Climate Data Proves Global Warming Alarmists Have Lost the Debate

A reaction from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis’s attempts to discredit scientists who are skeptical of the theory of manmade global warming

By NewsBusters Staff

Justin Gillis of the New York Times has written a long article that criticizes Dick Lindzen of MIT by quoting several scientists who disagree with him. But Mr. Gillis overlooks historical evidence that strongly supports Lindzen’s position that the climate has negative feedbacks that will limit human-caused global warming.

If the feedbacks from higher carbon dioxide levels are strongly positive, then in past geological eras when CO2 levels were much higher than today there should have occurred the “runaway climate” that James Hansen fantasizes about. If Hansen and many other alarmists were correct, then logically the Earth’s climate should have become as inhospitable as that of Venus hundreds of millions of years ago. The fact that life is still flourishing on Earth is compelling evidence that the feedbacks from higher levels of CO2 are weakly positive at most and more likely negative, as Lindzen argues.

Read the rest at NewsBusters.

  • NEILIO

    Well, this is why we have RNH here to post unrelated distractions from the climate scam.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Thank you grasshopper.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The Egyptian Giza (Pyramid of Khufu, or Cheops, at Giza) pyramid has been and is is still today a subject of great mystery and intense controversy. It has been subjected to cosmic ray exploration in an attempt to divulge certain supposed unknown inner chambers. Like almost all other earth world ethnic cultures, religions, occultisms, and even superstitions, the Egyptian pyramid is actually a vestigial remnant—a degenerate form done in stone of what was once actually a great electronic instrument, designed and constructed by master scientists from another world and placed on an Atlantean plain for the purposes of generating unlimited power derived from the interdimensional cosmos.

    As it existed on the Atlantean Plain (Atlantis prior to its destruction) about 15,000 B.C., it was constructed of metals, not stone. The geometrical configuration of a pyramid was purposefully placed in relationship to the north and south magnetic poles with the four sides representing maximum surface interception. On the metallic surface of this pyramid were placed millions of small cells (not unlike small cells of selenium that absorbs light and transmits it into electrical energy) whose purpose was to absorb cosmic energies and convert them into electrical energy, which could turn certain kinds of electrical motors coupled to huge generators.

    As the pyramid was possibly a 1000 feet high, covering 96 acres of ground, the total number of cells involved when hooked together could generate tremendous power. (The great pyramid Khufu, or Cheops, at Giza was 482 feet high covering 13 acres.)

    • NEILIO

      Yeah, but did it cause global warming like wind farms do?

    • NEILIO

      I’m going to show this to my landlord. He’s a professor of egyptology. He’s actually been to all of the pyramid sites mentioned above, and he’s been inside most of them. I’m shure he’ll get as good a laugh out of this as I did.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Of course, by all means, that should clear it right up! If he’s like most Egyptologists he will be in a narrow biased camp of one or the other, as they all are. As many professions tend to be, and many people to for that matter. This is very esoteric and took me years of reading etc. to come across. While I don’t discount it as a possible truth (nobody INCLUDING your landlord knows how the Great Pyramid was built OR why). Go ahead and tell him I said that too. If he says it was a king’s tomb, well, then that explains his need for landlordism and not famous Egyptologistism. Did I mention my landlord is a Thesbian? IKR?!

  • Rob N. Hood

    Besides Neil, you’ve given me a laugh or two, so what the heck. Actually more like a gray hair or two, or three, or four…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Preemptive Strike: The possible science of Lemuria and/or Atlantis has little, if any, bearing on what most, if not all of, what Egyptologists know about Egypt. Just sayin’. And so while I initially ignored this glaring oversight on your part- if you read my post correctly I would not have had to post this addendum. Altough I would still LOVE to hear what wisdom your Landlord has to add to this exciting, albeit virtually one-sided, discussion.

    • NEILIO

      This is a little batty even for you. I would think that an egyptology professor might know a little bit more about the pyrimids than you do. In fact I know he does. And as far as evidence of Atlantis, all that exists of it is a description of it in a socratic dialouge that Plato wrote. But believe it if you want, Idon’t care. It’s not surprising in the least that you believe something like this. It fits right in with UFO’s, Bigfoot, ghosts and demons, and global warming.

      • NEILIO

        By the way. What exactly is “cosmic ray exploration”? I have never heard of that before. Also I would like to point out the folly of building a cosmic ray collector on the Earth’s surface. Very few cosmic rays can penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field and the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison you can get lots more energy from a simple solar panel than a giant cosmic ray collector. This theory is not just laughable, it is downright illogical.

        • http://www.minnesotamajority.org Dan McGrath

          I’m pretty sure he’s just yanking your chain, but the discussion has been amusing, which is why I haven’t deleted it for being (way) off topic.

          • NEILIO

            Well, I did categorise it with global warming and other myths. And I know he’s jerking my chain, I’m just jerking back…. is all.

        • Rob N. Hood

          I don’t know what cosmic ray exploration is- some kind of x-ray method I’m assuming. And I didn’t post anything about cosmic ray collection- it’s cosmic energy collection. Two different things thus… well… different words used- see how that works?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Well please stop [deleted] Neil, and tell us all what your Lord of the Land has to say… after all, he’s the EXPERT, and lord knows you of all people trust what they have to say, isn’t that right?

    • NEILIO

      You really think I’m going to bother a professor of egyptology with this nonsense? Get real. I’m just playing along for fun. Do you think I really care about this ridiculous theory you have put forth as a joke? I don’t. Not even a little itsy bit. It is ridiculous on its face, and I did not give it a millisecond of serious consideration. Tell you what, you tell me where Atlantis was, and I’ll give it a millisecond of serious consideration. Or maybe a segment of the gigantic metal pyramid, or drive shaft from one of the immense generators. But they only exist in imaginationland, and I think I would like to talk about global warming now.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Oh, good one! You really had me going. Whoever heard of an Egyptologist Landlord?! Ha ha ha. Actually I believe you, but you sure chickened out, again. But I don’t blame you for not talking to him about it, cuz he might just ask for the rent or something. Although while you like to beleive I don’t know anything, I was anxious to hear his thoughts on the Giza pyraminds being tombs or not, and how they were built and by whom and for what purpose. (Of course if he know all that he’d be the most famous of all Egyptologists. Well, perhaps another time. Ya big tease.

  • Rob N. Hood

    You guys are such “intellectualuals” that anything that doesn’t make sense to your narrow little minds is humorous, fanciful, crazy etc. Do you ever stop to think and remember reading about all those “crazy” people that throughout history were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, burned at the stake, killed, etc. and then years later turn out to have been correct, and sometimes even geniuses? (I am NOT placing myself into that awesome group, I only wish). So in turn you are happy being one of the small-minded, skeptical of everything, except that which feels comfortable in your tiny minds? Can you learn absolutely NOTHING from history, in any way shape or form? Do you also realize how EASY it is being a skeptic? And it takes NO imagination whatsoever. Now, that’s lazy.

    • NEILIO

      Learning from history is one thing. Glomming on to a stupid theory about Atlantian power generation is ridiculous! What history is there in what you are talking about? What evidence exists that there might be even a slightest hint to any reality behind the theory? Good grief, you sound absolutely deranged!

  • Rob N. Hood

    Neil- please follow along. When I speak about history I mean actual history; and so we aren’t going to “debate” that any more, are we? Good. As far as “glomming” onto anything, I have to apparently inform you of the obvious and that is I didn’t do any such thing. Show me (you can’t, I know) where I did that. What I did do was post some very interesting and tantalizing ideas, some based on current reality (the pyramids) some based on (possible) ancient history (per Plato etc.), and some on what is OBVIOUSLY conjecture (based on something, not from a sci-fi novel, but similar STRETCHES of the imagination have been provided by very smart and creative people since the beginning of humanity). Do you wish to continue placing your lack of imagination and poor reading comprehension on display any further? Be my guest.

    • NEILIO

      You don’t move forward by pedaling backwards.

  • Rob N. Hood

    PERFECT! Imagine my surprise. Anyway- did you realize (of course not) that what is discussed above as outlandish for a tall tower-like structure (pyramid) to be used for broad scale electrical dissemination was actually something Tesla not only experimented with but proved could be done. Not cheaply unfortunately at his time and place, thus the demise of his magnificient invention, which if pursued further at that time would possibly be used today world-wide. Such are the vagaries of wise men (and women) when they are ahead of their time.

    • NEILIO

      I didn’t say it was outlandish. I said it was folly to build something like that on the surface of the Earth because the magnetic field and the atmosphere of the Earth block all but a few cosmic rays. But I think you are jumping the shark on this. I am also noting that this is not your usual argument. I therfore deduce that there has been a new member added to the RNH team. And he works Saturdays!

      • Rob N. Hood

        Sorry- I stand corrected. You didn’t say outlandish – your words were ridiculous and deranged. Such a literal task-master… spare the rod master.

  • Rob N. Hood

    And who knows. or can even imagine (you can’t, we’ve established that) what occurred long before “recorded” history!?

    • NEILIO

      You know, suspension of disbelief is only good for tv shows, movies and theatrical performances.

      • Rob N. Hood

        And actually, BTW, I’m using pretty much the EXACT same form of argument I have always used. Although if you still disagree with that please enlighten me as to what my “usual argument” is.

        • NEILIO

          Now that you’ve mentioned it, you’re right! You usually do use one form of fiction or another in your fallacious arguments. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • Rob N. Hood

        That’s correct. As it should be. I’m not suggesting suspending anything, or even believing anything. It’s called imagination. Or open-mindedness. Or willingness to learn something new. Or at the very least an interesting discussion, heaven forbid!

        • NEILIO

          Oh, I’m willing to learn new things alright. And just because I’m unwilling to hold your hand and be led away on a fantastical voyage to imaginationland by you, does not mean that I don’t have an imagination. Your argument is an inductive fallacy.

          • Rob N. Hood

            I didn’t ask you to do any such thing. Why do you feel that way? Very odd.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh you intellect you. Always the big egghead, scoffing at us mere mortals. Above, are you referring to “cosmic energy” because that is what is posted, not “rays” (although “cosmic rays” was used in my post for possible laser type x-ray, although I’m not sure, about that actually, there are some pretty fancy tools used nowadays for such things). Are you an expert on cosmic energy too? I should have guessed as much. Silly ol’ me. Or perhaps you are just a skeptic of something that which you know little about? Don’t feel bad though, there’s a lot of stuff we don’t know, yet, and that is one very good example.

    • NEILIO

      Um, what other cosmic energy is there?

    • NEILIO

      What you are doing here is presenting a burden of proof fallacy. You present something and then rest the burden of proof upon me, where it does not belong because it rests squarely upon you. Then you engage in ad hominem fallacy arguments when I do not provide the proof. It goes something like this:

      Person A presents a position that requires some evidence to be accepted.
      Person B asks person A what the evidence is for their position.
      Person A says person B lacks imagination, and that person B thinks he, or she is better than everyone else.

      The more I study, the more I learn, and the more transparent you become.

      • Rob N. Hood

        A yup, you’re onto my twisted and seemingly worthless game. Neil- at the beginning of this posting session, you invited me (albeit tongue-in-cheek) to post something off-topic, as usual, blah blah blah. So then I posted something unique, and not even that off topic, and you resort to your normal fall-back position, which is A. Correct minor and/or meaningless mistakes or what you think are mistakes, while ignoring the body of the post. B. State that it is off-topic. C. Play the victim (see above). D. Become angry or upset and become somewhat childish.

        If you think I am trying to be better than someone or anyone or everyone, maybe you could go ahead and DEBATE and DISCUSS instead of A thru D. We are not Experts here to cite Evidence for Everything that is discussed or posted. THE PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM IS TO DISCUSS AND DEBATE. Or am I wrong about this? Does everything brought up for an interpersonal give and take, round-robin, Internet blogging and open forum have to have a thesis of evidence ready to be displayed to prove such and such beyond any shadow of doubt.

        I opened myself up for much ridcule with that post on the pyramids, etc. But I think it helps to discuss things from a variety of angles, otherwise, it’s static, one-dimensional, and boring. I’m sure you think I’m now acting “better than everyone else.” Well, no, I’m not. I’m just responding to you and defending myself as anyone would and has a right to. Your play at being a victim of some kind is very irrational given the circumstances. But oops, there I go again…

        • NEILIO

          What? Are you kidding? I didn’t invite you to do anything. And I said what I said in all seriousness. Their was nothing tounge in cheek about it.
          “So then I posted something unique, and not even that off topic”-RNH
          I don’t know how much farther off the topic you can get! Come on you walked west around the world to get 20 feet east.
          It must be frustrating for you, and I’m sorry, but you’re the one that took this job. I do it for leisure.

          • Rob N. Hood

            Wow; more passive-agressiveness. My post was about Energy + Tesla + Theories re: the pyramids, including the possible connection with Tesla’s proven ideas. Get it? E-N-E-R-G-Y. Please lecture me some more about how that is off topic. Please… I want to know (besides the fact it isn’t about your beloved AGW, of which I honestly admit I discuss very seldom, due mainly because it’s like beating a dead horse and deadly boring).

            And, really Neil, you want me to believe that you wanted me to post something off-topic- you were serious??? And so I do (according to YOU, at least) and what happened???

            It appears that you are the one who is frustrated. If you can, try to calmly respond to my genuine confusion which I have provided detail of.

          • Rob N. Hood

            “Well, this is why we have RNH here to post unrelated distractions from the climate scam.” quote Neil-io

            I was wrong- this wasn’t an invitation, exactly. A taunt, for certain, to elicit something, which is a kind of invitation. (or nothing of the kind, per Neil). Just more words, which Neil likes to play around with, to use to catch anyone not being EXACTLY LITERAL, so he can do a “Gotcha!” while avoiding any meaningful discussion of any kind. And then comes the “poor me” victim act, which the Right-wing has learned down to a very repetitive and useful tactic, picked up I see by the rank and file.

  • NEILIO

    A “greenie” gets it right!

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/prominent-green-denounces-carbon-offsets
    “Planet Under Pressure was a major conference on the environment held in London recently. One of the invited presenters, Kevin Anderson, no doubt shocked the organizers when he declined to attend because of the conference’s claim of carbon neutrality, more specifically how they approached being carbon neutral. Writing in the editorial section of Nature, Anderson stated his reasons this way:

    -The organizers of the conference said that the event would be “as close to carbon neutral as possible”. There are good ways to achieve this noble goal: virtual engagement such as video conferencing, advice on lower-carbon travel options, and innovative registration tariffs to reward lower-carbon involvement. But, instead, the organizers chose a series of carbon-offset projects financed through a compulsory £35 (US$56) fee levied on all delegates.

    This was unacceptable to me. Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.-

    Evidently, even greens are upset with this carbon sham. Upset enough to push back on conference organizers and to denounce the practice in one of the world’s premier scientific journals. How green is the protesting Professor? Kevin Anderson is deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, UK, so his green credentials are above reproach. What is not above reproach is the widespread use of carbon offsets as a green fog concealing behavior by the elite—behavior that they would ban normal citizens from indulging in.

    Let us give thanks to Professor Anderson for denouncing carbon offsets for what they are—a meaningless sop to overburdened green consciences, a smokescreen for the actions of the rich and famous, and a money making scam for those running the game. So the next time some green nitwit tries to tell you they are carbon neutral because they buy offsets tell them to sod off. But then, to believe in global warming in the first place says something about a person’s mental faculties. It really isn’t so surprising that they would fall for eco-indulgences as well.”

  • Rob N. Hood

    Eco-indulgences indeed. Carbon swapping/off-setting etc. is an indulgence for the wealthy/elite to make money. For them to do such a thing is of course an everyday game for them. The only reason any green groups are for it is because they believe it will work, and according to reliable data it very well could. Is it the best way to accomplish that goal? I don’t think so. It’s just currently the most acceptable to the elite who are the ones to ultimately decide these things, more or less. So you have the unlikely pairing of wealthy elite and some Greens.

  • Rob N. Hood

    “Idolatry consists of the inability of the mind to differentiate between the symbol and the abstract principle for which it stands. If this definition be accepted, it can be proved that philosophically, the literalist is always the idolater. He who worships the “letter of the law” bows down to wood and stone, so to speak, but he who comprehends the spirit of the law is a true worshiper before the measureless alter of eternal Nature upon which continually burns the Spirit Fire of the world.”
    Manly P. Hall

  • NEILIO

    Person A thinks he is right about everything and also thinks he is smarter than everyone.
    Person B disagrees with person A.
    Person A begins to deride person B and believes person B should submit to his superior intellect, and ideas.
    Person B does not submit and does not recognise person A as being superior.
    Person A has a hissie fit. Phtttttttttt.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Who is having a fit?

  • Rob N. Hood

    “If you can, try to calmly respond to my genuine confusion which I have provided detail of.” That, above, is your calm response? The repeated diagram of your victimhood? You choose that instead of actual response to actual questions, politely and sincerely asked? Ok then, as you wish.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh, and one more thing. I demand that you recognize me as a superior being. (just kidding- couldn’t help myself… at least now you can realistically claim I not only implied it but I actually said it. I sure am an accomodating foe aren’t I?

    • NEILIO

      The truth is RNH I read about maybe the first two lines of anything you write. Sometimes three. I don’t take you seriously enough to bother reading everything you write because it’s all the same BS.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Your loss. Although that explains a lot regarding the difficulty in having any productive dialogue. I’m surprised you would admit to such a lazy habit as that. Why do you bother at all then? You post your stuff, and that’s that…? Except not quite, because you take the time to quarrel with me, on a regular basis. I find you most puzzling, because you say one thing, and then do another, time after time. That’s called passive-aggressivness. Just sayin’. Oops, exceeding your attention span. Better stop…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Big head alert: Apparently, Neil, you believe I post mostly just for you, or because of you, but I don’t. I onlydo sometimes, when it makes sense to respond like a normal human being directly, as the occasion calls for it. So, sorry about that. Plus, Neil, I don’t believe that you don’t read my entire posts, at least most of the time. Nothing, rationally at least, indicates such a thing. But I don’t care either way, except for you to criticize, dismiss, or denegrate my posts, without fully reading them is quite a big statement about you, and not a very flattering one either. But like I said I don’t believe it, not for a second.

    • NEILIO

      I am laughing at you. Not because you are lying, but because you are lying to yourself. I actually pity you because I have so much fun at your expense, and you just don’t see it.
      It’s just like Ronald Reagan said: “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” My tactic has been to draw this out of you, and I think it’s worked fairly well.

  • Joe

    My God, it sounds like the “HoneyMooner’s.” Which one drives the bus?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ahhh! That sure is convenient, especially at this point in our endless dead-end “dialogues.” You are the master Neil! All this time… mocking me, making a fool of me. Boy is my face red. Not. Try the other way around. Try also this: Next time you decide Anything, do just the opposite. The odds will be Much better that you will be correct that way. It will work for you, really. And I don’t laugh at you, pity is more like it. And another hint: quoting Reagan as some kind of wise old sage… embarrassing.

  • joe

    Checkmate!

  • Rob N. Hood

    Uhh, yep…. gosh darnnit, you guys…!! Gotta get up prettty early in the mornin’ When will I learn?!

  • joe

    You will learn when you actually listen.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Learn to be an right-wing extremist? Perhaps, but I think you’re born with that kind of brain wiring- that’s what I’ve learned here. The only thing I’ve learned here.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The Congressional Budget Office has reporteda monthly budget surplus of $58 billion,
    which would be a first in nearly three years.

    The improved numbers are attributed to a 10 percent increase in tax revenue.

    Gee, I’m shocked – why didn’t we think of that sooner?
    Increasing taxes, especially on the super-rich, balances the budget?

    Who knew?

    “It is a clear signal that the government’s fiscal situation is finally moving definitively in
    the right direction,” said Mark Zandi who is the chief economist for Moody’s Analytics.

    Next month’s report will likely show a budget deficit, but the small surplus is an
    important milestone in the nation’s struggle to fend of a future debt crisis.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Darn commie misinformation!

  • joe

    Have you every posted your own thoughts? I read the WSJ, FT, et al daily. Need not have my reading in the morning replicated. Why do you think what you posted is relevant? Is the country/administration going in the right direction? Anyone can post an article but it takes “logic and reasoning” per you, for doing so. You are a contradiction. Absent an explanation as to why, you are wasting everyone’s time.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Golly gee, Joe you provide the same response even when I do “post my own thoughts” vs. posting interesting and pertinent data. How am I a contradiction? Perhaps it’s you who is such, as I just explained. Are you that divorced from yourself that you cannot recognize that? (rhetorical, you’ve proven it over and over that you don’t know yourself well enough to avoid such hypocrisies). And sooo sorry for wasting anyone’s time… how arrogant and selfish of me.

  • Joe

    You should simply avoid and not respond to me posts if they are inane to you.

  • Rob N. Hood

    For once you are right.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Good advice for once. It’s hard not to respond to something that is totally backwards. Why do some people post what is blatantly false, just to try and make a point and/or make the other person seem like something they obviously aren’t? Some things are just too ludicrous to let stand- out of principle, at least. But I did stop paying any attention to you joe. For a fairly long time, and I will do so again. Stop that is.

  • alicekelly

    I wish yoall would F**K OFF, shut-up, and stay in your caves.

    • Dan McGrath

      Typical of the “debate is over” crowd.

      “Just shut up and stop wrecking our big lie! I can’t handle facing reality. I like my emotion-based, destructive drive toward unattainable socialist utopia better! When I drive my hybrid, I get warm tingles and feel self-important because I’ve deluded myself into thinking I’m saving the planet! Just shut up, already!”

      Reasonable people are open to debate and rather than shutting up those who disagree, listen to them and attempt to prove them wrong. Belief is more powerful than reason for many, though and you can’t argue with belief.

      As Thomas Paine said, to argue with a person who has abandoned reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Who’s she talking to Dan, you or me? Not clear. And Dan- it’s mostly the Right that doesn’t do debate, civil ones at least. But…you live in your dreamworld.

  • Heath Clarke

    Neilio – there’s a saying you may not have heard of… When you wrestle with a pig two things happen – you get dirty and the pig has fun. RNH is the pig, and you fall for RNH’s baiting so often and so easily that it now makes you look like an amateur, when clearly you are very intelligent, logical, thoughtful and correct in your observations. No-one cares what RNH has to say except you – stop empowering him. You know where he sits… and, quite frankly… he’s simply not worth debating.

    To the moderator – this site was interesting until it got hijacked by this inane bickering.

    • NEILIO

      I can’t say that I disagree with you.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ahh, another whining Righty. Sheesh. Birds of a feather. I simply cannot stand willful ignorance or American exceptionalism, which is usally anything but. Neilio and you are proof of that. I still want to know who alicekelly was talking about. Oh well. Although according to Heath that type of thing is soooo much more interesting… have at it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh, and BTW Health, I “hijacked” this site almost two years ago, so you must mean loooong ago, before that, am I right? Long-time suffering fan I take it? Gee, you should have said something sooner. I mean , who stopped you? Why don’t you “hijack” it back? All it would take is more smarts and tenacity than me. Actually just more smarts. I concede when beaten, it just hasn’t happened yet, not in any significant way. I admit when I’m wrong, or will, if and when that time comes, unlike some diehards I know.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Besides- the moderator loves me. Without me practically no one would click into this otherwise boring echo chamber (be honest- you included).

  • Rob N. Hood

    And, not only that Heath- don’t you know that it’s Neil who is pulling MY strings? It’s true. We’ve already established that during one of our epic exchanges, somewhere on this site. True that Bro! Neil’s all the while laughing at ME and my clumsy repartee and overall dim-bulbedness! It’s ME who falls for his clever shenanigans time after time. He’s sooo clever, see, he even fooled YOU!

  • Rob N. Hood

    Waiting for Heath… zzzzzzz

  • Joe

    Dan, I think Alice in Wonderland knows me? Sounds just like the Alice I know. Now that is sad?

  • steve

    Is it just me, or does this guy look like the bad Nazi from Raiders of the Lost Ark, whose face (ironically) melts away? Truth is stranger than fiction…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Yes, Joe… it’s sad alright.

    • lex loeb

      The science is completely fudged. anyone hear of universal gas laws? At universities they damn well know there is fraud
      You know what you read and you know what the Al Gore “consensus” scientists say and you are sort of willing to believe them. OK. But now think about how much Carbon Dioxide is in the Earth’s Atmosphere as a total of all atmospheric gases by percentage. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere as a percentage of the total of all constituent gases? is it 10%?, 20% , 40%? or More? Well you just may be totally wrong. Find out by taking the carbon quiz. It is quick and easy just go to: http://voices.yahoo.com/take-atmospheric-carbon-quiz-see-smart-you-5284875.html . You know that all plants on the earth including those in the ocean need lots of carbon dioxide to survive and that they need it to produce oxygen that we animals tend to need to breath. It would seem to be a lot of carbon dioxide then? Did you know that carbon dioxide in amount greater than a certain percentage in the atmosphere is poisonous to Humans and other animals? That is the reason if you are locked in an air tight closet that you can die from not just the lack of oxygen but because you inhale carbon dioxide?

      You you know anything about universal gas laws? Do you know that gases in the atmosphere are subject to universal gas laws and that the properties of gases under various circumstances changes the nature of the gases? Did you know that a hot gas behaves differently than a cold gas? If you took physics and chemistry you in high school or work in the field you probably know what the universal gas laws are otherwise you need to learn about it so you can judge the science of climate change for yourself objectively. Once you take the atmospheric carbon quiz you will have a better idea about the scientific issues involved in the scientific debate over human involvement in climate change assuming there really is climate change. You are probably also aware already that water vapor is as much if not more of a so called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is and there is a lot of evaporating ocean water on the planet not to mention clouds and high tropical humidity because hot air provides added space in the atmosphere for water vapor gas to become a major component of air. Have you ever been to a hot muggy area and felt your shirt acting like a sponge for atmospheric water vapor? You need to take the carbon quiz to learn a few basics especially if you are a global warming believer because all science necessarily requires informed skepticism to counterbalance anything that starts becoming theoretical consensus which happens to be a political term not a scientific one. Doubt and skepticism is what keeps science objective an honest. Take the quiz here:

      http://voices.yahoo.com/take-atmospheric-carbon-quiz-see-smart-you-5284875.html

    • lex loeb

      The science is completely fudged. anyone hear of universal gas laws? At universities they damn well know there is fraud
      You know what you read and you know what the Al Gore “consensus” scientists say and you are sort of willing to believe them. OK. But now think about how much Carbon Dioxide is in the Earth’s Atmosphere as a total of all atmospheric gases by percentage. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere as a percentage of the total of all constituent gases? is it 10%?, 20% , 40%? or More? Well you just may be totally wrong. Find out by taking the carbon quiz. It is quick and easy just go to: http://voices.yahoo.com/take-atmospheric-carbon-quiz-see-smart-you-5284875.html . You know that all plants on the earth including those in the ocean need lots of carbon dioxide to survive and that they need it to produce oxygen that we animals tend to need to breath. It would seem to be a lot of carbon dioxide then? Did you know that carbon dioxide in amount greater than a certain percentage in the atmosphere is poisonous to Humans and other animals? That is the reason if you are locked in an air tight closet that you can die from not just the lack of oxygen but because you inhale carbon dioxide?

      You you know anything about universal gas laws? Do you know that gases in the atmosphere are subject to universal gas laws and that the properties of gases under various circumstances changes the nature of the gases? Did you know that a hot gas behaves differently than a cold gas? If you took physics and chemistry you in high school or work in the field you probably know what the universal gas laws are otherwise you need to learn about it so you can judge the science of climate change for yourself objectively. Once you take the atmospheric carbon quiz you will have a better idea about the scientific issues involved in the scientific debate over human involvement in climate change assuming there really is climate change. You are probably also aware already that water vapor is as much if not more of a so called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is and there is a lot of evaporating ocean water on the planet not to mention clouds and high tropical humidity because hot air provides added space in the atmosphere for water vapor gas to become a major component of air. Have you ever been to a hot muggy area and felt your shirt acting like a sponge for atmospheric water vapor? You need to take the carbon quiz to learn a few basics especially if you are a global warming believer because all science necessarily requires informed skepticism to counterbalance anything that starts becoming theoretical consensus which happens to be a political term not a scientific one. Doubt and skepticism is what keeps science objective an honest. Take the quiz here:

      http://voices.yahoo.com/take-atmospheric-carbon-quiz-see-smart-you-5284875.html

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.