The Climate Crisis Hoax

HoaxBy Larry Bell

I’ve encountered some folks who appear offended by the title of my new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Why do you call it a “hoax”? they ask. Why not refer to the matter as a debate? The reason is quite simple: A debate describes a discussion in which participants competitively argue opposing points of view that are assumed to be based upon honest positions.

A hoax is a deceptive act intended to hoodwink people through deliberate misinformation, including factual omissions. My book is about the latter (and by the way, it can be ordered through primary vendors, and is currently being featured on “new releases” tables at 200 major Barnes and Noble Stores).

The central lie is that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based on speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And the evidence? Much is revealed by politically corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel.

S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and University of Virginia professor emeritus commented about these sorry circumstances in the foreword of my book, stating in part:

“Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the ‘evidence’ was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed.”

Other fraud is evident through public exposure of e-mail files retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Scandalous exchanges among prominent researchers who have fomented global warming hysteria confirm long-standing and broadly suspected manipulations of climate data. The communications also reveal conspiracies to falsify and withhold information, to suppress contrary findings in scholarly publications, and to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made global warming. Many of these individuals have had major influence over summary report findings issued by the IPCC. Still other evidence comes from mouths of government officials, international climate summit organizers and leading science spokespeople recorded in candid public admissions.

Read the rest at Forbes.

85 Responses to The Climate Crisis Hoax

  1. Hal Groar January 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    The article is excellent but the comments are more worried about a 30 year old smoking lawsuit. Hmm…their best defense is an argument that has nothing to do with the subject. That’s a fair cup!

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

      I was curious about that, and looked into just what S. Fred Singer did to incur the wrath of the Leftynuts. Do you know what he did? Why he questioned the EPA study that found that secondhand smoke causes cancer.
      “He asserted “the EPA distorted science” to show a correlation and causation that was unsubstantiated but qualified the accusation by acknowledging the EPA’s distortions do not mean ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is incapable of causing lung cancer in non-smokers.”

      So basically he said that it is possible that it could cause cancer, but that the study done by the EPA was distorted to show correlations and causations that actually do not exist. And he happened to testify to that in court for the tobacco companies. That’s it. In fact:

      “In December 2010, Singer said that he is nonsmoker who finds secondhand smoke to be unpleasant and an irritant, which cannot be healthy. He also states that his father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and has never joined any of their front organizations.”

      Geeeesh! What a rotton horrible human being he must be!!!! I bet he hands out cigarettes at playgrounds, and forces teenagers at gunpoint to smoke!!!!! I mean come on the EPA wouldn’t Lie. Would they??????

  2. V January 6, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Here is the problem with the AGW actions, rather innactions as I refer to them, if AGW is a threat as some scientists have portrayed it to be then why the strong opposition to climate alteration technologies. If our fossil fuel burning is terraforming the planet why are grants going to research of climate change rather than development of climate changing tools.

    The answer is there is no answer. If AGW was found to be real there would be no further research required, by this simple step alone we have the answer, AGW as a game changer is only a theory at this time. If AGW was confirmed to be the biggest contributing factor in climate change no more grants would be given towards research, grants would go into technology development (such as electro-enviro-chemistry, or sulfur dispersing, or reflective satellite deployment, or whatever).

    There is not enough conclusive evidence to prove that what we are doing evil rather than good. We may be positively affecting lifeforms through our greenhousing processes, we do not know enough to say that increasing mean temperatures will result in loss of life, in fact, it could pan out to do just the opposite.

    I’m not taking AGW seriously until I see mega game changer development. Until there is large scale development of technologies that can alter the climate the problem is not real, until technology development the only relatively realistic problem is a socio-political one, one of sustainability, how long will we continue to fuel power with unsustainables. Oil took 500 million years to accumulate in the earths core, we are going through it way faster than it is being restored, WAY FASTER, we’ll run out of oil in no time at all.

    There are many more serious problems out there than AGW, I propose a little prioritization, take care of the current problems (like poverty etc.) then worry about problems of the future, like AGW.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 6, 2011 at 11:42 am #

      V, are you for, or against geoengineering? I can’t really tell. It also sounds like you subscribe to the theory of peak oil. Right? Your posts seem to be a bit bipolar in that in a previous post you were insisting that AGW is a problem, now you seem to be saying that it is not so much. It must get tiring hopping back and forth over the fence like that.

      • Jerk A. Knot January 6, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

        I think the most important thing to realize here is that since the 80’s the MANMADE piece of the puzzle is inconsequential. It is fabricated. We are spending Billions on programs to reduce our contribution to climate change when we could be working to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. So on the energy ideas I agree we need to get out from under OPEC and become self sufficient…. and guess what. We have the Largest Natural Gas deposits in the world right here in the USA.
        I notice that also and I would like a little clarification or where V stands.

        • V January 7, 2011 at 1:52 am #

          I like the natural gas as an avenue, years back I worked in regulators, natural gas converters for vehicles, transforming gas guzzlers into natural gas guzzlers, ages ago. This is obviously a natural venue to escalate to as humans, natural gas is highly combustive, valuable resource, it produces output maybe three fold more resilient than current. Still, it is a short term solution to a rather serious problem, if current energy productions is not replaced by a readily available resource our consumption is nor gonna equal our production, this may not seem like a big deal but it is the difference between civilized society, and, no civilization at all.


          I’m pro terraformation, I know my comments at times seem contradictory but they are not, I’m a realist, my thoughts emerge from the real world. I’m human, prone to mistakes, but my thoughts have directionality even though they seem to flow in in-associative directions. Take a moment to take in the context, communicate, the message is more meaningful than the words or sentences within.

          I believe in developing terraformation tools, if the temperatures rises I would enjoy a tool to bring it down, if it goes down I would enjoy one that could decrease it.

          • V January 7, 2011 at 1:54 am #

            Lol, yeah , everything is correct but the last sentence, see it or not.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 7, 2011 at 6:24 am #

            Thank you for clarifying that. I believe that anthropogenic production of CO2 has little to no effect on the global average temperatures. But let’s assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion that it does. Would you agree that if anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming of the planet that it was an unintended consequence of Man’s endeavor? Would you not agree that just about everything that anyone does has unintended consequences?
            So why in the world, if the warming is an unintended consequence, would you be willing to try something on global scale intentionally, that could quite possibly have disasterous, or even catastrophic unintended consequences? We could quite literally render the planet unihabatable, is that something you are willing to risk? Honestly I don’t believe you have thought it through!!!!

            My position is that if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming of the planet, I would be on the side of reducing emissions, whatever it takes, cap and trade, CO2 sequestration, whatever. Geoengineering is out of the question.
            But the problem is that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I have a reasonable suspicion that we are being lied to, and intentionally misled.

        • Rob N. Hood January 7, 2011 at 7:33 am #

          “Billions” Jerk? Really? Where the heck do you get that “fact” from ??!!

          So Neil you don’t believe in peak oil? Now THAT is magical thinking. Typical.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

            Ther is a lot of compelling research out there that suggests that oil and natural gas may quite possibly be of abiotic origins. But even if it is indeed as historically believed to be from biological, or fossil origins, due to advances in technologies, and techniques, the projected oil supply today is expected to last for a couple of hundred more years. So “peak oil” may actually occur one day, but it will not be whithin our lifetimes. So don’t just poo poo it until you’ve actually done some research on the subject. Sift that through your open mind.

          • Jerk A. Knot January 11, 2011 at 12:25 am #

            I read News Papers….. Just one article that talks about how much we spend on this LIE. And they you lefties want us to spend more because Billions are not enough.
            Humm Billions is correct. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology from you…

  3. paul wenum January 7, 2011 at 12:03 am #

    Sir Knot, You will get different answers from V. You are correct that we have more Natural Gas then we can account for plus oil, however, as we know, there has been a 13% reduction in exploration in the gulf which equates to higher gas prices. Now the question is, will the people now in power/influence change the EPA and the administration? I highly doubt it. To this day I cannot understand why we don’t simply use the resources that God gave us, i.e. Oil, natural gas, etc. like other countries do. I hear this all the time from friends of mine. Now you know why the election went conservative.

    • V January 7, 2011 at 2:09 am #

      You won’t get too many answers, maybe contextually differing ones but they all convey the same message. I believe that any man that is afraid to admit he’s wrong is no man at all, and any man that has not found a reason to die for hasn’t found a reason to live.

      God is the only judge, only god knows all.

  4. Rob N. Hood January 7, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    Yes, by all means, Paul… Let’s USE ALL our resources in one big sploog. Then we can ask our friendly Arab friends to be nice to us and give all the oil we need, at reasonable prices. Yes, THAT’s a GREAT idea!!! (big sigh)

  5. Jared Landon January 7, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

    I think it’s real! Or shouldn’t we at least be worried–Check out this documentary’s website–it’s got a blog post about the swiss alps melting, see what you think:

    • V January 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

      Of course it’s real, the climate changes just look at short term events, like changing seasons. Look at scientifically discovered periods in earths history, periods existed where all land mass and all alps were snow covered, there have been periods with no polar ice caps such as the period when west and east north America was separated by a sea.

      Nobody is arguing that the climate is changing, climate change is real, anthropogenic means human caused and since we live on this planet we know that anthropogenic climate change is real, and since data shows warming is taking place we know that AGW is real.

      Here is the problem, although AGW is real it is not solely, as in 100%, responsible for the warming that is taking place, yet, those studying it are placing all of the blame on man driven climate change. This is far from the truth, although I agree that reducing carbon emissions is one factor that we have some control over, the proposed initiatives are unscientific by nature. Doctors study diseases to devise therapies. Environmental scientists need to focus on devising cures for the earth, we are obviously not ready to move on from carbon as an energy source, we are not advanced enough, what we need is a way of cleaning the atmosphere.

      What we don’t need is nay sayers with no constructive plans. Taxation is not the solution here. We need real world technologies that in a worst case scenario we can deploy to clean up the atmosphere.

      You want a stupid solution? Kill off all people, AGW will be non-existent.

      We need to find new energy sources. The current ones are not sustainable, they will very soon run out, once we phase out of the crude burning game the world will be a better place.

      The alps are melting but it is not just due to human practises that this is taking place, there are many more influential factors involved, AGW is a minor contributor to climate change, if we employed the “stupid solution” climate change would still take place.

      We need to move out of the crude phase, in a couple of decades this’ll no longer be a choice, but anyways, even when emission of carbon gases ceases climate change will persist. I’m tired of the pointless drivel, I have no problem with stopping use of oil world wide, supplement the energy difference through new technologies and no one will miss the dirty crude.

      • Rob N. Hood January 10, 2011 at 8:23 am #

        I agree with you V. That’s been one of my points all along (re: alternative energy). But the folks here love their gas hogs and gas powered toys. They will even admit that, and probably would fight you or me to the death for it. Silly human stubborness. EPA regulations DO NOT hamper anything, that is just right-wing propaganda to get your votes. Saving something for a rainy day is NEVER a bad idea- especially when we have to deal with ultra wealthy pukey Shieks for the bulk of our precious energy. That is simply a fact, reality, thus Bush holding hands and kissing his Shiek buddies. Methinks you’d be ready to do the same.

  6. Hal Groar January 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Paul’s point is that we could use our own resources instead of out sourcing them as we are doing now. Sorry Paul if I am stepping on your toes here but I want to make a point regarding the use of the EPA. The reason we don’t use our own oil is because we are hampered by regulations from the EPA. What are the initial’s for the EPA in Saudi Arabia? Here it is “DNE” It stands for ‘Does Not Exist”. This is one reason why we are no longer a manufacturing country. Side note here…is a sploog big? Anyway…the EPA keeps growing and our economy keeps slowing…coincidence? I think not!

    And Jared…did you even read the article? Have you looked at any of the articles on this site? Tell me, what really sold you on the whole “man made global warming” story? Willing to listen (read) to your points, just curious how you arrived at them.

  7. paul wenum January 7, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Hal, precisely. Very simple. We have a warehouse full of say for example chocolate, but we cannot take it ,ship it, sell it, manufacture it anymore nor eat it. If you want chocolate we must go to Switzerland and import it from their warehouse and they control the volume we receive as well as what we pay. Does that make sense? China, Russia as well as others figured out this simple fact and they have no EPA and the go for it period. Called preservation. Our resources needed are here and available. Extract them and use them! I agree with V on one point, have people with vision, develop over time a better mouse trap. Have no problem with improvement with new technologies as long as they are not subsidized by us, the taxpayer, such as ethanol. Would love to drive my old corvette and get 500 miles per gallon Let entrepeneurs invest their money into what they think the public will buy so that they can get a return on their investment. If they profit, we, the consumer profit. That’s how we got the light bulb. It wasn’t created by the government, but now we are told why type to buy etc. or get fined. In my opinion, climate change is natural. V’s comment about eliminate people and it wouldn’t exist. It was warmer at the time the dinasaurs walked this earth, kind of like me.

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 7, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    I have something here I’d like everyone to read. But those of you that have been here long enough to know what I have said in the past, I would like to remind you what I have said before on the subject. I have said, if you recall, that CFC’s were banned because Dow Chemical wanted to be able to produce a refrigerant that they could produce and they could charge more money for, and I have also said that the banning of CFC’s was a practice run for the attack on CO2. I have not seen this peice before today, but it seems to support what I have said in the past. Call it confirmation bias, but it does show that there are scientists with lofty degrees that are saying the same things that I have opined in the past. But personally, I think it means that I am right about everything, and no one should doubt me when I say something.

    • Rob N. Hood January 10, 2011 at 8:26 am #

      Thanks Neil- really. You’ve made my point, again, about large corporations having unlimited power and doing what is best for them and only them.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

        Don’t bother you have no credibility.

  9. paul wenum January 7, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Neil. I have never doubted your research and knowledge. Kudo’s to your efforts! Always look forward to your posts.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 8, 2011 at 4:43 am #

      Thanks Paul. I was really just being a bit flip with that last comment there. I was just a bit tickled that there are people out there who have had distinguished carees in science that are basically validating things that I have said in the past. It’s just nice when the limb you crawl out on doesn’t snap, but thickens a bit and becomes more stable.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 8, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

        Careers in science!!! I have no idea what a caree is.

  10. Hal Groar January 9, 2011 at 9:15 pm #

    Career: A job you do until you find out what you like to do AND get paid doing it. Great catch on the ozone article! I completed the refrigerant recovery certification program last year, just as a resume booster. I didn’t know that much about the ozone hole farce back then. I do remember it grating on me for some reason. Kind of like the AGW thing. But, to get the pretty piece of paper you have to fill in the ovals the way they say. What a joke. I want my $150.00 bucks back! Can I sue? I might go back and take a look at the questions, I think I still have the material around. Holy smokes! I just looked at the resume, it was back in May of 2008. Man time flies!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 9, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

      I do a lot of refrigerator comressor replacements. My certification was actually a class in school, with the final exam being the certification test. I have the EPA universal certification. I was a skeptic before I went to school, but there were some things I learned there in the Environmental Science class I was required to take, that really opened my eyes. For example for a chlorine molecule in CFC’s to begin to react with O3, (ozone) it has to reach the troposphere and mix together evenly. For this to happen the air temperature needs to be (I don’t remember the exact temp) around -70F with a wind vortex at speeds above 90 MPH!!! I am not making it up, it’s true. My first question was; how often do those conditions exist? Answer: Not very bloody often. My second question was; if CFC’s, and most other so called ODS’s (Ozone Depleating Substances) are heavier than air, how the heck do they get up to the troposhpere? Answer: Beats me. They say that they are carried aloft on wind currents, which is plausable, but it just sounds fishy to me.

      • Dan McGrath January 9, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

        Neil – Appreciate the real world experience perspective. Very interesting.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 10, 2011 at 7:07 am #

          Thanks Dan. You know it is also worth noting that our old friend CO2 is heavier than air too. I know hevier than air gases can get carried aloft by air movement, but it just seems to me that when that movement slows, or stops, gravity and the bouyancy of these gases will reasert themselves and they will sink again. I am not an atmospheric scientist so I don’t know this for certain, but I’m pretty sure that is how these gases will behave.

  11. Rob N. Hood January 10, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    There’s a middle ground for us Americans, that we need to live an work together. I suggest we all work to find it. Otherwise there’ll be more of this:

    This was clearly an act of premeditated terrorism that was directed at Democrats. The Arizona terrorist left no doubt as to his political motivations. He was anti-government and anti-public education. If he were insane, he would have shot people for no coherent reason (such as John Lennon).

    The Congresswoman was targeted because she dared break rank with conservatives and voted for “Obamacare”, instead of allowing Corporate to run (ruin) healthcare and kill and maim patients at will for maximum profits.

    The federal judge, a moderate conservative, was targeted for elimination for his ruling against Arizona wingnut anti-immigrant legislation and tactics.

    Arizona’s fascists are a particularly virulent branch of the neocon nazi nutcakes, now called “Teabaggers” to dissociate themselves from their criminal past, and do not tolerate dissent.

    The AZ TERRORIST used a weapon that strongly evidences pre-meditation, as does his target choice: an event attended by Democrats and their supporters. Incendiary rhetoric, ala Palin, obviously had an effect on him. While mentally unstable, he is an unwitting operative for a (fascist) political belief system, although Republican operatives and apologists for fascism will be working overtime to portray him as a lone, deranged, gunner, a role they have become quite adept at.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 10, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

      I knew you were going to post something like this Rob. You are so predictable. There is not one single fact in that BUL**HIT!!!!

    • Dan McGrath January 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

      You’re talking about a guy who lists as his favorite books, Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. I doubt he could actually be characterized as either left or right – he’s just crazy. His main beef seemed to be literacy and grammar.

      • Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

        Oh and so the fact that the group he just stumbleed upon and sprayed with bullets was a Democratic political event, was an accident?? REALLY??? You don’t believe that, for real do you? IT’S CALLED ASSASSINATION WHERE I COME FROM. You call me PREDICTABLE? Yes, you’re Right…people get VERY upset with Literacy and Grammer, enough so that they want to Kill. Wow. Nice try.

      • Hal Groar January 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

        Yea, I’d like to have heard his argument to change literacy. What did he want done? Change the spelling of the tough words? This guy is a nut.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

      You know I have lent you a little credibility on some things but this just blows that all to heck, Rob. I am officially shunning you. I was hoping you would wait until some facts came in but you have picked up the “blame the right” ball, and are running with it. You have absolutely no credibility left with me. Zero, nada, zilch, null.

      • Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

        Oh boo hoo… look Neil I’m crying. (oh wait, that’s Boehner…)

  12. Hal Groar January 10, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    I don’t know where you cut/pasted that from Rob but the Judge decided at the last minute to go to this rally. How can a person be targeted when he wasn’t supposed to be there? We are finding that this kid was left-wing psycho (redundant, I know) that was a drug user and needed medication. Why was a 9 year old little girl targeted? I think he DID shoot people for no coherent reason! Rob your post is the worst I have seen from you. Greatly disappointed!

    • Jerk A. Knot January 11, 2011 at 12:57 am #


      Rob is only defending his his ilk. Without the predictions the Left have made of the Tea Party becoming violent they fall further behind every day…. As we have seen they are linking the blame to everything that opposes them. Rob is just a band wagon jumper. no more no less. I truly don’t think he can reason for himself.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 11, 2011 at 6:20 am #

        I think that’s it. He can’t reason for himself, hence all the unsourced cutting and pasting from buzzflash.

      • Dan McGrath January 11, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

        Rob’s not alone. Now the Giffords shooter is linked to threats against climate scientists!

        • V January 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

          Antiestablishmentarianism, it will not disappear until 1of2 occurs. 1. Corruption disappears, 2. Government disappears.

          The system is a mess full of corruption, we need the system, the system is civilization, without the system we revert back to a precivilized society, all modern comforts gone. There is safety within the current system regardless of the level of corruption present.

          We are headed towards bad times, all modern comforts gone, why? Because of the actions of a few bad seeds who cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar. It will be the actions of a corrupt few that will lead a revolt that will drive us all into the darkages. It is not a pretty scenario any way you look at it.

          I sense it as do many others, if a radical change does not take place an uprising is inevitable, all great empires fall, and all fall for the same reason, corruption, we either modify the system or we allow it to run into the ground, let us not forget that if the system goes down so we all do.

          Greed, it will be the end of our civilized societies. Mark my words.

          Antiestablishmentarianism is not just a long word, it is what is in the hearts of the majority of human beings, why? Because it is true, corruption is taking place. Not all human beings are extremists, as in individuals that are willing to go to extremes to reach their goals. But with enough pressure, as in oppression, all of us have our breaking points.

          We should all be very afraid of what is coming, it is nearly inevitable. Only two ways out exist, getting rid of government or getting rid of corruption.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

            Your another one V. You prattle on with nonsensical gibberish conspiratorial bullcrap, saying absolutely nothing. I’m sick of hearing you guys say what you think is “the problem”. Why don’t you start saying what you think should be done to correct the things you see as “the problem”? I’ll tell you why you don’t, it’s because we would immediately recognize it as communism. You’re not fooling anyone.

          • Jerk A. Knot January 11, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

            I really don’t think you understand that the World is corrupt and will always be that way until the current ruler of the world is removed from his office. Please don’t think that I am speaking of any of the human world leaders in an office held by man.

            You see V, even you are corrupt. I am not going to hold you to my moral standards. I will hold you to your moral standards…. Tell me honestly that you have never broken one of your own “rules.” You can not. That is why we all rely on Grace and Forgiveness to get by. There is not one of us on this site that has not offended or (dare I say Sinned) against our friends and loved ones.

            As for me I count on Jesus as my Savior to get me thew this life.

        • Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

          Dan- being mentally unbalanced and right-wing are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue they often seem quite compatible. And I’m not trying to be inflammatory actually. If anyone cared to look up the number of incidents (violent, threatening, etc) during the Bush presidency by Leftists (when many Liberals truly did hate his guts) and this presidency I would wager you’d find more incidents (and more serious ones) in the short time Obama’s been president (by Rightists, of course) than the entire 8 years of Bush’s.

          This would, of course, be proof positive of many things I have posted here, but I KNOW that somehow you all will either A. ignore this challenge, or B. dismiss me as not credible, etc., or C. come up with some fake statistics pulled out of someone’s a$$ to “prove” me wrong.

          As our once fearless leader used to say… “Bring It On”!

          • Dan McGrath January 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

            Bull. The Republican convention in Minneapolis in 2008 resulted in leftists being arrested for making BOMBS (as well as slashing bus tires, fighting police, disrupting traffic, smashing store windows and generally being violent, spoiled babies). Where were the right-wing terrorists at the DNC convention? For that matter, where were the right-wing protestors? Oh. Right. There weren’t any. Who’s torching SUVs and spiking trees in an attempt to kill or maim loggers? Who’s throwing paint on people wearing fur coats? Even I am growing tired of your BS agitprop. I simply don’t believe that you believe the things you post here.

          • Rob N. Hood January 14, 2011 at 11:42 am #

            Talk about Bull. If there were any bomb making, which I haven’t seen or heqard any real evidence of- THEY WEREN’T LIBERALS. They would then be anarchists. And even if said Liberals were guilty of such a thing THEY WOULD BE IN THE MINORITY. The majority of Rightys USE violent rhetoric, the Left does NOT.

          • Rob N. Hood February 3, 2011 at 11:16 am #

            So Dan- who’d they kill? Anyone?? Nope. I’ve read alternative versions of the “official” one about these arrests. Do you really believe what you read in the MSM? I don’t. I read between the lines.

      • Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

        Gosh well the fact that I posted a warning of sorts about this MONTHS ago doesn’t count huh Jerk? And I got blasted for it here of course. And the fact that this isn’t even the first time such evil has occurred since Obama was elected makes you all even more ignorant than usual.

      • Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

        Gosh well the fact that I posted a warning of sorts about this MONTHS ago doesn’t count huh Jerk? And I got blasted for it here of course. And the fact that this isn’t even the first time such evil has occurred since Obama was elected makes you all even more ignorant than usual.

  13. Jerk A. Knot January 11, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    My last words for tonight. I am freezing….. For 2 days it we have been shut down due to snow in the deep south….. I sure wish it would warm up some.

    • Hal Groar January 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

      I start saying that about this time every year. By March I tear-up when the weather man predicts another night below freezing. These are long winters!

  14. Rob N. Hood January 12, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Tried to post the above , up further, but failed. It was for Jerk and his usual manner of assuming much about everything he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand. Turn a blind eye, eh Jerk? Is that what Jesus said?

    V posted what I have posted before. There’s corruption, and then there’s CORRUPTION. The second kind does make empires implode. And ours is, slowly mostly, but it’s will speed up, unless the truly brave, intelligent, and compassionate leaders step up and steer us away from GREED as our national religion.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

      Stop!!!! The more facts that come out about this shooter only makes you look more and more like a fool Rob. The guy is not a Right wing lunatic. He’s just a lunatic!!! Your assertions that “This was clearly an act of premeditated terrorism that was directed at Democrats” holds no water whatsoever. Did you know that a Federal Judge that was a Republican appointed by George H.W. Bush was killed by this idiot? And a 9 year old little girl?
      I think it is sick that you would use this tragic and sad event as political ammunition to fire at your opponents. The problem is you, and people like you who will say anything, do anything, as long as it advances your agenda, and it doesn’t matter if there is any truth or honesty involved. If Jesus was here he’d slap you. You make me want to puke. Sadistic opportunist.

  15. V January 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    You are all lost. Liberal or conservative, left or right. Why such delusion. Nobody is fully liberal or fully conservative. We are all conservative on some issues and liberal on some. The parties are deluded, there is an infinite number of issues, due to the constraints of time issues are not infinite but probabilistically speaking there is infinite directionality of events, that is infinite probabilities.

    Anyways, with so many issues does anyone hold true to either side, liberal, as in flexible, or, conservative, as in hard. Absolutely not, everyone is a mixture of both sides.

    Stop arguing over the sides, start looking at the character, as in thought and action, regardless of the political stance.

    • Jerk A. Knot January 13, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

      Spoken like a true Anarchist….. BTW I am a conservative and I Am not lost. I am sorry that you have lost hope…. but His Grace is available to you.

      • Rob N. Hood January 14, 2011 at 11:46 am #

        Jerk- this is simple logic, not to mention the lunatic’s (yes he is that) political leanings which are to the Right- that is a fact. Also fact- he TARGETED a Left event! Those are the simple facts. The rest is conjecture- yours and I admit mine too. Deal with the facts. And he wasn’t targeting the Judge so leave him out of it. (he happened to support a cause Rightys don’t like however…)

      • V January 15, 2011 at 12:00 am #

        It is best to be conservative, unless you know better. Working from a knowledge base is conservatism, liberalism is working out of the knowledge base. Conservatives follow the rules, liberals devise new rules.

        Conservatives use time proven methods to attack problems, protocols: those who don’t know their history are destined to repeat it.

        Liberals use innovation and rationalization when attacking problems.

        Humans have memories (memory is dominant in conservatives) and imagination or creativity or whatever you like to call it (these are analytical problem solving skills which dominates in liberals)

        Iq tests combine the two brain sides, people have both memory and creativity, to produce a score.

        There are no true conservatives and there are no true liberals, every human being is a mixture of both. We join the two that’s this joint.

      • V January 15, 2011 at 1:23 am #

        Conservatism is thinking inside of the box, as in a square. Liberalism is free thinking, thinking outside of the box.

        We all employ different methods at different times. I think you may not be as square as you like to think you are.

  16. V January 13, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    Divide and conquer, segregate and dominate, so fallible, why do lambs move?.. because the shepherd gives direction. Voting? So controllable, produce choices the lambs follow, the shepherd is hired by the house, the lambs dont even know their true leaders. Stop following and start thinking, stop picking sides and start picking your own. If you want to hold, hold. If you want to give, give. Side with yourself and follow your hearts, listen to no one but yourself. Find your own pasture and stop depending on those with the power to deceive. Think about that. Only judge yourselves, you are the only one who truly knows you, if you hold yourself to godly standards what would they be?

    Smarten up. We all know right from wrong, give up your principles, just because your enemy doesn’t like something does not mean that you must like it. Think about that.

    Why are humans so weak, mortal sins are the areas that humans get deluded with. Losing reality with right makes you do wrong without realizing that that which you are doing is wrong, this is delusion. DSMR would label this as a personality disorder, the bible (and all scriptures) were devised as a study of the human animal, as in character (thought and action). We all agree that the bible was written by man, whether or not we believe it as the literal word of God. A delusion is non-realization of thought or action. Religions have in the past been psychology classes, people may find a lot of answers on actions from churches. It is comparable to psychology classes.

    Was that moron right for his actions of shooting that woman in the head? Who gives a f*** what his political or any other motives are, but it is true, it is a reflection of the state of things.

    • Jerk A. Knot January 13, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

      A word of advice… stop smoking Crack…… This was a verry disjointed post.

      • V January 14, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

        Where you see disjointness I see all inclusiveness, all variables have to be accounted for they all correlate. My posts aren’t perfect nor am I, but the problem is not disjointness, it is incompleteness, it is lacking explanation. You’re being quite insultive and rather rude. If you find something wrong in what I say label it as such and correct it. If you don’t understand what I’m saying due to a lack of information on my part ask me to elaborate. Your insults are juvenile something I’d expect from a teenager rather than a business man such as you profess yourself to be.

  17. V January 13, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    God will get him, whether the external or the internal. And we all know that. Negative acts induce positive ones. If we’d all just learn the negative from positive we’d avoid negative actions all together. There is no bigger punishment than guilt, all else is atonement, the release of guilt. When a criminal is jailed he feels he has repaid for his negative actions. Jail is a positive for the criminals psyche. Strange, right? Receiving the death penalty makes one feel like his actions have been neutralized, for if he commits an act of murder the act of it back is a righteous action. Punishment is relievement for the soul. There is no worse action than leaving the guilty with their guilt, this is hell, if your soul is not atoned you are in hell, internal or external.

    So what is ultimately the purpose of the judicial system? They are saving the guilty by atoning their sins, they are relinquishing the guilt of the guilty. Is this right or wrong? Should courts, as in mortal judges, reign punishment (atonement) to free the souls of the guilty? Seems simple, left or right?

  18. paul wenum January 13, 2011 at 4:33 am #

    Very simple and let’s cut to the chase. The individual in question was/is “bad seed” in my opinion and nothing has been defined in concrete as what actually transpired. Until all of you jump to conclusions, make unfound statements absent fact, please keep the discourse down. It bothers me as to where we are headed at the rate of finger pointing I see, myself included in previous posts. I pray for the one’s that lost their life from this idiot and pray for their families and suggest that you all do same. Take it down a knotch? Now, back to working virtual. Never changes.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

      Sorry Paul. it just infuriates me that immediately after the shooting the Left started pointing fingers at us, using the tragedy as political ammo against us. I understand, and respect how you feel about this. But please don’t ask me to tone it down because I am still infuriated that they would use this sad, tragic event as a political weapon directed at us. Especially when the more facts that come out about the idiot who opened fire is showing that he has nothing to do with the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, or Right wing talk radio. Zip, zero, nada, null.
      It’s a lie, and they’re sticking to it, and as long as they do, I’m going to rail against it. Sorry.

  19. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 13, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    V, you’ve outdone yourself. I have no idea what you just said in those last three posts. Did you have a point? Or were you just going for nonsensical rambling?

  20. paul wenum January 14, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    Neil, I agree. Am I happy? No! That said, let’s not put ourselves in the same gutter that the snipes that are belittling be it Palin/talk radio or others to numerous to mention to attempt to make an unproven point. Simply inuendo. I assume we are above those spewing hate? As I have always said, truth will prevail. Always has in my lifetime and hope it never changes.

  21. Rob N. Hood January 14, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    You on the Right Loooove to talk about responsibility… but when it comes to you taking any, or even acknowledge what the leaders on the Right are saying to incite such sad sad crap… you suddenly seem to have no concept of responsibility. It’s like magic or something. Amazing! And V: I like what you say, but sometimes you have to take sides, and you can label “it” whatever you want but if you dont’ take a stand for something then you truly are nothing but a Lamb. The trick is knowing what is right and wrong, and to be able to think rationally. It’s a very simple concept, but to truly think rationally is VERY difficult for most people, myself included. Once you first admit that, then the rest of your personal problem-solving and logical/rational thinking will improve.

    There are several “frames” that the mass media (mostly right-wing/corporate) uses to explain away high-profile political shootings. The Cognitive Policy Works warns of these cookie-cutter approaches the media has and will use in explaining away the Tucson assault on democracy:

    •The “Lone Shooter” Frame
    Emphasis will be on individual actions, ignoring cultural patterns that influenced the event like the militant imagery of Tea Party leaders and Fox News personalities. I.e. the sudden lack of Responsibility- Poof! gone, like a puff of smoke…

    •The “Crazy Gunman” Frame
    Effort will be made to reduce this complex event to the explanation that the shooter was insane, disregarding the anti-government sentiments that fueled him to action.

    •The “Both Sides Equal” Frame
    Media coverage will presume violent rhetoric is equal on the left and right, ignoring how leftist individuals tend to target individual people (e.g. Bush hater), while right-wing individuals target groups (e.g. liberals, Muslims, gays…). Also the scale of violent imagery is disproportionately on the Right side.

    •The “We’re All Sorry” Frame
    Spokespeople on the Right who have fueled violent rhetoric (e.g. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) will publicly condemn violent actions while continuing to promote negative views of entire classes of people. This behavior will not be present among liberals, except for those who, in turn, point out (target) the ones on the Right who are fomenting this crap. Imagine what the Right would do if a Liberal used a cross-hairs on someone on their web site who then ended up being shot by a left-leaning individual… yeah, it wouldn’t be pretty!!

    • Jerk A. Knot January 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm #


      Great cut and post. It is mostly BS but it shed light on how stupid the left is.

      Read this article of Nancy P. urging demonstrations to target the enemy. So Sara P is not the only one. How about in 2009 when the DNC targeted seats they thought they could win. How about when Hinkley (SP?) shot Ronald Regan. He was crazy and the Righties did not jump out and blame the left. We waited to see what the facts were. I don’t want one opinion in government I want at least 2. If you one one opinion move to China.

      • Rob N. Hood January 16, 2011 at 11:56 am #

        Oh how reality shifts depending upon the Right’s whims. The Right are first to claim victimhood, even when they are the perps. It’s a nice tactic. Alsinky would be proud, so would Joseph Goebbels, as would Mussolini. The Right’s violent rhetoric FAR outpaces that of the Left. Always has and always will. Just a fact. But I know how you guys dislike certain facts. So much so you seem to go deaf and blind. Maybe a medical condition?

        • Jerk A. Knot January 20, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

          Wow… The victim class is the mantra of the Left ROB….. All the programs and special rights that have been levied to protect the victim championed…. But you hate it when we turn the tables against you and cry “NO FAIR” so that our you are the victim of your own action to protect your victim status.

          What a wonderfull circle of logic….. or is it….

      • Rob N. Hood January 20, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

        Do you really deny the incendiary nature of the rhetoric coming from the Right? Really? That would be a serious disconnect with reality, and it should worry you a little bit, at least. AND you really want me to believe you want more than one opinion? I’ve seen very little around here to support that notion. Even when the Right has its collective hand stuck in the cookie jar, they audaciously blame their sibling for the eaten cookies. This is not to say the sibling is an angel and didn’t eat one, just that when caught IN THE ACT to start blaming others is a character flaw. Enter Ms. Palin…Glenn Beck… Rush Limbaugh… O’Rielly… Hannity… Faux News…

  22. paul wenum January 15, 2011 at 2:53 am #

    Neil, Rob’s post is precisely what I mean’t when I said let’s not put ourselves in the same gutter. I refuse to go there. In my humble opinion, he’s a non-factor. People died from a lunatic period.

    • Jerk A. Knot January 20, 2011 at 3:49 pm #


      Remember according to the POTUS we are the enemy that needs to stay at the back of the Bus… You are not allowed to question Rob. He is superior to you in all ways… Please be carefull… Remember what the Democratic Governors of the south did when the “Negro’s” started rising up… You are going to have the Dogs and hoses turned on you….

  23. Rob N. Hood January 18, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    The shining light of truth is the gutter? It never ceases to amaze me how opposite from reality some people exist. No wonder there are wars. People seem to be genetically prone to opposite sides of what is reality.

  24. paul wenum January 20, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    No further comments needed on this tragedy by a deranged individual that had no party affiltiation other than the party in his deranged head being the devil doing a dance.

  25. Rob N. Hood January 21, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    I would almost have to agree with you if the group gathering wasn’t a political event and the politician wasn’t a Dem, and that she wasn’t targeted by Caribou Barbie. The Right’s rhetoric, and correct me if I’m wrong (hint: I’m not) but doesn’t the Right including all you folks, equate, every chance you get, our Government as being Leftwing and/or being currently at least under the control of the Left. Please… I’d love to see a response to this. Start squirming Now!..

  26. Rob N. Hood January 21, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    Another hint: the deranged individual hated the “Government” and yet he sought out and showered bullets on a Democratic event. Gosh… just a coincidence?? Sorry, I took that excuse away from you already.

  27. paul wenum January 22, 2011 at 1:51 am #

    Alinksy’s Rule #13. You use it to the enth degree don’t you.

  28. SPURWING PLOVER January 22, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Global warming climate change the biggist fruad in the world history being perpatraited on the worlds citizens by sinister forces in the UN and the CFR and others Plus the HOT-AIR comming from AL GORE and the wackos from GREENPEACE

  29. Rob N. Hood January 24, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    I don’t know Alinsky by heart like you apparently do Paul, sorry. Don’t even own a copy. You must keep yours at your bedside. And say hey there Plover. We sure needed that dazzling insight of yours, so thanks for that… anyway.

  30. paul wenum January 25, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    Mr. Plover, thanks for your comments. They will be taken under consideration by the readers at this site. Make your own opinion known after review. Good luck.

  31. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    A perfect example of the Tea Party “movement,” which is nothing more or less than a creation of the “news” media. There is no Tea Party; the term is a re-branding of that same GOP base, and nothing more. By way of vast corporate cash infusions from entities like the Koch brothers, these Tea Party dupes were fooled into believing they are a force for the common man, for the worker, for truth and justice and the American way, and even managed to get some of their so-called representatives elected to Congress in 2010…but it didn’t take long for the mythology to start unraveling.

    “Earmarks are bad” was the 2010 campaign refrain, but the very breathing second these Tea Party House members hit their seats in Congress, earmarks suddenly became no big deal, and now they are hardly discussed outside of the cloak room. Job creation? Nah. The newly-minted GOP House majority instead went to work trying to redefine what rape is in order to attack abortion rights, before backing off amid a storm of outrage and protest. And, of course, there is the push to repeal the health care bill, which, like the attack on abortion, is about throwing red meat to the base instead of actually getting anything done.

  32. paul wenum February 14, 2011 at 8:22 pm #


  33. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    Good one… not. Truth is boring to you? Makes sense I guess.

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