Quantcast

Climate science is a ‘religion,’ Washington Post columnist claims

By
Sunday, February 6, 2011 20:26 EDT
google plus icon
Topics:
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

A Washington Post columnist recently attacked a Nobel Prize winner by claiming that the scientific consensus that backs climate change is essentially a religious institution.

“Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming,” Charles Krauthammer said on PBS’s Inside Washington Saturday.

He continued, “Look, everything is – it’s a religion.”

Host Gordon Peterson kicked off the discussion, quoting former vice president Al Gore in a recent interview with a New York Times columnist.

““There is about four percent more water vapor in the atmosphere today than there was in 1970,” Gore told Gail Collins.

Gore further explained that the extra water appeared because the warmer oceans and air returned to earth as heavier precipitation.

However, this scientific fact escaped Krauthammer who instead called for proof that climate change is wrong.

“You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming, and I’ll be surprised,” he said.

Krauthammer would indeed be surprised because the climate science community unanimously agreed that human industry directly effects the Earth’s climate.

“It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases,” the US government’s Global Change Research Program reported. [PDF] “Such studies have only recently been used to determine the causes of some changes in extremes at the scale of a continent. Certain aspects of observed increases in temperature extremes have been linked to human influences.”

Their summary concluded: “In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.

“Current and future impacts resulting from these changes depend not only on the changes in extremes, but also on responses by human and natural systems.”

This video is of PBS’s Inside Washington, broadcast Feb. 5, 2011, as sniped by climatebrad.

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • Anonymous

    Opposing something simply because a librul says it has become a quasi-religion for the American Nazi Party. They exist only because a lot of dumbasses swallow their lies and hatespeech. For the Nazis and their supporters, ignorance is a virtue, lying and hatespeechifying are prerequisites, and facts are for left-wing, counterculture McGoverniks.

    Maybe we do need another civil war so we can reduce the population of the parallel universe, Cancervatron.

  • JhoffaX

    Climate Pope Algore needs to live by his own rules if he wants to be taken seriously.

  • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

    Yeah, global warming is a religion. It couldn’t possibly be be based on verifiable, replicatable science, now could it? Hey, Mr. Krauthammer – what other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    It’s Krauthhammer. That explains everything. I think he was damaged at birth.
    The WaPo isn’t doing its all ready damaged brand any good by keeping on the crazies.

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ hounddogg

    i’m praying to the Climate Fairy that Green Bay will win!…

  • Anonymous

    As I have pointed out in the past, the scientists that allowed the media to coin the phrase “Global Warming” have done more damage to their cause than any two bit political hack columnist.

    The correct phrase all along was and still is “Accelerated Climate Change”

    Even though most people can not see beyond a five week time frame it should be apparent that we are experiencing climate extremes. Extreme warming and extreme cooling go hand in hand as climate is a balance of atmospheric forces.

    Whether the current disruption is caused by “Interstellar dust clouds”, “reduced solar wind speed”, “reduced solar activity during a supposed time of enhanced activity in the 11 or 22 if you wish solar cycle” or finally human aspects remains to be seen.

    There are several interesting hypothesis regarding interaction of the sun’s magnetosphere and the earth’s heighten geomagnetic polar drift. All I can tell you is it is cold for this time of year. It may be hotter than hell this summer on the other end of the extremes.

  • Anonymous

    Tax-exempt, I would assume.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NH5L7LBQW3TAAZBWMLCFATDBDI Gary

    Global warming is caused by at least three things:

    1. The Sun (Duh)
    2. Volcanoes release more CO2 annually than mankind ever has
    3. Atmospheric CO2 exchange with the oceans. CO2 dissolves in water, as even children can see whenever they open a bottle of soda pop.

  • Anonymous

    I wish I was stupid enough to be a columnist. Apparently I graduated from high school with some scientific literacy, so I’m overqualified to be a columnist.

  • Anonymous

    Now THAT’S something I can get behind!

  • Anonymous

    i would say its more like computer-assisted astrology

  • Alice Mechler

    IDIOT! I totally agree Texas_Independent_Texas_Proud – The term ‘Global Warming’ is a manufactured term that has no real meaning. Whoever, scientists or media, that allow the use of it are ill informed and slightly mentally challenged…or deliberately obtuse! It’s sad that we must rock along and wait for it to culminate while the rest twiddle their thumbs and media spouts inane remarks.

  • Taleisin

    “You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming, and I’ll be surprised,” he said.

    Why don’t you find me that piece if evidence instead.
    Making jokes about Godzilla doesn’t display reasonable science to me.
    Or is that all you can come up with?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Al gore has provided no facts as to why human being are responsible for the climate of an entire planet.

    There is absolutely no study of any kind conclusively linking human activity to a change in weather. Only loose correlations that dont take into account other factors.

    Yet look at the following he has. Its brainwashing and bullying.

  • Anonymous

    He does. Krauthammer does not.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/RepublicConstitution?feature=mhum TruthRegimes

    Whether one buys the warmista’s ideas or not, anyone can see that the libs/progressives/leftists have a religious zeal and complete investment in the idea that humanity is horrible and evil. Global Warming Alarmist agenda is clearly being used to bring about a Global Carbon Tax which will be imposed on everyone, except for those who inevitably will be given special dispensations, to pay to the UN or IMF or World Bank or some other corrupt institution which will NEVER fix anything. More than this, anyone who knows anything about science knows that there is always disagreement, debates, multiple theories, etc. To try to pretend that the Sun plays not roll in Climate Change is beyond ludicrous.

  • http://twitter.com/loganbacon loganbacon

    Krauthammer isn’t worth listening to, and the Post has become unreadable.

  • Anonymous

    With all the flatulence from the Washington Post, not to mention the rest of the MSM, extensive further Global Warming is absolutely guaranteed–even if we get off fossil fuels tomorrow.

    Now, in addition to taxing the wellhead, we are obligated to tax the orifices of Krauthammer and company, in addition to various jokers here.

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer has always, always been a self-promoting pain in the ass who is about as noteworthy as, well, Sarah Palin (TM). And for about the same reasons, except for the beauty pageant thing, because god knows he ain’t no beauty.

  • Anonymous

    May we please start ignoring this sh!t, They only say it for attention. Why does Raw bother with this non sense.?

  • Anonymous

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5FCWNQBKNNIWWP4FMVTXIB7IGE Surya Dharma

    Not surprising! From a guy who was “religious” on Saddam’s WMD, a self-paying war, and rose petals welcome for the liberators…
    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jan/15/00020/

  • Guest

    C-O-M-M-O-N S-E-N-S-E is damned good evidence too…of which you have zip!

  • Guest

    Well said!

  • http://twitter.com/YumaCat Robert Lee Bennight

    Prime example: Everyone here was convinced global warming was responsible for the big blizzard we just had, which had the 4th largest snowfall ever recorded. Sounds good, until you ask when the 1st record snowfall was. Actually two of the three happened before 1930 and the largest was during the last two days of March 1918. I am not saying that climate change isn’t a reality or that humans have absolutely no part in it; however, just don’t dismiss those who question obvious inconsistencies as “idiots” who don’t get it. We get it; everyone, even those who want to do good and may even be right most of the time, can be so blinded by their ideology that they might make connections that just are not there.

  • Anonymous

    Kraut is just another neocon liar; the POST is just another outlet for the Faux News-led MSM.

  • Anonymous

    Put down the joint. Step away from the computer.

    NOW.

  • Anonymous

    Nobody cares what Herr KKKrautheimer has to belch up not even the wingnuts he supports.

  • http://random-gary.blogspot.com/ Gary

    2 & 3 are old arguments that are incorrect and have been proven wrong. Automobiles alone put out more co2 in one year than volcanoes do in 10.

  • Anonymous

    Why can’t we call “free market fundamentalism” a religion. They’re worse than evangelicals.

  • Anonymous

    Climate Change has done to news editors, lazy copy and paste journalists, climatologists, progressivism and all of science itself, what nasty priests did for religion. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of needed population control. Nice job. Scientists produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. And how ironic is it that up until 25 years ago when this CO2 insanity started, scientists were condemned by environmentalism for producing the planet killing chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place? In his State of the Union Address, President Obama, the leader of the free world, didnt mention the words Climate Change or EPA once. So why are the thousands of consensus scientists not marching in protest? Continued support of the climate change mass insanity is hurting everyone and the planet as it splits environmental efforts, alienates support for responsible environmentalism and drags well intentioned progressivism and public intellectualism down with it. History is watching. Remove the CO2 mistake and carry on without the needless and thoughtless CO2 death threats to our children. If you still think the former believer majority will now switch back to voting YES to taxing the air to make the weather colder, YOU are the new denier. Pollution is real. We get it. Grow some. It’s ok my child, the planet is not dying. Life is good for those who face the future challenges with courage, not like climate cowards.

  • Anonymous

    Many people BELIEVE that rationality is a good basis for decision making. Apparently, Krauthammer is not one of them.

  • Anonymous

    And making a fake CO2 stock market to trade AIR is supposed to be anti-capitalist too? Is bowing to a politician who is promising to lower the seas wiith taxes supposed to be considered progressive? Is condemning our kids to a death by CO2 just to get them to turn the lights out more often supposed to be considered loving and Liberal?
    Climate Change was an ideological Iraq War of climate lies and neocon-like fear mongering.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a lot of real fault to apply to the banksters, but not this. I for one would like to see the top echelon of all the bankers marched off to Gitmo. We’ve got to find a way to deal with this issue and we won’t until the Flat Earth’ers that Krauthammer respresents are sidelined. Of course, that assumes we can do it before we pass the tipping point.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Krauthammer sees global warming as a religion! The positions he takes on just about everything are “religious”. The psychological term is “projection”…

  • http://twitter.com/Michael_Gaston Michael Gaston

    Krauthammer must be making good money with this political hogwash. It sure isn’t his writing that’s paying the bills. True?

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer, like most of the American public, is not only not a scientist, but woefully equipped to understand the scientific process. The evidence walks like a global warming duck. It quacks like a global warming duck. The only religion here, as with the vaccine denialists, is that of denial.

  • Anonymous

    The greenhouse gas spewing from this commentator’s lips rival the rectal output of a cow. Who made him an expert on anything? What is his degree is- arseholeism?

  • Anonymous

    Dressing up an anti-science position as “common sense”. Uh huh. Role on the rise of the Flat Earth Society, or the Man Will Never Fly brigade. Don’t believe verifiable results! Don’t trust peer reviewed research! Don’t believe deduction and logic! Trust your self-serving instinct and wishful thinking, and mock anyone saying otherwise!

  • Anonymous

    Glad to hear a rwjn admit, in his own way, that religion is total bullshit.

  • Anonymous

    For some, pandering to corporate power, money and interests via Willful Ignorance is a self humiliating perversion. Krauthammer needs therapy.

  • Anonymous

    This goes out to the nonsensical, subsidy-taking, in the tank columnists who are in denial: “After all my logic and my theory, I add a motherf***er so you ign’ant n****as hear me.” -The Fugees “Fugee-La”

  • Anonymous

    So what makes Charles Krauthammer, a proven torture apologist (see his apologia for torture in the Dec. 5, 2005 issue of the Weekly Standard), just what makes this defender of evil an expert on climate science? What qualifications does Charles Krauthammer possess that make him competent to judge the work of climate scientists? Is he part of the community of scientists that peer review scientific research? No, he isn’t. He is a Fox News talking head, a neoconservative blowhard that pollutes the Washington Post with a regular column, in addition to several other ideological publications that seem to originate from a fantasy land. Mr. Krauthammer, for all of your arrogance, when you speak about climate science you are really just embarrassing yourself in front of educated people. As inconvenient as facts are, please try to educate yourself to the realities we face.

    And what is it about religious conservatives that always label things they don’t understand as “religion.” – what is it? They do the same thing with evolution. Can’t they understand anything outside a paradigm of faith?

    We better start teaching our kids critical thinking skills fast or this nation is screwed.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think you’ll get many libs to believe that cap and trade is environmentally friendly but regardless of the bullshit you’re spewing, and which, apparently, you will spew even while the oceans flood your Long Beach house in 50 years, it is scientifically verified and proven. Mother Nature is not arguing with you.

  • Anonymous

    This sentence is horseshit: Krauthammer would indeed be surprised because the climate science community unanimously agreed that human industry directly effects the Earth’s climate….Unanimous? Can not wait for Krauthammer to logically deconstruct this on Monday.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SN4MGOHXTG2XVUWT2H75KHCDME Bill

    Global warming is NATURAL. Just as global cooling is. The Earth will NATURALLY cool and NATURALLY heat. If I dump a bottle of water into the ocean, technically I am contributing to its size, but that difference is so insignificant. That’s our contribution when you weight NATURAL Earth activities like volcanic eruptions. Most anyone with a brain will tell you the right is certainly not “right,” but let’s not think the left is that much better. Global Warming is an excuse for SO MANY global TAXES, which explains why businesses are against it. It’s actually a good thing when the Earth warms for the most part (little ice age, plague, etc. resulted from cooling; wouldn’t we like a LONGER growing season??), save maybe a couple of tropical storms and NATURAL flooding in places like FLA and NOLA. Did you know that they were once underwater? That’s because they are below SEA LEVEL. We can’t do anything about NATURE. Shit happens!

    (RED PILL- http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com)

  • Anonymous

    Calling it global warming might have been the biggest mistake of the climate movement. It is an indication of more extreme weather. We have hotter summers and colder winters, bigger storms and bigger droughts. And again, don’t take our hippie, Commie words for it, take the words of scientists who study this shit and 97% of whom agree that climate change is caused by human-initiated activity.

  • Anonymous

    I’d say the religion of brainwashing is strong with you

  • Anonymous

    Very well said. Your statement about how Extreme Climate Change has been allowed to be called Global Warming is spot on. I just said something similar upthread.

  • Anonymous

    You apparently need to think for yourself.

  • Taleisin

    There is purportedly no evidence conclusively linking smoking to lung cancer.
    So should I keep smoking?

    We were warned of global warming in the 80s and those predictions are in line with the weather patterns we see today. We know ocean levels are rising, ice is melting, droughts and floods are worsening.

    The hole on the Ozone is becoming a problem in the southern hemisphere. If man can affect the planet to such a dramatic effect, I would think it reasonable to consider we may be adversely affecting it in other ways as well.

    Our lifestyles are unsustainable, we know it. The changing world weather patterns do not mind whether we want to believe in global warming or not.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_67KINN55N5QI7ADKVMDQQRCTVE Keith King

    Okaaaaaaay….. let me get this straight. The science of global warming is a religion….. but, the science of the theory of evolution is NOT?? This is why religion is stoooopid. And why these religious nut jobs are frauds. It’s pick and choose which “science” fits their narrow-minded, little pea-brains.

  • Taleisin

    How dare he slur religion like that!
    If global warming was going to happen, it would have got a mention in the bible.
    It didn’t, therefore it is as fraudulent as those dinosaur bones. ;)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_67KINN55N5QI7ADKVMDQQRCTVE Keith King

    What a giant, economy-sized bowl of hot, steaming horsecrap.

  • Anonymous

    I found it funny that I knew EXACTLY who the source of the nonsense in this article would be from the headline on Raw’s home page. Sounds like something Krauthammer would say, I thought. Please Chuck, you, Pat, and all your other Nixon/Reagan era scrot-lickers, retire, your tongues must certainly be worn and tired from licking so much S#it for forty years. Ronnie’s Tampons, Rah Rah.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers
  • Taleisin

    Keep the debate going and nothing will get done. Oil companies will continue making record profits and we can keep driving our 4x4s.
    Kruthammer is only spewing this to keep his oil shares healthy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_67KINN55N5QI7ADKVMDQQRCTVE Keith King

    No, the brainwashing and bullying is from the church’s bully pulpit, telling us that evolution is not good science either, and instead we need “creationism”. So, global-warming science is religion, but evolution needs religion so we can believe in creationism. wow, you jesus freaks are weird.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers
  • Anonymous

    Hum, that’s why the PENTAGON came out with a report last year and it said THE GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA IS CLIMATE CHANGE period. The PENTAGON

  • Anonymous

    Hired gun Krautie pockets another speaking fee from the fossil fuel industry. No money’s too dirty.

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer = free lance Fox News wanna be playa

  • llkernj

    The Hammer is one of the stupidest people I have EVER heard. And I’m pretty old.

  • Knot

    If climate science is a religion, does that mean green technologies are exempt from taxes?

  • Anonymous

    Climate change is real unfortunately the Pentagon’s been releasing a lot of crap statements recently so I wouldn’t use them as scientific proof.

  • Anonymous

    Global warming is natural the same way death is natural. People die from natural causes, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be killed. The predictions of more frequent extreme weather events such as the heat wave and drought in Russia last summer and the flooding in Australia came from climate scientists that found evidence for anthropogenic global warming not from anyone claiming it due to a bunch of natural cycles.

    As far as taxes go the only one I have heard about is a carbon tax to be substituted for the payroll tax. This would be revenue neutral and a good idea on it’s own regardless of global warming. We need to get off of fossil fuels. It took a century to completely build the infrastructure to use fossil fuels. We may need that long to build an infrastructure to get off them. We don’t have a century’s worth of fossil fuels, at least not oil. So the sooner we start the better.

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ Stumptownhero

    Bill you are right about ONE thing, there is a natural cycle. What you are wrong about is that warming will be good for any part of the planet. Rising sea levels will disrupt commerce and destroy sea side property. Extreme weather destroys crops and creates food shortages.

    How we respond to the rising level of green house gases will determine if your grand children live in a time of peace or a time of war.

  • Anonymous

    During Ronnie’s first term, the Navy went to some Congress critters and said that because of the time line for building new ships, that Congress needed to start planing for a new fleet to patrol the open waters of the Arctic Ocean. This was around 82 or 83. Of course, they were laughed out of the meeting. Please believe me, the Pentagon has a lot of really sharp people working there. These people make their living coming up with quality, actionable information, Then, the Congress critters start playing their game.

  • Anonymous

    Charles Krauthammer is an asshole propagandist for the neocon lie machine.

    That said, he is absolutely correct on this subject. “Man Made Global Warming” is a total fraud.

  • Anonymous

    I believe you are confusing weather with climate….No one event can indicate climate change. It is the mass of accumulated evidence that supports AGW. Peer-reviewed research done by actual climate scientists. No blow hard talking head has any real input into something he clearly does not understand..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ONMKHYWYFBRFKGY4TTSOEJG6CM Judy

    Amen! Everybody knows that humanity is sinful, vile, horrible and evil because THE BIBLE TELLS US SO! Glory!!

    Libruls are just LIARS. Baby Jesus knows it, he told me, and that settles it!

  • Anonymous

    You have no clue….In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ONMKHYWYFBRFKGY4TTSOEJG6CM Judy

    Yes! So-called “science” is Satan’s lies! The only ‘media’ anybody needs is the KJV1611 Holy Bible!

  • Anonymous

    LOL and I’d be he labels Creationism as science.

  • dk504

    Just looking at pig nose and I know what ever he said, is wrong.

    >>>>”Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming,” Charles Krauthammer said on PBS’s Inside Washington Saturday.<<<<<

    WTF???? If that isn't one of the most immature comments I've seen, since, "I'm rubber your glue". What a fucking jackass. When did pig nose become a scientist? Oh wait, he didn't!!!! A-hole.

  • Anonymous

    1) Solar activity has been flat for the last sixty years.

    2) Human activity generates roughly 100 times as much CO2 as volcanic activity.

    3). About half of our CO2 emissioms are absorbed by the oceans. As those same oceans heat, they lose their ability to continue absorbing CO2 and beginning releasing it into the atmosphere.

  • Anonymous

    The IPCC working group 1 went over all the peer-reviewed research on climate science and issued the 4th assessment stating with 90-99% confidence that man is changing the climate. Once again weather and climate are two different things. I think I’ll go with science on this one. Peer – reviewed science that is….Deniers are dead wrong.

  • overdoneputaforkinit

    Oh I see. If it’s mentioned in the Bible like creationism is, then it’s science. But if it’s not in the Bible, as global warming and evolution are not, then it’s religion. I finally get it!

  • Anonymous

    KRAUTHAMMER IS NOT A SCIENTIST…. LOOK AT HIS “RESEARCH” IN PSYCHIATRY
    (you know the right-wing term here…..psycho babble)…… did he do research on the
    sub-cell causes of mania??????……………like a real SCIENTIST WOULD…..LIKE THOSE
    REAL SCIENTISTS FROM ALL OF THE WORLD WHO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO
    DO RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES OF WORLD CLIMATE……………
    SAY….. KRAUTHAMMER…… YOU GAVE UP ON TRYING TO DO REAL SCIENCE….BUT
    INSTEAD YOU PURSUED THE RELIGION OF MORE B A B B L E………….

  • Guest

    warming is measurable and it’s repeatable, which is what makes it science, duhhhhhhhhh, unlike religion.

    “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” -Albert Einstein

  • TheDevilCanDance

    This imbecile is the man behind ‘The Reagan Doctrine’.Tells you a lot about his intellectual & academic accomplishment ….

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/XZOZFUWR3YKJ25ZUAQQZWO7R6I SR

    You guys believe it with the same zealotry as the followers of religious faiths– people that you would generally hold in disdain. Yet, you forget that the state of science is ever changing. The scientific consensuses of 100 years ago look quaint and foolish today, but dont let that stand in the way of a grant-generating ‘scientific’ industry.

    Objective truth is not slave to majority rule, no matter how smart the voters claim themselves to be… or how much money the voters stand to gain.

    This unholy union between wall street and the scientific community will ultimately fail.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/XZOZFUWR3YKJ25ZUAQQZWO7R6I SR

    Climate has changed since climate has existed. You have no right to a static climate, nor will you ever achieve one on planet earth.

  • Anonymous

    Gee, it’s a tough choice here. Let’s see… do I go with the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus, or the neocon shit bag torture apologist?

  • jimbo92107

    Funny thing is, Charles Krauthammer has no evidence to back up his claim, which is a vital distinction between science and religion. Of course, Krauthammer understands this perfectly well, which is why he belongs in a category outside of both science and religion. Charles Krauthammer is an intellectual prostitute, a paid shill for corporate interests that care about nothing but money and power. Good little prostitutes say what they are paid to say.

    Who’s a good doggie? You’re a good doggie, Charlie!

  • DriveBy

    The beauty of American media is, you only have partisan pundits and politicians opining on scientific matters, never actual scientists.
    And they wonder why Americans are so fucking stupid…..

  • Taleisin

    Yes! Now you are thinking like a Fundamentalist Christian.
    Now bash head on keyboard to regain sanity. :)

  • Anonymous

    PLEASE PROSTITUTES MAKE AN HONEST LIVING…………CHANGE THAT TO…

    A BLACKWATER GUY A WITH SOME I Q ………..

  • Alice Mechler

    Dear Mother of the Universe, please protect me from the nonsense spewing from the above mouth (fingers).
    {This particular version of the (as she calls it) Holy Bible is a lie manufactured by a demented king in England and completed 400 years ago. It was rewritten from the ‘original’ Hebrew and Greek to fit the beliefs of said king. James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.}
    May her affliction of religious fervor be tempered by Your love and may she know the Peace of tolerance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1046573071 Matt Mosley

    It IS a religion, as is the monetary system.

    Think all scientists agree on Climate Change? Google “The Oregon Petittion” because at least 19,000 scientists and professionals (like the co-founder of GREEN PEACE) say otherwise.

  • Anonymous

    What a complete windbag. And a stupid windbag at that.

  • godistwaddle

    Krauthammer: prolly a reason he’s crippled in mind as well as body. Science: accepted ideas are ALWAYS overturned on new evidence. Religion: “Let’s stay ignorant.” There’s a difference.

    Viva Zapata!!

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Will anyone ask why the IPCC continues to ignore the time period 10, 000 years prior to 1850, of when the earth managed to have several global warming cycles without an industrialized society? What about the Great Medieval warming of 900AD-1300AD? Will the Church of Climatology ever explain that period? Nor will they ever explain why carbon dioxide, which is apart of the life cycle, can both be high or low in a global warming or global cooling cycle, and really doesn’t drive climate. Maybe that evil big ball of fire in the sky has something to do with our climate, yet the Church of Climatology will ignore it as well. Ask yourself, is it “good science” to only focus on 150 years of the earth’s climate, and say that’s an accurate reading of the climate knowing that the planet is millions of years old? They make it up as they go along. Global warming has now changed to “Climate Change”. When the climate doesn’t do what they “predict” or want it to do, they repackage their efforts and call it “climate change”, so anything they deem “extreme” like snow falling during winter, or it being hot during summer. Ooooh, it’s climate change. Climates change, that’s what they’re supposed to do!

  • http://twitter.com/teresamccarthy teresamccarthy

    Mary please share with us what your scientific degrees might be and where you obtained them, your questions make me think you are a student at Beck U. Unless you can prove to me you have a degree in computational thermodynamics or atmospheric chemistry, your questions and conclusions literally carry no weight.

  • Anonymous

    It’s sometimes hard to tell in print but I do hope that was a snark from dear Judy. If not, “she” and the members of the very homophobic religious right (which are neither) who love to beat us about the head and shoulders with said KJV should be educated to the fact that King James, he of the KJ part of that alphabet collective, was a homosexual, a well documented fact to which they seem utterly ignorant and/or resistant.

  • Anonymous

    It was always climate change. You were just too uninterested and ill-informed to know that.

  • Anonymous

    Awesome, I love it when independent minds(most of them not credentialed scientists) get together on something the oil companies backed. It’s so informative.

  • Anonymous

    Damn, you’re good.

  • Anonymous

    Mary, you need to spend more time getting informed and less time buying the propaganda. I suggest you go right ahead and spend all your money buying land on the coasts of Asia that the supposed Church of Climatology predicts severe storms, damaging tides, and coastal destruction over the next 30 years. Put your money where your ill informed mouth is.

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer knows better. Global warming is real but to Gore it’s his meal ticket.

  • DesertSun59

    The real issue here is not about climate science. The real issue is about a section of our culture, given HUGE credence, that is anti-science as a whole.

    You’ll note that anything anti-science people don’t like is deemed a ‘religion’. That’s because they don’t know what the definition of religion is. That’s because they’re not only anti-science, they’re anti-education.

    A huge swath of American voters have proven they do not like anything that is beyond their noses. This sense of abject poverty of thought was held aloft as a prize during the W years.

    Now we reap the whirlwind.

  • Anonymous

    If its a religion, it has more proof than every other religion combined.
    Where do I join…

  • Anonymous

    “In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy”. (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland).

    The second half of that sentence sort of sums up the climate “science’ belief system.

  • DesertSun59

    Climate science is not a religion, as this article points out.

    And my comment proves that, like W, Mary is one of the anti-science nutbags that pretends to understand science words.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FPBFO6RC5R2HHIP3VXSFU2RZQA mjj

    Let me explain it for you. Just like you see a car billowintg smoke out of the tailpipe there are many possible explanations to the phenomena. The engine may be too old, it may have lacked regular maintainence, the wrong oil was used, substandard parts were used to make the engine, the engine was abused etc etc. When you point out those those time periods you are ignoring the facts that such civilizations were burning huge amounts of wood and or coal in their primitive industries. An example the glag of Lebanaon has a spruce tree on it. At one time Lebanaon was covered in spruce trees. The Romans cut them down and burned them. Try finding spruce trees in Lebanon now.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    Correct. On Backwards Day!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    Poverty of thought is the product of decades of social control bought and paid for by Corporate America through media and thinktanks. The politicians work for THEM, not for US.

    And most people are stupid.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    I doubt that he’s stupid. He’s doubtlessly extremely intelligent and profoundly cynical. That’s what it takes to be a propagandist for the Plutocracy.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

    You’re an idiot.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    Let’s see, who do I believe, the unanimous voice of climate professionals not in the employ of the oil industry, or Mary? Hmmm.. that’s such a difficult choice! Oh what should I do??

    Hey Mary, just because I check the oil in my car doesn’t qualify me as an auto mechanic. And you are a climatologist like I’m Tinker Bell.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    Even if she holds those degrees the comments carry no weight, for if she does, she’s obviously in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, groping wildly for straws to grasp.

    But I doubt it — I think she’s just a lay person fancying herself intelligent who’s been “educated” by, as you say, Beck U and Liberty University.

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer’s picture should be in the thesaurus next to the phrase “paid ideological moron”. What a putz.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, sure, it’s Al Gore’s meal ticket. He’s only been talking about this for THIRTY FREAKING YEARS. He had it planned all that time, that it would be his paying gig, when he was in his golden years. You idiot.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    Evidently Farthammer went to the Sarah Palin School of Stick-to-it-iveness.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    Nor you a right to insist we ignore the obvious. We will not continue to let fossil fuels change it for the worse. Besides, weaning ourselves from fossil fuel is in our national security interest. Yeah, I know you’d rather just continue to indiscriminately kill Muslims and feed the gun and bomb industry as well as the oil tycoons, but we have a different idea.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    We can’t do anything about nature, but we sure can do something about boot lickers for the fossil fuel industry: we can ridicule them for being the ineducable John Bircher types we’ve always ridiculed since they started wearing those tinfoil hats.

    Bill, I hate to break this to you, but no one gives a flying fuck about your opinion on global warming, because in case you haven’t checked, you ain’t no fucking climatologist. Shit happens? How scientific can you get? What a fucking ass.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    I don’t think Farthammer does it via willful ignorance. He does it out of well reasoned self interest. His religion is Mammon, and he’ll sell his own grandchildren (should we have been unlucky enough for such a cretin to reproduce) for money.

    By contrast, it is the cock-sure Beck U. graduate students who post here who are self-humiliating in their willful ignorance. These are the amateur ideological lemmings who jump to Farthammer’s pied piper piccolo, basking in the freedom from the burden of critical thought by empowering Farthammer and his insidious ilk to do their thinking for them.

    That old time religion — is good enough for them.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    Indeed — it’s nigh impossible to explain to a nut case that “global warming” and “local weather” are two entirely different things. These people actually practice being stupid.

    Nonetheless, the planet is getting warmer. Period. End of story. That’s a fact, I don’t give a goddamn how much it snows in Dallas.

  • http://twitter.com/teresamccarthy teresamccarthy

    yes but I am pretty sure she has no clue what computational thermodynamics is, or why it is important in predication modeling. Can you imagine a real scientist spouting such drivel, no I don’t think so. Beck U, Liberty U, Regent U, responsible for ignorance nationwide.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IA2XCA7JNM6SPZZG4HURXHEYBY Trippin Mczoink

    No, actually, it isn’t humanity that’s horrible and evil.

    It’s morally bereft, ideologically bankrupt corporate dick lickers like you who are horrible and evil — your delusion of grandeur just confuses the tight little circle of depraved mental masturbators with whom you socialize with humanity on the whole.

    But not to worry: we on the outside looking in at you and laughing are under no such illusion. We actually like humanity in general, which is why we’re so interested in preserving it.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, you can’t refute an accepted theory simply by saying “It’s not true.” And yes, I intentionally used “theory” instead of “belief,” because people like you apparently don’t understand the difference. A belief is an opinion. A theory is a conclusion based on an accumulation of observations made by human beings. So while you can refute a belief/opinion simply by saying “I don’t agree,” you can’t do the same with a theory–you need to present a body of concrete observations that demonstrate that the previous theory (which again, is itself just a collection of observations) is incorrect. And climate-change deniers (like creationists) NEVER do that. They simply say “it can’t be.” Which ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH.

  • http://www.tommyjonestheband.com RantingTommy

    Denial of man made global climate change is the fraud

  • Guest

    Lol…that’s exactly what I was going to write here but you beat me to it.

  • Anonymous

    I’m also continually amused by the inability of the anti-science crownd to be able to grasp that the existence of previous warming cycles does not disprove accelerated warming and greater possible climate problems now. They’re not mutually exclusive just because you don’t understand them….

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, I believe a religion is supposed to give spiritual relief, instructive myths and a guide for living, should you find yourself needing that. Climate change is simply scientific analysis. Fundamental problems with understanding systems and concepts going on here. Climate science is NOT a religion, in spite of all efforts to paint it as such. Probably because if it were, it could just be declared blasphemy, and those daring to speak it could be punished, ala Pakistan.

  • Anonymous

    “What about the Great Medieval warming of 900AD-1300AD? Will the Church of Climatology ever explain that period?”

    Um, could you please point out which scientists are denying that there have been warming periods in the Earth’s past? I don’t think there are any. Climate-change scientists are observing what’s happening to the Earth’s climate NOW, and how it’s affecting the Earth’s population NOW. What ELSE should they be doing? Just because earlier warming periods didn’t result in the extermination of life on Earth doesn’t mean that the current one shouldn’t be studied and explained. That’s like saying that since human atrocities have always occurred, we shouldn’t bother trying to understand the Holocaust, or Stalin’s purges, or mass rapes in the Congo. Nope, just whistle a happy tune and turn on “Dancing With the Stars”!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OSYTHKLFNG5CIA7NYRB7E7KRA Spy

    Global warming / cooling cycles are inevitable as they have been for millions of years. “Man” takes too much credit for being responsible for the current warming cycle, this is where science and religion cross.

    I have the point of view that given global warming is inevitable, it doesn’t matter what the cause is nor does it matter what we do about it; its going to happen.

    Anyone who believes that cap and trade is going to save humanity is on a religious crusade. Unless human population growth subsides, the demand for energy from ANY source will continue to increase beyond the capacity to produce it without CO2 issues. Human population growth is the 10,000 pound gorilla no one wants to include in calculating energy and global warming issues.

  • Anonymous

    Do you remember the late Seventies or early eighties when scientists claimed we were entering a new ice age?
    Were those scientists Climate change deniers?
    Would you have posted then “Science backs the claim and if you deny it you are wrong?”
    And then twenty years later you would have this same opinion you have now?
    What science do you have to back up climate change other than what you have been spoon fed through the media?
    I would love to see your data from all of the research you personally did to support your claim that man is the cause of global warming.
    You simply agreeing with everything you see in the media and saying it’s true ISN”T GOOD ENOUGH.

  • Anonymous

    If you will recall, the Ice age was not kind to hominids, and a climate event likely caused by an impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. While these were natural events, they were certainly not desirable, though they were inevitable. But since we can affect the amount of damage we do, it would seem to be in our best interests, Earth’s natural cycles and other outside influences aside. People are so hung up on the “warming” label, they fail to get that it really means more extreme weather of many varieties, which will not be an easy thing to deal with.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong! Humanity has a tremendous impact on climate. That’s been proven throughout history. You can’t blame everything on natural cycles. For instance, the severity of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s was due to a drought (natural) combined with years of destructive agricultural practicies that depleted the soil, allowing it to blow away. Here’s another truth: for every ton of coal burned, four tons of carbon dioxide are producted. When you consider the millions of tons of coal (not to mention petroleum) are burned ebery year in this country alone, four times that amount of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. That’s NOT a small amount, and the atmosphere is a finite space. Also consideer this: every ton of carbon dioxide created, means there is one less ton of oxygen available to breathe.

    Krauthammer is a fool and a tool for the fossil fuel industry.

  • Anonymous

    Bull sh*t. False equivalency.

  • Anonymous

    So, is he saying that science is BS or that religion is BS?

  • Anonymous

    As Ronald Reagan used to say, “There you go again.”
    So what if climate scientist in the 1970s said we MAY be entering a new ice age. Their data was inclonclusive and their climate mokels were still evolving. Even those same scientists would now tell you they weren’t sure about it then, but the media grabbed the idea because it was sensational and ran with it. The scientist have had decades to refine their models, data collection, and observations. They can now make more educated predictions.

  • Anonymous

    You are wrong on all counts. There is a climate problem and it is exacerbated by human activity. Fossil fuel use, pollution and population growth all need to be addressed. Attacking cap and trade is a specious argument without merit. What is your solution? The real religious nuts are the lunatics that think free markets can solve all problems. Thorioum proton nuclear energy would be much cleaner and reduce the weapons proliferation problems. Generation and storage of hydrogen from hydrolectric would help. Drill baby drill just continues the spiral toward environmental and geopolitical disaster. Monopolists and tyrants do not change willingly. The captain Queegs(Kochs Morgans etc.) are driving our ship of state. Mutiny is in order and justified.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LJMNZL5KJFX2H5CKWK2S75HU7I Kevin

    Umm actually no. Since people are called “deniers”, then that means the other side are “believers”. You can pretend and try to parse it all you want.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, the climate changes that occured during the paeriod are quite well cocumented. They were studied through such evidence as icecores, lakebed sediments, tree rings, and much more. Your refusal to aknowledge the conlcusions of climate scientists based on those studies astounds me.

  • Anonymous

    Your ignorance of climate history is abysmal. No one denies such things. They have logical explanations that have been taken into account already. Ever bother to read?

  • Wyrdless

    Here is a great time news article about global climate change from Time magazine 1974. Clearly people have been concerned about climate change for decades now. It shows a clear series of trends which lead to global disaster. Get with the program!

    deniers are going to doom us all. Please read this article.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

  • Wyrdless

    Yeah they have been talking about global climate change for 30 years. Here is a times article from 1974 about ‘climate change’

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

  • Anonymous

    We only have the scientists word that climate change actually exists. As Rep. Jack Kingston (who still isn’t wearing his flag pin, by the way) said on Bill Mahers show that the jury is still out on climate change. As we all know, and when I say we, I mean all my Teapublican Brothers and sisters, believe that the democRATS and the 98% have ulterior motives and are using climate change to steel money from our great founding fathers of the Teapublicans such as the Koch Brothers and the rest of those great Americans who gainfully employ us in barely livable paying jobs. And what do scientist know? They can’t even explain how the tides work! They go in and they go out but no one can come up with an explanation that Bill O’Reilly can understand. If a genius like Bill O’Reilly cannot understand it how can I, with only a Bachalor’s degree understand it? Plus, scientist want us to believe that the Planet Earth revolves around the Sun and that the Solar system is on the tip of the Milky Way. But, again as we all know, the Sun, the Planets in our Solar System and the whole Universe revolves around the Earth. That is just irrefutable. And don’t get me started about the lie that the Earth is round. If it was round then why aren’t people falling off it except those who live on the very top?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LJMNZL5KJFX2H5CKWK2S75HU7I Kevin

    ohhhh that why it’s been called “global warming” and “global climate disruption”…because it’s always been called climate change…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LJMNZL5KJFX2H5CKWK2S75HU7I Kevin

    Even if she holds those degrees the comments carry no weight, for if she does, she’s obviously in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, groping wildly for straws to grasp.

    And moronic statements like that are the reasons why there can be no true meaningful debate

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    My refusal? I am now considered a heretic? There are a great deal of climate scientists that disagree with those conclusions of global warming alarmists (being that it’s man made). I’m pointing out that there has been various cycles of global warming & cooling throughout the earth’s history. Yet, climatologist who have studied these cycles couldn’t find a direct correlation between global warming & carbon dioxide. How exactly is is different now? Whenever the IPCC presents it’s research, they completely leave this information out. Much like Michael Man did when his diagram show that temperature was rising along with carbon emissions. The diagram was skewed to make it appear as if this is the only time global warming had ever occured in nature.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t change the subject. Cap and trade is bullshit. As usual, capitalists and free market fundamentalists want you to believe that capitalism and the free market are also the solutions to the problems caused by…you guessed it, capitalism and the free market.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, science is nothing more than a left wing conspiracy…all of those college years wasted when I could have just spent them watch Fox News

  • Wyrdless

    The hockey stick graph didn’t have the medieval warming period or the little ice age of 1560-1830 in it.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    Social conservatives believe science is hokum, yet they not only believe in, but kneel down and worship imaginary sky daddies, talking bushes, and pregnant pre-teen virgins.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LJMNZL5KJFX2H5CKWK2S75HU7I Kevin

    the science of the theory of evolution is NOT

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    that doesn’t sound religioius, but it does sounds very racist

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    The planet earth is millions of years old. Are we not to at least look at what the climate has been doing throughout it’s life span to determine whether or not this is something new. Climatologists, both global warming alarmists & those who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, know of the previous cycles of global warming that occurred before 1850. I’m only looking at the IPCC’s own research. The start their study from 1850 around the time of the industrial revolution to 2000, stating the earth has been warming up. I find it odd that they would only choose this time in history to say that global warming has only occurred during this time while leaving out ones of the past. This creates a deception of the account of the climate’s history. If the earth was only 150 years old, then it would be significant to what happens NOW. And if fact, global warming in earlier periods did not result in the extinction of life because human beings actually thrived on warmer weather. I’m not at all saying we shouldn’t continue to study climate, as it vast & changing and dynamic. Yet, attributing it to human beings when you find other examples of global warming without human influence is farth fetched.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OSYTHKLFNG5CIA7NYRB7E7KRA Spy

    I don’t have a solution nor does anyone else. This is an insolvable problem because we will never do anything to limit population growth. We will screw ourselves into a global climate catastrophe. The only thing that can break the cycle is the intervention of a galactic event.

    Where is that cap and trade asteroid??

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    “meal ticket”? Do you have any idea what Al and Tipper Gore’s net worth was before he made that movie?

  • Anonymous

    “We only have the scientists word that climate change actually exists”
    What????? At least make an attempt to think before posting the idiot thoughtrs that run through your head. Remember, the next time your doctor tells you to take a medication that you only have his word that you need it, and, medicine is based in science so it’s not to be trusted. Moron.

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Spoken in true rhetorical form. That isn’t an argument. Attacking someone personally will only make you lose the debate and always violates the first rule of logic. My ignorance of what exactly. I have bothered to read. I’ve read the IPCC’s information. I know of their climatologists, their studies, etc. I’ve also read books on climatologist that disagree with. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean that I haven’t bothered to read anything. It took me a few years to come up with my conclusion.

  • Anonymous

    Scientific data have a known liberal bias.

  • Budzilla

    How about clean air?

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Actually, it isn’t unanimous. I’ll point you to one article, but there are many: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17181/Survey_Shows_Climatologists_Are_Split_on_Global_Warming.html

    Yet, this isn’t a popularity contest. Science should never be based on consensus, it just be based on what is and what isn’t. I have never assumed what your background in climatology is, so we shouldn’t make assumptions about mine. I’ve read both information from the IPCC & those who oppose anthropogenic global warming. I have at least taken the time to get information from my sources instead of spewing rhetoric. A few years ago I was willing to believe the IPCC’s claims of man made global warming until I found out they were only focusion on a 150 year period. Why then would global warming periods prior to the industrial revolution not matter in comparing this period to last?

  • Anonymous

    Keeping in mind that the science denier, scientist who deny, funding sources, and ad agencies handling the public relations are the same in the following cases, let’s see how they came out in previous cases:
    Deniers: smoking does not cause cancer – science: yes it does
    Deniers: DDT does not harm environment: science: yes it does
    Deniers: Acid rain is a myth – science: acid rain is real
    Deniers: Ozone hole is a myth – science: ozone hole is real
    Deniers: Global warming is a myth – science: global warming is real

  • Anonymous

    No problem is unsolvable. Giving up is the ultimate example of entropy. I propose a starting point and you go immediately to misdirection and irrational solutions.

  • Budzilla

    Yep, and we can also legitimize bigotry by quoting the bible.

  • Anonymous

    “The planet earth is millions of years old.”

    Really? According to evangelicals, the earth is only 2,000 years old and Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. But you want to take their side in this debate? Good luck with that one….

  • Anonymous

    Charles is an obnoxious megalomaniac in love with his own voice.

  • Dolmance

    These greed heads and grifters are going to be the death of us all.

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    I’m sharing the science of the IPCC’s Michael Mann. I’m sure you’re read his research. I’m also sharing the science of Ian Plimer. Please share your education experience as well. Once again, I’ve never attacked you personally, and it appears I’m being attacked personally by being linked with Glenn Beck, whom I despise. This, turning science into a left/right issue instead of a scientific one. So, when you resort to personal attacks, you’ve already lost the debate. Ever heard of ad hominem? You’ve only heard one side of those who support anthropogenic global warming & haven’t weighted your opinion with those climatologist who disagree. After researching for 2 years with information from the IPCC & from those who oppose to reach my conclusion. Comments about “Beck University” only put more weight behind the notion of a “religious” tone to we “heretics” who don’t support the anthropogenic claim.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OSYTHKLFNG5CIA7NYRB7E7KRA Spy

    I have a starting point too. Cut your balls off.

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Once again, resort to ad hominem attacks only gives weight to those saying there is a religious tone to the Church of Climatology. ;)

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t call them idiot thoughts as much as I would call them satirical thoughts. I would have thought the “people falling off (the planet) except those who live on the very top” comment might have been the give away but as my father used to say to me, “Millions of comedians are out of work and you’re trying to be funny”.
    Oh, and by the way, it’s spelled “Moran!”

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Yes, continue the attacks with ad hominen, and violate the the rules of logic. Nicely done. :)

  • Anonymous

    For the cap & trade skeptics, keep in mind that it worked quit well for reducing acid rain.
    http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085
    http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/
    http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Yes, I’m so anti-science that I use science to come up with my conclusion. Resulting to personal attacks “anti-science nutbags” I believe makes you anti-logic. Look up the definition of ad hominem. Sadly, the responses in disagreement have been largely what I expected: personal attack with no scientific claim of it’s own

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Are you sure you’re not buying into propaganda? I’ve at least done my research. Yet continue. Most of those who spewed rhetoric about snowless winters caused by global warming have had their asses handed to them this winter.

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    Actually, it’s been called global warming from the very beginning, which is why the IPCC stated that the earth was “warming up”

  • http://twitter.com/marframil Mary

    As it relates to carbon dioxide? Please discuss.

  • Anonymous

    What is there not to understand? More water vapor means more precipitation means more erratic weather and more monster storms. And what puts more water vapor in the air? Global warming. It doesn’t take a genius but it does take some reading comprehension, some thought, and a hand that turns off the Fox News channel.

  • Anonymous

    First off Earth is billions of years old.

    Second, scientist don’t just measure the climate and take wild guesses on the how and why. It really is a massive data set of variables including what we contribute.

    You’re one of those semi-intelligent people who kinda understands what science is but you don’t really know what you’re talking about. It’s not about your gut feelings and you can’t hedge your guess by making an uneducated unsubstantiated claim in the middle.

  • Anonymous

    So would you like standard republican “talking points” so you don’t have to deal with verbal semantics.

  • Marcelo

    No, Mary you are wrong. It has been called global climate change in scientific papers from the early 1990s. Global warming is a process whereby heat which is greatest in the tropics is distributed around the planet.

  • Marcelo

    Mary did you know that Climate change denialists have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change?

    Did you know that 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change?

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for your post. I have recently begun to read the comments at foxcomments and have learned how really delusional people can be when what is presented goes against what they want to believe as gospel. Everyone understands that there can be different conclusions made from any research material. However, when maybe being wrong causes a complete collapse of the oxygen content of the air we breath, we need to perhaps eroor on the side of caution. If the climate change scientisits are all wrong but we do the things that they are suggesting the result would be more oxygen in the atmosphere, less demand for carbon based fuels and the emergence of a complete new business model. If the scientists are right and we do nothing there is not an upside to being wrong.

  • Marcelo

    It seems the denialists belong to the real cult. Think of responding to global climate change as a risk management measure. It is a prudent activity based on science not beliefs.

  • Anonymous

    How dare you misrepresent me by making up a claim of a static climate.

    You are a cock smoking asshole and I hope you get that VD cleared from your mouth.

    The climate has always changed argument is a false argument. Climate scientist don’t measure the climate and make guesses. It really is a huge data set of variables that include industrial input.

    Sorry for cursing you out but taking a guess and misstating my position pushes my button.

  • Marcelo

    It has to do with the fact that global concentrations of CO2 are at there highest in 650,000 years. This is what the polar ice pack cores reveal. You are trying to dismiss a direct correlation but do not provide any evidence.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    re: #3.. cold pop holds gas better than warm pop. If you want to expieriment, get two 16 oz bottles of pop. Put one in the freezer until you get some ice starting to form in the bottle, and leave the other sit in the sun until the bottle is warm or hot to the touch. Open them both at the same time and see which one spews all over your shoes.

    The point is, as the oceans warm they can not hold as much gas. The warmer the oceans the more gas they let escape (and the less they can absorb).

  • ProChoiceGrandma

    Krauthammer is blathering the same nonsense that the Religious Right has promoted, because the Religious Right is losing their “fire and brimstone” fear tactics to actual science.

    Have you seen the ludicrous video the RR created? They call environmentalism the “Green Dragon”. And for all those who believe in mythical beings, evil dragons are always slain by the mythical heroes, right? I think the RR is getting desperate as they see their congregations shrinking.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/resisting-the-green-dragon_n_798387.html

  • Anonymous

    did i read the word FACTS anywhere in the above????
    anyone can “REFUTE” ……………..REAL SCIENTISTS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
    BETWEEN FACTS AND BELIEFS………THEY ALSO ADMIT WHAT THEY
    DON’T KNOW……….. DOES RELIGION DO THAT?…………….

  • Anonymous

    Charlie the clown-ass.Show me just one issue he made any sense.He is full of KAKA and the only job is qualified is a Circus.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “The term ‘Global Warming’ is a manufactured term that has no real meaning.”

    Actually, you’re incorrect. The reason it was initially called global warming is because that’s what’s happening on a large scale. The entire planet’s average temperature is increasing. The result of an overall warmer planet is more chaotic weather.. that is, climate is global and over long periods of time, and “weather” is what’s going on outside your window at any given moment..

    The reason “global warming” turned out to be a “bad choice” is because of the deep rooted, pervasive, unanticipated ignorance of the general public. When someone looks outside and sees snow and says “uh.. duh.. can’t be global warming cause it snowed!”, we know we have a populace that’s too stupid to feed itself.

    So, Global Warming is the larger mechanic going on, and _locally_ that means people will see more extreme _weather_ from year to year… including record cold/snow during the winter.

    This stuff seems as obvious to me as walking.. it blows my mind that people get confused over this. But, since the bulk of our society is apparently that dim, we’ve tried to “brand” the problem in a more “obvious” wrapper..

  • ProChoiceGrandma

    Are all the floods and record breaking snow just a figment of the imagination, ya’ know, sorta like Gawd?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You’re a scary kind of stupid.

  • ProChoiceGrandma

    (Miller415 was being snarky)

  • Anonymous

    dumb-dumb started about 1971….the protesters where too SMART…………

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “in the idea that humanity is horrible and evil.”

    This is what helps sane people know you’re a complete moron, or just nuts. Liberals don’t think “humanity” is evil.. in fact, we rail against those who would be “inhumane”.. that is, we seem to value humanity a lot more than our “conservative” cohabitants. We value and respect “humanity” so much, we want to ensure it has a long and happy future; we do that by making sure we live on for a very long time to come. And shitting in our nest is not going to facilitate that. Period.

    What humanity is doing now is not sustainable, and liberals and progressives would LOVE to put humanity on a better course.. a sustainable course that doesn’t destroy our only means of survival.

    “which will NEVER fix anything.”

    1) a “carbon tax” scheme (cap and trade) is what fixed smog in the late 70s. It is a free market approach to “fixing problems”, and I agree with you.. it’s not a great way to do things.

    2) “liberals/progressives/lefists” want to FIX it, but the greed mongers (the same ones helping cause the problem in the first place) want to get richer regardless of if it gets fixed or not.. To avoid them rigging the game while not fixing the problem, MOST of us “liberals/progressives/leftists” (who aren’t in leadership.. never forget that the leadership of both “parties” are bought and paid for shills) want to simply CAP emissions. REGULATE the levels of pollution allowed (and force polluters to pay to clean up their own shit), and drive us toward green energy and a sustainable future. We have no interest in cap and TRADE, we just want the pollution to stop.

    Playing the “always disagreement” card on this subject is a dodge.. a ploy to avoid the fact that 90%+ of all scientists agree that we’re shitting in our own nest with all the oil/coal we’re burning every year.. billions and billions of tons of CO2 that we don’t need to put up; and that’s just one front because no one is talking about the BIGGER problem of methane from our factory farms so everyone can have cheap fast food.

    And no one is “trying to pretend the Sun [might not] play a role”.. it’s been LOOKED AT, and it’s been at LOW OUTPUT for decades.. just wait until it swings back to putting out more energy.. we’re heating much faster than “normal” while it’s sleeping.. things are going to get very ugly very fast as the sun ramps up intensity over the next 30 to 40 years.

    The only thing ludicrous here is you and your complete lack of understanding of science.

  • Scuby

    You forgot the following:
    Deniers: The earth is flat – Science – The earth is round.
    Deniers: The sun revolves around the earth – Science: The earth revolves around the Sun.
    Deniers: The earth is 6000 years old. – Science: The earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
    Deniers: Tides are unexplainable – Science: Tides are caused by lunar gravity and earths rotation

  • Anonymous

    Kraut translates from German as “herb”. Charles is an ugly sumbitch. That’s all I got.

  • Anonymous

    “Would you have posted then “Science backs the claim and if you deny it you are wrong?”"

    But that’s not what I posted here! All I said was that a scientific theory is a conclusion based on a set of observations. And any theory–including the theory of climate change–ABSOLUTELY CAN BE WRONG. But to prove that a theory is wrong, it’s not enough to simply say, “I don’t believe it”–you have to provide your own set of observations. And creationists and climate-science deniers NEVER provide those observations. You know why? Because they don’t do the work. They don’t know how to do the work, and they don’t want to do the work. They just want to say, “This can’t be.” Scientists, on the other hand, make observations about the world and then present them to the world. They say, “This is what we’ve observed, and this is what our conclusions are based on what we’ve observed.” That’s ALL they say. And you’re welcome to refute it. But you need to present observable evidence. It’s not that complicated….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “just don’t dismiss those who question obvious inconsistencies as “idiots” who don’t get it. We get it; ”

    What do you get? that statistical anomalies occur in natural systems, and you have to look at trends over long periods of time to smooth those out?

    “even those who want to do good and may even be right most of the time, can be so blinded by their ideology that they might make connections that just are not there. ”

    That’s why thousands of scientists have looked over mountains of data to see if anyone was “blinded by their ideology”.. and know what they find? only the deniers fit that bill. There are skeptics in the scientific community, but only on a few various mechanics and projected outcomes. Virtuall all scientists involved agree on the vast majority of “conclusions”.

  • Anonymous

    You’ll note that in all your examples science is threatening corporate profits and that is what this is really all about. In Scuby’s examples science is threatening religion which is almost as great a sin. However you look at it science challenges the status quo and that is not good for corporations or religion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You and I agree, the profiteers want to find a way to profit in this.

    that’s why we say “no trade, no exchange, straight caps.. we will regulate cleaner air, period. You, as industry, better figure it out or we’ll shut you down. period.”.

    But since the leadership of both parties in Washington are corporate stooges, they will try to make sure they make money in the process. Oh well, better that and live than die off from being stubborn… oh, and it’s also why us Liberals and Progressives favor taxing the shit out of CORPORATIONS.. because they keep jerking us around like this.

  • Anonymous

    You first, it was your idea

  • Sandi

    You’re not taking in the consideration that the “science community” relies on funding from corporate sources. Like anything in this society, science can also be bought.

    There are the typical problems in science where scientists can tend to look for results that prove their theories while overlooking results that do not but physicists have also found that when dealing with light particles, a scientists own brainwaves can influence the experiment.

    Now, take into consideration that those with the purse strings simply do not fund those scientists whose research does not benefit their personal agendas. Blind faith in science is just as bad as blind faith in religion and politics. Question everything.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    no one wants an unnaturally “stable” climate. I just want one that follows geologic time.. the one that takes thousands of years to raise 1 degree C, not a few decades. In the “naturally changing climate” we have many generations to adapt, naturally, like nature intended. But in this mess WE’RE MAKING, we won’t have time to fully adapt (nor will most species on the planet) and things will get very messy for us.

    We’re causing problems for ourselves instead of being diligent and doing no harm. So your terse quip, while “accurate”, amounts to a distraction and lie. Good job.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    “There are a great deal of climate scientists that disagree with those conclusions of global warming”
    And they all work for coal & oil companies.
    You are an example of that subset of deniers who admit to global warming, but are too cowardly to admit that we had anything to do with it – otherwise, you would have to feel guilty about refusing to change your lifestyle. I call you the “Alfred E. Neuman” deniers.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    And you received you climatology degree where, exactly?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You know what else I “believe” with religious zealotry? That I need oxygen to live.

    Trying to twist science into religion is what delusional people do to justify their delusions. Science is not religion as religion is rooted in myth and superstition and science is rooted in observable fact and reality. Period.

  • Anonymous

    An individual scientist can occasionally be bought, or make mistakes, but worldwide scientific consensus cannot possibly be bought. If you think it can, you have no idea what science is. For an example of bought scientists, we need look no further than those who question climate change.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    The meaningful debate has happened.. the scientists have been having it for decades now, and have reached their educated and tested and data backed conclusion.

    The general public “debating” the matter is futile. I don’t recall there being a public debate on the ability of silicon circuits being able to harness electricity in a manner that would result in Computers. I don’t recall hearing about any public debate of the efficacy of anti-biotics. I don’t recall there being a public debate about… well.. virtually any scientific conclusions over the past few hundred years (except when religion wanted to execute scientists).

    The debate from the public only needs to be on how they plan to stop shitting in their nest, not if the shitting is a problem or not. And the debate culminates in one reasonable conclusion, we need to switch our underlying power/energy systems. The only people wanting to keep THAT debate open are the guys looking to lose their massive incomes if we stop using their drugs. I don’t think we should be giving them that much floor time, do you?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “Global warming has now changed to “Climate Change”.”

    No, it’s still global warming (the mechanism), but since most people in the U.S. are too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather and were saying “HA! it snowed today! so much for warming!”, they tried to use a label that even drooling morons could understand. Apparently that isn’t working either… the drooling morons will probably never actually get it.. perhaps it’s time to just ignore the ignorant children and the sane adults should just do what needs to be done to fix the problem.

  • Sandi

    Logically, this entire argument is useless and a waste of time. The climate is changing. . . duh. It always changes–always has and always will. It’s the nature of the Earth.

    The Earth is filthy. Our air, soil, and water is poison and will either kill us all eventually or mutate us beyond recognition.

    So, stop fighting about the science and just clean up this planet. Our lives depend on it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    It was always all of the labels, in various respects. What the MSM chose to hold up first, then changed to something else because the moron masses weren’t understanding, is immaterial.

    But keep playing these games. Keep pretending like there isn’t a problem because you like fucking around with semantics. Nothing bad will come from all the childish bullshit.. Oh, wait.

  • Anonymous

    Why does God give stupid people vocal cords?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “The planet earth is millions of years old. ”

    And this is where sane people can stop reading your posts. If you’re going to assert that a ~4.5 billion year old planet is “millions” of years old, you clearly aren’t going to be very precise in anything else you present.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You’re wasting your time with people like this. There is an underlying scatter-brained effect going on, a disconnection and abstraction that simply isn’t compatible with scientific methods or processes… part of why this person seems to latch on to fragments that seem to support their position while ignoring all the connected information that either refutes anomalies or answers them away into insignificance. They latch on to things like the skeptics in the scientific community that assert “there’s more to look at”, even though those are the tiny minority in that community.. despite being a tiny fraction of the overall community, they are framed “a great deal of” ..

    pointless.

  • Roberthe

    Yep, it’s a religion all right! We genuflect daily to the Gods of Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology; we revel with their multitudinous Interdisciplinary Offspring. We pray that we may gain insight into the profundity of The Mathematical Mysteries of Statistics and Chaos Theory and from there to at last surrender to The Truth of the New Apocalypse as revealed by St Albert the Younger. We revere our relics: The Ice Core, The Tree Ring, The Keeling Curve, and The High Holy Hockey Stick (revealed to Believers as the Son of Mann). After our services we stand on street corners everywhere with our placards boldly proclaiming “The End Is Nigh” (it really is, non-believers!) and then, in truly religious fashion, we fall upon the heretics and kill them.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/5OQFBZ26C3VQ5ONGZGDBDY4BUU Mark A

    Krauthammer worships the free market as if it were God’s truth, and economics isn’t even a science.

    Faced with actual proven science, he retreats to what his free market priests have been telling him for years, with no proof of any of their theories.

  • Anonymous

    Well that’s what I was saying the PENTAGON hires the best

    ________________________________

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    You do realize that cap & trade was originally a GOP idea? They saw it as a neat way to rake in more obscene profits while the world melts. As soon as Obama mentioned it, they turned against it in lock-step. A better way to address the problem (but it will hurt) is to put a heavy tax directly on producers of fossil fuel energy, and use that money to fund carbon neutral alternatives.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Actually, you can deny reality.. but do you “believe” reality? or accept reality.

    What you’re showing is just how bastardized our language is, and how conversation is becoming nonsensical.. that’s by design. The people looking to abuse us for their own ends would rather we quibble about nuance than share any understanding.

  • Anonymous

    Tide come in, tides go out…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Ignoring a problem is a guarantee that you’ll not be able to address or fix a problem. You can’t fix something if you don’t first understand how/why it’s broken.

    Population, while an issue, is not the CORE problem.. the type of energy we use, however, is. And that core problem is made worse with more people.. so, you have two choices. Kill 4 billion people (or more) and keep using polluting fuels, or change fuels and avoid killing anyone.

    While I agree we should look for zero population growth, I would disagree that a viable solution is to kill most of the humans on the planet. One is not the other.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    What really pisses me off is that people like you are killing the rest of us. Usually, stupid people doing stupid things only wind up with themselves as recipients of the Darwin awards.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Wheres the proof? Not more peer pressure, please, that isnt science.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Jesus freak? Who are you talking to, Im not religious. I guess more empty, inaccurate, peer pressure.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Yeah, and we were warned of global cooling, ie and ice age, in the 70s…

    We need comclusive evidence for such a charge.

  • Anonymous

    Krauthammer is one of the worst people in the world.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    I’d say likewise with you stooges.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Peer pressure, no facts. Typical.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Peer pressure, no facts. Typical.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Peer pressure, no facts. Typical.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    I have solutions, but nobody seems to want to hear them. Many other people are suggesting the same thing(s), but no body in power nor the ignorant masses wants to listen. Want to hear them?

    1) short term, straight caps on CO2 (no trading, no gaming the cure). Demand it be shut down and start changing to the technologies we have NOW to do it. Convert as many things to electric as we can, delve deeply into renewable electricity, and sequester all pollution from fossil fuel generation systems.

    2) Get sustainable electricity systems developed, like Thorium Reactors. Sure, you can’t make weapons from the waste, but do we want more weapons or to have massive amounts of virtually free electricity? (not really “free”, but so cheap that making profits could never be done.. strange that we ignore technology that’s good for us just because someone can’t PROFIT from it).

    3) EDUCATE the entire planet, get people enlightened so they UNDERSTAND why they don’t need 4 or 5 or 8 kids. You also have to stab religion in the heart at the same time, since religion is the antithesis of education along a science/reality based program.

    4) since technology is displacing humans for labor, you also have to address the _fact_ that soon we’ll have 90% unemployment. Since the point of employment is to get resources from the very few that currently own the planet, looks like it’s time to start gearing up for a Resource Based economy; the end of private ownership of the planet, and a move toward the total end of private ownership in general. You don’t need to “own” a house, we only do that in our current society because it’s a “resource bank”.. if you no longer need to “own resources” to survive, you don’t need to “own your own house”. We build houses while there’s people needing a place to live, and whoever is in that house has the right to stay there until they want to leave it. Once they leave it, whomever gets there next can stay there as long as they want to. .. neat, huh?

    http://www.thevenusproject.com and http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com .. good stuff, go check it out.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, though, this is kind of funny. Krauthammer represents the extreme right, yet disparages religion. He’d better check his contract.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    don’t let reality hit you in the ass on your way out.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KFOFZHLUNJCQATOHPSVHSFKP3I pw

    Sure, lets start cutting our quality of life, and start paying our carbon indulgences to the big banks, because of a hunch some skewed scientists have.. That will solve the problem.

  • Anonymous

    Except we have evidence of the effect man has had on climate while all you do is call names and distort what are verified scientific findings.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Here’s a couple of facts that you already know, but ignore.

    Humans burn billions upon billions of gallons of oil and tons of coal. That releases billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year that would NOT be there otherwise. Agree?

    Do you accept that CO2 (along with methane that is going up by the hundreds of millions of tons a year from industrial farming) is a “green house gas”, that it traps heat?

    So, on a very simplistic, reason only based explanation (the science ends up supporting this hypothesis).. humans are putting up a lot of heat trapping gas that would not be present if humans weren’t putting it there, and temperatures are increasing at rates faster than normal across the planet (supported by direct measurements).. As we put up more CO2 the temperatures have been increasing; faster as we put up more CO2. — conclusion: if humans were not putting up as much CO2 as we are, warming would be slower than it is now.. so humans are causing warming at an unnaturally fast rate. Breaking nature is considered “bad”, in most circumstances.

    The key there is, “naturally occurring rate”.. we’re breaking geologic time scales, and THAT is a problem because the rest of “nature” only moves at “natural speeds”.. when we stir it up, we get changes now that likely would not have show up for a thousand years.. that’s a thousand less years we have to adapt (including all the species on the planet).

    We can’t destroy “nature”, we can’t destroy the “planet”.. but we can make nature do things and go places that make the planet uninhabitable for humans (and the vast majority of species on the planet today). I rather like the planet the way it is, I would like to preserve/conserve it.

    how about you?

  • Anonymous

    Please read my post carefully. I never said that warming will be good for the planet. I have no idea where you got that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “Oh well, better that and live than die off from being stubborn… oh, and it’s also why us Liberals and Progressives favor taxing the shit out of CORPORATIONS.. because they keep jerking us around like this. ” — (from mine)

  • Anonymous

    Oh, you were referring to the other Bill. Never mind.

  • Sandi

    Oh, scientific consensus can be bought. Before WWII science was convinced that eugenics was a good idea. Before Einstein, consensus agreed that Newton was the end all of physics. It takes courage to step outside of the status quo and break new scientific ground. It can even be dangerous. Just ask Tesla.

  • Anonymous

    But what’s your point? Let’s assume that every one of the warming periods in Earth’s history before 1850 was caused by nonhuman factors. How does that change the fact that human activity since 1850 has either caused or contributed to the current period of warming? I bet most forest fires that occurred before humans came on the scene were caused by lightning or other natural phenomena. That doesn’t mean that humans don’t start many forest fires today. Should the Forest Service stop trying to prevent forest fires because humans didn’t always start them?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “So, when you resort to personal attacks, you’ve already lost the debate.

    The debate has been had by scientists, the ones qualified to have the debate. Their conclusion is that man is shitting in his nest, and it’s gonna be bad. There are a few who aren’t convinced it is man that is the driving cause, but that is a very small minority of scientists.

    The general public has no real qualification to “debate” the topic.. the only reason it keeps being trotted out into the public sphere is the people that stand to lose massive amounts of money if we listen to the massive scientific consensus, are trying to derail change.

    The only debate the public should be having is where to get the money and will to change, not if we should or when. The time is a decade ago (we’re damn late).. the money.. well, given our fiat currency and the broken monetary system, I say get it from where it will hurt the the fewest people.. take it back from the thieves who are billionaires, to start.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    You won’t find a lot of scientists that proclaimed “snowless winters”.. you’ll find a few people in a few articles that suggested/stated that. It was also part of the meme deniers used when they were suggesting “global warming” might be a good thing (they, of course, failed to account for the massive deserts that would also spring up with their fantasy).

    not to mention, “snowless winters” is ambiguous as it implies planet wide, but that’s not how planets work. Some areas might lose their winter snow, other might get much worse winters. A warmer planet will have more chaotic weather, and as various planet wide thermal systems shift, those locations could shift as well.

    It should scare the hell out of every sane person out there that we’re entering a time where we have no idea just where global thermal patterns will “change” to. We know where they are now, and we know the general consequences of that.. but in 30 or 40 years, and certainly over the next 100.. we have no idea what parts of the planet will be habitable and which parts will drastically change. We can guess, but there are simply too many variable to “know”.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    That statement is consistent with the frame of ‘mind’ of the climate change deniers. They don’t “believe” in it. To those types, everything is a matter of believe and faith. And they truly think that if they don’t believe then it’s not happening. Tragically ironically, however, they wholeheartedly believe that there is an invisible dude up in the sky who is watching their every move and granting their every wish. We humans are wired so wrong.

    We are in the 21st century and, still, religion and dogma control the world just as much as it did back in The Dark Ages. Is anybody surprised we’re so screwed?

  • Roberthe

    Your “great deal of climate scientists” is approximately 3% of the field. In other words, 97% of the field believes the theory of anthropogenically driven climate change to be valid. As for The Medieval Warm Period: 1) it was not a warm period everywhere on the planet, with many areas being demonstrably colder than the median; and 2) where it was most strongly felt, the temperature appears to have been commensurate, or perhaps slightly below, what has been experienced in the last few decades. The MWP often seems to be portrayed by Deniers as being a period where polar bears were working on their tans. Contrary to what you might have gathered the MWP is not ignored or avoided by the vast majority of climate scientists; there is not some arch scientific conspiracy occurring to defraud the American taxpayer of his hard earned and ever decreasing pot of dollars by foisting climate change on them. Rather, the funding for Denialism is coming from the same corporate structure that told you cigarettes and DDT were safe for you, that cutting their taxes would create more American jobs, and that sending our industries overseas would be beneficial to the country as a whole.

    The understanding that CO2 affects temperature dates to no later than 1896 with the work of Arrhenius. This is not contentious, nor is it denied by anybody in the sciences, and can be readily demonstrated in any well-supplied high school science lab (though admittedly there are fewer and fewer of those with each passing year) with a minimum of effort.

    Mann’s Hockey Stick diagram only covered the last 1000 years. Even a Young Earth Creationist would agree that 1000 years is but a small fraction of Earth’s history. To suggest that Mann, who acknowledges several periods of extreme temperature fluctuation in the climate record of at least one degree of magnitude greater than what we are currently experiencing , is trying to fool the IPCC, the scientific community, or the world by focusing on that 1000 year interval (so labeled on the very graph) is ludicrous and flies in the face of readily accessible public information. You have either misread what was presented or been misled.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Projections and conclusions are part of science as well as facts and data points. One “is” and the other is ‘generally accepted as is’.

    “Why then would global warming periods prior to the industrial revolution not matter in comparing this period to last? ”

    This is why you’re no scientist. It matters now because it’s happening over 100 years, not 500 to 1000. And we’ll never have all the data from 3,500 years ago, but we have a shit load of data at present.. and when you look at “periods in the past”, none of them ramp up as fast as what’s happening now; the speed at which we’re ramping up is correlating with the pollution we’re putting up, and it’s pollution we know adds to the kinds of things that drive warming.

    If you were a scientist, you’d not be asking what amounts to silly questions. If you were looking at raw data and circumstance that actually pertained to the current situation, you could make a real argument (that would be looked at by other scientists).. instead, all we have is picking at what appears (to scientists) generally to “be the case”.

    the issue I have with deniers is they are also asking me to ignore my ability to reason. Billions and billions of tons of pollution a YEAR that would never be there otherwise, coupled with known cases in our recent past where such activities have caused huge issues (smog, toxic exposure to people living down wind from polluters, dust from China landing in California, etc).. It seems “obvious” to me that all this pollution is bad, and we need to stop.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “So, stop fighting about the science and just clean up this planet. Our lives depend on it”

    Except, the same people driving debate about Global Warming also have driven the debate in the past about pollution in general. They assert that their pollution isn’t really an issue because the science doesn’t “prove” the mercury from their coal plant caused dozens to die, for example.

    The planet is a living thing that we need in order to survive.. but the abusers and exploiters don’t care.

  • Anonymous

    Columnist. hmm… ever notice how close that word sounds to COMMUNIST!

  • Anonymous

    Regardless of what is finally determined to be the most likely cause of global warming, and regardless of whether the data and trends are ultimately found to be valid and true and not simply a statistical outlier, the following has become clear:
    Watch for more of this same message, that of Science being just another Religion. It’s their defense against the argument that Science can be tested in relation to real world events. By equating Science to Religion, they are on equal footing and then it comes down to which irrational belief you were taught as a child being the one that will save your eternal soul.

  • Anonymous

    If they’d bother to take a class on economics they’d know that a free market first requires A MARKET!

  • Alice Mechler

    I stand corrected, Joe….’global warming’ is simply a bad choice of labels for what is going on now. And you are also correct in stating, “…we have a populace that’s too stupid to feed itself”.Excellent observation and rebuttal.

  • Anonymous

    And that the “invisible hand of a free market,” is about THE CONSUMER getting the best price. Free Market is not some buzz word about the seller making obscene profits and hiding valuations and making hidden rules so the CEO can game his or her incentives. Or selling insurance against risk without appropriate reserves and crashing the world’s economies.

  • Alice Mechler

    I can only hope that Judy’s reply was a snark. Then I found more of ‘her’ posts…all along the same line! Either ‘she’ lives to snark…or she really believes her own drivel.

  • Anonymous

    some of us have learned in the last for years, ( and that was a canard trumped by the media at the time.) We have conclusive evidence.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    I think your first paragraph belies your second. The point of science is to study, gather data, and reach concrete conclusions. Global warming “science” has not yet done that, but has millions of extreme, adamant adherents to it’s dogma. As you stated, the final determination is yet to be reached, therefore the followers of this must use FAITH to believe the conclusins that have been drawn. I also find it interesting that failure to follow the rules that the warmers have come up with results in a fiery demise, kinda sounds like hell to me. Also, in the global warming community, Earth takes on many of the characteristics that God has in the relgious world.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    “…………………..because the climate science community unanimously agreed that human industry directly effects the Earth’s climate.”

    Really?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

  • Anonymous

    “…too stupid to feed itself” indeed. Not only that, we WON’T be able to feed ourselves. Those clueless to agricultural cycles will be the first in line clamoring for government help. It’s a safe bet they are they same ones who are now denouncing any government intervention in, well, practically anything.

  • Anonymous

    He speaks for his sponsors, and guess who they are.

  • http://www.lebanondemocrats.com/ SgtCedar

    What qualifies Krauthammer to speak on this subject? In addition to being a political “pundit” he is trained as a psychiatrist. He is not a climate scientist or a specialist in religion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    The same thing that qualifies Al Gore to speak about global warming.

  • Anonymous

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Roberthe

    Gore has been involved in this subject (admittedly not as a scientist) for decades. What is the history of Krauthammer’s investigations into this field?

  • Anonymous

    “therefore the followers of this must use FAITH to believe the conclusins that have been drawn”

    And this statement belies your ignorance in how the scientific method actually works. What you are describing is not Science, it’s the manipulation of the masses via slippery words and images, a tactic used by people looking to increase their own power at the detriment of everyone else.. Lot of slippery words and images used by politicians standing at the camera of the evening news, the microphones in Congress…and the Pulpit, no?

    “Also, in the global warming community, Earth takes on many of the characteristics that God has in the relgious world”

    This coming from an adherent of a religion that built itself out of the appropriation, raping and pillaging of hundreds of other much older belief systems in the last two thousand years, including many that existed in the name of peace, safety and prosperity, not to mention living in harmony with Nature instead of the Dominion of the same..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OSYTHKLFNG5CIA7NYRB7E7KRA Spy

    I essentially have already, your turn.

  • Roberthe

    Science does not reach “concrete” or “final determinations”, i.e. conclusions in the sense of their being immutable or teleological but rather attempts to increase our knowledge of the universe, fully aware that what is learned today is nothing more than a step toward a potential greater understanding. The understanding of gravity is an example: from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein to today’s debates about quantum gravity, string theory and M theory. As theories evolve and are accepted they build upon and then supersede what came before. Modern climate theories are not an end product. The last word on the subject has not been spoken, nor will there be some final encapsulation of climate change wherein nothing more will be added; Michelson’s hubristic error of 1894 taught the sciences that critical lesson.

  • Anonymous

    Climate Change has done to news editors and lazy journalism, what nasty priests did for religion. SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama, didn’t mention the words Climate Change or EPA once. So why are the thousands of consensus scientists not marching in protest? Thanks media. And meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of needed population control. Nice job. Let’s not leave the lab-coat consultants out of this climate change scam crime against humanity. But remember first that scientists produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. And how ironic is it that up until 25 years ago, scientists were condemned for producing planet killing chemicals and making environmentalism necessary in the first place? Continued support of the climate change mistake is making media quality worse and it splits environmental efforts, alienates support for responsible environmental stewardship, and thus drags the well intentioned progressivism down with it. Now is the time to stop acting like fear mongering necons, threatening our children with DEATH BY CO2, and drop the CO2 to start stewardship of the planet anew and face the future challenges with optimism and courage, not needless panic of a “dying planet”.

  • Anonymous

    It’s ok. We can think for ouselves.If you don’t think so, it’s a whole new level of belief you have.

  • jimbo

    Nonsense. While I don’t disagree that human population increases need to be curtailed, it is possible to curb greenhouse gasses so they are not a threat. Seems to me to be pretty simple to comprehend. But we are influrenced by people like the koch bros who lie through their teeth to maintain their profits. Best thing we can do is run their fat asses out of town. Or, conversely, educate people. Oh, wait a minute. That won’t work, there are too many authoritarians who listen to limpdick, borst, hannity, beck and the right wing congress. Good luck, world.

  • frigar

    Climate change deniers use the samelogic that the cigarette companies used to deny cigarettes caused cancer…”they can’t prove it”

  • jimbo

    Here’s a simple truth.There is solid evidence that the world is heating up, and there is solid understanding that as the world heats up changes are coming. Some changes will be significant. For instance, there a huge pools of frozen methane under our seas and tundras. As these pools increase in temperature, they will release into the atmosphere, hugely increasing the body of green house gasses that influence global warming. That is called a ‘trigger event’ and is just one of many possible. Now to me simple prudence dictates that the human race understand all it can about these events, as our children and grand children will reap the results of our decisions. So those who deny climate change have a huge burden on their hands, being absolutly sure there is no danger. So as events continue indicating the impacts of global warming, what will finally make you change your mind? Scientists are trained to try to understand, why don’t some listen to them? And, what is being proposed to aleviate the problem, getting us off of oil and coal which use of pumps huge volumes of green house gasses into the air, has another huge benefit, it rids us of the politics of the mid east. But the stupid continue to refuse to understand, just so their leaders can make the profits.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    “What you are describing is not Science, it’s the manipulation of the masses via slippery words and images, a tactic used by people looking to increase their own power at the detriment of everyone else.. Lot of slippery words and images used by politicians standing at the camera of the evening news, the microphones in Congress…and the Pulpit, no?”

    Exactly! Global warming “science” is not science at all. It is people like Al Gore standing in front of a movie camera and using slick words and flashy animations to increase his own power and money.

  • Anonymous

    Big Oil is close to its end. There is no energy crisis, it’s been created. Anything can be fuel and carbon neutral fuel is all around us. Gasify add some HHO and burn it. There is also Solar and Thermal Electric Generator solutions… and wind also of course, the tide, Liquid BioFuels it goes on and on. Oil Wars are on their way out and the MultiNationals are going to fight it and grab what they can from an uninformed consuming public, but once you figure out you can fuel your car and electric on anything, why buy fossil oil? – especially with all of its horrid negative externalities of War, Tyranny and Censorship etc etc? A pallet shredder is so much cheaper.
    Weather it’s too late remains to be seen. It’s already quite late. We just need to break our own chains quickly.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o8WS5IQF8c&feature=related

  • Anonymous

    I’m guessing some sort of PayOff qualifies him, although I admit I know nothing about him. Just my guess. Controversy pays? Look at Jon Gosselin! (not that he has anything to do with Global Warming, as a matter of fact, last I checked he got a job in the Green Building market) Maybe Sauer Krauthammer is looking for a Reality gig for morons using his psychiatrick brainwash powers to get there?

  • Anonymous

    It’s important to remember that people like Krauthammer are antagonists, same as Limbaugh and Beck, who’re playing to their own audiences. Someone like Gore is truly doing a work and trying to change minds and do good for a worthwhile cause. Those like Krauthammer are only antagonizing.

    So, if you read what Krauthammer says and get antagonized, you should acknowledge he’s doing an effective job.

  • http://www.lebanondemocrats.com/ SgtCedar

    My my, aren’t you full of yourself? Unless your name is Charles Krauthammer no one is talking about you.

  • Anonymous

    You are redefining terms for your own convenience. “Global Warming Science” refers specifically to the gathering of data, compiling into meaningful results and the interpretation of the same to ultimately prove or disprove some hypothesis. Not the politics surrounding it, which is what you are describing and railing against. Now, if someone shows that the data is incomplete, fabricated, or inaccurate, fine. Follow up studies will weed that out and something approaching Truth is still gleaned. See, Science is structured in such a way that for studies to be based on previous ones, they have to make assumptions that the previous data was at the very least valid. If not the current study goes all wonky very quickly. .

  • Roberthe

    Although 97% of American scientists working within the field hold to AGW, they aren’t really scientists? Al Gore is trying to enrich himself by causing a panic and James Inhofe by denying there is anything to worry about is not? I don’t know which is more disconcerting: that you might be a troll or that you might actually believe the stuff you write. I guess I’ll go for the latter.

    Anyway, this is not the first time I have written the following screed but in that I have yet to receive a response I’ll try again: What Climate Deniers are positing is a vast conspiracy perpetrated on humanity by climate scientists world-wide, with the collusion of the majority of the world’s physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Planck Institute, etc, all for the sake of profiting a handful of scientists with research grants and of course the adding of a few more inches to Al Gore’s waist line. Although there never has been such a fraud in the history of science, nor a single discipline that within its demesne got together to perpetrate such a hoax, EVER, somehow or another the potential for venality finally overcame them and they all collectively agreed to hoodwink us. Protecting us are our friends at the oil and coal industries and their lobbyists, the Heritage Institute, the Heartland Institute (they want to tell you that cigarette smoke is fine, as are DDT, PCBs, and dioxin), virtually every other right-wing think tank, and the Religious Right. Who you gonna trust? The people with a history of several hundred years of not lying, or the people (with the exception of the RR) who lie for a living? Take your time, I know it’s a tricky question.

  • http://stretta.com stretta

    Until he has placed a few human beings safely on the moon, I’m more inclined to believe the scientific data from NASA.

  • Roberthe

    So that it will be infinitely easier to tell who they are.

  • Taleisin

    That seems reasonable. The burning of fossil fuels is one aspect of our denigration of the planet. The depleting of the Ozone is another timebomb. Massive land clearing change rainfall patterns. The Sahara desert was under 3 foot of water last year, but no one finds that peculiar?

    Yet scientists can not give us conclusive proof. We may find ourselves going to work with goggles and snorkels before we acknowledge we might be causing a problem.

  • Taleisin

    We all have a lifestyle better than any King of France could have dreamed of. How much luxury do we need?

  • http://resror.myopenid.com/ Your Name

    How to stop Sol from going red giant before the (climate) change debate is finally resolved?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WWW4GFBTEW2FVCE62CIWCJQK6U cha cha bling bling

    finally someone in media has a clue

  • Anonymous

    You think he ought to be named Krautkopf rather than Krauthammer?

  • Taleisin

    What evidence would you consider conclusive proof?

  • David R Velasquez

    What, that climate science is a religion? Or that the causes of global warming are assessible? Because I think climate denialism is not so much a religion as much as either a straight up perpetrated fraud for some and an irrational paranoid obsession for others.

  • Anonymous

    Pollution, social reform, energy, waste and population concerns are all real. Climate Change was not real and if you love your children and the planet, you should be happy about dodging this unimaginable misery for humanity, not disappointed. Surely they can’t all be lying? Climate Change was a perception that all of academia and science, agreed on climate change. But what they had agreed on was that the effects would be from negligible if any, to unstoppable warming? Endorsing the UN’s “unstoppable” cineraria was a free pass for any lab coat consultant. Why didn’t the scientists not start marching in the streets when Obama didn’t even mention climate change in the SOU address to the entire world? Why are the scientists not crying on Larry King and pleading in the oval office because this “WAS“ supposed to be the biggest emergency “EVER“! Deny that. Climate Change was bigger than GM and too big to fail slowly. Evidenced now by cold and or severe weather also being real climate change based on recent history. We all, myself included thought the planet was slowly dying as it raced to out of control and unstoppable warming. The climate change perception was that there were so many thousands of consensus climate change scientists but did you count them, because how did they outnumber the protestors? Scientists produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change? And how ironic is it that up until 25 years ago when this Climate Change began, scientists were condemned by environmentalism for producing the chemicals that supposedly were killing the planet in the first place. If it weren’t for scientists, environmentalism wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. Almost all of the scientists were researching the effects of climate change, not the causes. They all rode the back of the IPCC s CO2 Theory, the free pass. In fact, almost all of the money paid to climate change scientists went towards the effects, not causes. All of the climate change scientists were in publicly funded and government bodies and all of the denier scientists are free and independent and private and yes “corporate” entities. If you still think denier science is evil, you are a parishioner, not a planet lover and the new denier. Since Obama didn’t even mention the words climate change in his big speech, public funding has vanished and these lab coat consultants are walking away Scott-Free. Climate change was a death threat, not a moral obligation to responsible environmentalism. Climate change did to science, what abusive priests did for the Catholic Church. History will see a society that bowed to politicians promising to lower the seas and make the weather colder with taxes. This was an Iraq War of lies from science and unfortunately, progressivism.
    So we ditched the CO2 and are now continuing stewardship anew. And meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of needed population control.

  • Anonymous

    oh okay and what proof do you have that global warming is not happening?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/XZOZFUWR3YKJ25ZUAQQZWO7R6I SR

    I dont see how being a cock smoking asshole is worse than being a unwitting stooge for the promotion of yet another wall street money making scheme. I know you can’t resist because this one pulls at your liberal heart strings, but a sucker is still a sucker, politics aside.

    Follow the money, and ask yourself who benefits. This particular scheme leads back to all the classic bad actors on Wall Street.

  • Anonymous

    So here is my point. In twenty years what are they going to say and what evidence will they have to support that statement that makes todays claims seem wrong because the scientists still had to refine their models, data collection and observations.
    And twenty years later they will say, “Oh well, we can make a more educated predictions (guess) now.”

    The scientists don’t know, we have not been recording data nor history long enough to make any “predictions” about what will happen on this planet.

  • Anonymous

    Climate denier? Do you use the term denier to try and mirror the sound of Holocaust deniers because such inflammatory rhetoric makes you sound credible?

    As quoted from the article link you posted;

    “when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.”

    WHAT? But everyone says the temperatures have been rising for the last century? OMG! What do we do?
    Conflicting data, er, er. Does not compute! Does not compute!

    So who is telling the truth? Scientists today or scientists in the Seventies?

  • Anonymous

    The sun has the most impact on our environment, not man.

  • Wyrdless

    My post was satire,

    I recommend switching to black tea tea (half caffeine) from coffee, it
    really helped me cut the self induced stress out of my morning
    I did that about 6 months ago

Google+