Snow A Real Damper For Global Warming, But True Believers Are Insulated In A Leftwing Cocoon Of Lies

I got a response to an article I wrote titled “Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data” from someone referring to himself as “Mechanical Engineer.”  Here’s how he lectured me:

The data that was thrown out was not the only data that was collected around the world.

Take some time and rather than read some idiot’s opinion, do your own research. If you have any intelligence, there is only one conclusion – the atmospher [sic] is geating [sic] warmer. WAKE UP AMERICA. Scientist [sic] are scientist, not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic].

Corporations do not care about you or the environment, so the last thing they would want is for the people to have knowledge.

“The ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995″

For starters, you can visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmopsheric [sic] Administration). I’m trying to teach you to fish!! let’s see if you starve America ?!!!

And here is my response:

Mechanical Mind,

You might be great at teaching people to fish. If so, please stick with it. You’re sure not good at teaching people to think.  All you can do is recite the pseudo-scientific propaganda that someone poured into your head.

Your “science” is ideology, and whenever the science gets in the way of your ideology, so much the worse for your “science.”

We went from “global warming” to “climate change” because we clearly WEREN’T warming, and “climate change” provided the left with the rhetorical device to entirely deny their previous arguments and to essentially actually argue that it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot. And it was “justified” “scientifically” by “researchers” who were saying to one another stuff like:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

So much for your “Scientist are scientist [sic], not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic]” remark.

And with all due respect for your “science” and your sneering contempt to conceal the fact that you have been disproven time and time again, it is all complete BULLCRAP:

In 2000, global warmers shrilly assured us that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The problem with that “scientific” prediction based on the “fact” of global warming is that it turned out to be completely FALSE:

Ski resorts’ woe: Too much snow
Fierce storms that closed roads on key weekends prevented many potential visitors from driving to the slopes this season
May 21, 2011 | Hugo Martin

California ski operators often complain that they don’t have enough snow. This year, they’re complaining that they had too much.

Mountain resorts saw a 12% decline in skiers and snowboarders this season compared with the previous one, with attendance falling to about 7.1 million, according to the California Ski Industry Assn., the nonprofit trade group for the state’s major winter sports areas.

Your mantra that “corporations do not care about you or the environment” reveals your real problem: you are a socialist. You might be some hybrid consisting in part fascist, part Marxist, and pure distilled fool.

Socialists do not care about you, the environment, or anything but their total power and control over the masses. And they use naked indoctrination to GET that control.

As for the mainstream media that have bought the global warming lie hook, line and sinker – because pseudo-scientists like YOU taught them how to “fish” – I pointed out in a comment just yesterday:

A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

And it is a rather easy thing to document that those “experts” are entirely leftwing:

Walter Lippmann – who shaped progressive “journalism,” said, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.” He referred to democracy as “the manufacture of consent” and said citizens “are mentally children.” He said:

“In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class…”

Meanwhile his progressive pal Edward Bernays said things like:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

It is the LEFT that wants to erect an elite class that rules the lives of the rest of the people. By whatever means necessary, including propaganda and lies. It is the LEFT that wants to erect a giant omnipotent state that replaces God. It is the LEFT that wants to create a world in which everyone has to come to THEM to get the basic essentials for existence and thus control those existences.

It is the left that is telling all the lies.

For the record, mechanically clueless, you just parroted one of those lies that were passed from global warming alarmist “scientists” to their parrots in the mainstream media which has since been entirely refuted. It is a LIE that “the ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995.” And thank God for the “idiots” – as you would have called them – who forced the correction after “science” bowed down before leftist ideology.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930’s are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

Sorry, Mr. Sneering Ignorant Liberal, but your “facts” just got flushed down the toilet with the rest of the fecal matter.

I am increasingly alarmed by the stupidity and ignorance that is coming out of our university system.

The power of the university used to be to teach students how to think.  Students learned a diverse range of subjects that not only broadened their academic range, but forced them to apply what they learned and forced them to research and express their ideas about what they had learned.

It was too tempting for liberals – who progressively purged conservatives from academia via tactics that were frankly Stalinist.  So nowadays professors simply tell students what to think, require them to fill their minds with blatant propaganda, and then force them to spit that propaganda back out in order to get the approval of a decent grade.

It’s just no wonder that we end up with minds and thinking like “Mechanical Engineer’s.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Snow A Real Damper For Global Warming, But True Believers Are Insulated In A Leftwing Cocoon Of Lies”

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    “I am increasingly alarmed by the stupidity and ignorance that is coming out of our university system.”

    Ditto.

    I’m thinking Hillsdale University is not a bad place to obtain an undergrad in. I.e., it’s preferable to an Ivy.

  2. John Says:

    You need to wake up and realise how badly you’ve been fooled by the fossil fuel industry billionaires. When that realisation finally sinks in, I hope you will put as much time and energy into doing anything and everything you can to combat global warming, as you do now into denying that it exists.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    I got my undergrad degree from Portland State University. Libsville all the way. American history and the history of Western civilization was a deconstructionist presentation of every single flaw in either culture – with very little of the good presented (except just enough to “prove” we are hypocrites, of course).

    It couldn’t be more formulaic. And it’s repeated all over the country in every grade from kindergarten to doctoral.

    I got my ThM from Biola – an excellent school even though it participates in the “student loan” program that Hillsdale refuses.

    Interestingly, in that program, I was fortunately forced to interact with a broad swath of competing ideas. As an example, there were a number of occasions that I wrote papers in which I was instructed to consult commentaries from two lists – “conservative” and “liberal” – and rigorously interact with them. I found the same pattern repeated over and over and over again: the liberal commentaries either didn’t even bother to present the ideas of the conservative theologians/linguists/exegets, or they presented a flat-out straw man. Versus the conservatives, who ALWAYS interacted with the best liberal arguments and represented them fairly before explaining why they disagreed.

    That DEFINES liberal “intellectualism” on every venue and every field you want to name.

    America is the greatest country on earth. That is why it is THE number one nation BAR NONE that peoples from other countries yearn to come to. But you’d never think that for a second reading a liberal “American History” work. And you’d certainly never draw the sweeping drama-queen conclusions of the global warming alarmists (the most prominent of whom actually said we were facing an ICE AGE in the 1970s before they started screaming about global warming) if you had anything whatsoever to do with legitimate “science.” But that’s where we are today.

    HERE’S our academic system today.

    HERE’S our academic system today.

    HERE’S our academic system today.

    HERE’S our academic system today.

    As I survey our academic climate today, I feel like that crying Indian Chief in the old pollution commercials. We have polluted our educational system into a sick joke of propaganda.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    You need to wake up and realize how badly YOU’VE been fooled by the ideological left and by an industry that feeds off of getting billions in government grant money to solve nonexistant crises. When that realization finally sinks in, I hope you will put as much time and energy into doing anything and everything yo can to combat ignorance, as you do now into being a KoolAid drinker.

    Let me explain something to you: I’m an evangelical fundamentalist Christian. I believe passionately that we are in the last days before the end. And I believe just as passionately that humanity is entirely responsible for bringing about these end times. Which is to say that there is absolutely NOTHING that would stop me from believing in global warming if it were a genuine issue.

    That said, when I first really heard about what the left was planning – flat-out socialist redistributionism – at Kyoto, I was appalled by the sheer cynicism of the left. The worst polluting nations on earth – China, Russia, India, the entire third world – was specifically EXEMPTED from the treaty obligations. It was only the ‘developed’ nations that had to literally destroy their societies and their way of life and give all their resources to these other countries.

    Let me ask you: IF WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM, THEN WHY IN THE HELL AREN’T PEOPLE LIKE YOU ACTUALLY TREATING IT LIKE ONE??? Why don’t you demand that every single nation gut it’s economic growth so that we might have a scintilla of a chance to solve this problem???

    China and India are building new coal plants like crazy:

    Ironically, the US is in danger of power blackouts at a time when it is exporting greater and greater amount of coal to China and other countries. Already, America is sending 80 million tons of coal overseas, but plans are underway to increase exports by 10% in 2011. Countries overseas understand that coal is the cheapest and most reliable form of energy available for producing electrical power. At a time when America is curtailing its coal generating capacity, China and India are building one new coal generating plant every week. And America is shipping its vital resources overseas even as its citizens are left, quite literally, out in the cold.

    India is getting 70% of its electricity from COAL. And the entire leftwing global warming industry demands that they get to keep massively polluting while we redistribute our wealth to them even more than we already have.

    That’s in addition to the fact that all your “science” is a giant load of crap.

  5. John Says:

    Michael, thanks for authorising my comment.

    The fossil fuel industrialists spend millions sowing doubt, in the same way that tobacco companies did with lung cancer, but in fact the science is rock solid, and has been for well over 100 years. This is just something you have to accept.

    Countries like India and China aren’t to blame for the climate crisis we’re facing – we in the West are, because we’ve been much more carbon-intensive for much longer than they have. It’s a moral issue. That’s why we should take responsibility and not offload it onto them. Besides, what motivation could those countries possibly have for reducing their pollution if we’re not prepared to do so as well?

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    I block comments for outright lies, for false representation, for profanity, for hate, etc.

    I don’t block people for having a different view.

    But I take serious issue with virtually everything you claim. First of all, let’s start with your demonization of business. You don’t think I can do that to GOVERNMENT??? Was it business that deliberately allowed black men to get useless placebos instead of treatment for syphillus so they could monitor that diseas’s progression? Oops, no. It was Democrats and government. Was it business that locked up American citizens of Japanese ancestry even in spite of the fact that a study had been done to show they were no threat to America in WWII? Oops. Wrong again. It was Democrats and government. Was it business that imploded our economy in 2008? Again, nope, it turns out that it was government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that engaged in all kinds of shenanigans and imploded our housing mortgage industry before they themselves imploded. Businesses were responsible for a fraction of the harm that the government did. And look at our programs and our debt; was it business that racked up $200 trilion in unfunded liabilities through accounting methods that executives in the private sector would have gone to prison for life for doing? No, that would be government. Hey, that whole nasty Holocaust thing, wasn’t that government in action?

    If you’re a good socialist, however, government is our god, and the only god with whom we have to do. It is to be expanded to massive heights to attain the exalted status it deserves over all of our meaningless individual existences. We are meat puppets and herd animals, after all. We can only trust our government. And the United Nations, which is just one big stinking useless global government in waiting, of course.

    And I’m supposed to demonize business – and in particular the oil industry which keeps our way of life flowing – because of tobacco? Because what, tobacco is made from oil or something? Tobacco equals oil?

    I don’t smoke, but I do drive. Which I guess is just like smoking. And, oops, I heat my home. Damn, that’s just like smoking too. Oh, shoot, it’s even worse. I’m using this computer to type on the internet, which is just as bad as smoking with my kids in the room.

    Btw, let’s consider that lung cancer thing. People were calling cigarettes “coffin nails” from at least the 1800s (probably earlier). Of COURSE cigarrettes cause lung cancer. What kind of idiot do you have to be to deny that cigarrettes cause cancer? But your government was engaging in an asinine war of rhetoric with the tobacco companies. They were dragged to Washington to sit in front of a bunch of pig-faced congresssmen, and if they said “cigarettes cause lung cancer,” then they were admitting that cigarettes are a dangerous drug that needs to be taken over by the US government. Screw freedom, and screw the fact that everybody and their grandma knew that cigarettes cause lung cancer. It was tantamount to me asking you the question, “Can I saw your head off and hand it to you?” I’m guessing you’d say no. Which is just what they had to do.

    And from there you get into the fundamental fascism that you people seem to love so much. Pizza, Big Macs, etc. cause heart attacks. Do you know how many children are killed every year riding bicycles? We need to take over society and regulate it for the sake of the stupid cows whom we pretend are the free American people.

    Global warming alarmists have been 100% wrong in every single one of their asinine predictions (and for your information, John, prediction and verifiability used to be at the heart of science until the left took it over and turned it into ideological purity instead). The same guys who are now “leading scientists” in the field of global warming (such as James Hansen at NASA) are ON THE RECORD of having hyped ice age fears before they started to hype global warming fears. We have the LEADING “climate change” facility ON THE RECORD distorting and purging their data, and talking about how to distort the data, and you come at me with your “solid for 100 years crap” do you? We also have readings that THE WARMEST YEARS ACTUALLY OCCURRED BEFORE 1940. We also know that many of the measuring locations went from being in a grass field in the middle of nowhere to right next to an air conditioning unit on a hot concrete slab. Solid for well over 100 years?

    If the “science” is so settled, why was Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth” based on so many documented lies and fabrications?

    But you’re not done, are you? No, you say that countries like China – THE NUMBER ONE POLLUTER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET – should be off limits. Because, after all, you are ten times the socialist you are the “global warming” worrier. And your tenent really isn’t about “global warming” at all, but rather about the socialist redistribution of wealth and the destruction of Western Civilization – most especially America with its hated freedom and its hated capitalism that is merely the result of freedom.

    Your last line might seem serious – what motivation could those countries possibly have for reducing their pollution if we’re not prepared to do so as well? – if it weren’t so utterly insane. I’ll tell you what, John. Let’s both agree that you and I as human beings are both contributing to global warming. Our very existences create pollution. You go ahead and jump off the tallest building within a hundred miles of wherever you live, and I’ll be there right behind you. Which is to say, hey, let’s go ahead and utterly dismantle Western Civilization and particuarly the American way of life. Because that will clearly tell the rest of the world that we were really serious, so they can go ahead and take that lemming plunge into extinction, too.

    By the way, I was lying. Jump off whatever you want, and I’m not going to. Because I’m sane. And that’s the same reason that world number one polluter China, and India, and Russia, and the Middle East, and Africa, and Latin America, and the rest of the damn world would laugh at you while you killed your society for a stupid suicidal guesture.

    If people like you were in any way whatsoever seriously worried about global warming, you wouldn’t be like Al Gore flying around on a carbon spewing private jet and living in a dozen carbon spewing mansions. You wouldn’t be absolving the third world of any responsibility to stop polluting. You would demand that the entire world lived up to the crap solutions that you are – as a socialst who hates freedom, hates Western Civilization and hates America – demanding only your ideological enemies embrace.

    I hope I was clear. Because I really don’t like to beat around the bush (bush-beating increases global warming, after all).

  7. Robbie Says:

    Karl Marx the first evrinomentalist! and global warming kool aid drinkers include the recently deceased osama bin laden.

    John exactly who in the flying #@$ do you think owns the oil, gas companies = I will help you out – citizens of America who invested via pensions, ira, 401k in stock of these company – they are called stockholders – shall we hold them responsible ‘morally’ for the product they have either directly or indirectly chosen to invest in.

    Finally exactly where did you earn a mechanical engineering degree from?

    Hillsdale college is one of the best schools around. Why because college is supposed to teach you to think, reason and not accept spoon fed crap from media, state funded shools, “scientists” etc.

  8. John Says:

    Michael:

    The fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception about global warming is very well documented at sites like desmogblog.com and heatisonline.org – It’s not even disputed by the companies themselves, who have at various times promised to be good and not do it again… but of course they carry on undeterred, and simply try to hide it better.

    You seem to have allowed yourself to be convinced by this campaign that global warming is in doubt. I ask you to consider this: What if you’re wrong? What if global warming is very real, very dangerous and a very urgent threat? I note that you have children, as I do. How are you going to feel when you find out that the fossil fuel corporations *knowingly* destroyed their future, and that you helped them do it? Are you prepared to risk your children’s lives on the basis of what you’re told by sociopathic industrialists, venal politicians and the irresponsible media?

    Seriously, that is what it boils down to. If you’re right about global warming then the worst that can happen is that we end up with a cleaner environment and a more sustainable society for nothing. If you’re wrong, you’re killing your own children.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    You put all your trust in the government, and all of your distrust in business. Quite fascist of you.

    I’ll have to add “Adolf Hitler” to Robbie’s list. He and his Nazis were BIG TIME greenies.

    It always amazes me how the left have tried to turn the Nazis into “right wingers.” Basically, on their understanding, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, et al were a bunch of corporate CEOs who took over the government. When in plain and rather obvious fact they were radical socialist politicians who took over the corporations.

    Oil companies pollute? You mean drilling deep into the earth and somehow extracting out a black, gooey substance isn’t 1000% environemntally clean??? I’m shocked, John. I had no idea. I thought the oil companies had magic fairy unicorns do it with sparkles all around them.

    I seem to have allowed myself to be convinced that global warming is in doubt? Dude, unlike you, I am actually intelligent enough to go outside and see the cold – and then compare that to the predictions you and your fellow idiots have been making for years!!! I am actually intelligent enough to look at the emails from these so-called global warming “scientists” and see how they admit to themselves that they’re working a giant scam.

    I’m smart enough to know this stuff:

    What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming
    https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/what-the-science-really-says-about-global-warming/

    What You Never Hear About Global Warming
    https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/what-you-never-hear-about-global-warming/

    You have already told me that only the United States and Western Civilization should be held accountable for global warming. You have already said that countries like China – WITH CHINA AGAIN BEING THE NUMBER ONE POLLUTER ON THE PLANET – should be allowed to continue to pollute. So I’m going to go ahead and roundfile you’re “what if you’re wrong” crap. You don’t give one damn about fixing any problem – even a nonexistent one.

    And your last paragraph couldn’t be more wrong: if I’m right about global warming and we do what you say we should do, the “worst” that can happen is that China, Russia and the most murderous regimes in the history of the human race will surge to world dominance while the nations that ENDED their scourge castrate themselves before deciding that they didn’t go far enough and proceed to disembowel themselves.

  10. John Says:

    You say you’re “smart enough to know this stuff”… but let’s face it, you’re not a scientist and neither am i. Ultimately we have to rely on expert opinion, and that says overwhelmingly that we have a real, urgent and very dangerous climate crisis. What if you’re wrong and they’re right? Are you really prepared to take that chance, considering the consequences? Are you really confident that your opinion is worth more than that of professionals who have devoted their entire working lives to studying and understanding the climate?

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    Your “experts” have been CAUGHT admitting that they have purged data, and that they are using “tricks” to “hide the declines.” Some of the most gargantian scientific frauds since Piltdown Man have been committed by your “experts,” such as the now infamous hockey stick graph (who lo and behold was one of the very same total frauds who was involved in Climategate). Your “experts” are chumps like James Hansen who believed we were going to die in an ice age before he believed we were going to die of global warming.

    Again, here is just SOME of the fraud garbage your “experts” have committed.

    Your “experts” are total frauds – especially the government experts. And so much of it is now documented.

    When they’re not being blatantly dishonest, they are just pseudo-scienfitic frauds who have repeatedly preached false “science” that has been disconfirmed by reality.

    There is just all kinds of evidence that your “experts” are full of crap.

    Your “experts” just keep being wrong again and again and again. You know, when they’re not literally producing propaganda.

    In fact, your “experts” – fools like Al Gore – aren’t even “experts” at all. Gore has said just pure CRAP such as that the earth’s core is several million degrees. But that didn’t stop your fellow “experts” from giving him a Nobel Prize for fraud I mean science.

    So please don’t mind that I flush your “experts” down the toilet every day.

    All of that to say I’m smart enough to know when proven liars are lying again.

    Finally, just read a book like “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years.” I mean my gosh. You read the first chapter and they’ve presented so much evidence it is positively unreal. What you call a “crisis” they PROVE is a phenomena that has been happening to the planet since FOREVER.

    By the way, in my first comment to you I told you the conditions that I block people. You are in the territory where I am about to block you. I already responded to your “what if you’re wrong and they’re right” whine. And when you act as though I haven’t, I realize that I am not talking to a thinking, reasoning person but to a blank wall. To argue that “what if I’m right” as the basis for committing $45 TRILLION and literally destroying our way of life is the argument of a complete fool. What if Hitler was right about the Jews? Maybe we’d better go ahead and kill them all, just to be safe.

    And, as I’ve pointed out like three times, you don’t give a flying damn about global warming; all you care about is radical leftist ideology. Because if you DID care about global warming, you wouldn’t have told me that the worst polluters on the planet shouldn’t have to quit polluting.

  12. John Says:

    Oh by the way, if you block me because you disagree with my point of view, please have the decency to say so on the page. Cheers.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    I DIDN’T block you. Your comment posted automatically at 3:40 pm when you sent it. I merely gave you a warning that when you ignore arguments and act as though I hadn’t already interacted with you, there is really not much point in having the argument. Either interact with what I’m saying, or go away. Or I’ll help you go away.

    Had YOU had the “decency” to check whether your comment posted before you accused me of not having any decency, you would have known that. Apparently, you suffer from the same form of confirmation bias that your fellow global warming alarmists do. You just assume what you want to believe, and that’s that.

    Btw, I’ll go ahead and post an article that explains why the left has convinced itself that there’s a global warming crisis. It explains how socialist “scientists” have ignored the 99.9% of the gasses that produce the greenhouse effect so that they can demonize the .1 of one percent of the CO2 that is produced by man:

    An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore
    BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006

    He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

    Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

    You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

    “Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

    This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

    Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

    This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

    Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

    The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

    Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

    The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

    Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

    “Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

    Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

    The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

    Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

    Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

    They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

    When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

    If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

    In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

    99.9% of all the gasses that cause global warming have nothing whatsoever to do with man, or with America, or with industry, or with anything else you want to blame. But people like you have an agenda, so you take that 1/10th of one percent and turn it into a bogey man.

    And you demand radical action that literally amounts to cultural suicide on the grounds that it is at least theoretically possible that you might be right. Which, as I have pointed out, is a terrifying, fascist argument that justifies any horror under the sun.

  14. John Says:

    I tried posting the following twice and it never appeared. I’ll try it again without the URLs, in case it’s being spam-blocked:

    No climate data has been ‘purged’. It’s all still available from the meteorological organisations worldwide who collected it in the first place.

    The ‘trick’ you refer to wasn’t a deception but simply a way of combining palaeoclimate (e.g. tree ring) data with modern instrumental data to give a longer record of global temperature data than we had before.

    The ‘decline’ refers to a well-documented period where the trend inferred from tree ring data doesn’t match measured global temperatures, so the scientists were simply maintaining accuracy by discarding data that was known to be of no value.

    The so-called ‘hockey stick’ has been confirmed many times by many independent studies, using various different sources of palaeoclimate data.

    Dr James Hansen never predicted an ice age – in fact his 1981 projections of global warming have proven to be remarkably accurate over the subsequent 30 years.

    If you look at the data you can see that recent warming is not consistent with the natural long-term post-glacial cooling of the last 10,000 years –

    Even without knowing of the global warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, it’s clear that slow cooling has suddenly turned to rapid warming since the start of the industrial revolution.

    However, we have known about the CO2 greenhouse effect for 150 years, and both palaeoclimate data and modern observations show that CO2 has a very large warming influence. That’s why our massive 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is so dangerous, and why it’s already causing the terminal decline of Arctic sea ice, the disappearing glaciers worldwide, the shrinking of Greenland and Antarctica, the shifting of climate zones polewards and uphill, the increase in intense precipitation events, the rising sea level, and literally thousands of other physical and biological indicators of a warming world.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    John,

    I’m getting to the point where I regret NOT having blocked you. I can’t stand constantly correcting untruths.

    No climate data has been purged? Try NOT:

    November 29, 2009
    Climate change data dumped
    Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

    The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

    Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said

    .

    Yes they did purge their data. They purged their RAW data. You are flat-out factually wrong. Or you are lying. I truly don’t care which, because either way you are telling lies.

    The hockey stick graph is TOO a proven documented fraud.

    Among other gross errors, Mann’s hockey stick showed temperatures soaring in the latter half of the 20th century. This has now been completely disconfirmed. It is not true. It was a lie:

    Some of America’s top scientists have admitted that the calculations they used to show an increase in the country’s temperatures were flawed, after a campaign by an amateur meteorologist using his blog.

    Climatologists at Nasa’s Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York have been forced to revise their estimations after research from Stephen MacIntyre, who published his findings on his Climate Audit site.

    As a result of his calculations, which he e-mailed to Nasa, scientists at the agency now accept that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year in the United States since records began.

    They also accept that five of the ten warmest US years on record occurred before 1939, and that only one was in the 21st Century.

    Mann’s hockey stick graph is a total butchery of the truth. As the great book “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, we have warming and cooling cycles confirmed on every possible scientific field of study that there have in fact been repeated periods warmer than anything we are seeing now. I wrote up a brief summary of just PART of the confirmation of that here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/what-the-science-really-says-about-global-warming/

    Here is a brief article on Mann’s hockey stick fraud:

    The Perpetual Hockey-Stick Fiasco: Why Michael Mann Faces A Legal Investigation of Science Fraud

    Read here and here. This image, which became the favored icon of global-warmists, has taken on a life-of-its-own during the past decade. The hockey-stick icon has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars and has the potential to cost taxpayers and consumers trillions more. When Michael Mann created the temperature dataset that the hockey-stick graph is based on, little did he realize that trillions were at stake, or that he would unleash a science-fraud tsunami that now threatens to legally engulf him. (click on images to enlarge)

    The Mann icon was relentlessly published by the IPCC (until being mathematically and statistically discredited) because it showed modern temperatures to be significantly higher than past temperatures – in the vernacular of the “hockey stick”, its 20th century “blade” was way above the “handle” of the stick. Prior to Mann’s research, the IPCC had no unprecedented “blade” to proselytize with, so to speak.

    So, how did Mann manage to find a modern, huge warming “blade” that others had missed in the historical temperature proxies, such as tree rings? Ahhhh, the beauty of using unique, but questionable mathematical/statistical techniques, that can often produce very artful science.

    Fabricating A Blade

    Mann’s methodology, as outlined by one of the experts who tore it asunder, was relatively simple. First, one designs software code to search through thousands of tree ring data records. The objective is to identify those tree ring series that display exceptional growth during the 20th century (see top panel for Sheep Mountain tree rings). Second, once those exceptional tree ring records are identified, design your programming to over-weight those exceptional records by 390 times. Third, ignore the majority of tree ring records (see bottom panel for Mayberry Slough tree ring example) that reveal non-exceptional growth for the 20th century. Fourth, attribute 100% of exceptional tree ring growth to warming temperatures, not to other critical tree growth factors such as water, CO2 and soil nutrients.

    And, voila, one can magically produce a very pronounced “blade.” And like a true magician (unlike a true scientist), one never tells how the trick was done. As it turns out, it is the last sentence that has really been Michael Mann’s undoing. Instead of openly sharing all the data and software coding he used to produce his results, so that other scientists could attempt to replicate his work, he chose not to cooperate with experts. To this day, he still has not released all the data/software evidence that he based his research on. As a result, many are now concluding that the original hockey-stick chart was based on scientific fraud, and that similar subsequent research by others is highly suspect also.

    Because the science institutions, the peer-review journals, the universities and, most importantly, the IPCC climate scientists all failed in their identifying and correcting Michael Mann’s methodologies from the beginning, he now finds himself in the legal, shark infested waters. When others miserably fail to perform their responsibility, the legal community will gladly do so for them.

    For a good basic review of Ross McKitrick and Steve McInytre’s effort to analyze Mann’s hockey-stick research, read this. I can highly recommend A.W. Monford’s, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. It provides an insight to climate science that is incredibly damning and fascinating at the same time.

    Dr. James Hansen did TOO predict an ice age in 1971:

    This seems destined to be ignored by today’s climate change obsessed media: Scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies – the very organization now presaging gloom and doom at the hands of global warming – predicted a new ice age back in 1971.

    Think this will be a focus of tonight’s evening news broadcasts?

    Regardless of the answer, the Washington Times wonderfully reported Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

    NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

    The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a piece, with the following preview:

    The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that…

    The Times piece continued:

    The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

    The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

    It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article published at the journal Science that day, which was written by Rasool and S. H. Schneider.

    Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece entitled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,” and indicated the authors were from “Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration” (emphasis added):

    Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

    How marvelous. Yet, 36 years later, this same organization is predicting a planetary cataclysm at the hands of global warming.

    Which one of this agency’s warnings should we heed?

    You’re simply wrong. Totally wrong. And I have given you more than enough time to let you make any case you were capable of making.

    So good bye. I AM blocking you now. I simply do not have the time to refute you again and again and again. And I get the sense that you are one of those idiots who wins arguments by sheer attrition; namely, if I let you post 1000 times, you will post 1001.

    It’s time to make you go away now.

  16. John Says:

    Thanks for admitting defeat.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for letting me know I forgot to block you.

    And for letting me know I was clearly right about that “1001 post” thing.

  18. Icarus62 Says:

    Typical – running away when challenged on your ridiculous global warming denial. You don’t have a leg to stand on.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Icarus62,

    I still know it’s you, John. Some of your other user info is identical with “John.”

    Here you are, attempting to misrepresent yourself to continue barging in where you’re not wanted just so you can be annoying.

    Why do you liberals act like this? By which I mean, just what is psychologically wrong with you people???

    I’ll let the previous six or seven comments I let you leave – plus my response to them – stand as to who had a leg to stand on. In brief, I’ll point out that the documented fact that we’ve had multiple ice ages followed by periods of global warming – which has been repeatedly confirmed by ocean studies, pollen studies, tree ring studies, ice core studies, etc. etc. (please read “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” or at least read my article here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/what-the-science-really-says-about-global-warming/ ); we have the “science” proven totally false as NASA was forced to retract their “global warming” proof that the ten warmest years had occurred since 1990 when in FACT five of the warmest years occurred prior to 1939 (before the mass industrialization of WWII. Link=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece ; we have the fact that there is RECORD cold right now along with record levels of snowfall which really proves how imbecilic you morons who keep preaching global warming and “children won’t know what snow is” truly are; there is the FACT that your “scientists” purged their data – including the raw data – and sent communications to one another on how to conceal data from subpoenas and to use tricks to make their data appear to show what it clearly didn’t. Etc.

    We’ve got more legs to stand on than a centipede.

    You’ve got Al Gore and his “Nobel Prize” in spite of the FACT that he is a proven propgandist; a proven idiot and a hypocrite of gargantuan proportions.

    I’m rather suprised that you would stew for days and then try to launch such a lame “attack.” I would have thought if you truly thought I didn’t have a leg to stand on, you would have at least had the decency to try to post some facts or something, rather than relying on rhetorical bullcrap.

    The reason I blocked you is because you are a complete waste of time, John.

    You just proved it again with your dishonesty of misrepresenting yourself to sneak back in pretending to be someone else followed by YOUR TOTAL LACK OF ACTUAL ARGUMENT WHEN YOU GOT HERE.

    Please go away. Go away as mad as you want, but go away.

  20. Leigh Harwood Says:

    John, you say that ‘India and China’ are not to blame for the climate crisis we are currently facing whereas western countries are because we have been more carbon-intensive for much longer’.

    Firstly, you are presuming that there is a climate crisis to begin with – as there is always some type of crisis in the environmental movement. Secondly, there is nothing polluting about carbon dioxide whatsoever – so the words ‘carbon intensive’ are highly misleading in themselves.

    Granted, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and retains heat-trapping properties that will cause SOME warming, but in reality it will not cause very much. By it’s own constitution and nature, CO2 is a naturally-occurring trace gas in the atmosphere and a very minor one at that. In addition, CO2 is vital in photosynthesis and is the basis of the planetary food chain. It is an airborne beneficial fertilizer/nutrient upon which all plant life depends.

    I do not dispute that western countries have been far more carbon-intensive compared with countries like India and China. but I do take issue with you’re assertion that climate change is going to lead to dangerous consequences unless we act immediately. I do not accept you’re assumption to begin with that CO2 is a problem in the context of climate change. Therefore, all you’re arguments thereafter collapse in on themselves – all based upon a false diagnosis of carbon dioxide.

    Please John, do not give me the line of ‘consensus’ and how everyone worth his/her name agrees with the prevailing orthodoxy. ‘Consensus is the antithesis of Science’. You don’t invoke consensus if you have proof! The only reason why politicians and scientists have invoked the notion of consensus with respect to the issue of climate change – is because they have anticipated a challenge to their cause/belief system! Why would they anticipate a challenge? The answer is simple – conformity is a powerful instinct; there’s safety in numbers! Consensus lends to the impression that a truth has been established on the basis of it’s own self-awarded merits! I do not accept the notion of ‘Consensus’ in Science irrespective of how many people agree with each other on any given issue.

    Science is strictly about testing ‘hypothesis’ – nothing less and nothing more!

  21. Overseas Says:

    This makes me so sad to read, I sincerely believe that hope is lost when I read this denial of global warming against all evidence.

    It is true, you defend yourself with a wall of text instead of logic arguments and run away when you face defeat. Which shows that your opinion is more based on emotion than rational thinking.

    I would guess that you also believe firmly in that man in the sky that kicked the people he allegedly loved out of paradise for eating an apple.

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Overseas,

    You damn worthless hypocrite.

    WITHOUT BOTHERING TO EVEN OFFER ONE EXAMPLE OF A FACT I PROVIDED THAT WAS WRONG OR EVEN OFFERING A SINGLE FACT FROM THE OTHER SIDE THAT WOULD POSSIBLY INDICATE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ACTUALLY LECTURE ME ABOUT IGNORING THE DAMN EVIDENCE.

    People like you do nothing more than wave your hand at my arguments and dismiss them, and then you have the naked chutzpah to say that I’m the one who is ignoring the evidence when you don’t even bother to OFFER any damn evidence.

    You are a liar without shame. And there is no point trying to have an argument with somebody who a) refuses to interact with your argument and b) refusing to even bother to offer any facts to support your own assertions.

    You damn global warming alarmists never bother to trouble yourselves over all the bogus predictions you’ve made that haven’t turned out to be anywhere even CLOSE to being true. But somehow it keeps being the people who were right who have buried their heads in the sand and the people who turned out to be wrong pretending they are the enlightened knowers of truth.

    And, for the record, yes, I actually believe in God.

    And the way you snidely threw that in helps to expose that for you, global warming is a pure religious ideology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: