Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

By P. Gosselin

That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.

This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.

Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.

Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).

Read the rest at No Tricks Zone – Climate News from Germany in English

77 Responses to Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

  1. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 9, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    Gee, I think I’ve heard all of this before. I wonder where that could have been? Hmmmmm…………

  2. Joe February 10, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Read this on Drudge this a.m. Interesting. Never saw it on the MSM, did you? We know the answer why don’t we.

  3. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    I’m surprised there is no pushback from the warmists on this one yet. I think this is huge. Imagine if Roy Spencer, or Lord Monkton came out with a book saying the warmists are right. I think this is so big the warmists are haveing a hard time coming up with refutations, after all this is one of Germany’s biggest green energy advocates and not exactly a target of opposition research thus far. But I’m sure they are busy digging, looking into everything this guy has ever done, or said. I’m shure they are conducting a thurough anal exam of his life to find anything they can to discredit him. I’m shure they’ll find something, and as soon as they do we’ll hear about it. I’m shure it’ll be something like: “Credible sources confirm that Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt wet his bed once at age 12. This confirms that he is not qualified to critique the IPCC.” or something along those lines. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

  4. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Among the Heartland Institute’s disinformation projects: paying schools to spread pro-pollution lies to K-12 students by “providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain.” Also memos exposed direct funding deals from the Heartland Institute to pseudo-contrarian “scientists” like S. Fred Singer, named one of America’s top climate change-denialists, who also serves in a variety of Koch propaganda mills like the Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies and George Mason University. The main thing to remember in any story involving the Heartland Institute is that it is a direct project of the Koch Cartel (you gotta admire the Kochs’ ability to generate so many bland names for their propaganda outfits, that blandness acts like a wizard’s cloaking power).

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

      Would you give it a rest? Do you have any of your own opinions? Why do you have to rely on others for your views?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

        And nobody’s talking about the Koch brothers or Fred Singer here. What is your point?

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2012 at 7:05 am #

    Seems like the only response so far to this is diversionary. We can always count on RNH to telegraph what the left’s response is going to be on things. But failing that, I think the warmist response to the story in the article will mostly be silence, as I think they are probably going to hope it just goes away, IMO.

  6. Rob N. Hood February 17, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Really Neil? You don’t post repeated and lengthy unoriginal info? I/anyone give you a hard time about that lately? Nope. So lay-off touchy bully boy.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

      Well, when I post something someone else says, I post a link to it. When was the last time you did that? And, Bully boy? Really? Do you feel bullied? I just call it like I see it. If you feel threatened, or bullied by that that’s your problem.

  7. Rob N. Hood February 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    And the point is people/groups with lots of money (e.g. Koch Bros.) funnel talking points, via think tanks, and even entire issues, sometimes out of thin air (e.g. AGW, Voter ID, abortion, etc. etc.) and THEY USE THESE FOR DIVERSION, and for votes, and for more money via donations, etc. It’s just another IRONY for you to say that about me. Rightys are nothing, if not VERY ironic, much of the time. Makes one’s head want to explode.

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    So, do you have a problem with this German book? Or are you just trying to steer this off subject for no reason?

  9. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2012 at 4:55 am #

    RNH, I’m surprised you don’t show more of an interest in this story. The authors of the book are like you.

    “It needs to be pointed out Vahrenholt and Lüning are not skeptics; they are lukewarmers who have not been able to find any evidence of a coming climate catastrophe. They believe that man should switch to renewables, but do so in a rational manner: “Work fast, but don’t hurry.”-”

    So, you have said yourself that you are undecided about AGW. You should read this book, when it gets translated, unless you read German, and see what they have to say.

  10. Rob N. Hood February 18, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Now who’s denying whom? My comments and postings are entirely pertinent!

    Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and other think tanks, receives $11,600 per month from Heartland. Idso’s study center is funded in part by Exxon Mobile and he recently spoke on the benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting, according to

    -Australian global warming skeptic Professor Bob Carter receives $1,667 per month, but denied doing the bidding of Heartland in an Australian newspaper on Wednesday.

    -Fred Singer of the climate-change-denying Science and Environmental Policy Project receives $5,000 a month from Heartland.

    -Singer’s group helped establish NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change], which Heartland sponsors to “undermine” the reports by the United Nation’s climate change panel, according to Heartland documents. Two anonymous foundations supply the NIPCC funding.

    -Heartland has a “key” anonymous donor who gave $1.6 million in 2010 and $979,000 in 2011.

    -Heartland’s income totaled $4.6 million in 2011.

    -The Charles G. Koch Foundation of Koch brother’s fame gave Heartland $200,000 in 2011 and promised more money in 2012. The Koch family made much of its riches from fossil fuels and their foundation routinely supports conservative politicians and causes.

    -Heartland’s proposed 2012 budget includes $75,000 to develop a “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms,” as proposed by a government consultant who wants to develop alternative classroom materials. Several states have introduced legislation that would give climate change skepticism a place in the classroom.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2012 at 11:51 am #

      My reply is this: And?……………
      Which basically means, so what? What is this bug up your butt about Heartland? As though the opposition to the AGW theory has no right to organize, collect donations, and do stuff? Come on, give me a break. This is nothing more than people exercising their rights to free speech, and association. I guess your all for those things unless it’s something you disagree with, huh.
      And as you know, I like to stay on topic, but this is not pertainant to a story about two German guys writing a book, unless you have some evidence that says they were funded by Heartland, or some other connection.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

      Do you like apples?
      “The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

      Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

      In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

      The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for “action” to combat their computer model predictions of a “climate emergency?”-”

      How do you like them apples?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

      Oh geez, I’m sorry, I’m a little slow on the uptake here. This is about the supposed 2012 agenda for the Heartland Institute thats been going around. The one that has been exposed as being a complete fake, btw.
      I actually have just found out about this one. Anyway even if it was real, my reply still stands as “so effing what!?!?!”

  11. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    Here’s the Neil we all know so well. The angry denier of connections that he doesn’t like. So what, you say? That’s the big question isn’t it? The dismissal of all that we don’t like and don’t want to understand. It’s what makes humans so pathetic. The inability for many, not all, to be objective, rational and logical when it calls for it the most. Yes, indeed… an article about the “fake” agenda! Well gosh gee willikers, then it MUST be fake! Whew! I almost had to alter my monopoly on reality, and we can’t have that…!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 9:09 am #

      I’m not angry. What are you talking about? And the evidence is indisputable that the document in question is a phony. And I’m saying “so what?” not out of dismissal, but out of an understanding that A. the document is a phony. And B. That I don’t have a problem with people donating money, organising, and puting up a defense of AGW skepticism. You seem to be the one that has a problem with it.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 11:22 am #

        I’m starting to think that you lied when you said you were undecided about AGW.

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    We can now explain Why Liberals Lie. There are basically two reasons.
    1. At the lower levels, Liberals are just ignorant and/or following orders. They don’t really have any understanding of what (or why) they say the things they do, they are really just parroting what they have heard or been told. Of course, they are too stu-pid to know that they are igno-rant.
    2. At the upper levels and for the elite, “truth” is irrelevant. All that matters is the Progressive Socialism that they must continually march toward. They truly believe that the “ends justifies the means” and that it doesn’t matter if what is said is true or not.

  13. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    No Neil- I didn’t lie. Only I think you’d like to believe that or assume as much. This site has NOT convinced me otherwise, as of yet, and perhaps you could give me credit for giving it this long of a chance to do so…(or not). You, on the other hand, post biased and partisan data as the gospel. Would you like to explain that at all? How is that in any way superior to me? Please explain, or not, up to you. And Neil- if you were at all objective about “Liberals” you would know or have to admit the above is false. What your describe is the EXACT position of the Elite, whihc are for the most part Capitalists and they have a HUGE stake with regard to the status quo continuing. Liberals on the other hand are always squabbling amonst themselves about which change is best etc. The fact that you apparently believe otherwise proves you are not at the level of logic and reasoning that you’d like to believe. Continue to seek, but with a more open mind. You (and others) may actually be correct about AGW (except the part about a massive hoax/conspriacy which is ludicrous if viewed logically) but that would not also mean that you are a shrewd customer in other areas as well. Bottom line Neil- you’d like to protay yourself as a cool, calm, logically minded soul, but in reality we both know that ain’t so. At least I am a bit more honest about that, now that we are talking about honesty…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

      I’m sorry, I am just laughing so hard I’m having a hard time reading. I just posted that to tweak you RNH, and boy did it.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

      I think you a full of **it RNH. You are lying to yourself if you think anyone is fooled by your protestations. We all know that you are an agitator, (professional, or not), and that your sole purpose here is to disrupt and derail any discussions about AGW. Don’t give me this BS about objectivity.

  14. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    Hey, anybody out there looking for a good resource on the vriables that can effect the climate, I just ran across this at WUWT:
    It is a great resource for anyone looking into climate change.

  15. Rob N. Hood February 20, 2012 at 7:46 am #

    What happened to good Neil? Bad boy Neil is back. You don’t seem to handle the truth very well, I guess that’s why you enjoy sites like WUWT. It’s true I enjoy agitating you people from time to time- but for example above, I was not, and was being truthful, something I thought you people were after and can discern expertly. Guess I was wrong about that too.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 20, 2012 at 11:19 am #

      Are you calling Anthony Watts a liar?

  16. Rob N. Hood February 20, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    I don’t know enough about it to say that- and so no. I question biased people, and don’t simply believe what they put into print, etc. Does that sound ok to you, or not? Like I’ve said before I am not convinced either way and your reliance on biased sources doesn’t help me in the least. I kow you feel the exact same way about opposite AGW sources, except that you may go so far as to call them liars, because you feel it’s all a big hoax, which connotes many things including conspriacy. Please correct me about any of this- I don’t wish to “put words in your mouth” although it appears you would try to do so with me.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

      Then why say “You don’t seem to handle the truth very well, I guess that’s why you enjoy sites like WUWT.”? The inference is clear.

  17. Rob N. Hood February 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    My “inference” was basically that you subsist on certain sources above all others- based on your own personal feelings which don’t appear to be all that objective. I conclude thus based upon many of your statements, not just one or two. Your various sources do not appear to be unbiased and/or objective, so thus neither do you. That’s ok, because it is obviously your right to do so, etc. But then to try and paint me into some kind of easily categorized corner is not very fair, nor productive, other than to cause or attempt to cause consternation and quarreling. You nor anyone else has proven any kind of conspiracy re: AGW. Nor will you in my opinion. People wanting to continue a revenue stream will of course do things that are unethical etc. And that doesn’t mean I agree with that. It is what it is, and they have to live with themselves and perhaps even answer to it eventually. But that goes BOTH ways, and you tend to ignore the other side, which is in reality a much bigger player in all this, and has much more to lose than the other. That is my biggest clue to all this, and you and others who frequent this site down-play or altoghter wholey ignore that 800 pound gorilla- and for reasons that only you could shed light on. Or not, as you wish. But alas, here I am rambling incoherantly again. Funny how I managed to produce a Master’s Thesis by my own little self… (the only reason I add that, as I’ve done a couple times before, is to nip in the bud any off the cuff and ill-conceived dismissal of said ability to converse logically and rationally). In other words, try a different insult, that one has been worn thin, and was pretty thin to begin with.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 20, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

      I could say the same thing about your sources if you posted them.

  18. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 21, 2012 at 8:15 am #
    “FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

    Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

    An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.”

    • Rob N. Hood February 21, 2012 at 8:18 am #

      Hey Neil- wasn’t the exact same thing done the other way around, but you didn’t make any noise about the illegality of it, etc. But now….?!

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 21, 2012 at 11:54 am #

        What are you talking about? Do you mean climategate?

        • Rob N. Hood February 21, 2012 at 2:30 pm #


          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

            Ok. I think there are some major differences between this and climategate. The first being that there was no personal information released about HADCRU employees in the climategate emails, there was personal information released about Heartland employees. And second is that HADCRU is a publicly funded organization who had been dodging multiple FOIA requests, and Heartland is a private organization that is not subject to FOIA regulations. Another is that none of the glimategate materials were forgeries, when there is one document, (actually the most talked about document), that is a verifiable forgery.
            I will concede that they were both criminal acts, and whoever is responsible for the climategate email release, if they ever identify them, should be prosecuted. I’ve never suggested otherwise. IMO, one was done to inform the public, the other was done to cause harm to Heartland. Big difference.
            Note. I have expressed that I think the climategate whistlblower is a hero, and deserves a medal, but that is not the same as saying that they should not be prosecuted, in fact I’m pretty shure I’ve said that they are toast if they get caught.

  19. Rob N. Hood February 21, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    Of course you would and you have actually. But that’s a dodge. But it’s ok, there’s not a lot you can say, except for attempting to prove their veracity somehow- which is very difficult to do, and I won’t/don’t expect you to try, for that reason. It comes down to common sense, intelligence, which way the brain is wired, etc. And neither of us can go beyond that, we choose our beliefs accordingly. And while is could certainly be said that I’m being wishy-washy about AGW, you also certainly cannot say I don’t have an open mind. Or you could simply assume I am lying for some unfathomable reason. What say you however about that 800 pound gorilla? None of you have ever really addressed that, not very directly or fully.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 21, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

      I certainly can say that you don’t have an open mind. I think you are quite the ridgid idealouge. I don’t think you are wishy-washy on AGW, I think you are firmly in the camp of ‘it’s happening, and humans are the cause’. But that’s my opinion, it could be wrong.

  20. Rob N. Hood February 21, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    oh oh oh oh ah ah ah

  21. Rob N. Hood February 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    (as good a gorilla impression as I can muster)

  22. Rob N. Hood February 22, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    Neil above- your opinion about me is wrong. You are an argumentative idealogue.

  23. Rob N. Hood February 22, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    And it appears that rather than engage in any further and perhaps challenging dialogue you chose the quick and dirty way out, again.

  24. Greg February 22, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    I can prove with out a doubt that Global Climate Change is real and I can also prove what causes it.

    1. Is global climate change real… Yes, does it not get warmer sometimes and colder other times, i.e. The temperature changes which means the global climate is changing. That is a fact! so global climate change is real and we all feel it…lol

    2. What causes global climate change, the sun, when the sun is further away or has less solar flares the earth gets colder and when the sun is closer to earth then the earth gets warmer so that is what causes global climate change.

    So the best answer to this whole stupid debate is instead of paying for all the high priced so called scientist just send me the money so I can have some fun with it instead of wasting it on more stupid made up reports.

  25. Rob N. Hood February 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Yeah, what has science done for us lately? We should have stopped science in… say about 1923. Think of the money that would have saved…! And what real good has it been since then anyway?

  26. Rob N. Hood February 22, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    The other day, Rick Santorum made an hallucinogenetic assertion to a group of supporters in Texas: “When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do, and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine.”

    The above is an example of an alternative reality that leaves one speechless. It also demonstrates the importance of science over “other stuff.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 22, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

      Who said these things?

      “Bush doesn’t care about China because it’s full of black people.”

      “We don’t have to worry about the cost of my federal programs because at my last visit to Long John Silver’s I got a map to pirate treasure.”

      “I’m running for mayor of the U.S.!”

      “Countries in the Middle East don’t like the Jews since they took for themselves the largest country.”

      “My favorite type of pie is devil’s food.”

      “My grandfather was a ninja turtle.”

      “My middle name will help me in foreign affairs because it will make other countries think I have a bushy mustache.”

      Hint: It’s the guy in the oval office right now………………

  27. Rob N. Hood February 23, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Lame. Bushisms created calendars and complete books… of truly frightening insanities and inanities. The fact that you attempt such a potentially (inevitable actually) comparative smear, knowing full well there really isn’t one, demostrates better than anything I could come up with your bias and lack of reason.

  28. Rob N. Hood February 23, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    Oh and that goes for R.S. too. Defending RS if that is in fact what you were attempting is practically the same thing. RS is also truly frighteningly insane and inane. But not for those who share those traits of course.

  29. Rob N. Hood February 23, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    It’s amusing how blatantly and vapidly nonsense right-wing arguments are, completely devoid of the most basic understanding of the facts. Much like the hilariously absurd idea that Obama is both a fascist and a marxist (two diametrically opposed philosophies), or both an anti-religious secularist tyrant and a muslim fanatic (again, two fundamentally incompatible things), we get this gem of stupidity about the French Revolution.

    France was deeply christian at the time of the Revolution (Catholic, I think), and religion had nothing to do with it. The Revolution was a popular uprising by the poor and oppressed majority against the monarchy and associated aristocracy / nobility. It was against an oppressive, authoritarian government, not an establishment of one.

    The 1% plutocracy in power in this country, which is of course the power behind the Republican party, does have reason to fear another French Revolution scenario, but that’s the only thing in that whole nonsensical diatribe that has any truth in it.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 24, 2012 at 7:18 am #

      SOCIALISM AND MARXISM. Fascism is necessarily a form of socialism, because it requires total State control of everything. But Fascism differs from Marxism in its understanding of a) the State, b) society, and c) property.

      The State: In Fascism, the State is the ultimate expression of human evolution, whereas to the Marxist it is nothing but the by-product of historical and economic conditions, destined to ultimately “wither away”. Fascism is necessarily nationalist, while Marxism is anti-nationalist (in theory, at least , though rarely so in practice).

      Society: Fascism attacks Marxism most strongly over the question of class warfare, which Fascism rejects. Fascism claims to harmonize all social classes, making class warfare unnecessary. Essentially, Fascism takes society as it is, and installs State control at every point. Instead of pitting worker against capitalist, it makes them both mere functions of the State. Marxism promises a classless and egalitarian society (Communism) at some point in the future – Fascism insists on having one right now, else somebody is going to get shot.

      Property: Fascism and Marxism take different views of private property, but this is really a very minor distinction. Fascism does not really recognize private property – the State is entitled to confiscate whatever it requires, and individual rights do not exist – but it does not directly attack the concept of private property in the way that Marxism does. The Marxist obsession with property comes from the influence of antique leftists like Pierre “Property is Theft” Proudhon. Marx essentially got hung up on a “private property” fetish. The Fascist view is more logical: it doesn’t matter who holds the deed to a factory; the only thing that matters is who controls the factory, and in that regard Fascism is no different from Marxism.

  30. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 23, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Hey you’re the one that brought up stupid things polititians say. See this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I feel like there is something up your sleeve. You broach a subject, wait until there is a reply, then you excoriat the heck out of them about something you want to talk about! I think you have some kind of major psychological issues.

  31. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 23, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    “It’s amusing how blatantly and vapidly nonsense right-wing arguments are, completely devoid of the most basic understanding of the facts.”
    Very ridgid idealouge.

  32. Rob N. Hood February 24, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    At least we see humor in, so it can’t be all that “rigid.” And you profess to enjoy the luxury of a fact based reality, and yet when faced with certain facts you suddenly cannot do so, and fall back upon familiar soothing opinions. That is what mkaes an idealogue. Oh and your insistence on posting your cherry picked definitions is also entertaining. My retort to your come-backs are completely logical and rational. If you cannot recognize that well, that is your psychological issue not mine. My responses are fact based logical and rational. If I soot some holes into some of your statements it may be because I can which means you are missing the attributes which I bel;eive I possess (above). For example, if I find I have mis-spoken and/or are out-maneuvered I will kep silent and let it go, or try to top it with something I have missed or just thought of. That is the nature of debate which is what these blogs are for. You on the other hand, and others here, reosrt to ad hominens and other rather childish rants. And what I post could very easily be ignored by you, especially if you thought it wasn’t valid at all. But you reveal yourselves when you do- in addition to, of course, to your own “original” posts. Thus this whole exercise is dripping with irony. Why? Because you and yours profess to be the highest of logisticians, and epitomy of common sense. And it has become my job to help demonstrate why that is incorrect- I guess becuase no one else bothers as much to do so. I know you will find this all very conceited- but it is not- it is simply another fact-based and rational explanation.

  33. Rob N. Hood February 24, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    Oh and your connection of fascism and socialism is an awesome example of where the thinking process of the Right goes hay-wire. And of course it isn’t just you who has made such an erroneous and baffling statement. It has become a talkin gpoint of sorts for the Right. It is so full of interesting deep psychological twists and turns that a person could write a thesis on it. I wil try to refrain from elaborating on that, becuase i am a;ready long-winded as it is. but I cannot keep from observing that in doing so, it appears to me at least, it is some kind of denial defense mechanism re: fascism which of course alludes to an affinity of fascism. But you will of course disagree with that. And like I said much more would have to be said about this to make it clearer. The need to create a new reality to equate two opposing concepts…. well, I need to stop.

  34. Rob N. Hood February 24, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    I forgot to include your “connection” of socialism and marxism- just ANOTHER right-wing trick that only serves to highlight theior own lack of scruples and/or ability to face reality. Mostly it’s just a trick of propaganda utilizing gulliblity of the true-believers, who they know will march to those “orders” out in the hinterlands. Very effective apparently.

  35. Rob N. Hood February 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    Where in the he!! did you get those ridiculous defintions from? I’d love to know.

  36. Rob N Hood February 25, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    …?… shy again all of a sudden?

  37. Rob N. Hood February 25, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    What’s up Neil- you pride yourself on citing sources and disclosure, blah blah blah. Don’t tell me you made that all up on your own?!

  38. Rob N. Hood February 25, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    shy lil’ tyke, stuck inhis shell all the timee…

  39. Rob N. Hood February 26, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    At least you aren’t being hypocritical.

  40. Rob N. Hood March 1, 2012 at 7:59 am #


  41. Rob N. Hood March 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    C’mon Neil. Not discussing this is really lame.

  42. Rob N. Hood March 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    At least answering the question; same question you’ve posed to MANY times.

  43. Rob N. Hood March 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm #


  44. Rob N. Hood March 6, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    The question was (for Neilo): Where did you get the defintion above? Just make it up? (doubtful- you usually dig up stuff to post that suits you). And do you really believe that/those definitions are accurate as is?

  45. cptWayne March 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    Is the real truth about CO2 emerging? That is; yes, it warms, but only a little. It replaces water vapor in the upper troposphere. At 400 mbar (where the IPCC says its most important), the humidity is dropping and cooling this part of the atmosphere. This cooling via lowered humidity is offsetting the effects of the increased CO2 warming. It is suggested too that the total GHGs, including water vapor, has not increased in over 60 years due to this displacement. Could this be true too? While CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, could its net effect be one of cooling instead of warming? Has everyone been duped about global warming? I asked a global warming enthusiast what part of the 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Age began was due to anthropogenic causes? He said nearly all of it. If the natural upward trend in global temps is about 0.46 to 0.50 deg C per century, then some of that increase is natural.
    Maybe, just maybe, someone will look at the per capita increase in winter heating or summer cooling bills and tell me whether its been warmer or cooler lately?

  46. Rob N. Hood March 7, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Simple easy questions…

  47. Rob N. Hood March 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    There are other greenhouse gases too cptWayne. And the data shows increases in C02 coexistant with increased temps.

  48. joe March 11, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Nobody will respond to comments that are nonsensical.

  49. Rob N. Hood March 12, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    What is nonsensical? Please explain or follow your own advice and discontinue your own nonsense.

  50. joe March 12, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Just what does your statements made have anything to do with the article? Nonsensical statements are posted by you. Yes, utter nonsense. Get back on the subject at hand. Similiar to a student with ADD.

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