Global Warming a Fad? Not according to those who lied.

I’ve heard Global Warming called a fad by some who seem to think it’s some sort of liberal conspiracy.

Interestingly, the NYTimes has a story today here  that the scientists who work for the advocacy group of the companies that claim there is no global warming had been saying for some time that, yes there is too, the process cannot be denied, the stuff you guys are making causes global warming.

Fun group, called the Global Climate Coalition, very earthlike. For some reason the coalition neglected to mention their own scientists’ findings when railing against global warming.

The story compares this to the lies the cigarette people told us. You know, how the link between tobacco and cancer is “disputed” and “not verified.” 

The story goes on to say: “The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

“Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.”

Needless to say, many still claim it’s just a fad, it’s natural, it’s not something to get concerned about.

Which is, of course, a load of hooey. 

I wouldn’t mind this nearly so much except I go to seminars and symposia held by people with PhDs in climatology and planet science who say, in peer-reviewed publications, that global climate change is a reality and man-caused. Then I go outside and hear people who haven’t read any of the papers, or seen any of the clear data, call it a fad.

Nor, I’ve found, do they want to hear any of that data. It’s all liberal rubbish, they say.  It can be frustrating.

Thankfully, I’ve learned in this business that the intentionally ignorant are very tenacious, but the truth does out in the end.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Global Warming a Fad? Not according to those who lied.

  1. Cathy says:

    i think the liberals are causing global warming. just to control everyone.

    i bet they also cause computer virii and dustbunnies.

  2. Terminus Est says:

    Exactly so, well put, Charles.

    What I find particularly amusing about the Denialist foot soldiers (the “intentionally ignorant, as you say, Limbaugh’s dittoheads, etc.), is the way they haunt the comments section of news sites, attempting to refute any article that reports honestly the facts of anthropogenic climate change with the same tired old arguments about liberal conspiracies, x-number of unnamed “scientists” (of unnamed scientific expertise) who signed some petition, statistical misrepresentation (“CO2 is such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere it can’t have any effect”), CO2 “follows warming” rather than causing warming, Earth is big and people are tiny, etc. As if they really believe that blathering nonsense in comments pages will defeat science. As if science were conducted via political shouting matches.

    As you say, truth does out in the end. The science will prevail.

    It does illustrate, though, that our educational system needs to do a much better job of teaching basic science.

  3. Tunderbar says:

    It isn’t a fad, it’s an out and out fraud. The IPCC is just a bunch of UN politicians and activists. The “scientists” that the IPCC rely on, rely on the scare of global warming to get their global warming research funding, which runs into the tens of billions of dollars. These are mostly computer modellers whose computer models have been shown to be unable to reliably predict anything related to climate. James Hansen of NASA has been caught at least twice fudging the temperature data to show temperatures rising more than they actually have. Al Gore and his GIM investment company is poised to make billions when the US govt dumps loads of cash into “green” technologies. Global warming is real, but it is well within normal climatic cycles and is not catastrophic. In fact, agriculture will benefit from more heat units and longer growing seasons. CO2 is a life giving gas and is just as important to life as is oxygen. The global warming scare is a fraud.

  4. Tunderbar says:

    Oh yeah… and there is NO SCIENCE that shows that CO2 has ever impacted temperatures. In fact, Al Gore’s own graph shows clearly that temperatures always lead a rise in CO2 by about 800 years. And the scientific temperature record shows that temperatures were warmoer during the Medieval Warm Period without a rise in CO2. And the Medieval Warm Period brought an era of unprecedented economic and cultural growth. Everything about the higher temps in the Medieval Warm Period was positive. The world experienced a little ice age in the 1600′s, that led to hunger and economic disaster. I’d rather have the heat than the cold.

  5. Nell says:

    The truth is out! Forests are being slaughtered by the bark beetle, Australia is drying up and burning away, and drought is all over the place.

  6. Tunderbar says:

    Hey Neil, weather happens. Wild fires happen. Droughts happen. And insect infestations happen. All those things have happened throughout history. There is nothing new in that news. A .7 degree increase in temperature in one hundred years is not catastrophic. And it did not cause those things to happen. Just because the global warming activists make a big deal of these naturally occurring events does not make it new or diffeent than what has happened since time immemorial. Stuff happens and stuff will continue to happen. And by the way, temperatures have failed to increase in the last 8 years like the alarmists predicted, so those events could not have been caused by global warming because the globe hasn’t warmed in the last 8 years. Global warming means warming and it hasn’t happened in the last 8 years. If it ain’t warming then those things can’t be caused by non-existent warming.

  7. ctrentelman says:

    I think Tunderbar is missing my point here while, to some degree, proving it — the anti-Global Warming consortium’s own scientists said that man-caused global warming is a fact. It behooves Mr. Tunderbar, and those he seems to agree with, to present data that supports an alternate theory of what is going on.

    Data supporting the human-caused theory is massive and, as I’ve said, peer-reviewed, the highest standard of research, and peer-reviewed is nothing to sneeze at. I’ve seen the process in action and it is rigorous to the nth degree.

  8. Tunderbar says:

    CO2 levels are at approx. 380 parts per million. Of that 380 ppm, approx. 11.8 ppm has been ascribed to man. That is approx. one one hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere that is manmade CO2. Hardly overwhelming. If we were to remove the entirety of the manmade CO2 from the atmosphere we would be left with 368 ppm. A hundred years ago the co2 levels were approx. 280 ppm. So the natural variability part of the increase is aprox. 88 ppm. Seven times the manmade amount. The natural variability of CO2 has been seven times the amounts ascribed to man.

    There is no anti-global warming “consortium”. Just like there is no global warming consensus. A very large numbers of scientists, over 30,000 scientists, do not agree that man is affecting the climate with a pitiful 12 parts per MILLION of co2.

    The “science” that is being used to “prove” manmade global warming is pretty pitiful. Michael Mann of the hockey stick fame, was shown to use cherry-picked and badly factored data, as well as a blackbox comouter algorithm that was guaranteed to give him the graph shape that he was looking for (the hckey stick). James Hanes of NASA was caught twice fudging and factoring temperature data to increase the later temperatures and decreasing the earlier temperatures. Naomi Oreskes cherry pickes 1000 studies out of more than 30,000 studies to declare that there was a consensus.

    The IPCC wrote their summary before they got the input from the scientists. Then cherry picked those that supported their political views and ignored the rest.

    The only rigorousness in the process is to find the “science” that supports the politics and ignore the rest. That is not science, that is activism.

  9. dan s. says:

    The analogy to the cigarette companies is apt. In both cases, you don’t need to know much to guess that there should be such an effect. In both cases, skeptics rightly pointed out that it’s not enough to guess–you need to do careful research. In both cases, the research was done and showed in considerable detail what the effects are, confirming that the intuitive guess was essentially correct. And in both cases, there was a period of denial and cover-up by those who profit most from the damage.

  10. Tunderbar says:

    And by the way. The ones presenting the new theory, ie. manmade co2 is causing global warming, have the scientific responsibility of proving it. Not the other way around. It is not incumbent on us to prove you wrong, you need to prove that you are right.

    The IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, and the rest of the pro-manmade global warming racket have the responsibility of providing irrefutable scientific proof. And they have failed. There is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 can cause catastophic temperature increases. It have never happened in the entire temperature record and it has not happened in the last 50 years. there is no physical scientific basis that can show that 12 ppm of co2 can be catastrophic. Period.

    The IPCC has rested its case on computer models when computer models have been scientifically proven to be next to worthless when predicting climate. Even when trying to predict known climate.

    Here are some famous predictions that never occurred:

    There are more predictions that failed to materialize on this page:

    Virtually every doomsday prediction from the global warming alarmists have FAILED TO MATERIALIZE.

    Now, how many billions of dollars should we throw at the new and improved recent catastrophic global warming predictions? I say zero. It is time to start firing these activist “scientists”. Starting with James Hansen and ending with the computer modellers.

  11. dan s. says:

    Tunderbar, your 11.8 ppm figure is baloney. Essentially all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times has been caused by human activity. Here’s an overview of the best available data:

    Notice that the CO2 level was flat for 1800 years (and probably much longer) before it suddenly started to rise with the industrial revolution.

  12. Tunderbar says:

    dan, that page does not give a number specifically for the manmade component of co2 in the atmosphere.

    Try this page:

    Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made
    additions Total (ppb) Concentration % of Total
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520
    11,880 368,400 99.438%
    Methane (CH4) 848 577 320
    1,745 0.471%
    Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15
    312 0.084%
    Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.) 25 0
    2 27 0.007%
    Total 289,158 69,109
    12,217 370,484 100.00%

    In 200, the amount of manmade co2 was 11,880 parts per billion, 11.88 parts per million. I rounded it to 12 ppm. So I’m being generous.

    And these gh gases only account for approx. 5% of the entire greenhouse effect. The other 95% is vapor… clouds.

    1800 years is nothing in geologic time. Try going back a few hundred thousand years. Her is Al Gores very own graph that does that.

    It clearly shows that co2 has never lead temperarure rise. Temps have always led co2.

  13. Tunderbar says:

    That should read

    “In ***2000***, the amount of manmade co2 was 11,880 parts per billion, 11.88 parts per million. I rounded it to 12 ppm. So I’m being generous.”

  14. Tunderbar says:

    Wrong chart, here is the correct one:

    I wish I could find a clearer image. But it shows that temps always lead co2 levels.

  15. Buckstomp says:

    Trentelman, why do you erroneously insinuate that evidence against anthropomorphic climate change and global warming itself doesn’t exist in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Get your facts straight…it does exist. Furthermore, even peer-reviewed journals, your so called highest standard of research, is marred by politics.

    An analysis published by the Science and Public Policy Institute found that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process is flawed because very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. According to the analysis, the IPCC erroneously has us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report.

    A review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics (Science and Public Policy Institute).

    What about evidence in the peer-reviewed literature?

    Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.”

    A per-reviewed study Published in Geophysical Research Letters finds global warming over the last century is linked to natural causes.

    Another peer-reviewed study that counters global warming theory published in Geophysical Research Letters finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age.

    A critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm.

    Yet another peer-reviewed study published in Geophysical Research Letters finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming.

    A study published in Science Daily revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers

    A team of scientists in a study published in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics question the validity of global temperatures.

    The Danish National Space Center Study concluded that the “Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.”

    Why do we even waste our time trying to point out this stuff to those who have joined the new man made global warming cult?

  16. dan s. says:


    I followed your link to and found there a table that purports to break down the increase in atmospheric CO2 into \natural\ and \man-made\ portions. That page, in turn, cites as a source a report from Oak Ridge National Lab. But when I go to the linked ORNL web page (, I find nothing there to justify the breakdown. (Incidentally, the table is dated 2000 but the linked ORNL page was last updated December 2008.)

    It would be quite a coincidence if CO2 levels remained constant (to within a few percent) for thousands of years, then suddenly shot upward by 25% over the last two centuries for reasons totally unrelated to human activity–at exactly the same time that humans began dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Quite a coincidence.

    My best guess is that the author of the site, or whoever created that table with the breakdown, is playing linguistic games with the words \natural\ and \man-made\. CO2 is constantly being absorbed and released by plants and by the oceans, so you could, I suppose, call a molecule “natural” as long as that particular molecule didn’t come directly from human activity. But there’s no physical difference between one CO2 molecule and another, so this terminology would be meaningless. The question isn’t where each particular molecule came from; it’s what the CO2 concentration would be today if it weren’t for industrial human activity. The answer to that question is 280 ppm, about 100 ppm less than the actual present-day level.

  17. ctrentelman says:

    I would encourage Tunderbar and Buckstomp to try to stick to the initial theme of the blog: People who don’t “believe” in global warming because to do so might cost them money were told by their own scientists that human activity was causing global warming, so they supressed the evidence.

    That is hardly in the spirit of free academic research.

    Mr. Buckstomp, I am certain that if you peruse the entire world literature you can find some articles which, if read singly, or interpreted broadly, can seem to be opposed to the majority of the literature on the subject. That’s the fun part of science — there’s lots of nooks and crannies.

    Some of the articles you mention, just going by what you say, seem to me to be off the mark.

    A Danish study says the sun is the “main” forcing agent in climate change? It always has been. What we’re talking about, however, is additions that throw off the balance of forces on the planet prematurely, or to a greater degree. The forces that keep warm air around the equator, for example, are massive on both sides and it doesn’t take much to upset that balance.

    And so on. Again, I have to think the IPCC folks, some of whom I have had the opportunity to talk to at Utah symposia, know what they’re talking about.

    Sadly, you and Tunderbar put a LOT of weight on those few but then pooh-pooh the vast majority, saying that they are written by people trrying to justify grants. You can’t have it both ways, with these studies proving something, but the others obviously tainted because you question the motives of the people who wrote them, mostly, because you disagree with their conclusions.

    As the NYT article at the beginning suggests, it is the motives of the deniers of global warming that are suspect. Whatever grants professors at universities get out of this (and it’s not much) the money to be protected by major gas and oil companies is a lot bigger.

    Which is why, given the opportunity to use their own scientists to release information that could show human caused global warming, they put the lid on it.

  18. Tunderbar says:

    That table is from the US Dept of Energy. What linguistic games can one play with manmade? Either it came from a manmade source or it didn’t. Man only started to produce truly significant amounts of CO2 since 1945. Way less was produced before that. But temps have been going up approx. .7 degrees every hundred years since the Little Ice Age in the the 1600′s. Way before the 1940′s, and way before the 1800′s, temps have been showing a steady and relatively constant upward trend of .7 degrees per hundred years.

    To recap, man has only produced approx. 12 ppm of CO2. The actual levels went from approx. 280 ppm to 380 ppm in the last hundred years. Approx. 88 ppm came from natural variability.

    12 ppm is approx. one one hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere. Minute.

    CO2 is a life giving gas. As important to life on Earth as oxygen. 12 ppm is nothing or next to it. It is a trace amount.

    The whole idea that a trifling 12 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow a major culprit in catastrophically altering the climate of the entire planets atmosphere and overiding the impact of the hydrosphere which is 250 times the mass of the entire atmosphere, is insanely ridiculous. Not to mention physically impossible, and I mean phisically impossible in terms of the physics (as in the mathematical science) of the matter.

    Global warming has nothing to do with facts or science and everything to do with the left leaning politics of the IPCC and the greedy profiteering of the Profit Al Gore and the continued search for funding of hundreds of useless computer climate modellers.

  19. Buckstomp says:

    Mr. Trentelman, with all due respect, the initial theme of your blog includes the implication that evidence against anthropomorphic climate change and global warming doesn’t exist in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is simply incorrect, hence the reason for naming a few references for your readers. Furthermore, you mistakenly misrepresent me as putting “a LOT of weight on those few but then pooh-pooh the vast majority, saying that they are written by people trying to justify grants.”

    Read my post again carefully, I make no such assumption. Rather, I’m calling you on the erroneous implication of non-existent peer reviewed research against anthropomorphic climate change. There is much more peer reviewed evidence, more than I can name in a simple bog response, if one would take the time to look it up. However, a “tit-for-tat” exercise regarding the existence of such is futile, especially when it appears that you have already made up your mind.

    Herein lies the danger with such inflexible thinking, especially as it relates to science. Good science does not respect a consensus within a political climate, nor does it disregard alternative research on any scientific subject. The danger we have with this particular issue is that it has become contaminated by politics, on both sides, with a cult-like phenomena endemic of a group-think mentality…all at the expense of the scientific method.

    Asked if I believe whether anthropomorphic climate change exists or not, my response would be that I don’t know for sure because the science is not precise, nor are the resulting hypotheses based upon the differences that exist within the scientific community.

    It’s silly to jump on a pop-cultural bandwagon based upon what is politically hip or in vogue when it comes to science…which seems to be the case regarding the whole global warming hysteria.

  20. dan s. says:


    Here’s a good summary of how we know the CO2 increase over the last 200 years has been caused entirely by humans:

    Here’s a graph showing that CO2 levels are now significantly higher than at any time over the last 400,000 years:

    To find a time when CO2 was higher than at present, you have to go back much farther–tens of millions of years. So the coincidence that you seem to believe in (that CO2 levels would have naturally risen almost as much over the last two centuries without human activity) would be truly remarkable.

    Again, the breakdown between “natural” and “man-made” in the table you cited is either fabricated or meaningless. The atmosphere is constantly exchanging CO2 with plants and oceans at a rate that far exceeds the rate of human emissions, but these natural processes are in balance. Human activity is what has put the processes out of balance and caused CO2 levels to rise.

    Here are some numbers that are beyond dispute:

    Total mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere now: 3 quadrillion kilograms.

    Total mass of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels each year: 30 trillion kilograms.

    The second number is 1% of the first number, so if there were no other processes that affect atmospheric CO2, the overall level would be increasing at a rate of 1% per year. At this rate, it would have taken only 26 years to raise the atmospheric concentration from 280 to 380 ppm. The reality is more complicated because (a) there are other human-caused emissions besides fossil fuels; (b) the rate of emissions wasn’t as high 26 years ago as it is today; and (c) natural processes have removed a good fraction of the excess CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere.

    Even the dissident scientists who dispute various aspects of the consensus view on global warming don’t dispute the facts about CO2 outlined here. I would challenge you to name a single qualified scientist who does.

  21. The Lovely Jennifer says:

    Wow – head bashing at the highest levels! What fun. Isn’t everything basically cyclic? Ice ages. Warming periods. Economies. Recessions. Cicadas. Caibou and wolf populations. Cycles are natural. Humans are natural. We didn’t invade the earth, we are part of it. Climate is natural. Balance is natural. It happens. We are caretakers, and some have gotten greedy and careless. What comes around, goes around. The circle of life. You say the truth will out … I say the balance will out, it’s just a question of when.

    side note: whichever side you are on in the research, bias happens. You’re going to pick the studies that support your view. Politicians do it all the time. Law makers do it all the time. Religions do it all the time. Limbaugh dittoheads do it all the time. Scientists do it all the time. Researchers do it all the time. Analysts do it all the time. Humans do it all the time.


  22. dan s. says:


    Individual scientists are biased, but the discipline as a whole has a big advantage over politics or religion: we can fall back on the facts to determine who’s right. The cause of increasing CO2 levels is ultimately a matter of fact, not opinion. The data is in, and there is no longer any debate over this question among scientists who understand the data.

    What we should do about it, if anything, is a question of politics and ethics, not science. That’s where there is room for rational debate.

  23. The Lovely Jennifer says:

    Yah, I agree – facts is facts, and determining the right data to look at is pretty much a given.

    I’m not on either side, though. I’m going with the cycle thing – and how equilibrium always seems to be the natural goal of things.

    Whatever happens, what we decide to do about the climate situation may or may not help that balace be reached quicker. Nature may have a different idea of what the balance is to be this time around. That’s how I feel about it.

    However, I will also do my part, however small, to continue to take care of my little piece of the universe – and let the scientific community research and figure out ways to take care of the bigger sphere, hopefully without messing up my little sphere. :) If the option is to do nothing and wait for the cycle to go around, then so be it. But there are too many (not so ethical, and with agendas of their own) people who want a piece of whatever pie can be generated by convincing people that something NEEDS to be done.


  24. ctrentelman says:

    Saying “it’s a natural cycle” may be soothing, but as Dan has so well argued, the problem is that there is nothing natural about the carbon amounts that human activity is adding to the great chemical/physical system we call planet Earth. Any small addition of an outside catalyst to ANY chemical or physical system can cause disruptions that are decidedly unnatural, and we would be foolish to ignore that possibility.

    If, by doing something, we can mitigate that cycle, then we should. Either that or figure out better ways to live within the cycle, which amounts to the same thing.

    It may be nice to say “it’s a natural cycle,” but a natural cycle that causes the seas to rise several feet in the next 100 years is going to be the cause of very decidedly unnatural suffering and disruption to the decidedly unnatural social and economic system in which we live.

  25. Russ Hackler says:


    I don’t know anyone that claims there is no climate change (or even that man has no effect on the climate), only the amount impact that man makes in the “threat” to mankind from global warming. So most of the argument is really based on a “straw man”, but at least you are willing to discuss the science, and I give you credit for that.

    There is no scientific consensus that climate change is man-made or that immediate (and costly) action needs to be undertaken. But of course, the politicians are just coming on board global warming as the myth of scientific consensus is starting to be revealed (with virtually no help from the main stream media).

    I think particularly with the current economic situation, the last thing the US needs to do is implement something stupid like a “cap-&-trade” tax, greatly increasing the cost of energy, and thereby all consumer products as well…this plan will devastate the economy and is much more imminent than global warming.

    BTW, how does the global warming crowd explain the last decade of temperature decline or stability, even with an increase of carbon dioxide? There computer models can’t even explain the current climate, let alone accurately predict 100 years into the future. Of this I would love to hear an explanation.

  26. The sad part about all the media hype about climate change it that it diverts our planet’s resources from important issues that have solutions: malaria, over fishing, plastic detrus in the oceans, over logging, agricultural pollution, HIV/AIDS and on and on.

    Obama and his ilk are prepared to spend a lot of money trying to do the right thing the wrong way in the wrong places.

    For a smart man, he has a pretty poor view of the forest because of all the trees.

  27. dan s. says:


    Again I’ll steer clear of any discussion of what should be done about climate change.

    But you’re flat-out wrong when you say there’s no consensus that climate change (specifically, the increased average global temperatures that we’ve seen over the last century) is man made.

    Computer climate models aren’t designed to predict temperatures on a year-by-year or even decade-by-decade basis. They predict long-term trends. If the global average temperature remains approximately unchanged for another decade or two, then you can announce that the models were wrong.

  28. Frank says:

    I noticed today that the US House of Reresentatives narrowly passed the “cap-n-tax” bill that will cost each of us Utahn’s over $4000 per year to heat and cool our homes, and who knopws how much to do so for businesses, large and small. Not to mention those places which make stuff (like Kennecott copper, the diaper factory, etc.).

    I noticed that Rob Bishop was vocal about his voting against it. How did the other “representatives” from Utah vote?

  29. Muttleylax says:

    When it comes to Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (formally known as AGW Anthrop Global Warming), separating science from politics has become exceedingly difficult, as a result, you see scientists following politician’s/gov’s agenda and/or scientists acting as environment political activists (James Hansen) instead of doing research, Then you see unscrupulous politicians speaking/acting as if they were scientists (Al Gore among others)…..
    These politicians clearly serve 2 things above all others: themselves and their own careers….
    Not one PRO-ACC scientist accepted an open debate with any ACC skeptic scientist, you would think that a matter of great importance like this one deserves a second opinion, particularly when those who have that 2nd opinion are some of the best scientists in the world….
    Anybody cares to elaborate on all this?

  30. Russ Hackler says:

    Dan S.,

    I still haven’t seen anyone (including Trentelman) address the issue of the lack of these computer models ability to predict or explain the lack of global warming over the last 11 years (unfortunately for the poor global warming alarmists, global warming sort of stalled in 1998, and they had to start using “climate change” to peddle their alarmist BS).

    How about one of you global warming alarmist step up & grow a pair to explain why we should completly alter our lifestyle & pay significantly more for our energy (I would guess about 90% more according to REAL estimates as well as England’s experiences) based on computer models that can’t even explain (and definitely didn’t predict) the weather we’ve seen for the past decade, let along predict what we will experience over the next 100 or 200 years or more.

    The way I see all of this…green is just the new red. The lefties want us to all live less prosperous lives while they have power to dictate everything we can do (including controlling our toilets, lightbulbs, cars, housing, etc…ad infinitem) while of course exempting themselves (paging Al Gore you big fat hypocrite) from all of the pain that will follow.

    American capitalism has provided average people the highest standards of living, best working conditions, cleanest water & air and the greatest technological advances in the world, and these global warming alarmist are willing to risk it all (for us of course) for some theoretical threat that can’t be proven for decades.

    I am old enough to remember the hysteria over the coming global ice age that scientists were positive was coming our way (back in the early 1970s – and I think they had scientific “consensus” then too)…and remarkably, the alarmists predictions required pretty much the same big government solutions with austerity measures for me & you…this farce has to end sometime. Give me a break…this is a joke.

  31. Russ Hackler says:

    Oh BTW, the whole idea of scientific “consensus” regarding anthropogenic global warming is a joke. Scientific consensus is meaningless unless you’re talking about something like the law of gravity, but even then there are probably still some scientists that are skeptical. (That’s the nature of the scientific process.)

    Climate change alarmists (particularly Al Gore) have used the supposed scientific “consensus” for anthropogenic global warming to corral people into following them, while allowing them to label anyone that disagrees (many of the most well qualified climate scientists) as deniers, without having to answer their “heretical” claims which deviate from their faith-based belief in anthropogenic global climate change.

  32. Russ Hackler says:

    Find more information about the REAL climate scientists (more than 700) that disgree with the supposed scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming at: (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>