Bill Nye the scientism guy

Facts don’t support his hypothesis, so he shouts louder, changes subjects, and attacks his critics

nyelioteTrue science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

In the realm of climate scientism, the rule seems to be this: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents. That’s certainly what self-styled global warming “experts” like Al Gore and Bill Nye are doing. Rather than debating scientists who don’t accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly:

Our theory explains everything that’s happening. Hotter or colder temperatures, wetter or drier weather, less ice in the Arctic, more ice in Antarctica – it’s all due to fossil fuel use.

Climate scientism aggressively misrepresents facts, refuses to discuss energy and climate issues with anyone who points out massive flaws in the man-made climate chaos hypothesis, bullies anyone who won’t condemn carbon dioxide, and brands them as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.

In a recent Huffington Post article, Mr. Nye “challenges climate change deniers” by claiming, “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

Perhaps Mr. Nye and these Australian researchers should discuss what factors other than CO2 actually cause climate and weather fluctuations. They may also encounter other revelations: That climate science is still young and anything but settled; that we have little understanding of what caused major ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods in between, and numerous other events throughout the ages; and that computer model predictions thus far have been little better than tarot card divinations.

venusNye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as CO2 levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

This is an “enormous effect”? By now, it is increasingly clear, the proper scientific conclusion is that the “greenhouse effect” of rising atmospheric CO2 is very minor – as a recent article explains. Mr. Nye and his fans and fellow activists could learn a lot from it.

Objective readers, and even Mr. Nye, would also profit from reading venuseartha rather devastating critique of one of The Scientism Guy’s “science-is-easy” demonstrations. It concludes that the greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules is of course real, but Mr. Nye’s clever experiment for Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project” was the result of “video fakery” and “could never work” as advertised. When will Messrs. Nye and Gore stop peddling their Hollywood special effects?

For that matter, when will they stop playing inter-planetary games? Mr. Nye and the popular media love to tell us that CO2 from oil, gas and coal could soon turn Planet Earth into another Venus: over-heated, barren, rocky and lifeless. Princeton Institute of Advanced Study Professors Freeman Dyson and Will Happer show that this is utter nonsense.

VEMFor one thing, Venus is far closer to the sun, so it is subjected to far more solar heat, gravitational pull, and surface pressure than Earth is. “If we put a sunshade shielding Venus from sunlight,” Dr. Dyson notes, “it would only take 500 years for its surface to cool down and its atmosphere to condense into a carbon dioxide ocean.” It’s not the high temperature that makes Venus permanently unfriendly to life, he adds; it’s the lack of water.

Second, the amounts of atmospheric CO2 are grossly disproportionate. Earth has barely 0.04% CO2 (by volume) in its atmosphere, whereas Venus has 97% CO2 and Mars has 95% CO2. Mars much greater distance from the sun also means it has an average surface temperature of -60°C (-80°F) –underscoring yet again how absurd it is to use planetary comparisons to stoke climate change fears.

Third, Earth’s atmosphere used to contain far more CO2. “For most of the past 550 million years of the Phanerozoic, when multicellular life left a good fossil record, the earth’s CO2 levels were four times, even ten times, higher than now,” Dr. Happer points out. “Yet life flourished on land and in the oceans. Earth never came close to the conditions of Venus.” And it never will.

Fourth, Venus’s much closer proximity to the sun means it receives about twice as much solar flux (radiant energy) as the Earth does: 2637 Watts per square meter versus 1367, Happer explains. The IPCC says doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be equivalent to just 15 W/m2 of additional solar flux. That’s nearly 100 times less than what Venus gets from being closer to the Sun.

Fifth, surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of the Earth, and strong convection forces increase the heating of surface air, he continues, making Venus’s surface even hotter. However, dense sulfuric acid clouds prevent most solar heat from ever reaching the planet’s surface. Instead, they reflect most sunlight back into space, which is “one of the reasons Venus is such a lovely morning or evening ‘star.’”

co2plantsOf course, none of these nerdy details about Earth-Venus differences really matter. We already know plant life on Planet Earth loved the higher CO2 levels that prevailed during the Carboniferous Age and other times when plants enjoyed extraordinary growth.

However, even burning all the economically available fossil fuels would not likely even double current atmospheric CO2 levels – to just 0.08% CO2, compared to 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, 0.9% argon, and 0.1% for all other gases except water vapor. And doubling CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.

Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for plant growth – and for all life on Earth. Volumes of research clearly demonstrate that crop, garden, forest, grassland, and ocean plants want more CO2, not less. The increased greening of our Earth over the past 30 years testifies to the desperate need of plants for this most fundamental fertilizer. The more CO2 they get, the better and faster they grow.

More than 70% of the oxygen present in the atmosphere – and without which we could never live – originates from phytoplankton absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen. Keep this in mind when Bill Nye The Junk Science Guy tells you CO2 is bad for our oceans and climate.

————–

NOTE:  Dr. Willie Soon is an independent scientist who has been studying the Sun and Earth’s climate for 26 years. Dr. István Markó is a professor of chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and director of the Organic and Medicinal Chemistry Laboratory.

Categories

About the Author: Dr. Willie Soon

A CFACT advisor, Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist and independent climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. For the past 20 years has published extensively on solar and other factors that cause climate changes. He also maintains a strong interest in mercury and other public health issues.

About the Author: István Markó

Prof Dr. István Markó is an award-winning chemist at the University Catholique de Louvain in Belgium.

  • jerrypa

    This was a very informative article but I think the most persuasive part was the Australian government’s shifting funding from research to actual remediation. One does not have to be a climatologist to appreciate the duplicity demonstrated by scientists. And it shows that scientists are not above fraudulent behavior when it comes to saving their jobs but many could care lees when it come to other people losing their jobs because of their bogus research.

    • ONTIME

      makes for a sharp spear…..

    • J T

      “remediation”? Did you read a fckng word of that article?

      • Bay0Wulf

        I Dunno JT but;
        “When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result …” Sounds an Awful Lot Like it could be Interpreted as “Remediation”

        Personally I have been in the Ecological game for 40+ years … remediation is simple enough … LOCALLY Humans DO have a terrific impact … LA Smog is pretty much a thing of the past for instance … I recall days where it looked like brown fog … in fact China and many places in SE Asia are now experiencing this problem.

        On the other hand … there are many other problems that are being untruthfully blamed on GC that can still be fixed … even if its a matter of conning the GC folks to do the heavy lifting. Look, if they want to “Save the World” the truth is, the World Could Use a Hand, Simply sidetrack the simple and willing idiots to more specific things. Like waterway eutrophication … sure, its largely due to over fertilization of the surrounding lands but … those folks could easily be tasked to “fix” it by claiming whatever they want to hear … Just Keep it Local

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          THOSE WHO DENY CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING ON NOW, ARE STUPID CLOSE MINDED FOOLS WHO DENY FACTS.
          THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO DO THE RESEARCH TO GET THE FACTS, AND TOO DUMB TO BE ABLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND THE FACTS IF THEY DID GET THEM.

          • MarcJ

            “We still have some climate deniers who shout loud,” our Mullah B. Hussein Obama said announcing his program of executive orders designed to promote “alternative energies”. “But they’re wasting people’s time on a settled debate.” This pipsqueak of a former street agitator for the ACORN thugs is calling me and the other 31,486 independent US scientists who signed the Oregon Petition “climate deniers”? And it is “a settled debate”? That petition effort was started in the 1990’s by the late Edward Teller, Nobel Prize winner in Physics. The effort of gathering signatures was stopped some years ago when several Eco-Nazis sent in phony names and phony credentials in order to compromise that effort; it took us a lot of effort and private money (no oil money there!) to confirm the names and university degrees of all the signatories and so to clean up the list of those criminal saboteurs. It is our professional opinion that the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda is just a gigantic hoax cooked up by that socialist UN Panel and its cohort of government-paid drones ($25 billion/year) making up the calculations in their phony computer-modeling of our climate. Funny how after 20 consecutive years of GLOBAL COOLING (as predicted by the Solar cycle) those crooks changed the name of their GW scam into the brand new Climate Change hoax. And this comrade Reinhardt is evidently a low-IQ victim of that Marxist propaganda.

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              “petition effort was started in the 1990’s by the late Edward Teller, Nobel Prize winner in Physics”

              GEE, OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO BEFORE ALL THE NEW FACTS, PROVE TO THOSE INTELLIGENT AND LOGICAL ENOUGH TO NOT DENY THE TRUTH, CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING ARE HERE NOW!

              OF COURSE, ALL THOSE WHO ARE OF EFFECTIVELY LOW INTELLIGENCE WILL AGAIN, DENY THE FACTS WHICH PROVE ME CORRECT.

              • MarcJ

                OK comrade – I accept your challenge. After 10 more years of GLOBAL COOLING as per the Sun Cycle, I will prepare a large portion of horse shit and will make you eat it.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  YOU POOR DELUDED VERY LOW EFFECTIVE IQ LIAR, AND MOST PROBABLY COWARD,

                  IT IS YOU WHO WILL BE EATING YOUR SHIT PIE.

                  SOMETHING WHICH ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT DENY THE FACTS KNOW,

                  • MarcJ

                    This menacing cretin never stops with his invectives. Imagine his language when the 30th consecutive year of global cooling arrives in 2026. Comrade Reinhardt – get ready to eat that pile of horseshit called Climate Change! I will prepare and service that meal to you with pleasure- you poor low-IQ bloviating and menacing gasbag!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      YOU REALLY NEED TO GET SOME PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HELP FOR YOUR PATHETIC AND PROLIFIC LYING ABOUT OTHERS PROBLEM.

                    • jreb57

                      Imagine his reaction when his mouth freezes shut because an ice age is more likely in the near future than catastrophic warming. The cold will have more of a bad impact on civilization than warming. During an ice age:
                      Growing seasons will be shorter
                      There will be less arable land
                      The atmosphere will be dryer. Cold air is dryer.
                      It will be necessary to burn more fossil fuel just to stay warm (producing more of the gas that he says should have made it warmer in the first place)

                      Ever hear of anyone retiring to the north?

                • Mark McDougall

                  As amusing as this has been… 😀

                  1. People who are so dumb they can’t find the Caps Lock key are rarely worth bothering about – and if it is deliberate use of Caps Lock, it makes them ignorant trolls merely trying to create an effect far above their ability.

                  2. 1990 = 30 years is 2020 – ‘over 30 years’ becomes just another example of his over-the-top blathering.

                  3. The ice cores ALL show a relationship between warming and CO2 but unfortunately for the Church of AGW, it shows the reverse to what they preach – higher CO2 comes AFTER the temperatures rise.

                  4. It is very possible the rise in CO2 from circa 1850 is caused, not by Man, but by the Medieval Warm Period. The timing fits nicely.

                  5. Valentina Zharkova’s group shows very well how the Sun affects Climate – with the 2 magnetic flux ‘engines’ driving activity the effects plot very nicely against recorded climate.
                  Scarily, the plot shows Solar Cycle 25 is likely to be pretty much non-existent – following a lower SC23 and even lower SC24, the chances seem very good we’re headed for another LIA.

                  6. Reinhardt is likely a pseudonym for a 13 yo in his mother’s basement, railing at the world because he can’t get listened to and isn’t a capable enough nerd to actually have friends. His invective, name calling, Caps use, constant challenges and references to physical confrontation are all typical of an immature and lonely adolescent. 😀

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              “petition effort was started in the 1990’s by the late Edward Teller, Nobel Prize winner in Physics”

              GEE, OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO BEFORE ALL THE NEW FACTS, WHICH ABUNDANTLY PROVE TO ALL THOSE INTELLIGENT AND LOGICAL ENOUGH TO NOT DENY THE TRUTH, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND GLOBAL WARMING IS HERE NOW!

              OF COURSE, ALL THOSE WHO ARE OF EFFECTIVELY LOW INTELLIGENCE, WILL AGAIN, DENY THE FACTS WHICH PROVE I AM 100% CORRECT.

              • jreb57

                The science of thermodynamics did not change in thirty years Neil.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  SO?

                  • jreb57

                    So CO2 is not the culprit if you are looking for one.

            • jreb57

              “It is our professional opinion that the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda is just a gigantic hoax”

              I agree. It is troubling to me that science is being co-opted for political reasons.

        • jreb57

          I agree that we need to take care of the planet. It is just that you cannot solve a problem if you do not identify correctly the source.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS THOSE WHO DO NOT DENY FACTS AND WHO ARE INFORMED KNOW, THE ICE CORES PROVE THE SOURCE

            • jreb57

              No, during the late Ordovician period (which was an ice age) CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today.

              • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                SO WHAT? OBVIOUSLY YOUHAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE ICE CORES PROVE. AND THUS PROVING HOW IGNORANT OF THE FACYS YOU ARE.

                • jreb57

                  That was the conclusion of geologists who study ice core samples. It is you who does not understand and it is thermodynamics that you do not understand.

                  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                    BULL SHIT! AT LEAST THE CHRISTIANS WHO DENY THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION HAVE A VALID EXCUSE FOR BEING FACT DENYING IDIOTS, THEY WERE, AS BABIESM CHILDREN AND YEENS, PROGRAMMED TO DO SO, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE OTHER THAN STUPIDITY.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      AND I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE ANY MORE TIME REPLYING TO ANYONE AS DENSE AS YOU ARE

              • Scottar

                Do you have a link for that? For personal info purposes.

                • jreb57

                  Go to http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html. When you get to question 6, scroll down and you will find that according to ice core samples CO2 levels were 4400 ppm or about 12 times what they are today during the late Ordovician age which was also an ice age. Greenhouse gasses moderate global temperatures rather than increasing them. i.e. cold temps will be warmer and hot temps will be cooler because they add latency to the warming/cooling cycle. Read a good piece on thermodynamics. This issue has been highly politicized.

                  • Scottar

                    I don’t disagree with this site but the AGWers will look at the Plant Fossils of WV (geocraft) and call it a pro fossil biased site. And the test lacks references, although the best referenced site is the http://www.scotese.com site that has the Scientific American award and peer reviewed references. But it’s good for starting debates and does a good job of covering the issue of climate.

                    The other problem with this is that AGWers will claim that the sun’s insolence was not as great then as today, therefore the CO2 GHE was not as effective.

                    I have read an article that shows that the atmospheric effect is mostly a blanket affect as the primary effect is due to the CP of the atmosphere and the density of it:

                    http://l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf

                    Why CO2 Has Nothing to Do with Temperatures

                    He goes through the numbers. He is a prominent chemist with a doctorate. The GHE is faux science.

                    There are many other good reference sites like wattsupwiththat.com, not to be confused with whatsupwiththat AGW site. Here’s a good reference site:

                    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

                    Here’s another good analysis about near recent Iceage levels of CO2:

                    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-paper-finds-co2-levels-were-higher.html

                    New Paper Finds CO2 Spiked to Levels Higher than the Present During Termination of Last Ice Age

                    Cheers

                    • jreb57

                      I frankly don’t care what the AGWers say. Thermodynamics says CO2 will not cause the planet to warm because it adds nothing to the energy budget. The atmosphere acts as a moderator to temperature extremes. Thermodynamics makes this self evident. One of the tricks they (AGWers) use is to send you chasing all over the internet to validate your position when it is up to them to prove their position. Peer reviewed papers do not get it done. They only express an opinion which has been reviewed by their peers, not necessarily agreed to. The rhetoric of the AGW crowd is both strident and alarmists in addition to being revisionist.

                    • Scottar

                      Well good for you. The link to the paper proves what you just claimed via vetting numbers. Just adds to the evidence that AGWers are full of crap.

                    • jreb57

                      I did read the paper Scottar and as you said, it refutes the AGW people’s alarmist claims. It is just that I have grown weary of their obstinate attitude. As Ronald Reagan famously said, it is not that the progressives don’t know anything, it is just that so much of what they know is wrong.

  • Dano2

    Weird that a purported professional scientist would write an op-ed on Brietbart. Or refer to proven disinformer Happer. Or get the basics wrong. But I guess when you go on Heritage Victory Tours you aren’t really a real scientists.

    Anyhoo, these whoppers are funny:

    o Venus didn’t have a runaway greenhouse,

    o Provably wrong: the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming (first three images)

    o the desperate need of plants for this most fundamental fertilizer. The more CO2 they get, the better and faster they grow.

    o Clownical denier nonsense: the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as CO2 levels rose (fourth image)

    o Worse denialist nincompoopery: average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, (fifth, sixth image)

    That’s enough. This is the best they can do, folks.

    Best,

    D

    • Estoban

      You are obviously a child with your childish name calling, and certainly no scientist. Does mommy know you stole her markers?

      • Dano2

        Thank you Mr Adult Person for sharing your deep thoughts on my observations. Valuable input indeed!

        <3

        Best,

        D

    • CTConservatives47

      You’re on the wrong site, pinhead. Surely, there a web site of science for morons that would suit you better. Soon’s article is spot on. Carbon dioxide is a beneficial trace gas, and only a minor climate driver, if at all. The simple fact is, no one can effectively isolate carbon dioxide from the host of natural factors that have always driven climate. Everythign about the global warming campaign is a fraud, from the :science,” the politics, the propaganda, and the senseless comments of brainless religionists like you. You have fallen for the greatest scientific fraud in history, and easily the most costly.

      • Dano2

        Thanks smartie-boots, the scientific literature refutes you.

        HTH

        Best,

        D

      • DMikeS

        MMGW is the PERFECT motivator for government tax and spend programs.

        1. Take a ubiquitous, harmless substance.
        2. Vilify that substance.
        3. Create a HUGE cadre of fellow-travelers who rely on the myth for their funding, thus insuring their loyalty to “the cause” and additional “hard science” to “prove” the hypothesis.
        4. Increase taxes, using a small portion to payoff your lackey’s in the scientific community.
        5. Increase taxes again to support government graft and corruption.
        6. Pass laws that further limit the Liberty of the citizens, all based on the boogeyman the government has created and funded.
        7. Next, you can ultimately use your bogus theory to go so far as to regulate the actual CO2 generated by those hapless souls who exhale the villainous and “toxic” gas.

        There you have it. You can put it all together in one tidy, controlling and oppressive package, right down limiting the population to prevent the out-of-control “little people” who are killing the rest of us with their ultimate “bad breath”.

        Cheaper and a lot less messy than creating a war, right?

      • Holofernes

        Catholic pervert

    • far2right

      Hey Dopey Dano!

      Thought you should know that when the rate of temperature rise over time decreases, that means “planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as CO2 levels rose”. You know, less slope means less rate of rise in that case. Not the sharpest kid in Algebra were ya?

      So, OK, according to your first graph, the thirty years from 1980 to 2010 has a global surface temp increase of roughly 0.6°F instead of 0.4°F. Big friggin’ deal.

      Of course, Soon was likely referencing more reliable satellite troposphere records instead of cooked NOAA temps.

      But hey, no one lives in the troposphere, right?

      Here’s looking forward to a 800 ppmv CO2 atmosphere.

      Me and my garden are going to love it.

      It won’t be as much CO2 as during the Carboniferous Period (when surely the oceans were boiling way back then).

      Not a damn thing you can do to stop it Dopey Dano.

      • Dano2

        Thanks, smartie-boots! High-functioning comment with lots to think about.

        Soon was likely referencing more reliable satellite troposphere records instead of cooked NOAA temps.

        Satellite ppl say the surface records are more reliable than problematic satellite data, thanks!

        Best,

        D

        • far2right

          Right, whoever “they” are.

          Still not correct there Dano.

          There are not enough “thermometers” (I’ll call them sensing devices).

          Not all global sensing devices are NIST-certified.

          Many have become biased by urban development, land use changes, etc.

          Your side “infers” temperatures in remote locations where there are no sensing devices.

          Your side continually “adjusts” historic temperatures.

          The most accurate unbiased global temps are monitored from RSS and UAH.

          However, you guys are already guilty of adjusting RSS temps!

          You just can’t stand losing.

          Meanwhile, even your side is finally admitting the science is not settled.

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/674557/Has-climate-change-been-disproved-Large-Hadron-boffins-cast-shock-DOUBT-on-global-warming

          http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971

          Well, what do you know?

          • Dano2

            Aside from the fact you were duped into thinking believing The most accurate unbiased global temps are monitored from RSS and UAH, even though that’s not what satellite people say,

            Justin Data!

            Will the right’s latest heartthrob finally be THE ONE to validate their self-identity?!!?!?

            Best,

            D

            • far2right

              Uh oh, you’re reverting back to Dumbass Dano again.

              A simple Gaggle search proves you wrong again Dano.

              I took the liberty of underlining certain phrases hoping these might sink into your pea.

              Of course, none of the following will mean a thing to you if you do not understand the difference between accuracy and precision. You might want to study up on that first. Assuming you can.

              “Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.

              In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.

              Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.

              Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.

              And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than the UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.

              In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.

              As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

              So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.

              Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).”

              You flat earth alarmists never want to progress in science when it refuses to give you the answer you want.

              • far2right
              • Dano2

                The Googles: still without a ‘Wisdom’ button. But thanks for your plagiarized passages from the guy who has to correct his data each time with every new release.

                The best part: spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data

                Satellite data are much, much more heavily-massaged. Satellites don’t even measure temperature, and their data must be run through a model (gasp!) to calculate temp. Here is the flow chart for the algorithm for calculating temperature from the RSS MSU-AMSU data.

                Thanks for the afternoon amusement!

                Best,

                D

                https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c1e944d0d33212a4e7a6678ca4b340965d0be7e68c2029488065abe5da893c0.png

                • far2right

                  RIght Dano.

                  Satellites less accurate than thermometers. Wow.

                  Perhaps you can find a nice cave in Portland to live in.

                  Here’s to the coming 800 ppmv CO2.

                  Not a damn thing you can do about it.

                  • Dano2

                    Hard to believe that orbiting platforms with drift, decay, recalibration after replacements, and signal skewed by stratospheric cooling (a signal of a GHG-warmed planet) can be less accurate than the surface network? Srsly?

                    A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). [emphases added]

                    also

                    My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset. [emphases added]

                    HTH

                    Best,

                    D

                    • far2right

                      “recalibration after replacements”.

                      All this whilst many of your thermometers are not and biased by environmental changes.

                      Of course you prefer the cooked surface temp data sets. It fits your narrative better.

                      Dream on Dano.

                      All this discussion is much ado about nothing and in the background noise.

                      Cause you can’t stop the CO2 train.

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks fossil guy, satellites aren’t more accurate than surface thermometers. And we don’t live in dirigibles anyway.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • far2right

                      Hey thanks for the plug. Fossil guy. I am a friend of cheap coal, ya know?

                      But you are a closet racist. You don’t want poor black Africans to have affordable electricity that will immediately improve and prolong their lives. You hate poor little black African children whose mothers still have to cook and heat their homes with cow dung causing extreme respiratory stress. Your new nickname will be Racist Bastard Dano.

                      Yes, shut your eyes flat earther. You know that Dr. Roy Spencer, he knows nothing about satellites. But you do dontcha RB Dano?

                      As I said, your point is moot.

                      Doesn’t matter which data set you wish to pick to suite your narrative. All the data sets are showing warming for the past few decades (except for that pesky pause, dammit!)

                      But even your beloved NOAA stations in the Arctic showed much more warming in the 1940s than now. Ooopsie.

                    • Dano2

                      Weak play.

                      You were refuted, you can’t deflect to hide it.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • far2right

                      Well Racist Bastard Dano, it’s incumbent on you to prove to all the world that high tech satellite data is less robust than digital land based thermometers.

                      Which you have yet to accomplish.

                      I’ll stick with the modern RSS and UAH until all can reach “consensus” that all the ground based data sets have been cleared of all bias from 1) precision, 2) accuracy, 3) environmental changes, 4) arbitrary adjustments, 5) gross spatial interpolations.

                      Who’s got the weak play now?

                      Still in the dark ages.

                      Gooh-ruck with that.

                    • far2right

                      Along with being a racist bastard xenophobe (now your new nickname will be Xeno Dano – I crack myself up).

                      You would like to see more people dying in tornadoes to advance your narrative.

                      Thank God for climate change.

                    • Dano2

                      You show the weakness of your position with your weak name-calling.

                      And my quote already showed, as everyone else can see.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • far2right

                      Right RBX Dano,

                      You expect the entire scientific world to conclude that all the satellite data is corrupt and not as robust as all past manual and current archaic digital land based measurements with your one paltry paragraph of subjective comments about drift, decay, “signal skewing”, blah-blah-blah.

                      Well then, let us all trash RSS and UAH into the dust bin of history.

                      You have refuted nothing.

                      Good one RBX.

                    • Dano2

                      I quoted the most prominent satellite guy.

                      Weak flailing on your part. Run along now little one.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • far2right

                      Right, and you swallowed it like a good little CGCC zombie.

                      I am sure the real scientific community will soon catch up to you.

                    • Dano2

                      Weak bluff and widdle namie-name calling.

                      You are dismissed.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • far2right

                      Still no objectivity, eh Dano?

                    • far2right
    • Snake

      BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We just found another dumbass that is using the same government produced fake data that even NASA has admitted to “adjusting” to fit the computer modeling! Nothing that anyone would provide you that you are wrong will change your delusion, YOU ARE UNDENIABLY A FOOL!

      • Dano2

        Thanks, smartie-boots! You are fine with Soon using them there adjusted data, but not me.

        Justin Data for thee, but not for me…

        Best,

        D

        • Iconoclastic Sage

          Face it Dano2, the scientific community at mediamatters.com has failed you again.

          • Dano2

            Weak deflection.

            Best,

            D

  • Sam

    Yesterday I was talking with an employee of our local National Weather Service office. She said that the newer electronic thermometers have a tendency to give higher temperature readings than what the old mercury based thermometers used to give.

    • Francisco Machado

      What reading the “old” thermometers would give now would be more relevant. If it has gotten warmer, the thermometers – electronic or otherwise – would give higher readings. There is a lot of fuss about changes (or not) in temperature, which seems of little real significance since climate does change and there’s nothing we can do to stop that. The issue, the factor that is validly subject to dispute, is the theory that carbon dioxide has an effect on global temperature and whether that effect is beneficial or harmful. So far, it seems the benefits of the use carbon based fuels has substantial benefit and the increase in carbon dioxide may theoretically have negative effects – or may not – but provably does have positive effects.

    • J T

      Well, if they do (and I think this likely), it would lend more credence to the FACT that man-made warming advocates use this as another little lie to further their Big Lie…….

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        TELL YOUR BULL SHIT TO ALL THE MELTED ICE, AND THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE NORTH

  • MarcJ

    As we enter the 21st consecutive year of GLOBAL COOLING (as predicted by the solar cycle) those government-paid drones (#25 billion/year) had to change the name of their Global Warming scam into the new Climate Change hoax.

    • J T

      …..giving birth to the movie “Climate Hustle”. Watch it.

      • MarcJ

        I watched the movie which is very good – but the film-makers failed to mention some 32,000 US scientists on the record unmasking that giant far-left conspiracy. See Internet for “Oregon Petition” and “Manhattan Declaration”.

        • J T

          I agree. To much emphasis on silliness too, I think. A factual documentary goes a lot further. When Michael (hygienically-challenged) Moore & Al the Climate Whore produce one, it will be their first.

        • Dano2

          32k scientist!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          Best,

          D

          • DMikeS

            Did you expect this to be a profound comment? I don’t know exactly what you mean, but that puts you squarely in the “warmist” camp as they can’t be clear either, so I’ll assume you are an ally of The Junk Science Guy.

            P.S. If you would like a list of the 32,000 scientists, let me know. I can send it to you as I have it in a file right here on my computer.

            • Dano2

              Did you expect this to be a profound comment?

              I clearly laughed at the ludicrous assertion. I guess one could argue laughter is profound, but all I did here was LOLz.

              Best,

              D

          • MarcJ

            Our local cretin-scientist has given here his proof of – what exactly?
            1) New Ice Age alarm in the 1970’s – asking for our unilateral disarmament; or
            2) Global Warming hoax in the 199o’s – asking for a new socialist world order on the Soviet model; or
            3) Climate Change scam – renamed after 20 consecutive years of global cooling, as per Solar Cycle.
            His cretinous beliefs in whatever our Eco-Nazis’ latest invention is – is my proof of his profound cretinism.
            I am now convinced that this Dano2 is a born cretin and that there is no hope there for any improvement.

            • Dano2

              Another of my favorite comedy skits is how the denialists try and deflect from their embarrassment!

              Hoot!

              Best,

              D

            • Scottar

              Never mind Dano2, he’s running some kind of troll drinking game. So don’t feed the troll.

      • Bay0Wulf

        I went and saw it but was disappointed. It seemed that a minor percentage of the relatively small audience was impressed but many were not.

        I was hoping for something more detailed, more soundly founded on specifics … yes, without getting too pedantic because then you lose audience to confusion or lack of comprehension …

        I think it would have played better on NetFlix or something but I don’t mind having “donated” the cost of a ticket to the makers of the film …

    • Dano2

      Globul coolin! I LOLzed!

      Best,

      D

      • DMikeS

        Another eloquent comment. You are quite the intellectual.

        • Dano2

          The assertion of cooling got exactly the treatment it deserved.

          Best,

          D

          • Sam

            You are indeed a mental midget.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YEP, YOU ARE A MENTAL MIDGET.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      ONLY VERY STUPID FACT DENIERS DENY CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING.

      • MarcJ

        Thank you for the compliment – comrade cretin! As for being stupid let me give you my credentials: in addition to my European degrees I also have the MS and PhD degrees from UCLA in Engineering – with specialties in Thermodynamics and Heat & Mass Transfer. My IQ was measured several times at 165; I am one of those 32,000 signers of the Oregon Petition and the Manhattan Declaration (see Internet). And now let us read your scientific credentials – you far-left low-IQ bloviating gasbag! I did make a hasty calculation for your benefit, as follows: for an increase of 100 ppm (that’s parts per million) of carbon dioxide in the stratosphere its thermal absorptivity will increase by about 0.01 percent – in science it is called totally negligible. The climate driver for our earth is the solar cycle – now in the 21st year of diminished activity, with another 10 years or so to go. How clever by those criminal fakers to have changed the name of their Global Warming hoax into the brand-new Climate Change scam! And in order to “demonstrate” further warming they “corrected” their “calculations” by “refining” retroactively various constants and “recalibrating” their instruments. Let us hope to bring those criminal fakers one day soon to the Court in the Hague for crimes against humanity!

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          BIG DEAL,

          FIRST, I AM A 101ST AIRBORNE VET WHO IS FAR FROM BEING A COMMIE AND WHO HAS HELD MANAGEMENT POSITIONS AT NCR AND MAGNAVOX AS WELL AS BEING A SUSTAINING ENGINEER FOR XEROX.

          SECOND, IF YOU WERE AS SMART AS YOU SEEM TO THINK YOU ARE, YOU WOULD KNOW INTELLIGENCE IS LIKE A MAN’S PENIS AS IT IS NOT HOW MUCH YOU HAVE, RATHER IT IS HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU USE IT.

          THIRD. MY I.Q. IS IN THE TOP 1.5% AND A PHD WHO STUDIES INTELLIGENCE INFORMED ME THAT I USE MY IQ NEARLY TWICE AS EFFECTIVELY AS MOST USE THEIRS.

          FORTH, THE ODDS OF YOU BEING AS GENERALLY EXPERIENCED AS I AM ARE ZERO

          FIFTH, ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY USES THEIR INTELLIGENCE EFFECTIVELY DOES NOT DENY ALL THE FACTS ON THE GROUND WHICH PROVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.

          SIXTH, ACTUALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE KNOW THE ICE CORES, ALL BY THEMSELVES, PROVE THE THE AIR STARTED CHANGING FOR THE WORST WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND BEGAN.

          LAST, ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CLIMATE THAN DO THOSE WHO HAVE DEGREES IN CLIMATOLOGY, WHO STUDY THE CLIMATE AND WHO SOME 97% AGREE IT IS REAL AND A PROBLEM, IS A FOOL.

          • MarcJ

            This self-praising functional cretin is spewing his invectives since he has no answer to my exposition. That famous 97% are all government-paid drones sucking the federal teat supplying them $25 billion per year “sustenance. But we are 32,000 doubting Thomases with enough PhD’s to drown that coterie of drones. When that time finally comes – after 30 years of cooling as predicted by the solar cycle – I will resurrect your idiotic correspondence and will make you eat it.

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              YOU CHILD, COULD NOT MAKE ME DO ANYTHING.

              AND CHILD I DON’T NEED AN ANSWER AS THE ICE CORES PROVE I AM CORRECT.

              LAST, UNLIKE YOU, YOU LOW LIFE MENTAL MIDGET, I USE MY FULL NAME.

              • MarcJ

                I am Dr. Marc Jeric and you are a mental midget subject to superstitions – as long as they are of the left thing kind. You would have been a good candidate for a Gulag commander where you could experiment with live people.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  PHD? “PILED HIGHER AND DEEPER.”

                  RAVE ON RETARD.

                  TOO BAD YOU CAN NOT PROVE ME TO BE LOGICALLY AND/OR FACTUALLY WRONG.

                  AND STILL NO PICTURE.

                  • MarcJ

                    This far-left low IQ bloviating gasbag never tires of throwing personal insults – especially when he runs out of arguments and logic. Dream on – creep!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST, PISS FOR BRAINS. I AM MORE OF A CONSERATIVE THAN A LIBERAL.

                      SECOND, THE ODDS OF YOU MATCHING MY HIGH IQ ARE LESS THAN 1.5%!

                      BASED ON YOUR IGNORANT COMMENTS, I KNOW THAT THE ODDS OF YOUR USING YOUR IMTELLIGENCE AS LOGICALLY AND AS EFFECTIVELY AS I DO, ARE ZERO!

                      THIRD, MENTAL MIDGET. YOU ARE A TOTAL HYPOCRITE!

                    • MarcJ

                      Our local commie is enraged – good! And now this creep is getting ready to vote for that multiple Marxist murderess Hillary – the wife of that impeached disbarred rapist Bill Clinton. Analyzing his write-ups my considered judgment is that comrade Neil is rabid Marxist proud of his IQ of about 65.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      THANKS FOR PROVING TO ALL READERS OF THIS THAT YOU ARE NOT ONLY A LOW LIFE, NO ETHICS, NO HONOR, NO INTEGRITY AND NO MORALS LIAR, YOU ARE SO STUPID YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE WRITTEN WORD.

                    • MarcJ

                      More ad-hominem attacks by this low-life cretin. I worked on and was in direct control of some 60 electric power projects in US, Spain, South Korea. One half of them were nuclear power projects – all completed and functioning. I was the Chief Mechanical Engineer of about 340 engineers; also Manager of Engineering over some 40 electric power projects in several countries. And this local functional cretin calls me names; MS and PhD from UCLA, in addition to my European degrees. And what have you done – you empty headed nullity? And this low-IQ “progressive” calls me names? As for me “not understanding the written word”…I speak, read, write in Croatian, Spanish, Portuguese, French in addition to English. And you – the low IQ bloviating gasbag who voted – I am sure – for Clinton, Gore, B. Hussein Obama, and now is ready to vote for Hillary – the wife of that impeached disbarred felon Bill Clinton whose specialty has been multiple rapes. Finally – do everybody a favor and stop fouling the airwaves with your foul language.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WHO CARES ABOUT ALL YOUR SUPPOSED ACCOMPLISHMENTS?
                      YOUR REPEATEDLY LYING ABOUT ME PROVES YOU ARE A LOW LIFE, NO ETHICS, NO INTEGITY, NO HONOR AND NO MORALS LIAR!
                      SO THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE ONE WORD YOU SAY.

                      AND WHO I WILL BET WOULD NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY OR THE GUTS TO SAY TO MY FACE, WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE AS I THINK YOU ARE A COWARD!

                    • MarcJ

                      Our local functional cretin never tires throwing insults – what a miserable low-life!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      ME? A CRETIN? YOU WANT TO COMPARE?

                      FIRST, NOT ONLY AM I THE MOST HONEST AND TRUTHFUL PERSON I KNOW, MANY WHO KNOW ME IN PERSON AND WELL, WILL ATTEST, I AM, ONE OF, IF NOT THE SINGE MOST, HONEST AND TRUTHFUL PERSON THEY KNOW.

                      BOTTOM LINE? I ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH ON ALL THINGS.

                      NEXT, I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU WATCH THE MOST POPULAR TALK SHOW IN THE WORLD OR NOT. IT IS THE ELLEN DEGENEROUS SHOW. IF YOU DO NOT, YOU ARE DOING YOURSELF A DIS-SERVICE.

                      ANYWHO, ELLEN RECOGNIZES THOSE SHE CONSIDERS TO BE, “DESERVING PEOPLE”

                      NOT ONLY HAVE OTHERS SENT HER MY NAME, IN A FEW DAYS, I WILL BE SUBMITTING MY NAME, A LIST OF FACTS SUPPORTING WHY I AM A DESERVING PERSON, ALONG WITH LETTERS OF REFERENCE

                      PLUS THE NAMES, SIGNATURES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF AT LEAST TEN PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHERE I DO, WHO WILL ATTEST TO MY HONESTY AND MY TRUTHFULNESS, MY CONSTANTLY HELPING OTHERS AND MY REPEATEDLY RISKING MY PHYSICAL WELL BEING AND MY LIFE FOR OTHERS.

                      (JUST DID IT AGAIN AT AROUND 1 AM TODAY AND I AM 81.)

                      AND THE ODDS ARE VERY HIGH, I WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY ELLEN AS BEING ONE OF THOSE SHE CONSIDERS TO BE, “DESERVING PEOPLE”

                      SO YOU EFFECTIVE LOW IQ RETARD, I DOUBT ANYONE WOULD EVER ATTEST TO YOU BEING THE MOST HONEST AND TRUTHFUL PERSON THEY KNOW, OR BE SUBMITTING YOUR NAME TO THE ELLEN SHOW.

                    • MarcJ

                      More self-praise by this low-IQ bloviating gasbag praising himself while throwing invectives upon others!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      JUST MORE FACTUAL TRUTH!

                      ANY JEALOUSLY THERE,

                      “OH SO VERY EFFECTIVELY STUPID”

                      ONE ?

                    • MarcJ

                      Komrad Reinhard – please stop fouling these pages by your personal insults and bare-faced lies!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WOW! ARE YOU EVER DENSE!

                      ANYONE READING THESE PAGES CAN SEE, ONE AFTER ANOTHER. OF YOUR LIES ABOUT ME

                      WHILE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, MUCH LESS ANY PROOF THAT I HAVE LIED ONCE!

                    • MarcJ

                      Well, comrade – first you believed in that Globaloney Warming hoax; then- after 20 continuous years of global cooling – you switched to the new Climate Change scam. You comrade have no intellect and no character.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      NO, YOU SIMPLE LOSER LIAR SAP!

                      THEY ARE THE SAME THING!

                      BOY, ARE YOU SUPER DENSE!

                      AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN,

                      LYING ABOUT ME.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      TELL ME, CHILD, HAVE YOU EVER EVEN COME CLOSE TO RISKING YOUR LIFE FOR OTHERS EVEN ONCE? MUCH LESS OVER TEN TIMES AS I HAVE?

                      I VERY SERIOUSLY DOUBT YOU HAVE, OR EVER EVEN WOULD IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED IT’S SELF.

                    • Scottar

                      He speaks more in platitudes then science speak, and he types in all caps, sign of a deranged liberal.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      MORE LIES FROM A PROVEN LIAR WHO EFFECTIVE IQ IS SO LOW, HE ASSUMES HE KNOWS WHAT OTHERS DO. I PITY THIS POOR

                      FOOL AS HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT A LOSER HE IS WHEN COMPARED TO ME.

                      AND HE IS A TOTAL HYPOCRITE AS HE REPEATEDLY DOES WHAT HE ACCUSES ME OF DOING. WHICH AGAIN PROVES HOW VERY LOW HIS EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IS.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      AND YOU HILLARY LIKE LIAR, I DOUBT YOU HAVE EITHER THE INTEGRITY OR THE BALLS TO SAY TO MY FACE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE,

                    • jreb57

                      “I AM MORE OF A CONSERATIVE THAN A LIBERAL.”

                      Then you had better learn to spell conservative, bubba.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WHY? IT MEETS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF LANGUAGE.

                      OF COURSE, I DOUBT YOU ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO KNOW IT.

                  • jreb57

                    “TOO BAD YOU CAN NOT PROVE ME TO BE LOGICALLY AND/OR FACTUALLY WRONG.”

                    Read and understand any physics text on thermodynamics. The key word here is understand.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WHY? DOES NOT PROVE YOUR GOD, OR ANY OF THE OTHER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GODS EXIST ANY WHERE OTHER THAN IN THE MINDS OF PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOTS.

                    • jreb57

                      Who said anything about religion?

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS RAVING ABOUT SOME LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVING THEIR GOD IS REAL AND MOST RETARDS WHO DENY THE FACTS PROVING CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING NOW,. ARE PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOTS.

                    • jreb57

                      Thermodynamics is an area of physics. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. If you think it does, there is mall wonder that you also think an inert gas heats the planet.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      TAKE A COURSE TO IMPROVE YOUR POOR READING COMPRHENSION SKILLS

                    • jreb57

                      I am not trying to prove anything. YOU are trying to prove that the earth is warming and CO2 is the cause or at least that is what the AGW people are claiming and according to your posts, you are in agreement. The burden of proof is on the one who is making the alarmist claims requiring urgent and extreme action. Thermodynamics is not a religion.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  FYI, THE ODDS OF YOUR MATCHING MY HIGH IQ ARE LESS THAN TWO PERCENT.

              • jreb57

                You are decidedly on the left.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  YOU ARE AN IGNORANT ASSHOLE WHO HASNO CLUE OF WHAT YOU SPEAK!

            • jreb57

              I don’t share your credentials MarcJ, but make that 32,001 doubting Thomases.

          • jreb57

            Neil, first of all, thank you for your service. If you are really as smart as you say you are, you wouldn’t be jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft.

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              AS IT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET YOUR FORCES WHERE YOU WANT THEM, IT REQUIRES JUMPING OUT OF THEM

        • jreb57

          “with specialties in Thermodynamics and Heat & Mass Transfer.”

          These people don’t want to hear about thermodynamics since this area of physics refutes the possibility of CO2 producing energy or amplifying it or doing anything other than acting as a working fluid to transfer energy. It therefore cannot increase the earth’s temperature.

    • jreb57

      Climate change is easy to sell since according to ice core samples, it has happened in the past. What is not so easy to sell is that an inert (from an energy standpoint) gas is driving it. “what else could it be” is not proof. There are many other things that could contribute to it not the least of which is the sun. You can’t tax the sun.

    • Scottar

      Read your post on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/leonardo-dicaprio. Have you ever read this scientific assessment of atmospheric warming?:

      http://l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf

      Why CO2 Has Nothing to Do with Temperatures

  • care4mn

    Oh Dano, Using the same debunked data to try to distract and dissemble to unsuspecting readers. At least you have accepted the Global Climate Change rule which i “…seems to be this: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents.”

  • tom2

    Typical leftist flimflam, selling a kid’s show host as a scientist.

    • J T

      No doubt. Like Obama. Couldn’t run a lemonade stand.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      HE IS A SCIENTIST YOU POOR DELUDED RETARD!

      • tom2

        You forgot to stamp your little foot.

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          AS I AM A FORMER COLLEGE FOOTBALL LINE BACKER, A DEEP SEA DIVER, NITE CLUB BOUNCER BOSS, MP. AND A PARATROOPER, MY FOOT, CHILD IS NOT LITTLE.

          • tom2

            You don’t really expect us to just take your word that your foot is not little, do you?

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              FIRST COWARD, I DO NOT HIDE BEHIND SCREEN NAMES.

              SECOND,

              THOSE WHO ACCUSE AND/OR INFER OTHERS OF LYING WHEN THEY HAVE NO VALID REASON AND ZERO EVIDENCE, ( MUCH LESS ANY PROOF ) THEY ARE LYING, ONLY PROVE THAT:

              THEY ARE USING THEIR OWN NON-EXISTENT STANDARDS OF ETHICS, HONOR, INTEGRITY AND MORALS TO JUDGE OTHERS!

              THOSE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE ETHICS, HONOR, INTEGRITY AND MORALS NEVER ASSUME SOMEONE IS LYING WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DO SO.

              AND, I WILL WASTE NO MORE TIME REPLYING TO A MENTAL MIDGET SUCH AS YOURSELF

              • tom2

                There you go, stamping your little foot again.

                • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                  10 1/2 4 E
                  SO COWARD HIDING BEHIND A SCREEN NAME, NOT LITTLE!

                  • tom2

                    Only and idiot uses his real name in a forum like this.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST, THE ODDS ASSHOLE, OF YOUR MATCHING MY HIGH AND MORE EFFECTIVE I.Q THAN MOST HAVE, ARE LESS THAN 1.5%

                      SECOND, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE ETHICS, INTEGRITY, HONOR, MORALS AND WHO ARE NOT COWARDS LIKE YOU ARE, ALWAYS USE THEIR NAMES NO MATTER WHERE WE ARE POSTING.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Neil C. Reinhardt isn’t a very common name. Does your given name make you easy to find? Mine doesn’t. Do you ever find someone has already established an account with the same name as you? My given name was already taken by someone else, so I used “BigWaveDave” because that’s what my coworkers started calling me that in the ’80s.

                      Does your use of “Neil C. Reinhardt” signify that you are brave or that your view is somehow morally superior to what it might be if you used something like “NoGod2Neil2”, or does it just suggest what it appears to suggest, i.e. that you are stupid?

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      YOUR COMMENTS PROVE YOU ARE NOT THE BRIGHTEST GUY AROUND.

                      AND IN THE 1960’S I WAS CALLED “NASTY NEIL” DUE TO MY ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      And now you are called “2Stupid2Understand”.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND YOU WILL SEE A VERY MENTALLY CHALLENGED FOOL.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST, SOMEONE HAS TO BE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE INTELLIGENCE WHEN THEY SEE IT.

                      SECOND, AS MY MILITARY, COLLEGE AND OTHER IQ TEST SCORES ALL SAID I HAD A HIGH IQ, I SEE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THEM. PLUS, AFTER A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS AND TESTS GIVEN ME BY CHARLES HEARN, PHD, WHO STUDIED INTELLIGENCE,I WAS INFORMED I USE MY INTELLIGENCE NEARLY TWICE AS EFFECTIVELY AS MOST USE THEIRS.

                      THIRD, WERE I NOT INTELLIGENT, I DOUBT XEROX WOULD HAVE EMPLOYED ME TO BE A STAINING ENGINEER, NOR WOULD I HAVE BEEN IN MANAGEMENT AT NCR AND MAGNAVOX

                      FORTH, AS I HAVE BEEN COMPLIMENTED ON MY INTELLIGENCE, AND BEEN CALLED BRILLIANT, I MUST HAVE SHOWED SOME.

                      FIFTH, WERE I NOT HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, THE THINGS I SAY COULD BE EASILY PROVEN TO BE WRONG WHEN THE FACTS ARE MY BEING PROVEN TO BE EITHER LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY AND THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH VERY, VERY RARELY HAPPENS.

                      FIFTH, THE ODDS OF YOUR MATCHING MY HIGH EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ARE LESS THAN 1.5%.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      AND CHILD, ANYONE LIKE ME, WHO HAS BEEN A SPLUNKER, FIRE WALKER, SCUBA / DEEP SEA DIVER AND PARATROOPER IN THE ELITE 101ST AIRBORNE , AS WELL AS PUTTING THEIR PHYSICAL WELL BEING AND LIFE ON THE LINE FOR BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS SEVERAL TIMES AS WELL AS WHEN MY STOPPING ASSAULTS ON OTHERS MANY TIMES, HAS MORE THAN PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE BRAVER THAN ARE MOST.

                    • tom2

                      Using all caps to brag without substance doesn’t make it more believable.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST, YOU POOR TOTALLY UNINFORMED & ILLOGICAL MENTAL MIDGET, IF YOU STATE FACT ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, IT IS NOT BRAGGING.

                      SECOND, WHILE THERE ARE MANY WHO KNOW ME IN PERSON AND WELL, WHO WILL ATTEST I AM, ONE OF, IF NOT THE SINGLE MOST
                      HONEST, TRUTHFUL PERSON THEY HAVE EVER KNOWN. I DOUBT EVEN ONE WOULD SO ATTEST FOR YOU.

                      LAST CHILD, I USE ALL CAPS AND I WANT TO MORE EASILY SEE WHAT I’M WRITING. SO AS USUAL, YOU ARE AGAIN, PROVEN TO BE WRONG.

                    • tom2

                      Only a lefty believes if you brag often enough, some will believe it. But that won’t work because the people here are too smart.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      NO, OH SO INEFFECTUAL THINKER,

                      FYI FOR YOU, “OH SO MENTALLY CHALLENGED AND DENSE ONE” THE RELAYING OF FACTUAL INFORMATION IS NOT BRAGGING.

                      TWICE NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THIS TRUTH MOST ALREADY KNOW.

                      THOSE OF US, UN-LIKE YOU, WHO ACTUALLY HAVE INTEGRITY, ETHICS. HONOR, INTELLIGENCE, WHO ARE MORAL AND WHO USE LOGICAL RATIONAL AND CRITICAL THOUGHT NEVER EVEN ASSUME SOMEONE IS LYING UNTIL WE EITHER HAVE PROOF. AND/OR VERY REASONABLE, AND LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE THEY MIGHT BE.

                      ONLY THOSE WHO MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MOST, LIE TO OTHERS ARE THOSE (JUST LIKE YOU ARE) LOW ENOUGH TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF LYING WHEN THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO.

                    • tom2

                      101st? What unit? MOS? Where? When?

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      HONOR GRAD – FT SILL
                      FDC- BATTERY B, 321ST FA,
                      105 mm FIRE SUPPORT FOR THE 502ND
                      FT CAMPBELL, KY.
                      RA SERVICE MAR. 1959 – 1962
                      32 MONTHS OF WHICH WAS IN THE 101ST

                    • tom2

                      OK. Let’s see, your point was Nye is a scientist and not a kid’s show host. Since you’re an old Veteran I’ll assume you really believe it.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF MERE “BELIEF” RATHER, IT IS A FUNCTION OF, “FACT”.

                    • tom2

                      Nobody here will deny your right to believe a BS in mechanical engineering and a career in entertainment make him a scientist. But the “fact” is his fame was earned as host of a kid’s TV show.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FYI RETARD, A PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DEGREE IN SCIENCE TO BE A SCIENTIST.

                    • tom2

                      It’s obvious you have no point, other than “liar-liar-pants-on-fire” so give it a rest.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WHAT IS VERY OBVIOUS IS YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO REALIZE MY POINTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      WERE YOU NOT SO DENSE, YOU WOULD KNOW MY POINT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE SEVERAL TIMES.
                      AS YOU ARE SO SLOW, HERE IT IS AGAIN.

                      THOSE WHO DENY CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL & GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT, ARE EITHER TOO LAZY TO GET THE FACTS WHICH PROVE THEY ARE WRONG, OR THEY ARE TOO DUMB TO BE ABLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND WHAT THE FACTS PROVE.

                    • tom2

                      Well Mr. 101st Honor Grad, I usually don’t fence with trolls but I erred and made you an exception because I have great respect for Veterans, especially from the 101st. Because you didn’t paste your usual gibberish, I assume you missed my earlier post that exposes your derangement. Had I been aware, I wouldn’t have bothered with such an internetville celebrity. Following a cursory search covering a few of your recent years, I found the same braggadocian crap from you again and again. Seems most already know of your ad hominem tendencies and as one respondent said, you’re “…A 77 year old Pro Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist, 101st Airborne Vet and a former member of management in some of Top American 500 corporations. Also ‘formally’ a Fire Walking, Deep Sea – Scuba Diving, Paratrooping, Bungee Jumping, Spelunking, 1 & 3 Meter Spring Board Diving, Partying & Dancing, Rock Climbing, River Rapid Running, Expert Shooting, Life Saving, Body Surfing and Beach VolleyBall Playing Son of a Beach. Still a Truth Telling, Women Chasing (92 times Catching) Iconoclastic, Philosophizing, Crime Stopping, & a “Barking” Grumpy Old “Son Of A Beach….”

                      Clint would say you’re a legend in your own mind. For those who don’t know you, here’s a sampling of your thoughtful posts. Have a nice day and don’t bother people here anymore. You’ve been outed as a deranged forum fetishist and few wish to waste their time on you. Good luck.

                      http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/12/nutball-alert-atheist-neil-c-reinhardt.html

                      http://heavingdeadcats.blogspot.com/2010/12/neil-c-reinhardt-shows-his-true-colors.html

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acitizenofearth/2012/07/um-i-have-my-first-troll-i-think/

                      http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0py16sx9eab7i

                      https://siftingreality.com/2011/09/02/reinhardt-syndrome/

                      https://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/getting-skeptical-about-woo-juice-part-1for-the-credulous-asshole-troll-neil-c-reinhardt/

                      https://disqus.com/by/neil_c_reinhardt/

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST RETARD

                      HISTORY PROVES TRUTH TELLERS LIKE I AM ARE ALWAYS ATTACKED BY THE LOSERS LIKE THEM AND YOU!

                      SECOND LOSER,

                      THOSE LIKE YOU ALWAYS ATTACK ME BECAUSE YOU POOR LITTLE MINDED, MENTALLY CHALLENGED AND UNINFORMED FOOLS ARE UNABLE TO PROVE I AM LOGICALLY AND/OR FACTUALLY WRONG. SO IN YOUR CHILDISH FRUSTRATION, YOU, JUST AS YOU HAVE HERE, ATTEMPT TO INSULT ME,
                      AND, FYI, YOU FAIL!

                      THIRD, YOU MENTAL MIDGET, I AM PROUD TO BE A FEMINIST AND THAT I HAVE BEEN ONE SINCE 1952. THIS, BECAUSE, UNLIKE LOSERS LIKE YOU, I BELIEVE EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.

                      LAST, PUNK,

                      AMONG THOSE WHO KNOW ME IN PERSON AND WELL, I AM KNOWN FOR ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH, FOR ALWAYS HELPING OTHERS, AND FOR RISKING BOTH PHYSICAL INJURY AND DEATH TO HELP OTHERS.
                      THE FACTS ARE MANY OF THOSE I WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE WITH, THOSE I WAS A LIFEGUARD WITH, THE HUNDREDS I SUPERVISED, THE MANY HUNDREDS I WORKED WITH, THE MANY WHO I HAVE HELPED IN PAST AND HELP NOW, THOSE WHOSE LIVES I SAVED AND ALL THOSE WHO I HAVE STOPPED BAD PEOPLE FROM PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING AND MY OVER 500 FACEBOOK FRIENDS ALL LIKE ME.
                      SO THE FACT SOME LOSER LIKE YOU DOES NOT, IS TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT AS YOU ARE A TOTAL ZERO!

                    • tom2

                      Why are you still here? You’ve been outed and nobody reads your crap.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      FIRST, YOU STUPID IDIOT, YOU ARE A LIAR AS IF YOU WERE NOT READING IT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE REPLIED.
                      SECOND, YOU POOR RETARDED FOOL, IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO BE “OUTED” THEY HAVE TO HIDING SOMETHING. AND YOU MENTALLY CHALLEGED, FACT DENYING, LOW LIFE LIAR, I AM NOT HIDING A THING.
                      IF I WAS,I WOULD BE A COWARD LIKE YOU ARE HIDING BEHIND A SCREEN NAME WHILE ATTEMPYING TO INSULT YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BETTERS.
                      LAST, YOU MENTAL MIDGET, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY BATTLES OF WITS WHEN YOU ARE BOTH SO UNDER-ARMED AND OVER-MATCHED.
                      NEIL C. REINHARDT

                    • tom2

                      Shut up you lying little putz. You’ve been outed nobody reads your crap.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      ANY INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL, RATIONAL, FAIR AND JUST PERSON READING THIS KNOWS YOU ARE THE LIAR. AND YOU ARE ALSO STUPID AS WELL AS A COWARD!

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      SCIENTIST —-
                      – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

                      A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.

                    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

                      AND YOU JUST KEEP PROVING, SMART IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT!

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      BULL SHIT! AND CHILD, I AM ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM BEING A LEFTIST WITHOUT BEING A PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOT AS ONE CAN BE.

  • AllenBarclayAllen

    Claiming global warming with CO2 is scientific tunnel vision! Last big ice age, 10,000 years ago, CO2 levels ,descovered by scientific geologist, in the tectonic plates , was a resounding 1200 PPM compared to today’s 384 PPM CO2 ! So why didn’t it get warmer ? Because the source of that CO2 volcanic activity also put up massive doses of sulfur dioxide a known substance that will block out the sun’s Heat!
    Measuring carbon dioxide alone without measuring Sulfur dioxide is hideous scientific stupidity and it smacks of scientific tunnel vision!
    Understanding the raito relationship between carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from volcanic activity points to the origin of these atmospheric gases from the Volcanos itself not human fossil fuel-burning!
    Wheres the ratio you morons of science??

    • Bay0Wulf

      No … its not Tunnel Vision … its deliberate myopia.
      Its appealing to the “Masses”
      Its A Bible-Thumping Hellfire and Brimstone Preacher Keeping it Simple for Their Fairly Ignorant Flock.
      Its the Charleton who Hands Out the Collection Basket THREE Times during the “Service”

    • Dano2

      Last big ice age, 10,000 years ago, CO2 levels ,descovered by scientific geologist, in the tectonic plates , was a resounding 1200 PPM compared to today’s 384 PPM CO2

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH

      I LOLzed!

      Best,

      D

      • Sam

        All you’ve got is repetitive HaHa. No intelligence whatsoever.

        • Dano2

          It takes intelligence to see the humor in that italicized assertion, don’tcha think believe?

          Best,

          D

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        HEY CLUELESS, READ ABOVE

        • Dano2

          Thanks, I LOLzed a second time!

          Best,

          D

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      FYI THE ICE CORES, ALL BY THEMSELVES, PROVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND YOU ARE WRONG!

  • KC

    THEY ARE TRYING TO SAVE/MAKE THEIR LIVING NOT OURS ! SOUNDS LIKE TYPICAL DEMOCRATS TO ME.

    • whoselineisitanyway

      I worked with so-called climate scientists. They’re OVERWHELMINGLY demon rats.

      • James_Carroll

        Same. I was there in Washington, DC, in the late 80’s and early 90’s when this political parade-float got rolling. It was never about the science as far as I can tell; their meeting itineraries were full of one-sided celebrity activists and other “opinionators” (many with no scientific credentials); John Denver/Windstar Foundation, Jacques Cousteau, Carl Sagan, etc. It was a week-long political science fun-fest, just, without any real Science- about how mankind is rapidly overtaking nature as the arbiter of life and the preeminent destroyer of all ecosystems on this planet; never mind that Man is in fact constrained by forces higher than Himself too– that we are actually a part of Nature, definitively; a subset of it, NOT distinct from it. I’m ashamed to live in a country that has brought political influence to bear on declaring what we exhale and that which plants all require for life a “pollutant”- and which has also not legally defined “transgendered” in its attempts to ram Federal Legislation down the throats of the States and Protected Territories. It is “Obamanable” (yes, a play on the word abominable, and every bit as fitting as “Bush-science”)

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          ANYONE WHO EVEN INFERES THAT Jacques Cousteau AND Carl Sagan WERE NOT SCIENTISTS IS A TOTAL FOOL.

          • Jakaleca

            I agree, and given your reply to me, I am not at all surprised that you chose such a trivial and meaningless point to “PROTEST TOO MUCH” over.

            Reread context; being a celebrity and activist does not negate having scientific credentials; sentence elements which follow a semicolon are indeed related but often independent clauses.

            “THANK YOU FOR READING CAREFULLY”

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        THOSE WHO MAKE SWEEPING STATEMENTS LIKE YOURS ARE IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      AS IT SOUNDS LIKE INFORMED, INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL, AND RATIONAL PEOPLE, THEY CAN NOT BE DUM-O-CRATS! DUH!

      • KC

        YOU FORGOT POSSELFISH POWER GRABBING SCUMBAGS ,,, SOUNDS LIKE A DEMOCRAT TO ME !

  • AllenBarclayAllen

    Global warming talk connected to money? Interesting! I’m thinking there’s a Murphy’s Law here being represented or something damn near like it! Yes it’s the traffic law! The extra amount of traffic behind a traffic light intersection controld buy a police officer, is directly proportional to the time he’s been conducting traffic !
    The amount of global warming talk is directly proportional to the amount of grant money that they get to do that talk and the amount of time they’ve been paid that money! You cut that money off in the b*l ls**t stops !

    ((((Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true). ))))
    It’s the same Murphy’s traffic law apply to Glacier melt the world over!
    The amount of Glacier melt the world over is directly proportional to the amount of college kids that participated in drilling that ice, to the amount of drills that were sold, the enter the amount of money the colleges spent on those drills, and the amount of holes drilled in that ice ! Any well driller knows that if you drill a hole in the ice the water will come up from underneath it and melt it, this is especially true with salt water!
    Should we ever have a ice age where the salt water ice is covering all the ocean at least now we know how to make it drill holes in it everywhere!
    And so on and so forth! This self-enforced delusion of Glacier melt by Drilling holes in the ice could only end up with the last college school drilling a hole in the last ice cube on the planet! A pitiful contribution to science my self delusional morons! They must be stopped take the grant money away and they stop! Such interesting bullshit they teach in college these days ! Well you asked for it ! They it is !

    • AllenBarclayAllen

      Very interesting in deed !
      Let’s apply that Murphy’s Law to cancer research!
      The amount of money spent on a false premise cancer is a disease, will be used by large legal staff to defend their premise against Real research that’s done on cancer the parasite! Hence is self reinforced delusion the cancer the disease is incurable to keep the money flowing for this incurable disease when in fact it’s a parasite! Continuing the money flowing for this folly ! Money well spent on insanity! Insanity that if it looks like a parasite smells like a parasite like a parasite perhaps it’s a parasite and not a disease at all our government at work! Federal government money from income tax and other taxes charitable donations money coming from everywhere why cut it off let’s keep it flowing perhaps in the next millennium we’ll come up with a cure to this non-existing disease! How are you supposed to defeat an enemy if you refuse to admit its name! Sounds like our current occupants in Washington mantra persona! A modus operandi of idiots!

      • AllenBarclayAllen

        Mr. Donald Trump is correct Washington is filled with total incompetence!

      • Snake

        Cancer is NOT a parasite, it is a malformation of cells caused by several factors. But you are correct that big pharma and government fuel this multi-billion dollar industry of making people sick and keeping them sick to generate revenue. Go to “The Truth About Cancer” on youtube, w/ Ty Bollinger. He has a 9 episode set of videos showing the extreme lengths that government and big pharma are going through to prevent the proof that cancer is curable and is being cured every day and that it is caused by the chemicals and microwave radiation that we are bombarded with in food, water, geoengineering, and synthetic drugs/cures. You can also find information on NaturalNews.com (the Health Ranger) with Mike Adams. There is definitive proof that hemp cures cancers and that government and big pharma have prevented it’s use deliberately.

        • Bay0Wulf

          Mostly you are right except that “Cancer” is a word that is being applied like a blanket over a whole lot of different types of cells being set off by a whole lot of different stimuli …

          There are many “cancers” that react well to one tyoe of treatment which do not react at all to others …

          I am highly skeptical that there will ever be ONE treatment for all “cancers” … yeah … Not Even Hemp/Marijuana

          Note; “Hemp” and Marijuans are not precisely the same plant … many people are unaware of this …

  • MarcJ

    The earth climate is 99.999% a function of the Sun cycle.

    • J T

      Yes.

      • Dano2

        So the sun’s decreasing output is increasing the earth’s temperature? Where do you live, through the Looking Glass?

        Best,

        D

        • J T

          And how did you determine that, Einstein? I’m waiting for the next lie.

          • Dano2

            Them thar scientist determined it. And you can’t show anything I typed is a lie – you made that up.

            Best,

            D

            • J T

              Your well-established history of lying indicates a very high probability of a subsequent lie. I’ll take it on faith…

              • Dano2

                You lack talent and capacity to show that I’ve told even a single lie.

                Best,

                D

    • Dano2

      No GHGs, the planet is a frozen ball and you aren’t here.

      Best,

      D

      • BigWaveDave

        “No GHGs, the planet is a frozen ball and you aren’t here.” is the universal cry of ignorant Climate Clowns who’s simplistic view sees heat transfer by radiation only between black bodies.

        • Dano2

          Welcome to our universe. You have no other fizzix to bring to this issue.

          Best,

          D

        • DavidAppell

          Convection has been included in the earliest climate models, such as Manabe & Wetherald 1967. Read the paper and you’ll see — in fact, just read the first three words of the abstract.

          “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” S. Manabe and R. Wetherald, J Atm Sci, v24 n3 (May 1967)
          http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf

          • BigWaveDave

            But the problem is there is no “Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”. Humidity both drives circulation and is driven by circulation, depending on the circumstances.

            • DavidAppell

              “Humidity both drives circulation and is driven by circulation, depending on the circumstances.”

              Yes, that happens. They picked constant RH to show directly the effects of radiative transfer in the atmosphere.

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT, THE ODDS ARE IT DRIBBLES OUT OF YOUR EARS, EYES. NOSE AND MOUTH.

          AND UNLIKE SO MANY OF YOU, I DO NOT HIDE, LIKE A COWARD, BEHIND SCREEN NAMES.

          • BigWaveDave

            So what does that have to do with the fact that there is nothing at all scientific that suggests CO2 should cause any noticeable effect on Earth’s weather or temperature?

            Why are you against the use of natural organic stored solar energy?

            • NEIL C. REINHARDT

              THE ICE CORES WHICH PROVE IT ARE SCIENCE. SO TRY GETTING A CLUE, THERE “OH SO IGNORANT ONE”

      • DMikeS

        How did GHG’s (ooohhhh, I learned a TECHNICAL term!!!) get here? If CO2 is the primary mechanism for trapping sunlight, how did the planet warmed before CO2 was available?
        There would be no life on earth (maybe a few anaerobic microbes?) without CO2 and photosynthesis, which sequesters CO2 and creates oxygen.
        This cycle isn’t hard to understand.

        • Dano2

          CO2 has been a component of earth’s atmosphere since the beginning of the planet’s atmosphere – in fact, the fraction of CO2 was much, much higher and the planet has been decarbonizing since day 1.

          So not sure what it is that you think you are arguing here.

          best,

          D

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE ICE CORES, ALL BY THEMSELVES, PROVE YOU ARE WRONG!

  • I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the growth in the electromagnetic spectrum [ie. radio, tv, microwave, haarp (?) technologies] usage is a much greater factor in man-made climate change in the atmosphere than mineral and fossil fuel emissions. The visible spectrum is less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and almost all of the nuclear contamination spewed out 24/7 by something like the melting Fukushima Daiichi reactors is in the non-visible part of the spectrum. Man-made climate change attributable to technologies operating in the non-visible 99% of the electromagnetic spectrum have not been part of the climate change discussion.

    • Bay0Wulf

      Personally, my favorite theory … one I cooked up myself … is the prevalence of asphalt parking lots, mega mall roofing, mega huge crop fields … all seem to reflect huge amounts of heat back into the air. The first two refuse to let water soak into the soils …
      It is, however, a theory …

      • A theory based on the facts that those things do heat up the air and ground around them. It is theories like yours which, I think, will eventually mean that 97% of climate change scientists are wrong.

        Talking about hot air, I’ve never understood how ice in the Antarctic can melt when the surface temperature there never gets above 0 Celsius?

        • Dano2

          It doesn’t melt. It flows into the ocean as a solid. It melts in the warmer ocean eventually.

          HTH

          Best,

          D

    • jreb57

      “the growth in the electromagnetic spectrum [ie. radio, tv, microwave,
      haarp (?) technologies] usage is a much greater factor in man-made
      climate change in the atmosphere than mineral and fossil fuel emissions.”

      That at least IS a source of energy that did not exist before. I claim that the burning of hydrocarbons DOES produce energy, but the presence of the exhaust products in the atmosphere do not. The effects of the atmosphere serve only to moderate temperature extremes. To raise temperature, it is necessary to increase energy input.

    • Dano2

      Far more evidence that GHGs are doing it. 150 years’ worth of evidence. That tiny limb can’t hold 1/100th of your weight.

      Best,

      D

  • What bothers me as an APL programmer who works from expression to expression to implement quantitative physical relationships to be able to explore their parameter spaces in order to grok them is the fuzziness of lines like

    For one thing, Venus is far closer to the sun, so it is subjected to far more solar heat, gravitational pull, and surface pressure than Earth is.

    The gray body temperature ( temperature corresponding to total solar insolation ) in Venus’s orbit is about 328 versus our 278.5 . It’s surface temperature is about 735 versus our about 289 , 2.25 versus 1.03 times the gray body temperature .

    While it may be possible to explain our 3% greater surface temperature by spectral , ie : GHG , effects , it is quantitatively impossible by an order of magnitude to explain Venus’s 125% by any material spectrum . This calculation is the subject of my Heartland presentation , http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/ .

    That should be the end of it . These computations are easily verifiable by undergraduate level experiments . James Hansen’s claim that spectral phenomena somehow “trap” an energy density 25 times that supplied by the Sun to a point in its orbit is howlingly false .

    The entire GHG paradigm should have died with that easily and classically disproved claim .

    But it hasn’t . Unlike a functioning branch of applied physics , such fuzziness is allowed to slide for years going on decades .

    Willy , I’ll always remember at the WDC conference what may have been the first conversation between us . Fundamentally I said experiment was needed to “prove” — demonstrate and quantify — the asserted “trapping” of energy by electromagnetic phenomena . You said such things were irrelevant at planetary scales .

    Here we are , some years later with absolutely no progress towards a resolution of even this most extreme example . I will repeat : We need to reestablish the non-optional quantitative experimental foundations of radiant heat transfer . Simply that act will end the paradigm which never should have been : that the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops because of some optical effect , ie : a “Greenhouse Effect” .

    Of course , that leaves the gaping question of why are the bottoms of atmospheres hotter than their tops , and I’m glad to see gravity mentioned , if ambiguously , in the article . Thru discussions on WUWT , I’ve come to agree with others’ conclusion that centripetal gravity , the only other macroscopic force , must be balanced in the total energy equations , which is only met by increasing temperature along with pressure .

    I would think , tho , that this thermal-gravitational trade off would be a well understood phenomenon in astrophysics . It’s obviously a ubiquitous phenomenon .

    • DavidAppell

      I’ve looked into Bob Armstrong’s “calculations” about a colored ball more than any other person on the planet. They are a joke — and not just because the planet isn’t a colored ball. Armstrong misunderstands Kirchhoff’s law, writes down equations whose units don’t even balance, and applies blackbody equations to objects he explicitly says are not blackbodies.

      His “science” is laughable. It’s so bad he’s afraid to even address questions about it.

      • It occurs to me , David , that as soon as a person with ordinary intelligence sees you say something like ” … the planet isn’t a colored ball.” they know you are being willfully stupid .

        • DavidAppell

          Glad to see I am still urking you.

          The planet isn’t a colored ball. It’s stupid to use that as a model of a planet.

          And even then you can’t the science right.

          • BigWaveDave

            “urking” is your specialty. But you typically “urk” by being idiotic.

  • ONTIME

    In order to get the truth into the picture, you are going to have to wrest the power of the press away from the left…The left wants, control, funding and command for their agenda of a global government….The left thinks this is their communistic manifest destiny and that a republic such as the US, it’s sovereignty and economic capitalism is or will become the abomination……

  • Maynard Kirk

    Maybe now we can stop the Chem trails and finish filling the pockets of Gore and Nye I knew it was a scam from the beginning, now that we are full of Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Toxic Acid. I believe they are Satanist.

    • Dano2

      HAARPer! Drink!

      Best,

      D

      • Bill Powell

        Geeze dude, your comments are like litter along the highway. Unnecessary, unsightly and preventable with just a little self control.

        • Dano2

          Hey, I just called the trigger word. don’t shoot the messenger.

          Best,

          D

          • DMikeS

            You never say anything. You’re a serial no-content poster of idiocy that nobody finds worthy of the “LOL”‘s your keyboard seems to be stuck on.

  • jbsteele

    I think it’s foolish to look at Venus as a case of runaway global warming. First, we have no idea of the initial conditions there. It may well always have been much as it is today. Second, it’s rotational speed is very slow compared to Earth, it’s day is longer than it;s year. Finally, it doesn’t have a large moon like Earth, so there are no tides nor any gravitational skimming on the atmosphere.

    • jreb57

      According to information from Venus probes, the surface is volcanic. Information from the first probe indicated that Venus had mountains 10 miles high which was later said to be a result of the probe floating in an extremely dense atmosphere. The idea that CO2 could produce enough energy to change Venus from an earth like environment to a surface temperature of 800+ degrees is laughable. Even more laughable is calling it a greenhouse effect, since greenhouses provide ideal earth like conditions for the plants growing within.

      • Dano2

        The idea that CO2 could produce enough energy to change Venus from an earth like environment to a surface temperature of 800+ degrees is laughable.

        Physics, yo.

        Even more laughable is calling it a greenhouse effect, since greenhouses provide ideal earth like conditions for the plants growing within.

        An intro science class awaits your enrollment and attendance!

        Best,

        D

        • jreb57

          I teach science to dimwits like you. They consistently fail the class. Understanding thermodynamics is what you lack.

          • Dano2

            Your weak bluff doesn’t do anything for me, lad. Someone making those statements isn’t a science teacher.

            Best,

            D

            • jreb57

              “Your weak bluff doesn’t do anything for me, lad”
              You still need to understand the science of thermodynamics. You will need a no nonsense teacher.

              • Dano2

                I understand it perfectly well, thanks, having studied physics for a bioclimatology degree (that I ended up switching to a closely related field from the plant side), thanks!

                Which is part of the reason why I can tell you are fibbing about being a science teacher.

                Best,

                D

                • jreb57

                  Obviously you do not because you insist that an object can absorb energy and lose 50% of it and add energy to a system.

                  • Dano2

                    So no energy is re-radiated back to earth, warming it?

                    Are you an alien being just arrived from a distant place?

                    Best,

                    d

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “So no energy is re-radiated back to earth, warming it?”

                      None that comes from a colder source.

                    • Dano2

                      Aren’t you precious. Poor j doesn’t need your help.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      All you have is dogma, time, and the money the conspirators pay you to troll the internet spreading evil stupidity in an attempt to drive civilization to a new dark age.

                    • jreb57

                      Just under half of the energy absorbed by CO2 is radiated toward the surface and just over half is radiated into space. The earth is a positive curve. You have just lost a little more than half the energy that would otherwise hit the surface. If your investment counselor treated you so shabbily, you would fire him

                    • Dano2
                    • jreb57

                      No, the sun provides the energy that everything else absorbs. Water absorbs most of the energy because it changes state. When energy is absorbed, the total amount of energy available does not increase. The clouds in your diagram have already released 540 calories of energy to the atmosphere for every gram of water vapor that has changed state. They also reflect some of the energy in the visible spectrum back out into space which is why a cloudy DAY is cooler than a sunny day and a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night. That is a flywheel effect, not a greenhouse effect.

                    • Dano2

                      Good job! So you can read a diagram.

                      What about the diagram and GHGs is incorrect in your belief system, and how many letters have you written to them thar scientist to correct them, and when do you publish your blockbuster manuscript to correct this planet-wide misconception?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      The part that is incorrect is the part that concludes that CO2 has a measurable contribution to increasing the energy budget of the planet. You are confusing inertial energy with new energy. My blockbuster thesis on the subject has already been published and proven by others. It is called thermodynamics. I do not have to prove this. It is you with the claim that CO2 heats the earth, so it is up to you to prove that it does. Some of you guys were predicting an ice age only thirty years ago. Of the two scenarios, I think that is more likely, but not in my lifetime or yours.

                    • Dano2

                      The part that is incorrect is the part that concludes that CO2 has a measurable contribution to increasing the energy budget of the planet.

                      So the papers that found a measurable contribution are wrong then?

                      When does your manuscript with the results from your own experiment publish?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      “So the papers that found a measurable contribution are wrong then?”

                      They assumed a measurable contribution and the tried to come up with an algorithm which would predict the assumed outcome. Not what I would call solid proof.

                    • Dano2

                      You made that up. You can’t show it is true. Laughable amusement!

                      Best,

                      D

  • J T

    Alright, idiots, let’s hear the bullshit…………

  • David Simpson

    That black guy dr tyson , made a big point on his Comos series , that CLimate change is real and science is settled … Just How corrupt is the science industry?

    • jreb57

      “That black guy dr tyson , made a big point on his Comos series , that CLimate change is real and science is settled”

      Well, climate change is real. What is not real is that CO2 is driving it. But science is not settled if you ask the guys working on string theory.

      • Dano2

        What is not real is that CO2 is driving it.

        Science, yo.

        Best,

        D

      • David Simpson

        You are correct, climate change is real but no big deal, but there is no global warming now for 20 yrs , and to think humans have any control over these things is beyond stupid…sorry.

        • jreb57

          Humans have no control over the climate. They just like to think so. If CO2 were really making the planet hotter, our energy problems would be solved.

          • Dano2

            If CO2 were really making the planet hotter,

            What is the mechanism making them thar planet hotter then? Fairies flying around them earf with extra blankets? Who made these blankets? Commanists?

            Best,

            D

            • jreb57

              “What is the mechanism making them thar planet hotter then?”
              Ever hear of the sun? Dr. Willie Soon offers that source as a candidate. Seems reasonable enough since it provides all of the energy CO2 absorbs in the first place.

              • Dano2

                But the sun’s output is decreasing. How can less energy received warm the planet?

                Is this opposite day or something?

                Best

                D

                • jreb57

                  The sun’s output varies slightly according to the fusion process going on in the core. If the sun’s output were decreasing why was there a paper published claiming increases in reflected energy levels from all of the planets in the solar system? Dr. Soon seems to think that this is so if I am understanding him correctly. It would seem that when what is being fused in the sun’s core (mostly hydrogen) changes slightly, it causes energy output to vary. You would have to read his paper. These solar cycles also cause changes in the particles trapped by earth’s magnetic field.

                  • Dano2

                    Right, you can’t show decreasing output is making them thar earf tempercher increase.

                    Good comedy skit, though. Amusing. Especially amusing is the denier fave Soon. Hoot!

                    Best,

                    D

                    • jreb57

                      And you can’t show the suns output is decreasing or that CO2 which behaves pretty much like all the other atmospheric gasses causes the planet to warm. If you repeat it often enough, you may believe it yourself, but you are getting boring to others.

                • jreb57

                  Everyone agrees that the sun warms the planet. You are the one who is saying that it is getting warmer. You are the one who is saying that CO2 is doing the warming (in spite of the fact that CO2 would have to add energy for this to occur which it plainly does not do)

                  • Dano2

                    Science is saying it is getting warmer.

                    Science says CO2 is doing much of the warming.

                    Science says CO2 is a GHG

                    You amuse me. Please continue.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • jreb57

                      There is no blogger on this website with a blog name of science. What science really says if you are interested is that CO2 does not create energy. It simply absorbs energy and radiates more than 50% of it into space just like all the other atmospheric gasses. The atmosphere only moderates temperature extremes, it does not drive them. Amused yet?

                    • Dano2

                      Science is not on the denialists’ side.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      Science does not take sides. You either understand it or you do not. You do not.

                    • Dano2

                      OK then – denialists have no science to support their beliefs or validate their self-identity.

                      Feel better with that wording instead?

                      Best.

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      Thermodynamics is proven science.

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks, then you know that man’s GHG emissions are warming them thar earf.

                      Good job!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      Then you do not understand thermodynamics.

                    • Dano2

                      I’ll just go ahead and take those points on offer now:

                      o Greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics (add 5 points for ‘demonstrating’ that it doesn’t work like a real greenhouse) [40points]

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

        • jreb57

          I agree with you David. The point I am trying to make is that the so called forcing agent CO2 does not add to the total amount of energy since it produces no energy. Dano2 seems to aqree that CO2 produces no energy but believes that it has other magical properties which contradict known physics that cause the amount of energy the earth receives to increase

          • Dano2

            Weak-minded making up of a little denier story.

            Best,

            D

    • jreb57

      “Just How corrupt is the science industry?”
      Follow the money. It is worse than that though. Do you want to keep your rather well paid job? Better be politically correct.

  • David Simpson

    The truth may be out there , with articles like these , but governments dont care , they are proceeding with all sorts of spend and tax initatives . And this climate warming, to the islamification of western societies and we get a big mess , luckily i will be dead soon!

  • David Simpson

    And when can we purchase Climate Hustle online?

  • jreb57

    The entire argument of Anthropogenic Global warming is base on the assumption that CO2 increases the amount of energy that the earth receives thus boosting temperatures world wide. In order for this to happen, CO2 would have to produce more energy than it absorbs. Thermodynamics, a well established branch of physics rejects this theory.

    • Dano2

      Utterly false: based on the assumption that CO2 increases the amount of energy that the earth receives

      Best,

      D

      • jreb57

        Your turn to be wrong Dano2. The temperature of an object represents the amount of energy it contains. A rise in temperature means the object has more energy. If this rise is attributed to CO2, that would mean CO2 is producing the extra energy in contravention of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of energy. CO2 neither amplifies energy nor produces energy so it is not a factor in the scheme of the temperature of the planet save for the amount of energy it absorbs (about one seventh that of water per gram)

        • Dano2

          You are confoosid.

          Your assertion was based on the assumption that CO2 increases the amount of energy that the earth receives

          The earth receives a certain amount of energy – measured in w/m^2 – from the sun. The surface of the earth receives a portion of that energy.

          CO2 doesn’t increase the fraction of energy striking the earth from the sun, thanks!

          Best,

          D

          • jreb57

            “CO2 doesn’t increase the fraction of energy striking the earth from the sun, thanks!”

            Correct! maybe you will pass after all

            • Dano2

              But what does CO2 do in an atmospheric greenhouse effect?

              Best,

              D

              • jreb57

                It absorbs energy and radiates it just as do all the other gasses. Over 50% of what is radiated is radiated into space depending on the altitude. The second law states that it cannot radiate more energy than it absorbs.

                • Dano2

                  Thanks, so it increases the amount of longwave radiation returning to the earth’s surface, heating it. Well done – that’s how GHGs warm the planet. Without GHGs in an atmosphere, planets would be icy balls.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • jreb57

                    Anything with a temperature radiates heat. Most (over 50%) is radiated into space because the planet is a positive curve. That means that over half of the radiant energy that CO2 absorbs is radiated into space, so that is a loss of just over 50% of the energy absorbed. Planets with or without an atmosphere cannot be icy balls without the presence of water..

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks, GHGs absorb and reradiate LWR, some of it back to the earth’s surface, warming the planet.

                      Basic stuff, known for decades. A paper working out how much warming was published a ~century and a quarter ago. Stuff you teach in your coughcough “science” classes, surely.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      Simple logic escapes you. If absorbs energy and only returns less than 50% of it to the surface, that is a LOSS of just over 50% radiated into space that would have hit the earth if not for atmospheric gasses. Your so called greenhouse effect is best described as temperature moderation. Daytime highs are not as high and nighttime lows are not as low. The primary gas in this scenario is water vapor.

                    • Dano2

                      Water vapor is indeed a part of it, which is why the paper 125 years ago got the resultant temperature wrong for a doubling of CO2.

                      Nevertheless, your weak logic being undermined by the false premise of Daytime highs are not as high aside, the science is well-established as to roughly how much more radiative forcing (RF) has happened by the increase in fossil fuel burning.

                      We’ve determined chemically that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is fossil carbon.

                      We’ve measured an increase in temps.

                      We’ve measured less radiation escaping to space in certain wavelengths as the atmosphere gains GHGs and becomes more opaque in certain wavelengths.

                      We’ve measured the change in RF in w/m^2 over time that corresponds to the increase in CO2 at the surface. Precisely.

                      Science, broheme. You don’t teach it.

                      Else you’d know this stuff.

                      HTH

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      There is no way you can spin it that something that neither produces energy nor amplifies energy contributes to the energy budget of the earth without contradicting the well established science of thermodynamics.

                    • Dano2

                      I’ll take those points on offer:

                      o Greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics (add 5 points for ‘demonstrating’ that it doesn’t work like a real greenhouse) [40points]

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      You are the one claiming that CO2 causes the earth’s temperature to rise. According to the well established science of thermodynamics, in order for the temperature of a system to increase, the energy content must increase. CO2 produces no energy, it merely absorbs energy. Everything absorbs energy to some extent (specific heat) else it would not have a temperature. The atmosphere acts as a thermal flywheel, moderating temperature extremes. A greenhouse is used to provide a degree of isolation from the local environment. Extra CO2 may be added to the greenhouse environment to increase plant growth. Plants use CO2 in the growth cycle. The sun provides the energy, CO2 and water provide the hydrogen, carbon and oxygen needed to produce carbohydrates. The structure of the greenhouse serves to reduce heat loss from convection. The amount of radiant energy allowed to enter can be controlled by the number of transparent panes in the structure, if needed.

                    • Dano2

                      I can only score points on that denier talking point once a thread. Do you have anything else for me?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • jreb57

                      If you can’t get past the thermodynamics, you have scored no points.

  • Joel Bensonetti

    Come on you guys after all the Climaters did accurately predict, back in the 1970s-1980s, that California was going to break off of the North American Continent and fall into the Pacific Ocean by the year 2000 if we didn’t stop driving cars and manufacturing goods. Remember that? Oh my, the loss of life was horrific when California broke off the continent — to this day, I still have nightmares about The Great CA Breakoff of 2000. Oh and by the way, the cavemen caused the last ice age.

  • Ruth

    I was sympathetic to the article until I got to the 550 million years. Until we recognize that God made the earth, not evolution, neither the climate alarmists or the “climate deniers” (as they are called) have any credibility.

    • Dano2

      Science, yo.

      Best,

      D

    • Sam

      Ruth, God did make the heavens and the earth and the universe is about 13.7 billion years old from our perspective in Time looking back. If we were to have been at the Big Bang looking forward, the universe would look to be about 6 days old. Both estimates are correct. It’s called the Law of Relativity… it’s the stretching of Space-Time that causes this effect.

  • jf

    The one things this article missed on is our oceans… earth is over 70% covered in deep water, which absorbs tons of CO2. Venus has no surface water

  • Yep, just like the Hollywood types as well. Do as we say not as we do elitist liars.

    May 29, 2016 DiCaprio’s Disease: Survey Initiated By Munich Greens Show They’re The Biggest Abusers Of Airline Travel!

    Georg Etscheit at the climate alarmist Klimaretter here whines about the Greens in Munich setting a poor example when it comes to (ab)using jet-fuel burning commercial airlines. This reminds us of serial private jet flier Leonardo DiCaprio, who took his private jet 12,000 kilometers and burned 30,000 liters of jet fuel to pick up an environment award.

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/29/dicaprios-disease-survey-initiated-by-munich-greens-show-theyre-the-biggest-abusers-of-airline-travel/#sthash.QUbyXYFC.dpuf

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    THE GUY WHO WROTE THIS IS A PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOT

  • Albert Williams

    Lying liars !!!

    • Dano2

      Bushit everbuddy!

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

      o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?

      Best,

      D

      • Albert Williams

        In the 70’s and 80’s the same assholes (Hanson & co who worked for the Government and still was able to collect millions in speaking fees, not exactly open minded ) claimed an Ice Age was coming and humans would be wiped out because fossil fuel was going to be depleted by 1982 ,so in a way, maybe this is the Twilight Zone and we’ve all been dead along with Mr. Serling for all these years.

        • Dano2

          I’ll take those points on offer:

          o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]

          https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

          Best,

          D

          • Albert Williams

            Kali Mal !!! Kali Mal !! Kali Mal !!! Facebook ,Oh ,that’s tight everything on there is true ,just ask Zuckerberg .

            • Dano2

              Where would you like the list of your refuted talking points kept? Somewhere that doesn’t give you a little sads? AOL? MySpace?

              Best,

              D

              • Albert Williams

                I still have the Popular Science and Popular Mechanics issues from the 60’s,70’s and 80’s covering this at the time it happened, look them up if you really want to know the truth of the matter. I don’t have time to read them all to schwantzheads like you ,I know it’s all bullshit and a con. Save your time with your condescending comments, I have the real
                facts, not some social sights babblings. If you can translate the Latin you’ll understand we have nothing more to discuss !!!!

                • Dano2

                  Sure, sure.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Albert Williams

                    Pete and repeat !!!!

                    • Dano2

                      I do enjoy how you amuse me. Please continue!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Albert Williams

                      No Doubt !!!! Adios Cabron !

  • Li D

    Man alive, the freaks are flying their
    freak flag high on this thread.
    Its interesting how the conservative
    pro established science ( the null ) position
    is on one side and the essentially whacko
    religious, conspirital, outspoken , and
    quite rabid at times, denier scum is on
    the other.
    Coal freaks are the new hippies!!!
    Love it!
    Li D
    Australia

  • tom2

    Neil C. Reinhardt,

    Well Mr. 101st Honor Grad, I usually don’t fence with trolls but I erred and made you an exception because I have great respect for Veterans, especially from the 101st. I couldn’t find your last reply to me so this will have to do and it’ll be my last post too. Had I been aware, I wouldn’t have bothered with such an internet town celebrity but I did a cursory search covering a few years and found the same braggadocian crap. Seems everyone already knows, as one respondent said, you’re “…A 77 year old Pro Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist, 101st Airborne Vet and a former member of management in some of Top American 500 corporations. Also ‘formally’ a Fire Walking, Deep Sea – Scuba Diving, Paratrooping, Bungee Jumping, Spelunking, 1 & 3 Meter Spring Board Diving, Partying & Dancing, Rock Climbing, River Rapid Running, Expert Shooting, Life Saving, Body Surfing and Beach VolleyBall Playing Son of a Beach. Still a Truth Telling, Women Chasing (92 times Catching) Iconoclastic, Philosophizing, Crime Stopping, & a “Barking” Grumpy Old “Son Of A Beach….” Clint would say you’re a legend in your own mind. For those who don’t know you, here’s a sampling of your thoughtful posts. Have a nice day and don’t bother people here anymore.

    http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/12/nutball-alert-atheist-neil-c-reinhardt.html

    http://heavingdeadcats.blogspot.com/2010/12/neil-c-reinhardt-shows-his-true-colors.html

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acitizenofearth/2012/07/um-i-have-my-first-troll-i-think/

    http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0py16sx9eab7i

    https://siftingreality.com/2011/09/02/reinhardt-syndrome/

    https://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/getting-skeptical-about-woo-juice-part-1for-the-credulous-asshole-troll-neil-c-reinhardt/

    https://disqus.com/by/neil_c_reinhardt/