An Open Letter to President Elect Trump on Global Warming

By Elmer Beauregard

Dear President Elect Trump,

First off let me say congratulations on you outstanding victory. I supported and voted for you and am privileged to be a part of this historic moment. The stock market is up, Carrier and Ford are keeping their plants here, peace is breaking out across the globe and you’re not even sworn in yet. I think ISIS will be a thing of the past now that you’re in office as well. But I fear you biggest challenge still lies ahead of you and that is the threat of “Global Warming”.

Like you I am a global warming skeptic and am so glad to finally have someone as President who thinks the way I do but globally the people have been brainwashed into thinking that Global Warming is the biggest threat to humanity there has ever been. People need something to fear and if you remove all other fears Global Warming will rear its ugly head and be the biggest threat once again. I already see it happening, not in real life of course, I’m talking about in the Mainstream Media, they are really ramping up the Global Warming Propaganda big time.

1. We are funding our own destruction

First off you have to cut off the funding of Global Warming research. The US spends billions annually on study after study telling us how Global Warming is worse than ever and you only get the money if your study supports Global Warming. There is no funding for skeptical studies and it’s ruining science. Good article here.

2. Stop the Data Tampering

As you so accurately pointed out in your New York Times interview, scientists have been caught fudging the data in Climategate and they haven’t stopped its worse than ever. You need to hire Tony Heller AKA Steve Goddard and have him look into the data and he will get rid of the tampering he’s a genius. You might need to fire the people who have been doing the tampering as well I won’t mention names. Watch Tony’s video here.

3. 99% of Scientists DON’T believe in Global Warming

I’m sure you’ve heard it repeated over and over that 97% scientists believe in Global Warming but if there’s one thing we’ve all learned from your election that all the experts and the Mainstream Medial are usually wrong. Here is a list of  31,487 scientist who have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Global Warming, the closest thing I could find on the other side is where 375 scientists signed this letter telling you not to pull out of the Paris Agreement. Doing the math 31,487 vs 375 means 99% of scientists DON’T believe in Global Warming, again it is the exact opposite of what you hear in the Media.

4. Hire an Actual Scientist for Science Czar

Great job appointing Myron Ebell as EPA Transition Manager, keep picking people like that. I read an article (probably fake) that said you might appoint Ivanka as Climate Czar, I think this would be a bad idea. Don’t get me wrong, I love Ivanka but I think she, like most Millennials, believes in Global Warming. This is because that’s all they have heard their whole life and they don’t know any better, plus she is not a scientist. There are so many well qualified actual scientists you could appoint to this or other positions like Science Czar, Judith Curry, or John Cristy for instance would be great and there many more to choose from.

Anyway, I think you’re doing a good job, keep it up.

  • Corovian

    This is absolute nonsense but I wonder why the people who run this site putout such rubbish. Maybe they would be in denial over a cancer diagnosis. Or maybe they are getting a paycheck from Rex Tillerson. Although why even he E wants to doom his grandchildren is beyond me – but a lot of old men care for nothing but their own immediate comfort.

    • Neil F.

      Corovian- Can you explain how CO2 absorbs heat, and how that absorption of heat causes global warming, or should I say climate change? Or is it global climate disruption? I get a little confused because they seem to change the name of it so often. But I am genuinely curious to know if you even understand the most basic aspects of the science behind the claims of the environmental globalists. The reason I am curious is because I would like to know if you are qualified to state that this is absolute nonsense. Do you have a background in atmospheric science? Materials, chemical science?
      I just want to know if you think the planet is doomed because you have looked into the chemistry, and physical properties of CO2 as they pertain to the absorption of heat, and the “greenhouse” effect, or if you just accept what Al Gore, and the UN say.

      • LouisD

        Good comment Neil. I actually provide the proof that CO2 is a hoax in my post just above yours. If you follow it closely, the math is relatively simple. Stick to the Periodic table and any chart of known gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Make sure you recognize that the Climate would be 281K>|0|K without any GHG’s in the atmosphere. GHG’s only add to the atmosphere’s ability to store additional kinetic energy in excess of the ambient natural baseline climate number. GHG’s only add another 6-8K (8K currently) to the mean baseline wwT of 281k.

        Now CO2 is about 2 x as powerful at storing excess eK (kinetic Energy) as a Water Molecule (H2O). But that overused fact is really irrelevant to global climate. Climate (measured by wwT) is currently close to 289K (roughly 59.6F). But you can quickly see following my proof above that Al Gore is a fraud, CO2 fears are a hoax and the real cause of climate change is at best undecided. There is no actually scientific means to statistically prove CO2 is somehow magically more important than water or that it has any significant impact on total climate at all.

        I do think humans have a small impact on climate in other very minor, almost insignificant ways, but CO2 is an unlikely (probably impossible) contributor to any significant of legislatively regulating measurable degree.

        • Neil F.

          Wow, thanks for that post. A little long winded though it may be, I appreciate the support because I am in the unfortunate position of loving science yet really sucking at math. What I would have talked about, if the troll had responded to my post, was the spectrum of IR i.e. the small number of wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and the fact that once those wavelengths are absorbed, that is all CO2 can absorb, and adding more CO2 has no effect past that point. But you make many valid, and important points. So thanks for that. Remember brevity is the soul of wit!

        • John G

          This is very hope-filled analysis. Are you a climate scientist? If so, where did you get your training and are you published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? I am looking for hope on the issue of climate change from burning fossil fuels and would like to know if reliable science supports your beliefs. Can you provide some sources?

          • Neil F.

            Hey, if you are looking for scientists that are the real deal as far as being published, and peer reviewed, and whatnot, go here. Personally I don’t put too much faith in anyone’s credentials, or peer review status. After all the biggest liars in this scam are accredited climate scientists, that are published, and peer reviewed. And they are completely full of sh#t. My advice to you would be to trust your own gut. What makes sense to you. And what is the agenda of who you trust.

          • John G

            I agree with trusting your gut and watching for hidden motives from all you sources. But what makes you disregard someone’s university training when it comes to how good their science is likely to be? Do you do that for other fields of science?

            For example, if you or a loved one becomes very sick, do you go to a doctor in an established hospital or stay away from there because as credentialed experts you think they are more likely to be corrupt than someone with little or no formal training? How about an airline pilot, or car mechanic?

            My take on credentials is that they should be a first indicator you have a serious expert in the field, more likely to be right than someone who has not studied the subject as much. Science is very competitive, and very self-correcting. If one group comes up with a bogus hypothesis, or does poor work that is not repeatable, many others will be happy to identify the errors, because finding fault or errors is just as important as developing new ideas – it increases their status (which can increase their paychecks).

            So you always have to watch for motives and secret agendas, but it would be impossible for a whole area of science to become corrupt because as soon as a group starts doing bad science they can easily be exposed, and there are lots of well-credentialed people looking for those opportunities.

          • Neil F.

            This is not the first time I have heard this argument and it is a specious one.

            First of all, we are all human beings, with human failings. Studying at a college, and obtaining a degree in any field does not change this fact.

            Your example about going to a hospital is not a very good example. The medical field, while not immune to the corruption of the scientific method, has a higher degree of self correction than other fields of science due to the fact that if people die in your care you open yourself up to malpractice lawsuits. When is the last time you heard of a geologist being sued into the poorhouse for being wrong about some rocks?

            I could go on, and on but I don’t want to write a book here.

            The bottom line here is that when you have a political organization, in the case of climate science that organization is the Club of Rome, google it, state a political goal in their literature, and suggest a method to obtain that goal i.e. frighten the world populace into accepting their agenda, I tend to question the voracity of any science that supports their position.

            You seem to have put scientists up on a pedestal. I think that is wrong. I put science on a pedestal, not the scientists.
            Take a look at this:

            As far as corruption in climate science, that has been well documented. Climategate, Mann’s hockey stick graph, weather station placement near runways, parking lots, and air conditioning condenser coils, to name a few.
            The corruption of climate science is unique because it was selected to push a political, globalist agenda. And IMO it was an excellent, and insidious, selection because the climate is changing, as it always has, and always will. So anytime there are noticeable changes to the climate, which is always, it is easy to say that it was caused by human production of CO2. And that has been used successfully, over, and over again to support the Club of Rome’s political, globalist agenda. Even though scientifically it is demonstrably false.
            So tell me what other branches of science are used in this fashion?

          • John G

            I see several failures of logic in your reasoning. First, my analogy of medicine is not a perfect analogy, but not for the reasons you give. Doctors and hospitals tend not to be not transparent about their performance, showing that self protection is a priority over self correction in the area of practicing medicine.

            Medical research is different than medical practice. Research, because it is a field of science, and follows the same use of double blind testing, careful controls, peer-reviews, and published results would havebeen a better analogy but did not suit my original purpose, which was to show you that book learning, e.g. obtaining a big part of obtaining a credential, is an important part of becoming an expert in a field. One must learn what has come before, the language of the field (for efficient and accurate communication), and the current understanding of the field in questions to be competent in it.

            It is fruitless to ignore the nearly 200 years of greenhouse gas research when evaluating the validity of the theory. You should become familiar with it, then question specific parts of it:


            There have been none of the motivations you claim drive climate scientists for all that time.

            As to the reason you give that there is an international conspiracy of nearly all the climate scientists in order to promote the enlargement of government, this sounds very far out in left field to me. Especially when the best big first step to address the problem would not grow the government and is market-based:


            Do you agree that there are costs paid by society that are not included in the prove of fossil fuels (like the $60 billion/year we pay in taxes to pay for military bases and shipping labels protection to ‘protect our oil interests in the Middle East’)?

            If so, why do you think it is good to provide that industry such a subsidy, and not spend so freely to support other energy types. I’m against all such subsidy, and see Carbon Fee and Dividend as a way out of a lot of problems that fossil fuel use sticks us with.

          • Neil F.

            You know, hmmm I don’t care what you think. How about that? You just want to argue a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant. Take your credentials and stick em’ where the sun don’t shine! How bout that? If you think a person that has credentials can’t be compromised you are a fool.
            And who the hell are you? You don’t know what I am, or am not familiar with. I started researching climate change when Al Gore said the debate was over, and the science was settled. Do you know what the first thing I discovered was? THE DEBATE WAS NOT OVER!!!!!!
            Do you know what the second thing I discovered was?
            Did you look up the Club of Rome? I bet you did not, or you have already known about them and agree with their agenda. That wouldn’t surprise me.
            Answer this, Mr. credentials, if we got rid of fossil fuels right now, and I mean all of it, oil, natural gas, all of it, would solar and wind provide our current power needs? Would it provide power needs from the year 2000? 1990? 1980? 1970? Do some research on that and get back to me.

          • John G

            ‘Take your credentials and stick em’ where the sun don’t shine! How bout that?…. Mr. credentials’

            You don’t have to resort to name calling when someone disagrees with you. It lowers the level of conversation to a schoolyard spat and adds no value.

            Neil: ‘You don’t know what I am, or am not familiar with. I started researching climate change when Al Gore said the debate was over, and the science was settled.’

            When you say ‘researching’ , what exactly do you mean? Were you looking up articles in scientific literature, or did you merely start paying attention to biased news and entertainment about the subject? Only the former is properly considered research.

            Neil: ‘If we got rid of fossil fuels right now, and I mean all of it, oil, natural gas, all of it, would solar and wind provide our current power needs?’

            The world’s energy infrastructure is what it is right now, because of investments and choices that were made over the last 50 years. We don’t have enough solar panels right now to just stop burning coal and generate all the electricity the world uses. Eventually we will run out of coal, and natural gas, and we will find other sources like solar and switch to them. The problem with that plan is all the CO2 and pollution in the meantime. Most of the species of life on Earth would be wiped out from the emissions and the effects on the climate from those emissions over the next hundred years or two.

            On the other hand, it would only take a square area 100 miles on each side, somewhere with reliable sunshine (e.g. Texas), covered with solar panels we can buy today to generate all the electricity the US uses today. We can get off fossil fuels easily, and sacrifice nothing, over the next several decades if we make a few smart choices now. The longer we wait, the more limited (and intrusive) our choices will be.

            Check out Carbon Fee and Dividend that I linked to above. It’s an efficient, market-based way to do a nearly complete global switch to clean energy over the next 35 years.

            Here is a study about that:

            CFD REMI report:

          • Neil F.

            I see, your true colors are coming through. You are a troll. You are not here to express an opinion or learn anything. You are here for combat. This a tactic I have seen before. I went head to head for a very long time with someone very similar to you who went by the handle Rob N. Hood.
            I am not going to do it again because I am wise to it now.
            I just want to know one thing. Did you look up the Club of Rome? Maurice is proud of you. Have a nice day.

          • John G

            Neil, I am not a troll. The definition of a troll is someone going around making valueless comments trying to get people riled up. That is not my method or intention.

            What I do is look for people who have a different world than I do amd I try to listen, to understand the differences through respectful dialogue. Check back at the personal attacks you have thrown at me, and see if I did any of that to you. I try hard not to attack the person, just misinformation.

            I use well established sources and reliable data to back up my points. You may be intimidated or put on the defensive in an indefensible position by that, but I’m not trying to be mean, I’m trying to help steer you back onto what I think is the right track. But I show others the same courtesy I would like to see from them. I follow their links, and watch the videos they recommend, as part of trying to keep an open mind and consider other viewpoints.

            Rather than a troll, perhaps you should consider me the voice of reason.

            If my comments sound like those of troll to you, maybe you are just not listening to facts and reason.

            Here’s an exercise for you. I watched the whole video you suggested and thought about it. Did you watch the Hansen video I gave you? If you have not done the same courtesy for me, I’m not sure how you can think you are the one wasting your time with a dialogue. How you can be so sure of your position that you no longer need to take in any more information, or so much more important than anybody else is that you don’t have to do what you ask other people to do for you.

            Try this: watch the Hansen TED talk I gave you. Think about the things he says, and compare them to the things that you can learn online from reputable sources. Consider the implications of the fact that there are very few scientists who disagree with Dr. James Hansen. Let me know how it goes.

          • Neil F.

            Yes you are a troll. It’s true you are not being inflammatory like your buddy Rob N Hood was, but what you are posting is irrelevant. And your original post was designed to bait.
            (“I am looking for hope on the issue of climate change from burning fossil fuels and would like to know if reliable science supports your beliefs.”)
            That is a lie. You are obviously not looking for hope on the issue, you were TROLLING for someone to start an argument with. And that is obvious from the amount of information that you had at the ready to refute what I suggested. I suggested you check out friends of science. Then you reply with a post about how much you think credentials matter, and wonder if I would not trust doctors at a hospital. That was actually my first clue that you were a fervent global warming supporter, and your subsequent posts confirmed that.
            You are also a liar.
            (“But I show others the same courtesy I would like to see from them. I follow their links, and watch the videos they recommend, as part of trying to keep an open mind and consider other viewpoints.”)
            Really? You are so FOS dude. You reject anything that does not conform to what you already believe, so lets not pretend like you have an open mind. How do I know that? It’s very simple. You said you put a great value on credentials. Okay, so I send you a video of Professor Lindzen. He has excellent credentials, he’s had many peer reviewed studies and publications. He is a real climate scientist. How do you react to that?
            (“I am familiar with Dr. Linzen. His opinions are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.”)
            Oh! Right! Okay. Hmmm. So you claim to be someone looking for knowledge, but you are already familiar with Dr. Lindzen. That is very telling. And what that tells me is that you are already deeply entrenched in the global warming church. And basically what you are doing here is equivalent to a Mormon knocking on doors to spread your religion. So TROLL!!!!!!!
            Before I go, and hopefully you go too because I am not going to entertain you any longer, I just want to expand on why you come under the definition of a troll that that uses irrelevant information.
            First let me ask you. How is the world climate studied? Is it a vast group of scientists spread out all over the world observing the climate and taking notes? No it’s not. It is really just a handful of scientists that take data collected by weather stations and input that data into computer models. It is the results of those computer models that all climate science is based upon. But here’s the problem with that. There has not been a computer model in the last 20 years that has accurately predicted changes to the climate. So basically all of the push to get rid of fossil fuels, which was the goal to begin with, has been based on the premise that CO2 is causing warming, even though there has not been any significant warming in the last 20 years, so we should get rid of fossil fuels because, even though we can’t prove it, it is better to be safe than sorry. And now that position is irrelevant. Why you ask? Well, it’s pretty simple. Um, Trump won. Yes. You heard me. Trump won the election and he has appointed a global warming skeptic to head the EPA, which speaks very clearly that the debate is over, and the science is far from settled.
            So that, by itself makes everything you think, believe, and post here, irrelevant. TROLL!!!!
            I don’t care what you think about that. This is a website for ordinary people to express their opinion. This is not a scientific forum. So don’t come here and excoriate us for not accepting the orthodoxy that you so fervently follow. You are nobody, buddy.

          • John G

            Sorry I’ve gotten your dander up. Nothing I wrote was untrue. I am looking for hope, a ray of light on what looks very bad to me based on what I understand from reading. Because I continue to not find reliable evidence that human-caused global warming, climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification from fossil fuels is happening. I have turned to looking for a solution to what I have learned about climate change from fossil fuels, but keep my mind open to ideas from others who think it’s not a problem. Believe me, I would love to believe the same thing!

            My dissapointment in your credentialed source (Dr. Lindzen) was genuine – I have read his work, watched some of his videos, and read what others have written about him. Perhaps I was doing a little baiting…. I’m not perfect. But look at what I wrote. None of what you brought up could be considered rude, wrong, or trolling. Trolls are hit-and-run flame throwers who care nothing about truth, they just like to light a fire and watch it burn.

            I honestly have the opposite goal. I do trust NASA and the other major scientific organizations when they say we’ve warmed up 1.7 degrees F since 1800. I am concerned about it, and I believe the only way I can help get the world to address the problem is to talk respectfully to people about it. If someone can point me at science I trust, I’ll be all ears. It’s just that I’ve already reviewed Dr. Lindzen’s work and have decided his reasons to not worry are not credible.

            By the way, Dr. Lindzen agrees with that measured temperature increase in the video you pointed me to. I’m not sure why you think there was no warming in the last 20 years, as even your credentialed source accepts it is happening. If you look at the four independently obtained measurements in the graph at the top of NASA page on scientific consensus you can see there has indeed been a lot of warming in the last 20 years. Dr. Lindzen agrees with this data. Contrary to your ‘no warming in 20 years’ myth, many of those years have been record temperature years since record keeping began in the 1800s:


            You call me close-minded. And yet you give no evidence of ever watching the Dr. James Hansen video I provided the link for. Here it is again in case you don’t feel like going back for it:


            Also, it seems as if you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. The energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we’ve added to the air from fossil fuels acts as a destabilized to the system. This additional energy does lots of things: makes some regions colder, some warmer, some drier, some wetter, and melts a whole bunch of ice and warms the oceans, which raises sea level. It is certainly possible that -80 in Russia was partially due to the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere.

            One way of talking about the change that is happening is the increase in global average temperature – land, air and water. But that does not mean it has warmed 1.7 degrees F across the globe evenly. In fact, increasingly severe weather events is one of the predicted results from adding all that energy into the Earth’s climate system. These can be cold or snow events just as easily as hot and dry events.

            You call my views ‘orthodoxy’ compare them to a religious following. And yet I am completely open minded. You on the other hand seem to go out of your way to not respect education, mainstream science, other people, or ideas that conflict with your own biases.

            Here is my analysis of the video you linked to:

            First, a bit on Dr. Lindzen. His views are often debunked by other climate scientists, and there are a lot more of them that agree fossil fuel use is a big problem than not. Here is one example:


            Here is a list of his repeated logic and science mistakes, with links to the science that debunks them:


            You wondered how many climate scientists there are, and say the currently accepted understanding is wrong because they all use the same limited data. Well this again shows that you did not follow any of the links I provided you earlier. The nearly 200 year history of research related to CO2, global warming and fossil fuel use should have cured you of this misunderstanding. Computer models do work, are not necessary to predict the effects of CO2, and only make doing the math go faster. They do not complicate solving the problem, they are a tool to help understand it.

            Check out Figure 5 here, it is a comparison of Dr. James Hansen’s prediction 30 years ago of what the temperature would be now, and what it is. The fact it, he only underestimated the temperature rise by 15%:

            Dr. Lindzen would have claimed a much lower rise, making a prediction he might have made 30 years ago be much further from what has happened, because he only concedes the direct warming effect from the CO2 we are adding, not the additional x3 warming effect from positive feedback loops.

          • Neil F.

            Sooooo FOS.

          • Neil F.

            Back when I posted here a lot I tried to reason with people like you. I took the same approach you are taking now. But it’s too late for you. When people would say what a horrible human being I was for having a skeptical point of view, and then they started suggesting that skeptics should be locked up, or killed, my gloves came off. The truth is the skeptical point of view now has the upper hand. People are sick of being lied to. I have long contended that most of the climate data has been either manipulated, or outright falsified and the evidence that I am correct is growing. Take the NOAA for example. The vaunted reputable climate science organization. What they say is above reproach, indisputable, and completely trustworthy. Right? You think so. You have said as much because they are real scientists with the right credentials, properly published and peer-reviewed, who absolutely belong on the pedestal you place them upon. Whatever they say must be true and correct otherwise they would not have said it. Right? Well, hang on a second. If that is the case then how does this happen?

            “But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

            It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

            His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”
            So, there it is. How do things like this happen in your world? Is Dr. Bates a liar? Why would he do this?
            So I apologize for not being reasonable with you. I gave up on being reasonable a long time ago. I hope this post causes you, at least, a quantum of cognitive dissonance.

          • John G

            Ah, I see you are an avid fan of alternative facts and alternative science. Well, you can go in for that stuff if you wish, but if you think you are right in disregarding the position on this science that is accepted by all the major scientific organizations of the world, and instead believe an emotionally charged article from DailyMail (e.g. “reveals astonishing evidence that…. “), then I only feel a little sadder that people are so easily manipulated, rather than having had the epiphany you hoped for.

            There is nothing revealed here, only claimed. It says the facts will come out later, but for now we should just take their word for it that we can trust them that this proves that the thousands of climate scientists, biologists, and oceanographers from around the world that are identifying dramatic and increasing changes in life and climate around the world are all in cahoots to hoodwink us for some new world order reason. It sounds like an alternate reality to me, but I guess you believe it.

            I’ll point you to a little real science from a real scientist in response to your alternate ‘proof’ that was not from a peer-reviewed article in a published journal, but rather a climate change denier rag that likely takes a lot of money indirectly from fossil fuel interests to power it’s engine.

            A great TED talk from one of the leading climate scientists in the world, about the problem and the history of trying to address it:


            The abstract from a scientific paper that describes where we are headed if the world does not make a significant change in it’s energy infrastructure in the very near future:

            “Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current [400+] ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”

            Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
            James Hansen, et. al., 2008


            And if you are still confused about the supposed ‘pause’ that ended a few years ago, just take a look at graph that shows several independently measured historical global temperatures at a broader time-scale and consider whether you think we have no temperature concerns based on the carefully cherry-picked data your article chose to use to try to make it’s point:


          • Neil F.

            So why are you here then? Are you trying to change our minds, and make us see the light? Are you an AGW missionary bringing religion to the savages in the wilderness? I have seen your type before. You claim to have an open mind, but you really have a huge confirmation bias. I really think you’re an idiot. I have not engaged you fully because I know it’s a waste of time. There is nothing I could produce, no evidence, scientific papers, data, or even anecdotes that would sway you. You are a devout member of the church of global warming, and trying to prove anything to you would be like trying to tell the pope that Jesus was just a guy. So….. go take micheal manns hockey stick, and shove it up your ass and give it a twist!

          • John G

            I simply believe in science, the scientific method, and showing even people I disagree with the respect that everyone deserves. I am concerned for all our futures. Even the people with whom I disagree, no matter how misled they are by the fossil fuel industry’s immoral efforts to extend profits at the cost of lives and of the future of life on Earth and human civilization, or even how rudely they disagree with me.



          • Neil F.

            Hey, Mr. Credentials, Here is a video I found from Professor Richard Lindzen. You should watch it. He is an actual climate scientist and he summates what I think nicely. So then you can stop asking me. If you have more questions ask him.


          • John G

            I am familiar with Dr. Linzen. His opinions are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists. He agrees with the data, just not the degree of warming we can expect from doubling the CO2. He ignores the positive feedbacks that most climate scientists expect from the initial warming caused by the added CO2.

            But did you notice the science he does agree with mainstream climate scientists about? CO2 causes greenhouse gas warming. The Earth has warmed 1.7°F since 1800, on the path shown by NASA here:


            Do you agree with him on those facts?

            If so, I’m curious why you don’t even entertain the possibility that the reason for all that warming is not at least possibly explained by the theory that predicted the last 35 years of that warming, which was the fastest part of it.

            Try watching a video from one of the mainstream climate scientists, and think about whether his explanation of the data could be possible, and let me know what you think about the science:

            Dr. James Hansen:

          • Neil F.

            “I am familiar with Dr. Linzen. His opinions are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.”
            Oh, okay. I see. So credentials matter, unless you disagree with them, then they don’t matter. I believe they call that hypocrisy. Wait! I’ll have to ask a credentialed linguist if that is correct. I’ll get back to you on that.

    • LouisD

      I think I just blew away your rubbish comment with a FREAK’N MATH AND PHYSIC PROOF ABOVE. Maybe if you actually took a physics course our bothered to break down the entire problem including the reason the earth even has a climate in excess of about 4K>|0|k you would realize what an asinine theory the CO2 hypothesis really is. Let me know when you come up with some magical fair dust answers that refute what I just posted above, but remember. You are the one that has been brainwashed. I turned to actual science and refuted, no showed just how fraudulent the entire CO2 AGW hypothesis really is.

    • Anteaus

      I lost a relative to cancer. Your use of the suffering of cancer patients in this way, to promote your very questionable campaign, is disgusting.

      Anyway, I have seen firsthand evidence that cancer kills. I have seen no such evidence that 1.1C of warming due to CO2 will kill anyone, or for that matter even kill polar bears who seem to be doing quite well just now.

    • horseradish

      you are another moron

    • ownman

      It is far from being absolute nonsense. It brings important information to the fore, which the climate change scammers prefer to keep from us.

  • LouisD

    Postulate A) Climates change, always have.
    Postulate B) It is mathematically and by the laws of Physics and Constants for Heat Forcing Energy Retention Values scientifically determined and therefore relative to each type of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Molecule, an absolute impossibility for CO2 to be a climate driver, especially in terms of warming when compared to the primary GHG content of the atmosphere, H2O. Here is the math and Thermodynamics to prove it. Please refer to the Periodic Table, and any legitimate table of atmospheric gas X Content.

    * GHG’s only account for the final 8 degrees Kelvin of Climate, wherein the Baseline for Climate on Earth above absolute zero is 281K>|0|K.

    * GHG’s therefore account for |0|K in the first place. The ambient climate baseline is presently 281K. It is fluctuations in the baseline coupled with solar energy fluctuations and celestial mechanical cycles (Milankovic) that determine if we are in an ice age or temporarily in a global warming (inter-glacial) condition like the present Holocene. Paleoclimatologists will validate these facts as stated.

    But in perspective (bottom line) is that CO2 is 1/50th of the reason GHG’s raise the climate the final 6-8K > the Baseline wwT of 271-281K at any moment in time. And all GHG’s account for only the final 6-8K of excess eK stored in the total atmosphere…

    1/50th x 1/36th = 1/1800th.

    Therefore without any possible refutation or any convoluted bullshit by grant seeking hoax- perps and frauds like Al Gore, CO2 can only account for 1/1800th of the reason climate is what it is today, Since the nature cycle of CO2 probably accounts for a minimum of 50% of the total increase in current CO2 levels (50/400 = 1/8th). it means the human impact on climate from CO2 cannot exceed…

    1/8th x 1/1800th = 1/14400 or

    0.000694% of the impact on all climate and present wwT.

    Man is CLEARLY not causing global warming through CO2. While humans probably have other impacts on climate, the CO2 scare is a complete hoax. I just proved it using the Periodic table, the IPCC’s own test results for HFEV (excess eK within various GHG molecules) and some algebra. You do the math and you’ll find out I am right!

    • Coleton Durkey

      be scared of cows munching on grass because it releases methane which 25 times more harmful than CO2

      • Neil F.

        Don’t forget to add to that tally the amount of methane produced by humans after eating that cow. Beef, it keeps on giving!

    • Rodney C. Being in total agreement with your conclusion, I submit this overlooked piece of truth!

      • Dano2

        Cool story bro.



    • Chicken

      Have you considered positive feedback? Between we started with the carbon emissions, there is a cycle of heat from natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, emission of carbon from oceans and rocks, and they reached a relative equilibrium. It is the extra emission of carbon emissions that have breaker equilibrium and hence “caused global warming”.
      To give an example of a water tank. Imagine that a tank has a tap of water that puts in 1litre per minute and a n outflow valve of 1 litre per minute. Then now an extra tap of 1ml per minute is added. Sure that 1ml tap(man made co2) is literally 1/1000 of the previous outflow(natural the emissions), but what I see is it tips the equilibrium which hence causes the tank to fill up (global warming).
      This is a very vague explanation and if you want more details with sources included, I strongly suggest looking up potholer on YouTube.

  • horseradish

    do away with the sierra club–now


    Pull the Federal Funding Plug and these disciples of Malthus will cease to exist ! Now that many of the Liberal Whores in Washington have been handed their Pink Slips, the incoming Trump administration along with the new GOP majority in both houses of Congress are free to drain the entire Liberal Cesspool !

  • brian jones

    Thank you great article.Follow the money you’ll find your answers so sad. The constant aerosol spraying of aluminum,barium and other toxic nano particles are doing more damage to all life
    than anything else. Recently flying back from Florida at 30K I videotaped a massive flurry of reflective silver particles right among heavily sprayed trails like I have never witnessed . Stephanie Senef leading Scientist at Harvard has gone on the record stating by 2020 50% of all children born will indeed have Autism and the main link is Aluminum and Glysophate form Roundup. It’s bad enough we have to drink and eat this poison but have to breathe it too.This has to stop.

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