A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax

by Alan Caruba
March 31, 2014

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

There is no scientific support for the UN theory.

CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.

“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”

“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.

Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.

“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”

The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.

[Originally published at Warning Signs]

Tags: assessment report cimate hoax CO2 global warming ICCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC NIPCC Tim Ball UN United Nations

— Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba passed away in June 2015. Best known as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba wrote two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs", both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington. His commentaries were posted on many leading news and opinion websites, and frequently picked up and shared by blogs as well. Once posted daily on his blog site, http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com, known as "Warning Signs", he was the founder of The National Anxiety Center's commentaries, which enjoyed widespread popularity. The Center is a clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy.

John Trapp

A good place to start to end the hoax is to file a class action suit against Al Gore for defrauding the public. How many billions has that dirtbag cost the public? He’s worth $400 million now from this hoax. How did he get that much money? Was taxpayer money being invested in faux green companies he was invested in? And when that taxpayer money raised the stock did he sell it and move on? Seriously, someone explain to me how this dirtbag who hasn’t held a job since 2001 can make half a billion dollars in 13 years.
- zuch
  
  A good place to start to end the hoax is to file a class action suit against Al Gore for defrauding the public.
  
  Indeed. A very good place to start. And then the next logical move is a motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
- StewartMorrison
  
  it’s now 3 billion…..his dirt bag is full of gold,and he will die with nothing…so stupid,he coulda been a real guy….
Brokenit

Hilarious how the scientists who study “global warming” were almost marooned in ice in Antartica recently when their vessel got stuck in ice and almost found themselves embedded in ice as a monument to the GW crank science museum.
- atomic
  
  And is there anything we can do about it? Nope. Even the Co-Founder of Greenpeace admitted global warming is natural and not caused by man.
Josh Vincent

Ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
- Gabriel
  
  Yes cause we all know that Wikipedia is a credible information source.
John W Hindes

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory
ozonator

And yet, you and other extremist media outfalls, with 99.9% of EssoKochs’ geologists, failed to notice the Los Angeles earthquake, the Yellowstone earthquake, the Oklahoma earthquakes, the Moldova earthquake, and the North Korean earthquake.
- matt_mckenzie
  
  Respectfully Ozo, because a couple get together with their microbiology and chemistry degrees and create an organization, then claim earthquakes are caused by GW, doesn’t make it true. Science is huge business and huge money, just like oil. How many billions and billions of $$$ have been donated to cancer researchers, and still no cure? I’m no fan of Big Oil, nor do I have an ounce of respect for OPEC. But to think that man can change the earths climate and cause worldwide destruction doing so, is pretty outlandish, especially when there is no evidence to directly prove it.
  - ozonator
    
    Perhaps Mr. Caruba can explain why insults and “to think” is not part of non-EssoKoch’s scientific method.
Jones

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
- ahandout
  
  Science has been wrong on many occasions going back to Galileo’s time.
  - Scott Valko
    
    Scientist didn’t have the technology they do today or the same procedures to prove their hypothesis. So you’re wrong.
    - ahandout
      
      Wrong. 20 science blunders in the last 20 years.
      
      http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/
      - Scott Valko
        
        Most of these scientific blunders are accidents… not scientific theories. There’s a huge difference.
    - Peter Clark
      
      Appears like you are one of the many sheep.
  - Pac
    
    Scientific Laws are true whether you believe in them or not. Theories are an explanation to why something happens. Theories are not really “facts” (e.g. 2+2=4) but aim to explain certain behaviors of systems.
    
    Right now the theory is that global warming is occurring because of pollution. And it is standing up to the facts and numbers.
    
    But what if global warming is really a hoax and we improve the planet for nothing? That would be a waste..
- marybrown999
  
  “Science” is true whether or not you believe it. But in this case, it’s being hotly debated and is hardly “settled”. Climate science is in it’s infancy. “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” (CAGW) is widely disputed by many atmospheric scientists who are not being funded by it. That includes me.
AmericanPlutocracy

It’s laughable that attempting to provide a reasoned comment absent vitriol and one that was factually accurate is denied from being posted in response. So, the only conclusion is that heartland(er) enjoys censorship that does not comport with its agenda. How convenient – and how cowardly. In any event, such ‘moderation’ is a perfect example of what is wrong with our country…influence public opinion via excluding it. How quaint.
Super meep

“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes. WRONG — that’s what politicians and demagogues do. Scientists create working theories by means of application of the scientific method which includes repeated observation of phenomena, multiple measures, a collection of data, verified measurements, repeatable experiments, and a process of peer review that seeks the truth. Obfuscating the truth, misleading people on purpose, or falsifying reports should result in nothing less than loss of reputation, credential, and license to practice in any scientific field. That global warming is occurring indisputable fact; the planet has been warming since the last ice age. Why, exactly, and how fast are simply questions that any scientist with an ounce of curiosity wants to solve. Greenhouse theory explains, in part — not fully, why the planet is warming due to the changing chemical composition of the atmosphere. It is a theory with much merit, not some lie based on assumptions. Dr. Ball ought to know better.
- Earl Decker
  
  What about the hockey stick climate graph that Dr. Mann and others falsified to prove a drastic rise in temps. occurring. That and other studies by supposed scientists using faulty data or fudging data knowingly the data is false. And you and others believe there lies. Dr, Ball and others that expose those false scientists ought to be commended.
  - Super meep
    
    Hi Earl. A good Sunday to you.
    
    Earl, you are my countryman, and you seem like a nice enough fellow, so I am going to spend some time today writing to you so that, perhaps, you see a little different side of this prism. Good scientists, Earl, collect data, observe the same phenomena, and measure agreed upon subjects of study (like cores of deep ocean sediments or ice cores from Greenland) — yet may have differing opinions about cause and effect relationships. The data itself, like how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 500 years ago or even 12,000 years ago, is not in question. The data is measurable, repeatable, verifiable, and reliable. Still, climate science, in particular, is frustratingly complex to interpret, even with amazing computer models. We think we understand quite a bit today about ice ages, inter-glacial periods, and the interplay of Milankovitch cycles (the elyptical orbit of the earth, it’s wobbling axis, and spin). There is some understanding, too, of albedo (the reflection of the sun’s radiation off snow and rock) and the role of deep oceanic up-welling on climate, at least for the short-term climate swings (e.g. we know a fair amount about el Nino and la Nina cycles).
    
    The major climate theories today regarding ice ages — astronomical, solar, and greenhouse theories — are not based on assumption, Earl. They are based on solid scientific study. However, we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle and there is much we need to learn. Solar behavior, in particular, and its influence on earth’s climate is not well understood. This is one reason why some great minds, mostly physicists, question whether greenhouse gasses are big culprits in warming trends. Also, exactly how these forces interplay with each other is open to debate. You can imagine how extrapolating the data long-term, possibly misinterpreting correlation and causation, and an inability to fully understand solar behavior are true weaknesses in climate theory. The missing pieces, and misunderstandings, might result in poor assumptions and predictions about future climate. Might. But even the with these variables — and many, many variables are taken into account — the mathematical models do predict continued warming, slowly, over the next 200-300-400 years with possibly disastrous effects.
    
    View it this way — climate science is a little akin to studying cancers; we have learned a lot, but have a long ways to go. Like cancer researchers, climate researches know they have an incomplete understanding of their subject. Still, just as oncologists do understand the associated risks of tobacco use and the increased incidence of cancer, even if they do not understand all the physiological mechanisms and cannot explain why one life-long smoker develops lung cancer at age 50 while another lives to 90, most climate scientists believe there is an association between the human production of greenhouse gasses and short-term, average global temperature increases during the last 150 years. Earl, the data really looks strong…and it’s worrisome. Just as many doctors sounded the alarm bells about tobacco and cancer 50 years ago, many climatologists are sounding alarm bells today about greenhouse gases and average global temperatures. The science is leading them there…at least for now.
    
    I am certain Dr. Ball understands all this. Tossing around terms like “falsifying data,” “hoax,” “assumptions based on false facts,” lies,” or “conspiracy” in such a cavalier manner can be very misleading to the public. It leads me to believe that he has an agenda, but I hope not. Such finger-pointing does a disservice to scientists like myself (though I am not a climatologist) and my colleagues. Good people are trying to untangle a nasty scientific knot — understanding the earth’s climate over the ages — that even a Gordian would have had trouble with.
TheDwellerYsul

Tim Ball is not a climatologist; his PhD is in Geography. Moreover, he has done no original climatological research, nor has he been published in any peer-reviewed journal on climatology. Of course, this same thing can be said about the vast majority of climate deniers, since the 97% of the world’s active climatologist concede that the earth is warming and that it’s due to carbon dioxide. Yeah, separating fact from fantasy.
- marybrown999
  
  Climatology is a subdiscipline of geography. Within the science, no one is debating whether or not climate change exists. The debate is over the threat that it poses. Those riding the funding train generally claim that global warming will be catastrophic. Scientists not on the funding are generally skeptical. Dr. Ball is hardly the only one.
  
  Also, it’s very difficult to get research funding to “not believe”. Scare tactics draw funding. Skepticism does not.
  - sonnyboy1
    
    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” – “The First Global Revolution”, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991
    
    “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colo.), presently with the United Nations.
- Howie_Roark
  
  consensus is a myth peddled by illiterate fools; The IPCC is a non-peer reviewed political organization
ozonator

Your failure to do any homework is part of the denier job description.
- J H
  
  Well, that cogent argument has totally convinced me!
  - Danodude22
    
    Global warming or whatever it is called now as it keeps getting proven to be a farce now causes or is linked to earthquakes?? Who knew!! LMAO!! But not really, as to even think something like that is just so mind numbingly stupid it’s actually angering.
    - J H
      
      Very angering. But sense does not have much to do with any religion. Believe anything that is said with nothing to back it up. Then try to ridicule any body that questions.
zuch

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends.

Uhhh, huh?!?!? The “nuclear power” that doesn’t emit CO₂? Quite the ‘hoax’, that (particularly to have fooled you).
zuch

The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

And fluoride!!! POE! POE! POE!!!
- jsdfkaljfd
  
  We must protect our precious bodily fluids.
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/ doublesixsixman

It’s amazing that the general public believes that predictions of the future are science and computer models are data.
How many centuries of failed predictions of the future are required before the average person realizes humans can not predict the future?
- muffler
  
  http://m.imgur.com/1B74lCV
matt_mckenzie

I think it’s a sad state of affairs that this issue has caused such hysteria and nasty discourse between political parties. I do not believe that man causes Global Warming, climate change, global cooling, etc. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that is going to allow the sun to burn us all up? Yeah, that alleged hole closed up and is no longer even discussed. Now it’s, climate change. Next, it will be man causing animals to become rabid and turn on people, and if we don’t donate millions of dollars to science so they can clone “nice species” of animals, then we all run the risk of being devoured by our hamsters…It’s always something, and there are always scientists screaming hysteria imploring millions of dollars be spent on “research”
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/ doublesixsixman

The main hoax is that humans can predict the future.
The secondary hoax is that science can ever be “settled”.
Other hoaxes:
(1) Predicting the future is science.
(2) Computer models are real data.
(3) People with science degrees using computer models to predict the future are (not) performing science — they are doing what it takes to get government grants to play computer games.
.
The future climate is unknown, and unknowable.
The average temperature has always varied, and probably always will.
Six prior glaciations took place with CO2 levels higher than at present.
If manmade CO2 was a major factor in global warming, then why did CO2 levels up to 20 times higher than today NOT prevent ice ages?
Throughout history, men seeking political or religious power have warned of a coming catastrophe unless everyone does as they say. The actual catastrophe does not have to happen, and it never does, but if enough people BELIEVE a catastrophe is coming they will follow orders.
- Mitch
  
  Do you even know why the glaciations took place with higher CO2 levels than at present? Because it sounds like you have no idea other than the surface understanding of what the word glaciation means.
  
  Higher CO2 levels paired with unfortunately coincidental volcanic eruptions leads to glaciation and has almost caused multiple ice ages because of the sudden extreme drop in temperatures.
- Pac
  
  I totally agree. Crazy scientists with all of their years and years of data and scientific knowledge….
  
  It’d be a waste if global warming was a hoax and but society still made the planet a better and cleaner place for nothing….
flashrob

well I just checked IN WITH REALITY…

current temp in “Great Falls, Montana” is ………. 11F (NOT WIND CHILL)

yahoo weather channel shows LOW IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT 26 with HIGH about 44F

……….
it’s 1130am here in NJ on Sunday morning 13Apr14…(our temp was supposed to be about 80 by now… like 60 IT IS

///////
NOW THIS “IS REALITY”

and remember “global warming” has little to do with “cold or warm” weather… BUT IT DOES HAVE TO “DO WITH – VERY ERRATIC WEATHER… LIKE WHAT WE BEEN HAVIN’ MOST OF THE WINTER FOR MUCH OF THE U.S.

///////////
WAKE UP TO “REALITY” …you don’t need statistics, so much JUST WATCH THE WEATHER CHANNEL…and get “some reality”
- ahandout
  
  The Weather Channel is owned by the same people who own MSNBC. Liberal/progressives. There’s no reality there.
- Pasquale Argenio
  
  Look up the difference between “weather” and “climate”, then come back.
ahandout

All you have to do to see the hoax for what it is, is to question why the alarmists went from “global warming” to “climate change.” You cannot lose with climate change, since our climate is in a state of constant flux. Brilliant.
- Pasquale Argenio
  
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 with the words “Climate Change” right there in the title! See it?
  
  The first use of the term was a 1956 study by scientist Gilbert Plass’. Both terms have been used throughout modern times. They mean different things, you see. Global warming is one possible consequence of Climate Change, which is a broader term.
  
  You really should try to avoid “folk wisdom” on message boards.
  - Earl Decker
    
    Yeah!! Right like Obama health care is now AHC (AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE). You believe that lie also I presume.
    - Pasquale Argenio
      
      You mean ACA? That also was the original name for that. Not sure what is your point. Do I believe that was the name, uh, well, yeah, that is what Fox News told me
  - ahandout
    
    Do you understand that the earth’s climate has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age? Fifteen degrees of global warming occurred before Al Gore could make a buck from it. What a lost opportunity.
- ElRay
  
  You do realize that it was Republicans during the Bush Jr. errs that pushed for “global warming” to be toned down and called “climate change”, do you?
  - Wynston_Smyth
    
    Jules Charney and Wallace Broecker were using the term “climate change” to describe the effects of carbon in the atmosphere as far back as 1975.
    Frank Luntz, a GOP pollster, did suggest that GOP candidates use the term “climate change” instead of global warming in the early 2000’s but the original coiners of the term ‘climate’ change were liberal science professors from Princeton and Columbia, Broecker and Charney. After that, NASA started using the term in the late 80’s/early 90’s
muffler

Things never change… Watch Cosmos… Read about reason and the scientific method. Stop distrusting thousands of scientists. Oh and btw.. Pretty much everything you use or supplies your life support today – food, clothing, energy, TV, computers, hot water, running water etc- is provided as a result of science… Praying for this stuff never worked.
muffler

It never ends.. Science is the future and denial leads to failure.
- Super meep
  
  What a great cartoon!
- ahandout
  
  Where is the one showing science declaring women and blacks inferior? Guess you don’t want to talk about that.
  
  Here are 20 F ups in science in just the last 20 years. I am sure you will find some of your heroes in these.
  
  http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/
bobashworth

All gases or any mass between you and a radiant energy source like the Sun cools you. These IPCC charlatans included only the reflection of energy from the atmosphere back to the earth; not the reflection of energy from the sun back to outer space our source of energy. All of the climate change hokum are lies. Greenhouse gases do not exist and the technologies they call green are not green at all. The greenest technology on the planet is coal, more CO2 more plant growth
Pasquale Argenio

Trends are not made in 15 years, but given that, the truth is the air has warmed less than expected, but the oceans have warmed more than expected. In addition, the oceans have absorbed massive amounts of our CO2 — enough to drop their pH by 30% (8.25 to 8.14). This is huge when you think of the size of the ocean.
Other short-term influences on air temperatures are sulfates (mostly released by China’s older coal plants) and volcanic activity that has been above normal for the past 15 years.
Your claim is actually very similar to the our experience here in the US in the 70s when some scientists noticed a cooling of the atmosphere. Back then, our coal plants where like those of China — putting out high-sulfate exhaust. Unfortunately, this is the primary cause of acid-rain. When we cured that, we unmasked the global warming threat — one, but not the only effect, of man-made climate change.
- http://www.aquahabitat.com/ Spring Creek Aquatic Concepts
  
  Pasquale,
  ummmmm you do realize the pH scale is a log scale and not linear, don’t you? pH 7 is ten times lower than pH 8. When you grasp basic science, then maybe you can move on to posting a viable opinion.
  - Pasquale Argenio
    
    Thank you, I did not remember the details of pH. It has been a long time since chemistry class! However, my posts does not assume linear pH. Looking into this further, I see there are actually 3 different pH scales for seawater. Turns out it is a complicated thing to measure. Maybe you can enlighten everyone on these finer points?
    Meantime, the core of what I said remains valid for the rest of us to digest.
- marybrown999
  
  “Other short-term influences on air temperatures are sulfates (mostly
  released by China’s older coal plants) and volcanic activity that has
  been above normal for the past 15 years.”
  
  If this was true, then the temp trends in the southern hemisphere, where sulfates are not a factor, would decouple from the northern hemisphere. But they haven’t. The “China Coal Plants” excuse for the recent lack of warming is easily debunked.
  - Pasquale Argenio
    
    It is not true in a vacuum. Sulfates are another factor, as are volcanoes, absorption of CO2 by the oceans, air and ocean currents and many other factors. You are correct, there are anomalies, but “debunk”? That’s a strong word for a reasonable person to use in a debate about how much or how little one factor out of hundreds affects observed and predicted behavior in a complex system.
    Anyway, there is less warming than expected, but there is still significant warming, and other effects such as arctic ice loss and ocean acidification.
    I know people on this board feel like their lifestyle is threatened, but it really does not have to be a disruption, we just need to steer a course toward sustainability. It is easy if we act together. It starts with facts, and you can get those in many places. Not necessarily from me.
Pasquale Argenio

Where did they falsify any findings? The hoax was the twisting of a few lines that were dredged from the 60K emails that were stolen to make it look like scientists did something dishonest. There were multiple inquires in and outside of the institutions and all parties were exonerated. But the subterfuge of the right wing echo chamber worked. People like you are still talking about “dishonest scientists” can’t you see that it is the Coal Barons, Big Oil and OPEC that do not want climate change mitigation? Stop being a stooge of these people. Your children are depending on you!
Ryan Smith

The article never stated those ideas were pushed on Obama. He clearly advocated those policy ideas in both writings and spoken words. Why are you splitting hairs?
Farz Hockenheim

Well, I would say this is the time when Power and Knowledge shows their relation. What if I say that science can be bought? let’s say there are 2 streams of scientists, one who said the truth, and there’s another one who doesn’t. Let me take you to reflect to ourselves, individually, no identities such as scientist or climatologist. If you face the condition when there’s a lot of money offered to you to fake your research, will you take it or not? it depends, well if your family is in crisis and your kids cannot eat or sleep well tonight, you will take it don’t you? what’s the point of being honest to your research if you can sell it for a house, a car, a pack of foods?

Imagine that happened, assume the one who ‘bought’ the science were a group of CEOs or Key Peoples (Presidents or another important people), and they publishes the work of the bought scientist(s), people would eventually believe what they said, and, knowing the ‘global warming’ slash ‘climate change’ discourse has been there for many years, this discourse has been repeated over and over, almost every generation. And this ‘climate change’ would be considered as ‘normal’, so people won’t even touch it anymore, not even complaining.

So why consider these ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ as a valid thing without questioning where and when does the discourse came from? why consider that was there in the first place?
ahandout

Here’s a nod to all those “scientists” who are never wrong. Thanks for contaminating our drinking water.

To Be or Not to Be, Thanks to MTBE
It was intended to solve a
pollution problem. Instead, it may be the cause of one of the most
serious pollution problems of our time. MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl
ether, is a gasoline additive that came into use in the late 1970s
during the phaseout of alkyl lead additives. It helps gasoline burn more
efficiently and cuts down on air pollutants. It also happens to be
highly water-soluble and has a nasty tendency to leak from underground
storage tanks at gas stations. In California, MTBE contamination has
forced water suppliers to shut down wells in many counties. A recent
study by the U.S. Geological Survey found MTBE in 14 percent of all
urban drinking water wells it sampled. In March 1999, the Clinton
administration announced a ban on the additive. Meanwhile, there appears
to be no cost-effective way to remove it from drinking water.
GQP

@
GQP

@
Big Ernie

The following is taken from the National Park Service FAQ section for the Yellowstone Super Volcano…….

Q: What is Yellowstone doing to prevent an eruption?

A: Nothing can be done to prevent an eruption. The temperatures, pressures, physical characteristics of partially molten rock, and the immensity of the magma chamber are beyond man’s ability to influence–much less control.

Come on now, global warmers…. I mean, climate changers…if we can change the climate of the whole world, surely you can fix a little bitty volcano. Huh? The earth’s atmosphere is a vastly larger system than a volcano, yet you’d have us believe we can control the larger system but not even influence the smaller?
gueppebarre

Go ahead, then, friend, knock yourself out and live like a caveman if you want.

I object to me being forced to live like one just because you think it’s prudent. Tell you what: all of you who think it’s better to live based on dubious science can go ahead; let us know how it’s working out for you in about 50 years.

Climate change is a fact; human-caused climate change is not.
Media Mentions

It’s fascinating, but the more I read about global warming, the more I come to the realization that there is no one truth. It’s not a debate on whether it exists or not – though that certainly is a part – it’s becoming far more nuanced. The PressReader platform expresses this exceptionally well http://www.pressreader.com/profile/Spotlight/bookmarks/global_warming though even this doesn’t settle the question. what worries me about this whole thing is when we start dealing with policy: when there is no established causality (ex driving habits to globe-scale warming), it is very difficult to implement any sort of meaningful policy. As fun as the debates are to follow, an objective answer would go a long way. And no the new US study doesn’t count, as many aspects have been strongly debated
David W Rogers

More damage than any
storm before, really. In 1901 a storm hit Galveston Island
and killed 7,000 people. Of course, when a storm hits today the damage is
greater than in the past; because, development of property has expanded and
cost of rebuilding has increased.
Irvin Siobal

i live in the philippines.. and yes climate change is real. we feel it, we cant harvest anymore during the harvesting season and its hard to plant crops during the planting season because it is raining during the months that are not supposed to rain.tropical countries tend to feel the effects of global warming more than the people who live in a temperate country. it is unfortunate for us and if you insist that global warming is not real then, we will be left on our own..
Rev. Chuck Currie

Climate change crisis reminds us we are called to care for Creation: http://www.oregonlive.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2014/05/climate_change_crisis_reminds.html
Franklin Zelch

Reasonable people would do their own research and stop regurgitating the “97% of scientist” myth because it is a bald faced lie.The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a
man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes
from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been
contradicted by more reliable research. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
James Oliva

So how do we blame Bush for global cooling?
James Oliva

So how do we blame Bush for global cooling?
James Oliva

So how do we blame Bush for global cooling?
g clark

Scientist do not know anything about science and economist know nothing about the economy according to un named sources.
sooner4ever

There are no subsidies. They’re called tax breaks and every business is entitled to take them. You’re just plain wrong, but you have the talking point down pat. Very good. As for environmental damage, the oil and gas industry is as responsible as it can be in preventing environmental damage, as compared to the wind industry that is killing millions of birds, some endangered, with their windmills.
sooner4ever

There are no subsidies. They’re called tax breaks and every business is entitled to take them. You’re just plain wrong, but you have the talking point down pat. Very good. As for environmental damage, the oil and gas industry is as responsible as it can be in preventing environmental damage, as compared to the wind industry that is killing millions of birds, some endangered, with their windmills.
- Jake Gless
  
  sooner4ever, you will be aghast to hear this, but the road industry wants to build structures that will kill millions of terrestrial animals as well. I’m sure with your great concern for the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, you will no doubt stand against this treachery of human progress.
  - Greg Burton
    
    Jake that’s such a weak argument! The Road Industry?? The fact is that we need roads to get from one place to another. Few roads are being built: Most of current infrastructure spending is on replacement of old roads and bridges. The fact is that man gets in the way of animals and vice versa. We can’t ruin our economy because .002% of the country’s antelope might have to move a few hundred feet to the west or south! Wildlife and plants are incredibly resilient, and are much more likely to die from other animals and plants than man, so let’s have intelligent discussions.
    - Jake Gless
      
      You dolts… I was using sarcasm to point out sooner4ever’s feigned concern for our avian wildlife. Seriously, the bird argument against windfarms is ridiculous. Anyone supporting the fossil fuel industry could care less about any greater good beyond their own misperceived interests.
      
      My goodness, I really cannot believe there were at least six earth inhabitants that actually would believe I am outraged about our road system. You dolts!!
  - Marcuso8
    
    Please stop breathing , your causing ” global warming ” !!
  - Marcuso8
    
    Please stop breathing , your causing ” global warming ” !!
drewsmonte

When BILLIONS of dollars can be made, man has a way of contriving ways to get it. Take the pharmaceutical industry; acceptable blood pressure and cholesterol numbers are always getting lower. Diseases and conditions are fabricated so they can be treated with their medication and after hearing the possible side effects, you’d be better to take your chances with the so called “disease”. The supplement industry is another one. I don’t believe “studies” because guess who is probably funding them. Chiropractors are modern day snake oil salesman. The human body wasn’t designed to be “adjusted”. A good friend of mine experienced a mini stroke from a chiropractor “adjusting” his neck.
Tom Peel

Calling this a “history” of global warming is a complete joke. 100 years ago scientists realized that increased CO2 levels could cause the planet to warm, and 50 years ago they were using the first digital computers to calculate the effect. All this was established science long before Al Gore or Michael Mann or the IPCC came on the scene. Where are Fourier, Tyndall, Guy Stuart Callendar and Gilbert Plass in this diatribe?
Frank W Brown

It’s ALL BS! PERIOD!
Frank W Brown

It’s ALL BS! PERIOD!
pixeloid

More corporate lies and misinformation: exactly what one would expect from the Heartland “Institute”.
- http://www.heartland.org/ The Heartland Institute
  
  Delete.
  
  Jim Lakely
  Director of Communications
  The Heartland Institute
  One South Wacker Drive #2740
  Chicago, IL 60606
  312-377-4000
  Sent from my iPad
- http://www.heartland.org/ The Heartland Institute
  
  Delete.
  
  Jim Lakely
  Director of Communications
  The Heartland Institute
  One South Wacker Drive #2740
  Chicago, IL 60606
  312-377-4000
  Sent from my iPad
David Rogers

Galveston has its highest water ever in 1901, New York’s
highest during Sandy and maybe some other city this weekend, that has nothing
to do with Global Warming. I live in Costa Rica it’s the rainy season
now and we have not had rain for a week, must be Global Warming. My cat had kittens must be Global Warming.
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
- David Whitson
  
  And your evidence that the highest flood levels in NY history have nothing to do with global warming would be …?
  - Wynston_Smyth
    
    No, the burden is on you to explain your theory. Explain how highest flood levels in NYC history automatically assumes so-called Global Warming to be the cause. You guys are looking under every rock for some silly sign of impending doom. We’re having a very cool summer here in the Northeast, does that mean no global warming, or global warming is receding, or going away for a while?? Every time there’s some kind of severe weather event, the environmental totalitarians are taking to the microphones to scream more proof of global warming. Destructive weather patterns in the US have been much worse in the in the distant past, was that because of global warming too? just a few years ago after Hurricane Sandy, all the experts were predicting increased hurricane activity for the next decade or longer. 2013 was very quiet. So far in 2014, hurricane activity has been almost non-existent. What happened to all the climate “experts” opinions?
  - Wynston_Smyth
    
    No, the burden is on you to explain your theory. Explain how highest flood levels in NYC history automatically assumes so-called Global Warming to be the cause. You guys are looking under every rock for some silly sign of impending doom. We’re having a very cool summer here in the Northeast, does that mean no global warming, or global warming is receding, or going away for a while?? Every time there’s some kind of severe weather event, the environmental totalitarians are taking to the microphones to scream more proof of global warming. Destructive weather patterns in the US have been much worse in the in the distant past, was that because of global warming too? just a few years ago after Hurricane Sandy, all the experts were predicting increased hurricane activity for the next decade or longer. 2013 was very quiet. So far in 2014, hurricane activity has been almost non-existent. What happened to all the climate “experts” opinions?
  - 127guy
    
    The same as your evidence that it does, presumably?
  - Shadow ribbed
    
    Its called storm surge, Look it up! WoW lol mindboggling!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge
john hancock

Umm, dude. Most climate models over-estimate warming for the last two decades. They even fail to reject the null hypothesis since the predictions vs. observed data are outside the 95% confidence range. So, not statistically significant. So, not scientific. Dude.
- Sugarsail1
  
  Dude, right on…and if it’s not open for discussion, why is everyone discussing it?
Sugarsail1

The greatest deception in history is the resurrection of Jesus, but the climate scam comes a very close 2nd. If in 2000 years if people are still paying homage to Al Gore as savior of the world, then the climate scam will be 1st.
Sugarsail1

I’m a scientist, the IPCC is a political body…they are a fraud. Don’t believe the hype lady, you’ve been suckered.
danielistical

Nature is the best
indicator that our world is warming up. Mangroves which were once limited to
the southern part of Florida are now spreading northward. Alligators are now
found in the Mississippi in Kentucky. Warm water fish are replacing cold water
fish in Long Island Sound. Birds are migrating northward two weeks earlier.
Alpine plants and animals are moving up the mountain sides. Animals and plants
don’t have political agendas; they just know the world is warming up, and they
are responding. Everyone, especially conservatives, should pay attention.

Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High

—By Chris Mooney | Fri
Jan. 17, 2014

According to both Anthony
Leiserowitz of Yale and Ed Maibach of George Mason, the leaders of the two
research teams, the answer may well lie in the so-called global warming “pause”—the misleading idea that global warming has
slowed down or stopped over the the past 15 years or so. This claim was used by
climate skeptics, to great effect, in their quest to undermine the release of
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report in
September 2013—precisely during the time period that is in question in the
latest study. Global warming is nothing new we have been knowing about it for
over a hundred years,,,what is new is the deniers,,,who are they the ones that contribute to it the most of
course. who’s most
responsible—Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Peabody Coal are all among the top
producers, along with state-owned organizations such as Saudi Aramco. This new
research can be a game changer in our efforts to reduce global warming
emissions—
danielistical

Nature is the best
indicator that our world is warming up. Mangroves which were once limited to
the southern part of Florida are now spreading northward. Alligators are now
found in the Mississippi in Kentucky. Warm water fish are replacing cold water
fish in Long Island Sound. Birds are migrating northward two weeks earlier.
Alpine plants and animals are moving up the mountain sides. Animals and plants
don’t have political agendas; they just know the world is warming up, and they
are responding. Everyone, especially conservatives, should pay attention.

Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High

—By Chris Mooney | Fri
Jan. 17, 2014

According to both Anthony
Leiserowitz of Yale and Ed Maibach of George Mason, the leaders of the two
research teams, the answer may well lie in the so-called global warming “pause”—the misleading idea that global warming has
slowed down or stopped over the the past 15 years or so. This claim was used by
climate skeptics, to great effect, in their quest to undermine the release of
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report in
September 2013—precisely during the time period that is in question in the
latest study. Global warming is nothing new we have been knowing about it for
over a hundred years,,,what is new is the deniers,,,who are they the ones that contribute to it the most of
course. who’s most
responsible—Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Peabody Coal are all among the top
producers, along with state-owned organizations such as Saudi Aramco. This new
research can be a game changer in our efforts to reduce global warming
emissions—
Greg Burton

The earth is in a 10,000-15,000 year interglacial warming trend. Nothing is going to get in the way of that. I totally disagree, on pure scientific facts, that manmade CO2 is doing much of it at this point. First, any scientist will tell you that it is almost impossible to increase or decrease the amount of CO2 in sea water just by there being more CO2 in the air. CO2 is a Trojan horse for the real problems, of sulfites, carbon monoxide, nitrates, ozone, byproducts of plastic production, etc., that man has had a hand in increasing, and that are far worse. I believe that we know which countries are the causes of these problems, but we need Chinese and Japanese goods, at current prices, we need wood and coffee from South America and southern Asia, at current prices, so we aren’t going to put their feet to the fire.

Moreover, geologists will tell you that rock and petrified wood data show that every historic serious increase in CO2 has occurred AFTER a global warming trend, not prior to it, primarily because so many plants pop up in areas of the planet that were previously covered with ice.

Disgustingly, the CRU and NASA under Jim Henson, have violated every tenet of science, with the way they have lied, corrupted data, continued to use weather data from stations that were once in forests, but are now in parking lots, and just stopped logging weather data from over 1,500 colder-than-average weather stations, like Siberia.

Anecdotally: Here in the northeast, over the past year, we had maybe 5 days above 90 deg., when we would usually have had about 20, and winter was dismal.

And about the PC-Politics of the situation: if you are planning on a career in climatology or geology, you KNOW better than to challenge the PC notion of global warming! No jobs will be waiting for you! And haven’t you noticed that every climatologist who retires almost immediately becomes a “denier”? I’m guessing that as soon as a real scientist (vs. a warming zealot) realizes their income and retirement aren’t at risk, they can speak their truth. No warming here.
Phil Man

For anyone that comes across one of those Man Caused Global Warming Bozo’s that claim that 97% of scientists agree that Man is Warming the planet, here are the REAL facts: 10,257 so called scientists were “polled”, of those 10,257 … 3,146 responded. Out of those 3,146, they selected 79 individuals, 97% of who had, presumably give the “correct” (and most likely paid for) answer. So the widely reported claim that 97% of “scientists” agree about man caused global warming (…aka, anthropogenic), was in all reality and actually just 79 (most likely paid off) individuals.

And further information being hidden by the Liberal media is the fact that over 31,000 American (real) scientists including 9,000 with PhDs have signed a petition affirming that “There is NO convincing scientific evidence that release of Carbon Dioxide, methane, of other “greenhouse” gasses can or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere or disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”
Joseph Clem

Scientists who claim that carbon dioxide drives global warming are unable to explain a 17-year hiatus in rising global temperatures, all while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. Obviously, if carbon dioxide drives global temperatures, this is literally impossible: No correlation, no causation.

Yet, the worldwide man-made climate change movement inexorability moves forward, continuing to blame CO2 for the rise in global warming that’s NOT happening, forcing governments and capitalism to control/reduce the levels of CO2 into our atmosphere.

Could it be that control of carbon is not the goal, but control of capitalism is the goal?

Could it be that the CO2 gas all humans & animals exhale is not a pollutant?

Could it be that using fossil fuels that God placed in the earth for mankind to use to get us to the end of the age is not our enemy, but our friend?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-show-sign-warming-9-years/
Maybe

Regardless of why the climate is changing, shouldn’t not polluting the planet further and relying on finite amount of fossil fuel sources be considered outdated? We as a species have the technology to enact drastic changes in energy production but lack a true organized effort to fight the billionaires who run the energy industries. The majority of human beings would agree that regardless of global warming we should strive to make the earth a cleaner place for our ancestors. Imagine if the energy billionaires got exactly what they wanted, everything would look like Beijing where you can no longer see the sun rise. And guess who will be living in those filthy polluted conditions, the poor. And guess who will be sitting on their private island immune from the problems they have created in the world? The billionaires. I for one do not want that to happen. Unbridled capitalism has turned America in particular into an oligarchy, run by extreme wealth that funnels money directly into both sides of the debate in an attempt to control opinions or maybe even to keep the average man/women subdued to bickering about hot button issues when they should really be looking at the state of the world as a whole, not just certain aspects that their political party tells them is important.
Maybe

I would prefer Disqus stop censoring my comments. How long does it take to approve them. Some get posted immediately, but others than make the point that the ruling class is and will take advantage of the average man every chance they get does not have enough merit to be posted? Both sides of politics fuel their own personal debate on the subject while the average American sits back and watches these companies spend unbridled amounts of money to get their way. Wake up people. This is no longer a capitalist country, it is an oligarchy. Plain and simple. Just because some people shout capitalism does not mean they understand what it means. Please censor this too.
- http://www.heartland.org/ The Heartland Institute
  
  You had to wait 12 minutes.
cabouthillier

Proof of climate change, global warming & evolution is false evidence used to bring in the greatest fraud in history

Evolution, weakened mutated DNA, and is caused by iron poisoning. The synthesis of toxic, malformed, destructive proteins requires ahost with an iron supply. Destructive proteins: cancer, tumors, inflammation, degenerative conditions, diabetes, heart-cardiovascular disease, masses, lung C.O.P.D., dementia. These are just some of the main problem areas that correlate to iron deposits.

Global warming is used in conjunction with evolution to covertly describe the effects of iron poisoning & copper deficiency. Rising CO2 levels is found in iron poisoned blood; the body’s defense mechanism to buffer the high levels of oxygen caused by iron. Iron attracts oxygen, causing free radicals, expediting the aging & death process. The extermination plan, NOT extinction, is causing disease & deaths.

The iron poisoned, copper depleted blood types are A, B & O. (AB does not have iron poisoning.)

Blood types are used to describe the fraudulent evolution timeline; the timeline when each of the blood types manifested. The iron poisoned blood types manifested 500 years ago when iron poisoning was implemented on a mass scale. This is evidenced in world population growth that went exponential beginning in the early 1500s, when birth rates increased significantly. Birth rates increased due to a significant decrease in gestational period due to iron poisoning & copper deficiency.

Blood type prevalence in the United States 50 years ago was as follows: A – 40%, B – 11%, O – 45%, AB – 4%
The current blood prevalence for the United States approximates: A/O – 62%, B – 31%, AB – 6.66%
The blood types A & O die off first, followed by type B close behind.
(United States population numbers are close to 214 million; not 320 million. Population peaked in about 1980.)

So, when they announce human evolution & extinction, global warming; and give proof using CO2 levels in blood & the timeline of blood types, you know this is false evidence to bring in a greater fraud.

http://www.unveilingthem.com/

cab
Brokenit

I live on the coast and it has not moved one iota in the last 54 years, so you must be living on another planet.

As for the hard punch in the gut that you express you would like to perform on me, just because the colder weather does not suite your faulty paradigm, you would be welcome to try, since it appears that violence is your only solution, when your mental reasoning fails. But I am rather proficient at roundhouse kicks to the jaw and I doubt you’d land a punch on me, even at my age.
Brokenit

I live on the coast and it has not moved one iota in the last 54 years, so you must be living on another planet.

As for the hard punch in the gut that you express you would like to perform on me, just because the colder weather does not suite your faulty paradigm, you would be welcome to try, since it appears that violence is your only solution, when your mental reasoning fails. But I am rather proficient at roundhouse kicks to the jaw and I doubt you’d land a punch on me, even at my age.
Dick Adams

Had it not been for ‘Global Warming’, a natural evolution of our beautiful Planet, we would now be living on a glacier that once covered the North American Continent. Only a person of limited intelligence would promote a return to the ‘Caveman’ like conditions of 10,000 years in the past. The liberal mentality of controlling all things in all lives is a vaguely disguised attempt to destroy a ‘Common Sense’ approach to preserving what we all really want for our Planet.
Dick Adams

Had it not been for ‘Global Warming’, a natural evolution of our beautiful Planet, we would now be living on a glacier that once covered the North American Continent. Only a person of limited intelligence would promote a return to the ‘Caveman’ like conditions of 10,000 years in the past. The liberal mentality of controlling all things in all lives is a vaguely disguised attempt to destroy a ‘Common Sense’ approach to preserving what we all really want for our Planet.
Dick Adams

Had it not been for ‘Global Warming’, a natural evolution of our beautiful Planet, we would now be living on a glacier that once covered the North American Continent. Only a person of limited intelligence would promote a return to the ‘Caveman’ like conditions of 10,000 years in the past. The liberal mentality of controlling all things in all lives is a vaguely disguised attempt to destroy a ‘Common Sense’ approach to preserving what we all really want for our Planet.
Dick Adams

Had it not been for ‘Global Warming’, a natural evolution of our beautiful Planet, we would now be living on a glacier that once covered the North American Continent. Only a person of limited intelligence would promote a return to the ‘Caveman’ like conditions of 10,000 years in the past. The liberal mentality of controlling all things in all lives is a vaguely disguised attempt to destroy a ‘Common Sense’ approach to preserving what we all really want for our Planet.
Dick Adams

Had it not been for ‘Global Warming’, a natural evolution of our beautiful Planet, we would now be living on a glacier that once covered the North American Continent. Only a person of limited intelligence would promote a return to the ‘Caveman’ like conditions of 10,000 years in the past. The liberal mentality of controlling all things in all lives is a vaguely disguised attempt to destroy a ‘Common Sense’ approach to preserving what we all really want for our Planet.
steff

Dear climate deniers,

If you’re willing to engage in some courteous, thoughtful expression of ideas and information — i have some unanswered questions about your arguments. I’d like to pose them to you, and get your responses.

<<>>

Firstly, i guess i’m speaking to those who can AGREE that ~95% of climate scientists from around the globe are CLAIMING that further increases in man-made CO2 emissions are a clear and present danger to our grandchildren’s (or possibly children’s) environment, and it should be dealt with rapidly and aggressively (aka: that’s a true enough statement — they ARE CLAIMING that). I, myself, am NOT doubting that they’re saying something like that — and i’m not here to discuss if that’s true.

What i want to know is — WHY should i doubt the CLAIMS?

<<>>

I’ve compiled a list of all the denier arguments i could find (7), and my question(s) about each. If i’ve missed any, please let me know which one(s) i haven’t considered. I’ll get the 2 extreme positions out of the way first — i don’t have any questions about them (they seem like “just because” arguments) — then i’ll move onto the more serious arguments that have potential meat to them, IMHO, where i DO have questions.

—-

Denier argument #1:

The ~95% are incompetent.

x-Question #1:

I have no question on that one. I simply can’t endorse that stance as a basis for decision making — not when it comes to my grandkids. I am not a science dis-believer.

—-

Denier arguement #2:

Consensus is not fact.

x-Question #2:

I have no question on this one either. It seems like just another way of saying “the ~95% are incompetent”. I can’t doubt the scientists without a better reason than that statement. Most natural sciences deal in probabilities — not certainties (e.g.: ‘plant a seed in XYZ conditions, and it will PROBABLY sprout’ -or- ‘the pyramids will erode to be APPROXIMATELY 0.03″ shorter next year’).

—-

Denier argument #3:

The ~95% predicted cooling back in the 70’s, but now predict warming (aka: their flip-flopping indicates that they don’t understand how the climate works well enough to trust them).

Question #3:

If those climate scientists in the 70’s (when satellites had just started collecting data and computers were nothing more than room-sized calculators) made incorrect predictions 35 years ago — how many decades of drawing the same basic conclusions (with the help of tons more data and computing power) should it take before we trust that their science is mature and reasonable? If your response is: “when the climate goes crazy, we’ll have proof” (aka: “we could wait and see”), then i repeat — WHY should i doubt their CLAIMS that it WILL go crazy? “We could wait” doesn’t seem like a reason to invalidate the science. There’s been no significant flip-flopping for 3 decades now from the ~95%.

—-

Denier argument #4:

There is a flaw in some commonly-used calculation that has skewed the results of the ~95%.

Question #4:

What specifically is/are the flaw(s) — or what doubtful, universal assumption(s) have the ~95% made? Please define.

—-

Denier argument #5:

Follow the money.

Question #5:

This argument seems odd to me. How can deniers use this statement, when the oil industry makes more money than pretty much anyone — and based on that statement, would have the most “money motivation” to mess with the truth? Who, specifically, stands to gain more than they do? Without a trail to follow, this statement seems counter-productive to the denier position.

—-

Denier argument #6:

Powerful folks in our gov’t have offered grant money to the ~95% to “prove that it’s true” — and because of that directive, the scientists (for 30 years now) have lost objectivity, and therefore their results can not be trusted.

Question #6:

If that’s been true, HOW did that grant money influence the majority of the ~95% — the 1000’s who work outside of this country and have no access to U.S. research grant dollars?

—-

Denier argument #7:

The ~95% are involved in a coordinated global “hoax” — a “hoax” that has been feeding misinformation to the people of the world (for 30 years now) — in order to satisfy “someone’s” self-serving goals.

Question #7:

Who are the major suspects who coordinated this effort? Who had the means, opportunity and motive to contact 1000’s of climate scientists all over the globe, and coerce ~95% of them into lying/skewing? How could that many contacts be made without a mile-wide trail of coercive activities and communications being unearthed? If this is the “biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind”, wouldn’t there be tons of specific shady events that truth-seeking investigators have compiled over 30 years — with specific names of suspects at the heart of this betrayal? I ask: WHO, when, where and how has this “hoax” been perpetrated? Without any evidence of the ~95% conspiring to pull off a “hoax”, in cahoots with some coordinator(s) ——- again, WHY should i doubt what the ~95% have been CLAIMING?

—————–

Answers anyone?

(-: steff
Rick Rogan

I can’t believe how much people will fall for. No wonder so many people make a living as “con artists” as PT Barnum once famously said, “there’s a SUCKER born every minute, and TWO to take him” I for one NEVER believed in this Global warming thing from the very beginning ! “the planet has a fever” yeah Right AL . In case you missed it in 7th grade Science class, ( who knows maybe you skipped class that day to go smoke some weed) , we learned ( those of us that actually weren’t high and paid attention , that throughout history the Planet Earth has alternately cooled and heated over and over for BILLIONS of years, and get this…. WITHOUT ANY assistance from humans !! (I know right?) To be fair, YES the earth may INDEED be in a warming stage at this time, HOWEVER ! to give rise to the theory that somehow we humans have had ANYTHING to do with it, OR can actually do anything to stop it, is not only crazy it is the HIEGHT of human arrogance ! The earth was doing fine BEFORE man became the dominant species on the planet, and it will do fine LONG after were gone, ANYONE who thinks humans can have a permenant effect on this planet should watch a few episodes os “Life after people” It’s a sobering documentary outlining just how insignificant we are on this planet, If we dissapeared tomorrow it would take mother earth about 2000 years or so ( an eye blink in the universe) to totally erase any and ALL traces that we even existed . (by that time Manhattan would look like a forest .(in fact it would BE a forrest) there is NOTHING mankind can do to this planet that she can not wipe out completely with time. That is one of the few sure things in the universe ” the Earth WILL re-claim” BUT, with the state of education in this country, it does not surprise me that so many people still believe these people in this “global warming threat” PEOPLE ! , these are the same folks who brought you the Y2K bug! remember THAT one? I still can’t even FATHOM how otherwise sane and reasonable people actually believed that civilization was going to CRUMBLE because the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the history of mankind wasn’t going to be able to count past 2000 !!! I STILL get a kick out of that one ! wake up people “THINK FOR YOURSELVES”
Rick Rogan

I can’t believe how much people will fall for. No wonder so many people make a living as “con artists” as PT Barnum once famously said, “there’s a SUCKER born every minute, and TWO to take him” I for one NEVER believed in this Global warming thing from the very beginning ! “the planet has a fever” yeah Right AL . In case you missed it in 7th grade Science class, ( who knows maybe you skipped class that day to go smoke some weed) , we learned ( those of us that actually weren’t high and paid attention , that throughout history the Planet Earth has alternately cooled and heated over and over for BILLIONS of years, and get this…. WITHOUT ANY assistance from humans !! (I know right?) To be fair, YES the earth may INDEED be in a warming stage at this time, HOWEVER ! to give rise to the theory that somehow we humans have had ANYTHING to do with it, OR can actually do anything to stop it, is not only crazy it is the HIEGHT of human arrogance ! The earth was doing fine BEFORE man became the dominant species on the planet, and it will do fine LONG after were gone, ANYONE who thinks humans can have a permenant effect on this planet should watch a few episodes os “Life after people” It’s a sobering documentary outlining just how insignificant we are on this planet, If we dissapeared tomorrow it would take mother earth about 2000 years or so ( an eye blink in the universe) to totally erase any and ALL traces that we even existed . (by that time Manhattan would look like a forest .(in fact it would BE a forrest) there is NOTHING mankind can do to this planet that she can not wipe out completely with time. That is one of the few sure things in the universe ” the Earth WILL re-claim” BUT, with the state of education in this country, it does not surprise me that so many people still believe these people in this “global warming threat” PEOPLE ! , these are the same folks who brought you the Y2K bug! remember THAT one? I still can’t even FATHOM how otherwise sane and reasonable people actually believed that civilization was going to CRUMBLE because the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the history of mankind wasn’t going to be able to count past 2000 !!! I STILL get a kick out of that one ! wake up people “THINK FOR YOURSELVES”
BT

Global warming is real. I live in Alaska and planted an orange tree this summer. I hope it can make it through the winter, it got down to -50 last year
John Moon

And melting is natural event powered by the volcanic activity under both the North and South poles, It has nothing to do with C02( do a little research)
However polar ice has rebounded and antarctic ice is at a historic Maximum
John Moon

And melting is natural event powered by the volcanic activity under both the North and South poles, It has nothing to do with C02( do a little research)
However polar ice has rebounded and antarctic ice is at a historic Maximum
Zac

So I’m still debating over all of this. But something people need to know. I work in a powerplant that has 2 identical 5mw generators, one is “green” while the other is not. They are one Vin number apart. They both came off the same naval vessel. But because one was installed ten years later than the other it is considered green. Funny thing is it’s less efficient, has a newer computer system on it yes, but that’s it. It has a worse vacuum and the heat coming out of it is indicating an extra 5% loss, give or take. But because it’s green we get paid something around ten dollars extra per megawatt produced for running it. I think rather than focusing on global warming we should focus on making water cleaner and making batteries that don’t run off super rare metals and radioactive materials (cadmium warning is listed on the battery inside my laptop). An agnostic approach to global warming

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax

Heartland’s Paris/COP-21 Briefing

Watch ALL of Heartland’s 12/7 Climate Science Event in Paris for COP-21

"The American Spectator Blog"

"News You Must Read: The Heartlander"

Heartland on Facebook

Heartland on YouTube

Reasonable Sites

"Somewhat Readable Links"

Recent Comments

Heartland Websites

Heartland News

Get Reasonable

Related Posts