The American people aren’t stupid enough to buy the manmade climate crisis narrative

If the climate thugs cannot convince us, they will brutalize us into submission

gruberLate last year, the name Jonathan Gruber (photo left) became part of the public consciousness for his newly public declarations that Obamacare passed due to the “stupidity of the American voter.” While there are many cases one can cite affirming that most Americans don’t closely follow politics and/or the political process and, therefore, may be called “stupid,” the campaign to sell the manmade climate change crisis narrative proves otherwise.

We are smarter than they think. We are not buying what they are selling.

Global warming has been the most expensive and extensive “public relations campaign in history”—as David Harsanyi (photo right) calls it in his post at TheFederalist.com. He identifies the “25 years of political and cultural pressure,” as including “most governmental agencies, a long list of welfare-sucking corporations, the public school system, the universities, an infinite parade of celebrities, think tanks, well-funded environmental groups, and an entire major political party.” Yet, despite all the “gentle nudging,” “stern warnings,” and “fear mongering,” Harsanyi states: “Since 1989, there’s been no significant change in the public’s concern level over global warming.”

Based on new polling data from Gallup, Harsanyi points out that with the past 25 years of messaging, even among HarsanyiDemocrats those who “worry greatly” about global warming has only increased “by a mere four percentage points”—with no change in the general public in the past 2 years.

A pew research poll on the Keystone pipeline—also the target of years of intense messaging and fear mongering—offers similar insights: “Support for the Keystone XL pipeline is almost universal,” reads the Washington Post headline. The poll results report that only those who self-identify as “solid liberals” oppose the pipeline.

Clearly, Americans aren’t that stupid after all. We can smell a rat.

It isn’t that we don’t believe the climate changes—it does, has, and always will—but, as Harsanyi states: “There is a difference in believing climate change is real and believing that climate change is calamitous.” He continues: “As the shrieking gets louder, Americans become more positive about the quality of their environment and less concerned about the threats.” And: “As the fear-mongering becomes more far-fetched, the accusations become more hysterical, and the deadlines for action keep being pushed right over the horizon, fewer people seem to really care.”

Harsanyi concludes: “If you haven’t been able to win over the public in 25 years of intense political and cultural pressure, you are probably down to two options: You can revisit your strategy, open debate to a wide range of ideas, accept that your excited rhetoric works on a narrow band of the Americans (in any useful political sense), and live with the reality that most people have no interest in surrendering prosperity. Or, you can try to force people to do what you want.”

With the huge investment of time and money, it appears the fear mongers have chosen the latter option. The regulatory scheme coming out of Washington reflects an acknowledgement that the PR campaign has failed, but that the effort is continually being forced on people who don’t want it—though they may not be following it closely; they may not be politically engaged.

The climate campaigners are continuing to do that which hasn’t worked for the past 25 years—somehow believing they’ll get different results (Isn’t that the definition of insanity?).

doubtOn March 6, “a documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire,” Merchants of Doubt was released. It aimed to smear the reputations of some of the most noted voices on the realist side of the climate change debate—specifically Fred Singer, who has been one of the original climate skeptics. But nobody much wanted to see it. In its opening weekend, BoxOfficeMoJo.com reports Merchants of Doubt took in $20,300.

A week later, former Vice President Al Gore, as reported in the Chicago Tribune, called on attendees at the SXSW festival in Austin, TX, to “punish climate change deniers”—which is the tactic being used now.

We’ve seen it in the widely publicized case of Dr. Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who “claims that the variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming.” The New York Times accused him of being tied to funding from “corporate interests.”

Similar, though less well known, attacks have been made on Henrik Moller—Denmark’s leading academic expert on noise research, who was fired by his university after exposing a wide-reaching coverup by the Danish government of the health risks caused by wind turbine noise pollution. And, on eminent meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, who received world-wide pressure after he stated: “I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.”

Even Sen. Edward Markey (D, MA) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently joined the crusade. Paul Driessen (see photo — a Driessen #3 2012 - 216 KB jpegCFACT senior policy advisor, by the way) draws attention to a letter they sent to “institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.” The lawmakers warn of potential “conflicts of interest” in cases where evidence or computer modeling emphasizing human causes of climate change are questioned—but no such warning is offered for its supporters.

Driessen states: “Conflicts of interest can indeed pose problems. However, it is clearly not only fossil fuel companies that have major financial or other interests in climate and air quality standards—nor only manmade climate change skeptics who can have conflicts and personal, financial or institutional interests in these issues.” He quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy.”

But somehow, only those who may receive funding from “fossil fuel companies” are suspect. The anti-fossil fuel movement has been vocal in its funding for candidates who support its agenda.

I’ve experienced this on a small scale. I wrote on op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal warning New Mexico residents about concerns over SolarCity’s arrival in the state—which included offering 30-year financing for rooftop solar panels. A week later the paper published an op-ed that didn’t discount my data, but accused my organization of receiving funding from the fossil-fuel industry. The op-ed was written by an employee of SolarCity—but this didn’t seem incongruous.

The little attack on me allowed me to ask for people to counteract the claim that the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy is not an “alliance of citizens.” The outpouring of support astounded me—though the newspaper didn’t post every comment.

Others, with whom I have been in contact, while researching for this writing, provided similar stories of support following the attacks.

In a Desmog post titled: Climate deniers double down on doubt in the defense of Willie Soon, the author states that Soon’s supporters “circled the wagons.”

In a Scientific American story about the Merchants of Doubt, Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan, who studies the behavior of climate skeptics, says: “Tit-for-tats between mainstream and contrarian researchers tend to raise the profile of skeptical scientists.” He concludes: “Frankly, this degradation benefits the skeptics.”

 
Because of the failure of the manmade climate-crisis campaign to capture the hearts and minds of the average American—who, after all, isn’t that stupid—we can expect the Gore-ordered attacks to continue. Expect the fear mongering to become more far-fetched, the accusations to become more hysterical, and the deadlines for action to keep being pushed right over the horizon. When this happens, “fewer people seem to really care.”

Like the mythical Hydra, when one “skeptic” is cut down, supporters “double down”—two more grow to take its place. While designed to silence, the attacks draw attention to the fact that there is another side to the “debate.”

 
Categories

About the Author: Marita Noon

Marita Noon

CFACT policy analyst Marita Noon is the author of Energy Freedom.,

  • Roy S. Mallmann

    If it was actual science these “Global warming” charlatins would not have to defend it and call people names who disagree. It is not true that “global warming” is a problem and one should note that NOT ONE PREDICTION HAS COME TRUE! I would be embarrassed to defend it as it is so easily disproven. The professional “Environmental Nazis” have taken over the EPA and pushed their ignorance on the public. I really get upset at these people as their lies have cost the people so much which affects everyone’s standard of living. It has cost jobs because of their war on energy companies and has raised the cost of energy everywhere for no good reason. The truth needs to come out of how much money is really behind this movement and who is the money behind it and what are their motives. By the way, try to live without carbon dioxide.

    • Fromafar

      Their new tactic is too take real data and “skew baby skew”. They love to cherry pick and then just make false claims.

      I read where the Arctic and Antarctic Ice is rapidly decreasing
      Sea ice is in a catastrophic situation….

      All of this is bunk, they know it and so they’ve brought out the “Alinsky Model” to take their absurd claims to the whip….. Al Gore is the worst of the lot, even more so as he would’t know what real science was if it came up and bit him.

    • cshorey

      Not defending it, attempting to explain it to those who don’t understand. Like CFACT in general. Not much understanding of climate science there.

  • Frank W Brown

    Man-Made climate change is TOTAL BUNK, wake up citizens, you are being hoodwinked!

    • James Andrews

      I doubt it’s total bunk, but they are definitely greatly over exaggerating the problem. I also know that here in Maine, we have had the two longest, snowiest, coldest winters we have had in many years. I was ice fishing April 9th, last Thursday, and still had a foot and a half of ice under me. Some years, ice fishing is done, at least in Southern Maine, by mid March, because conditions are too sloppy or dangerous after that. There are also a lot of natural things that affect our weather, such as sun flares and sun spots, the earth’s orbital path, etc.

      • rhetorical1

        James, it really is a bunch of nonsense. Yes the climate changes, continuously – no doubt about that – the huge question – IS IT CAUSED BY MAN? A volcano erupts creates all kinds of weather and atmospheric – breathing problems, around the world. Man didn’t cause that. We have hurricanes and tornadoes man doesn’t cause them or control how strong those storms will be – but this is one of the things, bho, gore and their minions are stating emphatically!!! MAN IS DESTROYING THE WORLD AND WE MUST TAX MAN SO WE ALL WON’T DIE. Does this make sense to you? If it does I have a nice bridge I would like to sell you! THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED – SCIENCE NEVER IS. I urge you to start learning more about this issue, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

        • James Andrews

          Believe it or not, I am in your camp here! And even if there is even the slightest truth to their claims, the governments of the world and especially the UN, are the very last ones that should ever be trusted with “solving” the “problem”. They are only in it for the money, period.

          • Brin Jenkins

            Not the money per say, a Global political shift is the long term aim with an Alpha group in control.

            • James Andrews

              No doubt about that, and Killary fully supports this crap, which is why we need to keep her out of office!

            • David L

              Right,thats why the left uses class warfare. They are the one percent,and their thirst for wealth and power only grows more and more. Just look at the Clinton’s. And keep an eye on Obama,and watch how fast he accumulates wealth after he leaves office.

          • Arationofreason

            And so they have stated repeatedly.

            Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire
            elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn’t
            the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
            Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

            http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

      • jimdarnall

        The case for man made climate change is not valid. There very well may be climate change happening but not because anything we have or can do. It is much bigger than man. It is always changing and will continue to do so. These days it is all about control and money. Obviously there are also those that want to blame the human race for all of the natural extremes which is also not true. Folks it is climate governed by nature’s whims. Our job is to deal with it.

        • James Andrews

          I concur!

        • Bama Bill

          Do you see obama not using AF1 to burn less petroleum? Or promoting the Audubon Society to get more trees planted? He is only trying to ruin the USA. The gasoline we burn has to warm the planet, but taxing us isn’t the answer. We will run out of crude oil, in 1970’s govt said we would run out by 2010. So what is the plan for when we do run out? Scientists say 53 years reserves, so today’s college grads may see the end of crude oil? Scary part is nobody is planning ahead. Except China, of course! Wake up America!

          • Brin Jenkins

            I think you might have read a book called, The Limits to Growth. This was to promote the agenda of the Club of Rome, which was the Nu World Order vehicle of the times. Enough truth to spice the tale, and a great deal of supposition. A never ending quest for bring in the One World Government. The European Union is our local office along with the United Nations, and lots of useful idiots aiding the cause for fiscal rewards, or misplaced ideals.

            • Bama Bill

              No, lived thru the 70’s, and swore I’d never pay 30.9 cents for premium! WOW! Visited the Ontario Science Center in 1981 and saw their exhibit on crude oil reserves. Their calculations showed crude oil running out for personal use in 2011. Now pushed back 2068? In any case, back to horse and buggies, and wood stoves. For the “Citizens”.

          • Douglas_Kubler

            We will never run out of oil. The price will increase with scarcity making other energy options competitive. The plan is to let the incentive to compete lower energy prices.

            • Bama Bill

              Where do I find that fact? There is only so much oil in the ground, it is a finite resource. We have gone from 25 cents / gal. 70 years ago, to $4/gal. now. Diesel can be used forever as it is easily made from vegetable oil. Electric won’t work, as the batteries are expensive, heavy, and only last a few years. Plus electicity is produced from coal and natural gas. A solar system only lasts 15 years, and it takes over 30 years to pay back what it cost. Ethanol pollutes worse than gasoline, and the law requires that all planted acreage in the country be used to grow corn by 2022! Great planning! What do we eat?
              My diesel VW Rabbit always got over 55 mpg, so they “Improved on that”? If ethanol is so damn good, why don’t they use it to power ships and heavy equipment? Military aircraft run on JP5, which a diesel can run. Get the damn government out of the way! At least in Germany they know how to make an Audi diesel that is faster than any gas powered race car. Most European cars run on diesel, but we have to subsidize the Nebraska corn farmers so we can use ethanol. So don’t forget to add in their subsidy to the price of gas. You just pay it via taxes. Read up on some facts, don’t just dump a load of manure.

              • Douglas_Kubler

                You almost got to the point with your own brain. Where is the price of gas going to end up? Do you think the last gallon will sell for $4/gal or $8/gal? The price/demand curve will push the price to $100/gal, then even more. Other energy sources will eventually win the price competition. By that time “running out” of oil will be of no concern. You will never see someone pull up to a pump and read a sign “Sorry, we ran out – we just sold the last gallon on earth for $4.99″. Maybe collectors will bottle and sell the”last” gallon for a fortune.

                As you said get the government out of energy policy and competition will determine the sources.

              • Well Done

                “Peak Oil” is BS. There are oil deposits almost everywhere. Lose the idea that we’ll run out. Lose the idea that if we burn it all we’ll ruin the climate.

                • David L

                  The lie about running out of oil was just another tactic of the left. Africa has so much gas,oil,and coal,to make the middle east look like paupers. The US now has reserve’s vastly greater than the middle east. And South America as well. Then there is off shore for every continent too. People know these things,which shows the enviromental wackos for the liers they really are!

              • Brin Jenkins

                Energy is never created or destroyed. A law of physics and not in dispute. The conservation of high grade energy is all important as is its recovery for recycling. We need to educate more engineers and physicists to explore storage mediums and possibilities.

          • Debauche

            Bama Bill – Audubon Society is for birds.

      • Brin Jenkins

        The Sun is the driving force, all energy originated from our Sun in our Solar System. Climate change is not in dispute, Solar cycles vary from short 16 year cycles to around 1000 years. These interact and add too, or negate the shorter cycles and have always done so. Those who say stored energy is being released too rapidly are in error about climatic effects but correct on the waste angle. We need to be more effective in how we use laid down solar stores like oil and coal.

        • James Andrews

          Good points about the waste angle……

        • James Andrews

          I concur with your latter point about becoming more effective Newer technologies will help us do just that, but it takes time.

          • Robert Jackson

            Not it does not take time. Look at what Big oil keeps doing, the either buy the new technologies or kill the person who created it and make it disappear. Big oil is man kinds biggest enemy.

            • James Andrews

              It does take time. They can’t build enough solar panels to keep up with the technology , just for starters. This nation uses way more energy than current so called “clean energies” can totally produce yet, by far.

        • cshorey

          Then why has the sun been decreasing its output since the 1960’s while global temps are going up? I really do want to hear your explanation. Oh, and now June 2015 is the warmest month ever recorded in history on this planet, and that makes the first 6 months of 2015 the warmest beginning of any year ever. Would you like to make a bet? I bet 2015 will be the warmest year ever recorded, and that it won’t be the last in this decade.

          • Robert Jackson

            Have you ever melted lead? When it comes out it is still molten, it takes minutes to hours to cool depending on the size of the object created with it. Thermal dynamics maybe?

            And the temperatures have not changed much in the last 16 years. Please post a link to any data that shows earths increasing temperatures etc.

            Not saying you are wrong, I just like to read. Instead of saying all the things you do, you can post links citing your sources. Other than that you can say anything you want and it does not matter.

            I used to have a friend who told big stories, he made it sound like he knew what he was talking about too. We eventually stopped listening to him, he was full of shat.

      • Robert Jackson

        Try reading the emails from the pretend “Climate change” scientists then. This will blow your mind. The shit about man made climate change is 100% made up.

        http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

        • James Andrews

          I do know that some group of scientists in England or Scotland got into some serious trouble, after they had been caught falsifying some data in their “findings”. Chances are good that they were being “greased” by the UN, or some other group pushing their agenda.

          • Robert Jackson

            I started reading the emails myself and I can’t believe the shit I am reading. None of it is real science, they can’t even agree on what numbers to use to get the result they WANT, how to spin the story so the public will believe it etc. And one of the scientists calls them out for not using true scientific techniques and they quickly attack him.

            And most of the so called Scientists are actually just professors who just want to get grant money. I won’t waste time discussing how the Scientific Method works, but basically your results should be reproducible and others should get the same result. These clowns can’t even figure out what data they want to spin.

            • James Andrews

              Not surprised! Good post!

              • Robert Jackson

                Thanks. Unlike more than half the people on this planet I question everything. I remember watching a show on Discovery when I was a kid about Ice Core samples and all the things they can learn from them about the earths past. Then watching and reading more about how the earths jet stream works and how the worlds ocean currents flow etc. So when all this BS about Man made Global warming started I was like WTF are these people fucking stupid?

                The earths oceans have risen about 300+ feet since the last ice age. Most of the people pushing man made climate change don’t even know that. They don’t know that at one time Antarctica was once tropical and covered in palm trees.

                http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-climate-change-meant-antarctica-was-once-covered-with-palm-trees-12098835/?no-ist

                I hate when these stupid people that do not read try to call people like me who have read about this shit for over 20 years ignorant. It is them who is ignorant and worse than that, they are fucking parrots, just saying shit they have heard, always pointing to the same BS charts and data made by these 600 scientists always trying to dismiss the fact that the Earths climate has always changed on its own. God forbid they understood how CO2 worked. When you tell them without CO2 we all die they have no fucking clue what you mean. Even when you try to explain that plants have to have CO2 to live and they intake the CO2 and output Oxygen. Indoor commercial farmers pump their grow rooms full of CO2 to make the plants grow more vigorously and fuller. Try pointing out that volcanoes spew more greenhouse gases than humans ever could, or that the CO2 levels were much higher during the time of the dinosaurs and that is one of the reasons plants were so large compared to their size now.

                Honestly this planet sucks for intelligent people like me. The average IQ is 100, retarded is considered 75 and lower. Can you imagine what people with IQ 125+ feel about the average humans they are stuck with, they get to vote for shit they don’t understand, things that directly affect your life.

                Global warming scientists ( all 600 professors ) hate geologists and geophysicists etc. actually they hate anyone that wants to use scientific proof and the scientific method. A computer model of what could be will never be considered science, it is more like statistics. Science requires system known as the scientific method. From idea, to hypothesis to theory. To become theory it must be reproducible and the result should be the same 100% of the time. All theories are open to peer review, each should be able to get the same result each time. This is not the case with these UN scientist professor people, the funny thing is they can’t even fucking agree on what data to use, to get their desired paid result. LMMFAO

                What gets me is people are so stupid to say “90% or 95%) of the scientists agree Global warming is man made. That is 100% a lie. There are less than 1,000 all paid by and part of the UN that push the climate change BS. Most of them are fucking professors too. Yeah real scientists LMFAO

                Here almost 32,000 real scientists have a petition to stop this fucking nonsense that climate change is man made. They even point out why, and how these 600 scientists don’t want to share their data for review by real scientists.

                http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

                • cshorey

                  I would love to hear your explanation of how the Jet Stream works. If you get it right then we can have a very interesting discussion about what it’s been doing lately and why, and how that all connects to human caused climate change.

                  • Robert Jackson

                    Humans can’t change the jetstream nor can we change the weather or climate by much.

                    • cshorey

                      The speed of the Jet stream is a function of the difference in temperature between the Arctic and Temperate wind belts. Start there and read Calendar, 1938, and combine what you find to figure you why you’re wrong.

                    • Robert Jackson

                      So you think humans are 100% the main source of Climate change and the earths climate has never changed before? I am not sure what you are trying to say or even what your argument is? Why do I need to explain how the jetstream works to you? Nothing you say makes any sense yet.

                      What exactly is your opinion? What are you trying to say?

            • cshorey

              Give me one quote that shows that scientists did something wrong. Make it the most damning one you can, and let’s see how it holds up to investigation.

              • Robert Jackson

                Why waste my time with dumb people like you?

                • cshorey

                  Not very convincing arguments Robert. Are you a geologist? We can speak on those terms. We should definitely discuss past climatic forcers so we can understand today’s situation. I wrote you about Milankovitch cycles below and gave you the proper reference. Let me know if you find actual substantive discussion points instead of whatever that childishness was you just spat out.

                  • Robert Jackson

                    So you are a geologist now? Have you never read about the earths climate naturally changing over billions of years? Have you read about Ice core sampling? People like you point to the same shit over and over, false data made up by the UN scientists ( college professors ) who have an agenda.

              • Robert Jackson

                what color crayon do you like to eat the most often?

              • Robert Jackson

                You go read the damn emails, you are the one that denies them. Why the fuck would I waste my time again and again and again and again and again trying to prove shit to people like you? IT IS A WASTE OF MY FUCKING TIME. YOU OBVIOUSLY SUFFER FROM COGNITIVE DISSONANCE That means people like you are blind, no matter what you are presented with it goes against your beliefs, therefore you ignore it.

                • cshorey

                  Did, and you’ve missed the context. Which is why the investigators all disagree with you. You’ve been duped.

                  • Robert Jackson

                    No way you read all of those emails, there are thousands and it would take you a very long time. I didn’t read them all either. I skimmed them and clicked and read and moved to the next etc.

                    • cshorey

                      Sure, I read all the ones that had been mentioned as showing corruption, and I started and the beginning and I ended at the ending. So we could play a game where you point out a particular passage from those e-mails you think proves wrong doing, and let’s see if I can give you the context and if your interpretation still holds.

            • cshorey

              You read the e-mails and missed the context! BTW the science is in the peer reviewed journals, not e-mails.

              • Robert Jackson

                The peer review journals they will not share with the world… you mean those?

                • cshorey

                  Why would one cite such? That would be counterproductive. This are open access peer reviewed journals like Nature Climate Change or Paleo^3, or a number of others which are openly shared with the world upon publication. You’re not being very clear with your responses. Did you have anything substantive to add to this discussion?

          • Robert Jackson

            And it is all about the UN countries. The idea is to tax the richer nations and give it to the poorer nations. WE all know what happens in these poorer nations. The guy at the top ( king, prince, emperor, dictator ) and their friends get all the money and the people of the country starve.

            This is why these countries are pushing hard for it, it is trillions of free dollars in their pockets for absolutely nothing.

            I can’t believe how stupid most humans are as a race and the fact that people like this use it to their advantage to get UBER rich. They know the people are stupid and if you use scare tactics that most people respond emotionally instead of intelligently. When responding emotionally people do not think logically, they don’t read or research and believe what they are told.

            I hope the Aliens come take me away to a place where the Average IQ is at least 40+ points what it is on earth soon.

        • cshorey

          Read them in full, and so did 7 international groups that found no scientific wrongdoing. Now stealing e-mails is illegal, and quote ripping out of context is lying. Thanks for pointing out the lies.

          • Robert Jackson

            The same international groups involved with the UN?

            • cshorey

              If you think the NSF is a conspiratorial group in cahoots with the UN, which you then have to believe is as evil as the crazy folks do, then yes, Robert, the freakin NSF!

              • Robert Jackson

                What is it like to be slow?

                • Robert Jackson

                  Do you tie your own shoes? What color crayon do you lie to eat the most often?

                  • cshorey

                    You already used the crayon insult. Is your ad hominem bag running thin? Please try to use an actual argument with substance for just once.

                    • Robert Jackson

                      LMFAO Here you go, the explanation about eating crayons. fast forward to 2:34. LMMFAO I think some rapper made it to make fun of other rappers.

                      Honestly, I get online when having a bad day, see something that makes me angry, then take it out on people, gives me something to do. Today I am laughing at all the shit I said.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiPANvxfDg

                    • cshorey

                      Explains a lot.

                    • Robert Jackson

                      Yeah I have found that saying stupid shit to people makes me smile. I try to come up with off the wall WTF stuff all the time.

                • cshorey

                  And so I have to assume here that you think the NSF is definitely in cahoots with the UN on some worldwide conspiracy. Is that what I should take from from your non-substantive reply? So if this is the case, would you take an independent investigation directed by James Inhoffe by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who also found no wrong doing on the part of the scientists, only on the part of the mail thieves, as also being in on this conspiracy in your head?

                  • Robert Jackson

                    I question everything, most intelligent humans do, less intelligent just accept things to be as they are told. If everyone believed what they were told or what someone claimed to be true then we would have no scientists. The problem is many scientists can’t think outside the box, so while they question things, they do not always approach the solution with an open mind thinking outside the box.

                    All of my life I have thought outside the box. My brain does not function the same as the average persons. As a kid I was always kicked out of school, I had to learn things on my own. I learned to spot correlations, especially with math and science and even English/literature. Einstein was the same way. If he were a kid these days, I am sure the wonderful Big Pharma industry would say he had ADHD and Aspergers and needed 5 meds to make him normal. Thank god he lived before the time of Big Pharma or we may not have had all his wonderful work in Physics.

        • cshorey

          And read the context and realize you’ve been duped. Please give me the worst line you can from the stolen e-mails and let’s see how the context plays out.

    • marlene

      You are absolutely right. And most of us with more than half a brain are well aware of this scheme of our marxist government for total control. Climate does change, as it has for thousands of years. Some places get colder, other places get warmer. But “global warming” blamed on man is the globalist spin – and it’s a lie.

      • Robert Baker

        It is not only a lie, it is ridicules. They surely are infuriating God with their obvious attempt to defy Him and do his job. Global warming is only one of the ploys. Add gun control, healthcare, and the alarming control of our young’s education. Actually indoctrination that creates zombi people that have to do what they are told. I also find it puzzling the so called epidemics we have had in the last few years. The swine flue, chicken flue, salmonella poisoning, and Ebola that mysteriously show up in our country then die down from the news. I ask are these tests that can be used to eliminate multitudes by strategically planting.

    • cshorey

      Except for all the evidence such as the predicted retained wavelengths being reduced in output from the earth, and the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere, and so on all make your statement simply wrong. Wake up, you’re not even in the ballpark of reality here.

  • Fromafar

    Fortunately, Al Gore came to the “Alinsky Model” one election cycle too late.
    But now he’s learned from Obama and Hillary the technique that got them so far in politics.
    Al’s working under the “better late than never” philosophy. Good luck Al! (Not!)

  • WiSe GuY

    this BS is now being taught in schools

    • Jeff Putterman

      How would you know? You obviously never went near a school, except to buy drugs.

      • WiSe GuY

        stupid colored BOY

        • Jeff Putterman

          I fu cked your mother, and she paid me.

          • Ed_Reid

            “Class will out!”

            • Jeff Putterman

              Thanks dickweed.

              • Ed_Reid

                As I said above,…

              • Pam Dunn

                Jeffy, The Feces-headed moron spewing his asinine childish idiocy.

                • Jeff Putterman

                  Speaking of feces, is that the look you aim for, cause you look like shit to me.

          • WiSe GuY

            I’d wouldn’t fuck your mother…the nigger is diseased

            • Jeff Putterman

              Fuck you and your entire family, including the motherfucking ancestors who produced a piece of shit like you.

              I dare you to identify yourself, you lowly faggot.

              • WiSe GuY

                Did your mother give you aids too?

              • WiSe GuY

                Idiots like you put their real name and picture on the net.
                I see that you and your boyfriend took your picture together.
                Is it your turn to be the bitch tonight?

              • Pam Dunn

                Did your Father pay your mother or did she give him an STD?

          • Pam Dunn

            ONly with your LEFT hand and your doggy said Thank you.

            • Jeff Putterman

              Your mother would have been a whore, but she was too ugly.

        • Jeff Putterman

          Fuck you and the dog you married.

          • WiSe GuY

            Is your boyfriend playing the part of the girl, or is that you?

      • Pam Dunn

        Says a moron with his head firmly inserted in AlGores rear end.

        • Jeff Putterman

          Fuck you, you ugly wizened ignorant old cunt, and the cunt you came out of.

          • Well Done

            Gay, old, and stupid?
            What’s that, a Democrat Hat Trick?

            • Jeff Putterman

              Fuck you and the mother who pushed you out into the world. She fucked up big time, asshole.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Really? visiting schools and seeing the wall covered in bogus science from the earliest classes makes it very apparent what the teach.

        • Jeff Putterman

          What the fuck are babbling about?

          • Brin Jenkins

            Self explanatory I thought, but with your foul language and insults perhaps you are beyond all understanding.

    • Brin Jenkins

      This is to increase the consensus of believers. Not one will explain the precise mechanism, they only accept the explanation without question.

  • Mo

    Even
    though a lot of people don’t pay enough attention to the politicians that tend
    to vote for, they do understand that some things are just a another Liberal
    Leftists Communists scheme to separate us from more of our money and a means to
    try to control every aspect of our lives. Most need to pay more attention to
    whom they elect and make sure who we send to DC are going to work “For Us” and
    not “Against Us”, there just to sell us down the river to benefit themselves and
    sell us out in the process.

  • Robert Baker

    I suspect that the high school studies concerning science and world history have been eliminated or grossly watered down. Every time I here this subject I think about the planet history, EONS worth, of ice ages to hot. All part of God’s plan of replenishment and maintenance of the planet earth, not much to do with puny man. I do get mad when We the People are targeted as responsible and should be taxed. I think about me piddling around in my Focus that does everything possible to not be a problem, and Obuma (only one of many) is zipping around in the high sky in huge jets that spew tons of destruction to the atmosphere. What stage of mental deficiency cause them to think they can do wrong and then blame the ‘stupid’ masses. It infuriates me, sorry.

    • James Andrews

      YOu have nothing to be sorry for, Robert. You are correct!

      • Robert Baker

        You are right James. I have faith there is millions of us out there, just waiting for the call to action. They think we all are intimidated and controlled by the press. What fools they are.

    • Jim

      Very well stated.

    • marlene

      SPOT ON. It Is Written.

      • Robert Baker

        I do not know any other way to judge the future but have faith in Jesus Christ and pray. The media today is great and far reaching, but every word is monitored by the enemy. The liberals and the media seem to be on top, but I believe they will be in for a surprise!

        • Brin Jenkins

          I share your faith, I believe in our Lord. God gave us brains so that we might work to understand his ways and laws. When folk have it wrong, then discussion is in order to clarify situations, however when they deliberately set out to deceive and control us we must do our best to inform and defeat what must be the evil intent of Satanic forces.

          • Robert Baker

            This could be called the age of deceit. For a long time the government has told the people what they think people want to hear, with no intent to follow through. I wonder if their intent (if they realize) crap rolls down hill. Business owners see DC breaking laws at an alarming rate, and say “if they can do it, so can I”. From downtown to the internet marketers are making statements that are not necessarily true. It is not hard to realize the things happening today are foretold in the Bible. It shall come to pass. reb

            • cshorey

              The age of deceit eh? Like when tobacco companies knew their product caused harm and tried to cover it up with lies? Like this: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/frontline-video

              • Robert Baker

                Well, for sure everything can’t be called deceit. Actions by this administration are outright ignorant. To stop global warming they want to lay a burdensome tax on the lower class citizens. Meanwhile they can go in and armada of huge planes to Alaska, or any and everywhere, that spew like 442 tons of bad stuff in the atmosphere. To finish the job, and cover the stupidity, they outright LIE. You can bet the honest truth is covered up and we will never know. The clear motive for hiding truths from “We The People” has never been clear to me. Like UFO’s.

                • cshorey

                  And how does that have anything to do with the fact that humans are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of our atmosphere, and the predictable affects of this are apparent and predicted to increase?

                  • Robert Baker

                    Read the middle of my post. Nobody can say humans do not contribute, I am saying the poorest will pay, while the elite will continue as usual, undoubtedly with exemptions from liability. Please understand that there other contributors, such as raging forest fires, even right now.
                    Same as public pollution of the land and waters, control of the problem would best be in the hands of the people and, at the moment more sensible, local enforcement. When are we going to learn anything this over-sized, corrupt government gets in there hands is dysfunctional, but very costly.

                    • cshorey

                      This is very sensible overall, but I worry that the richest will be able to move, and pay for adaptations, and the poorest will be hurt the most by this inevitable climate change. The poorest also live in the most vulnerable spots (e.g. New Orleans – Katrina). The climate swings of the deep past are way beyond anything we’ve seen in the last 10,000 years. From my work in paleoclimatology, and being versant in the modern climate science, I am convinced that we need to be ready as we’re on the leading edge of another one of those major climate shifts.

                    • Robert Jackson

                      The richest are already benefiting from this Lie about climate change. They can afford to put solar panels on their homes, store the energy in batteries, get the government tax incentives and then sell unused energy to the power company.

                      While Joe Blow the plummer gets ass raped for trying to wash and dry his cloths and keep his power on, all so he can pay a carbon fucking tax so some dick blowing dictator of the UN can pocket billions and let his people die.

                      FUCKING BRILLIANT WAY TO SAY THE PLANET.

                    • cshorey

                      Not a lie Robert, just because you don’t have the training to understand it. And because it isn’t a lie, your whole argument is.

        • cshorey

          Look at evidence, and explore the natural world in which the problem actually exists.

    • cshorey

      You’re quite mistaken on many points. But just as a boiled down refutation, you’re saying climate changed when there were no people, so we shouldn’t assume people doing this now despite all the evidence. It’s like saying that the dead person with a bullet in them and the smoking gun nearby was not killed by gunfire because people died before there were guns. Do you see the problems with your argument?

      • Robert Jackson

        The fake made up evidence concocted by the professors that are called scientists, who made this whole BS thing about humans having a major role in climate change, in order to keep getting funding AKA make money… you mean that evidence? LMMFAO

        • cshorey

          Words words words, with no evidential substance. When you get a grant, you don’t get to keep the money and do whatever you want with it. You have to do the research you say you’re going to do and supply the results. You’re story doesn’t even make sense.

          • Robert Jackson

            No the professors story on Man made climate change does not make sense and if you read the emails you will understand that. They can’t even agree on what data to use to make their models. That is not scientific.

            Plus my argument is not that climate change does not exist, or that man doesn’t add to climate change. I am not a fucking idiot. My argument is that taxing people on the use of energy and giving it to Dictators of the UN who fuck their people over will not help anyone.

            The amount that man adds to climate change due to carbon output is very small. Actually scientists just said that their models on carbon dioxide and climate change were way off, the truer culprit is Methane.

            Carbon dioxide is needed by plants which use it and output Oxygen.

            Our raising livestock and animals produces a decent amount of Methane. However in the end we can’t do enough to warm the earth enough to stave off the next ice age which is around the corner.

            Now I do not like using so called fossil fuels, gasoline, diesel, coal, not because of the climatic effect, but because of the environmental effects. We are poisoning ourselves and killing the planet at every fucking level.

            I argue that Big oil has bought all of our governments. Look up “Car runs on water ” on youtube. It has been done many times. Cars can run 100% on water through splitting the oxygen and hydrogen and recombination with combustion in a regular engine.

            Why are we not using this technology? Because you either sell it to Big Oil or you die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir5XgMiXlzM

            You see, you and I are not so different. I just do not believe in giving Dictators more money just for them.

            I love the idea of wind and solar, they are just not efficient enough yet. I hate coal, I am not fond of nuclear either.

      • Robert Jackson

        Explain to us how taxing us to the point that we can’t afford our electricity, and giving it to 3rd world UN countries run by dictators who will divvy the money up amongst themselves while they let their people starve and die, like they always do… how will this help us stop changing our climate? And why after billions of years are humans magically the main source of climate change?

        Did dinosaurs cause climate change too?

        • cshorey

          Glad you know the Earth is billions of years old, and you should know that atmospheric gas and aerosol changes, ocean circulations, albedo feedbacks, all can force climate change. Humans are affecting the atmospheric gas part. Did dinosaurs cause climate change? What does that have to do with anything. Do you still think guns can kill people because people died before there were guns. Your logic is not holding up here.

          • Robert Jackson

            No the professors story on Man made climate change does not make sense and if you read the emails you will understand that. They can’t even agree on what data to use to make their models. That is not scientific.

            Plus my argument is not that climate change does not exist, or that man doesn’t add to climate change. I am not a fucking idiot. My argument is that taxing people on the use of energy and giving it to Dictators of the UN who fuck their people over will not help anyone.

            The amount that man adds to climate change due to carbon output is very small. Actually scientists just said that their models on carbon dioxide and climate change were way off, the truer culprit is Methane.

            Carbon dioxide is needed by plants which use it and output Oxygen.

            Our raising livestock and animals produces a decent amount of Methane. However in the end we can’t do enough to warm the earth enough to stave off the next ice age which is around the corner.

            Now I do not like using so called fossil fuels, gasoline, diesel, coal, not because of the climatic effect, but because of the environmental effects. We are poisoning ourselves and killing the planet at every fucking level.

            I argue that Big oil has bought all of our governments. Look up “Car runs on water ” on youtube. It has been done many times. Cars can run 100% on water through splitting the oxygen and hydrogen and recombination with combustion in a regular engine.

            Why are we not using this technology? Because you either sell it to Big Oil or you die.

            You see, you and I are not so different. I just do not believe in giving Dictators more money just for them.

            I love the idea of wind and solar, they are just not efficient enough yet. I hate coal, I am not fond of nuclear either.

  • Ed_Reid

    Observations on the foundation of concerns regarding global warming.

    The Earth has a Surface Temperature

    On any given day, or for any given month or year, the earth has a
    single global mean surface temperature. Climate scientists do not know
    that global mean surface temperature, though they have developed a
    working estimate, because they do not have sufficient properly selected,
    calibrated, sited, installed and maintained sensors, properly
    distributed across the entire surface of the earth. The satellite era
    has allowed climate scientists to improve the estimate by improving both
    accuracy and coverage, but they are still dealing with an estimate. The
    global mean surface temperature of the earth has increased, over the
    period of the instrumental temperature record, by less than 1oC.

    Climate science deals with temperature anomalies, rather than actual
    temperatures, in part in recognition of the limitations of the current
    temperature measuring stations and their geographic coverage, as well as
    because the focus of climate science is on the change in global mean
    surface temperature. Each producer of a global mean surface temperature
    anomaly calculation selects temperature measurements from among the
    thousands of temperature measurements taken across the globe each day.
    Those temperature measurement data are then “adjusted”, in recognition
    of the known and suspected data quality issues, thus converting those data into estimates of what the data might have been, had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained sensors. Some of the producers of the anomaly products also “infill” estimated temperatures for locations
    where no sensor is installed, or where the installed sensor is non-functional.

    The three principal producers of global mean surface temperature
    anomaly products are NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the
    National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the Hadley Center / University
    of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The global mean surface
    temperature anomalies from the three primary producers of global mean
    surface temperature anomalies differ, as the result of the climate
    periods covered, the temperature data selected to be “adjusted” and
    included in calculating the anomalies, the “adjustment” approaches used
    and whether or not temperatures are infilled. The NASA GISS global mean
    surface temperature anomaly at the end of December, 2014 was reported as
    0.72oC; NCDC was reported as 0.77oC; and, HadCRUT was reported as
    0.63oC. Each of these differing anomalies refers to the same single
    global mean surface temperature at the end of 2014; and, is the
    estimated difference between the “adjusted” temperature at the beginning
    of the anomaly period and the current adjusted temperature.

    The month of December, 2014 is an interesting case study regarding
    these anomaly products. At the end of November, 2014 the earth had a
    single global mean surface temperature. At the end of December, 2014 the
    earth also had a single global mean surface temperature. The difference
    between the global mean surface temperature at the end of November,
    2014 and the global mean surface temperature at the end of December,
    2014 is a unique value. However, the change in the global mean surface
    temperature anomaly, and thus the change in the global mean surface
    temperature, reported by the three primary producers of global mean
    surface temperature anomaly products for December, 2014 is not a unique
    value. GISS reported an anomaly increase of precisely 0.06oC; NCDC
    reported an anomaly increase of precisely 0.12oC; and, HadCRUT reported
    an anomaly increase of precisely 0.15oC.

    It is possible that the global mean surface temperature anomaly
    change, and thus the temperature change in December, 2014 was precisely
    0.06oC, or precisely 0.12oC, or precisely 0.15oC. However, it is
    clearly not possible that the anomaly change, and thus the temperature
    change, was precisely 0.06oC and precisely 0.12oC and precisely 0.15oC.
    It is certainly possible that the anomaly change was somewhere within
    the range of values reported by the three primary anomaly product
    producers. It is also possible that the actual anomaly change was not
    within that range. It is interesting, however, that each of these
    disparate anomaly change estimates was just large enough to permit the
    producer to claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record, even if with
    less than 50% certainty.

    I am not certain whether these reported anomaly increases are inaccurately precise or precisely inaccurate. 😉

    • Concerned

      Great summary. Another interesting note of which most people are not even aware is that most of the “reported warming” occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, most of it occurs at night and not during the day, and the largest temp changes are in the Artic where more than 90% of the area is “infilled” because the Artic has very few monitoring locations.
      The last point is that 3/4 of the world is water and the specific heat of water dominate the Global Temperature, not surface temperatures on land. Attached are two pictures: 1. = Average World Ocean Temps (0 to 700 meters) updated quarterly showing only a 0.175 Deg C rise since 1955 (60 years) and 2. = Avg Pacific Ocean Temps at equator (0 to 300 meters) — with virtually no change since 1979 (35 years)!!

      • Pam Dunn

        DOn’t forget that these same “scientists” are going BACK 200 years to ADJUST the temperatures LOWER to make it look like there has been “warming”. Can you say out right FRAUD ??

        • Ed_Reid

          Frantic Researchers “Adjusting” Unsuitable Data.

    • Pam Dunn

      Actually, they are alarge load of “adjusted” malarkey (For those climate warming believers it also called BULLSHYTE). The Sun has more effect on earth than ANYTHING man has done and ONE volcano adds more CO2 and pollution than all of mankind.
      Starnge algor has gotten RICH off his FAKE movie while flying around in his Ultra-polluting private jet, his house using the power of SEVEN regular homes. Also, IF the sea is going to rise, WHY did he buy a water front home in Miami Florida?

  • BIGRON

    JUST HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE,WE ARE SMARTER THAN THEY ARE

    • Andrew Owens

      According to Gruber,Obama knows were stupid,this is just another way of scamming us for more money.

      • Pam Dunn

        EXCEPT that Obama, the ugly witch Hillary, weedy harry ALL IGNORED what the public says and thought. LOOK at the abortion called “OBAMACARE”; 70% 0f Americans apposed it yet they voted it in ANYWAY>
        Take them out and string them up on the Washington MALL.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Do not underestimate the extent of their Common Purpose! Its been put in place over a great deal of time, google The Frankfurt School for bed time reading?

  • Francisco Machado

    The AGW cabal attempted to get data and information considered heresy by their priests expunged from the education process in West Virginia. The WV Board of Education said no, science must consider both sides – and passed a bill ensuring it. It is embarrassing that the Board of Ed decision was not unanimous. I support the freedom to hold an opinion. I do not support a freedom to suppress or impose punishment on opposing opinions. Perhaps the drivers of the mid 70s ice age promotion have learned their lesson from that experience: If you do not suppress contrary data and information, the movement cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence of its validity. In light of the historic reality that climate does change, change in climate does not prove that the evil warlocks of energy production have been able to change it. Suppressing information that climate change is a natural process hardly strikes me as ethical.

  • jer1041

    A UN directed scam, designed for the Agenda 21 implementation. We are considered to be cattle, to led around by our noses. This scam has been going on since the 1970’s.

  • Oliver_K_Manuel

    When the curtain is finally pulled on seventy years (1945-2015) of lock-step consensus thinking, we will see Stalin won WWII by capturing Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea and holding the American crew of a B29 bomber for negotiations in AUG-SEPT 1945 until:

    Nations and National Academies of Sciences were United on 24 Oct 1945 in order to:

    _ a.) Hide the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE in cores of heavy atoms, and

    _ b.) Save the world from possible nuclear annihilation [1]

    Precise measurements have shown the absurdity of this 1945 decision to rule the world by deceit:

    THE FORCE OF DESTRUCTION in cores of heavy atoms is also THE CREATIVE FORCE in the Sun’s core that sustains our lives [2].

    Fear of self-incrimination keeps NAS members from now addressing the measurements [2].

    1. “Aston’s WARNING (12 DEC 1922); CHAOS & FEAR (AUG 1945)” https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf

    2. “Solar Energy for school teachers,”
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

    – Oliver K. Manuel
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    • Oliver_K_Manuel

      NAS members and winners of Nobel And Crafoord Prizes are not at fault for deceiving the public about the Sun. Otherwise, they would not have received grants, tenure and continued employment as scientists.

  • Jacky

    The measure of the rigor of a science is it’s ability to predict.
    The science, the man caused global warming people are using is batting zero.

  • Sharron

    I remember my dad and mom talking about this. They said the government will control the weather. This was in the 40s.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Locally seeding clouds with Silver Iodine has caused a rapid downpour. Google Linton and Lynmouth UK in the 1950’s when they Cloud Seeded in an experiment over Devon.

  • Andrew Owens

    Just another Obama scam for more money. He doesn’t belong in the WH,he belongs in a jail cell.

    • Jim

      or better yet, cremated.

      • marlene

        LOL – we wouldn’t want anyone digging up to re-create him.

      • Brin Jenkins

        A state funeral perhaps, next week?

        • Jim

          Hell no! He has been way too much of a drain on US taxpayers already. he should be put down and then put into a pyre along with a whole bunch of his minions…as cheaply as possible…

    • cshorey

      Strange that this science developed before Obama was born. Perhaps you should dig deeper.

      • Robert Jackson

        Perhaps your father fucked a flower pot because it appears you are a BLOOMING FUCKING IDIOT.

        • cshorey

          So I’ll have to assume then you disagree with the statement that climate science predates Obama. Guy Calendar 1938. Now give a reasoned response if possible.

          • Robert Jackson

            And forgive me for the way I talk shit, it is just me, it is who I am, I have no PC no urge to give a shit. Like I have always said to everyone who actually knows me…. “You know that part of your brain that says don’t say/do that, mine is broken”

      • Robert Jackson

        AND YOU CLAIM TO BE A GEOLOGIST. I am too, I dig in dirts. LMFAO

        • cshorey

          I guess I’ll just point to having gotten over a 97th percentile on the geology GRE back in 1993, and having steady teaching jobs in earth science for the last 20 years to say, no I don’t claim to be a geologist, I am a geologist. I chose after my undergraduate run to focus on paleoclimate, and kept an open mind. When “climategate” occurred I was concerned, so I read the emails in question, saw the context, and saw no wrong doing, except for stealing the e-mails and ripping things out of context in the first place. Svante Arrhenius, 1898. Intelligent responses preferred.

          • Robert Jackson

            Ok now explain to us Why the fuck you feel you must mention Obama. Do you seriously believe Humans are the biggest cause of climate change? And you are so intelligent that you believe that a carbon tax, which would make energy more expensive, even so expensive to the point people can’t afford it, and then giving that money to some scumbag 3rd world dictators, who will only pocket the money and let their people starve, you think that is going to help the planet?

            Why not a Methane tax? Oh wait that is harder to come up with and would get these pieces of shit in the UN pushing this garbage less trillions for their greedy pockets.

            Germany has tried this idiotic shit, they have more and more people in German who do not have electricity now.

            And as a geologist did you know the earth produces most Carbon Dioxide. As a geologist did you also know the Oceans have risen over 300 feet since the last ice age all on their own. Or was that due to 10,000+ years of man burning fires before he had fossil fuels?

            What is so bad about carbon dioxide? Did you know we would all die without it? Did you know that plants flourish under conditions with higher CO2 did you know that plants use CO2 to produce Oxygen. Did you know that indoor growers purposely pump lots of CO2 into their grow rooms to increase plant production because there is not enough in the air for the plants to achieve maximum potential indoors.

            And it doesn’t matter what you have achieve if you are brainwashed and not a free thinker. If you can’t think outside the box you repeat shit like a parrot.

            And I guess you think these nearly 32,000 scientists are wrong too?

            http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

            “The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a
            voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate
            change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately
            600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the
            custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of
            which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the
            draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of
            their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations
            objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of
            industrially-useful energy.”

            That is not how science works. If the science were real it would follow the scientific review process correctly. You can’t tell me that 600 scientists all employed by the UN ( most are a joke ) know more than 32,000 scientists.

            I honestly hate big oil, I hate how they keep us from advancing to new types of energy. If a car can run on water, why are we not running cars on water?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zMpM-jAnFs

            Why do people that come up with working solutions get killed by Big Oil? Why do we need oil at all? We can make plastics out of Hemp, we can make lubricating oil out of hemp, we can do everything better without Oil.

            I wish Solar were more efficient, I think that maybe no one has thought outside the box with it yet and keep going down the same road following each other like lemmings.

            Also I hope to one day go back to college and study many more subjects. I have this feeling that if we could find some sort of way to tap into the earths natural vibrations, somehow figure out what frequencies it gives off, maybe we could tap into a source of unlimited energy. Sort of like how when you run your finger over a whine glass and it vibrates and makes a sound. What if we could make the opposite happen, we find a steady frequency from the earth, find a way to get an object to vibrate at that frequency and capture the energy, sort of how the quartz in a watch works.

            Also CO2 is the least of my worries of the poisons coming out of Coal and Oil, all the toxic shit coming from it is killing us and the planets animals. Plus the pollution created from getting these materials, then transporting them.

            None of it is good, and I do wish for a better energy form. I hate big oil and the shit they do to stop progress. I however do not think it will be helpful to the human race, or the planet for us to tax our use of energy to the point we can’t afford it.

            I am very excited about LED’s and how they are advancing and becoming more efficient. The main issues we have with solar and wind etc. right now is ON DEMAND, we need a way to store the energy until it is needed. The problem is traditional batteries are expensive and do not last long.

            There is so much that can be advanced. The problem I see is big oil and other big corporate industries suppressing progress due to pure greed.

            I do believe in man made climate change, I just do not think humans are the main cause or even a largely significant cause. I believe our production of methane is way worse than any CO2 as a geologist you should know that Methane is more of a Greenhouse gas than CO2, plus plants do not need Methane like they need CO2.

            Also if humans could have a major effect on the climate then we would be lucky, we could prevent the next Ice Age or at least make it not so bad. Our governments have tried to control the weather, HAARP, I read about it since like 11 or 12. They just ended the program, from what I read over the years they had limited success ( LMFAO like they would tell us the truth ) HAARP was ended last year I believe.

            So as you can see I am no fucking idiot, I do have a clue and have been reading about this shit for over 20 years now. I was fascinated by dinosaurs and the earths past as a kid, I was also interested in electronics, and many other things.

            So I am not saying man made climate change is fake, I am saying it is miniscule compared to natural climate change, and taxing ourselves to death to give trillions to pieces of shit Dictators who fuck their own people over is INSANE.

            The climate change movement should attack the real culprits, BIG OIL and other piece of shit industries that keep us from cleaner, more efficient, more effective energy solutions.

            For example did you see a few years ago where BP or Chevron, I can’t remember, one of them bought a revolutionary battery patent from GM. Where is that battery? Gone forever. Why? Because it threatened BIG OILS fucking profits and their sorry ass suck dick investors.

            So I am not much different than you really. I see the same problems, I just want different solutions.

            • cshorey

              The original poster mentioned Obama and I replied. Catch up.

            • cshorey

              Why not a methane tax? It’s being discussed actually, but being that the residence time of CO2 is creeping up on 200 years and methane is only 10 days, well, you claim to be scientifically literate so I’m sure I don’t need to explain this to you.
              As for earth putting out more carbon than humans, I guess we now see how bad you are at understanding dynamic systems and input/output imbalance. And then you went on a rant that just makes you look like nutter. So no good arguments here and a lot of crazy.

  • David

    B.S…. Weather on this planet changes and shifts all the time…..wake up… there is no global warming…

    • Robert Jackson

      correction, No man made global warming

  • Thomas Faddis

    Ms. Noon, when I click on your book link, it takes me here:
    http://imprbooks.com/
    and there is no search option or anything to do with Energy Freedom…it’s an ad for revocable trust?

  • John Anthony

    “Since 1989, there’s been no significant change in the public’s concern level over global warming.” In Hillary’s words, “What difference does it make?” I regret to say this Marita, while everything you say is elegantly presented and true, there is far too little outrage or even awareness of the reduction to our living standards and the hollowing of our nation’s economic foundation resulting from programs designed to address so-called man-made climate change. Even as you write, these program are accelerating unhampered. Most people I have met never heard of Jonathan Gruber and those who did shrug him off. The fact that Americans nearly universally support the Keystone XL Pipeline, yet sit by as it languishes in political never-never land, is proof statistics do not equate to policy. Has that support opened the pipeline in 6 years? If a candidate were to run on the platform of opening the pipeline, outlawing the EPA’s climate change and CO2-related regulations, and repealing the Affordable Care Act, how widely do you think s/he would be supported, even knowing we have been misled about all of these? People need to understand the consequences of pursuing climate change policy, not merely express passive disinterest.

  • quarkie009

    Those that support the man-made climate change are also supporting turning the United States of America into a dictatorship headed up by Obama, Hillary, Joe Bite Me and other like mindless sheeple. Americans had better wake up before our goose gets cooked by such liberal/communists and counter their hatred of America by sending them to another country that will accept their corruption i.e. Iran, Yemen, China….

    • ninetyninepct

      “and other like mindless sheeple” – all wanting us to scream alley akbar.

  • FreemenRtrue

    Actually. I think Obama is so dumb that he really does believe in global warming caused by a miniscule amount of CO2 generated by humanity. He is profoundly stupid just like Biden who Obama thought lent gravitas to his adminstration. The laughable irony is that compared to Susan Rice, the EPA dyke, the Iranian queen and Obama’s other hacks, Biden probably does add weight!!!

    • IsThisAmerica

      Tell them to take their planes out of the sky spewing poison on us to (block the sun). This one is on them. They started it.

  • As an environmental scientist, I want to assure everyone that man-made “climate change” for the entire planet is garbage and just another way for liberals to control people’s lives and make Al Gore Jr. rich.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Thanks for sticking your head up by telling the truth. Logic and Physics certainly do not support the Carbon Scam.

      • Robert Jackson

        Nor does geology

        • cshorey

          Actually it does Robert. It’s called paleoclimatology and tells us that most recent climate swings are due to orbital parameter. The current one started cooling us 6000 years ago and should continue for another 23,000 years (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1981). So how do you explain the warming over climate time scales we are currently experiencing. As pointed out to Brin, the sun is decreasing it’s output. And as for Rulz, personal incredulity is a logical fallacy from which to argue nothing.

          • Robert Jackson

            So I am not sure if you are arguing that man has a direct effect on climate change or if you are misunderstanding me? I believe in climate change, yes it happens naturally. What I do not buy is that man has a huge effect on the climate directly. Sure humans play a small part, methane more than carbon, methane comes from us and the animals we breed for food etc.

            I do not buy the idea that we can tax our selves to the point that electricity is not affordable so we can give it to 3rd world UN countries run by dictators who will only give the money to themselves like they always do while letting the people of their nation suffer.

            The only way I can see that humans would or could have a major direct impact on the earths climate is from a nuclear winter after a war, which is in our near future as soon as Iran starts making nukes.

          • Robert Jackson

            Well here is your environmental scientist, why not argue with him? Go for it I dare you. LMFAO

            • cshorey

              I’m an environmental scientist. And I specifically work with climate data. I’ll take that dare. Rulz is clearly not on top of this science, so I have no worries. So Robert, are you a geologist?

              • Robert Jackson

                I am a geologist yes.

              • Robert Jackson

                Ok are you an environmental Scientist or a Geologist. Pick one and stop lieing. LMFAO

                I am the Santa Bunny I do xmas and Easter

  • Con Ma

    Forbes has the annual cost associated with this foolishness to be a minimum of 1.75 Trillion. That is not just federal spending it includes the regularitory costs passed on to the economy as the cost of compliance. Did you know we haven’t built a new oil refinery since 1979 when this lie sprouted its wings and rose from the dead. See the origins and history of Global warming. Why is not anyone in power demanding One Hundred dollars worth of proof which would justify a $1.75 Trillion per year hit on our economy? No wonder there is no recovery in the economy with this anchor being dragged along too.

  • Bolt

    Fear mongering is the only way to try to convince the masses that something needs to be done to control the masses. We are missing the point. This is all about control. It does not matter to the Progressive/Fascist statists that the majority of the people do not believe one scintilla of what is propounded as established science. The Progressive/Fascist statists simply know what is good for everyone…except them. Just look at all of the control issues–gun control; limitations on speech and religion; internet control (again, speech control); healthcare control leading toward denial of treatment for some people who otherwise would have been provided treatment but for the death (yep! call it what you want Pelosi. But Gov. Palin had it nailed) because “we have to ration healthcare in the US”… In the past about 15 years, there have been 4 volcanic eruptions that have each spewed an estimated 300 years of greenhouse gas emissions at the present rate of emission worldwide. That happens to be 1200 years of emissions. Have the Kool-Aid drinkers even recognized this factoid? Nope. They just continue to manipulate the data and adjust the numbers to fit the computer model. Sounds like an upside down scientific method to me–reach a conclusion and manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. Hardly an empirical process at all. Why? Because the empirical data does not fit the conclusion. The communists/fascists have done it before with the same disastrous results–you do not mess with Mother Nature. (Remember the 50s and 60s when we were trying to make it rain in Arizona and New Mexico? Did it work?)

    • IsThisAmerica

      They are still messing with mother nature. Not US, them. They are geoengineering the skies to (block the sun). In fact they are using us as lab rats and spewing poison. Trees are suddenly flashing out dead, and they are finding high counts of Aluminum on trees, plants and in our water. Check out Geoengineeringwatch.org for more details.

  • Jack Magurn

    Darn it all! I live just fifty miles from the ocean and was counting on having beachfront property by now!

  • gene1357

    Been warming since the last “ice age”. But it’s true that it’s real hot down there at the core, apparently. Heat rises. Always has, always will.

    Establishment Science: the folks who, in the 1950’s said Venus’ climate was similar to a greenhouse, and most likely planet to support life as we know it, with plenty of water: Zero for three;
    E.S.said the Moon, below it’s surface, would be cold, dry, and have no magnetic orientation: Zero for three again!
    Now it appears Newton (and establishment science) are wrong about universal laws of gravity…and gravity itself. Yes, mountain mass fails to ‘budge’ plumb line.
    Jonathan Swift knew the facts of Mar’s satellites in 1633.
    10,800 degrees Fahrenheit
    Scientists: Earth’s Core Hotter than Previously Thought. French researchers have determined that the temperature of the Earth’s core is10,800 degrees Fahrenheit (6,000 oC) – about 1,800 oF (1,000 oC) hotter than previously thought.Apr 29, 2013
    Scientists: Earth’s Core Hotter than Previously Thought …
    http://www.sci-news.com/physics/article01040.html
    Sci‑News.com
    Feedback
    Earth’s Core Temperature A Hellish 6,000 Degrees Celsius …
    http://www.natureworldnews.com/…/earths-core-temperature-hellish-6-000-de...

    Apr 26, 2013 – A new experiment on the temperature of Earth’s core concludes that it’s a hellish 6,000 degrees Celsius (10,832 F), a solid 1,000 C (1,832 F) hotter than previously believed when the last temperature model was run 20 years ago.
    Scientists: Earth’s Core Hotter than Previously Thought …
    http://www.sci-news.com/physics/article01040.html

    Sci‑News.comApr 29, 2013 – Scientists: Earth’s Core Hotter than Previously Thought. French researchers have determined that the temperature of the Earth’s core is 10,800 degrees Fahrenheit (6,000 oC) – about 1,800 oF (1,000 oC) hotter than previously thought.
    Earth’s Core 1,000 Degrees Hotter Than Expected | Earth’s …

  • Luvthablues

    I see more and more people are jumping on the anti climate change position…. It’s about time that us so called “little people” as Hillary calls us wake up and speak out… climate change is a huge scam … It’s about control and money .. It’s all a part of the liberal lefts agenda to destroy our country… DO NOT vote for ANY candidate who supports this evil scam!!!!!!!!!

  • newsel

    Statements on IPCC Official Climate Policy Is Redistributing the Worlds Wealth

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    “At a news conference last week 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.”

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3UqA7aWRx

  • Brin Jenkins

    CO2 loves cold water, and heating any water drives this soluble gas out in bubbles. The CAUSE is heat and its EFFECT is gas released into the atmosphere.

    In Science and Logic one may not reverse a cause with its effect, CO2 can not be the CAUSE of Global warming, its the EFFECT of our Climate WARMING. This was confirmed by the Antarctic ice-core samples taken in 1989.

    We are being deliberately mislead by a flawed theory of CO2 being a cause. Our natural climatic cycle runs over a 1000 year long term cycle. Taking a short select section of temperature graph, and projecting forwards in a computer gives false results, as does the stock market which might have made us all rich if it had only held true.

  • Bama Bill

    I remember back in the 70’s gas lines, govt predicting we would run out of crude oil by 2010. It will happen, for sure, but are they planning for it? Burning all the oil we do must warm the planet, but so does cutting down most of the trees. That the govt doesn’t even talk about. Save some darn minnow by putting hundreds of farmers out of business, hell yes! Sell coal to China, sure. China’s air pollution is affecting our weather. Govt says, “Sell more coal to China, by shutting down our power plants.
    All obama wants to do is ruin the USA.

  • Shawn

    People can say everything they want about climate change. In the end, it doesen’t matter if your for or against it. Everyone will feel it’s effects reguardless, and one it reaches a certain point, it will become irreversible. So is it better to do something about it now, or evetually suffer it’s effects whether you believe in it or not?

  • alpha2actual

    In the words of John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar a Paul Erlhich Eugenics disciple. From “Human Ecology: Problems & Solutions”

    “ A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environ­ment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in over devel­oped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely necessary. “

    Holdren predicted that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling “eco-disaster” in Ehrlich’s 1986 book “The Machinery of Nature.” Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.

  • David L

    Here is a great documentary that shears some light on all the lies being perpetrated against us

    The Great Global Warming Swindle!

    https://www.google.com/url?q=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DD-m09lKtYT4&sa=U&ei=Bvn4VK6sI4r6yASv3oE4&ved=0CAsQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE_77YLiaG7-eh73StPLTlV5eZF-Q.

  • Arationofreason

    Water vapor has always been the major energy transport from the surface by convection to radiation altitudes has always been the major energy transport to cool our climate. To now even suggest(let alone base our entire energy policy) that now adding a small percentage to this natural process will cause catastrophic heating is illogical beyond being ludicrous.