Watch students wake up about warming

By |2015-08-20T11:00:02+00:00August 20th, 2015|Videos|140 Comments

It’s back to school time.

For many students, that means back to indoctrination time.

But there are those fighting back.

CFACT’s Collegians are working hard to challenge the liberal orthodoxy all too rampant on America’s colleges and universities. Our chapters are often among the most dynamic groups on campus.

For decades we’ve trained young people to think critically for themselves and share that gift with others.

A good case in point, our student leaders at the University of Alabama, Birmingham shared a simple graph of satellite temperature measurements recently with their classmates.  The graph reveals that there has been no meaningful change in global temperatures for most of those students’ lives.

Watch the double take students do when confronted with the straight facts that there has been no dramatic global warming as they’ve been led to believe.

The good news?  Students got it.  Some were upset. Virtually all were surprised. The only thing they needed was access to the truth.

You’ll be heartened to see these bright youngsters casting aside the politically-correct hype they’ve been fed and forming valid conclusions based on sound scientific data.

When students get the unvarnished facts, all of our futures are bright.

140 Comments

  1. Pooch15 August 20, 2015 at 11:28 AM

    I’ve actually seen the information and have someone in the family who has done the research, written and published papers, and can explain what is actually going on. Climate Change is a ridiculous money making scheme that is working because so many are willing to be led by the nose and so few are willing to do the research for themselves. My question is, why is it so easy to make these university students change their minds just by showing them a chart. And I mean a chart that shows either belief. These people are supposed to be there to learn. They should know how to do the research for themselves. They shouldn’t just buy into whatever they are being told by either side. They should be learning, not buying. Am I happy they were willing to listen to truth? Sure. Would I be happier if they cared enough to find that truth for themselves? Absolutely.

    • Rattlerjake August 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM

      You have to understand that their mentality is that if a “professor” tells them it is so then it must be so. With libturds in most of the academic positions in this country, they have total access to the youth and can indoctrinate them easily. That is the whole reason that government control of education is one of the top required steps to Communism! Young minds are the easiest to manipulate. This is why they are now teaching sex education and homosexuality in the lowest grades, by the time they are teens they will be totally indoctrinated to believe it is normal.

      • Pooch15 August 20, 2015 at 3:29 PM

        Rattlerjake, I don’t think it matters what “party” someone associates with. This seems to be the accepted method of learning these days. Whoever stuck a chart in their face last wins. A student should be someone who searches for knowledge, not someone who accepts the last thing they were told.

        • Rattlerjake August 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM

          Absolutely the party matters. Listen to the answer to the first question from each student, 99% of them have the same lie answer, that proves that the left is doing the indoctrination. Secondly, watch their reaction when they are shown the truth, they all are dumbfounded, which shows that they have been indoctrinated to believe that they don’t need to question what they are being taught. Even after this the majority of these students will go right back to accepting every scrap of propaganda they are fed!

          • Pooch15 August 20, 2015 at 5:10 PM

            You are missing my point. I didn’t say that “Climate Change” is not a liberal lie. I said that we are seeing the same lack of ability to think being demonstrated by students of both party affiliations.

            • Ed August 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM

              Indeed. Critical Thinking skills today include accepting anything PC as proper and everything else is phobic or racist in some fashion.

        • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM

          It all depends on the source of your chart. It’s called critical thinking. We show you how to do it on our show. Enjoy!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVHxJ9-5EDE

          • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 1:49 PM

            And your sources are comedians and cartoons? And you edit the sources to follow your agenda, yeah you’re really into the truth! Your only retort to FOX news is that the ending phrase is “conservatives you have friends at FOX”, REALLY? You libturds are really pathetic. It’s interesting that the only sources that libturds EVER cite are from leftist sources that are soon proven to have altered the data. NASA admitted to it, the climate data from the AGW idiots has been proven to be doctored, the anti-gun sources have been both altered and data just left out, etc. Funny how those on the right get their sources from INDEPENDENT sources that are not on the government gravytrain! I’m sure that your childish videos are very entertaining to the rest of you libturd buddies.

            • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM

              Sweetheart you claimed that NASA altered the DATA, didn’t you????? Good now we have something we can verify. I can’t wait to see your evidence. Remember be specific and cite your source so I can embarrass you and make fun of you in front of your friends!!!!!!! Let’s see what you got!!!!!!

                • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 7:56 PM

                  Nothing you post will ever satisfy vacman. It’s all been posted to him before.

                  He’s a nutjob.

                  • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 8:08 PM

                    Oh I know, but it’s been raining all day and it was either clean the cat litter box or f-ck with a libturd!

                    • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM

                      I know Richie (vacmancan) and he’s an egotistical nutcase. All kinds of information have been posted to him debunking his mythological AGW scam. When challenged he insults you, complains about the Koch brothers or just keeps reposting the same nonsense over and over.

                      He drives a gas guzzling old van and sells vacuum cleaners for a living. He’s the guy you see standing on the street corner holding a child’s pinwheel proclaiming the world is coming to an end and wind power and solar panels are the solution to the world’s power problems.

                      He’s a nut! Plain and simple. He has no formal education in science but has taken a course on how to confront people who disagree with AGW.

              • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 7:55 PM

                Would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

                I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

                You’re an idiot!

          • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM

            I doubt you even know the definition of thinking.

      • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 12:20 PM

        You scare me. When the Koch brothers dumbed you down they really got their monies worth, didn’t they???????

        • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:38 PM

          There is an interesting conversation going on here AROUND you but having to maneuver around your drivel is sure making it a challenge to enjoy.

      • cc August 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM

        so it would seem folk like @vacmancan get their marching orders the same way Gilligan did, from the Professor

        • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:41 PM

          vacman get’s his marching orders from the voices in his head.

    • Ian5 August 21, 2015 at 12:48 AM

      Good points about not just buying into a single sheet of paper. What research and published papers are you referring to. Can you share them with us?

    • Rod Martin, Jr. August 21, 2015 at 5:46 AM

      Pooch15, it’s also possible that some are merely being polite and waiting until they’re in a private setting to dig deeper.

      But the irony runs far deeper.

      The UN and Rockefellers are pushing to cool down the planet in the midst of the current Ice Age. (Please read that last part, again.) We’re in an Ice Age, which means that temperatures are unusually cold compared to the last 600 Million years.

      If they trigger a sudden end to the Holocene, then 7+ Billion people are going to be scrambling for a way to grow food. Not easy in the snow.

    • momsaid August 21, 2015 at 9:26 AM

      The difference is that the professors and media have pushed a single agenda on these kids from day one, and suddenly they see evidence to the contrary. This leads to more inquisitiveness instead of sheep-like following. Wake them up, watch how great they become.

      • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 11:49 AM

        I would bet not one of them went on to do further research on the subject. That’s my point. Something was put in front of them and they accepted it. They didn’t see “evidence.” They saw a graph that anyone could have generated. There was no “evidence.”

        • momsaid August 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM

          They saw a graph that was accurate. With additional information, they now have something on which to seek out facts and build realistic opinions and understanding. It’s not that they suddenly accepted the new info, so much as that they were shocked to see it. Their professors led them to believe that no opposing views mattered. When science meets indoctrination, something’s got to give.

          • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:11 PM

            How would they know the graph is accurate?

            • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM

              How would they know it’s not?

              • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM

                That’s the point I keep making. For people to look at something like that and take it at face value just because they are told it’s accurate is ridiculous, no matter which side of the argument is presenting it.

                I feel like I’m going in circles.

                • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 3:32 PM

                  Well assuming that those students have been taught to question and research information then they will do just that. I didn’t have any trouble doing a little research on the people who put out the chart.

                  If they’ve been taught to accept anything presented to them as fact like so many liberal colleges do, then they’re hopelessly doomed and will never know the truth about anything.

                  “vacmancan” is an uneducated boob who couldn’t be bothered to do the least bit of research on the chart or its authors.

                  • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:35 PM

                    Well on those points, especially the one about “vacmancan” we can certainly agree.

                    The problem is that we have all been accepting of too much presented to us as fact by our government for way too long. Time to question everything.

                    • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM

                      I don’t accept anything from anyone if I can’t verify the information, especially on a blog on the internet. I think I’m more like you on that matter.

                    • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:39 PM

                      I’m enjoying the conversation but “vacmancan” is really making me feel like I’m wasting too much time here. Nice chatting, TTAS.

                    • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 3:41 PM

                      That’s what vacmancan does. I know who he is and his schtick [sic?] is always the same.

                      Nice chatting as well Pooch15.

            • momsaid August 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM

              By checking the facts through investigation. If the data match reality, they can then surmise that they are correct. My point is, these students haven’t been exposed to differing statistics by their teachers before. Now, they can compare, contrast, and decide for themselves, instead of following a single line of reasoning.

    • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM

      Sou you claim you have friends who have published “peer-reviewed” data on AGW????? Good now please post and cite your sources. Thank you then watch our show. You’re welcome!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVHxJ9-5EDE

      • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:27 PM

        Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for. Post the names and list your sources!

        I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

        You lose again!

      • Pooch15 August 21, 2015 at 3:13 PM

        If you can’t read, why would I bother with what you post?

  2. Max August 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM

    What a fking joke

  3. IAmRand August 20, 2015 at 9:04 PM

    Stefan Molyneux destroyed climate change/global warming/ whatever they call it recently, the state has faked statistics….. ask yourself why would a state which clearly doesn’t care about future generations when it comes to borrowing care about the planet?

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

    • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 12:28 PM

      I love the way this bonehead is trying to fool the “simple-folk” who don’t understand SCYENCE!!!!! The consensus is 97% of the Climate-Scientists publishing, “peer-reviewed” studies. Google it then come back and thank me. You’re welcome!!!!

      • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 12:46 PM

        You’re wrong, watch the video.

        • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM

          I’m never wrong have you watched my show????

          • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 3:20 PM

            Oh, I see, you’re playing a dumb lefty to make them look even worse, Bravo!

          • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 4:12 PM

            Really? You’ve already been shown wrong on all of the comments you’ve made. All this is about is a chance for you to get people to watch you’re youtube show, the more views the more money you can get from sponsors.

        • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:13 PM

          His show is nothing more than a collection of leftist BS hosted by his enormous ignorant ego.

          • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 3:43 PM

            Did you know Obama claimed 97% of ””’Scientists””’ support global warming? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA they don’t even know what their fake statistic represents!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 3:45 PM

              It’s all BS and it’s amazing the President would use the fake nonsense in public.

        • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 2:17 PM

          His sources for that show are comedians, cartoons, and liars, to include Chief Warren, the biggest liar since Hitlery Clinton; and watch closely how they are edited to only show his specific view! If this is what you people rely on for sources, it’s no wonder you are such mental cases!

          • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM

            Whereas Stefan’s sources are all readily available on his site, literally HUNDREDS.

        • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:40 PM

          If the video doesn’t agree with his programming then he won’t watch it. If it’s longer than a couple seconds, he loses his concentration and the voices in his head tell him to stop watching.

      • EU thrall August 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM

        You clearly didn’t pay attention/watch the video, he clears up the lie of the 97% consensus spectacularly, even some of the documents included in the 97% consensus DENY climate change, most of which were considered for the 97% withing 15 minutes of reading the 1,000 page document….. The entire thing is a lie, the computer models don’t even support the predictions.

        • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 1:37 PM

          Sweetheart forget about the climate models!!!!! Let’s look at what we can measure!!!!!! The oceans are a clear indicator of how bad AGW really is!!!!! In addition, please pay attention to the words Climate-Scientists, publishing, “peer-reviewed” studies we will accept nothing less. SORRY!!!!!!

          • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:11 PM

            This chart from Remote Sensing Systems measures all those things.

            Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

            I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

            You lose again!

          • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 2:22 PM

            It’s interesting that you say, “forget about the climate models”, when it is YOUR side that constantly parades those models as proof. It is the right who has provided the actual data, and you refuse to listen. You libturd government funded science has been proven to be falsified, and show that information that doesn’t meet your agenda is usually just left out.

            • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 4:58 PM

              Sweefheart you “simple-folk” who don’t understand SCYENCE are so east to fool. Are you home-schooled or just stupid??????

              • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 7:28 PM

                Well now you resort to the basic final reply of all libturds, when you can’t prove your idiotic lies then try character assassination or ad hominem attacks.

                • Brin Jenkins August 22, 2015 at 5:02 AM

                  Typical Bolshevik action to try and kill off all argument. It started with that re-mustered Canadian journalist Leon Trotsky when he joined Lenin to sort out the Red Revolution in Russia, it still grinds on aided by useful idiots like vac.

              • Eric Mcoo August 22, 2015 at 3:13 AM

                Physicists vs the global warming industry http://goo.gl/H3uqxn

              • Eric Mcoo August 22, 2015 at 3:14 AM

                Global warming. Probably the biggest banking scam in history. Jail the fraud deniers.

                http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro

              • Brin Jenkins August 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM

                You claim to be one who does not understand “SCYENCE, believing what you have been told! This is confirmed by your later mail, and explains your own susceptibility to being fooled.

                Give up and let the curious and better informed discuss science intelligently. Political Emotion has no place in such critical matters, read and you may even learn something of logical analysis.

              • choppingdownthecherrytree August 25, 2015 at 11:31 PM

                Wow.. vacmancan… yours is the ScYence.. LOL!!

                Argo Buoy System shows NO increase in Ocean Heat.. that’s Actual Data.. RSS Satellite Data shows NO increase in Atmospheric Heat.. and there’s the 18+ year pause..

                All of which contradict the Business of Global Warming…

                You don’t know shit honey.. citing models, “simple-folk”, peer-reviewed, and the discredited 97% bullshit.. ALL discredited..

                Go Educate yourself about the issue before posting and demonstrating how much of a follower, dumb sap you are..

                http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

              • WestHoustonGeo September 6, 2015 at 2:09 PM

                Look, you are making an ass of yourself, Creampuff!
                We all know that the AGW alarmism is pseudoscience that has been roundly debunked. And we know that your 97% is actually 0.3 %.
                Hard to admit, but I was once as ignorant as you obviously are.
                I DID “look it up” and came to the conclusion that it is all a great big fraud that exists to steal tax money and give it to cronies who will vote for more tax-theft on the basis of “Climate Change”.
                YOU GO LOOK IT UP!

                • vacmancan September 6, 2015 at 4:38 PM

                  Sweetheart you claimed AGW alarism is pseudoscience that has been debunked, didn’t you??????? I can’t wait to see what evidence you have to dis-prove AGW. Remember, be specific and cite your source. And then I’ll make fun of you. Sound fair?????

                  • TTAS September 7, 2015 at 10:42 AM

                    Post the names of 20 of those 97% scientists and the studies they did. Include where they work and who pays them. So far…crickets….nothing…zip…zilch…nadda!

                    Remember, be specific and name your sources!

                    • vacmancan September 7, 2015 at 10:53 AM

                      Boy are yo lucky!!!!! You’re gonna love the last show!! You’re welcome!!!

                    • TTAS September 7, 2015 at 11:38 AM

                      You have a show? Where? Why won’t you post your 97% BS proof , name your sources and be specific! You’re an idiot!

                      …crickets…chirp…chirp…

                  • WestHoustonGeo September 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM

                    Pansy, you claim to represent “Science” when 30,000 Scientists (8000 PhD’s) signed a petition that says your tiny minority of “scientists” ARE WRONG.
                    That’s the consensus, Daffodil.
                    YOU go look up the sources, Cupcake.
                    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
                    And, you have none, Tulip.

          • Brin Jenkins August 21, 2015 at 10:52 PM

            To increase the number of readings some ship cooling water is monitored, the temperature reads a bit higher than the ocean buoy stations. So all temperatures from the buoys was adjusted upwards to smooth the data. Why I wonder did that happen? Ships might be expected to be a little warmer containing heat sources that required sea water cooling.

          • EU thrall March 24, 2016 at 4:04 PM

            I hope you’re joking…. The models don’t even predict the past let alone the future, the studies did not support the consensus, in fact not even 1% of them did…..

      • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 12:58 PM

        Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

        I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

        • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 1:01 PM

          He truly believes a state which cares so little about future generations not to cut borrowing landing them with unplayable debts to the banks cares enough to spend trillions saving the environment (actions which cost the lives of 400,000 yearly as land used to grow food crops turn to bio-fuel crops causing huge starvation)…. What an idiot.

          • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 1:03 PM

            He’s a parrot. He only knows what his handlers want him to know. I’ve been trying to get him to post information to back up his lunacy for years. He can’t because he hasn’t a clue who those scientists are or what studies they did.

            He’s a nut!

            • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM

              The irony of it all is on the basis of the faked statistics the environment will actually improve for the next 80 years (CO2 is plant food), by which time oil will be depleted causing industry to develop more efficient renewable solutions than we have currently and technology will be so much more advanced…. Without the state bumping up our energy bills by 25% to fund their corrupt schemes.

        • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 1:41 PM

          Sweetheart if you haven’t google this for yourself, by now, you really don’t want to know the answer. But you’re a conservative you don’t want to know anything you just want to create doubt. Sorry, you lose. Are you keeping up with the show???? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVHxJ9-5EDE

          • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM

            Your so called show is just a bunch of clips from other leftists. I won’t spend time watching leftist propaganda.

            Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

            I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

            You lose again!

          • IAmRand August 21, 2015 at 3:26 PM

            Why do you trust something that is full of lies, eg the 97% consensus, and the only evidence they have are computer models which don’t work…… why do you believe in charging every family £3,000 a year? Why do you believe that bio crops starving 200,000 to death a year is a good thing? Why is rising CO2 (plant food) a bad thing, hundreds of thousands of lives are saved every year due to rising temperatures, we use much less energy in the heat than the cold………. and why do you believe a government would charge us all £3,000 a year for the good of the future? Look at their track-record on their treatment of future generations in fiat currency……….how do you account for global warming on other planets in our solar system?

            There isn’t a consensus on global warming but there was a consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by acid, the consensus was proven wrong and it was actually caused by bacteria…………

            The EU spends £160 BILLION a year in the hope that by 2080 it will have cut temperatures by 0.00005%……….. THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • MinistryofSillyWalks August 31, 2015 at 12:12 PM

            What flavour kool-aid are they feeding you?

      • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM

        vacmancan • 2 months ago

        Sweetheart, I don’t need to know any science. I let the climate-scientists who publish “peer-reviewed” studies take care of that. I’m willing to bet you have no idea what they have concluded, do you??????

        • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM

          I don’t need to know anything about dentistry, either. I let my Dentist take care of that. The fact that he had to pass peer-reviewed exams to earn his degree proves he knows his field. We take mental shortcuts, we rely on experts!!!!!! See how this works?????? Any other questions???????

          • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 2:03 PM

            Actually now you have just proven what a fool you are. When I require any type of job performed by an “expert”, I do RESEARCH. Medical malpractice alone dwarfs everything else and causes disfigurement and death, yet you will simply put your trust in a “dentist” because he has his degree? You’re no different than these college students that are shown a piece of paper and immediately accept it.

            • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:19 PM

              vacman ( Uncle Richie to the little children in his basement) is just a programmed leftist who is fed liberal BS and he spews it all over the internet. He’s been caught using material in his show that was removed because of copyright laws. He’s a nutcase.

              • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 4:36 PM

                Uncle Rich understands SCYENCE. Something the “simple-folk” refuse to accept!!!!!!

                • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 4:44 PM

                  vacmancan • 2 months ago

                  Sweetheart, I don’t need to know any science. I let the climate-scientists who publish “peer-reviewed” studies take care of that. I’m willing to bet you have no idea what they have concluded, do you??????

                  Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

                  I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

                  You lose again!

            • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 4:34 PM

              Do you stop and google who built the bridge, before you cross it?????? Do you trust the expert who inspected the elevator your riding in?????? Of course not, we trust the experts. You lose, SORRY!!!!!! You “simple-folk” are so cute. Thank you!!!!!

              • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM

                Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

                I’m still waiting. (a couple years now) Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

                You lose again!

              • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM

                You really think that deserves a pat on the back? Your examples are like mixing apples with bananas. Those who build bridges and install/repair elevators, etc. go through a rigorous screening by the building owner or company contracting the bridge because of the liability involved and yet there are still bridges and elevators that fail. As an individual I can research that company’s record and then choose whether to drive across that bridge or use that elevator. You are adding to the proof that you are nothing but an antagonistic libturd TROLL!

              • Brin Jenkins August 23, 2015 at 6:39 AM

                Bridges are designed and built by folk who understand physics, metals and stress. By and large problems are due to mis understanding of these rules and laws.

                With the CO2 warming theories there is little understanding only a consensus of folk unable to explain the details. Full explanations are required, why the hesitation of those who say they know?

          • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 2:05 PM

            Put up the information on the 97% BS or STFU you hypocrite!

      • Brin Jenkins August 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM

        If you understand the mechanism please explain it very clearly please. Is it absorption or refraction? I will not join any consensus without understanding it. To do otherwise is meaningless.

        • IAmRand August 22, 2015 at 9:57 PM

          There is no consensus on global warming, but there was a scientific consensus on stomache ulcers up until the mid-80s when it was completely destroyed overnight.

          • Brin Jenkins August 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM

            True, so very true that puts understanding way above consensus.

      • franktrades August 30, 2015 at 6:19 PM

        Why do warmists continue to cite opinion and statistics on opinion rather than data? Where are the warming studies that consider more than one favored conclusion? http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html

      • funky321 September 2, 2015 at 12:30 PM

        The only peers reviewing these studies are liberals that already agree with the manipulated numbers. And that goes for all peer reviewed liberal writings.

  4. Rod Martin, Jr. August 21, 2015 at 5:50 AM

    The big question is: How do we promote the life-affirming facts of Warming?

    How do we get people on board with Ending the Current Ice Age? True, warming will cause stress on the ecology, but cold will kill the ecology.

    If we are compassionate, we can help each other toward a garden on Earth with more warming — back to Earth normal.

    • momsaid August 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM

      Imagine what the warmists wlil do if the cold really grabs us for a few straight years. Will they call for more wood- and coal-burning, to keep oir homes and grids going?

    • Brin Jenkins August 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM

      We can point to Sicily, a very fertile and productive area for vegetables and fruit. Not only is it volcanic but Etna is always bubbling away spilling CO2 down the slopes. Were it not for the enriching CO2 this would not be so.

  5. vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 6:01 AM

    What is the source for the chart???????

    • Ed August 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM

      It’s right on the top of the chart…

    • Dano2 August 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM

      A non-scientist cherry-picking one dataset measuring not-temps where humans do not live.

      Best,

      D

    • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 12:00 PM

      If you’re not ignorant like you are, you can find that info on your own. I’ll help you because I know you don’t know how to research things on your own.

      Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is a scientific research company located in Northern California, specializing in satellite microwave remote sensing of the Earth. Established in 1974 by Frank J. Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems, presently, consists of a team of atmospheric, oceanic, and earth scientists and support personnel. Meet our Team

      Remote Sensing Systems is a world leader in processing and analyzing microwave data from satellite microwave sensors. We specialize in algorithm development, instrument calibration, ocean product development, and product validation. We have worked with more than 30 satellite microwave radiometer, sounder, and scatterometer instruments over the past 40 years. Currently, we operationally produce satellite retrievals for SSMIS, AMSR2, WindSat, and ASCAT. The geophysical retrievals obtained from these sensors are made available in near-real-time (NRT) to the global scientific community and general public via FTP and this web site.

      The microwave spectrum (1.4 to 89 GHz) is rich with information about the atmosphere (temperature, humidity, clouds, rain, etc), as well as the earth’s surface (temperature, vegetation, roughness, moisture, etc). Since microwaves can penetrate clouds, surface characteristics can be measured from space even when clouds are present. Currently, RSS offers research quality products of sea surface temperature, wind speed and direction, water vapor, cloud liquid water, rain rate, sea surface salinity and air temperature at various heights in the atmosphere obtained from radiometer, sounder and scattterometer measurements. The data are intercalibrated and consistently processed to produce the best quality products for use in reasearch and climate study.

      http://www . remss . com/about/who-we-are

      • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 12:30 PM

        Sweetheart don’t give me a song and a dance post a chart that has the source clearly printed on it. Thank you!!!!

        • TTAS August 21, 2015 at 12:49 PM

          The source is clearly printed on the chart, idiot! If you’re not ignorant like you are, you can find that info on your own.

          Now, if you would please post the names of at least 25 scientists from your 97% BS and 25 “peer reviewed” studies they wrote. Plus who they work for.

          I’m still waiting. Name your sources and be specific! Thank you!!!!

          • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 12:47 PM

            It’s a dishonestly cherry-picked chart, duh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

            Best,

            D

            • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM

              Like the “hockey stick” chart, right? You only need one (!) at the end of your sentence. Your post is more alarmist BS! See how it’s done.

              • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM

                Mann totem!

                Drink!

                Best,

                D

                • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM

                  Ja, der AGW Prämisse basiert auf einem schwachen Fundament.

                  • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 1:28 PM

                    Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep your self-identity intact.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 1:34 PM

                      Was haben Sie zu schreiben? Panikmache BS ist überall in diesen Tagen.

                    • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 2:58 PM

                      Ich habe fur dich nichts geschriebt.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 3:30 PM

                      Was auch immer!

                    • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 3:34 PM

                      Turn that frown upside-down!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 3:50 PM

                      Das ist nicht möglich, ich bin immer lächelnd.

                      I have nothing but smiles. It’s just the internet after all.

        • Rattlerjake August 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM

          Look it up, TTAS gave you a perfect source. Besides Climate data is not a one-chart subject. There are dozens of pieces of information that all go together to understand weather and climate. You are one dumbsumbitch!

          • vacmancan August 21, 2015 at 4:53 PM

            Sweetheart, what has the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES concluded about AGW??????? Yes, the science is settled. SORRY!!!!!!!!

      • Brin Jenkins August 22, 2015 at 4:45 AM

        I don’t doubt what you do, now please explain exactly what the CO2 mechanism is, and how CO2 allows heat to be radiated inwards, but not out again. Unless we now have a newer theory to explain the spoken of warming of our planet? Until we have a believable explanation I very much doubt the hub hub on GW.

        • TTAS August 22, 2015 at 4:20 PM

          March 22, 2012: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

          “This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”

          Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

          “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

          http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

      • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM

        Carl Mears of RSS also calls out deniers for cherry-picking his data to lie about ‘ain’t no warmin’.

        Funny, that.

        Best,

        D

        • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 7:20 PM

          You should post to him.

          • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 7:23 PM

            Bitte?

            Best,

            D

            • TTAS August 25, 2015 at 7:28 PM

              Bitte? Damn near ate her!

  6. Dano2 August 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    Comically sad “indoctrination” aside, kids in school will learn the science, which does not validate deniers’ self-identity. Probably why the sad.

    Best,

    D

    • Brin Jenkins August 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM

      Dano you keep mentioning Denier? can you explain what you understand to be the truth? What you accept and why we should join with you.

      • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM

        Physics works on earth. I don’t care whether you “join with’ me or not.

        Best,

        D

        • Brin Jenkins August 25, 2015 at 10:51 AM

          Are so you just wish to consider the physics, please do give a full explanation of the mechanism, of how it works.

          • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 11:45 AM

            If I do not to your satisfaction you are going to declare AGW impossible, amirite?

            Let us know cuz none of seen that afore.

            Best,

            D

            • Brin Jenkins August 25, 2015 at 1:18 PM

              Such a shame Dano because I feel you are a bright guy. If one fully understands a theory, I feel they have a moral duty to explain it to others. If I am wrong, and you can show me where, and I will acknowledge this. Can you not see it the same way? I love physics and feel pashionately about it. Why else would you be here on this site other than explain the situation to those who waver without understanding?

              Give it a go, I will use my own resources and understanding, can you not do the same?

              • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 1:26 PM

                Oh, good! So then you accept the 150 years of science that says adding CO2 to a planet’s atmosphere results in warming.

                Glad we’re on the same page.

                Best,

                D

                • Brin Jenkins August 25, 2015 at 2:11 PM

                  A cop out again, so sad for an intelligent guy.

                  • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM

                    You poor thing.

                    We have known – as you know too – that CO2 is a GHG. We have also known – for over a hundred years – that adding CO2 would raise the earth’s temperature. A Nobel was awarded for that work.

                    You can’t quibble around that.

                    Now, if you want to quibble about some random guy not remembering precisely how the mechanism of warming works in order to gain rhetorical advantage, that’s on you. But it won’t change the basic physics, it won’t change the empirical evidence, it won’t change the weight of the literature, it won’t change how the universe works.

                    HTH

                    best,

                    D

                    • Brin Jenkins August 25, 2015 at 5:34 PM

                      I really don’t see how CO2 raises the Earth’s temperature, please explain how it does this? Perhaps the precise function of a greenhouse gas needs to be stated. What does it do, how, and by how much.

                      Bland sweeping statements are not an explanation as you must know. Why does a ball roll down hill? We know its because of gravity, but that does not explain the mechanism or quantify the forces involved, I can do this. We don’t know gravity works though, only its laws.

                      Until this is explained saying that CO2 causes a rise in temperature is suggested but not explained or proven. You have faith that it does, I need proof either by experiments or un adjusted data.

                    • Dano2 August 25, 2015 at 5:45 PM

                      please explain how it does this?

                      It is opaque to long-wave radiation.

                      Now, your comical demands of the precise function of a greenhouse gas needs to be stated. What does it do, how, and by how much. and if I get one thing wrong the hammer comes down from you and AGW DON’T EXIST YO CUZ COMMENTIN DONE SUMPIN WRONG will be called out as a craven and cheap rhetorical tactic, dig me?

                      Last, I need proof either by experiments or un adjusted data

                      Comical derp of un adjusted data aside, science doesn’t give you proof. If you demand to know technical details to the nth degree, take some physics classes or go to the library and check out some textbooks.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins August 26, 2015 at 4:15 AM

                      You make little sense. When data is adjusted only upwards (Sea water temperatures from monitoring buoys to match ships cooling water monitoring) I doubt the intentions of the reasearcher. Hockey stick graphs are discredited. The adjusting upwards of historical temperature data is dubious to say the least. Perhaps further grants to fund thier jobs had an influence.

                      Opaque to long wave radiation requires more detail about what why and when, bald statements carry no weight. Your jibe on my education is cheap. When you are out of your depth please refrain from insults Dano.

                      What I originally asked was why you believed in the CO2 theory when you could not explain it, you still have not explained.

                    • Dano2 August 26, 2015 at 8:46 AM

                      When data is adjusted only upwards

                      False.

                      Hockey stick graphs

                      Drink!

                      Opaque to long wave radiation requires more detail about what why and when

                      Educate yourself.

                      When you are out of your depth

                      Standard play.

                      when you could not explain it, you still have not explained.

                      CO2 is a GHG. You are looking to make a statement that science is wrong cuz commenters can’t splain. I’m enjoying the comedy skit.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins August 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM

                      I had hoped you were able to discuss matter intelligently and politely. This it seems is beyond your remit.

                      I suspect that you probably won’t even look at this site, it deals with your Hockey Stick fraud first. Secondly with the exaggeration of temperature readings and the interpretations.

                      dealing with Hockey stick graphs first.

                      http://a-sceptical-mind.com/flat-line-or-upward-curve

                      Thermometers and stitching them together.

                      http://a-sceptical-mind.com/a-thermometer-too-far

                      For other readers this site has some tremendous resources, some rather complex.

                      I will no longer respond to this political Bolshevik who has said he is only here for the game.

                    • Dano2 August 26, 2015 at 2:50 PM

                      Poseur posturing aside, your statement was false, you parroted a long refuted talking point, and your puerile demands are puerile.

                      And now, disinformation site!

                      Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

  7. stevemeikle August 21, 2015 at 6:46 PM

    this issue has nothing to do with orthodoxy, liberal or otherwise, it has to do with SCIENCE. Why is it that Right Wingers deny Global arming and Leftists believe in it? this is to do with politics. This issue is data, observation and testing of theories. I for one am a Leftist who rejects the notion that Global Warming was man made or dramatic, and I did this because of the EVIDENCE. This politicization of science is dangerous and may end up discrediting science itself

  8. Haut August 23, 2015 at 4:51 AM

    Yea keep up the Good work, exposing the Jew scum:)

  9. Haut August 23, 2015 at 7:43 AM

    I think Greenpeace should ban, Volcanoes, ooohh that nasty carbon A Ha Ha Ha Ha!

  10. choppingdownthecherrytree August 25, 2015 at 11:24 PM

    Awesome!! Science IS about Facts, debate, finding the truth…

  11. franktrades August 30, 2015 at 6:16 PM

    Assuming the obvious, that global
    warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of
    sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google this search: Battery NOAA Sea
    Level. The NOAA chart will show a strict linear trend of sea level increase, quite
    obviously not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1
    billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that data measurement. This is likely a trend that began wi thte last melting of glaciers 12,000 years ago.Given that
    burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased at least an order of magnitude in
    that time, the data completely mitigate against any conclusion that there has
    been influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.

Comments are closed.