Africa… I didn’t see an answer to my question.

          • T.G. Crewe

            Not sure why you want me too do your homework but there are far more than 10. A UN initiative to install 5000 was launched 6 years ago and there is a group of entrepreneurs working on a 20,000 station install. Africa is large and poor, but now that Chinese factory farming is growing it is safe to say that number will rise.

          • planet8788

            about half the continent has no coverage. In the meantime, we are still certain that it’s hotter than ever… LOL. while the satellites say no warming at all and the US historical record changes every month.

          • T.G. Crewe

            With the Chinese involved, bet that gap will go away soon.

            If you are interested in the other side, give this ebook a read. http://www.jeremyleggett.net/
            The Winning of the Carbon War

          • planet8788

            It’s really irrelevant. Without historic data to compare it to… It’s meaningless in measuring global warming.

            If you look at the global anomaly graphs, a very significant amount of the data is filled in.

            Maybe eventually it will help prove there is no global warming. Although they can still adjust it for questionable reasons. We have lots of data in the US and that hasn’t stopped them from corrupting that.

      • planet8788

        Climate has always been funky you moron… always will be.

  • Karen Hambrock

    “So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived……” That statement is total nonsense!

    • planet8788

      Depends on what day you arrived. And how you are measuring it. If you were in LA in the 1970’s and moved to the present… I don’t think you would feel that way.

  • michaelmousedisqus

    the evidence is incontrovertible–the only thing incontrovertible is the BS.

  • Xorox

    Dr. Ivar Giaever is an 85 year old physicist who has never studied climatology. 97% of scientists who actually study climatology believe global warming is the result of human activity and Is a serious threat.

  • Jeff Christie

    Climate Change is a Thing

    Let’s ignore all the politicians and professors and CEOs and filmmakers and look at three facts:

    Fact 1) Burning Fossil Fuels Makes Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rise

    We’ll get to the data in a second, but first—why does burning fossil fuels emit CO2?

    The answer is simple: combustion is reverse photosynthesis.

    When a plant grows, it makes its own food through photosynthesis. At
    its most oversimplified, during photosynthesis, the plant takes CO2 from the air7 and absorbs light energy from the sun to split the CO2 into carbon (C) and oxygen (O2).
    The plant keeps the carbon and emits the oxygen as a waste product. The
    sun’s light energy stays in the plant as chemical energy the plant can
    use.

    So wood is essentially a block of carbon and stored chemical energy.

    When you burn a log, all you’re doing is reversing the
    photosynthesis. Normally, oxygen in the air just bounces off carbon
    molecules in wood—that’s why trees aren’t constantly on fire. But when
    an oxygen molecule gets moving fast enough and smashes into a log’s carbon molecule, they snap together and the oxygen and carbon are reunited again as CO2. This snapping releases chemical energy, which knocks into other nearby oxygen molecules, causing them to
    get going fast—and if they get going fast enough, they’ll snap together
    with another of the log’s carbon molecules, which releases more
    chemical energy. This causes a chain reaction, and the log is now on
    fire. So a log burning is the process of the carbon in the log combining
    with oxygen in the air and floating off as CO2.

    Of course, that’s all irrelevant to the person burning the log—what they care about is the energy released during all of this CO2 formation.
    The release of all of the log’s stored chemical energy creates a
    glorious blaze of heat and light. The tree spent years quietly absorbing
    carbon molecules and sunshine joules, and all at once, during combustion, that carbon and sunshine explode back out into the world.8

    To put it another way, photosynthesis just kidnaps carbon and sun
    energy out of the atmosphere, and after years of holding them hostage,
    combustion sets them both free—the carbon as a billowing eruption of
    newly reunited CO2, and the sun energy as fire—meaning that fire is essentially just tightly packed sunshine.

    But burning a log and releasing all that CO2 does not tamper with the atmosphere’s carbon levels. Why? Because the carbon that’s being released was recently in
    the atmosphere, and if you hadn’t set the log on fire, it would have
    likely decomposed, which would release the carbon back into the world
    anyway. The log’s carbon was only being held temporarily hostage, and releasing it through combustion has little effect.

    Carbon flows from the atmosphere into plants and animals, into the
    ground and water, and then back out of all those things into the
    atmosphere—that’s called the carbon cycle. At any given point in time,
    the Earth’s active carbon cycle contains a specific amount of carbon.
    Burning a log doesn’t change that level because the carbon cycle
    “expects” that carbon to be hanging around the ground, water, or air.

    But sometimes, a small portion of carbon in the cycle drops out of the cycle for the long term—it happens when a plant or animal dies but for some reason doesn’t decay
    normally. Instead, before it can decay and release its carbon back into
    the cycle, it’s buried underground. Over time, that lost carbon adds
    up. And today, the Earth’s fossil fuels make up a huge mass of lost
    carbon—carbon that long ago was taken hostage permanently, and carbon that the carbon cycle does not expect to be involved in its routine.

    When humans discovered all of this underground kidnapped carbon, you
    have to remember that for them, the carbon wasn’t the point. They were
    staring at an endless sea of 300 million-year-old, densely packed
    sunshine—trillions of ancient plants with their joules intact—and
    since there are no laws protecting the estates of Carboniferous plants,
    we could seize it all for ourselves. The grandest joule theft in
    history.

    And as we helped ourselves, we didn’t worry about the fact that
    extracting those joules also meant extracting carbon that had been
    buried as far back as the Precambrian period—there were locomotives to
    fuel and cars to power and buildings to heat, and the joules were
    irresistible.

    And those joules have gone a long way—you can thank them for the
    comforts and quality of your life today. But those carbon molecules have
    gone a long way too.

    Starting in 1958, scientist Charles Keeling started measuring atmospheric CO2 levels from an observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Those measurements are still going on today. Here’s what they show:7

    The zig-zaggy motion of the line is due to the level falling each year in the summer when plants are sucking up CO2 and
    rising up again during the winter when the leaves are dead. But the
    overarching trend is unmistakable. To put that into context, ice
    drilling technology9 allows scientists to collect accurate data on what CO2 levels have been throughout the last 400,000 years. Here’s what they’ve found:8

    So atmospheric CO2 levels have oscillated10
    between about 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 400,000
    years, never eclipsing 300, and suddenly in the last century the level
    has vaulted up to 400 (it’s currently at 403ppm).

    So instead of the atmosphere being .02% or .03% carbon, it’s now .04%
    carbon and maybe moving towards .05% and higher. But let’s not judge
    anything yet. All we know is Fact #1, which tells us that CO2 levels are rising quickly.

    Fact 2) Where Atmospheric CO2 Levels Go, Temperatures Follow

    The ice cores dug up by scientists don’t just reveal the CO2 levels going backwards in time—they reveal temperature too. Here’s what they show:9

    Not a hard correlation to see. The reason for this is simple—CO2 is
    a greenhouse gas. The way an actual greenhouse works is the glass lets
    in sun energy and traps a lot of it inside as heat. There are a handful
    of chemicals in our atmosphere that do the same thing—sun rays come in,
    bounce off the Earth, and they’re on their way out when the greenhouse
    gases in the atmosphere block some of them and spread them through the
    atmosphere, warming things up.

    Mars has an average temperature of -55ºC (-67ºF), which isn’t fun,
    but Venus is literally actual hell, with an average temperature of 462ºC
    (864ºF). No one is more of a dick than Venus. Why? CO2. Mars
    has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth so the sun’s energy easily
    escapes, while Venus’s atmosphere is much thicker, with 300 times the CO2 as Earth, so it traps in a ton of heat. Mercury is closer
    to the sun than Venus, but with no atmosphere, it’s cooler than Venus.
    During the day, Mercury gets almost as hot as Venus, but at night it
    gets freezing, while Venus is just as hot at night as it is during the
    day, because the heat lives permanently in its thick atmosphere.

    So it makes sense that an increase in CO2 here would
    increase temperature—but by how much? When compared to the
    Pre-Industrial average temperature, our current average temperature has
    risen by a little less than 1ºC. But as CO2 levels keep
    rising, most scientists expect temperatures to keep rising. The
    UN-supported Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group
    of 1,300 independent scientific experts from a bunch of different
    countries, came out with a report
    that laid out the temperature projections of a number of independent
    labs. This is what those labs think will happen if no action is taken to
    alter the current trends in CO2 emissions:10

    A small minority argue that these future projections are overblown—they point out
    that they ride on the largely accepted theory that water vapor in the
    atmosphere multiplies the effect of carbon emissions because of a
    “feedback” loop, whereby a small increase in temperature from extra CO2 increases
    water evaporation, and since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas,
    that creates more warmth, which further increases more evaporation, and
    on and on. Without this feedback loop, the temperature increases
    resulting from CO2 emissions would be 2-3 times smaller. But even the greatest skeptics usually agree that CO2 emissions do lead to temperature increases.

    The IPCC also puts it at over 90% that the changes in both CO2 levels
    and temperature are caused by human activity (which is kind of like
    saying there’s over a 90% chance that a rain storm has been caused by
    cloud activity). Now the question becomes—how much does the temperature
    need to change to make everything shitty?

    Fact 3) The Temperature Doesn’t Need to Change Very Much to Make Everything Shitty

    18,000 years ago, global temperatures were about 5ºC lower than the
    20th century average. That was enough to put Canada, Scandinavia, and
    half of England and the US under a half a mile of ice. That’s what 5ºC
    can do.11

    100 million years ago, temperatures were 6-10ºC higher than they are
    now—and there were palm trees on the poles, no permanent ice anywhere,
    ocean levels were 200 meters higher, and this kind of shit was happening:12

    So we’re currently in this not-that-big window we probably should try to stay in:

    This is also even more fragile than is intuitive. First, you don’t need the average temperature to go up by a catastrophic amount to have a catastrophe—because the average temp could go up by only 3ºC but the max temp rises by a lot more. Just one day
    at an outlier high like 58ºC (136ºF) would wipe out most of the Earth’s
    crops and animals. Second, because the total range of temperature a
    planet can be goes all the way down to absolute zero: -273ºC (-459ºF).
    So a difference of 5ºC, enough to bury the northern part of the world
    under an ocean of ice, is really only about a 1.5% fluctuation in
    temperature—not something like 10%, which is what it seems like. Looking
    at the window on a spectrum that shows the full range emphasizes that
    the world we’re used to is what it is only because of a very specific
    and delicate balance of conditions.

    As mentioned above, right now, the average temp is edging upwards to 1ºC above the Pre-Industrial norm (the IPCC puts us
    at +.86ºC currently). Scientists debate how high that number can go
    before really dramatic changes start to happen. For the last 20 years, over 100 countries
    have agreed to try to limit global warming to a 2ºC increase, but there
    are all of these different opinions going around about that.
    Regarding the effects of a 2ºC increase, in my research, I came across
    some credible sources saying 2º is an unnecessarily low ceiling and that
    that we can afford to safely go higher and others saying that 2º is too
    high a target and that we’re underestimating how catastrophic a change
    of 2º would be. Regarding our ability to stay under 2º, I’ve also heard
    varying opinions— some think we can stay under 2º with proper
    restrictions; others think there’s no possible way we can stay under
    2º—that there’s enough upward momentum already that even if we stopped
    creating carbon emissions in the next few years, the Earth would keep
    warming past 2º.

    So what are we supposed to make of this?

    Our goal today is not to dig deep into these conflicting
    opinions and try to figure out the truth, because no one knows for sure
    anyway. We’re not going to talk about specific things like sea levels,
    pollution, storms, or that polar bear in the video who’s extra sad
    because his ice is melting. We’re just going to take our three facts and
    put them all together and see what happens:

    This simplifies down to:

    Interesting. But let’s not ostracize the skeptics. We can massage it into a statement that leaves plenty of room for doubt:

    If we continue to burn fossil fuels as much as we are, things might get really shitty kind of soon.

    From: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

  • NA2999

    Here is a quote from Ivar Giaever when he pronounced with absolute certainty that Global Warming was a non issue.

    “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

    After one day of Goggle research he is now an expert. He is a Nobel Winner in PHYSICS, and has ZERO expertise in climate or environmental sciences. As someone else wrote “Listening to Giaever’s opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open”

    Most if not all of his arguments are climate myths that have already been debunked by research and scientist that are EXPERTS in the field. For example Ivar said the following:

    “How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don’t think that’s possible.”

    His whole argument on temperature being a non factor is suspect when he doesn’t even realize that measuring earth’s temperature is achievable using multiple methods and, once again, confirmed by scholars that are experts in the field.

    I’m sure there were renown scientist and scholars the thought the earth was the center of the universe, the universe was static and not expanding, the earth’s continents did not move, and in a young earth (only 20-40 million years old, not the actual 4.5 billion). At some point all these scientific “facts” were thought true and over a period of time the vast majority of experts, after significant research, found them to be false.
    Just because Ivar doesn’t believe in Global Warming and presents debunked myths doesn’t mean that he is right.

    • planet8788

      So what is it? Why does the historical record keep changing if it’s so easy to measure? Why do the satelllites show no warming for 18 years if it is so easy and so certain? Can you answer one of those questions? How many stations do we have in Africa? Do you think it’s easy to measure the surface temperature there… Sure… anyone can invent lots of bogus methods to make data up…

  • flamestar

    Let’s do nothing but make a list of all the climate deniers and if the sea rises we will kill them all.

    • whiteaglesoaring

      In the article Giaever said, “For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the
      previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last
      300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no
      unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will
      repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Since the earth is warming from an Ice age, you want to kill people who made it clear that it has nothing to do with man-made global warming. You apparently didn’t read what he said, and you certainly didn’t think about it.

  • Jae Gregory

    I’m so sick of people who can’t hold an intelligent, rational, fact-based discussion. What is it about commenting on the internet that brings out the worst in mankind?

    Name calling, quoting other internet links without researching, referring to reports that have been debunked numerous times, repeating inaccurate quotes, disseminating false information, not fact checking for themselves does not help anyone. Can’t you do better than that?

    Putting quotation marks around a statement that is changed just enough to make it read the way you’d like it to does NOT make it an actual quote. People, do not believe what others are handing to you! All those who quoted Ottmar in a manner that perhaps supports their own view – as if this single statement from 5 1/2 years ago is the end-all-be all – quoted it incorrectly! Even a cursory search of his actual interview reveals the actual quote was “First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But
    one must say clearly: We distribute the climate policy de facto the
    world’s wealth. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not excited,
    is obvious. You have to free ourselves from the illusion that
    international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do
    with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the
    ozone hole to almost nothing.”

    Think how interesting, educational, and stimulating it would be to have a real discussion instead of the shameful communications that actually happen when your agenda and anger take center stage.

  • labman57

    One of the great misconceptions of the scientifically-illiterate is the assumption that every scientist is an expert in all areas of science, somewhat akin to the Professor on Gilligan’s Island.

    The “expert” opinions of scientists who study quantum mechanics, or astrophysics, or nuclear chemistry, or plate tectonics are not going to have the same gravitas as the conclusions of scientists who actually have spent their careers studying atmospheric chemistry or climatology.

    It would be no different than if you had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and so you sought out the expertise of several oncologists and neurosurgeons to discuss your options … but then a couple of proctologists overhearing the conversations gave their two cents and insisted that their opinions carried as much weight as those of the consulted doctors.

    It would make no sense to give much credence to the advise given by the proctologists … unless your head was lodged up your ass.

    • planet8788

      No one branch of science has the claim of climate science. It’s too complex… that’s why all the models have been wrong. WHy can’t you see that.
      Meanwhile.. when climastrologists ignore satellite data and obviously keep manipulating and fudging surface data and their emails are exposed… it’s clear there is an agenda, not science happening.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        It’s not science, it’s religion.

        You have a priesthood, indoctrinated in the Holy Mysteries, which are far too complex for anyone outside of the priesthood to understand.

        And because the consequences laid out by the priesthood are so dire, we cannot take the time to independently check and verify – we are supposed to trust their predictions of doom and act accordingly.

        If the doom doesn’t happen, then everyone’s sacrifices will have been sufficient. Who cares that the planet’s back at a medieval agrarian energy level? If the doom DOES happen, then it’s because of insufficient sacrifice.

        And either way – we won’t know for literally tens of decades whether the sacrifices will have been sufficient. At which point, the priesthood calling for the sacrifices will be long out of the business.

        It’s a great scam.

      • labman57

        It has nothing to do with “branches of science”. Many fields of scientific study are interdisciplinary with regard to the traditional branches.
        But there are many people who have been trained and have spent their careers investigating this particular field of research, and therefore they are best-suited for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting the available data as well as developing the computer models.

        • planet8788

          The people in those positions now are activists… not scientists… So anybody is better suited than they are.

  • dadamax

    The fact is that these men were never really experts on the diverse issues to which they turned their attention in their golden years. They were physicists, not epidemiologists, ecologists, atmospheric chemists, or climate modelers. To have been truly expert on all the different topics on which they commented, they would have to have been all of these things: epidemiologist and ecologist, atmospheric chemist and climate modeler. No one in the modern world is all of those things. Modern science is far too specialized for that. It requires a degree of focus and dedication that makes it a daunting task to be an expert in any area of modern science, much less in several of them at once. If nothing else, this should have clued observers in that these men simply could not have been real experts. An all purpose expert is an oxymoron.

    Journalists were fooled by these men’s stature, and we are all fooled by the assumption that a smart person is smart about everything: physicists have been consulted on everything from bee colony collapse to spelling reform and the prospects for world peace. And, of course, smoking and cancer. But asking a physicist to comment on smoking and cancer is like asking an Air Force captain to comment on the design of a submarine. He might know something about it; then again, he might not. In any case, he’s not an expert.

    – Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt

    http://www.alternet.org/story/147668/global_warming_deniers_aren't_%22experts%22_at_all%3A_it's_time_for_a_new_view_of_science

  • S. Patrick

    The leader of this religious cult is none other than the Rev. AlGore himself. After recruiting the simple minded likes of L. Dicaprio, M. Damon, B. Affleck, C. Cameron, C Diaz, G. Clooney, etc. he had at least an attractive start to the Church of Climatology

    • Jae Gregory

      “Religious Cult”, hmmm, let me guess what your main news source is…..

      • S. Patrick

        Hi Jae Gregory, not what you’ll likely guess as I’m not into the entertainment industry mislabeled as news. Regardless, you imply that you have imbibed a healthy dose of the good Rev. AlGore.

        • Jae Gregory

          I know little of Al Gore other than his compound is a heavy user of resources which seems hypocritical. I have, however, seen many studies on climate change that bear wise and careful consideration.

          • S. Patrick

            While we’re all hypocrites of some form or fashion the good Rev. AlGore is a classic charlatan whose sole interest is in separating public agencies from the taxes they collect all in the name of Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, Oh sorry, I meant to say Right Wing Conspiracy Theorist Climate Change Deniers.

            I, probably like you, have ready thousands of pages of scientific studies on the subject and the only conclusion I can come to is that this is quickly becoming biggest public scam in history, and we haven’t even begun to fund the various theoretical harebrained schemes that are surely to come. I do agree that careful consideration should be paid to our home and that careless organizations should pay through the nose for the cleanup but even that should be aimed at penalizing versus cleanup (http://www.livescience.com/4567-bad-worse-oil-spills-cleaned-deadly-detergent.html). Being from the area, I know first hand that the debacle that followed the Exxon Valdez spill funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into bureaucratic infrastructure instead of to those who were actually harmed, all because this group of leeches refuse to acknowledge actual data. There they would see that the ocean floor leaks more oil every day than all of the spills that have occurred, COMBINED and that oil is consumed by organisms capable of utilizing it. As for our part, lets be smart versus political, wise versus emotional, and unified versus allowing the good Rev. to label and pit one against the other and the Hollywood types should stay in California and look pretty as that is their only gift to offer. Warmest regard Jae Gregory.

          • planet8788

            What about the satellite data?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            My thinking is that any study which has “we took the raw data and then ‘adjusted’ it to ‘smooth’ it out over a broader area” is little more than science fiction.

            If there’s no warming seen in the raw data, and there is after the adjustment, then you’re not dealing with reality – you’re constructing a fantasy that’s telling you what you want to see, not what actually is occuring.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “The Planet is Warming.” Quoth Al Gore…

        Right before he opened up a company trading ‘carbon credits’ – which you could buy to help offset the CO2 your business put out.

        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=al%20gore%20carbon%20credits

        There was even a Chicago exchange trading ‘Carbon Credits’ for a while. It closed in 2010.

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

        Did you ever see the musical ‘The Music Man” with Robert Preston? Scam artist comes into small town, looking to make money. He had to find a ‘problem’ that could be used as a ‘threat’ to the children of the town, which he could ‘save’ them from by forming a boy’s band. Get the parents to shell out for instruments and uniforms, deliver the cheapest possible crap, and then run like hell.

        Al Gore went further than any con man ever dreamed.

  • Jeff Christie
  • Minnie Blues
  • UrabanoMucho

    Just because he won a nobel prize in physics in 1973 doesn’t mean his opinion on this is worth more than the rest of the scientists who say that man made climate change is real. In fact it may mean his opinion should be disregarded. The thing you have to understand about physics is that it is very much separated from the more complex applied sciences. Look at what Linus Pauling, two time nobel prize winner, did to cause the totally baseless claims for Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold and even cancer. When these people speak out on subjects not in their field or the specific thing their prize was awarded for, they can have some bizarre opinions. In this case Ivans noblel prize was for tunneling behavior in solids and he only won a fourth of the prize. He has also admitted in the past that he is not that interested in global warming. However he is a perfect pitchman for the anti-global warming crack-pots, and no doubt misses the brief attention he got as a noble prize winner.

    • planet8788

      When you or any other climastrologists can explain why the satellite data shows no warming for 18 years… we might pay attention.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        The problem is that a physicist took a look at the numbers. And what he was seeing was the equivalent of the AGW crowd insisting that 2+2=5, after the numbers were ‘adjusted’ based on proprietary criteria and hidden changes.

        Hard to ignore falsified data…

      • UrabanoMucho

        Which satellites? All of the recent missions show data supporting global warming. Oh I forgot NASA is part of this gigantic conspiracy.

    • cheyenne-Jim

      Oh this is good. But you all cite Obama as an authoritative figure, as well as Al Gore, as well as Stephen Hawking. Mr. Hawking is a Cosmologist, where is the relevance there (using your argument) and Obama well we are not sure what his specialty of science is, and Al Gore well same as the last (not sure what his specialty of science is) Bottom line you hate when anyone disagrees with this junk science of Global Warming, Ozone hole, Ice age, and Climate change you all have been trying to prove for a long long long time. So how do you come by being such an expert. I see nothing of your credentials anywhere. What makes you special or a knowledgeable source?

  • Ed VanDyke
    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Oh, yeah. Diversity. They’ve been “OMG WE’RE GONNA DIE IF EVERYONE DOESN’T DO EVERYTHING WE TELL YOU!” since they were started.

      Want diversity and actual SCIENCE instead of AGW hysteria? http://wattsupwiththat.com/ gives a LOT more info on the subject.

      • Ed VanDyke

        It’s another perspective to the load of ignorant bias in this article… :)

        Your link is an interesting read and perspective. Though it, too carries a pang of “denier” bias. Climate is an extremely complex dynamic, and each factor wildly influences all of the others. Each trend, if modeled/forecast independent of the others, will contradict the models of the others. We WILL be wrong more often than we’re right. As long as we recognize when we’re wrong, carefully account for and document the discrepancies, and adjust the model to the new observations, then we’re doing it right.

        AGW “hysteria” is just a cultural response to a pervasive campaign of denial and willful ignorance. (Because slapping people and/or grabbing and vigorously shaking them to get their attention is illegal in most places).

        There are very real concerns and challenges, going forward. Global food, commodity production, energy production, even geography are in flux. That will invariably lead to regional,national hardships, desperations and conflicts. Those aware of the problem and paying close attention to how it unfolds will be in a position to prepare and respond. Those jamming their head in their [backside] and denying the problems even exist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are just voluntary fools. They will fail and vanish while those who prepared will have options ranging from ‘persisting’ to ‘thriving’…

        WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE! I can guarantee it with absolute certainty. There are NO reprieves, appeals. But we can make a significant impact in our quality of life, and that of subsequent generations. And we can have some influence to the manner(s) in which we/they die… Or we can put our hands on our ears and chant, “nahnahnahnahnahnah…I can’t hear you!”, and accept whatever happens as the [will of God]….
        I prefer to work towards making things better, than to sit and wait for death in ignorant bliss… 😉

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Bias is insisting that there’s warming, when you’ve got to produce the ‘evidence’ by ‘adjusting’ the numbers and you’re relying on the output of computer models to show it when that warming isn’t in evidence in the raw data.

          “But we can make a significant impact in our quality of life, and that of subsequent generations.”

          And we already have. Look at Spain, and other countries in Europe. They’re going to be decades paying off the debt from chasing green energy – which will make a significant impact in their quality of life.

          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/europe-pulls-the-plug-on-its-green-future/story-e6frg8y6-1226694405337

          I agree with you, though. Less pollution IS better – but there’s a point beyond which the cost to ‘make it cleaner’ is far greater than any benefit you’ll get from the improvement.

          As far as the environment’s concerned, I’ll believe the ‘leaders’ screaming about it are serious when (a) we stop seeing them flying private jets to annual conferences in exotic places, and (b) going all out in support of nuclear power instead of funneling money to businesses like Solyndra.

          Hell, I was suspicious when Al Gore just ‘happened’ to have a ready solution to global warming. All we had to do was buy ‘carbon credits’ from a company he conveniently happened to be a part-owner of.

          Later on, when the Climategate emails showed a lot of the ‘AGW alarmists’ were colluding to quash any sort of negative analyses of the work, and refusing to make both their data sets and their computations public – well, that’s not how you’re supposed to science.

          Your mileage may vary, of course.

          • Ed VanDyke

            There is NO data, supporting anything but global warming. Raw data is just that: RAW. It means nothing until it’s interpreted in context. There’s some data which by itself indicates some surface temperatures are not increasing as expected. And Deniers point to it as “proof” that there’s no global warming. But they’re ignoring the word GLOBAL, and not considering that the oceans have absorbed the bulk of a given period’s surplus heat. So scientists create models with [arbitrary] values to understand how thermodynamics can manifest such anomalies… Once they have working, stable models, they integrate values from Earth observations to understand how climate,temperature fluctuations will/should manifest on Earth. Going back years, decades, centuries they have inconsistent data collection standards, protocols, so direct comparisons can’t be made. But they can get a clear picture of warming TRENDS. Combined with what we understand about atmospheric chemistry, solar radiation and thermodynamics we can predict with some accuracy where we’re headed.

            The so-called “climategate” farce was once again a misrepresentation of correspondence, collaboration (not collusion) between peers working in related fields, and coordinating ‘talking points’ for advocates, lobbyists, politicians, so as to present a united, organized defense against the fossil-fuel ‘full court press’ and persisting media blitz, all pushing denial and doubt to the bane of all Earthlings, for personal profit…

            I would certainly like to see more transparent sharing of comprehensive data-sets and modelling algorithms. But the denial cult has made that problematic. They don’t understand the science, and they don’t need to. They just need to find a recognizable name, or official-sounding title to raise a tiny little point of doubt, and then FuxNews (et al) blasts it everywhere/anywhere they can as irrefutable “proof” that it’s all a hoax. Comprehensive climate data would require tens of thousands of pages of information. They’d have some [quantum physicist] highlight a [decimal point] on page [3874] and preach it’s all a massive government(Obama and/or ‘Hillary’) conspiracy. The audience doesn’t understand the material at all, so no amount of explaining what the decimal point really means will make any difference.

            On top of that, as you mentioned, AGW represents the future of agriculture, energy industries. Many of these studies are funded by companies, governments who can profit, benefit by understanding the nature of reality better than their competitors… Studies they fund can be made to represent ‘intellectual property’ and ‘proprietary technology’.. Whether or not they’re litigious likely depends on how well the company is doing, and they’re mostly off to a shaky start…

            The fact is ‘AGW’ IS happening, the inevitable consequences are clear (if not high-resolution), and we need to respond. The next century belongs to the nation who is prepared, equipped to combat this problem. We are not the only capitalist superpower anymore. And a few others meet/exceed our labor force, population health, and production capacity.. Someday very soon, someone is going to have to redesign, rebuild the energy and agricultural infrastructures for the ENTIRE PLANET. It’s going to be us, or it’s going to be China… China has pulled ahead of us for the first few steps. And I’m too damned old to try to teach myself a language like Mandarin… :)

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Sorry. If you’re taking a contiguous stretch of uninterrupted data, using a good quality station that isn’t moved and isn’t compromised by such things as blacktop parking lots, air conditioning vents and (amazingly) BBQ grills located nearby, and you’re telling me that data has to be manipulated and adjusted to provide a ‘context’ – then we’re at an impasse.

            http://www.surfacestations.org

            http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1410/S00086/new-paper-finds-no-significant-20th-century-warming-for-nz.htm

            And now…

            http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity

            Of course, there’s a possible problem with ‘cold weather’… but hey, all can be explained, and it’s not really colder.

            http://fijisun.com.fj/2015/06/30/opinion-cold-its-colder-than-they-say/

            Another decade o two, we’ll have a better idea. But catastrophic warming? I don’t think so.

          • Ed VanDyke

            Great set of links. Thanks :)

            Such a network of integrated weather stations would be awesome. And we’ve achieved it with ever-increasing measurement capabilities. These studies into flaws,vulnerabilities of recording methods, was both a cause and effect of developing that improved network. Therein lies the crux of the problem. We can watch every nuance of how conditions are interacting with each other in real-time, RIGHT NOW… We have a front-row seat to exactly how the climate is changing in precise detail, Yet all of the ‘intermediate’ and advanced theories, models have been formed, evolved over the course of a century, based on records, data of dubious credibility… In the last few decades, theories models have been refined to make ‘blurry’ models, predictions cooperate with thousands of new variables, that were previously unknown, unmeasurable, or otherwise not accounted. Scientists used algorithmic ‘tricks’ to determine what [variable x]’s value “should” have been at some point in the past, based on what they can determine at that point from ice cores, contemporary surface, ocean temperatures,salinity, or whatever they’ve got. We’ve never watched a climate this closely before (much less one in flux), so we’re going to see unexpected things DAILY. I think that’s something about which to get excited, listen to those who can explain why it’s happening, and why they weren’t expecting it. There’s too many obnoxious people who think that’s a reason to ignore it, and anything associated with it… :)

            As for a looming ‘Little Ice-Age’- I used to wonder: If I was the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, and I had been told that the world was going to be covered in ice in a [few] decades, what would I do??

            1- Emphasize focus on fossil fuels (wind, solar, hydro-electric, nuclear range from useless to catastrophically dangerous when covered in ice, and we’ve got 300 million people to keep warm in a mostly frozen environment)

            2- Move the largest mobilized military on Earth to the middle of the largest equatorial oil fields. (because the rest of the planet has the same energy demands, and desperate urgency)

            3- Push religion like it’s going out of style (because it is, and now is the wrong time for that)

            4- Build a wall across our borders (especially the southern ones)

            George W Bush; The greatest US President, or the greatest leader in all of human civilization.- The man who led the United States to ensure the human race persisted through the ‘Age of Ice’…..

            Though perhaps the most frightening notion of that fantasy hypothesis was the one thing I really LIKED about his Presidency: The disproportionate amount of resources spent on the exploration of Mars. (just how bad are things supposed to get here)?

            HeHe 😉

  • Ed VanDyke

    If/When we get to the point that a quantum physicist is the credible authority to describe the nature of the global climate, we’ve got bigger problems than carbon….. 😉

  • OsB4hos

    http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/ Again….. the climate deniers have been swindled by Fox News and scientists weighing in on topics not in their field. Sorry Fox, climate change is still real.

    • planet8788

      Yeah, Climastrology doesn’t involve PHysics at all… And we all know how accurate those models have been…. from the “real” climatologists… HA HA. Oh wait… 97 % of them have way overestimated the warming… hmmm.

      • Ed VanDyke

        Ultimately climate is ENTIRELY about physics…. But the only thing it has to do with Quantum physics, is that now climate is being significantly influenced by [mechanisms] operating a [quantum interface] with the environment, and deviating it from from the trends dictated by all the other sciences…(yet this scientist remarks only on the factors outside his field, in which he holds esteem) 😉

  • wimcin

    Obama is wrong on everything.

  • moonglow

    I think we have to stop arguing about whether the climate is warming or not and what (if it is) may be causing it.
    We DO need to be concerned with pollution of the water and air. Even if it is not causing global warming, it is making people sick. Look at China. It made me sick just to visit there for a week. I took a picture out of my hotel window in Beijing and when I saw the picture, it looked like I had taken it underwater, the air was so yellow and polluted.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      China can only control what happens in China. And they’re quite willing to go “Yeah, we’ll handle it,” and then ignore it.

  • Robin Simms

    wow after looking at what james had
    to say he must think mankind is more powerful than mother nature
    Huntington post who care’s? NASA went and looked at it it must be old
    or not sanctioned also saw post from NASA with an opposing view. I
    didn’t read all the data above I don’t need to I went to school and
    learned a few thing’s ( I also rely on common sense )

    do you think we actually have the tech to change the weather
    ? I saw a bit the gov was trying to control weather as a weapon.
    (think it was back in the 1950’s) didn’t work. H2o, water it
    has so many forms solid, liquid, and gas. let’s talk just about
    one form… gas water when heated turn’s to steam (the most efficient
    form of energy) OK without getting to technical let’s just say it
    dissipates into the atmosphere. you’ve seen it rising off the street
    and sidewalk when it rains and how a bought those foggy days.. so we
    know that water evaporates then what happens? Your right it rises
    into the atmosphere where it starts collecting together to form
    clouds (which is a whole other discussion) so let look at just one
    thing a cloud does, it makes a shadow I’m sure you have seen them
    on the ground as a small cloud drifts by and remember the difference
    in temp when you were in the shade and sun so it seams mother nature
    might know more if it gets hotter the water dissipates faster making
    more shade.

    That’s only one way she work’s Did you here a bought that big
    fire in Canada you know smoke makes a shadow too but that’s a whole
    other subject.

  • hammerstamp

    When the numbers have to be fiddled to show global warming it’s pretty safe to say the purveyors of climate change are looking for willing suckers to dupe.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    For a lot of the AGW believers, It’s not science, it’s religion.

    You have a priesthood, indoctrinated in the Holy Mysteries, which are far too complex for anyone outside of the priesthood to understand. And because the consequences laid out by the priesthood are so dire, we cannot take the time to independently check and verify – we are supposed to trust their predictions of doom and act accordingly. We must spend everything we can on the proper kinds of energy, and get more money by raising the costs of the wrong kinds of energy – to the point where economies stagger.

    If the doom doesn’t happen, then everyone’s sacrifices will have been sufficient. Who cares that the planet’s back at a medieval agrarian energy level? If the doom DOES happen, then it’s because of insufficient sacrifice.

    And either way – we won’t know for literally tens of decades whether the sacrifices will have been sufficient. At which point, the priesthood calling for the sacrifices will be long out of the business, retired to massive estates paid for by the gullible sheep who believed them unquestioningly.

    It’s a great scam.

    • T.G. Crewe

      lol

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Oh – anyone interested in the ‘adjustments’ that are being done?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

    Holy hell. Talk about ‘adjusting’.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Just in case he is wrong, read & sign the petition to our government to expedite the cleanest, safest most abundant energy source capable of replaceing or minimizing the use of fossil or conventional nuclear power for the worlds elegy source, No?
    What?
    http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Low_energy_nuclear_reactions
    Sign, only if you can?
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/speed-development-clean-really-too-cheap-meter-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-lenr-power-generation
    Do something positive for the world!
    It’s up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.

    • planet8788

      Why are you a bird hater?

  • bob ashworth

    Stupid global warmers. I am an old chemical engineer and all gases and dust in the atmosphere cool our planet, no warming. On a sun shiny day and a cloud (water vapor so called greatest greenhouse gas) goes overhead and shades you, do you feel cooler or warmer? No common sense is used anymore and there also can’t be many real scientists in the world anymore.

    • troll e troll

      lol

    • Steve1951

      Climate change has nothing to do with the weather on a given day. BTW water vapor is not a gas. A chemical engineer should know that.

      • planet8788

        He isn’t talking about the weather.

    • UrabanoMucho

      How old are you? The cloud does shades you below but it absorbs infrared to do it. Where does that energy go. Into the atmosphere duh.

      • bob ashworth

        Half of the radiant energy coming in is reflected back to space. The overall effect is cooling, never warming!

        • UrabanoMucho

          Right bob, but air with more CO2 in it bocks more of the radiated heat so the rate of cooling is less. This is a quantitative argument, not a binary on off thing, cooling or warming, its the same thing. Whether something is warm or cold is relative to whatever your reference is, until you get down to absolute zero that is.

  • Steve1951

    Since 1993 97% of all scientific papers support the idea of global warming that is partial caused by humans. The above physicist is not really qualified in the climate sciences. The right likes to point out that over 31,000 scientists signed a petition disclaiming global warming. What they fail to include is that the creator of the petition defined scientists as people with degrees in specific topics including engineers. That 31,000 is only 0.3% of the total scientists as defined.

  • http://www.storyleak.com/2013-year-awakening/ MOLON LABE

    Jul 5th, 2015 Climate Change versus the Dangers of Nuclear War. “Three Minutes to Midnight”

    Michel Chossudovsky (CRG) : Sixty five Nobel winners were meeting in Mainau, Lake Constance in Southern Germany at their annual conference of Nobel Laureates sponsored by the Lindau Foundation. Among the donors to the Lindau Nobel initiative are Lockheed Martin,Deutsche Bank, UBS, Bayer, Merck, Novartis and Microsoft.

    http://nsnbc.me/2015/07/05/climate-change-versus-the-dangers-of-nuclear-war-three-minutes-to-midnight/

    • planet8788

      I thought Obama letting Iran get nukes was his Plan B on global warming.

  • Roy Mallmann

    Finally, more and more people are standing up to the brain-washing.

  • Patriot41

    The professor is correct when he states that the global warming movement is a religion, one that is based on unproven theory as well as unproven facts. He makes a very valid point about the fact, that there is no common measure for the earth temp, so how then can anyone claim that it is unusual or dangerous to mankind? That is a fact and not a theory!

    From what weather history we have been able to attain, we have learned that the earth has gone through normal major weather changing cycles that span a period of centuries, yet civilization has been sustained. Most importantly, mankind has never been able to control or affect those weather cycles and still cannot do so! Mankind was able to adapt to those weather cycles and that is how it has survived.

    So we are really talking about adaptability and not changing of the weather cycles, which up to this point has proven to be impossible as far as mankind is concerned. The best way to adapt, is to be prepared for major weather cycle changes and that is possible, because the weather is cyclical.

    Mankind can change their activities which cause pollution within the air they breath and that is where the emphasis should be rightfully placed. In doing so, they must correctly identify pollutants which are a serious threat to all living things. One questions whether or not CO2 is a dangerous pollutant to any living thing and that has been a serious problem with unsubstantiated claims, by certain members of the scientific world.

  • Marc B. Mintz

    Remember The leader on global warming is the same person who said that he invented the internet. How rich has Mr.Gore and his backers have become with their carbon credits.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      And when he came out with the ‘OMG! GLOBAL WARMING!’ warning, he just HAPPENED to have the cure right to hand… in the form of ‘carbon credits’ sold by a company he was a partner in.

    • troll e troll

      So it’s bad to make money?

  • quarkie009

    Mankind does not have the ability to affect the world’s climate on a global scale, only the Creator does. The climate warms and cools according to the natural law under which we live under. We are all along for the ride in our lifetime and we will never be able to control the weather on a large scale. The climate warming is all about dividing the people from their hard earned money with the government cashing in on fooling the people time and time again.

  • ONTIME

    Thank you Professor for introducing your logic and experience into this wasted argument dreamed up by money grubbing politicians and unscrupulous con artist like “algore the leech”, to create hysteria about a non existent problem and line their pockets with money wrought from unfounded fear……This is what big, blood sucking government politicians do, grow problems, create fear and steal income to add to their elite, expensive, growing governments….

  • James

    ANSWER: This explains most of the Climate Change deniers on this post:

    http://climatecrocks.com/2015/07/09/study-climate-deniers-tend-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

    The others perhaps think that “God” will save them

    • planet8788

      LOL… Why are you a satellite data denier? No conspiracy is required. Only the human tendency to feel important and not cut off one’s source of funding.

      • James

        The data is right but it was taken from temperature measurements at the TOP of the troposphere, not the bottom (surface). Hot air expands (cools) as it rises so the top tropospheric temperatures measured in this case do not represent what is happening at the surface.
        This is how the climate science deniers fool so many people. They take facts out of context or in selected time periods to suggest that climate change is not real.
        The only explanation for the loss of glaciers and loss of Greenland ice pack and rising sea levels and more severe weather events is the rise in atmospheric CO2.
        I hope all deniers are thinking about an exit plan for their younger family members by mid-century. If they live in the North east, there will be food shortages, south west – water shortages. mid-west – droughts, south east, flooding and population shifts inland.

  • Engage Gray Matter

    While I too do not accept the premise of the global warming alarmists, I also think this man’s understanding of the Catholic Church and its teachings and dogma is about as wrong as Obama’s claims in regards to global warming. Dogma is in fact infallible, some teachings however are not. There are very few Dogmas in the Catholic Church and for good reason. Very seldom does a Pope speak on behalf of the Church (in ex Cathedra) to pronounce a dogma. For example: Jesus Christ was both divine and human and consubstantial with the Father. That is a dogma.

  • ron17571

    You have to understand that FEAR Is being used to try and control people. Agenda 21 stuff. They don’t want common sense or facts getting in the way.

  • Dr. Jon

    I would love to be an alarmist. It would be much easier. But I am frustrated by the fact that there is no evidence to support that position. The best thing they have is that 97% of climate scientists agree… Of Course. That is a testimonial. That is how you sell supplements, not scientific theories. As we all know, 98% of real estate agents agree that today would be a good day to sell your house. The testimony of support for an idea by someone whose continued prosperity depends directly on your acceptance of that idea is always suspect.
    The second best thing they have is a theory. However, the data does not support the theory. Raw data shows the “global average temperature” is pretty much flat. Seriously, the theory and the data do not match.
    The third best thing they have is an analogy. These are “greenhouse gasses”. Since everyone understands why a greenhouse gets hot, they say it is like that. But the analogy is false. A greenhouse consists (most basically) of an inside atmosphere, an outside atmosphere, and a layer of dielectric material (in which the speed of light is different from in either atmosphere) This layer, (think: glass) provides a challenge to light passing through it. Longer wavelengths are preferentially reflected, while shorter (visible) wavelengths are largely transmitted. No such layer exists in the atmosphere around the earth. The only way for the atmosphere to prevent infrared radiation from escaping is for it to absorb (not reflect) the light. However, for that to happen, it would have to get warmer. So if the theory were correct, atmospheric temperatures would need to get much warmer before surface temperatures could get warmer because of the “greenhouse effect”. This is not similar to a greenhouse, where the energy trapping property of the glass is not materially related to the glass temperature.
    So I am asked to accept a conjecture which contradicts the evidence, based on an obviously false analogy. And threatened with ridicule and told that a lot of smart people who make their living off of this agree it is a big problem.
    Nothing is so damaging to the credibility of science as pseudo science like global warming.

    • Ed VanDyke

      WOW Did you just dismiss “climate change”/”global warming” by attacking the WORD, ANALOGY used to describe it, and mischaracterizing how a greenhouse works? While true there is no layer of glass surrounding the Earth, a blanket of [carbon] gas serves the same purpose. Beyond that, it overlooks the fact that [nothing] in the Universe absorbs heat more covetously than water, and we have an awful lot of that here. It has to get pretty ‘warm’ before water molecules carry that heat into the atmosphere, then the carbon prevents it from rising any higher… As the water cools/condenses in the atmosphere, it falls back out with what heat it has left, never inhibiting additional heat being added from the Sun. (think condensation on your greenhouse glass, and the reason EVERY greenhouse has a ventilation fan on the roof-line to keep them from getting too hot)…

      That’s as much as I’ve got ‘ from the cuff’…. I’ll forgo digging into absurdities like “no evidence to support that position”, and “Raw data shows the “global average temperature” is pretty much flat”, and calling scientific consensus a “testimonial”….. Describing “AGW” is a product of SCIENCE. Pseudoscience and confusing the issue is a product of the denial cult… 😉

      • planet8788

        you have no idea what NET effect the CO2 is. NEither do the Climastrologists. Yes, it may reflect a teeny amount more infrared waves but you don’t know what else it does. How could you? Where have you run an experiment on such a complex system?

        Satellite data shows 18 years of no warming. RSS and UAH… The surface temperatures get “adjusted” beyond recognition… THere is no RELIABLE evidence that it is getting hotter… and even less that it is hotter than it was 1000 years ago.

        • Ed VanDyke

          There is no PERFECT evidence. All observations are subject to human, equipment fallibility. And when discrepancy is noted, observations are reevaluated, and the model is reformed to accommodate new observations. True we can’t specifically quantify the net result of that carbon dynamic at any future point in space-time at high resolution. But the effect of [CO2], water, etc. on a wide spectrum of of radiation (visible and otherwise) is well established and documented. And I have done many such experiments since grammar school. We can trend that on a large scale to determine warming trends. Just not a flawless, comprehensive, step-by-step outline for every inch of the planet. I haven’t personally modeled any global climates. Very few have access to, and proficiency in such super-computer resources. But I understand the science. And I enlighten myself with well-sourced information, which allows me to resolve my skepticism of material to which scientific method demands I question…

          In fact, I found myself at this very article, looking for a point of view contrary to my perceptions. And I found it’s content lacking in empirical value, substantiation, or anything that could be confused with credibility or science. The comment section appears no better…

          😉

          • planet8788

            Radiation is one itsy bitsy part of the whole equation… The chemistry change in the atmosphere may bring about a different change, bigger, and in the opposite direction. We have already seen a 30% rise in CO2 and have very little to show for it.

          • Ed VanDyke

            Well, not to beleaguer on a single point, but it’s ENTIRELY about “radiation”, which is what HEAT, and sunlight are. I’m not sure which figures you’re citing, but CO2 has risen about 30% since the 1950s. If you think subsequent increases in global temperature are “very little to show for it”, then you need to reevaluate your parameters for “very little”… :)

            http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/co2_change.html

          • planet8788

            Satellites show no or almost no warming for 18 years.
            We heated up from 1900-1940 about the same amount that we heated from 1980 to now.
            1940-1980 we cooled almost as much as we heated….

            In the late 1970’s scientists were sure the Earth had cooled about 0.7C from 1940-1975…. Now NASA/NOAA tells us we barely cooled at all. I don’t believe the surface temperature data… It’s fudged to create the hockeystick/ Raw data shows cooling recently

          • Ed VanDyke

            WHAT satellite “raw data” is that? Our methods for collecting data have changed significantly since 1940s, 1970s, 1980s, present… They cannot be directly compared. Data represents specific locations, spotted across the Earth and time. That’s why they have to be interpolated,modeled in a computer to indicate trends. And observations which don’t match trends have to be looked at more closely to understand why. Those trends all indicate the planet is gaining heat. But surface temperatures alone can’t comprehensively indicate that, because we have all this water which traps it in the oceans, and even in the atmosphere.. There is NO model which indicates the planets is getting cooler since the 40s,70s,80s, etc. Only misrepresentation of cherry-picked inconsistencies in data collection standards/practices… :)

          • planet8788

            It’s just the raw data that shows the cooling, at least here in the USA.
            The RSS and UAH satellite data show NO cooling// no warming for 18 years…
            Please explain how compensation for UHI is done. I believe I know. Do you?

          • Ed VanDyke

            I can’t speak to any specific protocol, standard by which measurements are compensated for the ‘urban heat island’ effect. Many measurement stations are located in/near urban centers, and each has a unique set of factors which affect continuity of accurate/comparable values over the decades. There are some very complicated algorithms for “judging” differentials between those temperatures and temperatures just a few miles away on more rural areas… For (one) example; Many temperature records are from airports, which have large blacktop surfaces to absorb lots of heat, and very few trees to to to dissipate it… City streets, dark buildings and concentrated populations, traffic create and compound similar effects. The most common way scientists have “fudged” those figures, and/or moved measurement tools has been to LOWER recorded values, in more recent years…. Even still, trends indicate things are getting hotter. :)

          • planet8788

            And obviously they are too complex and proprietary too publish… HMMMM.

            Actually what I read… it was pretty simple… a little too simple… Assuming UHI could only affect one location at a time in a given area. A pretty weak assumption.

          • Ed VanDyke

            UHI affects ALL “urban” areas, and to varying extents, depending on other area-specific variables. It certainly doesn’t only affect one at a time. Though the pragmatic, semantic, scientific committees debate and address each on, ad nauseum, to the point that time stops and it just feels like that’s the only only that exists at any given time. Any number of recording stations may have any number of “accepted” ranges of values, over any number of periods. Each of these sets of values is assigned a set of qualifiers to classify it, based on how values were reached. And every study used to determine parameters for establishing a model outlines the parameters they used to determining which sets of values to include…

            Hence, each study, model will result in different specific outcomes.
            But they ALL show the same trends (and our understanding over physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics explains why we make the observations we do… :)

          • Ed VanDyke

            It’s not that UHI only affects narrow areas in a given region. It’s that temperature recording instruments (thermometers) happened to be in places that consistently recorded higher temperatures than were necessarily representative of the surrounding region (thermometers at airports, or ‘downtown’ radio/TV stations. Stations on the sunny side of hills or out of prevailing winds. Even water temperature sensors behind the screws on certain models of ships which reported higher temperatures than ships with sensors in front)…

            Scientists scrounging for as much data as they could get to plug into computer models discovered that a disproportionate amount of the data showed higher temperatures than data recorded from neighboring stations. If they had grad students or interns to research such anomalies, then sometimes they were able to identify consistent variation, and they could refine their dataset to reflect more accurate historical values.

            Think, if all the temperature history for any given area happened to come from [one] thermometer that consistently read a degree or two hotter on sunny days, for a [decade], then it’s going to throw off your results.. When there are hundreds, or thousands of such thermometers, all interlacing data collected by inconsistent standards, then models start getting pretty unstable, unreliable, indeed. Science HATES that. So obsessive-compulsive geeks who now there’s an army of other obsessive-compulsive chomping at that bit to prove them wrong, set to work, to quantify any conceivable flaw in the data and put it right… :)

          • planet8788

            And if the chemistry or airpressure changes cloud formation (about which we understand very little yet), then what happens…. the albedo blows it away. What makes climate so complex is water vapor… When it’s a cloud it’s usually a cooler… when it’s not its 1000 times stronger of a green house gas than CO2.

          • Ed VanDyke

            Yeah the albedo effect is a fun dynamic of its own. It has a lot to do with how much water can collect and cool in the higher atmosphere, which is compounded by how much melting ice is lessening the albedo effect from the poles and glaciers (MANY times for significant than light reflected by clouds) That could/should be a climate dynamic worthy of focused research. It’s definitely one of those things that could vary between ‘snowballing’ and ‘auto-correcting’… More heat could mean more water in the atmosphere, meaning more clouds, meaning more reflected heat… Or more heat could mean more melted ice, meaning more water in the atmosphere, meaning more water condensing in the lower atmosphere, meaning darker clouds and no ice caps, meaning more heat absorbed by the planet… :)

          • planet8788

            Antarctic sea ice is at record levels. Arctic sea ice extent same as 2005. (Almost all graphs are from 1980 which was a peak right at the end of a cooling period.) Greenland got way above average snow fall this year. Lots of warmists are now saying more snowfall is predicted. thus more albedo. .

            Again… not much bang for the CO2 buck.

          • Ed VanDyke

            Funny… Antarctic ice EXTENT has recently had a ‘boost’. But that’s because the ice on the continent has been melting and sliding off. That ice is not as thick as previous, and continues to melt, allowing more ice to slide off. Greenland has had more snowfall, due to increasing water in the atmosphere (and prevailing wind,pressure which also led to our recent ‘polar vortex’. But it has also had increasing snow MELT which consistently exceeds the additional snowfall… We’re going to have to figure out how to make big, white, fluffy clouds if we’re hoping albedo is going to save us… :)

          • planet8788

            Save us from what… Greenland was farmable and Alaska had forests where glaciers sit now… just 1000 years ago. It’s all a bunch of hype.
            We’re already getting those clouds….I fly alot… they really started coming in about 5 years ago. (Corresponding with the weak sunspot cycle).

            A slight accelleration in the water cycle gives you all the additional cooling you need.

          • Ed VanDyke

            That’s a little [overly] hopeful… An anecdotal account of increase cloud-cover, correlating to a weak period in a solar cycle… Unless you’re suggesting that clouds affect solar activity, then it seems unlikely that the diminishing of direct solar heating of the atmosphere causes clouds, causes cooling… More likely- Higher than [normal] water saturation of the atmosphere reacted to lower than [normal] solar ‘input’ and led to an increase in cloud ‘crystallization’… Farm-able land in Iceland and Alaska would undoubtedly help the world feed itself. But it’s small consolation if our contemporary farmland is all turned into deserts and brackish swampland… :)

          • UrabanoMucho

            This is just plain false, and you don’t have to do too much Googling to find out.

          • planet8788

            There’s been a big rebound in the last three years…

            Look at Piomass…
            Look at NSIDC…
            and DMI

            They publish daily updates to their graphs. piomass is monthly.

            The ones you find on Google usually stop at 2012…. because the story gets too complex after that..

            Prove me wrong… YOU Can’t. I check this charts at least monthly… You apparently are just clueless. Do I need to hold your hand?

          • UrabanoMucho

            What are you talking about? You must be living in a separate reality. Here is NSICD overall report for july 8, 2015: “Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent remained higher than average. The pace of sea ice loss was near average for the month of June, but persistently warm conditions and increased melting late in the month may have set the stage for rapid ice loss in the coming weeks. “

          • planet8788
          • planet8788

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

            Punch in the year 2007 and compare it to this year…. More sea ice extent than 2007. Dig into the data.

          • UrabanoMucho

            The ice is much thinner now. The leveling off of the rate in increase in temperature is due to the heat being absorbed in the deeper waters of the pacific by a change in the currents–but the overall heating is continuing. Quit glomming in one measurement. When many different measurements correspond that’s when you have to see that something is happening. This lays out for you:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            Of course in sure you have some conspiracy theory regarding Bloomberg also.

          • planet8788

            ice volume and area is up three years in a row… It’s getting thicker in recent years… not thinner. Although El Nino may take a whack at it later this year.

            http://neven1.typepad.com/

          • planet8788
          • planet8788

            The surface temperature record is not recognizable… not even close. Look at Hansen’s 1981 data and compare it today.

            at the time, he though 1980 was warmer than 1950…
            tree rings aren’t that reliable… And again.. Parts of Greenland were arable 100 years ago and there were forests in Alaska where now glaciers sit.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Sorry Dude you are getting tedious–be sure to take your meds. It’s clear this has to be solved politically. Get your head out of your wayback machine and take your meds.

          • planet8788

            Did you look at Hansen’s 1981 graph? No. I didn’t think so… Looking at real data is too painful… Because once you saw that… you would have to be on meds to believe in CAGW.

            Satellites show no warming. Ice is rebounding…
            the only thing that’s rising the mucked up surface temp record…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            We’ve only been doing the satellite record since the late ’70s. Unless you figure that was the beginning of recorded time (which even those idiot creationists give at least 6000+ years) then ‘third lowest in the satellite record’ means little in the history of the planet, or the history of the human race.

          • UrabanoMucho

            I have a feeling that your education is self education via the internet and that you somehow think that you can make sense of complex data from several different natural sciences. In this statement I have no idea what your ultimate point is at all, and I’m trying to understand you.

          • planet8788

            That’s because you can’t read. Mr. Van Dyke apparently believes that the only thing CO2 can do in the atmosphere is act as a greenhouse gas.

            My point is… even the most educated scientist really doesn’t know what happens… the system is too complex… That’s why all of them have failed to predict the pause over the last 18 years.

            It’s hand waving… Climastrologists have no idea if we are going to warm up cool down or continue staying flat.

            That is my point.

          • UrabanoMucho

            I can’t read and you are a science pretender–I guess you honestly think you have this figured out, but as your gas law comment revealed, something is missing in applying the principles, and you are right it is complex, but not too complex to get trends out of it. And the predictions overall have been correct. The problem with being such a set denier is that you can’t sort out the data right–and there are always going to be deviations, but those are not as important as the overall trends.

          • planet8788

            LOL.. So you are a satellite data denier. I see. The warming from 1910-1940 (Before major anthropegenic CO2 rise) is the same as from 1980 to today…

            And now we are going into a cooling trend… because of the sun.

            When the data doesn’t match your hypothesis, you change the hypothesis… not the data…
            THAT IS SCIENCE. Nothing more… nothing less..

          • UrabanoMucho

            I say again-which satellites, and what kind of data? All recent missions show data that support global warming–I looked all over NASAs site–Oops forgot NASA is part of a gigantic conspiracy.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

          • planet8788

            UAH and RSS.
            woodfortrees.org.

          • UrabanoMucho

            You are correct.

    • bunnyb0y

      It is not even that “97% of climate scientists agree”, that is an outright lie or deliberate ignorance repeated by the useful idiots.
      To quote Richard Tol:
      “The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
      Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”

    • UrabanoMucho

      Dude you are refuting an analogy that you created. The surface of the earth warms in the day and then reradiates the heat at night. The greenhouse gases absorb the radiation and reemit it. For some reason a lot of you deniers are confused and think the claimed mechanism is just conduction of heat from the air to the land. That’s not it. Infrared radiation which would normally go through the atmosphere into the heat sink of outer space, instead gets absorbed by the greenhouse gas and reradiated in all directions but now much more goes back down to the surface than before. It doesn’t depend on conduction. Don’t get carried away with the greenhouse analogy. It doesn’t depend on the absolute temperature of the atmosphere, it is a property of the gas molecule.

  • myself98

    .

    I praise the man for his honesty, but I suspect he’s only able to do so because, at his age, he is no longer dependent on government funding.

    His colleagues, however, must protect their incomes by going along with the official government position.

    .

    • Ed VanDyke

      Or “perhaps” it’s because he’s already won a Nobel Prize (and in a field in which his expertise allow him to present work which stands-up to peer-review)… There’s most assuredly a ‘Nobel’ for any scientist who can demonstrate that scientific consensus on an issue of global urgency is WRONG. That’s [a $million] prize, hundreds of $millions from fossil-fuel industries, and apparently a license to speak as an authority on any subject (for pay if desired)…

      Still no takers… 😉

      • planet8788

        All they have to do is look at the satellite data…. Disproven.

        • Ed VanDyke

          WHICH satellite data? There’s a whole lot of it, including sporadic data on surface temperatures, chemical composition of atmosphere, icecap, glacier expanse and thickness, and many,many other things… Collectively, observations indicate trends which correlate to, support existing AGW theories. But it “proves/disproves” NOTHING… The denier cult is a long way from seeing a Nobel Prize.. :)

          • planet8788

            RSS/UAH temp data… But as you point out there is also satellite data on ice caps which often isn’t used and it isn’t very favorable to the warmist side.

  • myself98

    .

    In all of history, no government-funded study has EVER resulted in calls for lower taxes.

    .

  • Ruth Bard

    And this guy ACTUALLY won a Nobel prize, right? Unlike Michael Mann…

    • planet8788

      Yeah, but so has Al Gore and Obama so I wouldn’t put too much faith in him for that reason.

  • Philip Shehan

    Giaever cherry picks that RSS graph which is an outlier and not statistically significant. Here are the trends for it and 8 other data sets from 1997. The first 5 are not statistically significant at the 2 sigma level. The last two are UAH and RSS satellite data.

    0.077, 0.108, 0.092, 0.101, -0.003

    The following land ocean surface data show statistically significant warming trends.

    0.109, 0.104, 0.118, 0.128

    He also wrote:

    “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

    Now apart from the fact that he provides no evidence that warming is responsible for the extended life span, better health etc (I would have thought advances in medical science, antibiotics etc might have a fair bit to do with it.), no scientist has ever stated that we will die if the temperature reaches 1.6 C above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists contend that the dangerous effects of global warming will occur when the increase is 2 C and above.

    • planet8788

      And the temperature record is reliable…

      Do you realize how much the temp graphs from 1880-1975 have changed just since 1980? I don’t know how they can keep the models up to data… they keep changing history so often.

      • Philip Shehan

        Planet8788

        You don’t have to accept the surface records, although they match each other and the satellite data quite well.

        Skeptic Roy Spencer’s satellite UAH data gives these temperature trends from 1979, 1997, and 1999

        http://tinyurl.com/nf8aphs

        From 1979: 0.139 ±0.065 °C/decade

        From 1997: 0.101 ±0.177 °C/decade

        From 1999: 0.146 ±0.179 °C/decade

        But the fact is that the confidence limits (at the 2 sigma or 95% level) for short term data sets like from 1997 are so large that the RSS and UAH data are in statistical agreement:

        RSS data from 1979 and 1997:

        From 1979: 0.121 ±0.064 °C/decade

        From 1997: -0.003 ±0.171 °C/decade

        Furthermore the confidence limits for all data sets, including RSS data from 1997 compared with statistically significant warming trends for corresponding data from 1979 satisfy the null hypothesis.

        null hypothesis

        noun

        1.
        (in a statistical test) the hypothesis that there is no
        significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference
        being due to sampling or experimental error.

        There is no reason to ascribe any variation from the statistically significant warming trends since 1979 to anything other than chance.

        • planet8788

          1979 was the end of a cooling period.
          Scientists were saying the earth had cooled up to 0.7C since 1940. This is what triggered the global cooling frenzy… (Why would a .1C drop in temp create a global cooling frenzy?) but that’s what the “surface data” currently shows because the Climastrologists messed with it.

          The surface record is mangled or the scientists from the 1940’s through the 1980’s were seriously deficient… I suspect the former.

          And the surface record is constantly in flux… I don’t know have you can have any confidence just by looking at how the data.. from 1880 to 1980 has changed just in the last 35 years. It’s unrecognizable.

  • James

    Recent update: 1 of 9,136 authors in 2,238 peer-reviewed climate change papers between November 2012 and December 2013 rejects man-made climate change.
    So know 99.98 % of scientists believe that climate change is human caused.

    • bunnyb0y

      Source?

      • bunnyb0y

        The “97% of climate scientists agree”, is an outright lie or deliberate ignorance repeated by the useful idiots.
        To quote Richard Tol:
        “The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
        Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”

        • planet8788

          So it’s closer to 5%?

          • bunnyb0y

            0.5%

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
      • James

        Two sources Climate Change is settles science (like gravity).

        http://news.yahoo.com/97-percent-scientific-consensus-climate-change-wrong-much-211621750.html
        http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

        “As the the terms Global Warming and Climate Change, they are both still valid. All you had to do was look it up. No conspiracy here just terminology and definitions.
        Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
        Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
        Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.” – NASA

        • bunnyb0y

          James, you are HILARIOUS! You are actually using the coauthor of the debunked 97% myth?! He has not changed his methodology even thought it was ridiculed by statistical scientists before. Hilarious. Here are just a few of his NEW articles that he claims proves they support his agenda:
          2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime.

          A review of progress in empowerment of women in rural water Management decision-making processes.

          A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests.

          Centrifuge Model Simulations of Rainfall-Induced Slope Instability.

          Formation of Lean Premixed Surface Flame Using Porous Baffle Plate and Flame Holder

          Is wartime mobilisation a suitable policy model for rapid national climate mitigation?

          Larval performance of the oriental fruit moth across fruits from primary and secondary hosts.
          ________________
          I could go on and on. Many, MANY funny papers that are not related to MMGW or even the climate. The papers may have mentioned possible effects of climate changes (without placing blame or even indicating if such change is happening) but UNLESS the author stated unequivocally that man was not responsible, Powell included them in his “study’s” total. That is even if they NEVER stated that man was responsible. Powell was and still is an embarrassment to true scientific analysis.
          I am positive I can come up with even more laughs if I look at where the papers were published and who peer reviewed them.

          • James

            No signs of intelligent life here.
            I will mark you down as a conspiracy theorist.

          • bunnyb0y

            James, don’t put yourself down. I am sure you have at least a little intelligence. Don’t be mad that you have fallen for a scam, lots of people get duped. You liked the headline of Powell’s study but didn’t bother to delve into his methodology or the articles he used. Just an FYI, if I used his same methods but & applied the “if they did not explicitly state that man WAS majorly responsible for global warming” (opposite of his “unless they explicitly stated that man WAS NOT responsible”) his results turn into about 1.5% of all scientist support man made global warming.
            See statistics are fun! Powell and Cook had you fooled. Do your own research into the reports you like to quote and pretty soon you will be able to proudly proclaim wherever you are that there is “signs of intelligent life here”.

          • planet8788

            No… he’s that stupid.

          • planet8788

            you are the idiot.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Sorry. The evidence is in – your numbers are false. But then, you don’t care whether it’s true or false, do you?

      “The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

      “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

      – Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

      The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.”

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

    • Sandy

      so, James, Al Gore said we would be underwater by 2010….you are being duped while Forrest Gump Gore laughs all the way to the bank. These scientists, especially the East Anglia scientists, faked their data to keep their funding. They are a self-licking ice cream cone. Get over it.

    • planet8788

      LOL, Do they also all a gree we are going to die from it and it’s bad?
      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      • James

        Here are the facts for 176 fictions that climate change deniers claim

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        As for our fate most in the current western generation will survive but many will start dying as climate refuges (already happening), This will get worse as drought areas increase (already happening) and sea levels rise (Bangladesh one of first). Your children and grandchildren will not die but will suffer from much lower standard of living caused by lower food production (droughts) leading to higher food costs. Real estate in low lying areas will plummet in value by mid-century, more GDP diverted to try to save low lying areas (New York, Florida), By 2100 Greenland is gone, raising ocean by 20 feet – most of Florida – gone, Manhattan – gone and so on.
        So we try to hold temperature increase to 2 degrees C or our descendents pay for our negligence. Take your pick.

        • planet8788

          So easily debunkable… The second item for instance… Climate and sun are moving in opposite directions in the last 35 years…
          First off all, 35 years ago we came out of a cooling phase… So it’s a cherry picked starting point. (At the time scientists called it a .7C cooling, it’s very well documented… Then we had 20 years of solid warming on the rebound from that… Since then we’ve been stable. (Except for the historical record which changes at any whim.)
          Now Climastrologists say that cooling never happened… Strange how so many scientists in the 1970’s and earlier could have been so wrong.

          What droughts? Calirornia had a 200 year drought about 1000 years ago. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

          You really need an award in gullibility.

          • James

            Well I am assuming that you live in the northwest. Your offspring will endure hardships but will probably survive. Good for you. The rest of us are screwed. but then again denial of climate change (or any unwanted event in life) is the easiest way of dealing with it, which may explain why so many are in denial, It is the easiest way of coping – Do not deal with it just deny it.

    • old guy

      Sounds like your Pulled out-of-the-air update proves that GALILEO’s descendant is alive and well.

  • Sandy

    He is correct, and Al Forest Gump’ Gore, who exclaimed in ’98 that the East Coast would be underwater by 2010, is laughing all the way to the bank.

  • Sandy

    “The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
    Leftist/Socialist/Communist/Progressive tyrants see the lie of Climate Change as their way to transform the world economy into their own corrupt image. As with all such plans, it would ensure a small upper-crust of well-paid hacks, attending fancy meetings, and luxuriating at our expense, while the vast majority of the world suffers in increasing squalor and lack, with no hope of rising above it. If you think it’s bad now (and in many places it’s incredibly sad) just wait till this nonsense prevails, and the wealth of the world shrinks into oblivion.
    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history“, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

    • UrabanoMucho

      Are you and Cheyenne-jim seeing each other? You guys have a lot in common. I mean you can’t talk sense to deniers so the least I can do is some match making.

      • planet8788

        You are a satellite data denier. You are the scientific method denier…
        How can you be wrong for 18 years and not change your hypothesis?

      • Sandy

        well, nice of you to surrender….you lost the argument….welcome to reality.

    • old guy

      Sandy,
      You have to understand GOREWHORE’s background. He is a second generation crook, the son of a traitorous senator, who sold out the US to the communist millionaire, ARMAND HAMMER, in exchange for getting him from a teacher’s job, into the senate. He would have been indicted, but a deal with crooked Republicans allowed him just to not run for reelection because, that would have been two democrat senators thrown out. The other, Sen. Dodd of Connecticut was PROVEN to have taken bribes and kicked out. The current Dodd is his son.

  • UrabanoMucho

    What is the advantage for someone be in line with current global warming theory? There isn’t any – except to be scientifically respectable. people don’t spend their time to be members of some group that is politically difficult. This denier thing is conspiracy theory go wild, and supported by big fossil fuel interests and picked up by right wing political groups who opposed it because of the connections to big oil and because detested liberal figures were the first to advocated it. It is established interests with the money that suppress evidence and buy political influence. These statements about the UN buy influence are ridiculous. They have very little money available, especially compared to big oil.

    • malaka_eneuresis

      Deludo mucho!

    • bunnyb0y

      Not much advantage to tow the line on the “approved” global warming narrative? How about over $150 billion dollars in grants and green initiatives in the last 15yrs? That is in the USA alone. Worldwide that number is even worse. Nearly all of the scientist who are promoting the hysteria receive most of their paycheck due to grants. If their findings didn’t agree with the “approved” assumptions then they would see their funding vanish. This is why so many have been caught manipulating the data, it is about keeping their jobs not about science or truth.

      • UrabanoMucho

        150 billion, where did you get that, and what period of time are you summing up?–that isn’t about just research grants, there is not that much available. Maybe you are including the total costs of any alternative energy project. Peer reviewed research doesn’t get too far if there has been falsification. It will make you a pariah in the scientific community and you might very well not be able to get a job. There will always be some abuse when there is reward money out there, but to say global warming is a gigantic conspiracy of some kind is beyond just gullibility. You can only reach the conclusion that there is no global warming by having a strong preconceived conclusion and a political environment that encourages it– the facts are there. Any time I’ve seen global warming skeptics actually post their sources I find that it is old data carefully selected, or from a questionable source, or they just don’t understand the numbers. I am in medical science myself but have a wide background in science and math.

        • zlop

          “UN Demanding $100 Billion Per Year To Create Huge Climate Change Slush Fund, Obama’s On Board”

          Then there is the $95 Trillion Carbon Disclosure Project;

          • UrabanoMucho

            Yeah ok someone said something but nothing has happened and yeah there are jealots out there, doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the science. It means it’s big deal and there is inevitable finger pointing and blame and attempts at compensation for those who feel victimized. That’s why cool heads need to prevail and this hysterical conspiracy stuff isn’t helping. Why not try to be part of a constructive solution to this real problem instead of a fear monger.

          • zlop

            “instead of a fear monger.”?
            To stop Global Warming, most will be Georgia Guide Stoned.

            “Robert Zubrin on Agenda 21, Loss of Freedom and … – YouTube”

        • Sparafucile

          Wow — a giant run-on of denial and wishful thinking.

          You can get the expenditures on Climate research straight from the White House, who love to tout it as some point of pride, while also needing to make the numbers public as they seek more funding (exceeding $10b every year) for continued “research” (an odd continuum of demands for “settled science”).

          • UrabanoMucho

            In the official budget submitted to congress there is a figure of 8 billion for research on global warming. The total goes up to a max of 20 billion if you include tax credits for things that “may reduce global warming”, aid to other countries, conservation, and a few other things not research.

          • Sparafucile

            You’re excluding amounts you’ should be including. That “aid” figure includes a huge sum to the IPCC, for example.

          • UrabanoMucho

            Please give sources for your figures–yes but including that aid still only gives 20 billion or so. Your aim is to make things look as bad as possible so you must give sources to be believable.

          • Sparafucile

            Sources: Jacobson report, standard figures for power density for PV, factor for array efficiency, multiply by utility scale cost per watt. You’re free to do the arithmetic yourself.

    • planet8788

      Their job. What is politically difficult? Are you going to get an IRS audit because you believe in global warming? you are a joke.

  • Doctor Benway

    Marc Morano, the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, is one of climate denial’s most prolific media-heads. In 2012, Morano was named the Climate Change Misinformer of the Year by conservative watchdog group Media Matters for America.

    ClimateDepot, who’s sole purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank which has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and foundations which challenge climate science.

    Despite having no credentials in climate science — Morano holds a B.A. in political science — he is touted as a climate change expert and makes frequent public appearances on conservative media outlets such as Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show. The Heartland Institute lists Morano as an expert, and he frequently speaks at their annual climate change conference.

    Over the years, he has filled the airways with extraordinary and unfounded claims. Most recently, Morano said climate change predictions were failing, comparing them to “medieval witchcraft, where we used to blame witches for controlling the weather.”

    • Fortified I am Buzzlightyear

      Citing the George soros funded media matters, does not help.
      Perhaps an example of what you mean might help.

    • planet8788

      And yet, he’s right… you can’t explain the pause… YOU ARE THE DENIER of satellite data. that says there is no warming? Or are you the denier of the scientific method? Which says when the data doesn’t match your hypothesis… you should change your hypothesis (not the data).

    • Sparafucile

      “conservative watchdog group Media Matters for America”

      You win the internets for the most laughably-absurd statement of the week.

  • cheyenne-Jim

    This just posted to the news outlets.

    Winter is Coming: Scientist Says Sun Will Nod Off in 15 Years https://vanwinkles.com/?utm_source=huffpo&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=winter-is-coming-the-sun-will-nod-off-for-a-spell-in-fifteen-years.
    Hmm it went from Global Warming to now the Sun will nod out and give us eternal winter. I just cant decide hot, or cold, cold or hot. I got it we will cover the bases and call it climate change. It is this type of “theory” that really discredits all the global warming, climate change, ozone hole, nuclear winter, big foot, Yeti, loch ness monster, John Cusak and 2012 movie, and UFO’s and so on type of that make us just say “uhmm yeah, I really believe you now”

    • zlop

      Al Gore stopped runaway property. Over did it, and we will have Ice Age Doom.

    • old guy

      No, they are only returning to the “Nuclear Winter of 35 years ago, which I, and others in the NASA and ONR geophysical satellite business, refuted.

  • sidor

    The real scare is to what extent science has been corrupt. This AGW crap would have been impossible several decades ago. Are we returning to the Dark Ages?

  • cheyenne-Jim

    and for the people who point to the inconvenient truth “Propaganda Movie” LOL as a source of fact consider these links (although I am sure there are some that will simply say oh that is garbage, and I am a liar, and that I know nothing. but I say to that..Climate change as portrayed by the extreme left “GARBAGE”

    http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/al-gore-global-warming-movie/2014/12/15/id/612566/
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/24/five-years-of-an-inconvenient-truth/
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

    and finally.

    https://cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf

  • http://djsistawhitenoise.com DJ Sista Whitenoise

    What a load of fucking Slacktivists from every side and opinion. Get your asses out from behind your computer monitors and actually DO SOMETHING besides riding your own dicks about how great, intelligent and self righteous you all are. The world is beautiful and crumbling all around us at the same time at this very second and you all waste HOURS arguing and spewing hate at each other instead of actually living. I read a bit of the hours of crap from every opinion imaginable written here for the last 15 mins and am so saddened by the state EVERYONE is in. Bickering and spreading negativity. If there is a GOD he is not happy with any of you as NONE of you are DOING anything positive at least not in THIS venue. See ya’ suckers! I’m going to spread some sunshine on my face and cleanse my brain of all the garbage I read here. You’d be smart to do the same.

  • old guy

    I have had 10 years with three Orbiting Geophysical Observatories, OGO, POGO and EOGO. No indication of Anthropogenic (man-caused) effects. Best source for climactic change data information is Dr. Fred Singer’s SEPP website. It is free, unbiased, untuned and informative.

    • zlop

      What gives with chem-trails and contrails?

      Ancient depictions of the Little Ice Age depict haze.
      Was it the result of heating fires or a climate event?

      • old guy

        I am an aerodynamicist by degree and have worked on A/C, missiles and satellites. Contrails are just condensed moisture caused by the reduced pressure of the air as a wing passes through it. Content 100% H2O. They are always white and disperse harmlessly. Unburned fuel causes kerosene trails, much rarer and usually black.

        • zlop

          “Content 100% H2O.”?
          There are additives to fuel, to increase performance.
          Additionally, other chemicals could be added to aviation fuel.

          Chem-trail program has been ongoing for a long time.
          There is marked change in the atmosphere, as evidenced by
          9/11 plane grounding, when the sky cleared up.

          • old guy

            READ again. I was not taking any position. Only facts. No fuel in CONTRAILS. Contrails are 100% H2O, as described. Usually generated in the wing tip vortices or a shock wave. Infrequently by nacelles or tail surfaces…
            I agree on the adverse properties of “CHEMTRAILS

          • old guy

            You are right on for CHEMTRAILS. The unburned and converted kerosine’s and additives are TERRIBLE and not adequately addressed. CONTRAILS, on the other hand are caused by local low pressure areas at wing tips and, occasionally, nacelles, local Mach 1 and tail surfaces. Please work FACTS and not emotion.

          • zlop

            Chem-trails and contrails have large scale effects.
            How does each one contribute to Global Dimming?

            There are microwave and infrared techniques to determine
            composition of the air, but details are kept secret.

          • old guy

            Work that I know of involves flying scoop planes behind into the trails. they are then stored and pumped through a mass spectrometer that identifies the compounds and their quantities. This method is accurate for composition and quantity. The problem is that it is VERY difficult to get international approval to do something about it.
            In the late 60s I did a similar study of acid rain. In that case my team was able to write, obtain support for and implement U.S. regulations which have been very effective. One of my proud moments.

          • zlop

            There are numerous other inputs, sandstorms, forest fires, volcanoes, meteorites . ..
            How did global dimming change standard atmospheres and global surface temperatures?

  • yfdgjr

    Ivar Giaeve is a physicist, not a climatologist. By his own public
    admission, he doesn’t know much about the subject. His comments have
    been spread like a virus across various (right leaning) websites to mock
    Obama — meanwhile the evidence and the scientific community are all in
    agreement – based on the scientific evidence. I guess people just are
    willing to ignore it and say climate change isn’t real instead of
    actualy dealing with the problem, which will take a lot of work/effort.
    Shame on all of you. Check out the snopes article on the man. What a
    waste of words this article is.

  • yfdgjr

    This entire website is funded by
    Donors Trust, a group that allows people to funnel money without their identity
    being released. This entire site is essentially paid for BY the fossil fuel
    companies to forward their agenda. Goodness. I know in general the American
    media is slanted, but come on. This is pretty obviously propaganda. Whatever
    you believe, you should get the most accurate information – and this site is
    NOT reputable.

    • TeaPartyGeezer

      “… without their identity being released.”

      Yet, somehow, YOU can say, unequivocally, WHO paid for it (EVIL fossil fuel companies), and WHY (to forward their agenda).

      My, but aren’t you prescient? And not at all an alarmist propagandist!

      It is YOU, yfdgir, who is NOT reputable.

  • marshoutlaw

    This just in: Ivar Giaever is bought and paid for.

  • old guy

    Let’s get something straight. A half day study by Dr. Giaever equates to 100 years of the politicians with grants on the IPCC; 200 years by Bill Nye, the science guy and five millennia by that second generation crook, Gore.

  • Alice W. Nixon
  • danram

    It’s very refreshing to see a scientist who refuses to knuckle under to “intellectual Stalinism” and who instead speaks the truth.

  • https://www.facebook.com/FarRightOfLeft Farrightofleft

    Today, we had some Climate Change here today. It changed a little from this morning until now.

  • Mei Yifu

    Please check my rebuttal of this person’s speech:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw6Jsw5hm__LOTRENm04enpyTTQ/view?usp=sharing

    The point of this is NOT to prove climate change, but to show that this person has no understanding of the data he is presenting, and is using his name ahead of real data.

  • original ancestry

    Corporate money buys a lot of lies when they and many politicians are in it for the Greed Factor. That is all this make believe BS is about. Mother Nature doing what she has always done for thousands of years. Go to show you proof that people will believe anything… Even their own lies.

  • Daniel Petry

    This global warming religion takes me back to the bad old days of the Inquisition. I meant that was hell on Earth for the time it lasted but i made it out alive…now here we go again with the same f…c…k…i…n…g fools that brought us every religious war and pogrom in human history.

  • Jeffrey Millinger

    Great physicist, but he’s an Absolutely abysmal climate scientist.

  • BetterFailling

    Obama might be wrong, indeed. After all he is nothing but just another human being.
    But are you really sure that it’s all right for us to ‘pee in the pool’?
    https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/the-boiling-frog-theory/

  • grkraj

    Ivar Giæver – is correct about claimet change and global warming; First these so called climatologists should study, how many volcanos and slive and how much temprature they generate; If CO2 is the problem make people grow more nd more C4 plants, they will absorb that excess CO2. During 500 to 210,000- yers ago the co2 concentration approximately ~18-20%. Are we not living with shortage of CO2;
    Prof,Kantharaj

  • Herman Moore

    What a load of bullshit. When anyone uses 1998 as the benchmark so they can declare “no global warming”, you know they’re shills.

  • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

    Clown…