22 free market groups call Dems ‘tyrants’ for targeting them on Senate floor

Twenty-two free market and conservative groups called Democratic senators tyrants Tuesday for criticizing their opposition to global warming policies on the Senate floor.

The Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, and Americans For tax Reform, among others, lashed out Tuesday in a letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation at Democratic senators Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, and Sheldon for calling them conspirators in a web of denial.

Read the letter at CFACT.org.

“We hear you,” the letter read. “Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and Daily Caller  New Foundationinconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.”

The 22 groups who signed the letter have various policy view, including on global warming. They argue in the letter the senators’ antics violated the groups’ rights to free speech, as well as their freedom of association, and that the senators’ knocked off U.S. democracy off balance.

“The delicate balance of our democracy is preserved when all groups are free to speak in the public square, and ALL Americans should be concerned when agents of the government use their official offices to marginalize political foes,” the letter reads.

“You were elected by the people to build consensus and find compromise—to fiercely debate the most pressing issues of our day. Often, these debates are meant to be contentious and without a clear solution because innovation comes from great challenge,” the letter adds. “Sadly, our democracy and our freedom hangs in the balance as you use your office to bully and single out groups to blame rather than ideas to debate.”

Whitehouse, the Democratic senator spearheading the hit parade, directed 19 of his fellow Democratic senators to attack some of the conservative and libertarian groups included in the letter on the chamber floors for engaging in what the senators call a “web of denial.”

Whitehouse has a history of tormenting organizations for refusing to break free from oil producers such as Exxon Mobil.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), which boasts more than 62,000 members worldwide, announced in May it would review and possibly reconsider a decision it made in April to continue its relationship with Exxon after Whitehouse and California Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat, pressured the group to divorce from the company.

Whitehouse and Reid – according to an internal email circulated by Emily Enderle, a top environmental policy adviser to the Rhode Island senator – created a senate schedule for Monday and Tuesday, requesting the senators lambaste the groups assigned to them.

Enderle coordinated her efforts with several leading environmental groups, she explained in the email – some of the groups include the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Water Action.

Follow Chris on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Chris White

Chris White is a frequent commentator at the Daily Caller.

370 Comments
    • CB

      “Demonstrates that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

      Yes!

      …because sometimes the call is coming from inside the house…

      “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot. com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

      • rhetorical1

        and your point being? Mr Morano earns an honest living and you object to this, why? Explain yourself, please.

          • J T

            You’ve got (some of) the facts right in front of you in the article, and you’re still too piss-ant stupid to draw the right conclusion. God help brain-dead morons like you.

              • CB

                “CB isn’t too deep a thinker.”

                You don’t say!

                It has been known for over a century that fossil fuel exhaust warms the planet.

                Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet?

                “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

                climate.nasa.gov/evidence

                • Isandhlwana79

                  You are too dense to have a dialogue with. You’ve been shown things many times in the past and your limited brain refuses to see it. Take your scam elsewhere.

                  • CB

                    “You are too dense to have a dialogue with.”

                    …and you are talking to yourself in public!

                    I disagree with your opinion of yourself!

                    It’s a very simple question, and something you could handle easily if you made even the smallest effort.

                    Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet, Sandy?

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

                    climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      NASA…..

                      LMAO at anyone who accepts what those clowns say

                      CO2 is one component in a changing climate PERIOD

                    • CB

                      “NASA…..LMAO at anyone who accepts what those clowns say”

                      Take your pick!

                      It’s science that has withstood over a century of testing, whichever way you slice it.

                      Is it likely you’ve overthrown it?

                      Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet, Sandy?

                      “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

                      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

                    • CB

                      “I have no idea if it does or not.”

                      lol!

                      …well, why haven’t you bothered finding out?

                      Is your clicking finger broken?

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

                      climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      I have looked at the evidence and it is inconclusive. Only to kooks like you it is. They sold you the catastrophic scenario that you swallowed hook,line and sinker. Fool.

                      I see you conveniently didn’t respond to the Antarctic ice INCREASE. Supplied by your favorite NASA.

                      LMAO

                    • CB

                      “I have looked at the evidence and it is inconclusive.”

                      …and what evidence would that be?

                      Link to it, please.

                      If you were telling the truth, isn’t that something you should be able to do?

                      “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

                      missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

                    • CB

                      “Outlier????????? Right.”

                      Outlier! Right!

                      What does the author of the outlier paper you found have to say about people intentionally misrepresenting his findings?

                      Do those findings mean Antarctica is not in trouble?

                      “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

                      http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Keep believing the scam, CB. You will find no converts here.

                      LMAO

                      Climate is more complex then your simplistic explanations. If it were that easy nobody would dispute it but they do. Plenty of scientists 100 times smarter than you dispute it. That should tell you something. But for you, a true believer, nothing will sway you. Get back to me when you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. Until then you are nothing but hot air.

                    • CB

                      “Keep believing the scam”

                      No, that’s not what Dr. Zwally had to say.

                      Your own source called you a Climate Denier.

                      Now, is it likely, Sandy that there’s been some scam going on for over a century that no one on Earth besides you has been able to identify?

                      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Climate denier, how cute. Nobody denies that climate change happens. It just isn’t caused by humans and you can’t show that it is.

                    • CB

                      “Climate denier, how cute.”

                      He’s your source, sweetie!

                      If you didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he called you a liar, perhaps you shouldn’t have cited him…

                      Now are you saying that humans do not produce CO₂, or are you saying that CO₂ does not warm the planet?

                      Just how remedial are you willing to go?

                      “In 1630, carbon dioxide was discovered by Flemish scientist Jan Baptista van Helmont (1580–1644). He was the first to identify a gas emitted by burning wood.”

                      http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-carbon-dioxide

                    • Robert Williamson

                      >”Do those findings mean Antarctica is not in trouble?”

                      Are you saying that when the Earth has no ice caps… it’s “..in trouble” ? ?
                      Who are we to say what the Earth “should be” ? ?
                      Throughout the history of the Earth, there have been times of Ice Ages.. (like now.. which began about 2.6 million years ago, the Current Ice Age, the Pleistocene Glaciation, or Quaternary Glaciation, all are correct. Do not confuse Ice Ages with Glacial Periods) and also time where Earth is NOT in an Ice Age and is ice free.
                      Times when it has been much colder.. times when it has been warmer. And for most of the past 600 million years…. atmospheric CO2 has been much, much higher.
                      Who are we… to claim one state of the planet is “good” and the other state of the planet is “in trouble” ? ? ?

                    • CB

                      “Are you saying that when the Earth has no ice caps… it’s “..in trouble” ?”

                      No!

                      I’m saying when the Earth has no ice caps, you’re in trouble.

                      The collapse of the polar ice sheets would raise sea levels around 200 feet worldwide and destroy every single one of the world’s coastal cities.

                      If that’s not the outcome we’re facing, just because of the fossil fuel we’ve already burned, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high?

                      “If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).”

                      nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

                    • VACornell

                      Let us all remember…
                      CO2 in the atmosphere is OUR food…we mankind.
                      The more, the better…!
                      We have gone from 290ppm seventy years ago to 400.
                      And we have benefited…!
                      CO2 is not a pollutant…!…it is a marvelous addition…
                      Let’s get to 425 soonest.

                    • CB

                      “We have gone from 290ppm seventy years ago to 400. And we have benefited…!”

                      You are correct that this is roughly how much CO₂ we’ve added to the air.

                      Now what if we did benefit in the past?

                      How, precisely, do you plan to benefit in the future from the destruction of every single one of the world’s coastal cities?

                      “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

                      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

                    • VACornell

                      CB….
                      You need to read the nasa article, just above…
                      Note the Antarctica is very, very cold. It holds 90 percent
                      of Earth’s ice, and that grows. Greenland is about nine percent,
                      and it isn’t about to melt. So the oceans are not about to grow.
                      So, we are safe…buy a lot on the beach!
                      We did benefit in the past, even at 290ppm. Crops grew well.
                      But today they grow up to 10-20 percent faster.
                      Let’s get to 425 soon.

                    • CB

                      “Antarctica is very, very cold. It holds 90 percent of Earth’s ice, and that grows. Greenland is about nine percent, and it isn’t about to melt.”

                      Uh huh, and if the poles aren’t melting, why do scientists say the poles are melting?

                      “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

                      climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

                      If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would the meltdown currently in progress surprise you, and how could you possibly benefit from it?

                    • rwcCat88

                      Recommend that you spend just a day with a landscaper at an actual greenhouse, and learn how different “greenhouses” behave compared to earth’s dynamic atmospheric system….And no, fossil fuel exhaust does not warm the planet CB. There was no exhaust in 1720’s when temperatures warmed, nor in the middle 19th century, nor any of the millions of times climate has changed in the geologic past….smh…

                    • CB

                      “fossil fuel exhaust does not warm the planet”

                      How could it not?

                      If emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, and fossil fuel exhaust absorbs this radiation, how could it not warm the planet?

                      “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

                      science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1

                    • CB

                      “You know that the 97 percent has been shown to be a false statistic.”

                      I do, Mike. It’s much closer to 100%.

                      Since emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, any gas which absorbs this radiation must warm the planet.

                      Do greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation?

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

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

                    • Mike Albertone

                      So, how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and how much heat does it trap? And how much do other factors play a role in temperature?
                      And about that 97%:
                      Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

                      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

                    • rwcCat88

                      Irrelevant for one, incapable to make such a claim for two. The majority of research on climate science and the entirety of documentation by IPCC has focused on anthropogenic processes, which make up less than 5% of total processes acting on climate system. The overall climate is too large to model, so to make a complete irrelevant claim as “likely” man made cause is laughable and borderline academic fraud. Understand why CB? If you have little to no data on the larger system, one has no credence when making claims from an extremely small sample set (and poorly understood sample set). It is why there is no trust or any level of confidence in the ability of the climate “science” industry….

                  • CB

                    “Explain how the C02 molecule does this please”

                    Since you asked so very politely, I’d be glad to!

                    Greenhouse gasses like CO₂ absorb the infrared radiation coming from the surface of the Earth.

                    Since emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, that means these gasses must warm the planet.

                    Make sense?

                    “Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation… This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO₂ an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.”

                    scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

                    • Tony

                      Plants and trees breath in Co2 and expel oxygen. What makes them wither in dry weather when the plants open up to breath in the Co2 they lose moisture in dry weather. We have too much pavement and not enough plants and trees.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thanks for your input CB.

                      This does not show heat retention of any magnitude. 400 parts per million is sparse. The man made contribution is only a fraction of this further diminishing the effects claimed. The best I heard is absorption and re-radiation by the C02 molecule which does not store any heat in itself. This is thought to slow radiation down a fraction causing a small rise in temperature. I feel this is rather an esoteric explanation and probable insignificant.

                      Radiation is the way Earth loses heat back into the void, its also the way all our energy arrives from our Sun, ingoing and outgoing have the same atmospheric obstacle. Only gravity works against re radiation slowing the exit slightly and possibly aiding the incoming radiation as it slows in the atmosphere.

                      CO2 lags temp rise, so its an effect, rather than the cause of the temp rise.

                      Co2 is introduced into tomato houses but for feeding and not heat, 1000 parts per million boosts plant growth and is harmless to humans. Plants die at less than 180 parts per million it seems, so with that in mind I feel concern carbon sequestration is counter productive to our well being.

                    • VACornell

                      Sir…
                      CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere…!
                      It has a tiny effect on temperature…or anything.
                      Put it in its proper place.
                      The Sun fron afar, and water vapor here, determine “all” things.
                      The important thing now is avoiding the next ice age.

                • rwcCat88

                  It’s been known for over a century that water vapor makes up 94% of greenhouse gases, yet climate models are unable to accurately account for its behavior on the climate system. AGW jihadists and government leftists would like to ignore such failure, since no incentive or power to tax water vapor…..

          • Robert Pekarik

            Every person living in the world knows that the climate changes. Some areas of the world have 4 seasons, some have constant warm temperatures which results in vacation spots, some areas people build homes in the desert like in Arizona, some areas people build homes on the beaches of our oceans, some areas have two seasons warm and cold. But the bottom line and the truth is the far left has been lying to we the people since mouths were made. False fear flags have come from the pathological left for decades all you need to do is go back and check. According to the liars on the left our planet should have been frozen or burned up more times than a liberal progressive lies. Your pathetic support for the far left power driven imbeciles will guarantee you a job on their plantation if we the people allow them to enslave America with their immoral, dishonest and treasonous agendas.

            • CB

              “Every person living in the world knows that the climate changes.”

              Yup.

              …but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.

              If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

              “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

              climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

              • Isandhlwana79

                “but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.”

                PURE BS !!!!!!

                That has NEVER been proven and YOU can’t show that it has!!!

                NASA is not an authority on it so spare us with their garbage.

                YOU know so little on the topic and it is evident. The Earth’s climate is more complex and chaotic than you can grasp. No one on the planet can prove CO2 DRIVES climate change. NO ONE !!!!

              • Robert Williamson

                “…but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.”

                Oops… someone forgot orbital variations and changes in the axial tilt of the planet over time. (Milankovitch Cycles )

                Someone also forgot changes in the energy output of the Sun… ( more cycles than just the 11 year Sunspot Cycle)

                Someone also forgot greater or lesser volcanic activity.

                Someone has no knowledge of the fact there have been Ice Ages…(Not to be confused with Glacial Periods) when CO2 levels have been many times higher than now.

                ” …and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.”
                The Right Honourable Lady Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 5 February 1976.

              • Robert Pekarik

                And not every person in the world knows that CO2 is the life giving and sustaining element needed to sustain life on our planet. It is the driver of climate change and the driver of everything that is essential to our lives. As is always the case with you far left liberal propagandists, something good is always fundamentally transformed into something evil. You people are your own worst enemy. You lie on a consistent basis and you never will be trusted because you have proven over and over again that you are incapable of admitting truth and facts because of your corrupt agenda.

          • Robert Williamson

            I beat you and Exxon to it.
            I knew about Climate Change when I was in elementary school in the 1950’s. Learned how my area was covered in a Ice sheet a mile thick just 22,000 years ago..
            I guess some leftist morons wish to return to those times… or at least to Little Ice Age conditions of approx. 1300 – 1850.

              • Robert Williamson

                “Is that likely, Robert?” Not just likely…. it’s a fact that where I live in the south Ontario region was covered in an Ice Sheet a mile thick 22,000 years ago during the last Glacial Period.

                “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880,..”

                Warmer than 2014 by how much? 1/500th..or even 1/50th of a degree or something? (Well within the margin of error.)

                Present world temperatures are well within the normal range of variability for this planet.

                “… record-keeping began in 1880,..”

                Nice… To begin with… a 135 year period of time isn’t even a blink of an eye in the history of this planet. It’s an extremely short data set.
                Not to mention we just came out of the L.I.A. about 1850.. and anyone with some common sense would expect it to gradually warm for one or two hundred years.

                • CB

                  “a 135 year period of time isn’t even a blink of an eye in the history of this planet.”

                  A fair enough point!

                  Point to a single moment in all 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

                  If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?

                  “Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”

                  climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as
                    “glaciations.” One such glaciation that occurred during the Late
                    Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of
                    climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on
                    timing, that’s just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to
                    roam the Earth.

                    Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million
                    years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million
                    years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest
                    recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently
                    sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, “Heaven and Earth”, pp165:

                    A simple google search turned that nugget up and guess where it came from? Skeptical science the AGW’s own kook website

                    • CB

                      “One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago… Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high.”

                      Such a diligent worker you are!

                      True. True. False!

                      There was a glaciation at the end of the Ordovician, and it was quite brief (the briefness will actually turn out to be the reason why claim #3 is false, if you last that long).

                      How do you know CO₂ was “sky-high” at the time?

                      “The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

                      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      CO2 does not DRIVE climate change and you cannot show that it does no matter how many links you provide. None of them can show it either.

                    • CB

                      “CO2 does not DRIVE climate change”

                      That’s not an answer.

                      If Ian Plimer, a well-known liar and prostitute for the oil and gas industry, isn’t getting his information from GEOCARB, a proxy that cannot possibly prove his claim, where is he getting it?

                      Sandy, does it sound like I’ve never heard your dishonest Climate Denier talking point before?

                      “Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

                      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt

                  • Robert Williamson

                    Are you saying that when the Earth has no ice caps… it’s “..in trouble” ? ?

                    Who are we to say what the Earth “should be” ? ?

                    Throughout the history of the Earth, there have been times of Ice Ages..

                    (like now.. We are presently in an Ice Age which began about 2.6 million years ago, the Current Ice Age, the Pleistocene Glaciation, or Quaternary Glaciation, all are correct. Do not confuse Ice Ages with Glacial Periods) and also time where Earth is NOT in an Ice Age and is ice free.

                    Were the ice free times.. horrible times for the planet?
                    Is it better to be in an Ice Age? Why ? ?

                    Should we soak the people of the world trillions and trillions of dollars in taxes to “control” the climate of the world ?

                    Will I get to have a say in what the climate “should” be ? ?

                    In the history of the planet.. there have been times when it has been much colder.. times when it has been warmer. And for most of the past 600 million years…. atmospheric CO2 has been much, much higher.

                    Who are we… to claim one state of the planet is “good” and the other state of the planet is “in trouble” ? ? ?

                    I believe the Gore Bull Warming alarmists are suffering from Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome. (ADPS) They need some counselling while laying on the couch.

                  • S Graves

                    The EOT when the Antarctic ice cap formed with CO2 at almost twice today’s level (750 PPM). And don’t bother with that citation for an earlier temporal designation.

          • nuffalready

            The good Dr McKibben received $10 million from the Rockefellers for his 350.org. Is that OK with you CB?

      • Robert Williamson

        Nothing wrong with making a living. So Marc Morano makes 150 grand a year or a bit more. Good for him. He earns it. I wish he was making more than that.
        How much has Al Gore made from pushing the Global Warming scare? I bet he gets a hell of a lot more than Morano.
        How about Al Gore’s Canadian pal, fruit fly Dr. David Suzuki the Canadian Global Warming Alarmist with his four properties… one of them worth $8 Million.. and his jet trips to Australia and vacations in Bhutan ? ? ( He tells the rest of us lowly peons that we have to cut back our extravagant middle class lifestyles…. as jet setting Leonardo DiCaprio also tells us. Can you spell “Hypocrisy” ? ? )
        How much has Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann made ? Millions for his work and his lab.
        How about James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen? Millions from various sources over the years for his Global Warming work… including leftist Theresa Hienz foundation cash..

        And you’re concerned about Marc Morano making $150,000 or so a year …. so funny…

  1. Isandhlwana79

    Tha AGW kooks know that their scam doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Therefore they must shut down debate and say AGW is a fact. More like a poor joke that is. Their 97% consensus has been shown to be a farce yet they continue with that garbage. Why?

  2. Ian5

    Kudos to the Senators for exposing the anti-science lobbyists purposefully sowing misinformation and doubt about climate change. Right out of the tobacco playbook. Has nothing to do with free speech.

  3. Isandhlwana79

    Anyone wanting to shut down debate on the topic of AGW is anti-science. The irony of AGW kooks calling skeptics “anti-science” is a joke. Just shows how shallow thinking they truly are!

    • Ian5

      Nope, it’s not about shutting down debate, it’s about holding organizations like Heartland accountable for purposefully misinforming and misrepresenting science. Same tactics as tobacco lobby. You’ve fallen for it. Educate yourself.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Go away fool. You know nothing about it. You are just a mindless sheep. Quit trying to respond to me. I am not impressed by anything you post. Clear?

          • Isandhlwana79

            Then why do you feel the need to respond? Every name said to you, you deserve. You are an idiot who knows nothing about climate dynamics. NOTHING

            You are now on ignore. I won’t see anything you post, so respond away. FOOL.

      • 4TimesAYear

        Alarmists are the ones misrepresenting science. Atmospheric levels of CO2 has absolutely no impact on human health. You’ve fallen for it. Educate yourself.

      • Orellian Tay

        So can you prove they misinformed anybody or misrepresented anything?

        If they show satellite data as being in a long pause and claiming that the data shows we are in a long pause, is that misinforming people or misrepresenting science?

        If they show that the surface temperatures keep on being altered in a fashion that conforms to the CAGW hypothesis, is that misinforming people or misrepresenting the science?

        Nope. they are just making sure people are informed about aspects that these senators do not want you to be informed about because they deem these facts to be unimportant.

      • odin2

        There are no scientific studies that show, by empirical evidence, that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions), have ever been the primary cause of global warming.

        Both of the satellite data sets (RSS & UAH) show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. This data is consistent with the balloon data with which the satellite data are egularly checked. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.

        The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old and the climate has been changing the entire time. Most climate scientists believe that humans contribute to global warming to some extent. The relevant questions then are how much global warming is caused by human activities (primarily CO2 emissions) and are the warming effects good or bad?

        The hypothesis that human are the primary cause of global warming since the early 1950s (AGW) is not supported by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is based on climate models which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These climate models have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Climate models that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18 year and eight month pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.

        The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.

        We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). CO2 emissions were only 3-4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012 to 0.0016 % of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.

        Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18 year and 8 month pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.

        AGW is about power, politics and greed. Every time the facts change due to nature’s failure to cooperate with the AGW hypothesis , the Believers move the goal posts . They have at least 66 excuses for the 18+ year pause in global warming and the failure of the computer climate models to predict it. The Believers blame any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming based on modeled projections and with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda and profit from the AGW industry (which we must perpetuate at all costs).

        An anti-democracy theme is a common thread within the AGW movement:

        “U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer advised in 2010, ‘One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.’

    • Ian5

      Patrick Moore is a well-known lobbyist and is repeating long-debunked HI talking points. He has no credibility in climate science circles.

      • Orellian Tay

        Why does he have no credibility? You can say stuff, but it is meaningless without any evidence to support your opinion.

        Quick question. Is there any “denier” you find credible or do you just say they are not credible if they are deniers?

        • Ian5

          Represents himself as an “expert” but has no background in climate science nor has he published any peer reviewed science on the topic. His consultancy GreenSpirit is a PR outfit not one of scientific inquiry. He was a spokesman in and cheerleader for Morano’s silly dumumentary Climate Hustle. His views on climate change are diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy.

          • Isandhlwana79

            “opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy.”

            Which means what, sheep? You can’t think for yourself and YOU know nothing about climate dynamics. You are just a troll spouting your “rubbish”.

            • Ian5

              Which means his views are extreme and outrageous. He is purposefully trying to mislead and distort. The public should ignore him, his ridiculous message and the organizations with which he is affiliated,

              • Isandhlwana79

                You don’t know whether his views are extreme or not. You just think they are. He is one of MANY who make the same case. That is why there is such an effort to shut everyone up and say AGW is proven. It isn’t. You and NO ONE else on the planet can explain how CO2 is DRIVING climate change. That is a fact. Simply saying that because humans are emitting CO2 and CO2 acts as a GHG isn’t ALL THERE IS. You can’t show how it is DRIVING climate and neither can anyone else. FACT.

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    That link proves nothing. Nowhere in that link can they show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. They can’t show how it is doing it and neither can YOU.
                    I’ve seen that link a million times. Only fools and shallow thinkers accept that link as “evidence”.
                    BTW, the link you attempted to show is broken. No need to retry, I’ve already seen it. It isn’t proof.

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    Its not, if you think it is spell it out for us. Or are you the only two clever enough to see it?

                • Ian5

                  “You and NO ONE else on the planet can explain how CO2 is DRIVING climate change. That is a fact.”

                  Suggest you enroll in a Climate Science intro course at your local college or university. Many insitutions provide these to the lay public. One on critical thinking would be good for you too.

                  • Isandhlwana79

                    Again, you can’t substantiate how CO2 DRIVES climate. You simply don’t know enough about it to argue a cogent point. Your sophomoric attempts at condescension are why I call you names. You really are ignorant.

                    • Dano2

                      you can’t substantiate how CO2 DRIVES climate.

                      We can, for over a century. This one lacks education and knowledge to know any better.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      NO you can’t, FRAUD

                      Show it, if you can. Nothing you can provide will do so.
                      LMAO at the FRAUD

                      CO2 has NEVER been the driver of climate PERIOD

                      People 10 times smarter than YOU say the same thing I do. Go argue with them.

                    • Dano2

                      Little LOLO lacks education and knowledge.

                      Sad!

                      We’ve known this, LOLO, for two centuries. Well, you haven’t known this ever, but hey.

                      Two centuries of physics and chemistry that CO2 keeps them thar earf from bein an ice ball:

                      Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

                      Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

                      Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

                      Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

                      Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:

                      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
                      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter10.pdf
                      http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:

                      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

                      You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      You keep posting the same crap that does NOT show how CO2 drives climate. You have nada, zilch, bubkis and all the other inane garbage you write.
                      LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

                      Again, you have no clue whether CO2 precedes or comes after temperature rises

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      So you have all bases covered. Leading or lagging it DRIVES climate. Sure!
                      LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      right.
                      Is that it?
                      That is all you can to say about CO2 DRIVING climate change?
                      You simply can’t show it. All you can do is condescend.
                      Shallow

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO lacks education, will, courage to grasp references it was given to educate itself out of its ignorance.

                      LOLO makes us LOLz.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Your references don’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. They don’t it is that simple.
                      Just saying that CO2 redirects heat back to the surface doesn’t prove anything. You simply can’t show HOW CO2 DRIVES climate change.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      As if you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
                      You can’t.
                      Your condescending deflection is duly noted.

                    • Dano2

                      I gave you several references that do, as you bumbled and fumbled and laughably claimed Nothing you can provide will do so. CO2 has NEVER been the DRIVER of climate PERIOD .

                      That is, in fact, showing.

                      FACTS, yo. Git you some. You ain’t got no facts.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      They don’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
                      They don’t and you can’t repeat what you have supposedly learned to show it either.
                      Where are your facts. YOURS?

                      To put it simply, your links show how CO2 CONTRIBUTES to climate change not how it DRIVES it. I figured I would have to spell it out for your pea-brain.

                      LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

                      CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. Look up in the daytime sky. You’ll get your answer there.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      That shows nothing too. You have nothing and it’s apparent. Their speculation is no better than Salby’s

                    • Dano2

                      My mouseovers for the links indicate that this reply was utterly and totally predictable. Had you clicked the links and seen the mouseovers, even the likes of you wouldn’t have typie-typed such a comically dim response.

                      And you aren’t even amusing in your comical predictability – comedy isn’t created this way. We require better amusement.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Again, you nothing but insults. You still can’t show that CO2 is the DRIVER of climate change FACT

                      I looked at them. They are meaningless.

                      Richard Alley, like you, is a FRAUD

                    • Dano2

                      Typing something 1000 times doesn’t make it true. Try a thousand and one, maybe that will do it.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Dano all I ask is you show what you claim, this you have never done usually in two or three word nonsense posts

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      That doesn’t prove anything other than you being a lemming. As odin said above “There are no scientific studies that show, by empirical evidence, that
                      human activities (mostly CO2 emissions), have ever been the primary
                      cause of global warming.” That is a FACT you can’t refute.

                    • Ian5

                      You didn’t do your homework did you. If you want to continue to wallow in your ignorance, that’s your choice. I can’t help you.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      You exemplify ignorance. You haven’t been able to show CO2 DRIVES climate change. It CONTRIBUTES to change. Learn the difference, dummy.
                      IT DOES NOT DRIVE CHANGE.

                      The climate is too complex for your pea-brain to understand. You are to stupid to understand that basic concept.

                    • Ian5

                      The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by ~40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and land use changes. Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

                      Read the 2013 Physical Science Basis and note its conclusions. Then come back and tell us what you’ve learned: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      “Total radiative forcing is positive”

                      You don’t know that. That has yet to be proven. Amazing that you think 120 parts per MILLION Drives climate change. Incredible.

                      Then you wonder why I call you names. All you have are appeals to authority as if that proves anything. You don’t understand that many people in those societies you like to cite DON’T agree with the ruling body’s assessment on climate change. Again, you have NOTHING.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Then substantial it please. Show experimental data to support the theory that C02 can cause warming.

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    Critical thinking is taught to replace logic. It is not logic and reinforces consensus thinking, this can stifle innovation and is inherently bad for science and engineering.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Exactly, to drive change it appears caus and effect are reversed. This needs explaining to folk.

          • Orellian Tay

            Who is an expert in climate science. Is a Cardiologist and expert in Neurosurgery? So who is the expert doctor? Climate science is the same.

            I’m not climate expert, but I know which questions climate science can’t answer, like what is the ECS, or something vastly more simple. Which global surface dataset is the best, or how accurate are they.

            If they can’t answer the simple questions, how can they know that Moore is so full of shit that you can use the law to take him to court?

            IPCC says the ECS is likely between 1.5 and 4.5, just like the first ECS estimates made around 50 years ago. Yup #Exxonknew, as does the IPCC, and they have known for half a century.

  4. Isandhlwana79

    I have now had to block a second AGW kook. I love that I’m inside their heads, rent free. They are idiots who can’t refute what I post.
    LMAO at the clowns.

        • Ian5

          “…cringes when he hears 100 year weather forecasts”. I’ll bet you lap this stuff up. FYI, weather and climate are not the same thing. You fell for it.

          • Isandhlwana79

            I know the difference, fool. You don’t know anything about climate dynamics. You fell for the AGW scam. Poor little Ian fool.

            • Ian5

              You say you know the difference yet you continue to circulate error- ridden Fox News rubbish. Gullible and/or intentionally trying to mislead/misinform. Name calling is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.

              • Isandhlwana79

                You deserve every name I call you. You have no clue about climate dynamics. You have nothing.

                    • Ian5

                      Too lazy to read the report and understand the process used to develop it. Calling it a scam because you don’t like the conclusions/implications is so much easier for the weak-minded.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Just like you won’t read anything contrary to YOUR beliefs. Gotcha.

                      Get back to me when you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. The IPCC has yet to do that, BTW

                    • Ian5

                      I have actually read it and watched it including your silly Fox News clips. Universally it is shallow rubbish designed to mislead and misinform. The implications of CO2 are covered and fully referenced in Chapter 8 – Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar,
                      a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem
                      to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the
                      [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents
                      represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could
                      be further from the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for
                      the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process
                      used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed
                      out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now
                      questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the
                      earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability
                      and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed
                      temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC
                      climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the
                      earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar
                      concluded.

                      Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers
                      for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC
                      process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a
                      “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the
                      Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his
                      name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the
                      top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,”
                      he added.

                      Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s
                      National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s
                      2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but
                      resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with
                      playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17,
                      2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am
                      withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the
                      IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
                      addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
                      response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in
                      good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being
                      motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”
                      Landsea added.

                      hmmmmmmmmmmm……………………………….

                    • Ian5

                      Khandekar – the same retired Kandekar that was on Heartland’s payroll.
                      Reiter – a malaria expert, not a climate scientist
                      Landsea – withdrew his participation but does not dispute the serious nature of AGW

                      Any other trivial arguments?

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Thousands of others differ. Count ’em. You count on your scam masters to close down debate. Not happening. You can’t silence those of us who don’t believe your garbage. More and more people are seeing AGW for what it is, a scam. Time and climate itself are proving that!

                    • Ian5

                      Cute little anti-science fairy tale. There is no debate, just an organized lobby that aims to mislead and mis-represent the science on behalf of special interests.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      You have not provided evidence that CO2 DRIVES climate change. Again, you have nothing.
                      You want to keep arguing?
                      Your point?
                      You have no credible evidence to show that CO2 DRIVES climate change.
                      Just appeals to authority. Shallow.

                    • Ian5

                      There has been plenty of evidence for decades, you are just top lazy to look for it and read it when provided to you. Too much time on Heartland and denier sites that appeal to your narrow ideology. Can’t help you.

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      Good. You can’t help me. Now, get lost. You can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.

                    • Ian5

                      I’ve shown you multiple times but you don’t want to learn. I get it…it’s a little complex for you, you feel threatened and don’t like change. And it’s at odds with your narrow ideology. I thought you were going to BLOCK me.

                    • Ian5

                      “Thousands of others differ”. Presumably you are referring to the silly Oregon Petition Project. Has been thoroughly debunked.

                    • Ian5

                      Included only about 30-40 who identified as having a climatology specialization if I’m not mistaken. New Scientist’s Peter Hadfield summed it up nively this way: “The petition’s suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that’s been done, is patent crap”.

  5. Paul McCormick

    The track record for this administration and congress is not something which endears much trust , it does however gives rise to a good amount of skepticism in its ability to reach reasoned decisions. Draw any conclusions you wish, but Think about what their plans are and what the consequences are if they succeed.

  6. Dannz

    We are still playing defense, how about an attack for a change. Sue Al Gore, Suzuki, Mann and a few Senators for fraud, obtaining money through false pretenses, corruption of data, deliberately misleading the public and policy makers, and so on. It’s way past time for some action.

    • Ian5

      If you are concerned about “…deliberately misleading the public and policy makers” you should also go after organizations like the Heartland Institute. Their sole purpose on the climate file is to sow doubt and deliberately mislead and misinform. Straight from the big tobacco playbook.

      • Dannz

        Show us the scientific evidence of catastrophic global warming, not opinions but scientific evidence, we have all been waiting for 30 years for such evidence.
        As this is settled science it should be readily available.
        Note I ask for scientific evidence, not opinions based on models, adjusted temperature data, environmentalists, their blogs and political opportunists.
        Evidence please, we are waiting.

    • Dano2

      All of those charges would be laughed out of court and those bringing such charges would be pointed at for having no credibility.

      Best,

      D

  7. buddman

    democrats are one step ahead of the neanderthal when it comes to thinking Actually Neanderthals were Smarter

  8. Robert Williamson

    So we warmed a couple of degrees since the end of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850. Nice… The leftist idiots think the Little Ice Age time was a nicer time? Better study history.
    Not too mention that historically… civilization has always done much better during the warmer times.. beginning with the Holocene Climate Optimum and the first settled villages, agriculture, domestication of animals and the first writing…
    How many of the leftist idiots realize that we are still in an Ice Age that began about 2.6 million years ago ? (Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the Current Ice Age,.) As long as there are ice caps, ice fields, ice sheets, and glaciers, we are in an Ice Age.
    We are currently in an Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during the Current Ice Age.
    But the Leftists ..suffering from Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome, (ADPS), aren’t interested in facts that interfere with their political agenda.

      • Isandhlwana79

        Spending too much time on scam sites. Gotcha.
        LMAO at the fool.
        NASA has as much credibility in my eyes as Exxon does in yours.

        • Ian5

          Your silly point is noted. Also note that the findings and positions of NASA’s Earth Systems Science program are consistent with the views of virtually every US and international scientific academy. I’ve previously asked you to provide readers with some names of organizations that you deem to be credible. Still waiting.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Your inability to show how CO2 DRIVES climate is duly noted. So that makes your point beyond silly.

            • Ian5

              I’ve previously asked you to provide readers with some names of organizations that you deem to be credible. Still waiting…and waiting. Oops there aren’t any.

              • Isandhlwana79

                There are plenty of individuals and you know it. You discount every one of them. You still can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change and you’ll never be able to do so. LEMMING= Ian

                • Ian5

                  Nope, not looking for individuals — there are contrarians on virtually every topic. I want some respectable science-based organizations or professional associations. Still waiting.

                    • Dano2

                      ALEC, Heartland, CEI are respectable science-based organizations or professional associations.

                      Hoot! I LOLzed!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO can’t name a single respectable [denialist] science-based organizations or professional associations. that ain’t believin in no human-caused climate change.

                      Because there aren’t any.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      Right, everyone can tell you don’t have squat. Jack. Diddly. Bupkis. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      Injuneers and astronauts, not a single one published in the climate sciences.

                      My, you are impressive. Yer crushing this.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      Resorting to PopTech’s comedy skit instead of answering the quershin.

                      Impressive intellect.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar,
                      a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem
                      to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the
                      [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents
                      represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could
                      be further from the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for
                      the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process
                      used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed
                      out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now
                      questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the
                      earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability
                      and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed
                      temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC
                      climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the
                      earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar
                      concluded.

                      Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers
                      for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC
                      process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a
                      “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the
                      Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his
                      name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the
                      top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,”
                      he added.

                      Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s
                      National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s
                      2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but
                      resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with
                      playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17,
                      2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am
                      withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the
                      IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
                      addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
                      response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in
                      good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being
                      motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”
                      Landsea added.

                      hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………………………………

                      learn how to spell question if you wish to be taken seriously. Your efforts to be cute reveal your shallowness, FRAUD

                    • Isandhlwana79

                      While your at it, Ian, get down and shine Dano’s shoes.

                      LMAO at the pair of kooks blowing one another.

                      hahahahahahaaa

                    • Ian5

                      Trivial arguments:
                      Khandekar – the same retired Khandekar that was on Heartland’s payroll.
                      Reiter – a malaria expert, not a climate scientist.
                      Landsea – withdrew his participation but does not dispute the serious nature of AGW.

  9. Robert Pekarik

    Demonstrates and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the democrat party is corrupt to the core, dishonest to the core, immoral to the core and perverted to the core.

  10. MickG

    Demonstrates that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Religious Environmental Extremist cause which ignores real climate science. I have voted for Democraps for president exclusively since I voted for John Kennedy, and I support most social and economic causes of the democratic left but I’m smart enough to know the difference between science and religion. However I oppose extreme environmental and animal activism not based on science. Clearly the Cyclic Solar output of the Sun together with the Cyclic orbital distance of the Earth from the Sun controls climate change including the cyclic change of Earth’s Tilt. Atmospheric CO2 has no effect on Natural Cyclic Climate Change. But plentiful atmospheric CO2 is essential for Life on Earth. Plants evolved on Earth when atmospheric CO2 was around 4000ppm. More atmospheric Co2 is entirely beneficial for Life on Earth.

  11. Isandhlwana79

    50 former IPCC experts

    1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant
    acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has
    been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for
    Policymakers).

    2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t
    cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some
    700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

    3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most
    of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global
    warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented
    and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

    4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of
    a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of
    climate.”

    5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

    6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

    7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as
    state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single
    mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC)
    Summary for Policymakers.”

    8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of
    approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable
    human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support
    the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human
    activities.”

    9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard
    by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is
    a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the
    hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide
    emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global
    warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from
    ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

    10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding
    our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

    11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC
    has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

    12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and
    coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the
    present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more
    recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem
    with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the
    most-used IPCC scenarios.”

    13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the
    sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
    The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes
    of climate change.”

    14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the
    anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after
    [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the
    [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at
    first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were
    false.”

    15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s
    most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no
    signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall
    frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large
    increases in the population at risk.”

    16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

    17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to
    grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who
    questions their authority.”

    18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading
    scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a
    significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual
    number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

    19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate
    change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When
    people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and
    scientists.”

    20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity
    and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally
    unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

    21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate
    model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more
    than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
    with them.”

    22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by
    the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of
    magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

    23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be
    taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review
    process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC
    report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it
    might be.”

    24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts
    of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these
    claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

    25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for
    Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated
    process of spin-doctoring.”

    26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in
    the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put
    together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

    27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute
    to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived
    agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

    28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics
    rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists
    say and exploits public ignorance.”

    29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century
    have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming
    for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is
    grossly overstated.”

    30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC
    reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in
    which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of
    a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

    31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the
    IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead
    authors.”

    32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a
    “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and
    also misleading.”

    33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time
    scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the
    science is not settled.”

    34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

    35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many
    scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research
    funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are
    willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of
    the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

    36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a
    rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually
    intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy
    actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding
    of the climate system.”

    37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions …
    predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to
    uncertainties.”

    38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think
    that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by
    people who are not scientists.”

    39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever
    someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is
    settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

    40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

    41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers
    Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data
    altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the
    data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct
    contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

    42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a
    very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time
    scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant
    relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

    43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and
    was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause
    global warming are only a means to that goal.”

    44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political
    rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions
    in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite
    voices.”

    45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in
    weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid
    conclusion that global warming is man made.”

    46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in
    the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by
    overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this
    trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

    47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

    48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant
    drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

    49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

    50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of
    alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same
    data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.
    By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the
    light of publication.”

0 Pings & Trackbacks