Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall

Snowmobile on Roof

Snowmobile on Roof

By James Taylor

Sitting in on a March 1 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) press conference regarding global warming and heavy snowfalls, I couldn’t help feeling like the chairman of the Senate committee questioning mafia capo Frank Pentangeli in Godfather II. The chairman, listening incredulously as Pentangeli contradicts a sworn written statement he had earlier given to the committee, waves the written statement in the air and protests, “We have a sworn affidavit – we have it – your sworn affidavit…. Do you deny that confession, and do you realize what will happen as a result of your denial?”The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as Frank Pentangeli’s earlier confession that he had killed on behalf of Michael Corleone. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.

That was in 2001. Now, however, with an unprecedented number of major winter snowstorms hitting the northeastern U.S. during the past two winters, the alarmists are clamming up and changing their tune faster than Tom Hagen can fly in Vincenzo Pentangeli from Italy to aid his brother in his time of trouble.

Read the rest at Forbes.

60 Responses to Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall

  1. V March 4, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    It’s not science it is supposition, guesstimation, nothing but theoretics. These climate scientists are not necessarily 100% wrong but it is certain they are not 100% right.

    Here are some problems. If one climate scientist were able to get to the truth there would be $0.00 going into future climate research. In other words we can calculate from known variables what the unknown is, and it is this, climatologists don’t know what the ultimate result of greenhousing is.

    How can these people who are still collecting grants to further their research come out with recommendations on actions to be taken. Is the failure in logic not apparent.

    Money is granted in hopes of finding the answer therefore while money is still being granted the answer is not there. How can people stand by oblivious to this simple rational?

    If we had the answer would we still be paying to find it?

  2. V March 4, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Like feinman said if it doesn’t translate to reality it is unreal. As constrained and well programmed as can be, virtual reality programs are not real. You can run any simulation you like but the only results that count are the unsimulated ones. If you’ve ever wrote a lottery program you’ll realize that you can somewhat narrow results down, but the fact remains, your program will in all likelihood not make you a millionaire (unless you sell the program to gullible buyers).

    A computer program is not reality, we can work on making it as real as possible but the divide will inevitably be there. Running an accelerated program which calculates what the climate 10, 100, 1000 years down the line will be may be fun, it may even teach us a little something, but ultimately it gains directionality from the programmer, you can try to argue that fact all you like to no avail. Computers are smart (able to hold information) but they are not intelligent. The programmers hypothesis always shines through. Computers are nothing but calculators, the variables and their interactions are written by humans. The computer just works out what the human tells it too.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

      V: You are making good points. A lot of them I have seen here, and made a few of them myself, before. GIGO garbage in garbage out, programmer bias, is one that is a good part of my foundation for scepticism of the IPCC and their computer climate models.
      Have you heard of Freinds of Science? It is a great place to read all kinds of stuff by sceptical scientists. Check it out.

      • Jerk A. Knot March 15, 2011 at 9:51 am #

        I LOVE THAT!!!! You said “sceptical scientists” as if that is something new. Durring the periods of real enlightenment scientests are allowed to be “sceptical scientists” in every way. So I approve of this endoursement of the “sceptical scientists” for they are truly the only real Scientist.

  3. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    Another sattellite goes into the drink! Yup, another sattellite that was supposed to measure global warming failed to make it into orbit. It’s at the bottom of the Pacific now. That’s two in as many years! Did anyone see James Hansen anywhere near the rocket before the launch?
    “WASHINGTON (AP) — For the second time in two years, a rocket glitch sent a NASA global warming satellite to the bottom of the sea Friday, a $424 million debacle that couldn’t have come at a worse time for the space agency and its efforts to understand climate change.”

    “[“It’s more than embarrassing,” said Syracuse University public policy professor Henry Lambright. “Something was missed in the first investigation and the work that went on afterward.”]”

    “[“Lambright warned that the back-to-back fiascos could have political repercussions, giving Republicans and climate-change skeptics more ammunition to question whether “this is a good way to spend taxpayers’ money for rockets to fail and for a purpose they find suspect.”]”

  4. paul wenum March 4, 2011 at 7:32 pm #

    V, I agree. The bottom line after all the research, climate change is natural and has yet to be proven otherwise.

  5. Hal Groar March 5, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    It is becoming comical to read the predictions made the the AGW believers. You can almost bet the inverse on any of their predictions. This religion is a farce and should be relegated to conspiracy web sites and folk tales. Is Al Gore planning a visit to Minnesota? Just looked at the weather forecast and it looks like another snow storm is on the way. Should be a dry snow though…whatever that is.

  6. V March 5, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Which option would be more socially acceptable?

    1. Finding alternative clean energy sources, cutting co2 output to 1/2, etc..


    2. Cutting human population to half through: wars, vaccines (which cause infertility), man made eradicating viruses, etc..


    3. Combination of 1 and 2 (which, coincidentally, is what is happening on the earth as we speak)?

  7. V March 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2011 at 6:28 am #

      Sorry V, I’m not buying it. I can’t even find the author of that story on the web anywhere.

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 5, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Here we go again!

    “Over the past 540 million years, five mega-wipeouts of species have occurred through naturally-induced events.
    But the new threat is man-made, inflicted by habitation loss, over-hunting, over-fishing, the spread of germs and viruses and introduced species, and by climate change caused by fossil-fuel greenhouse gases, says the study.”

    “The authors admitted to weaknesses in the study. They acknowledged that the fossil record is far from complete, that mammals provide an imperfect benchmark of Earth’s biodiversity and further work is needed to confirm their suspicions.
    But they described their estimates as conservative and warned a large-scale extinction would have an impact on a timescale beyond human imagining.”
    This is just an example of whats to come I think. See the template will be that not only are we causing the planet to precipitously warm, but all our other activities are causing a further catatrophe, and so we should all just mix up some kool-aid and off ourselves. These people will never stop. They’re nuts!!!!!

  9. paul wenum March 6, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    Neil, I agree. What else can I say?

  10. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2011 at 6:06 am #

    If you don’t believe there is media bias that leans towards the Left, look at this.

    “It took 24 days, from Feb. 1, to Feb. 24 for the national average for unleaded gasoline to climb from $3.101 to 3.228. The last comparable period of “eye-popping” gas prices: the 20 days between Feb. 21, 2008, and March 11, 2008, when the national average climbed from $3.086 to $3.227.

    Some 2008 reports including the March 6, 2008, “Early Show” exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump that was charging $5.19-a-gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower. Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like “inching” to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices “a bargain compared to Europe.”

    The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 ½ times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011.

    But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media’s willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush, and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned “Bush,” the “president” or “government” in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1). A number of stories portrayed Bush as out-of-the-loop when he was asked about the possibility of $4-a-gallon gas and hadn’t yet heard that prediction.

    In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush administration when gas prices were “through the roof,” the only 2011 story to mention the president was NBC “Nightly News” on Feb. 24. Tom Costello’s report on the impact of surging gas prices quoted President Obama who was “optimistic.”

  11. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    If you are an AGW sceptic like myself you will enjoy this. If you are an AGW believer… you might need a hankie!

  12. Hal Groar March 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    Neil that a is nice web site (Dr. Roy). I bookmarked it to check it once a month. Thanks!

  13. paul wenum March 6, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    Laughed so hard I sneezed but don’t need a hankie. Sent it to Chu.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2011 at 10:10 pm #


  14. V March 7, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Regardless of whether the pro-AGW or the anti-AGW sides prevail we need fail safes in place, we need to master terraformation if we are to preserve our habitat in the future. This is what environmental science needs to be, productive, we need man made technology to counteract man made warming.

    And just to clarify my stance, I’m neutral, both the pro and anti sides are correct but are too stubborn to look for truth in the message conveyed by their enemies. Being deemed scientifically correct is meaningless if years down the line you’re disproven, infact it impedes progress.

    We need to cut our dependence on oil and find alternate sources of energy, sources that produce more energy are infinitely renewable (unlike oil which is diminishing at an ever accelerating pace). We need energy with zero negative and zero positive impact on our biosphere.

    Alongside this energy source we need to reform the basis of environmental sciences. Science is about studying for a purpose. We don’t study viruses so we can become friends. We shouldn’t study the environment to become earth loving hippies. We study viruses so we can cure the sick. We should study the environment so that we can change it. Environmental scientists need to get out of the passenger seat from which they observe the course and move into the drivers seat. We need technology to control the climate and not a bunch of naysayers.

    To clarify once again, both the pro and anti AGW sides have truth in what they are saying.

    The reason I tend to side with the anti AGW side is the scaremongering of the pro side.

    Environmental science is one sided, it is incomplete, we have the investigative side (information gathering), what is missing is the technology developing side. To be perfectly clear what is missing is the technology to change the air that is our atmosphere. Knowledge is useless unless it gives us the power to change.

    Environmental sciences need to exit from the philosophical postulate phase (if that then this… blah blah blah) and enter experimental technology phase (adding this results in this). As the earths most advanced species we have a moral obligation to keep advancing, we owe our children the power to control their own destiny. Our atmosphere is comprised of chemicals. Chemistry on the grand scale is what we need in order to control nature, rather, nurture nature, wean it in the direction we want it to go.

    For the anti-AGWers, developing fail safe systems is not a confirmation of the negative effects of Industrialization and an admission of the anthropogenic role in climate change. As most of us are aware climate change is a natural occurence, whether accelerated or ignited by us or not, the power to change the climate could save us from not just anthropogenic induced events but naturally occurring ones as well. This is not about picking sides, it is about siding with life and the evolution of mankind.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

      No. V, I totally disagree with that. We should not go fooling around with the atmosphere on purpose precisely because we don’t understand. If it can be proven that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is causing catastrophic warming, then I would be all for reducing CO2, sequestration, alternative energies and such. But it has not been proven. And the way it’s going, the whole theory is looking more, and more like bullcrap.
      Your position is confusing to me. You say on one hand that both sides have truth in what they are saying, but on the other hand you say you tend to side with the sceptics because the pro-AGW’ers use scaremongering…….. What is scaremongering?!?!?!?!?! Scaremongering is LYING!!!!!! There is no truth on the pro-AGW side! It is, and always has been a lie. Sure, there are a few sound scientific principles that are used in their arguments, but all of the rest is one big fat lie after another. How can you seriously think there is any truth in what they sey when every single prediction made by them has not come to pass? And when something they said like “children aren’t going to know what snow is” turns out to be completely off the mark, as the last two winters have shown, they turn around and say,”well we predicted that warmer air would hold more moisture and we would have large snowfall events like wer’e seeing now.” ALL THEY DO IS LIE!!!!!!!! Wake up V!

      • Dan McGrath March 7, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

        Thanks for that rant. I’m in the mood for a good truth rant (bad day filled with lies). The great thing about the truth is that it is what is. It takes eternal vigilance to keep it buried. It will eventually surface. It helps if we keep digging it up, though.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2011 at 5:58 am #

          A shovel is ok, but sometimes it takes a backhoe!

      • V March 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

        We shouldn’t mess with the atmosphere because we don’t understand it?

        First off this statement is in direct contradiction with the rest of the paragraph. You are saying we don’t know the effects of atmospheric co2, if we are to not mess around with that which we do not understand than by your logic, not understanding co2, we shouldn’t be releasing it into the atmosphere either.

        Second, we know co2 quite well, the pro-AGW side has it correct, co2 is an energy absorptive compound (read: high heat retention), an increase in atmospheric co2 content results in an increase in total energy (read: increase in heat). So the pro-side is correct.

        This is, however, an incomplete picture. The science is there, and solid, but is missing a fundamental step: the reaction. An increase in heat causes weather (fluid dynamics). An increase in heat causes cooling mechanisms to engage. Storms distribute heat over the planet and also lower the atmospheric co2 content, along with cleaning up other contaminants from the atmosphere, co2 is picked up by rain water producing acid rain (carbonic acid). A thunderstorm results in a temperature drop. Temperature is the measure of heat, heat is energy. The earth is self regulatory.

        So there you have a little tid bit of why both sides are correct on the issue.

        So weather regulates the climate.

        Now imagine this: we have a cup with a hole in the side of it, the cup sits in the sink, water running into it running out the hole at the side of the cup. The water level in the cup is constant. The water that runs in is matched with the water that runs out. Now turn the faucet up, water escaping the cup through the hole cannot keep up with the water running into the cup. The equilibrium is broken. Now water runs out both from the hole and from the top.

        This is an analogy for the extreme case presented by the pro-AGWers. The cup is the earth. The faucet is the sun. The water is energy. The hole in the cup is weather. This is the runnaway warming model. Pro-AGWers are saying that the hole in the cup is unable to pass the water at the rate it is coming in. The earth is filling with heat at a rate higher than it is ridding heat, increasing in temperature.

        We can take this further still. If you’re attentive you’ll notice the score is 2-1 for the pro-AGWers.

        Let’s add one more point to the anti-AGWers. Back to the cup. The cup is under pressure (intense energy), the hole in the side of the cup is degrading, it is expanding to accommodate the water filling the cup. Alas, the water coming out of the faucet is again matched by the water leaking out of the newly enlarged hole. What happened in the real world? Weather has changed. The intensity or the frequency of storms has risen (or both). As a reaction to an increase in heat storms have grown in size, or, they are getting more frequent, or both.

        Pro-AGWers 2, anti-AGWers 2. The score is tied. That should clarify my position for you Neil. Scaremongering is not lying. Scaremongering is psychological warfare, fear inducing. Scaremongering is the act of terror, terrorism.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

          V, read this:
          And this:
          Our climate is not a cup with a hole in the side of it. That is far too simplistic a system to even attempt to describe the Earth’s atmosphere. And in your analogy the water from the faucet would be representative of energy from the Sun. Right? Well the solar irradiance does have some small fluctuations but that is not part of the greenhouse theory. The Sun’s energy, forgetting the minor fluctuations in irradiance, is for all practicle purposes constant. It would be a better analogy, if you are trying to describe the greenhouse theory, to say that you reduce the diameter of the hole in the side of the cup. That would be closer to it. But it still would be too simple, and would not be remotely analogous to what is going on in the atmosphere.

          You are also displaying a total lack of understanding about severe weather! Severe weather (storms) occur when cold air meets warmer air. The greater the difference in temperature, the higher the magnitude of the severe weather event. AGW theory states that polar air will warm faster than the mid lattitudes so if AGW were happening we would be having fewer severe weather events, not more of them. And as far as having more severe weather, I’m not even sure about that because in the last 30 years there has been great improvements in detection, and reporting of severe weather.
          As far as I’m concerned the warmists arguments hold no water. There is no score, like it’s a freakin’ game or something. This is not a game. This is serious stuff. And it affects all of us.

          • V March 10, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

            I thought I pointed this out as an analogy (it may not be the best one but it is simple enough for most people to understand), I could probably make this simple analogy better but it is good enough, I’ve made it as simple as possible on purpose, obviously a cup is not the earth, a hole in a cup is not weather, it is an analogy Neil. And btw meeting of cold and hot jetstreams is not what storms are. dissipation of heat is what storms are, fluid dynamics.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

          I have a response to this that is awaiting moderation because of url links.

          • V March 10, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

            That is excellent, but we must remember that this is only one of the action/reaction results of an increase in co2. It would take a book to label all of the reactions to an increase in atmospheric co2.

            Another reaction is in the flora/fauna relationship. Flora flourishes on an increase in fauna wasteproduct, ie co2. Plants depend upon co2 that fauna release and there is a closenit interplay between them. We as the human animal are raising the ante. Another balancing act on earth is between organisms. Plants thrive in a co2 rich environment giving away as a wasteproduct the oxygen we breathe.

            So there I’ve pointed out 2 natural reactions to an increase in co2. You’d be surprised with the number of ways equilibrium is reachable on earth. And I stand firm, we need technology that can control the course of the planet, for unnatural (anthropogenic), and natural events. Like Paul pointed out volcanoes can be mighty dangerous if for whatever reason they were to suddenly pop up and blow. And volcanoes are just one of the possible events that could recourse the natural course.

          • V March 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

            Regardless of the ecological impact our gluttonous dependence on oil will teak havoc on the system. Being an hvac specialist you must understand thermodynamics but have you thought about the impact of leaving airpockets in the earths core (oil dry pockets)? Before even beginning to calculate the impact ask your self: is the core more or less stable with empty pockets?

            Whether there is impactual significance or not, with the rate of our consumption oil will run out, it cannot replenish fast enough (not enough dying organisms). As I see it we need an alternative energy source or we are headed back into the dark ages. That is not debatable. Oil is fleeting faster than it is replenishing, period.

          • V March 10, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

            There are too many contributing factors to name, no matter the point there is a counterpoint on the subject of AGW, the only resolution is to nullify the argument, if we devise technology that can return homeostasis of the biosphere our conduct becomes irrelevant. This is called a failsafe, technology to fix the problem if it arises.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

            OK, the response posted, and V’s response is making me start to think that we might have another MIP. I said nothing about the Jetstream, that is something else entirely that has nothing to do with storms. Storms form where high pressure areas meet low pressure areas. I know I said before that it was where cold air meets warmer air, but that was not inaccurate because of the pressure-temperature relationship. But no matter. I don’t think you are here to listen. In fact, I don’t think you are for real. Ain’t that right MIP?

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

          Wrong V.

          “Does pumping oil out of the ground leave caves and holes underground?
          I’m curious, does pumping oil out of the earth leave chasms, caves or holes under the earth? I’ve heard before that the oil is tightly squeezed between rocks, mixed with sand, etc., however…if this is true then why are the scientists in the gulf of Mexico describing a sea floor collapse? Some of the news stories are saying that giant chasms are opening up underground where the mass amounts of oil are flowing out unrestricted. And, if groundwater or sea water is replacing the oil being taken out by oil rigs across the earth, then why don’t we see a MASSIVE amount of water levels dropping? Billions of gallons of oil are being pumped out each day…what’s replacing that?”

          “The simple answer is NO.
          1. Most oil reservoirs are comprised of grain supported porous rock that will support the reservoir even when the oil is gone.
          2. The oil that is recovered from an oil reservoir on “primary” recovery is usually only about 5-10% of the total “oil in place”.
          3. The most prolific oil reservoirs are “water drive” reservoirs, where every barrel of oil is replaced by another barrel of water, when the oil is withdrawn. These types of reservoirs generally recover 35-65% of the “oil in place” but are still supported bt a very active water aquifer.
          4. Even when only a fraction of the oil in place is recovered, it is common practice to “water flood” the oil reservoir or artificially boost the pressure by injecting water.

          Actually, if it were a common occurrence for reservoirs to collapse due to fluid withdrawal, there would be massive sinkholes all over the place from the withdrawal of Natural Gas. In most Gas reservoirs you actually remove 85-95% of all the reservoir fluid (gas) and never replace the withdrawn gas with water. The reservoirs still are very self supporting regardless of the natural gas having been completely withdrawn!!

          Some very shallow limestone/dolomite gas reservoirs could theoretically collapse, but they have to be at extremely shallow depth. Caves do not survive burial very well and are generally NOT preserved at below maybe 500 feet below the mean surface level. (not the same as in a cave within a mountain due to the lack of confining pressure that occurs in mountains). A porous limestone in the subsurface might have streaks of 30% porosity however most of the surrounding rock would only be 5-10% porosity (on average).

          Hope this helps.

          EDIT: I forgot one fairly rare instance where a reservoir can actually collapse. That is where the sand that the oil is contained in is actually pumped out of a producing well along with the oil. This can happen where the oil is very heavy and the sandstone is virtually unconsolidated sand. They call this “high volume lift” and the operators literally destroy and produce the oil reservoir as they are pumping. Weird…but true!”

          • V March 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

            “The simple answer is no.” wrong Neil. As a reference to why no is not the answer read your own comment.

            If 50% of the full pocket is sand and 50% of the full pocket is crude extracting the crude will leave 50% of the pocket empty. This means we are left with a cave, and as per your EDIT sometimes the cave caves-in.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

          And Wrong!

          “Over the past 33 years mankind has consumed more than three times the world’s known oil reserves in 1976 – and today proven oil reserves are nearly double what they were before we started. The story with natural gas is even better – here and around the world enormous amounts of natural gas have been found. More will be found. But if you had asked in 1976 what the supply of oil would be like given the demand of 2010, you would have come up with the “Peak Oil” theory then, and we would have supposedly run out of oil decades ago; an ongoing impending crisis.”

          • V March 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

            A 100 kg human being uses 250,000 kg of crude oil in their lifetime. Is that sustainable? Absolutely not, you’re not grasping the grand scale of this. If 100% of dead biomass converted into crude oil (which it does not) 1 person uses the oil produced by 2,500 dead people. How does this not resonate with you?

    • Jerk A. Knot March 15, 2011 at 10:13 am #

      I agree with this statement by you.

      “We need to cut our dependence on oil and find alternate sources of energy, sources that produce more energy are infinitely renewable (unlike oil which is diminishing at an ever accelerating pace). We need energy with zero negative and zero positive impact on our biosphere. ”

      As stewards of this planet we are charged to be responsible. What I have found is the AWG movement has been hi-jacked by Leftists that are using it in an attempt to destroy their opposition. I am not going to go into a long post on this. I am just putting it out there as an alternative view to yours.

  15. paul wenum March 7, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    What “V” is saying , in my humble opinion, is that he doesn’t know. We all want a better planet for our children, grand children et al. It is a matter of degree in how we keep/protect what we have, pure and simple. Give us a couple of big volcanoes and we have a problem not caused by humans. Finally, not all will ever agree. As I taught my children through the years, (now adults), If we always agreed on everything there would never be any discourse simply a big vacuum of dead air. As Neil states and I agree, we hate being lied to so others may profit off their lies or should I say, their “mis-statements” that could/would cause a major economic collapse of our society we now enjoy. Enough said.

  16. Hal Groar March 10, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    I gotta go with Neil on this one, they have been scaring people every year with the idea of peak oil, but when I looked up estimated oil reserves globally I found that every year they find more oil and the estimates rise. I long ago stopped worrying about running out of oil. It won’t happen in my lifetime or my kids lifetime. By the time my kids kids grow up we should have that hydrogen thing worked out. That’s what my “climate model” says. I trust it because I put the information in.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 11:01 pm #


      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 10, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

        Or should I say LILO? (logic in logic out)

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

      to V, and anyone else interested, I am not simply dismissing the theory of peak oil because I have decided that I don’t want to believe it. As with most of my beliefs there are things that I can point to that support them.
      “Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly. Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.”

      For further study go here:

  17. paul wenum March 11, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    My God, Let’s harvest the oil we have and at the same invest in other sources such as better fuel economy, natural gas et al. So simplistic it makes me sick. Why all the discourse about a known fact? Deal with it and simply do it. I cut to the chase and don’t like long statements. Deal with the problem, address it and fix it. Time is of the essence. Talk weeps, actions speak. Just let the private sector do it. Sick of the pontificating. Our children’s lives are ahead. I’m on the back nine so it doesn’t matter but my children do. Let the Middle East eat sand as we use our own resources God gave us. The grass is greener on our side. Haven’t you noticed? The present Administration has but they cannot pull the trigger. Typical liberals. It’s called self preservation which they do not understand. Just do it!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 11, 2011 at 6:35 am #

      Thanks Paul. That is the crux of it. We all know that eventually oil will be harder, and harder to aquire. The trouble is that people on the Left have no faith in their fellow man. I am certain that there will be a breakthrough that will change everything one day. A new energy source will be discovered making oil obsolete… for energy anyway. Let’s not forget the 1,00’s of other uses oil has. But, I’m with you, use what we have, figure out ways to use it better, and continue serching for new sources of energy, and new techniques of producing energy. I believe that we can do this without reducing our economy one bit.
      I have said before that I am not religious, but that does not mean I don’t believe there is a God. And I believe God will provide. And God works through people, so I have faith that people will make the breakthroughs when God determines them to occur.

  18. paul wenum March 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Neil, Man determines what he/she does, God watches to see if you do it proper. Live by that.

    • Jerk A. Knot March 16, 2011 at 11:45 am #

      Paul You know I love ya like a brother… I have to take Step up for Christ.

      The Bible is full of example of man trying to take controll and do it themselves. Adam, Noah, Isac, David, Solomon, Moses….. every one of them.. The centeral theam in the old testament is YOU CAN NOT do it by yourself. God IS in conrol. Follow His way and he will take care of you. Now and forever. The forever part is the most important. That is why he sent His Son Jesus to pay our Debt. Neil is correct he will take care of man. Unfortunatlay he will also judge us. W/O Jesus as our savior that Judgement will be harsh. So again he does not just watch he is active every day for the Saved Believer. Because remember Satan and all his Deamons believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost…..

      Now just for Neil. AWG is also a Hoax from the religious side because God who is the Original Creator made everything from nothing…. He surly has the power to control the balance of everything. That does not relieve us from being good custodians of what he has created in anyway. It is just mighty arrogant of us to think we have more power than God.

  19. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 13, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    I came across a video on youtube that had me on the floor laughing so hard. I can’t post the link here because every other word in the video is an effenheimer, but if you want to see it go to youtube and search for “Fat Guy making fun of Global Warming(from boston)”. Unless you are offended by foul language… of course.

  20. paul wenum March 13, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    Neil, He seems a little angry to say the least? Other than the “effenheimer: I think he made his point. I cannot imagine him in a Ford Focus can you? A Suburban perhaps?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 13, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

      Absolutely over the top, but I just thought it was funny. Plus it expressed how I feel about Eyeore in a manner that I would not dare to express here. It also expresses an anger that I share, but am either unwilling, or incapable of expressing it like that.

  21. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Why am I not surprised?
    “Just hours after the horrific earthquake and tsunami devastated coastal areas of Japan, global warming alarmists like the BBC are already injecting climate change propaganda into their coverage of the story, hastily exploiting the tragedy as a vehicle through which to push their increasingly desperate and discredited enviro-fascist agenda”

    Just for the record I think Alex Jones is a nutcase, so don’t go thinking I agree with Jones on everything just because I posted something from his website. Mmkay?

  22. paul wenum March 15, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    Climate change has nothing to do with an earhquake pure and simple. When will people wake up? Oops, forgot, they read People, US, watch TMZ, reality TV and have no idea who Gaddafi or even where Libya is! Now, that is a factual statement. I hear/see it daily. Man, I’m in a bad mood based upon ignorance that is so bad today it gives me headaches. As to Japan, my thoughts and constant prayers go out to all of them. It is the worst situation that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Cannot imagine what the average human being is going through nor can endure in their dire situation.

  23. Rob N. Hood April 7, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    Drama queens. Instead of conjuring up make-believe enemies like “enviro-facsists” why don’t you all wake up and realize there are real fascists out there, and they love the fact that gullibles like you are aiding them greatly by mis-labeling others. Wha?! That would mean you’d have to cleanse your brains, somehow, of all the propaganda you love so much, and start thinking logically and rationally. Is that possible?!

  24. paul wenum April 10, 2011 at 12:32 am #

    Make my Day “Robbie Boy” and get out of my way. You bore me as well as others.

  25. Rob N. Hood May 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Asked and answered…

  26. paul wenum May 27, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    There must be a typo or a missed post. Cannot find it. Ask George maybe he can purchase a response?

  27. paul wenum May 28, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Impatiently still waiting.

  28. Rob N. Hood June 2, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    Feel bad for you. Not. Especially because I have now answered it twice- elsewhere. Unless of course you are imagining some other non-existent insult I have inflicted on poor wittle you.

  29. paul wenum June 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    You are such a plant by Soros that it ceases to amaze me knowbody else see the same as me.

  30. Rob N. Hood June 4, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    You are the lone genius… yep (?!). I represent the majority of America, more or less. Much more than your ilk, that’s for sure. What I post is just that, nothing more nothing less. And it’s been interesting to see the response from the radical Right. You guys are so out of touch it would be funny if it really wasn’t so sad. With re: to AGW, I am not as strong a supporter as you imagine. But until much more, and better, data is presented I will remain so. As I’ve said before none of you is credulous. Your views on just about everything else is off-the-wall, biased to the max, and quite often illogical. Thus your efforts here, for me at least, are useless. And that goes for Dan too.

  31. paul wenum June 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    You simply re-confirm my previous statements. Say hello to George Soros from me and Dan as well? Cannot speak for him. Will let him answer.

  32. Rob N. Hood June 5, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    Whatever… never satisfied…

  33. paul wenum June 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Done playing games with a neophyte. Good bye.

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