Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax


By Elmer Beauregard

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

2,542 Responses to Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax

  1. gayguy February 12, 2015 at 4:53 am #

    u missed # 2.

  2. Steve February 13, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

    It has been over 12 years now since a defeated Al Gore rose up from the ashes to become the champion of the global warming crowd. He was absolutely frantic that we would cause oceans to swamp Florida – within years – if we didn’t do as he said. Now 12 years later, and not a single country or island in the world has claimed lost ground. How come?

  3. Ryan June 10, 2015 at 6:08 am #

    EVERYONE WHO READS THIS ARTICLE: Please if you’re going to take this guy’s opinion seriously then click on the linked articles he has provided. Literally his entire first point is disproved in the links he provides within his argument (the expansion of the landmass of the sea ice in the Antarctic does NOT mean the ice is not melting). Global warming is not a hoax, please do any amount of research with the most unbiased sources you can find and form your own opinion. I am trying to harpoon this guys article not because I have any personal beef with him, but because I believe the issue he is talking about is extremely serious and the fact that he is contributing to the popular opinion that global warming is a hoax is very irresponsible and extremely regretful.

    • John Trapp June 10, 2015 at 11:23 am #

      It is a hoax by looking at numbers alone. The percentage of CO2 is 0.04% the percentage of Methane is 0.00017% ridiculously small numbers of which man contributes a tiny fraction. It would be like putting a drop of oil into the ocean and then claiming “all the oceans in the world are now polluted”. Its a ridiculous leap in logic which is what the global warming scam is based on

      • Posturize June 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

        This is a misunderstanding of the impact that even small amounts can have in a system like the atmosphere. It takes barely detectable amount of arsenic to kill a person. There are many examples in nature of a small amount of something having a big impact. To think that small amounts cant have an impact is jumping to a conclusion. Unfortunately, these small amounts are having a large impact.

      • Ryan June 11, 2015 at 1:32 am #

        The cycle on earth that humans have been living in for most of their existence is one where C02 is naturally added into the atmosphere, and naturally removed, thus maintaining a balance. Humans add extra C02 into the atmosphere, but don’t remove it, thus creating an imbalance resulting in the greenhouse effect that we hear so much about. It’s understandable to look at those numbers and go “pff those are way too small they must not matter,” but the effect of increased C02 on the atmosphere has been confirmed by many different measurements.

        • warrantone June 16, 2015 at 3:46 am #

          Dude, you are so far away from scientifically proving anything that it isn’t even funny. The most you have here is a guess.

          • august calendar 2018 printable July 17, 2018 at 12:17 pm #

            In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

        • TIRED June 16, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

          too much CO2? what do you think plants need to survive?

          • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

            Plants also need water to survive. But, try planting a dahlia at the bottom of the ocean.
            I learned something today……that there are actually people who think like this…..and make inane arguments. No scientific mind whatsoever.
            I would say look at causation vs correlation…..but, the dimwits who believe this stuff are so far into outer space that they’re about 15 steps from being able to grasp correlation or causation.
            It’s absurd. Read a book instead of a right wing website written by a bipolar/schizophrenic living in his parents’ basement.
            Wow…..just wow

          • TIRED June 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

            thinking you are mixed up, “bipolar/schizophrenic living in his parents’ basement” could only describe a Liberal, living on food stamps, not working because nobody will pay him $50k a year to be a cashier at Walmart, dump fries into paper sacks at McDonalds or to sit home playing video games blaming conservatives for not giving them more of their income? Explain to me why the same folks talking global warming now were the ones talking global cooling and an ice age by now in the 70’s and 80’s? you know the educated scientists you seem to worship like god?

          • ricotorpe June 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

            The people who were “the ones talking global cooling and an ice age by now” were not climate scientists.

          • TIRED June 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

            Oh I see, only the ones that are talking global warming now are scientist………..many of the same people……..but hey, doom and gloom that is what liberals live for!

            I say global warming is about as real as racism in Baltimore killed that kid. 3 of the 6 cops are black, the police chief is black, the city attorney, the mayor, the state attorney, the governor, the US Congressman and the President of the US are all Black, and yet, racism killed that kid who was being arrested, not for being black, but for committing a crime.

          • Manny Mendoza June 29, 2015 at 1:27 pm #

            how about the 9 lives taken in that church in south Carolina???

          • ricotorpe July 1, 2015 at 5:39 am #

            You are just as stupid and annoying as the people on kos. The only difference is your point of view. Just as you do, they view people with different viewpoints as caricatures.

            Stop changing the subject. This isn’t about the Baltimore death.

            What you refuse to believe is that climatologists were not the ones talking about a second ice age back in the 70s. Those were the doom-n-gloomers looking to sell books.

          • TIRED July 8, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            Yes, same folks selling books, documentaries and billions in tax payer dollars to develop less efficient energy sources, or in the case of Obama donors/supporters, to produce nothing, go bankrupt and never pay back any of the billions handed out in the name of GLOBAL WARMING!

            Of course, as a good liberal, you aren’t stupid when you believe what you believe and will only bow to your GOD of science……..unless of course when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, then even when the most basic science proves that homosexual relations are wrong biologically, physiologically and yes of course totally contrary to Evolution! But then as a good liberal, we know, facts mean nothing compared to emotion!

          • ricotorpe July 11, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            And like the nutballs on dailykos, you hurl a paragraph of insults based on what you assume the other side’s views are.

            Not only that, you assume that someone who doesn’t agree with a position on “your side” is an adherent to every other view of “the other side.” Much like the nutballs on DK!

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

            Yes, because fossil fuel companies have nothing to loose and they are all so precious.
            Sciece does not require you to believe it, it exists anyway. You dont need to believe the earth revolves the sun, atoms have protons, and hydrogen has one electon to make it true.
            Homosexuality is natural according to the American Psychological Association. If you want to critise their studies, please do. Homosexuality does not interfere with evolution. Evolution is simply that those with the greater ability to breed will breed and create better offspring/

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 3:50 am #

            Yes, when enough homosexual psychologists had become board members back in the sixties to be a majority they voted to change historical and biological precedence and declare homosexuality an alternate lifestyle. It was undoubtedly safer than facing those mobs of howling hippies “protesting” out there on the campus. You might be right about one thing however; homosexuality just might be nature’s way of insuring a certain class of defective humans doesn’t reproduce.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:55 pm #

            Yes one study in one journal published 40 years ago is a much better source than thousands of studies published in many journals.

            Racism does exist.
            Redlining, zoning, access to public services, etc is easily documented.
            Also the governor of maryland is white.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

            The global cooling thing was one study published in a crap journal that the media loved because it increased circulation/viewership.

            Regarding welfare,
            you realize that the most conservative counties, cities, and states recieve the most welfare?

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 4:00 am #

            You do remember from high school chemistry class that the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is LOGARITHMIC, don’t you? You do remember what that means, right? The first amount has the most effect but adding more not so much. The excess that’s not used by vegetation or absorbed back into the soil or water escapes into space because, unlike that mythical greenhouse, there’s no glass ceiling covering the earth. Savvy?

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

            Plants need Co2, but that does not mean that they need infinite amounts of Co2.
            Would you accecpt me injected 50 gallons of water into you in 1 hour because people need water to survive?

      • Naqkch June 13, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

        libtards always take a half-truth and make it universal. And even if true no one alive today will be around to appreciate how the whole thing turns out.

        • PHILIP CHIRCOP June 18, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

          You must be living on another planet! And that is fine if you’re happy where you are! But what a pity it is to have such a topic vision of the world and the cosmos!

      • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

        This entire post is filled with flawed arguments like yours. Look, the numbers are tiny….case closed!

      • ricotorpe July 14, 2015 at 8:04 am #

        You are making an argument from incredulity. Because you don’t see how such minute quantities of CO2 can make a difference, you conclude that it does not. It may or may not make a difference, but this basis for arguing that they do not is flawed.

      • John Smith July 20, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

        That is an ridiculously uneducated remark.

      • John Smith July 21, 2015 at 2:12 am #

        What a ridiculously uneducated remark.

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:50 pm #

        So, 0.0000001% of the air is carbon monoxide.
        Therefore the fact that CO kills is a hoax.
        It would be like putting a drop of cyanide in the ocean and then claiming all the oceans are now polluted. Its a riduculus leap in logic which is what the carbon monoxide scam is based off.

    • TIRED June 16, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

      Dude, just walk outside…….look at the weather……..its snowing in Texas all winter long? Global Warming, really?

      • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

        Ahhhhh……this is the argument of the dim witted. Global warming effects weather on both extremes.
        I implore you to read a fucking book!

        • Bimrin June 25, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

          It is so sad to see that people want to bury their heads in the sand and say we aren’t the cause of our situation. Lets keep on doing what we are doing and god will simply protect the righteous.

          Global Warming has nothing to it just being hotter. Climate change of all kinds is happening everywhere. Look at experiments where you heat a cold surface and cause condensation (now apply that on a mass scale) Warming changes weather patterns and can actually add more precipitation the air. So yes you will get more rain (and even snow in some places) that doesn’t mean that we are fine. I live in a state that got its standard rainfall for the year (however we are in a drought for the 4th straight year). You know why, because instead of heavy snow packs we had more rain (same amount of total precip) this leads to now snow melt through summer months to keep reservoirs healthy. Look at California and the seriousness of the drought there.

          You know what annoys me the most is the people that sit here and call anyone trying to shed light on things a lunatic or buying into the Al Gore conspiracy. We aren’t, I am not even sure that we are at a critical point yet, what I do understand is that you can’t expect to survive without making changes.

          Churchill said it best “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often” We have to change as a people, we can’t keep continuing the way we have, we owe it to future generations to be the best stewards of the planet as possible, and teach them to do the same.

          In the end it really doesn’t matter if you believe in Global Warming or Climate Change, as a citizen of the world you owe it to everyone else to be the most responsible person you can be. Practice conservation, plan for fuel economy, make efforts to reduce your carbon footprint. All you are possibly doing is helping at that point. I think one thing everyone can agree on is being more responsible from an ecological standpoint won’t hurt anything.

          I also wasn’t intending to end my point with this statement but it does draw merit. I respect most religions (purely from the people as most are good people) but anymore people really should no longer advocate that birth control and by extent limiting population growth are wrong. One of the prime reasons the numbers are increasing at all is because we have a runaway population (and while I understand its worse elsewhere than here, we don’t have to contribute). We are consuming our planets resources much faster than we can replenish them. Reuse and Recycle is part of it, making sure we don’t continue our exponential population growth is another. My prime belief is that if you want more children in your life and you can provide a good home (adopt them, there are so many kids without parents its sad). Religions don’t need membership through birth anymore, conversion should happen from example not from what you were raised as.

      • Justin Leonard June 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

        This is the most flawed argument of all considering that the global rise in temperature is melting large amounts of ice. That ice melts into an ocean. Like a cup of warm water with ice put into it the ice melts and the water gets colder. Same with the oceans, this creates colder ocean currents which reflects your colder weather conditions. Climate change and a cold day in Texas is a large difference. Aside from this point the fact that you are from Texas explains many of your twisted bias’ and skewed logic.

        • TIRED June 18, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

          Sorry, from Wisconsin, where we have record snow fall and cold temperatures the past couple of years now, so I am thinking that your assumption I was from Texas is much more flawed than my argument! The Climate changes yearly (Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter), monthly, daily……just because Al Gore makes millions off of people like you because he shows you a picture of a polar bear floating on ice in the summer time and that scares you, doesn’t change the fact that Global Warming is no more true today, than the Global Cooling and the coming ice age (which by the way according to climate scientists we were supposed to be in right now) that these same libs were preaching in the 70’s and 80’s was!

          • ricotorpe June 19, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

            You really don’t understand what climate means. It is long term, not short term, and by long term, it is far more than 2-3 years.

          • bsmart23 June 21, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

            Just something to think about, the end result of “global warming” or climate change would be an ice age. I’m assuming you think of it as the earth becoming so hot its unbareable? Not saying you are wrong with your claims just letting you know, maybe you were unaware. Also the earths climate changes on its own with the passing of thousands of years. The problem seems to be the accelerated effects occuring because of human activity. However it could also be exaggerated as you seem to state in the forum. No need to attack people for seeing things different as you do though.

      • ricotorpe June 19, 2015 at 11:54 pm #

        Weather is not climate. It amazes me that people take an isolated event, such as a freak snowstorm, and make broad judgments based on it. This is cherry-picking.

        You are no different from the people who blamed the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season on global warming.

      • Manny Mendoza June 29, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

        wow!!!! its climate change not just warming smh and it snowed in vegas too shouldnt that send a something to that empty head of urs and maybe just maybe there is something wrong???? it freaking snowed in texas and vegas smh does Death Valley need to be snowed on before u finally say something is wrong???

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

        Climate is not weather

    • Zane murasko September 28, 2017 at 5:57 am #

      you are correct

  4. Posturize June 10, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    There are many points in this article that are simply incorrect. Just to pick one, the 31,000 “scientist” petition was signed by people who are not necessarily scientists with expertise in climate science or a related field. To sign the petition you simply had to have some type of science degree. The number 31,000, signed by people with possibly no connection to climate research, represent only .03% of the total number of US science graduates. How can a number this small be used to counter the confirmed statistic that over 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made CO2 emissions are unfortunately warming the earth.

    • Mollie Norris June 21, 2015 at 4:31 am #

      There are 9,029 PhD’s, all in areas relevant to climate science. The total now is 31,487. The requirements for signing are a BS in science; physical science – a lot of IPCC scientists with degrees in ecology or environmental science or wild life biology – “soft sciences” have less math and physics and chemistry than a BS. There’s a breakdown of degrees on the website. GISS director Gavin Schmidt doesn’t have a science degree- his are in math, and his experience is in computer modeling.
      The .03% is a skepticalscience scam. John Cook and Dana Nutticelli’s “97% consensus” fraud was accually only 41 abstracts out of 11944, which is 0.3%, not 97%. When their fraud became well-known, they did an additional scam to try to trick people to believe that their 41 abstracts, some of them written over 20 years ago, showed that more scientists supported AGW than those that signed the petition. Also, skepticalscience’s survey counted scientists who agreed the earth has warmed, but didn’t believe most warming was anthropogenic – it has warmed since the 70s, when there were predictions of an ice age. Also, Cook’s survey found abstracts by using the search terms “global warming” and “climate change”, so the abstracts weren’t sorted to find ones written by climate scientists – many were written by psychologists, investment professionals, economists, etc. Cook is a grad student whose advisor, Stephen Lewandowsky, also did a fraudulent survey of published research. Naomi Orestes is the same – she’s a history professor, trying to get some AGW “green”, not someone interested in climate science. Cook and Lewandowsky’s field of psychology is the cognitive processes involved in decision-making. It’s a field that’s used in propaganda, marketing and sales.
      The Oregon Petition Project emailed a list of scientists – they didn’t try to contact all climate climate scientists in the US, and most scientists didn’t know about it until much later-I have a BS in chemistry and didn’t know about it until around 2012, and it started in 2009. It’s also only in English, so that excludes a lot of scientists.
      So, 31,487 is MUCH larger than 41 – and you bought the skepticalscience scam.
      This is the whole game; the liberal media only publishes AGW-alarmist propaganda based on bad science, badmouths all scientists who don’t support PC AGW-alarmism, censors close to 100% of comments that don’t support it, and NASA and NOAA and UK government climate have to support it if they want a job, and they lie and misrepresent and alter data and throw out real measurements that show no climate change and replace them with computer models. They have much more money and they – Soros, for example, control the media – it’s a .scam by the 01% of the wealthiest, and the BS about oil company funding is just that, BS. If there was any bias against global warming that anyone could connect to oil company funding, it would have been all over the media; there’s not, so all AGW-alarmists can do is use ad hom attacks. The scientists in Obama’s witchhunt have all publicly attacked the scientific fraud and testified to congress about it; they’re being attacked only on a political basis. Oil company funding is just libel. Also, the IPCC has funding from BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Sultan of Oman, and Greenpeace has millions in Rockefeller oil dollars. It’s the biggest scam in history.

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

        A review of scientific literature on climate change show that almost all published studies aknowledge the existence of climate change

        • Mollie Norris August 26, 2015 at 12:38 am #

          1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

          Currently only research supporting AGW is funded, and scientific journals usually reject non-AGW research. It’s McCarthyism and Lysenkoism based on political and economic agendas that don’t contribute to environmental protection.

          • James August 26, 2015 at 1:19 am #

            Ok sure, there are 10,000 plus papers disputing that.
            1. Grants are given before research, not after.
            2. Scientific journals like contervesy, that is how people know about them, and it increases their impact factor.

          • Mollie Norris August 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

            1. grant applications include descriptions of the proposed research. Read recent climate research; abstracts (basically the way the research was described to get the grant). Research on the cause of oyster deaths, for example – an abstract will say something like “investigate the effect of acidification due to increasing CO2” – the conclusions will say something like “no correlation with anthropogenic causes identified”.

            2. BS Scientific journals aren’t read by the general public. They’re very conservative, and US scientific journals and publicly funded universities don’t risk their funding under the Obama administration by publishing research that contradicts political parties. Private foundation funding is primarily members of the NWO Illuminati who created the AGW scam as a means of achieving total control over the world’s population and resources.

          • James August 26, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

            1. Ok, yes however co2 is increasing in the ocean and co2 does acidify water. Try anthor example.

          • Mollie Norris September 7, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

            CO2 isn’t decreasing in the oceans, and it’s controlled by the enormous amount of natural carbonate present in the oceans in carbonate rock and corals; carbonate dissociations are an alkaline buffer. NOAA’s substitution of a computer model for 80 years of Pacific Ocean pH data that showed a natural variation in pH of greater than 1.0 is a demonstration of the political influence that has invalidated US climate science. The recent revelation by a 30-year NOAA veteran scientist that NOAA scientists were instructed to ignore natural cycles is additional support for the reality that NOAA’s research goal is the production of politically useful data, rather than increasing understanding of the environment.

          • Mollie Norris August 27, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

            Excellent description of The Big Lie – a collection of fabrications made by a collection of pathetic liars whose common characteristic is a need for self-abasement.

            “1. Grants are given before research, not after.”

            Great point – grant applications require only filling in a line asking how much money you want.

            “2. Scientific journals like contervesy, that is how people know about them, and it increases their impact factor.’
            Your illiteracy puts your comment in the appropriate context.

            “Surge in Journal Retractions May Mask Decline in Actual Problems”
            Basken, Paul
            Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 2012

      • Emanuel Lamboy April 22, 2019 at 4:22 pm #

        polar bears are thriving

        • Emanuel Lamboy April 22, 2019 at 4:23 pm #

          yeah i agree with u

    • John Byde June 22, 2015 at 8:25 am #

      How many of the shills pushing “climate change” are experts in climate science? Al Gore, the head of the IPCC?

      • Jeff Vojtko July 4, 2015 at 3:57 am #

        The question is; how many of these people would actually be pushing or “studying” this fraud if not for massive government money. I’m sure the answer is very few.

        • Bob July 8, 2015 at 9:20 pm #

          And do you have factual information to back that up or are you going for speculation?

          • Jeff Vojtko July 8, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

            That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Now I need facts to backup that this fraud isn’t happening. Get a grip Bob. It isn’t my side who wants to ruin the American economy in favor of dramatically poorer energy sources. It isn’t my side who wants to destroy “fossil” fuel industries. Your side; the people pushing this fraud need to come up with facts. And, when I say facts, I mean facts that aren’t manipulated, changed, etc. to make them look more dramatic. I’m talking about real science. I would trust that someone on the Left would know what that is.

          • Bob July 9, 2015 at 1:02 am #

            I know what you mean to be honest facts have been manipulated on both sides I agree that polar bear populations are dying off due to global warming is a hoax. But there are energy sources that are far more powerful than coal. Like uranium in nuclear fission one Kilogram of uranium produces the energy equivalent 54,000 kilograms of coal. So yeah “dramatically poorer”… And yeah you need facts where is that logic coming from!? If someone says that some random astronomer discovered that earth has a second moon. Would you believe that! No you would not. You would look up facts to see if it was true or not. Don’t get me wrong though “your side” does have valid points and is not completely wrong. And let just say you are right and global warming is a hoax you get to say I told you so and life goes on… But if i am right and you are wrong are you prepared for another mass extinction event? more hurricanes sandys going up the east coast but not a category one but five? The spread of deadlier viruses due to mosquitoes? And with your economics I would rather see the fossil fuel industry collapse than the sea food industry collapse due to dead zones, see major cities become flooded (Most major mega cities with a total damage cost in the trillions), see all food and water reserves deplete, more wars in Africa over depleting resources, and the disruption of the carbon cycle… the list goes on and on so tell me are you willing to take that risk that will affect future generations to come?

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:49 am #

            I agree on nuclear power. But, the rest of your comment really is specious. The Left wants people to be scared to death of all of the end-of-the-world predictions. (None of which ever do come true) See the history of predictions going back to the 70’s. The only true goal of the Left is control and regulation.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

            Ahh. Global cooling in the 70’s.
            You realize that was one study in a crap journal that the media went crazy over because it would increase viewership/circulation

          • Jimmy65 September 12, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

            And the true goal of the Right is to kick the can for the time being so they can amass larger fortunes on fossil fuel production and consumption. Yet they do nothing to maintain the infrastructure that provides them the opputunity to sustain those fortunes….

          • Jeff Vojtko September 13, 2015 at 2:01 am #

            Kick the can? Kick what can? Oh, you mean the sacred “mother earth” or phony baloney scam of “climate change”. Please…

          • Jimmy65 September 14, 2015 at 7:17 pm #

            Kick the Can is a populist euphemism for putting off for tomorrow what you can do today. IE fixing the bridge tomorrow instead of today, because we can’t afford to pay the the taxes to fix bridges because we gave huge tax breaks and subsidies to a oil company instead. If the water level of the seas rises we’ll just build a taller sea wall.

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

            You mean the trillion or so dollars that was spent in the early part of the 0bama administration for “infrastructure” you mean that kind of spending. The “shovel ready” projects. Is that what you mean?

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:52 am #

            See all of these thoroughly embarrassing predictions -

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:55 am #

            Or these failed predictions

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 2:56 am #

            Trust me Bob; with the global warming crews history of failing, people really have nothing to worry about.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

            Like the fact that flordia will be underwater?

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

            James, that is too funny. I would bet you anything that Florida will never be under water. Where do you get this stuff? Please share your sources. I want to learn more about these predictions.

          • Jeff Vojtko July 9, 2015 at 3:01 am #

            Funny thing is; I still haven’t heard a single fact proving global warming. You say facts have been played with on both sides. That is wrong; people on the Right point out the fraud and deceit and are called deniers because the Left has no facts.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

            How about increase in glacial melt, so much that National Geographic had to redraw their maps?

          • Tom Smith October 23, 2015 at 10:25 pm #

            The “FACT” is that both Arctic and Antarctic ice has increased in the last few years, even NASA admits that

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 4:40 am #

            And National Geographic is about as trustworthy and accurate on this subject as Scientific American, Time, News Week, Wikipedia, snopes or the NY Times. They have be bought out, manipulated, sandbagged and cherry-picked into unbelievability. The only way to be published in any of them is to tow the alarmist line. Some “peer review”. Interesting when you consider the statistic often thrown out about the “97%” of “scientists” who agree humans cause global warming. Around 3000 questionnaires were sent out, only 75 returned with the infamous 97% (72.95) of those agreeing humans were responsible. 73 out of 3000! Quite a consensuses, don’t you agree?

          • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 11:08 am #

            Can you explain how fossil fuels create greenhouse gasses and they DONT heat up the planet?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

            I don’t need to explain anything. I don’t think you understand. I am against people stealing my money and wasting it. If I want my money wasted; I will waste it myself. If you want to waste your money; feel free. Just don’t think Americans are going to but this junk science.

          • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:31 pm #

            The point is it is pretty simple science. If you learn about the way it works, and you learn about how much money exxon spends manipulating public opinion. You begin to think and see what is going on. I’m not sure what money you are talking about? Americans subsidize oil companies 4.5 billion dollars a year. Is that wasting your money?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 20, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            An easy explanation about how the fraud is persisted –

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            You have a serious hard on for Exxon. Question? Do you own a car? If you do, please shut up as you sold your soul to Exxon. It’s settled,global warming is a hoax.

          • Mistrix October 22, 2015 at 11:05 pm #

            I have a serious problem with anyone who wants to trash the only planet we have. I actually care about people and animals that will be here after I’m dead. The only people saying global warming is a hoax are the people who make billions from warming the globe and those who are paid to say it and those who buy into the lies easily because it’s an excuse to hate the “evil left”

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 4:17 am #

            That’s asking to prove a negative, a typical lefty tactic. Better you should actually PROVE just one incident of human-caused climate change. By the way there is a substantial prize for the first one of you who can do it.

          • Toadus August 31, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

            Scientific fact is proveable, Bobby. This is not. Conjecture…every freaking bit of it.

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm #


            Glacial melt is increasing

            Global surface temperatures are increasing

            It isn’t my side who wants to ruin the American economy in favor of dramatically poorer energy sources. It isn’t my side who wants to destroy “fossil” fuel industries

            Ruin the American economy. WTF?! Like unemployment claims an are going up under Obama’s tenure. Oh wait, there going the opposite of how the GDP is going.

            Dramatically poorer energy sources. What do you mean? Coal, oil and natural gas are finite, solar and wind are not and developments have made them increasing efficent and storable.

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

            Wow, man James you are so ill informed. Somehow you think that because a third of this country isn’t able to find work, that it is a good thing. And, you point to a number of people who are able to file unemployment. Man you really are living in a different world. 0bama’s world I guess. You do understand that people become ineligible to file unemployment after a period of time. Right?

            As to “global” surface temps. I’m sure your “sources” are well informed Leftist or Commie websites. The truth of the matter is that temperatures fluctuate. That means that sometimes they are cold and sometimes they are hot. There is no trend towards some catastrophe. Unless you think the glaciers receeded out of the Great Lakes region because of all of the SUVs driving around up here. By the way; you don’t do you?

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 4:13 am #

            What planet are you talking about anyway? Sounds like the anti-earth.

          • Mark Gladwell August 31, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

            You need facts to back anything up. We do have facts, here’s a start:

            Please stop denying climate change. You are making the world worse.

          • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 11:04 am #

            Its super simple! Fossil fuels produce green house gasses. Green house gasses trap heat in our atmosphere. Planet gets slowly warmer. Ice caps melt. Water level rises. Etc etc.

            Its really not about left or right. It’s common sense that this is happening. Basic science and chemistry.

            Exxon knew about global warming back in 1977. Documents were just leaked showing they knew, and planned to lie and cover it up so they could continue to make profits. They even made a plan for when the ice caps melted they would drill for oil there as well. Check it out!


            Here’s another article that explains all of the leaked documents if you dont want to read all of them.


            Please read it even if you think it’s untrue. Just a few minutes of your time. You can always choose to disagree after you read it. You can still hate “the left”. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from BOTH sides.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            Mistrix, I know the theory. And, I know that the whole global warming movement is really very much like a religion. Like I said in my other post; I have no problem donating their money to support whatever cause they support. What I have a big problem with is this Leftist president stealing my money and pouring it down the drain.

          • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

            Ok so you dont think greenhouse gasses cause the planet to warm?

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 3:26 am #

            Maybe if you remembered a little more of your high school chemistry you would realize the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is LOGARITHMIC! The first amount has a big affect but all additional amounts are much less so. Think about that when you try to rationalize the so-called greenhouse effect as it applies to the earth – there ain’t no glass ceiling and the gases that arn’t absorbed back into the soil and water escape into space. Also remember WATER is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and many hundreds of times more plentiful. All basic science, no argument necessary and all destroy the the non-logic greenies like to spout.

          • Mistrix December 7, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            Gasses just escape into space huh? Crazy…i guess that is why there is no air left on earth. I must be breathing nothing.

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:49 pm #

            “I would trust that someone on the Left would know what that is.”

            Really? I don’t as their ideology blinds them. In fact it’s more of a religion at this point with Al Gore as their deity.

        • wlgoode August 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

          What profit motive is for science supporters? How about Fossil Fuel?

          • Jeff Vojtko August 22, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

            Are you kidding me??? Do you now understand that all of these “climate scientists” get the majority, if not all of their funding from Leftists in government through grants? Man, you really need to educate yourself and stop believing the Left’s lies.

          • wlgoode August 23, 2015 at 4:41 am #

            Oh yeah right and you’re telling me that the multi billions in profit plus corporate welfare from government is no motivation for the fossil fuel industry? The left’s lies? Hah!!! For years Frank Luntz and before him Lee Atwater have been training the Pundits and Politicos how to hypnotize the right with the technique of “Linguistic Framing.” You lemmings go to the polls to vote against your own interests.

          • Jeff Vojtko August 24, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

            Too funny. Man I wish I had invented global warming. Al Gore found a bunch of suckers and made a killing. There is a sucker born every minute.

          • Jeff Vojtko September 3, 2015 at 1:25 am #

            Ah, now i found out where all of the Leftists suckers hang out. You guys are too much. It is hilarious to watch you guys make dire predictions just to see them fail miserably.

          • Bruce Cropley September 14, 2015 at 3:36 am #

            Have you ever considered the possibility that Climate Change is largely caused by humans? If climate change scientists are right and you are wrong, what does it matter what happened to the economy in 2015? I hope you’re right, but the odds are not good for humanity.

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

            Bruce, I would be more worried about either our government or some foreign government doing research they shouldn’t be doing on diseases or pathigens that will prove to be super deadly than anything with the climate.

          • Ritzcraka October 14, 2015 at 3:48 am #

            Have you ever considered the possibility that Climate Change is just another term for weather and that assclowns like Gore are making a fortune off useful idiots like you? One volcano spits more co2 than all the co2 humans have produced since day one? Solar activity has the same affect on the polar caps on Mars as it does on earth? It’s all a scam to steal your tax dollars bucko, wake up and smell the coffee.

          • Bruce Cropley October 14, 2015 at 5:03 am #

            Actually, the fossil fuel industry is continuing to make more money because of idiots like you. Your volcano claim for instance is just plain wrong:

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 7:39 am #

            I don’t believe anything an Obamazombie links to so shut the fuck up assclown.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 7:42 am #

            Your volcano claim is not just wrong, it is out by a factor of 100.

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:02 am #

            Look sugar plumb, you make me want to spit with your ignorance and world view. Do the world a favor and shoot yourself.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 8:07 am #

            Have you covered factors at school yet?

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:12 am #

            Factor this rainbow warrior, if we all pack fudge we’ll end humanity in one generation and we won’t need to worry about global warming.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 8:21 am #

            You don’t need to be embarrassed. There are lots of ignorant, stupid people like yourself who are still denying AGW.

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:29 am #

            For a deviant such as yourself, why in the hell do you care about the future? You can just keep listening to those who profit from the grants issued by the criminals who spew the AGW lie if you choose sugar plumb. If your pseudo science helps you feel less twisted and a bit more pseudo intellectual, suck it up. Every last slimy drop.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

            Do you think that by making comments here that you are helping your side of the argument? You’d have to be one of the most abrasive and ignorant climate change deniers that I’ve come across.

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 1:24 am #

            ME making comments HERE??? I think you’re the one who’s lost. Cupcake. BTW I find your ignorance abrasive. Let me tell you something son, you hate the fact that “big oil” makes money but the fact is it’s a million hard working Americans who are the shareholders. Shit inevitably runs down hill and it’s those at the lowest economic strata who are being hurt the most by the AGW lie. How do you sleep at night? Oh, I forgot, ignorance is bliss, that’s why you go around with that supercilious grin on your face. As far as ignorance, a relative of mine who worked with the National Ice Core Laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey , and wrote a book called Secrets in Polar Ice. He’s schooled me well in the lie that is AGW. But you useful idiots can’t be bothered with facts in your quest to “redistribute” (steal) wealth so I doubt you’ve read it. You’re a tool Bwucey, and just because your hero Barney Frank (the architect of Americas economic collapse of 08) tells you AGW is real doesn’t make it so. I don’t guess it benefits either one of us to continue this conversation so peace out. Tool.

          • Bruce Cropley October 16, 2015 at 3:31 am #

            Have you ever been right about ANYTHING?

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

            Stop talking, you’re emitting CO2. And your breath smells like dick.

          • Bruce Cropley October 17, 2015 at 11:31 pm #

            As I said above: “Do you think that by making comments here that you are helping your side of the argument? You’d have to be one of the most abrasive and ignorant climate change deniers that I’ve come across.” Hardly a good role model for the baby rednecks.

          • Ritzcraka October 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

            As I said above: “Stop talking, you’re emitting CO2. And your breath smells like dick”.

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 10:05 am #

            You don’t need to be embarrassed, pickle pirate. (I see you changed your gay pride rainbow profile picture mid conversation.) There are lots of ignorant, stupid people like yourself who are still denying that their carbon credits are putting fuel in Gore’s Gulfstream jet. Wake up and smell the coffee cupcake, if not for fossil fuel, we’d still be living in caves huddled around a wood fire dressed in fur. In fact, with the windmill electricity costing 5 times what coal generated electricity costs it won’t be long till the poor folks are back in the caves. You see dimwit, the “green” lie is just a mechanism for your socialist overlords to line their pockets and pay for their mansions and jets and you’re just a useful idiot.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

            What do you believe about the science of global warming? Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 1:35 am #

            Using the term science and global warming as you understand it is a non sequitur. What I do understand is that in the plant world, CO2 is… lunch. But really munchkin, I think it’s past your bed time and I’m done wasting my time on you because “you can’t stand the truth”.

          • Bruce Cropley October 16, 2015 at 3:27 am #

            You are assuming incorrectly that I live in the US. Here’s something you might find interesting – Mythbusters testing if CO2 is a greenhouse gas:

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 3:32 am #

            I assumed no such thing.

          • Bruce Cropley October 16, 2015 at 8:11 am #

            I know you don’t trust the US government; here is a list of 197 scientific organisations worldwide “That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action”:

          • Ritzcraka October 16, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

            Wow really? I can find millions of brain washed and wholly owned souls in North Korea who think Lil’ Kimmy is a God. What’s your point?

          • Bruce Cropley October 17, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

            The science has been done. It is only people like yourself who are still denying that climate change is here and is caused by human activity.

          • Ritzcraka October 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

            “The science has been done” is what the pope said to Galileo. You pathetic little useful idiot.

          • Bruce Cropley October 22, 2015 at 10:13 pm #

            The scientific process has developed a bit since then. I see that you haven’t.

          • Ritzcraka October 23, 2015 at 1:52 am #

            One thing is eternal, there are always going to be those among us who refuse to open their minds to the truth. And at this point in time, cupcake, it’s the useful idiots who buy into the lie that is AGW. If you believe in wealth redistribution, just say so, don’t twist yourself into a pretzel.

          • Bruce Cropley October 23, 2015 at 8:16 am #

            I see things as the direct opposite to you (obviously) – that is it is you not me who refuses to open your mind to the truth, who is a useful idiot supporting the ultra-rich establishment. As a believer in socialism, I believe in more even wealth distribution, from the rich towards the poor. Exploiting the poor is (IMO) cruel and completely unnecessary.

          • Ritzcraka October 28, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

   When the “scientific process” doesn’t fit your scheme, you just hide it and attack the truth. You parasites haven’t changed for centuries. Don’t you think if the news was good for the green mafia they would be posting it everywhere? But it’s a fraud and they know it. ALL thinking people know it. It’s just the useful idiots with a chip on their twisted shoulders who refuse to see the facts. “Redistribution” is stealing. Parasite.

          • Bruce Cropley October 29, 2015 at 7:05 am #

            Are you saying that NASA and hundreds of other scientific organisations are not telling the truth? Or are they not following the scientific method? Or is their data incorrect? Do you class NASA as a member of the “green mafia”?

          • Ritzcraka October 30, 2015 at 1:56 am #

            Well, let me think, who decides wether NASA gets a dime in funding… And I might suggest to you that “NASA” is not a monolithic opinion. Just because one useful idiot whore voices an opinion for whatever self preservation reason does not mean “NASA” is part of the Green Mafia. Do you think that because one twisted priest f#cks a little boy that the church believes that is anything but deviant, self destructive behavior? Leave your personal bias out of this question.

          • Bruce Cropley October 30, 2015 at 5:51 am #

            Sorry, you are rambling incoherently. Do you have something relevant to say?

          • Ritzcraka November 1, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

            I forgot, you’re a libtard and you’re used to being spoon fed by your boyfriend.

          • Bruce Cropley November 1, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

            From the NASA page linked by your link:
            “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

          • Ritzcraka November 2, 2015 at 11:11 am #


          • Bruce Cropley November 2, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

            Very funny, I enjoy his work 🙂

          • denoferth December 6, 2015 at 3:03 am #

            Maybe the El Nenio warming the ocean causing it to expand has something to do with it.

          • Ritzcraka October 22, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

            “The science has been done” is what Pope Urban VIII said to Galileo.

          • Bruce Cropley October 15, 2015 at 8:23 am #

            Sorry, AGW is short for Anthropogenic Global Warming, which means global warming caused by humans.

          • Ritzcraka October 15, 2015 at 8:31 am #

            Gee thanks shit stick.

          • wlgoode October 13, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

            Science was wrong on tobacco when GOP backed big biz? Science was wrong on acid rain when GOP backed big biz?
            Science was wrong on the ozone when GOP backed big biz?

            Science is wrong on Global Warming because we’ve been fouling our nest with abandon for thousands of years because 97% of scientists say so? That’s not a consensus because the 3% who dispute it are paid by fossil fuel industry? Do you really think you should be taken seriously?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 14, 2015 at 12:52 am #

            It is funny that you try to tie the GOP to tobacco. That shows how much you know about industry and reality. It is also pretty funny that you try to slander the GOP for supporting business in the United States instead of attacking business as any good commie would do. As for global warming; still no facts. Just a lot of conjecture, theory and models. There is the reason Americans consider global warming such an inconsequential issue.

          • wlgoode October 14, 2015 at 1:23 am #

            Just facts. Tobacco industry was a huge business. When the news first came out about deadly diseases caused by it, many on both sides denied it primarily because they were stone cold addicted to it. As time progressed the more progressive (not necessarily Democrats because the Democrats were rather like Dixiecrats and there was little difference in the parties) began to listen to the science as progressives do more than conservatives, fact! The conservatives held to denying the science because big business was in the mix. Science won. My mistake is saying GOP instead of conservatives. You guys are so damn stuck on Commies you think it is 1950. Still no facts on global warming for deniers. FACT.

            Yes, I do slander business for not supporting the US!!! And the conservatives too! Obama never said “You didn’t build that!” That video was edited to make it sound like he hated business, that’s what conservatives do! The Planned Parenthood video wasn’t highly edited, it was completely bogus and played on the grief of a mother who lost her baby, that’s what conservatives do! Big business is moving overseas for lower wages yet conservatives say its because the US has the highest business taxes. The World Bank says when you look at what the US businesses spend in total on taxes it is right in the middle of the world’s business taxes. Not the highest, right in the middle when all things are considered. Lie about it repeatedly, that’s what conservatives do!

          • Jimmy65 September 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

            You probably believe that. Did you establish that all on your own. Maybe you can right a essay for you fifth grade class on that Junior….

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            o fox news

          • James August 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

            Yes, because the budget of the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy Office of Science is 10x more than what ExxonMobil makes in a year.
            Oh wait, National Science Foundation has a 5 billion dollar budget and USDOE office of science has a 27 billion dollar budget and ExxonMobil makes 394 billion in a year.
            So ExxonMobil has more to loose? (SARC)

          • Jimmy65 September 14, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

            From here on out we can assume you have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you understand? You sir need to educate yourself first…..
            The left lies and we disregard them for that. Whereas the Right lies and you blindly accept that and puke it up here as facts…. On the scale of lies the left doesn’t profit from them nearly as much as the right.. The Koch Brothers usually don’t donate to liberal causes much, yet they contribute to the folks who question Climate change almost entirely.

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

            Please educate yourself on what real science is.

          • Bruce Cropley September 21, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

            Here is an explanation of human caused climate change by NASA climate scientists:

          • Jeff Vojtko September 23, 2015 at 2:53 am #

            So, you cite NASA? A government organization? Wow, lots of props there.

          • Bruce Cropley September 23, 2015 at 8:08 am #

            Did you understand the explanation?

          • Jeff Vojtko September 25, 2015 at 12:23 am #

            Oh I understand the theory. But, that is all it is. A theory based on models. Models that can be made to show whatever someone wants. What I don’t understand is how people can be suckered so easily. What I don’t understand is why people don’t follow real scientific methods when discussing the climate.

          • Bruce Cropley September 25, 2015 at 1:09 am #

            More greenhouse gases caused by humanity lead to warming of the planet. Most people are not climate scientists, and are content to accept the clear consensus of those who are.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

            You understand that global warming is a theory? Right? It is funny that people pushing this theory as actual science don’t treat it like real science. You see, real science is open to dissent and real science works on the principle of disproving things. The facts are this: global warming is a theory pushed by people making a lot of money to do so. Their government slush funds are threatened when people expose their fraud as in this case –

          • Bruce Cropley October 5, 2015 at 10:45 pm #

            A scientific theory is not just a guess. There are many theories of gravity for example:

          • Bruce Cropley October 5, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

            Climate scientists have debated AGW with each other via the normal channels of scientific debate (e.g. journals) for many years, and there is a very clear consensus amongst them:
            It is only amongst the rest of the population that there is less consensus.

          • Bruce Cropley October 5, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

            > The facts are this: global warming is a theory pushed by people making a lot of money to do so.

            You assert that this is a fact. My intuition tells me that the opposite is much more likely to be true. Corruption is much more likely to be successful for those in power with lots of money. The fossil fuel industry has been around for hundreds of years, and the substantial shareholders (e.g. the Koch brothers, Saudi royalty etc.) have LOTS of money (and therefore power) The issue of AGW is a significant threat to the fossil fuel industry’s livelihood, so it is not surprising to me that they have been funding FUD about AGW for decades.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 3, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

            So, the only thing these fraudsters can do is to threaten, call people names and the like. Try to make fun of real people who have valid questions. That is why I will never believe in this fraud.

          • Bruce Cropley October 3, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

            If you understood, you wouldn’t be denying the conclusions of the experts. I haven’t threatened you or called you names, and I’m not making any money out of this.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 4, 2015 at 2:08 am #

            I have never said you called me names. My point is this; “global warming” is not science regardless what the “experts” say. And, thanks, but I understand this plenty well enough.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 3, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

            See James’ pitiful excuse for a response above for an example of a weak person with very little intelligence.

          • Bruce Cropley October 4, 2015 at 12:44 am #

            Would you say that a good understanding of AGW requires a scientific background?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 4, 2015 at 2:10 am #

            Why would a scientific background be needed to understand fraud? It only takes common sense and logic to see this is a fraud.

          • Bruce Cropley October 4, 2015 at 2:44 am #

            Do you have a degree in science and/or engineering?
            Jeff Votko: “Please educate yourself on what real science is.”

          • Jeff Vojtko October 5, 2015 at 1:22 am #

            It really is funny people demanding things. Just like these global warming fraudsters demanding quite. Saying that the people who question the “science” aren’t educated enough to understand. Bruce, you really are too funny.

          • Bruce Cropley October 5, 2015 at 4:25 am #

            You have requested that Jimmy65 educate himself on what real science is, but then refuse to answer a simple yes/no question – do you have a science and/or engineering degree. The obvious reason is that you haven’t. How can you presume to know what real science is without having studied it? Your claim to only require common sense and logic to detect that AGW is a fraud is suspect too.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 1:29 am #

            I have a background in chemical engineering. But, I don’t even need to use that knowledge to debunk this crap. You see it really is easy: Plenty of folks have already been proven liars and scammers. Plenty of “scientists” have already been outed as defrauding the government or the public.

          • Bruce Cropley October 6, 2015 at 5:47 am #

            What do you actually believe?
            – The global temperature is not rising
            – The global temperature is rising, but it is not due to human activity
            – The global temperature is rising, due to human activity, but it is has not been shown to be significant enough to necessitate change
            – The global temperature is rising, but will reach a peak due to negative feedback
            – something else?
            – some combination of the above?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            I believe that temperatures, as well as weather, changes. Sometimes it is cold and sometimes it is hot. Like when the glaciers melted away from the Great Lakes region. Do you believe that humans and SUVs were responsible for that?

            I also know the fact is that there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. A fact that these scammers are trying to hide by changing the data.

          • Bruce Cropley October 7, 2015 at 12:08 am #

            So, presumably you don’t believe in an increase in greenhouse gases being able to cause a global warming influence?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

            Typically data in a science experiment is not changed in the dark of night. Typically data is maintained throughout the experiment in order to explain something. But, in the “global warming” fraud case; “scientists” change data without reason.

          • Bruce Cropley October 7, 2015 at 12:02 am #

            So you believe that the planet is not getting warmer, it is just being reported that way by fraudulent scientists?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 8, 2015 at 10:20 pm #

            The widely “accepted” data show a pause in the temperature change since 1998. That is why the “scientists” were forced to change the data. But, then again, this reminds me of the way the Government reports unemployment numbers. Everybody and their brother knows the unemployment rate isn’t 5%. Right?

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

            look just because ur a bump on the log and cant do crap for crap doesn’t mean America is like this where do u get this from

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 1:32 am #

            Do you know the scientific method? Any clue on that subject? Let me ask this very one simple and logical question: What is the typical method for getting a scientific theory proven to be a scientific fact? Any idea?

          • Bruce Cropley October 6, 2015 at 5:30 am #

   explains it much better than I could. 🙂

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 1:33 am #

            Tell me which other REAL science threatens skeptics and tries to shut down an opposing view?

          • Bruce Cropley October 6, 2015 at 5:19 am #

            Can you clarify your question please?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 6, 2015 at 11:19 pm #

            Can you give me an example of any other scientific theory where there has been a organized effort to smear people who ask valid questions or bring dissenting points of view to the table? The answer is no. You cannot. Because real science invites opposing views. That is the only way a theory becomes a fact. In the global warming case; they want to skip right from theory to fact without external peer review, scientific analysis, etc. And all based on what? Models and prognostications that have proven wrong for more than a decade.

          • Bruce Cropley October 8, 2015 at 8:12 am #

            I suggest you have a look at this:

          • Jeff Vojtko October 9, 2015 at 11:53 am #

            Do you think just because some hack lefty says something is fact and something is opinion is of any value?

          • Bruce Cropley October 11, 2015 at 7:33 am #

            Which are the “facts” that you reject as facts in this article? (irrespective of who classified them or wrote the article?)

          • Jeff Vojtko October 13, 2015 at 1:47 am #

            That is the problem. The Lefties, Socialists and Commies want to push a theory as fact in order to damage the American economy. I don’t trust any Lefty when their goals are detrimental to the United States.

          • Bruce Cropley October 14, 2015 at 4:14 am #

            Do you understand my question?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            I reject the hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide is bad. It is the Lefts goal to rid the world of Carbon Dioxide. This is a morons goal as Carbon Dioxide is needed to support life. I reject the hypothesis that human activity is damaging the environment. I reject the hypothesis that human activity is responsible for glaciers receding or polar bears are dying or the fact that a hurricane or tornado will happen here or there. These are all Lefties assigning some sort of boogieman for NATURE occurrences.

          • Bruce Cropley October 17, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

            Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not bad in the appropriate quantity. Thank you for answering my question 🙂 Yes, you could classify me as a leftist, socialist commie if you like. My motivation however is not to damage the American economy, it is to try to prevent a human caused mass extinction, including ours.

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

            no, that’s stupid, although rights do it all the time…

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            the theory of evolution, einstins theory of relativity, helostrinic modle

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 10:01 pm #

            ken ham vs mr Nye is basicly u (ken ham) and literaly anyone who can do math on their hands who don’t take bribs

          • Jeff Vojtko October 14, 2015 at 12:54 am #

            Really? The best way to make a point is to be clear and concise and including sentences. I have no idea of what you are talking about.

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

            or is the world flat, and 10,000 years old?

          • Jeff Vojtko October 14, 2015 at 12:53 am #

            There is a reason that people write full sentences. If you can’t figure that out; well that really is too bad.

          • robert October 3, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

            Jeff sorry off topic these guys sound more like Christians trying to sell you God is a better choice since you do not want to go to hell that’s why you should choose the safer route of choosing God I have no real evidence but you need to believe in him …except some station in the Hawaiian islands where there is an active volcano so yeah co2 could be a major problem…….this global redistribution of wealth which the poor libs offer up is all ways at the cost of others …they are so willing to give away other peoples stuff to make themselves feel better so do as God and give up you life and make a difference through your good deeds and stop trying to make America a third world country….many things good have been done through the industrialization of the world…..and this climate change money will go to third world countries to prosper what more industrialization…Thanks China for your leading example of how to reduce carbon emissions….and lets look at the middle east and all its ka Trillions of dollars how to lead KAOS lets talk schools and all the PC crap they preach taking away your first amendment rights without removing the law and being lead down a road that only leads one way how someone’s perspective or teaching has also been influenced my Money and their beliefs Hahahaha all puppets on a string because you can be lead down any path with whatever info you can find or who has the most money at the time…….a house divided
            can not stand so welcome to the New Third World Order

          • Jeff Vojtko October 3, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

            Robert; your comments are rambling and confusing. But, I will try to respond. I dislike anyone who is pushing something like a salesman. So, I agree with you, people who push different religions on a person are wrong. But, if a person decides to follow God, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I’m sure you agree. The big difference between most religion and government, is that government can force people to do something under threat of fines, prison or death. That is one of my big issues with government pushing the global warming fraud.

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            lol says the the “leftists who cleary are more nazia like then rights” pretty much, not true, no its just mostly compaling of data, temp, weather avergs, extreme weather anobiles, c02 emmisons, etc etc forgive my grammer/spelling

          • wlgoode October 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

            Gee, Nazis were Fascists which describes the right wing quite well!

        • James August 23, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

          No one else funds climate change.
          Also, if you could critise the study instead of the funding source, that would be much appreciated.
          Something like
          The data of glacial melt is inconsistent and the conclusion is incorrect becasue of external factors such as human development rather than, you government paid shill go die

          • Jeff Vojtko September 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

            Funny thing is that this “global warming” isn’t even science. You do understand that real science invites criticism instead of trying to shut it down or make it illegal don’t you? Maybe you don’t know what real science is. Maybe that is the problem.

          • Maxwell Fine October 12, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

            incorrect, we love ppl who prove who point out an math error, no ur idea of “criticism” isn’t criticism ur just saying ” I don’t like the emplamations of this being true…. its not true”

        • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 11:00 am #

          Hmm, i would think anyone who likes the planet would be interested. Scientific research does cost money. Wouldn’t you want some money spent on global warming research to make sure it’s not true? I mean, I have kids and I’d like them to have a nice planet for their kids. Seems like common sense to me.

          • Jeff Vojtko October 17, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

            I have no problem with Lefties, or that occasional regular American that believes this fraud, donating every cent they earn to fund research into this theory. I have said consistently that if the Pope thinks this is a dire problem; the Catholic church should spend every cent it has to fund that research. Then I will have the option to reduce or cut all together my contributions to the church. What totally discusses me is a Leftist government stealing my money and wasting it by pouring down the drain. People who work hard, trying to make a living have a lot of contempt for Lefties who push this theory as fact.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 4:57 am #

            I agree the government is really out of control and spends money badly. Still doesn’t change that the vast majority of climate scientists and climate studies say the planet is warming due to human activity. The pope has figured out that human greed is going to destroy our planet. I agree with you that he should put money towards it if he really feels that way. But the church hasn’t really been known for helping people, just controlling them. I’ll keep my expectations low.

        • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

          Probably anyone who is concerned with having a healthy environment for future generations….

      • James August 23, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

        Al Gore does not direct the IPCC.

        The IPCC does not do any research, they summarize what has already been published.

        • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 6:47 pm #

          James: John did not mean Al Gore runs the IPCC. He was asking you if either was an example, Gore or the IPCC head.

          • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 7:05 pm #

            Back to John Byde. He’s right. The vast majority of global warming-proponent scientists have degrees and expertise in many other sciences — not climate. As Dr. Spencer often points out, only a handful of the world’s climatologists believe man is causing global warming. Dr. Spencer is recognized as this country’s top climatologist.

          • HonestAbe October 22, 2015 at 2:15 am #

            A large amount of climatologists do support that climate change is real. There are definitely climate scientists among the 97.5% percent. NASA gives evidence climate change and did a study PROVING climate change is real.

            Also Roy Spencer is NOT recognized as the country’s top climatologist. That’s far from the truth. It’s true he has credentials, but he’s one of the few climate deniers that do.

            All of his statements have been debunked:


        • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:46 pm #

          Learn about sentence structure and what a comma means in that sentence. You hoaxters can’t do anything right. Maybe that’s why you guys are “confused”, no reading comprehension.

      • Mark Gladwell August 31, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

        If by ‘shills’ you mean scientists then all of them. All climate scientists are experts in climate science. They all agree that climate change is real and that it’s suuuper bad for us.

        • Jeff Vojtko September 13, 2015 at 2:02 am #

          Mark; do your buy carbon credits? You should.

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 10:57 am #

        They aren’t experts in climate science. However, they listen to what the scientists are saying. I dont know how anyone could think that all the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere wouldn’t cause the planet to heat up? Where do you think all the pollution goes? Explain to me how exactly the fossil fuels don’t cause global warming? Because the opposition doesn’t ever explain that. They just tell you not to believe the scientists because its some evil liberal plot and you shouldnt trust them. Where are the scientists with experiments that show how fossil fuels do not effect our environment? Recently documents were leaked from exxon that not only show that they knew the planet would heat up way back in 1977, but that they planned to deny, lie, and spread doubt so they could make as much money as they could before people caught on and shut them down. Please, keep an open mind and read it.

        Here’s another article that explains all of the leaked documents if you don’t want to read all of them.

        Please read it even if you think it’s untrue. Just a few minutes of your time. You can always choose to disagree after you read it. The best choices are educated ones you make knowing all the information from BOTH sides.

    • Michael Thompson August 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

      LOL only specialized scientists can understand a general science (Weather). Priceless. 🙂

    • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

      Good point. Then show me a petition signed by 31k scientists who believe in global warming.

  5. Luis DeLoureiro June 15, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    I like reading articles like this to get an idea of where deniers are getting they’re info.
    Deniers need to take a step back and just look at the evidence they’re using.
    31,000 scientists sounds like a REALLY BIG NUMBER. Until you get the full scope of how small a percentage that represents…..even if the scientists weren’t cherry picked – there are 10,000 computer scientists on that list…..because, you know, they would know.
    Further – and this is where I really shake my head – if they’re cherry picking and stacking misleading – but, not necessarily false- info (computer scientists are scientists)…….then, doesn’t that make you ask why they’re doing it?
    The people leading the denial agenda clearly benefit from fossil fuels. They’re putting together easily refutable info – knowing that most people who read a site like this are just looking for ammo next time they get into an argument. Not the truth.

    • David Melcher June 16, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

      Is not that the reason you were here? get you some ammo? You obviously are following some set of so called scientific consensus. Why then do you think you are not being lied to?

      • Luis DeLoureiro June 16, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

        I’m not looking for ammo. Just seeing what theories people come up with.
        To answer your question…..I trust that, we live in a country that has prioritized the fourth estate, to the level of being the country that most emphasizes it in its constitution, I think we’re mostly being told the truth.
        Journalists who lie are dealt with in a very negative fashion. E.g., I don’t care if Brian Williams is in a cocktail party and lies to me about being in Iraq. But, when he does it over the air….in a time slot where we expect fact…’s unacceptable.

        Further, I accept that man-made climate change MAY not be real…..although, I doubt it. I don’t understand the rationale of those who say it’s a hoax. Even if you don’t believe most of the people saying….you have no evidence that it’s a hoax. You can say….I need more evidence….
        But, drawing a conclusion with the level of “evidence” presented is evidence of a simple mind.

    • TIRED June 16, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

      I love when Kool-aid Drinking Liberals think they know everything because another immoral, no common sense Lib told them it is a fact!

      • Luis DeLoureiro June 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

        “Kool-aid drinking liberal”……original. So, I drink kool-aid because I don’t make stuff up out of thin air. Because I don’t have a degree in climatology and I choose to trust experts who say this is true? 97% of the country’s climate scientists say man made climate change is fact….I suppose they’re ALL members of the kool-aid drinking left.
        Fucking morons….nothing better to do than make shit up with no educated reason except they want the result to go a certain way.

        • TIRED June 18, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

          No, you are a kool-aid drinking liberal because you believe that 97% of scientists believe this garbage because Al and those like him say it is true. You drink Kool-aid because you think that these so called “experts” couldn’t possible make this S#it up because just because they know that there are Billions of tax payer dollars being handed out simply for them saying this cr@p is fact and because those promoting it like Al Gore make millions for themselves while they personally over utilize energy and don’t even come close to living the way they preach to the public on how we should be forced to live. In the Kool-aid drinking Libs world, you claim science proves everything while passionately believing that someone is really a woman even if they were born a man, has the genes of a man and fathered children, simply cause it is how they “feel”. In the Kool-aid drinking libs world, you can be 99% white and 1% american indian and be praised because you “identify” as being black. In the Kool-aid drinkers world, despite no signs of impending doom, no overall temperature increase in over a decade, record amounts of ice in the antarctic, you still choose to continue to promote this ridiculous notion that man is causing the earth to burn up! So, what caused the ice age to end, SUV’s?

          • Manny Mendoza June 29, 2015 at 1:25 pm #

            why are you so against it???? what harm will it do u if we as humans used green energy and cleaned up our planet??? I rather drink kool aid than republican stupidity

    • m4gw June 16, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

      That might be but there is no petition of scientist from the other side. It used top be 2,500 IPCC scientists but that number has dwindled down to just 75 climate scientists who are willing to put their reputation on the line. If you can find a similar list of scientists I will publish it.

  6. Luis DeLoureiro June 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

    Also, this bastion of information of a “top 10” article doesn’t have a number 2

  7. dxx June 16, 2015 at 3:37 am #

    Does anyone here know that H2O is a greenhouse gas?If you are worried about CO2 emmisions then lets do two things that would actually up. First, lets force China to shutdown their factories as they produce more CO2 emussions than the US. In addition they also emit NOx and SOx into the atmosphere.

    Secondly, why do I always hear about how much CO2 we are releasing but I never hear about the main issue of deforestation?

    If mankind stopped cutting down trees we would have lower levels of CO2. So if you see a new mall or a new starbucks being built. Ask yourself do you really need that?

    I am neither for or against the climate change as I don’t have enough information to make a decision. I am tired of the media talking about the wrong thing.

    • warrantone June 16, 2015 at 3:43 am #

      “I am neither for or against the climate change as I don’t have enough information to make a decision.” At least you are honest about this. Too bad the dictatorial environmentalists won’t admit they don’t have enough information either.

      • TIRED June 16, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

        they can’t prove the “Theory” of Evolution either, but now days our kids are taught it as fact, when in fact it is still just a “theory”!

        • ricotorpe June 19, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

          You don’t know what the word “theory” means. You equate it with guess, right?

          • TIRED July 8, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

            According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary a Theory is: “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true”. Sure sounds like a guess to me, or as we were taught in school, a theory is an educated guess, but yes, still a guess!

          • ricotorpe July 11, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

            There are multiple definitions. In a scientific context, this is not what it means at all. Since you are this ignorant of a fundamental aspect of science, you aren’t qualified in the least to evaluate scientific issues, are you?

        • Jason Hall July 6, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

          Evolution is a theory. Evolution doesn’t have to occur through natural causes (aka genetic engineering). Doesn’t make it wrong. It just means that 100% of the cases aren’t satisfied. A theory can only become a law if 100% of the cases are satisfied.

          • ricotorpe July 11, 2015 at 3:59 pm #

            Genetic engineering is evidence against Evolution? This is the most idiotic attack on Evolution to date.

          • Jason Hall July 13, 2015 at 11:53 am #

            Genetic engineering is not evidence against Evolution. It just bypasses evolution.

          • ricotorpe July 14, 2015 at 7:57 am #

            What you said is that genetic engineering as meaning “100% of the cases aren’t satisfied.”

            Consider this: if a prediction a theory makes is wrong, the theory is wrong, and must be either discarded or modified.

          • Jason Hall July 14, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

            No, that’s not how a theory works. If a theory is right most of the time, can be tested with scientific principles, and the results can be reproduced, then it is valid. There are cases where evolution does fail, which is why it will never be the law of evolution. Doesn’t make it wrong.

          • ricotorpe July 14, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

            Where does evolution fail?

          • Jason Hall July 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm #

            The fittest don’t always survive. The weakest sometimes produce the most children. It’s not an exact science.

          • ricotorpe July 17, 2015 at 3:49 am #

            Evolution does not claim, “the fittest always survive.” Your next two sentences suggest that that you may not have studied evolution beyond a superficial level.

          • Jason Hall July 17, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

            “Evolution does not claim, “the fittest always survive.” Your next two
            sentences suggest that that you may not have studied evolution beyond a
            superficial level.”

            You sound like you have never studied evolution.

          • ricotorpe July 17, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

            You wrongly think that it claims “the fittest always survive.” It does not make this claim.

          • Jason Hall July 19, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

            Its a general statement.

          • ricotorpe July 21, 2015 at 2:11 am #

            It is a general statement that the theory does not make.

          • Jason Hall July 21, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

            It does make it. You have never studied Evolution clearly. That’s the entire principle behind evolution. Those who are the least fit to survive environment are the least likely to pass on their genes. AKA survival of the fittest.

          • ricotorpe July 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

            It does not say that the fittest *always* survive. The fittest *tend* to survive, not always.

          • Jason Hall July 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

            You missed the point completely.

          • ricotorpe July 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

            Exactly what did I miss?

          • Jason Hall July 23, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

            The original statement was that Evolution is not always true, which is why it is the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution. The known rules are always evolving to fit the observed models. As more scientific data is gathered, more studies are presented, and more information is learned, new hypothesis are presented in order to support the theory. These are presented in Scientific Studies and either are generally accepted or not.

            Now, in my mind, evolution breaks up into two divisions. Natural and unnatural evolution. Natural evolution is everything that occurs in nature. Unnatural evolution are basically designer organisms that would never naturally occur in nature but exist nonetheless. Unnatural evolution doesn’t generally follow the same paradigm an natural evolution and the rules really haven’t been written to cover those dynamics as its ad-hoc and changing relatively quickly.

          • Really? July 29, 2015 at 2:17 am #

            I know I shouldn’t get into this, but I will try. In science, there are three basic terms that deal with scientific ideas.

            The first is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a hypothetical thesis. It is like saying, “I think that phytoplankton will grow more vigorously if nitrogen is added to the water.”

            Now, in oder to deal with that, you have to set up scientific experiments.

            Now, let us consider theories. A Theory in science means that it has passed through the hypothesis stage, has been confirmed as far as is scientifically possible, and is therefore accepted as scientific fact. Now, there might be elements of that theory that might be disputed, but the theory itself does not fall apart just because one bit of it is being debated.

            So, evolution is a theory, and just because elements of it may fall out differently than they were first iterated does not mean the whole thing is useless.

            Survival of the fittest does not always mean the strongest. What it means is that the organism that is most likely to be able to survive in that environment is most likely to survive .

            Scientific Law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with theory. Scientific law means that we have measured something, and understand how to make equations about what it does, but that in no way means we understand the thing we are measuring.

            For instance, we have the laws of gravity. We know what gravity does under various circumstances. We can measure it in lots of different ways. We can figure out how bodies react to it, for the most part, but if you asked a scientist to explain gravity itself to you, they would only be able to talk about it in terms of measurement. What it is in and of itself, we don’t really know. Gravity is, in fact, a poorly understood force despite our ability to quantify it with laws.

            So, theory is the highest form of ‘truth’ a scientist can rise to. Laws are something completely different, and when scientists are uncertain about their ideas, they call those ideas hypotheses.

          • Jason Hall July 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm #

            Dude, I know the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a law. You wasted a lot of typing strokes.

          • Really? July 30, 2015 at 2:27 am #

            Not the way you were talking about it, you didn’t.

          • Jason Hall July 30, 2015 at 12:19 pm #

            Yes I do. I’m a scientist.

          • Jason Hall July 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

            I should be more concise. Evolution describes what happens in nature.
            Genetic Engineering isn’t natural. Therefore, genetic engineering doesn’t disprove evolution.

      • dxx June 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

        The rest of what I stated is still valid points and DO need to be addressed. Man is causing problems on Earth that we need to correct however no one should get rich off of it. We as humans need to learn how to extend the life of items and try to not throw them away as soon as they break.

        • Jason Hall July 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

          If you burn paper, turn it into mulch, put it in a garden, does a tomato not grow?

    • Mollie Norris June 21, 2015 at 3:39 am #

      China’s air pollution is a big problem. Japan’s Ibuki GOSAT (greenhouse gas observing satellite) showed in 2009 that most CO2 was emitted from oceans, equatorial regions, northern Africa, sparsely populated areas. China and NE Asia. Around 3% of the .04% CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans, and not by the US.

    • John Byde June 22, 2015 at 8:26 am #

      Good idea. Let’s close down all of Chinese industry and let the Chinese starve to death. Not going to happen.

      • dxx June 26, 2015 at 12:35 pm #

        We are not responsible for what happens there. And besides they are a communist country the government wont let them starve any more than they are already. Besides all those factories over there are polluting the land over there and causing their people to get sick.

    • Korban Gell July 8, 2015 at 9:20 am #

      I have to agree with you too, I don’t know exactly every little piece of information but I know enough. I’m having trouble figuring out what is actually a truth or a lie to be honest.

      First of all, these so called “Chinese factories” are called sweatshops. They’re in effect because you American consumers import all your products from poorer countries and wave away every allegation of child/slave labor and rights violations.

      Secondly, Global Warming is a much much much bigger issue than deforestation. We’re talking about mass flooding, animals which can kill migrating to our climates because all of a sudden they can survive where they couldn’t before, we’re talking about heat waves and droughts like you have never seen before. You’re worried about trees? I can agree that deforestation is a massive topic and I do agree it needs to be focused on too.

      Also trees produce CO2, when they are left for long times and forest fires occur, that’s also a major risk of global warming. I probably shouldn’t have commented, everybody just points fingers and I feel like a sheep because I am just passing on basic information that I got from somebody, who got that info from somebody else and it goes on and on. 🙂

  8. warrantone June 16, 2015 at 3:40 am #

    Scientists cannot accurately predict weather out more that a few days so why would anyone think they have proven that climate change is man-made, especially when climate change has occurred naturally for the history of the earth? Temperature records don’t prove anything. There is a lot of money to be made on this and huge leverage by big government control freaks who can use this to dictate every aspect of your life so I am suspicious. The facts aren’t convincing at all. Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn’t really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming. In any case precisely what causes climate to change is a guess – there are just too many variables. That being the case, the 31000 people who signed a petition saying it was a hoax are just as credible as those who signed any other petition. Fact is, no one knows why, its always been changing, and there is no evidence that this happened because I drove my car to work. To those who continue to buy into this, how do you explain the authors other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc? When I was in college the big scare was about the sun dieing and another period of extreme cold. Maybe we should start worrying about that when we are done worrying about this.

    • Bryce Banner July 23, 2015 at 12:03 am #

      Arguing (especially on the internet) usually leads to attitude polarization and ad hominem attacks, but I do want to help you with one thing. Weather is the the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. This changes (drastically) over extremely short periods of time (minutes and hours). Climate is the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. We often break these periods down into millions or at the shortest thousands of years. I’m studying climatology at ISU and I won’t argue with you anymore if you simply get the definitions of those two words correct.

      If you did use the words correctly (prose is difficult to decipher). Your first sentence is a simple straw man fallacy.

      • sobmaz September 25, 2015 at 3:34 pm #

        I think you may need to break this down further. Remember, these people don’t have any sort of mental capacity.

        • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

          You really shouldn’t put yourself down like that sobmaz

          • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:38 am #

            Yeah you dick

          • sobmaz November 6, 2015 at 5:21 am #

            Well sorry if the truth hurts but you are the party that champions the “A WARLOCK MADE THE UNIVERSE IN 7 DAYS”, theory.

            This Warlock made the rainbows, the moon and the parisites that burrow into the eyes of children, lay eggs and cause blindness in weeks.

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            . . . . and this is the kind of person who supports the theory of global warming. Whatever it is you are talking about, your poor grasp of reality, science, religion, history, and most of all Stephen, is evident.

        • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:30 am #

          That’s the problem with people like sobmaz. Their heads have been up their own ass so long that their arrogance prevents them from seeing things for what they are. They’ve been conditioned to accept something that doesn’t exist and they’ll defend their ignorance to the end rather than admit they’ve been fooled. It’s impossible for them to look at the situation with an open mind and come to a sensible conclusion. So they resort to being condescending pricks with a false sense of superiority.

          • sobmaz November 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

            Sorry buddy. I verify anything and everything before I commit to fact. I read both liberal and conservative views on an issue then find out the fact for myself.

            Time and time again I find liberal media exaggerates the truth and sometimes they make mistakes and recant later. While time after time I find the conservative media actually lies frequently, exaggerates the truth and sometimes makes mistakes and recant later.

          • CS November 7, 2015 at 12:11 am #

            Sobmaz, you’ve got it backwards. Nutcase!

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

            In fact you know nothing except what you read in the authoritarian leftie controlled MSM. There is too much money in this for the liberal left to retract any of their lies and they don’t. Instead, they just dig their heels in further. You are the perfect example. You will never give up on the lie of man made climate change because there is too much riding on it for big government socialists. Never.

      • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 3:51 pm #

        I’m perfectly aware of the difference between weather and climate and no, my first sentence is not a straw man fallacy. Bottom line is that some but not all scientists, encouraged by funding from a liberal administration, claim they can concretely explain man’s effect on the climate and they can’t. However the administration is more than willing to use this unproven theory to advance their position and destroy that of others. This administration is known for this. Why would climate change be any different?

    • Mar1972 August 27, 2015 at 3:58 am #

      And yet when the meteorologists predicted bad weather we take precautions

    • luke September 2, 2015 at 12:47 am #

      You should have paid more attention to facts when you in school. Your arguments aren’t scientific and don’t merit a reply. But I will respond to one thing you stated. You seem to concede that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps some of the heat radiating back into space and helps to keep the surface warmer. As we all know, automobile exhaust is one the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. Samples of atmospheric gases have been routinely taken since 1958 at a scientific research station on Mauna Loa, Hawaii (you should check it out: There is no doubt that CO2 is increasing (wherever it’s coming from). Why not take steps to limit the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from the sources that we know about? What really makes me laugh about arguments like yours is failing to understand that global warming refers to the entire globe and not just what happens in the U.S. While we might have a hard winter in the U.S. in one particular year, other countries around the world (like Australia) are burning up. The key term to remember is that it’s the AVERAGE that’s taken of all the temperatures around the world. And there’s a zigzag pattern to the numbers; it’s not a straight line but the overall trend is upwards.

    • Whatever September 4, 2015 at 8:19 am #

      There’s also the fact that there’s trillions of dollars being poured into GW research and people get truckload after truckload of praise and money heaped upon them for supporting GW and the media of the entire world on board, but nowhere near as much research going into anti-GW, and anyone who disagrees is lumped in with New Age freaks and Wiccans and is targeted for the usual liberal style of vicious mockery as these comments prove. Gee, I wonder why everyone agrees GW is happening….

      • A.Haukjem October 13, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

        From where do you get several trillions? I would like to see some sources

      • Mistrix October 17, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

        Shell oil is the richest company on earth! Anyone who disagrees with global warming is either paid by an oil company, or buys into these bogus articles written to make people doubt the truth.

        What study should be done to disprove global warming?? They just DO studies and then the results point to global warming.

        • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 12:48 am #

          Eye-popping ignorance, Mistrix

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 3:06 am #

            How exactly? Please specifically tell me what is ignorant about what i said and enlighten me.

          • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 3:52 am #

            Gladly, Mistrix. “Paid by an oil company?” That’s pretty ignorant. Bogus articles. Name me two climatologists in the western hemisphere who believe that the earth is still warming and that man ever caused it. Fact is, the world’s leading climatologists routinely debunk global warming but the left-wing media never refers to them. Global warming is the “truth.” That’s blatant ignorance, Matrix.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 4:42 am #

            Here is an article explaining specifically how they do it, why, how much money they spent, etc.

            Here are several whole groups of climate scientists that think global warming is man made.
            There is tons of evidence to support global warming and none to show it isn’t.

            Do you have any evidence for your claims?
            Or is that just your opinion?

            I know personally i don’t even need to read articles for or against it. It is common sense that releasing chemicals into the air changes things. Where do you propose all of the greenhouse gasses go? Do the climate denyers have any evidence that greenhouse gasses dont cause the planet to warm up? I can see with my own eyes a huge brown cloud over denver every day. I’ve seen it as long as I’ve lived here which is like 25 years. It would be illogical to think that doesn’t change anything. How could it not? Please explain it to me.

          • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 4:29 pm #

            Wow, Mistrix, monies accumulated to combat the biggest hoax in mankind’s history. What a conspiracy! Evidence greenhouse gases don’t cause the planet to warm up? Prove a negative? There is NO common sense whatsoever in your thinking. The earth went through much worse forces than man can cause long before man showed up on the planet. There hasn’t been any warming since 1998. That’s why the hoaxers have changed their theme from global warming to climate change. The data that provides evidence that man is causing global warming was manipulated. There are e-mails that prove this. All I can say is you and the others are wrong, you’ve been brainwashed. The main definition of ignorance is a lack of accurate information, not a lack of brainpower. I did not mean to insult you in my first post to you. I would suggest you look up Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He is western hemisphere’s leading climatologist and he will set your mind free. He’ll tell you that a few years back, the temperature hit zero in Huntsville on Dec. 7 and 8. Check out Huntsville’s latitude and I’m sure you know, Dec. 7-8 is two weeks before winter even begins. That’s not warming, Mistrix. May God Bless you — and may you find the truth.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

            Here’s a report that shows all of the money oil has dumped into denying climate change. They are copying what big tobacco did. You think it’s not possible for a company to hurt people to make money? Why do you defend them? What if you are wrong and your children have no planet to live on? Isn’t that at least worth looking into?


            You seem like an intelligent thoughtful person. I bet you like to know all of the information before you form an opinion. I know i do! Here is a bunch of leaked exxon documents proving they knew they were going to warm the planet and they planned to lie about it.


            Do you think it is possible there are some people out there that are so greedy they could lie and hurt people to make money?

          • fjorsk October 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

            flawless victory

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            You’re right, he wins the sheeple trophy as top ignoramus. Well done.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

            One place haveing a record low does not mean the planet is not warming up overall. That’s silly logic!

            Well there are more greenhouse gasses now than ever before. Or do you deny that?
            Greenhouse gasses do warm the planet. Or do you deny that? What exactly do you think is wrong with that science? Explain how all of the extra co2 doesnt change anything? Where do all of the gasses go? I can tell you have studied this a lot so please explain it to me. Thanks.

          • edjweaver October 18, 2015 at 7:24 pm #

            It’s not logic at all, Mistrix, it’s anecdotal. I mentioned it to see if you’d zero in on it instead of Dr. Spencer himself. You did. And the amount of warming of which you speak is and always has been miniscule. It’s NOT killing people. And as I pointed out earlier, there’s been no widespread warming in 17 years. You simply ignore such facts; why, I don’t know. Back in the mid-80s, Mistrix, the World Health Organization, in a vast study it conducted itself, determined that unless a person has pre-existing respiratory problems, second-hand smoke is of NO health hazard. The WHO sat on the report, though many in the media know of it. Just because the WHO did this doesn’t mean smoking isn’t extremely harmful and just because the oil companies discounted man-caused global warming data doesn’t mean that man is causing global warming. And I hope the oil companies drill EVERYWHERE. Fact is, Mistrix, whether or not you and the others like it, the free flow of oil at market prices is the biggest factor in a decent economy world wide. FACT. May the truth be upon you.

          • Mistrix October 18, 2015 at 8:16 pm #

            You ignored all of my direct questions.

            Fact: sea levels are rising
            Fact: green house gasses cause warming
            Fact: human activity increases greenhouse gasses
            Fact: the ocean is warming
            Fact: ice is melting
            Fact: oil companies are documented to spend millions on campaigns that lie about global warming.

            If you can prove any of my facts are wrong please link me documents proving it. Quit dancing around my direct questions and quit using “anecdotal” illogical evidence to refute facts. One person aka doctor spensor saying it isnt happening is rediculous when a compilement of climate studies and polling of climate scientists says 97% agree that the planet is warming due to human activity. Your arguments don’t use math, studies or anything substancial to disprove the planet is warming. They only point out that some predictions were off, which isn’t really surprising. People aren’t perfect. Scientists can only make educated guesses. They aren’t psychics!! That doesn’t change that there is tons of evidence and consensus right NOW that points to global warming. On average the whole planet is warmer. Cherry picking certain spots on the planet and saying “these places were colder so global warming isnt happening” is sticking your head in the sand.

          • Jean Bush October 24, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

            The article above has links proving you’re wrong. Guess you didn’t bother to read them since they contradict your assertions. And, my dear, where are YOUR links proving you’re right?????? You need to refute with links and facts the 10 points in this article instead of mindless hollering.

          • Mistrix October 24, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

            I suppose the problem here is that you could link articles proving the planet is not warming due to human activity and i could link articles proving it is. So then the problem becomes how do you find the truth amongst all of the lies and manipulations? Can you explain that to me?

          • Jean Bush October 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

            A very excellent question, but science facts don’t lie. You’ll have to educate yourself about climate in order to sort through the rubble. You must understand the role CO2 plays in climate thoughout history. You must ask how did the Medieval Warm Period take place (900-1300AD) without man’s current industry and what brought on the Little Ice Age. You must understand the climate cycles throughout Earth’s history and whether we are entering another natural cycle now. You have to understand that the sun is the main driver of the climate and what role sunspots play in it.

            In any debate, ask yourself cue bono: who benefits??

            Follow the $$$.



          • Mistrix October 26, 2015 at 11:06 pm #

            Yes co2 fluctuates throughout history. Still doesn’t change the fact we are increasing it from what it would be naturally.

            Yes people make money from green energy. Doesnt change the fact that the oil companies make the most money of any company on the planet. So follow the money goes both ways. Oil companies have a record of spills, explosions, bad safety procedures, dumping toxic chemicals to make spills sink rather than cleaning it up, getting tons of money fron tax payers in subsidies. They have proven that they have little concern for the environment and for the health of people.

            I don’t get why people defend them constantly instead of demanding they treat us with respect. It’s like an abused spouse defending thier abuser. Making excuses.

          • Thoth October 28, 2015 at 10:42 pm #

            No one else will just come out and say it. But I will. You are a clueless moron. When presented with facts you continue to spout the same rhetoric. Just bow out now while you still have a decent shred of dignity left. You have been proven wrong. Accept it and walk away.

          • Bryan December 16, 2015 at 7:14 am #

            I couldn’t agree more! Reading the comments it is quite clear Mistrix has bought every bit of propaganda they’ve been sold. Regurgitating all of the lies and denying all of the basic facts calling out bullshit.

            It is clear by comments like:
            “..the oil companies make the most money of any company on the planet.”
            That Mistrix is just a typical liberal tool, who deep down just hates capitalism and follows the green movement as a religion to destroy it.

            Why else would Mistrix keep demonizing the oil industry and equate their profits to making them evil? You know, rather than equating their profits to the fact they provide the worlds most valuable commodity?

            Like Mistrix, ALL green movement fanatics deep down are just anti-capitalists. They are now 100% part of a full blown cult who worship Mother Earth like a bunch of pagans and demonize man-kind for a feeling of unearned moral superiority their low self-esteems crave.

          • Rick Tucker December 22, 2015 at 11:54 pm #

            So much for this being an issue of science and not politics. Maybe she demonizes them because it’s true they’ve given millions to denialist groups. Exxon basically founded heartland, or the friends of science. These arent myths. “From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil
            Foundation were “heavily involved” in funding climate change denial
            Mistrix is right, she just hasn’t provided enough sources and data.

            I thought this was common knowledge, it’s pretty amazing you didn’t know this. But it doesn’t matter at this point. No one believes the denialists anymore, almost 200 countries signed the paris deal and we may actually be moving towards renewable energy. I don’t think anyone can deny that clean renewable energy is worse than coal.

          • Bryan February 2, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

            So the fact they’ve given millions to “denialist groups”.. that makes them worthy of demonizing? What exactly are these “denialist groups denying” anyway? Global warming? Oh ya I forgot, NOW it’s called “climate change”. Which in the first place, is deceptive to assert that anyone denies in its actual definition- and is fucking moronic to assert man has anything to do with because that’s what “climate” does, always has done, and always will do – “change”! I thought it was common knowledge, It’s pretty amazing you didn’t know THIS.

            NO.. The “denialist groups” aren’t denying “climate change”. They are denying “ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE”. It’s funny how you green weasels always leave out the first part.

            What they ARE denying is:
            -The false assumptions that human produced CO2 is driving our climate, rather than the solar cycle.
            -The apocalyptic consequences due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The doomsday prophecies that have been made using COMPUTER GENERATED climate models, that have proven horribly inaccurate when compared with actual real world data. (It’s so sad how the poor little polar bears are all extinct now 🙁 and it’s tragic how the ice caps have completely vanished and how sea levels rose by 20ft drowning entire cities…)

            You see: They aren’t “denying”..
            Because “lie denying” is actually just called “truth telling”. Because in reality, NOTHING you scaremongering alarmists predict, is ever true! But you distract attention from this by constantly moving the goal posts and by changing data. Your narrative is crafted entirely by manipulating the facts to push an agenda using propaganda.

            Here’s the worst bullshit spewed, regurgitated over and over:

            “99% of scientists agree… The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community… The debate is over…”


            The most telling one of all is “the debate is over”.. Literally the MOST UNSCIENTIFIC statement you could ever make! The very essence of science is to question, everything is up for debate. Is the very reason science claims to reject religion is that to question and debate was forbidden and deniers were demonized as blasphemes?

            And your “99%” and “overwhelming majority of the scientific community” is ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT as well. This claim has been repeated constantly since it was first made which added a false credibility to it’s validity, causing it to be further repeated so much it’s become truth. When in fact it’s completely false.. A fucking lie. The “proof” backing these claims long ago exposed, nothing more than a bogus ass survey of 3,146 respondents, but based on a sub-set of only 79 of those responding scientists. Compare that instead with a petition signed by 31,487 scientists – 9,029 with PhDs – who deny the man-made climate change consensus.

            You demonize fossil fuel companies for funding “denialist groups”, when what they are denying are the lies that directly influence the serious threats to their entire industry. An industry that happens to be the very lifeblood of modern civilization, vital to American and western prosperity; as well as the continued development and very survival of hundreds of millions in poor countries.

            * I’M CURIOUS* …Do you apply the same demonization to others who happen to fund an industry they have a personal stake in and stand to profit off? You know, like..

            -if investors in renewable energy companies funded anthropogenic climate change groups (an EXACT parallel) what would you think of their motives? ‘Saving the planet’ I’m sure.

            -What about the Federal Government pouring MASSIVE AMOUNTS of funding and grants ALL aimed at reaching a desired conclusion? Millions and millions given to those who produce the results required to continue being bank rolled. Organizations, universities, and scientists whose careers rely on the money flowing in. You think a cent flows in to anyone who comes back and says “our research has found no proof of man-made climate change.. now can you give us millions more to further provide no proof”?

            -What about the Federal Government and individuals in the government pushing for legislation – backed by the findings they pour millions and millions in funding to find – that aims to make hydrocarbon emissions a far more profitable commodity than even fossil fuels? The same Federal Government and individuals in the government who will then stand to reap these profits. ‘Saving the planet’ I’m sure.

            (*And so you know: Wind and Solar power will NEVER put even a tiny dent on replacing fossil fuels with Renewable Energy to meet our current, nevermind our future energy needs. They produce minuscule amounts of unreliable energy they’re pretty much useless, and definitely not worth heavy investment into as a serious, viable source in the long run. The current REAL candidates as sources of green energy to replace fossil fuels are NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR, Hydro-Electric, Geo-Thermal, any I’m unaware of, and any yet to be discovered. Valuable resources currently invested into Wind and Solar are being wasted when they should be focused on developing these REAL alternative forms of energy.)

          • Rick Tucker February 2, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

            I noticed you point out the oregon petition which just proves you have no idea what you’re talking about and that you must not fact check anything. That was debunked almost a decade ago. Most of the names on the list aren’t verified which is why it has signatures from darth vader and the spice girls. The cover letter they released is written by Seitz, a chairman of George C Marshall institute. The same institute and man, were denying that smoking causes cancer, also it’s funded by exxon. Any attempt to verify the names on the list has proven it’s BS. “Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they
            still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher,
            two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
            evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did
            not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer
            repeated messages.” Since they don’t say how they know these signatures have phd’s, we can’t be sure that number is true. And of the PHD’s they claim to have only 38 are actually climatologists. They even used the same format as NAS trying to fake credibility. “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has
            nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the
            manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.”[30]
            It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert
            reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior
            published study had shown that “even given the considerable
            uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse
            warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.
            Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against
            the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”

            Now you were comparing this to the 97% which you think comes from one survey, it doesn’t. It comes from a few surveys and studies. The most popular one being a collection of every peer reviewed paper published on climate over 20 years.
            That’s about 14,000 papers. All of which you can check and verify for yourself.

            You keep saying the federal government is behind all this, despite there being no proof of ever wanting certain results (but i suppose exxon backed studies would never do that. right?). 2 reasons why this makes no sense. Why would the US want to kill of oil if it’s our countries biggest export? They’re going to get rich by killing of their best export? And if it’s the US government behind it, why are there over 200 international agencies that agree? Why would researchers in peru, zimbabwe, new zealand, falsify their data? You’d think at least one scientific organization in the world would find out they’re wrong. But there isn’t a single organization that actually does research in the entire world that denies climate change. Go ahead and find one.

            Even this article doesn’t get it’s claims right. 2014 was the hottest year, though not by a huge amount. 2015 however.
            “the average global surface temperature running 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 135-year average.” that’s a huge margin.
            “2015 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth, and it was not even close.”
            This is the problem i have with denier blogs like this. Nothing is fact checked and everything is only half true. It’s not 99% it’s 98 or 97%. Sea ice was up in 2014, but is down by alot in 2015, and sea ice doesn’t mean anything since it freezes and melts every season. Land ice however is miles deep and melting at a rate of 287 gigatons a year. the 18 years i always hear about does is only from satellite data (the hot pavement argument is ridiculous, they’ve done studies and checked that those weather stations are in line with reading from rural areas), so doesn’t include surface temp and it also starts at an unusually high el nino year of 98. The claim is that there’s been no warming in 18 years, yet 15 out of the 16 hottest years on record have been since 2000. Seems a little odd to me…

            It’s all cherry picked. Only sea ice, not land ice, citing the debunked oregon petition, 18 years using only one data set and a very convenient el nino year. Even this article is about the senate vote which passed 98-1 that climate change is real. And nearly every official voice on this is paid by oil. Do you see where my mistrust comes from. That’s why i fact check every claim i hear, and the story almost always changes when you hear all the details.

            As for solar. Germany seems to think it’s worth it. “This brings the country’s share of renewable electricity to about 31 percent, and in line with the official governmental goal of reaching 35 percent by the end of the decade.” That seems like more than a dent. China seems to think so too after investing in 400 solar companies and producing 43 GW. And to be clear i don’t think solar can replace fossil fuels, but it makes the transition to better renewables alot easier.

            So you trust an unverified list of scientists who may have never researched climate. I’ll trust a list of scientists who actively study the climate and has the papers they actually published. Have fun with your 0.1% of unverified climatologists on that list.

          • Rick Tucker February 3, 2016 at 12:11 am #

            Here’s a bit of background on that survey you mentioned.

            It was actually sent to 10,000. “in 2008 sent a simple survey with nine questions to more than 10,000
            experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological
            Institute’s directory of geoscience departments. They ended up getting responses from 3,146 scientists” So right there, you’re already cherrypicking the results.”The results? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent with the second.” That’s the results you get if you look at all the info. Now if you look at the climate scientists with over 10 published papers, then you get 77 out of 79. But if you look at all 3,000 it’s 82%. And like i said there are several other studies and papers confirming 97%.

          • Rick Tucker February 4, 2016 at 7:24 am #

            Did you look up the fact behind the oregon petition and realize it’s complete BS yet?

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            Petroleum power has done more to save and improve life than global warming hoaxers ever will. So this is about respect, not science?

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 6:07 am #

            I’ve said this many times on this thread but allow me to say it one more time, EXXON knew global warming would happen and paid people to spread lies that global warming was a hoax. Go read up on it.

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

            It’s time to switch to a more sustainable energy source. Sticking with something toxic out of respect is truely stupid. No offence.

          • warrantone November 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

            The point is that science exists to prove but it falls way short in this case which is more along the lines of a guess. In the meantime, global warming hoaxers are either suckers for the lies of the liberal left or are benefitting from the results of these lies which is bigger government and more control over literally everything that gave us an advanced society. That’s a lot to wager on an unproven theory.

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

            So people who believe the left are suckers and people who believe the right are just smart? Do you think it’s possible there is bullshit on both sides? How do you know that you aren’t the sucker? Exxon litterally pays millions to spread propaganda that global warming is a hoax perpetratex by the evil left. I know some green energy companies are making money, but don’t forget that oil companies are making billions destroying YOUR planet. At least the green energy companies aren’t making their money by destroying the home of your grandchildren. It’s time to ditch the old, dirty, poluting forms of energy and move forward to healthy clean energy.

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 7:35 pm #

            Are you a scientist? Just asking…

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 7:33 pm #

            Because everyone has their own agenda. You cannot rely on charts, or hearsay, or links to articles unless you happen to do the work yourself. Both sides could be lying to you to further their agenda and line their pockets. People might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He’s just as real as God. People believe in things long enough they will actually think they are real. News and media and everything else has pounded information into us, that we start to believe it. There will be no way anyone will know the real truth about Global warming until time passes and either nothing happens or we burn up or freeze.

          • Our Lord November 1, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

            you can give a link proving pretty much anything
            look the earth is flat

            The british royal family are all child molesters






            If you don’t belive ALL!!!!! of this then you are nothing more than brainless sheeple

          • Ronald November 3, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            Those facts prove totally nothing and are worthless in the argument of global warming. A time frame of several decades is too small for even considering conclusions. You seem to be blind for even the slightest warning signal:

            People changed the language from Global Warming into Climate Change. Does “New Speak” of George Orwell rings any bell?

          • Mistrix November 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

            We can argue that this scientist says one thing and that scientist says another all day. But there are the leaked documents proving exxon knew climate change would happen way back in 1977.

          • Joe November 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

            Explain to me one thing. Why does NOAA not use satalite data? I agree that we should focus on cleaner healthier forms of energy but to ignore specific data because it doesn’t fit a specific agenda is very misleading and proves that the leading agency in the global warming/climate change debate have a singular agenda and it’s not providing the public with accurate data. So what is their reason for ignoring satalite data?

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

            I looked them up and read that they do use satellite data. So I’m not sure what you are talking about. If you have a link i will go read it though.

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 12:02 am #

            Umm, they do use satellites…
            In fact, you can even use their satellites.
            “Q: Can I use NOAA satellite pictures on my web site, in books or other publications, educational materials, or on television?

            A: Yes, depending on where you get the pictures. If you get satellite
            pictures from a NOAA site, or generally any other U.S. Federal
            government site, these pictures are from NOAA. As such, they can be used
            if you give credit to NOAA as the source of the picture. No other fee
            or permission is needed other than a credit.”

            “Q: When do the NOAA satellites pass over my area?

            A: There are at least three web sites that interactively show the
            current location of the satellites, and what they are viewing. Try the

            JTrack site,

            in Germany, or the Earth Viewer”

            Q: I do research that requires NOAA satellite data. How do I obtain these data?

            A: Most users can get the data they require from the NOAA Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System
            (CLASS). The CLASS is an interactive search tool to find the data you
            need, and once the data sets have been retrieved, they can be downloaded
            from the CLASS ftp site. Small digital data sets are free.

            Q: Can I receive NOAA satellite data directly from the

            A: Yes. There are some satellite imagery services that can be received
            directly from the satellite using relatively simple, low-cost
            equipment. Many schools and private individuals are among those
            receiving data directly from the NOAA satellites. Consult our brief overview of the types of satellite direct readout data services. We also have a list of manufacturers of various types of receiving equipment used to receive NOAA satellite data.


            So not only do they use satellites, the data is publicly available, you can see what they see and get the data directly from the satellite. So what is your reason for ignoring facts and not checking your info.
            Seriously where do you get this shit?

          • denoferth December 5, 2015 at 11:30 pm #

            Wow, I’ve lost count, exactly how many conspiracy theories can you come up with to keep from listening to reason? You must feel there are be millions and millions of deniers bouncing FACTS off your wacky alarmist foreheads for you people to have so many flawed arguments. The Church of Al the Gorian must have really twisted your mind for you to be able to ignore so many basic chemistry truisms.

          • Mistrix December 7, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

            That was one long insult. Yawn…

          • Scott November 5, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

            You prove all of your listings. It’s all bullshit and not too deep down you know it is! Gotta go get a fire started, it’s getting cold in here on Thursday early November.

          • Mistrix November 6, 2015 at 3:19 am #

            Google “leaked documents exxon” and have a fun fest of reading about how even exxon knew that global warming would happen. They are trying to put together a lawsuit against exxon. The docs were leaked last month so there hasn’t been time yet. So deep down even exxon knew they were destroying the environment! Gotta remember exxon isnt here to keep us all safe and healthy, they are here to make money. Enjoy your fire!

          • Scott November 6, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

            Replace Exxon with government and that sentence would be more accurate.

          • Mistrix November 6, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

            The government is screwed up too. But it doesn’t change the fact that exxon knew.

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:34 pm #

            Even if all those were facts. The globe has always gone through cycles. One thing that every grad student learns in statistics is that one can not assume causality. Even if you could prove that there is a correlation between two events, you can not assume that one causes the other. We haven’t been collecting data long enough to prove a correlation and there have been changes in our methods mid-study.To jump to any conclusions thus far is unscientific.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:09 am #

            Yes the globe has always gone through cycles. That does not mean that it wouldnt be cooler right now without humans.

            So you propose that putting chemicals into the air and water changes nothing? Sounds illogical to me.

            There is plenty of evidence. So much that pretty much the entire climate scientist community agrees that climate change is real and man made.

          • will riker January 28, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

            So, you know that the earth has gone through cycles ever since there was no oxygen on the planet about 3.2 billion years ago? And since then has warmed, cooled, gone through ice ages and extremely hot periods, lost most of it’s oxygen, gained more CO2 and life has existed through all of it. “How do we, as humans, know that this isn’t part of one of those natural cycles?” All of the scientists in the world will all admit they still don’t know everything about the Earth.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:48 pm #

            Air (N2, O2, CO2, etc.) water (H2O) are chemicals.

          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:26 am #

            Yup. Good job.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

            “Fact: sea levels are rising”
            Yes, sea levels have been rising. But, they were rising long before Mannkind started adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere.

            55% of Global Mean Sea Level rise is natural.

            ”… we conclude that it is virtually certain (P = 0.99) that at least 45% of the observed increase in GMSL is of anthropogenic origin.”

            ”…an accurate description of naturally forced centennial trends with these time series8 is not possible.”

            Dangendorf, Sönke, et al. 2015 “Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise.” Nature communications


          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm #

            “Fact: green house gasses gases cause warming “
            In the laboratory… but, in the real world, there are other forces at work, and there is absolutely no proof that greenhouse gas increases have caused any warming since 1850. None. The only thing that shows supposed warming from CO2 is (highly flawed) computer models.

            The gases in Tyndall’s brass tube did not convect or advect, condense, or freeze. Clouds did not form in Tyndall’s tube, that reflected incoming sunlight. Tyndall’s tube had infrared going in, and infrared going out … In the earth system, shortwave sunlight comes down, causing heating … which is carried, in some portion, with infrared, on the way out. In the real world, much of earth’s heat is transported to the tropopause, not by infrared radiation, but by latent heat of water. This avoids the bulk of CO2 and even water vapour, which is concentrated below the tropopause.

          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:28 am #

            Great. Correct my spelling. You want a cookie?

          • Joseph Kool November 2, 2015 at 1:36 am #

            You may as well be talking to a wall. These people are convinced, nothing will change their mind. They believe everything they hear on tv. It’s their religion.

          • Michael Ellner November 19, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

            Think of it as mass self-hypnosis. Much of the public has been programmed to tune out or ignore anything and everything that exposes this scam.

          • The KING October 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

            Well, MY Nasa says the ice cap is growing and it’s the largest it’s ever been since satellites have been taking pictures of them. Eskimos must be using too much ICY HEAT.

          • Mistrix October 21, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

            If you actually read that site you linked it says this.
            “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,”

            While the antarctic is expanding the arctic is melting at a faster rate causing overall loss of arctic ice on a global level.

          • HonestAbe October 22, 2015 at 2:04 am #

            Dude, I’m so glad to see that you’re standing up to these clowns who think that global warming is fake.

            People like me give me hope for the future that things can be changed for the better! 😀

          • Mistrix October 22, 2015 at 6:05 am #

            Have to fight the corporate doubt/profit machine! And thanks, it’s nice to see other people out there who see what is going on and care about the future too! 🙂

          • Stephen Bowman October 22, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            There’s always a new excuse, I mean explanation.

            The Mantra of the world will soon become: You got some splaining to do Lucy.

          • Mistrix October 23, 2015 at 12:31 am #

            It must feel good to be so sure that we can polute the air and magically it changes nothing. Unfortunately the truth is pretty shitty. I’d rather be scared, confused, angry, unhappy and know the truth. If we can figure out the truth about things that are wrong then we can fix them. If i ignore truths that make me sad, disappointed, scared, hopeless, or taunted by those who disagree then I’m part of the problem, not the solution.

            I would gladly answer to the public about anything i feel passionately about. It is, after all, the public, and thier children and their children’s children that i am looking out for.

            Hopefully i am wrong and you are right. I will gladly congratulate you for outsmarting me if it means we arent destroying this place for future generations. But i seriously doubt it.

          • jordo756 November 2, 2015 at 12:51 am #

            Antarctic is not actually expanding just the floating ice caps

          • 85vintage November 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm #

            There is just too much you are missing this article. What did you do, stop reading it once you saw what you thought was your point? I am so frustrated that people can be so lazy that they can’t even read the full text of one article, especially when the said person is using the article to prove their point. Here is one excerpt from the article you referenced, ” A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research
            scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler
            air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the
            continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much
            additional ice extent to set a new record” (NASA, 2014). Here is another, “Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to
            more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea
            ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns,
            bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help
            grow more ice” (NASA, 2014). Seriously, read before you link. Another thing people fail to understand when referencing record ice growth in the Antarctic Sea is that a contributing factor is from melting ice on the other side of the Antarctic continent.

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 12:07 am #

            ugh, that was sea ice… not land ice. I won’t bother explaining why that disproves your whole point, look it up yourself. That’s besides the point that this was last year and sea ice is at one of the lowest points on record this year. Sea ice fluctuates every season, land ice does not. Oh, and you might want to read your own link.
            “The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the
            magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
            That’s in the first damn paragraph.

          • Jean Bush October 24, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            Explain this, please:

            The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Little
            Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval
            Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during
            which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of
            the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable
            to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century.
            This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from
            approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more
            moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice
            Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe
            during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic
            Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of
            the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al.,
            1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval
            Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe
            and parts of North America. Regional temperature patterns
            elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of
            anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and
            Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both
            cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated
            this period.

            During the late 900s, Eric the Red settled his people in GREENLAND; why was it GREEN? Because it was WARM and lush with plantlife. After 1300 the Vikings died out as the LIttle Ice Age took hold. Wow, I guess the Vikings left their SUVs running all day. And shame on them for letting their factories spew soot in the air. Hahaha! This warm period was much hotter then we are in now. Research it, dear. You’re 25 yrsold?? A babe in the woods.

          • Mistrix October 24, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            The planet does go through warming and cooling cycles. I’m not desputing that. There are facts that imply global warming is man made and there are facts that imply it is not. I choose to believe that it is man made because i do not see how pumping a bunch of chemicals into the air could possibly not change the atmosphere. It could be debated how much or little change this causes. But logically, it makes a change. Unfortunately we are simultaneously cutting down trees which are the natural air filters we have. So, we need to do something to negate the change our actions are causing or things are going to change more and more over time. Can you agree with that? Or does that sound untrue to you.

            I’m 36. Not sure why my age matters but I’m not 25.

          • Christina Long October 26, 2015 at 7:48 pm #

            Just out of curiosity do you drive a car or use hairspray? Quite frankly I believe all this “Climate Change” is political.
            God will do what he wants to His Earth, since He created it!!

          • Mistrix October 26, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

            I am not perfect but i do try to be conscious of how my actions effect everyone else.

            There’s no evidence for who or what created the earth. There is evidence that the things we do here change the earth. We are causing species to go extinct. Is that God’s will? Do you think it would make god happy that we polute and destroy this gift for money? That would make me feel hurt if i had made this place for my children and they trashed it. If you believe god made this place for us don’t you think we should cherish, protect and love it?

            An issue becoming political is a reflection of the fact that people are concerned and think change is the right thing to do. Those who would stand up for this place and defend it have to use politics as a way to make that change.

            It’s easy to say, god will fix it if he cares. Maybe god is watching to see if we can step up and do the right thing. I bet he would be proud if we made the changes to keep this place beautiful and healthy for future children.

          • Christina Long October 27, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            I live by Faith and not by fear. God gives us the mind to create wonderful things and to think for ourselves. Unless I see it with my own 2 eyes then I refuse to believe any article that anyone can write for their own agenda. Whether it be for monetary reasons or just for attention.

          • Mistrix October 27, 2015 at 4:11 am #

            I don’t know where you live but here in Denver i can see with my own eyes a brown cloud every day of polution.

            Why would you believe this article that someone could write for their own agenda and not the alternate opinion? That makes no sense.

            You have faith that god will take care of us and yet people do horrible things to eachother all the time. How is trashing the environment any different? Why would god step in for that but not care that in parts of the world children are slaves?

            Every article could be written by someone with an agenda. There are many things you believe that you have not personally seen. Why is global warming different? Why wouldn’t you read all the information on both sides and make a decision for yourself? All life on the planet is at stake. If you are wrong all of the children and animals could die. Which isn’t really scary so much as heartbreaking. Especially if we could have stopped it and chose not to because we had faith that god would save us when he clearly doesnt save everyone now. People suffer greatly here and god doesnt save them. We have to save them ourselves. To turn a blind eye to the suffering of others is frankly acting as satan if you ask me. What if someone was hurting you and i saw it and i said, meh god would save her? I dont understand how someone can believe in god and jesus and think it is ok to treat the world like garbage.

          • Christina Long October 27, 2015 at 5:57 am #

            One might ask why you would continue to live somewhere like that? However my trip to Denver to watch the Broncos play I didn’t see a brown cloud. I have been there 2xs this yr alone and no brown cloud. My husband is a huge Peyton Manning fan. Hated when he left Indianapolis since we live in Kentucky.

          • Mistrix October 27, 2015 at 12:43 pm #

            Seriously? You have to be just outside denver and you can see a big brown cloud. Seen it every day for 20 years. Maybe tomorrow ill take a pic and post it for you.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

            Me thinks the brown cloud is the stuff between your ears.

          • ThomasPaineJr December 19, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

            I believe in sound science.
            Point 1: Why do we assume that the current temperature is the ideal temperature?
            Point 2: How do you explain that most of North America was covered by an almost mile deep glacier during the last ice age and now we’re not?
            Point 3: How do you explain that CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher in the past and the planet wasn’t necessarily warmer than now?
            Point 4: Many scientists posit that warmer temps are actually a GOOD thing. More people die every year from cold weather conditions than from heat related reasons.
            Point 5: All predictions based on the “Global Warming” models have epically failed. There has been no warming in the last 18 years.

            Humans will adapt, we always have. And to believe that there will be catastrophic consequences based on CO2 emissions and that we have a prayer of controlling the temperature is just not scientifically sound.
            And why is this issue so partisan?

          • Rick Tucker December 19, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            I’ll just stick to a few points. Co2 hasn’t been higher in at least 850,000 years. In fact it’s doubled from any point since then in just the last 100 years.
            4. Cold weather is bad, but losing coastal cities, drought, wildfires, mass migration of wildlife. All of that is much worse. Higher temps are not a good thing. 200,000 lost the homes in malaysia due to sea level rise? How many lost their home because it got too cold?
            5, not true, 14 of the hottest years on record happened since 2000. Thousands of papers and studies have been accurate. You just don’t see them, you stick to sites like this that only post the ones with wrong predictions leaving out the other 999 papers. I keep hearing this 18 years, but it’s so blatantly untrue it’s ridiculous. And these hottest years are based on land temps, the ocean absorbs 90% of the earth heat.

          • ThomasPaineJr December 19, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            Cite your source for 200,000 losing their homes in Malaysia. If you’re referring to the tsunami, that is totally n/a. And there ABSOLUTELY has been an 18 year pause in warming. The temperature measuring stations are purposely placed near urban centers where temps are artificially inflated. You are not getting trillions of dollars of tax money “fix” something that will benefit the vast majority of humanity.

          • Rick Tucker December 20, 2015 at 6:15 am #


            More than 100,000 people have been forced from their homes, and Prime
            Minister Najib Razak has returned early from holiday in the US.
            That was last year.


            “The 2014–15 Malaysia floods affected Malaysia from 15 December 2014 – 3 January 2015. More than 200,000 people were affected while 21 were killed.[1] This flood have been described as the worst floods in decades.”

            That good enough?
            Vice also did some good coverage in their last climate change special on HBO. Sorry, i can’t find a link to that.

            They’ve done studies that show the location of temperature stations has no effect on the results.

            “However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating
            or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being
            located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for
            instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against
            those from more rural weather stations nearby.”


            And the other hottest year is 98.

            So no, there hasn’t been a pause. It is true that it has slowed and we are not really sure why yet. Most data points to the ocean retaining more heat as it is starting to penetrate deep ocean levels.

          • Rick Tucker December 20, 2015 at 6:18 am #

            Not sure if this is the episode where they goto malaysia, but informative nonetheless.


          • Rick Tucker December 22, 2015 at 11:38 pm #

            No response? Were those sources not good enough or were you just not aware of the issue.

            Oh, here’s another source that shows overall, IPCC predictions while not perfect, have been fairly accurate.



          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

            The little minions are learning how to manipulate data too. They are amusing!

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 3:22 am #

            Europe experienced some severe heat waves a few years ago, and more than 70,000 people died.

          • jtberger February 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm #

            All parts of the world have experienced “heat waves” that kill people for hundreds of years. Your statement is typical of the climate change crowd…. citing various weather extremes as proof of climate change. Nobody seems able to supply us with VERIFIABLE DATA. Just unverifiable conjecture and supposition. Ignorance and arrogance seems to be their main stock in trade. See my post above. … real verifiable data for perusal …. NOT ONE record high in the 3 summmer months for the past 8 years. Truly amazing. Could it be that co2 is an agent providing climate stability rather than pushing the extremes as we are often told. ?????

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:24 pm #

            Cold-related death, 4.2%; heat-related death, 3.0%. Cold is worse, and the effect takes longer.

            “Heat-related mortality was most associated with a shorter lag (average of same day and previous day), with an overall increase of 3.0% (95% posterior interval: 2.4%–3.6%) in mortality risk comparing the 99th and 90th percentile temperatures for the community. Cold-related mortality was most associated with a longer lag (average of current day up to 25 days previous), with a 4.2% (3.2%–5.3%) increase in risk comparing the first and 10th percentile temperatures for the community.”

            Anderson, Brooke G., and Michelle L. Bell. 2009 “Weather-related mortality: how heat, cold, and heat waves affect mortality in the United States.” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)


            ”More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.”


            “Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold.”

            Gasparrini, Antonio, et al. 2015 “Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study.” The Lancet


            “This paper assesses the major impacts on human lives and the economy of the United States resulting from weather events attributed to El Niño 1997-98. Southern states and California were plagued by storms, whereas the northern half of the nation experienced much above normal cold season temperatures and below normal precipitation and snowfall. Losses included 189 lives, many due to tornadoes, and the major economic losses were property and crop damages from storms, loss of business by the recreation industry and by snow removal equipment/supplies manufacturers and sales firms, and government relief costs. Benefits included an estimated saving of 850 lives because of the lack of bad winter weather. Areas of major economic benefits (primarily in the nation’s northern sections) included major reductions in expenditures (and costs) for natural gas and heating oil, record seasonal sales of retail products and homes, lack of spring flood damages, record construction levels, and savings in highway-based and airline transportation. Further, the nation experienced no losses from major Atlantic hurricanes. The net economic effect was surprisingly positive and less government relief was needed than in prior winters without El Niño influences. The estimated direct losses nationally were about $4 billion and the benefits were approximately $19 billion.”

            Changnon, Stanley A. 1999 “Impacts of 1997-98 El Niño generated weather in the United States.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

          • jtberger February 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm #

            Temperature records from Regina Saskatchewan.
            133 years divided by 2 = 66
            I then selected Jan 1, 1950 as the mid point.
            During that period we had 192 record highs before 1950 and 174 record highs after 1949. On average the hottest month by far is July. We had 28 record highs before 1950 and only 3 record highs after 1949. Looking at the 3 hottest months… June July and August . in the past 25 years we have had only 6 record highs during those 3 months with none of them happening in the past 8 years.
            Looking at record lows… we have had 257 record lows before 1950 and only 109 record lows after 1949. It is abundantly clear that we have warmer winters and cooler summers…and our crops have never been better. Whatever minor “climate changes” that might have occurred in the past 66 years have been entirely beneficial. It is also reasonable to assume that the above temperature records would also apply to an area within 2 or 300 miles in all directions from Regina. The supposition that Southern Sask. is an island of climate stability in a world wide ocean of climate upheaval is most unlikely.
            It appears that most of the “hot air” we are witnessing comes from the mouths of the unfounded and quasi religious ” beliefs” of the climate change crowd. Man made climate change appears to be the hoax of the 21st century.

          • Rick Tucker February 14, 2016 at 1:20 am #

            Ok, I don’t see why dividing 133 proves. And are these just the temperatures for saskatchewan? How does that prove anything? The temperature for the world as a whole has gone up, 14 of the 15 hottest years have been since 2000 with 2015 being the hottest by a wide margin. Now what does regina do to disprove that? ” It is also reasonable to assume that the above temperature records
            would also apply to an area within 2 or 300 miles in all directions from
            Regina.” The world is much bigger than one sask. 2 to 300 miles? Really accurate there, but it doesn’t matter whats happening in one place doesn’t reflect what’s happening everywhere.

            “Whatever minor “climate changes” that might have occurred in the past 66 years have been entirely beneficial.” Tell that to the 200,000 people in malaysia that lost their homes due to floods, or the dozens of floods across the US due to increased rainfall or the droughts (that’s not a contradiction the predictions have always said dry areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.) in cali and texas. The only place benefitting from climate change is greenland because so much of the glacier has melted they can farm now.


            And i think your idea of “most” is very far off.
            “The results indicate that climate change may not be the net positive to
            plants that some prior research has suggested. If humans allow global
            warming to go on unmitigated under a business-as-usual scenario, the
            Earth could lose a significant number of suitable growing days per year
            by the end of the century. And that’s bad news for people as well as
            plants, with the potential for widespread food shortages and economic
            “That said, the findings do indicate that some parts of the world,
            particularly areas of Russia, China and Canada, will gain suitable
            growing days throughout the year. However, it turns out the rest of the
            world won’t be quite so lucky”
            “Warming at high latitudes may be good, but the same warming in the
            tropics can be devastating,” says Mora. This is because even plants have
            a limit on the amount of heat they can endure.”
            Small benefits don’t offset the problems.

          • jtberger February 14, 2016 at 1:43 am #

            Oh Dear..
            I compared the last 66 years with the preceding 67 years.
            I have given yu verifiable data.
            NOTHING you have reported is verifiable. What you describe has happened many many times in the past all over the world. Every time some big rain … or some big drought or some big wind occurs … every body starts jumping up and down citing every unusual change in the weather as PROOF of climate change. Can you assure me that there has never been a comparable flood in Malaysia in the past 150 years NO NO NO.
            You sound like some young guy who has never seen big changes in the weather
            How are your beliefs in climate change any different from other peoples belief in any of the worlds religions .
            You haven’t offered the slighteest proof that the last 15 years were warmer than 50 or a hundred years ago.
            I really don’t know why i am replying to you … coz you will believe anythng you want to believe. …without the slightest proof. I have offered verifiable proof that the past 25 summeres in Regina are among the coolest on record…. with the past 8 summers no having one single record high.

          • Rick Tucker February 14, 2016 at 5:21 am #

            you know you can check what i say yourself. I don’t know why you think regina reflects the entire planet. I’m glad your summers haven’t been that hot, but its not so for the rest of the world. “Did this summer feel hotter than usual? It turned out to be the earth’s hottest on record.”
            But doesn’t seem like it’s been that cool where you are either.
            Both southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba saw “absolutely record shattering heat”
            All 10 of your record highs have happened in the last 60 years.
            Your hottest day was 13 August 2015
            Youre highest heat index, maximum, minimum have all been since 2014.
            Monday, Oct. 20, 2014 will go down in history as the hottest Oct. 20 Saskatoon has ever seen in recorded history. The record breaking heat was felt province-wide with over 30 high temperature records shattered.”

            Also, I’m pretty sure you’re lying.
            “The historic heat spanned the entirety of central and southern parts of Saskatchewan with all major cities making their way into the history books.
            In some cases, records from 76 years ago were shattered. This included Regina and Scott, Sask.
            Over 30 records were also broken in Alberta.”
            Now that was 2014. “in the past 25 years we have had only 6 record highs during those 3 months with none of them happening in the past 8 years. ” But i thought no records were broken in 8 years? Hmm… strange, i thought you said i could verify your statements?

            But none of that matters because that’s just one area.

            “At least 21 people died in the floods, which forced 200,000 people to
            evacuate their homes. According to the Malaysian Government, as of 2
            January, almost 85,000 remained in shelters.”
            “Malaysia’s National Security Council (NSC) said that the recent floods
            in Kelantan were the worst recorded in the history of the state. River
            levels in December 2014 exceeded those of recent record floods of 2004
            and 1967.”
            Why can’t i prove the flooding in malaysia is one of the worst in history? Malaysia seems to think it was.

            “You haven’t offered the slighteest proof that the last 15 years were warmer than 50 or a hundred years ago.”
            “With 2014 in the record books, this means that 13 of the 15 hottest
            years on record have all occurred since 2000. Also, this marks the 38th
            consecutive year with global temperatures above average.” And 2015 now makes it 14.
            Is that verifiable enough?
            It is undeniably hotter than it was 50 years ago.

            Also, these aren’t just big storms, they are the biggest storms. “On October 23, 2015, Hurricane Patricia attained the strongest 1-minute sustained winds on record at 215 mph
            Haiyan is also the strongest storm recorded at landfall. As of January 2014”

            So there, every claim i made has a source which you can check yourself. Maybe you should do the same because I’ve already found some of your claims to not be true. Next time you might want to look up what i say instead of just assuming I’m wrong. And my beliefs are different because they are based on facts, numbers, records and scientists. Please don’t get into an argument over beliefs when the facts speak for themselves.

          • jtberger February 14, 2016 at 8:55 pm #

            I give up
            Trying to get a meaningful statement from you is impossible.
            You cite a few worthless newpaper clippings. many of which are totally ridiculous….irrelevant or extraneous to the discussion at hand. You cite a few localized weather extremes and then translate them into conclusions about climate. That is the single biggest problem with the climate change crowd…. they cannot seem to differentiate weather from climate. I am giving you information going back 133 years. You have not disproved one single item. If you want to quote other places you should go back at least 100 years.
            One of your quotes the university of Regina… with records going back to Oct.1 2012… a whole 3 years . such information while interesting as a recent weather observation is 100% useless in examining climate change.
            Weather variations all over the world will produce records of every kind every year … somewhere.
            Such local variations are totally unrelated to climate change.
            I find such analytical errors to border on the incomprehensible. … in much the same class as the ISIS Moslems.
            Not one single verifiable item you presented has anything to do with climate…. except a couple like 2014 was the hottest year on record…. which cannot be verified.
            Give me the 120 year records of one single city in North America that proves your point.
            I will ask you one more time…. tell me where in Canada south of 60 N. Lat. that has suffered the detrimental effects of climate change ????????????????????????????????????????????

          • Rick Tucker February 14, 2016 at 5:45 am #

            The more i look the more i found wrong with your statements.
            Record highs were set in these five Saskatchewan communities on Monday, plus another 10.


            This all seems pretty odd since this doesn’t seem to be in line with your “verifiable” data.

            Also, when did you provide verifiable proof? Because there is no link or source for any of your info. Do you know what verifiable means, because there is absolutely nothing that you said that verified any of it.

          • jtberger February 14, 2016 at 7:57 am #

            Oh dear… more non sequiturs
            If you read my posts you will see that what i have posted ends dec. 31, 2015. There have been several record highs in the past 8 years… just none in the 3 summer months.
            if you wish to verify the data just google the REgina weather records. and you can print all the record highs and record lows for the past 133 years.
            Read it again… ..
            we have warmer winters and cooler summers. All such minor changes have been very beneficial. Can you tell me where in Canada has anyone suffered from climate change in the past 50 years …. south of 60 N latitude.

          • Rick Tucker February 15, 2016 at 12:32 am #

            So when you say something i should google and verifiy it myself, but when i say something you immediately assume I’m wrong and say it’s unverified.
            If you haven’t noticed canada is pretty cold so of course a warming climate isn’t immediately bad for you just like greenland. But regina is not the entire world and i don’t know why you keep ignoring the rest of the globe. And for some reason only the summer records matter, there are 9 other months in the year. Climate change doesn’t only count during the summer. You even say your winters are warmer, why doesn’t that tell you anything. A warm winter is good for you, it’s not good in arizona, or texas or california where they are experiencing the worst droubt in 500 years ( a conservative number) and the worst the US has ever seen.
            Of course you can disprove anything if you only use look at 1/10th of the issue.

            If you’re going to call me out for being unverified at least take the time to show your sources as i have. post the link, it’s not hard. Now that i proved i was right, you completely ignore all the points i made. Do you believe me now about the 15 hottest years?

            But you are still experiencing the changes. “Overall, Canada’s average temperature from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 was up 1.3
            degrees Celsius from the historic average measured over the last 68

            “However that national average hides some massive regional
            temperature swings, including record-breaking averages across British Columbia and Yukon, the third warmest year on record for the southern Prairies and the fifth warmest for the Mackenzie delta in the Northwest Territories.”
            “There were only two areas in the world that were actually cooler than
            normal,” in NOAA data sets late last fall, said the climatologist.
            So yes, you’re lucky, but it wont be beneficial forever. “That was followed by the warmest fall on record in much of central
            Canada, as it finally caught up with the western half of the country.”
            “Phillips said Canada overall has been warmer than normal for 19
            consecutive years, while globally 14 of the 15 warmest years ever
            recorded have occurred since 2000.”

            You’re not experiencing the worst effects because you’re in one of the coldest places. I live in the US, I already see it. It’s the coldest month of the year here and it’s been the warmest I’ve ever felt in feb.
            PA and the entire east coast just experienced one of the biggest snowstorms in decades. Warmer oceans and rising sea levels are not good for anyone.
            “along the Atlantic seaboard, continuing sea level rise could triple the
            frequency of flooding and severely damage water, sewer and electrical
            systems and human health, said Radley Horton”

            Every state across the contiguous U.S. and Alaska had an above-average autumn temperature. Forty-one states across the Rockies, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast were much warmer than average.

            And although it isn’t terrible yet, climate change is affecting canada. “The impacts of climate change are already being observed across Canada’s diverse geographic regions. Canada’s forests are expected to be among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. These forests support countless species and ecosystems and are among the many examples of at-risk habitat”
            “Scientists have already documented changes in our forests linked to recent climate changes. Recent examples include:

            the major infestation by mountain pine beetle in British Columbia
            increased fire activity in the western boreal forest
            increased aspen dieback in the Prairies
            Even tree phenology in Canada’s forests appears to be changing,
            with earlier arrival of spring weather and longer summers affecting the
            timing of dormancy, leafing out, flowering and seeding.”
            I guess forest fires are benefical.

            “Can you tell me where in Canada has anyone suffered from climate change in the past 50 years”
            Does this count?
            “Nearly four million hectares have burned so far this year in Canada –
            close to double the average season. Record numbers of people were forced
            to move in Saskatchewan. British Columbia experienced its warmest
            winter and spring to date since 1948.”
            “The wildfires across Western Canada are entirely consistent with what
            climate-change models have predicted for boreal forests. Wildfires will
            burn more intensely over more hectares. Wildfire season is predicted to
            last longer. And Canada isn’t alone: This is a global phenomenon.
            Mega-fires, those that result in significant economic and social damage,
            are also increasing in Russia, the United States, Asia and Australia.”
            “In Canada thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes
            because of air quality and actual flames, as the country deals with an
            unusually devastating start to its fire season.”
            Wildfires in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan have nearly doubled
            More than 13,000 have evacuated in Saskatchewan, Member of Parliament
            Rob Clarke told reporters. Evacuation orders affect 60 communities, the government of Saskatchewan said on its website, adding there are 113 active fires.
            Now that seems to be your area. Do you not watch the news were you not aware this happened?
            “When you
            look at the 2015 numbers, the sheer size of the area burned is stunning.
            The total forest burned in 2015 (as of Aug. 17) is 3,004,848 hectares.
            That’s a larger area than the island of Sicily, Italy.
            And in 2014,
            which was the worst fire season since 2007, 4,123,986 hectares burned,
            the equivalent of burning the entire country of Switzerland.
            Is it just a coincidence those both happened in the last 10 years? It’s pretty bad for us too.
            Alaska’s wildfire season of 2015 may be the state’s worst ever
            “There are fires burning all around us. All of western Canada is alight right now,” said Driscoll. “There are fires in BC, Alaska, the Yukon

            There’s too many articles about this to even list. go through them yourself if you think i haven’t”verified them.

            So climate change does affect you, although at this point it’s manageable. But the rest of the world has it alot worse. Or do you still think it’s beneficial for everyone

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 10:33 am #

            “And in 2014, which was the worst fire season since 2007… “
            Since 2007? Reliable records go back much further. What data are they not saying? 1995, 1994, 1998 had more ha burned. 2008 was actually worse (in ha) than 2007.

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 10:35 am #


            GLOBALLY wildfires are on the decline.
            Figure 5. Spatial distribution of global fire. (a) Average burned fraction from 1901 to 2007, (b) zonal sum of burned area per 0.5° latitude, and (c) meridional sum of burned area per 0.5° longitude.
            Mar 2014: The study noted a world-wide, century-long history of ever-decreasing global burned area.

            “…we developed a 0.5° × 0.5° data set of global burned area from 1901 to 2007 …”
            “The average global burned area is ~442 × 10^4 km^/yr during 1901–2007…”
            “…a notable declining rate of burned area globally (1.28 × 10^4 km/yr).
            “… the declining trend of burned area in tropics and extra tropics…”

            “Wagner [1988] described burned area in Canada as a downward trend from the 1940s to the 1960s … Krezek-Hanes et al. [2011] reported Canada burned area increased from the 1960s to the 1990s and then decreased in the 2000s.”


            Yang, Jia, et al. 2014 “Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area in response to anthropogenic and environmental factors: Reconstructing global fire history for the 20th and early 21st centuries.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences

          • Rick Tucker February 15, 2016 at 1:01 am #

            BTW, you may not have experienced record breaking highs during the 3 summer months, but the world as a whole did.
            NOAA now ranks August 2015 as the hottest month of August in 136 years of weather records
            In addition, since June and July from this year already ranked as the hottest of those respective months

          • jtberger February 15, 2016 at 1:56 am #

            I went to university with some of these “climatologists” . Mostly they are there because it was one of the easiest courses in the whole place. World wide temperatures simply cannot be measured in amounts of less than one degree.
            2ndly Temperatures are usually recorded in urban areas… which have temperatures 1 or 2 or more degrees above the surrounding rural areas.
            We know that measuring temperatures is a highly difficult process on a world wide basis simply because there are many intervening variables…. like the one cited above.– urbanization.
            We also know that “religious” people will “cherry pick” their data for a good cause. And the climate change bunch are as ‘religious” in their beliefs as any i have met.
            The tangentially related weather information that you have supplied to me has only served to confirm and solidify my belief that climate change is indeed the HOAX OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

          • Rick Tucker February 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm #

            So i bring up facts and evidence and dozens of examples and you just completely ignore everything and go back to calling it a hoax. You don’t even dispute anything i say despite the fact that i verified it all. Worldwide temperature has been it’s highest 15 years in a row, that’s not a coincidence. And actually, no those urban temperature records are not different.
            “The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.”
            And that’s a ridiculous excuse because the world temperature readings are a combination of satellite and ground readings.
            So somehow I’m the religious nut when you’re the one talking about ideologies and I’m the one talking about facts and data. And the more facts i provide to you the more you stick your beliefs and provide no reason why.

          • Rick Tucker February 16, 2016 at 1:06 am #

            No, you give up because you don’t have anything relevant to say. You won’t even post a single source for any of this data that’s supposedly verified. You just go back to insults saying i don’t see the facts but that’s all that I’ve done and you haven’t provided any. Do you see the hypocrisy? What article was ridiculous? All these things are happening, you just ignore it.
            I provided facts and you can’t even provide anything that disputes them.

            The only argument you’ve brought up is that you supposedly went to school with climatologists and think they’re dumb. And somehow that dismisses thousands of actual events happening right now.
            So why is almost every scientist in the world lying? Why would NASA and it’s 80,000 employees lie? Why is there not a single scientific organization in the entire world, not even one, that agrees with you. How could a conspiracy stretch to 200 countries around the globe yet there’s never once been any evidence of people manipulating data. If you’ve convinced yourself that all that is happening, i guess there’s no convincing you otherwise. So what exactly is it that has you so convinced it’s a hoax?
            Now, if you can actually bring up some facts to the discussion or prove a single thing i said is wrong, go ahead, I’d be happy to hear it. If not, then i think we both really know who’s right.

          • jtberger February 16, 2016 at 6:39 am #

            I told you to google the Regina weather records. You can verify everything from the same source as i did. I don’t have any links.
            Nobody is lying…. Compiling weather data is a very complicated procedure. People just find what they are looking for. That is human nature.
            re… verifiability.
            All you have supplied are a few statements from taken from NASA.. NOAA or wherever. Nobody has access to the raw data… so therefore none of it can be independently verified.
            NOTHING … ZERO.
            We are all asked to accept it all on trust and faith. I am too old for that crap.
            Remember the top intelligence gathering agencies in the world said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Human behavior is filled with mistakes made by sincere well meaning people. You and all the other climate changers entire belief system is based on faith.
            You pick up a few isolated weather extremes from a few locations around the world….no history, no raw data going back a hundred years …and conclude that is climate change.
            I keep asking you… where in Canada south of 60 has anyone suffered from climate change. And you refuse to answer because the answer is NOBODY.
            I’ll ask one more question… where in the USA has anyone suffered from climate change ( excluding southern Califfornia )
            But still we are all subjected to endless bleating and braying about the imminent catastrophic affects of climate change.
            Weather extremes have always been here and always will be … but one swallow does not a summer make.
            How is the average perosn’s belief in climate change different from some fundamentalist Christian or Moslem sect.
            In science the burden of proof rests with the claimant. And it is clear they have failed to do so. I don’t have to prove anything. Climatology is a very inexact science with muitiple criteria and many intervening variables.
            So i’ll ask one more time … where in Canada or USA ( besides California ) has anyone suffered from climate change.

          • Rick Tucker February 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            I did answer how canada experienced climate change. The worst wildfires in decades are an effect of climate change. Maybe you should actually read my post. The strongest typhoon ever and the fastest winds ever recorded both happened in the last few years, not a coincidence. USA has had dozens of floods lately and the droubt in texas and the worst droubt in history in california ( why does california not count). Stop acting like those things didn’t happen. No need to ask me one more time, I already answered them with dozens of examples, you just don’t care.

            You gave me weather records with no link of one area of canada. How does that disprove global warming. I gave you records from the people who actually study the weather and from all over the globe. But somehow yours is more comprehensive then mine.

            But the funniest thing is you’ve done so little research you actually think the raw data isn’t available.
            ” Nobody has access to the raw data… so therefore none of it can be independently verified.
            NOTHING … ZERO.”

            NOAA does release raw data, they even have a live stream to the satellite.
            VERIFIED… CORRECT … 100%

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:16 pm #

            “worst droubt in history in california.”
            “history” – recorded history in California is very short.
            Drought, in California, was so bad (before recorded history, but recently, in the Holocene) that trees sprouted and grew for hundreds of years, in what is now the lake bottom, 30 metres below the water line, in Fallen Leaf Lake.
            …and the research shows, the current or recent California drought had nothing to do with “climate change”

          • Rick Tucker March 28, 2016 at 6:19 pm #

            Not entirely from climate change, but certainly played a big factor.

            Warming-driven evaporation adds 15-20 percent to the severity of the drought.

            “Late last year, a NOAA report concluded that climate change wasn’t
            required to explain the lack of rainfall, while a separate tree ring
            study found that the drought looked to be the most severe in 1,200
            years.” Of course the world was different before recorded history, I wouldn’t exactly call that recently.

          • VooDude March 28, 2016 at 9:08 pm #

            Stine periods

            You’re missing the point. California’s warming, which, indeed, does drive evaporation, is also not caused by “climate change” … it is a local weather phenomena.


          • VooDude March 28, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

   Globally, drought has been reduced.

            In the western United States,

            ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            That bears repeating:

            ”If anything, these results constitute a slight decline in meteorological drought over the last 70 years.”

            Sun, Fubao, Michael L. Roderick, and Graham D. Farquhar 2012. “Changes in the variability of global land precipitation.” Geophysical Research Letters (H/T Jimbo).

          • VooDude March 29, 2016 at 12:48 pm #

            In reply to “The strongest typhoon ever and the fastest winds ever recorded both happened in the last few years, not a coincidence.”
            Typhoons, Hurricanes, Cyclones, have been getting weaker, globally, and fewer in number …

          • Rick Tucker March 29, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

            So are you saying typhoon Haiyan wasn’t the strongest in history? What about Patricia that had winds over 200 mph. Or should i stay even more recent with Winston. Less frequent, yes. Weaker, not at all. Or is it a coincidence the 3 strongest storms ever recorded all happened in the last 3 years. Oceans have warmed, warmer waters mean stronger storms, there’s no denying that.

          • VooDude March 29, 2016 at 11:51 pm #

            “saying typhoon Haiyan wasn’t the strongest in history?”
            Yep. Metric/Imperial measurement unit confusion; historical data is in 10 minute, but satellites report 1-minute intervals.

            Haiyan is being hyped as the strongest storm ever to make landfall, but that isn’t being honest about the measurements and satellite-based estimates. The satellite estimate (195 MPH) is based upon a 1-minute reading, and was apparently left uncorrected (typically, satellite estimates are corrected, often by subtracting about fifteen percent, adjusting to the historical 10-minute average, from the 1-minute data) {most historical data is 10-minute averages of actual instrument readings} and ignores the Philippine weather service’s actual measurements (145-165MPH, 10-minite data).

            At 21:00 zulu on 07Nov2013, the Philippine meteorology agency, PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services) reported “maximum sustained winds of 235 kph” kph meaning kilometers per hour (which is 147 mph)

            At 18:00 zulu, or earlier, on 09Nov2013, the Mail Online mistakenly reported 235 mph- it appears that they mistakenly reported 235 kilometres per hour as 235 miles per hour. Subsequently, the BBC and CNN both reported 235 miles per hour. The BBC even compounded the error by converting the erroneous 235 mph to 378.2 km/h, and then they rounded up. Arithmetically, it is illegitimate to round up from 378.2 to 379, it should be rounded down to 378.0 – This is a trivial amount, but it shows their desire to make the numbers bigger. Mr. Rene Paciente, weather forecasting section chief of PAGASA, said, “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated…”


            “The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.”


          • Rick Tucker March 30, 2016 at 10:36 pm #

            None of this disproves a thing. You bring up some newspaper errors that don’t prove anything. Obviously it wasn’t 379 mph, that’s ridiculous. Of course the gusts were stronger than ustained speeds, but none of that changes the facts it was the strongest until recently ” the Japan Meteorological Agency
            (JMA) upgraded the storm’s maximum ten-minute sustained winds to
            230 km/h (145 mph), the highest in relation to the cyclone. The Hong Kong Observatory put the storm’s maximum ten-minute sustained winds at 285 km/h (180 mph)[5] prior to landfall in the central Philippines, while the China Meteorological Administration
            estimated the maximum two-minute sustained winds at the time to be
            around 78 m/s (280 km/h or 175 mph). At the same time, the JTWC
            estimated the system’s one-minute sustained winds to 315 km/h (195 mph”
            Winston is breaking the records again. “estimated maximum sustained winds of up to 185 miles per hour, with gusts to 225 miles per hour. “

          • VooDude March 31, 2016 at 12:44 am #

            The storms you cite are integrated into Dr Maue’s work.

            … and I’m sure they are included in the underground

            Global Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is decreasing.

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 12:09 am #


            I don’t have data on Patricia or Winston, but peaks do not make a trend; a linear regression analysis makes a trend.

            Dr. Ryan Maue, – prominent hurricane/cyclone/typhoon tycoon. All the storms (by count) and the ACE are calculated … by hemisphere, or globally. Already posted his charts.

            “Oceans have warmed, warmer waters mean stronger storms, there’s no denying that.”
            Seems simple, eh? But, many storms are driven by the temperature differential, not the absolute temperature. Big storms often don’t develop because of wind shear that lops their tops off. There is a lot more going on in a real atmosphere that is way beyond what computer models can handle.

            Oceans have warmed … but the actual answers aren’t as ‘accurate’ as claimed.


            “Accumulated cyclone energy, globally, has experienced a large, and significant downward trend…” Klotzbach, Philip J., and Christopher W. Landsea 2015. “Extremely intense hurricanes: revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 years.” Journal of Climate


            Remember, the values calculated for the ‘warming’ that causes “climate change” are very VERY small… ¾W per square metre; and they are calculated, not measured. Nothing in ‘climate science’ … nothing … has the necessary accuracy needed to ‘find’ that ¾W in all the noise of climate.

          • Rick Tucker March 30, 2016 at 10:22 pm #

            15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2000. There’s no way that’s natural variability. The ocean absorbs 80-90 percent of the earths heat. The ocean is warmer now than the last 50 years, most likely the century, and it’s warming more rapidly. So how are warmer oceans not related to climate change? Natural variability is a factor, but 3 record breaking storms in 4 years is indicating a trend. And none of this proves that wrong.

          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 11:52 pm #

            How do ‘they’ know that the oceans are warmer … check it out. What thermometers (in a general sense) did they use? What were the manufacturer’s specifications for that “thermometer”? What accuracy, drift-per-year, etc?

            There really isn’t any doubt that the oceans are warm, but, just how much warmer, exactly? They are comparing modern, fairly accurate equipment to XBT bathythermograps that were intended to help find submarines in WW2, not document “global warming” … some ‘scientists’ even go so far as to include wooden sailing vessels (the Challenger expidition) … and apparently weight the readings equally.

            How many of the oceanic probes (“Argo floats”) have ever been recovered and re-tested, to see if they were reporting accurate temperatures? There are about four thousand or so of them. I can find six floats that were recovered and tested. Guess what? They fail the ‘drift’ test. The thermistors in some (which represent, possibly, thousands) read warm temperatures just fine, but read cold temperatures as a bit warmer than they really are … what does that do, when integrated over the ocean?

            What plans do they have to measure the water below 2000m?
            They admit problems … read all you can on what those problems really are …


            How about ocean pH … why is there, now, an “X-PRIZE” for the development of a pH meter – a prize worth a whole lotta money … Surely any one of the research grade pH meters, used in these studies, can step in and claim that money, right?

            ”’It is only in the last decade where scientists have begun to study ocean acidification, so our knowledge is really limited still,’ Paul Bunje, a senior director with the X Prize Foundation …”

            ”’But we do know that we don’t know enough, and we don’t have the tools needed to even begin to measure it sufficiently…'” —Paul Bunje

            ”The open ocean is acidifying at about .02 pH units per decade, according to according to Richard Feeley, a marine scientist and leading researcher on ocean acidification at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. ❝That means that you have to have an instrument that you can rely on to be both precise and accurate for a very, very long period of time, so that you can actually see that signal,❞ he told NBC News.”

            ”The best tools available today, Bunje noted, cost around $25,000, require constant recalibration, and function only near the ocean surface.”


          • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 1:52 am #

            “The worst wildfires in decades are an effect of climate change”
            Wait…. you said, “in decades” … so, a few decades ago, there were worse fires …
            what caused them??

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

            I’m curious which courses you considered so easy. Most people find graduate level atmospheric science, which requires very advanced calculus, linear algebra, ordinary and partial differential equations, advanced physics, and advanced chemistry to be rather challenging. In fact, my non-science major college students have a very difficult time with very simple science that requires only basic algebra.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 11:55 am #

            The smaller numbers of records after 1950 is because, with each record you set, you must have even MORE extreme weather to beat the record, and so as time goes on, fewer and fewerr records years occur. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

            On the other hand, we have set only 42% as many low records since 1950 as before, and we have set 91% as many high records as before 1950. The fact that we have continued to break record high after record high while we have fewer and fewer record lows demonstrates that yes, climate is warming. See my other posts for many additional lines of evidence.

          • jtberger April 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm #

            You are obviously an intelligent person.
            But you are the 3rd or 4 th intelligent person to have introduced an argument which is 100% irrelevant to the subject in question. My conclusion was simple … we in Southern Sask have had cooler summers and warmer winters. I really doesn’t matter whether we are dealing with a time span of 50 years or 500 years. Let’s look at summer only. If the weather were actually warming we would get more and more record highs. This premised on the reasonable assumption that record highs and average highs are closely correlated. And in any agricultural society it is the record highs that do the most damage to crops …not the average highs. the fact that we had many more record summer highs in the 30’s suggests that the weather at the time was warmer than it is today.
            If in 400 years , those record highs are still records and have not been exceeded we can reasonably assume that the temperatures in the 1930’s were warmer than in the 24th century. And that the summers at that time will still be cooler than in the 1930’s.
            Your observation about fewer and fewer record highs occuring with the passage of time is 100% true but only in an environment in which there is no warming.
            I’ll spell it out one more time. There were 28 record highs in July before 1950 and only 3 record highs after 1949. It seems quite reasonable to conclude that the July’s of the past 66 years were cooler than the 66 july’s before 1950. It is impossible for any serious warming in future July’s to occurr without new record highs being set. IMPOSSIBLE …regardless of the number of years in the future. If there are no more record highs in July … then the July’s of the first half of the 20 th century will remain the hottest on record… even if 400 years elapse.
            It is totally impossible for a hundred julys in the 24th century to be warmer without setting new record highs at that time.
            The concept seems VERY ELEMENTARY to me. and is not “illogical” in the slightest.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:41 am #

            Excellent points. Here are some reasons climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it will be bad.

            Areas that are already almost too hot for plants and animals will then become uninhabitable leading to loss of species of plants and animals and food.

            There is a ton of methane under the ice caps that will be released which will just contribute to more warming.

            White reflects light and as the ice caps melt more energy from the sun will be absorbed and cause more warming of the ocean rather than be reflected away. More ice will melt… So warming will cause more warming!

            Rising sea levels which really screws over small islands and coastal cities/towns. It also screws over the rest of us when these people will eventually have to be relocated.

            Rising levels of CO2 absorbed by the ocean could dramatically effect the oceanic food chain by increasing the acidity leading to loss of coral and other life and food sources.

            Increased drought, flooding and fires. Especially in north america.

            Change in migration of animals.

            Food chain disruption.

            Hurricanes will be more frequent and intense.

            Due to all of that insurance could go up. Food costs could go up. Property value could go up. Jobs could go down. Disease could increase. Poverty could increase. Clean water will be less available. It could really lead to some major societal and economic calamities. Especially when you consider that it will exponentially increase. Which pretty makes all of those disasters an inevitability if we don’t fix it before the point of no return. But yeah, I’m sure in some parts of the world where it is cold currently will be thrilled when it is 10 degrees warmer.

            There are all kinds of reports showing the temp is warming.

            This temp is ideal because it lacks all of the horrors i listed above.

            I don’t know why there was more ice before in north america or whatever. I don’t really care. There is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus saying it is real and man made. Every time i look up one of the rogue scientists claiming global warming is a hoax they have financial ties to the oil industry.

            So you can seriously with a strait face say that dumping chemicals into the air and water doesn’t change anything? That seems like basic math and basic chemistry to me. Even if those chemicals already existed naturally, to add a bunch more makes things different! Common sense.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

            You take a dump so . . .

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 8:35 pm #

            “Areas that are already almost too hot for plants and animals will then become uninhabitable leading to loss of species of plants and animals and food.” Like the globe’s deserts? Much to the contrary, the edges of the deserts are BLOOMING, from the additional carbon dioxide, temperature, or both:




            Ranga attributes the greening to “… warmer temperatures [that] have promoted increases in plant growth during summer” “…the global carbon cycle has responded to interannual fluctuations in surface air temperature…” He presents the point that accelerated plant growth has sequestered carbon from the atmosphere: “plant growth … net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years)” “Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.” Note, Ranga is taking about increases in plant productivity in the Amazon rain forest, while others have emphasized plant growth in arid areas.

            Myneni, Ranga B., et al. 1997 “Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991.” Nature



          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

            “There is a ton of methane under the ice caps that will be released which will just contribute to more warming.”

            ”There is a possibility of rapid methane hydrate or permafrost emissions in response to warming, but that risk is largely unquantified [215]. The time needed to destabilize large methane hydrate deposits in deep sediments is likely millennia [215]. ”

            Hansen, James, et al. 2013 “Assessing “dangerous climate change: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature.” PloS one


            Yes, there are massive amounts of methane. If it got released, yes, methane is a greenhouse gas … but, will it get released? Will warming do it? Nope, and no.
            Many icy areas become more biologically active as they warm. This has been shown to actually consume methane, not release it.

            Lau et al. 2015 ”The atmospheric (atm) CH4 uptake at the study site increases with ground temperature between 0 °C and 18 °C. Consequently, the atm CH4 sink strength is predicted to increase by a factor of 5–30 as the Arctic warms by 5–15 °C over a century.”

            Lau, M. C. Y., et al. 2015 “An active atmospheric methane sink in high Arctic mineral cryosols.” The ISME journal


            Jørgensen et al. 2015 Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades … Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. … We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

            Jørgensen, Christian Juncher, et al. 2015 “Net regional methane sink in High Arctic soils of northeast Greenland.” Nature Geoscience


            The earth has been warmer, in the past, especially at the poles. This warmth exceeded that projected from “carbon pollution” … did the methane get released, then? Nope. So there is no reason to believe that Mannkind’s “carbon pollution” will cause the release in the future.

            ”Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2°C per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth’s gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even [a thousand years] Even if CH4 is released from gas hydrate and is able to migrate toward the seafloor, some CH4 may be trapped in newly formed gas hydrate (e.g., Reagan & Moridis 2008) and much will be consumed in the [sulfate reduction zone].”

            ” …but it oxidizes to CO2 after about a decade in the atmosphere.”

            Ruppel, C. D. 2011 “Methane hydrates and contemporary climate change.” Nature Education Knowledge


          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:59 am #

            The AGU that wrote the PDF you linked also had this to say.

            “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

            — AGU Council, Human Impacts on Climate[43]”

            Just thought I’d throw that out there aince you seem to find them credible. I certainly do.

            Anyway, I’m glad to hear they predict it will be a slow leak and only change the planets temp .2° over 10 years. Thanks for the info.

          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:15 am #

            Even the alarmist scientists occasionally let some contradictory information through. When citing scientific papers, one does not have to agree to the authors’ conclusions, in order to cite the paper as a source for something. A paper that concluded that the ‘world is flat’, but also discovered that ‘water is wet’ can be used as the source for ‘water is wet’ without the conclusion of ‘world is flat’…

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

            “White reflects light and as the ice caps melt more energy from the sun will be absorbed and cause more warming of the ocean rather than be reflected away. More ice will melt… So warming will cause more warming!” OOoohhh, scary. However, clouds form about half of the earth’s albedo (reflection of sunlight). Just a ½% increase in the processes that form clouds is more than enough to scare away the “Global Warming” … btw, have you noticed that the Antarctic sea ice has counterbalanced all the Arctic sea-ice melt? Net: No change in planetary albedo from sea-ice melt.


          • Mistrix March 26, 2016 at 12:37 am #

            Depending on the cloud type they can warm or cool the atmosphere.

          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:29 am #

            Right. Clouds in the Arctic during the northern hemisphere winter receive no short-wave sunlight to speak of, thus the effect of the clouds is limited to interfering with long-wave radiation to space. The net Cloud Radiative Effect (being one of cooling the earth) was not conclusively determined until the 21st century (so much for “climate change” being known and proven, long ago).

            It took space-based observations, in the mid-1980s, to settle the debate on the sign of clouds’ effects on incoming solar radiation. Prior to that, scientists argued on whether or not the effect of clouds was positive, or negative – and, that is without getting into the argument that scientists continued after that, about how large the effect of clouds actually was (the magnitude).

            Stephens U12: “The sign, and magnitude of the net effect of clouds on the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) fluxes (6) was also later established with the space-borne observations of the scanning instrument on the ‘Earth Radiation Budget Experiment’ (ERBE) [launched in 1984] (7), which better delineated between clear and cloudy skies.”

            Still, the argument about the magnitude of the cloud-effect continued into the next century. Many hold-outs, science-deniers, and the uneducated still believe that clouds only increase the greenhouse effect, but the science of the 1980s showed that, at least some clouds reflect enough sunshine back into space, that they have a net COOLING effect on the climate. It wasn’t until after 2000 that science confirmed that the albedo-reflection of clouds, according to Stephens 2012, ”was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds.” This was a revelation to climate science, upsetting the concept of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases having absolute control over the climate. Up until the mid-1960s, albedo was considered to be large, which required that greenhouse gases must have a large leverage over climate … but when albedo was actually measured, and found to be very small, then the calculations had to be re-done, which greatly lowered the greenhouse effect.

            Stephens U12: ”ERBE, and later the ‘Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System’ (CERES) [which gathered effective data since 2000] (8), and the French [satellite] ‘Scanner for Radiation Budget’ [ScaRaB, first launched in the mid-1990s] (9), confirmed that the global cloud albedo effect was significantly larger than the greenhouse effect of clouds. Although this was a major advance at the time, determining the influence of clouds on atmospheric and surface fluxes had to wait until the recent satellite measurements of the vertical structure of clouds became available from the [group of satellites called the]‘A-train’ (10).”

            Stephens U12 is Stephens, Graeme L., et al. 2012 “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience



          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:58 am #

            Ackerman shows us that, from the equator to the poles, the net cloud effect is one of cooling.

            ”Clouds, along with column water vapor, are the principal control of the surface radiation budget. Clouds simultaneously reduce the amount of shortwave (SW) radiation and increase the amount of longwave (LW) radiation reaching the surface.”

            ”The sites we consider here are the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma; the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Pt. Barrow, Alaska; and the Manus Island and Nauru sites in the Tropical Western Pacific (TWP). ”

            ”The [long-wave, infrared] cloud effect values are a bit more surprising. There is actually very little difference in the values, particularly between the tropical sites and the [Southern Great Plains]. The value in the [Alaska’s North Slope] is larger by only about 10 to 12 W/m^2. As a result, the net cloud effect is dominated by the [short-wave cloud] effect, and is always negative on average.”

            Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface


          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 9:01 pm #

            “Hurricanes will be more frequent and intense.”
            Wait, WHAT? “CLIMATE CHANGE” is already here, right? So, where are the more frequent, and intense cyclones, hurricanes, etc?
            THERE AREN’T ANY.

          • VooDude March 26, 2016 at 10:09 am #

            Your charts are pretty, but, pretty lame. Myopic focus on the North Atlantic.

            First up: North Atlantic wind speed. Starts in 1983, ends in 2009.

            Second, Hurricane intensity vs sea surface temperature, North Atlantic. Starts in 1972, ends in 2004, and extreme cherry pick. Unsourced and uncredited, BTW.

            Third, North Atlantic named storms – Ends in 2007. When comparing the number of named storms, historically, the criteria for receiving a name was loosened in 2002. … Tropical storms and hurricanes were named, lesser subtropical storms and depressions were numbered. 2002 and beyond, the lesser tropical depressions and tropical storms use up names from the list. Gustav, in 2002, was the first subtropical storm to be named. Those that peter out and never become hurricane-magnitude or storm-strength artificially elevate the count of storms that year, when compared to 1950-2001 historical records. Then again, satellites, like QuikScat, that didn’t exist in the fifties and sixties, which yield hundreds of times the volume of ocean wind data, enable the detection, measurement (and subsequent naming) of storms that would have gone un-noticed in earlier decades.

            EPA, using NOAA data, has the scoop for the North Atlantic:

            Dr Ryan Maue produces a GLOBAL chart, and updates it monthly.
            Only if you cherry-pick what basin, and, a subset hurricane count, do you show increases. Dr Maue’s chart shows Global, and Hemisphere, not basin by basin.

            Weinkle published a chart that backs up Dr Maue:

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

            If you don’t believe in God then guess what those consequences are? Better get on the bus! Right?

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm #


          • Our Lord November 1, 2015 at 5:13 pm #

            you just contradicted yourself.

            you have faith that god exists, much like atheists have faith in science (though they don’t like to call it that) but then you go on to say “Unless I see it with my own 2 eyes then I refuse to believe” this may be slightly out of context but the point is the same, how can you keep your faith in a loving god and at the same time not even consider climate change (global warming is a bad term to use) unless you quite literally see the sea level rising. also begs the question what does god look like

          • Christina Long December 24, 2015 at 6:55 pm #

            Im sure you think you’re smart but if you continued to read the entire sentence I was talking about something man made. Also it’s in the Bible GENESIS 1:27 God made man in his own image……look it up you might actually learn something. God Bless!

          • wakerider232 November 4, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

            you’re making an ass out of yourself

          • Sam Mueller February 10, 2016 at 3:17 am #

            I can understand not trusting people, but waiting to see it with your own two eyes is the exact opposite of faith. Remember Thomas did not believe that Jesus had visited the disciples. He said he would only believe when he put his fingers in His side. I believe Jesus’s response was “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

          • evpocket December 4, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

            This is an interesting conversation, I’d like to insert my 2 cents as well as link a rather long article that makes some really good points. First, just to be clear, I’m all for clean energy cutting back on finite fossil fuels, and looking for more elegant solutions to energy.

            But to briefly address your point about ‘oil company supported research’ that statement goes both ways. Groups promoting man-made climate change put far more money into “research” than oil companies, and this is coming from someone who very much dislikes oil companies and thinks fracking is on a shortlist of worst ideas in the last 50 years. But it can’t be denied that scientists get lots of grant and research money for saying our carbon footprint is causing climate change.

            My point is this, geologists are in my humble opinion in the best position to make these determinations because they are the ones who study the ancient patterns and cycles revealed by our rock and soil. There are MANY factors affecting earth temperature. This is my field of study (gep-engineering) by the way so I am somewhat biased on its value.
            If you get past the super rudimentary definitions of ice age and stuff in this article it houses some great information. The research cited seems to often come from university and govt studies. I haven’t dug that deep on it because I know through my studies that the science is sound.

            Main points: carbon makes up a miniscule % of our atmosphere, and man-made carbon is less than 1/3 of 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere. Those numbers cannot be denied. 50 years ago we were in a cool spell and climate alarmists were convinced we were headed for an ice age due to a reflection. Of sunlight off the co2 we added to the atmosphere.

            I’m not saying our emissions don’t affect temps, but it is unlikely and we would need a couple hundred more years of data to conclusively prove it. Its impossible to set controls and take all variables into account when studying climate change (and we are warming up) but it fits into a natural cycle.

            Others already mentioned that we are quite a few degrees off the 10000-1300 warm up, and the “little ice age” only ended in the 1860s. Since then we have warmed and cooled in 40 year cycles which is consistent with historical data, except when one variable suppresses or enhances the effect of other variables.

            What we should be concerned about is definitely rising ocean temps. Warmer oceans take up more volume so that is actually the reason for the rise, little/nothing to do with glacier melt. Though that is a very important variable as well. Also important earths wobble , solar output, etc. Mehh all this is briefly explained in the article I’ve been writing for 20min so I’ll stop.

            On short, climate change is real and is important, it just doesn’t have much to do with carbon and is consistent with long term patterns. So we need to take actions, but hubris needs to be suspended we just aren’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of global climate. I think that going on and on about man made climate change actually hurts the environmentalist cause, because it is far too easy to dismiss, especially for those in the sciences. I don’t know what scientists are performing those studies but this is really pretty basic info that disputes all of it. I want people to focus on habitat destruction, pollution, the waste of finite fresh water and fuel etc. I love green energy, actually about toto get into a green energy field, but I’m well educated and under no illusions about the “science” behind global warming. You don’t hear kids who go to college for the sciences talking about man made climate change. Because we learn real quick how it really is.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:40 am #

            One third of 1% is quite a bit. I’m not sure why you minimize that? When talking about something as large as our planet’s atmosphere that is a lot of added particles. Small things like that can make a huge difference.

            Scientists get funding for studies only if they guarantee the results? What? This isn’t the pharmaceutical industry. This is NASA we are talking about.

            Rising ocean temps are one problem, but the extra co2 in the air is also increasing it in the ocean and raising the acidity which is killing species and disturbing the food chain. It also is threatening plankton which produce a large portion of our oxygen. I would think you would know all of this and understand that earth is an enclosed system and small changes effect everything in the system. Since you are a scientist. But maybe rocks dont work that way? I dont know much about geology.

            I am sure that some people will make money from green energy and are pushing that agenda. Smart business men and business women will always be out there with an agenda to make a buck. But i trust the climate scientists on this. All of the scientists i know go into that field because they have a passion and love for the universe, whatever field that may be. Not because they are looking to get rich. Maybe they actually care about watching the ocean they love or the animals or plants they study be destroyed. Scientists are nerds. Not greedy corporate pigs. Everyone in my family is a science nerd. All of my friends are too. You ever watch a documentary on the science channel? Those scientists eyes light up as they passionately describe whatever it is they study. These people get off on learning things and discovering things. Not getting rich. Please tell me you know what i am talking about. Surely as a geologist you have a passion for studying rocks and the earths crust and the layers and the history and the records? Surely you wouldn’t lie about a study to make money? Surely you would study what you love and thrill in the discovery and get paid for adding to the expanse of human knowledge.

          • evpocket December 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

            I get what you are saying and know your heart is in the right place as is my own. I just happen to disagree. Carbon already only makes up a miniscule portion of our atmosphere I am not sure if I made it clear but c02 is already a trace gas in the atmosphere. Our emissions make up 1/3 of 1% OF a gas that is only 00.04% of our atmosphere. One million parts of atm, CO2 is 400 of them. Humans created 1.33 parts. So… Yeah we can say that’s still a lot but when you tell me we are responsible for 1.3 parts per 1000000 that doesn’t really inspired fear. The Earth literally eats carbon for breakfast.

            About the oceans. You, or your friends or whoever has that idea wrong. The ocean is responsible for more carbon/oxygen transition than the surface many times over. I’m trying not to be rude but this idea that somehow CO2 is synonymous with death and destruction is a bit ludicrous. It is not single handedly “raising the acidity of our oceans.” If you want to link me to some research supporting that claim I would read it over though, I don’t claim to be the sole authority on earth sciences.
            I understand that you just have a position and probably don’t want to look at anything that might change it or make you question your worldview, but if you actually want to read the article I linked I’d be interested in discussing it with you. It is possible to be an environmentalist and not be a pseudo-science alarmist and I think as a movement we need to get back to that to make environmentalism more palatable to the average person. Berating the public into supporting something will never work, it just polarizes the population so nothing ever gets done.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

            Just the facts! Good math!

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

            Assuming all of your numbers are correct, what about all of the other greenhouse gasses? Methane carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide? Co2 is just one of them.

            I read your article. The scientist who claims that his satelite numbers are debunking global warming received 40% of his funding from oil companies as he admitted on cnn. He has been shown to have recieved at least 100,000 dollars from coal as well. Please google him. Patrick Michaels.

            So according to you co2 does increase acidity of the ocean? Because you explained it perfectly.

            This explains why more co2 isn’t better for most plants. It does say most not all, so i will give you that.

            My world view is that i like to know all of the info from both sides before i form an opinion. I’m not ashamed to be wrong because it means i learned something new. And the truth is more important than my ego. I really would LOVE to be wrong and i hope that i am wrong because man made global warming is terrible. I would love to be irresponsible and not think about the consequences of my actions and just treat the earth like a big trash can but there are repercussions to that.

            I did read the article you linked. Please check out this one! Maybe it can clear some stuff up for you. By the way it is nice to discuss things with you like an adult! I appreciate that you are not insulting like most people on here! Thank you! 🙂 Also, the climate scientists take into account rays from the sun and other natural heat sources when they do studies. The deniers like to mention that the sun warms the earth as if the scientists don’t know it. They are also aware of previous warming and cooling periods and that we are in an ice age currently. They are smart people!

          • Mistrix December 25, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            Also, that article you linked appears to be on a website owned by a west virginia coal company. Every article on there is about how great coal is and that global warming is a hoax.

            Also Dr. Lizden whom they liked to quote also said this in a NYT interview. “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.” So he doesn’t even dispute it!

            The other guy they quoted a lot was Willie Soon. He talked about how global warming was caused by the sun. Heres some fun info i found about him when i looked him up.

            Over the past decade, Soon’s research and his salary have been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests,[10] which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. These funding sources were not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies.[2][11][12]

            Now there may be some people who exaggerate global warming so they can profit. But i stick with the scientists!!!!! They all agree except for this handful of paid off ones! You seem like a smart, humble, nice person but please challenge your world view and consider that global warming may actually be man made. The oil industry spends millions funding scientists, articles and anything to create doubt so they can continue to rake in billions. They hired the same people that created doubt over the harmful effects of smoking. I’m sorry but it is true. I wish it wasn’t. But it is.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 11:47 am #

            Arguing that carbon dioxide does not make up much of the atmosphere and so can’t be important has no grounding in actual science. Arsenic levels in water have to be below 10 ppb to be safe; that’s parts per billion, or 1000 millions. Would you argue that we don’t need these regulations because it’s just a small concentration either way? We have changed the atmosphere’s CO2 content by over 120 ppm, or parts per million. That’s about four orders of magnitude higher than arsenic concentrations that would also matter.

            What actually does matter when it comes to atmospheric CO2 is proportional change. We have already increased CO2 levels by roughly 43% of their pre-industrial value. That is a major change, as hundreds of millions of years of paleoclimate data can attest to.

            With regards to how our contribution compares to natural sources of carbon dioxide, I believe that to get that figure (.3%) you must be comparing the *annual* flux of CO2 from humans with the total amount of carbon in the air, right? That’s the only place I can get a similar number from. The problem with this is that, because natural processes do not completely take up all of the carbon dioxide that we emit, some of it builds up in the atmosphere each year, and this results in a large human contribution over time. To be more specific, we have increased CO2 by 43% since before the Industrial Revolution.

            Edit: I read further into the site you linked to and figured out how they got that number. It turns out that they calculate the 0.3% contribution of humans by comparing it with the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. However, this is extremely deceptive because the amount of water vapor in the air is directly controlled by the concentrations of other greenhouse gases. I might also suggest that you try to get your information from peer-reviewed science rather than a blog.

            Finally, with regards to ocean acidification due to the formation of carbonic acid when CO2 dissolves in water, this topic has been well documented and I am not even aware of a single peer-reviewed article that disputes it. NOAA gives a nice intro to the topic, complete with links to the supporting data and research articles, here:


          • jtberger April 8, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

            What really puzzles me about the climate change crowd is the impossibility of their solutions.
            Would somebody please explain how it might be possible to reduce human carbon emissions as long as we allow the worlds population to grow exponentially. ??
            If we are really serious about halting increased carbon in the atmosphere it will be necessary to stop world population increases. Yet we spend much more time, energy and money “saving lives” than we do reducing carbon emissions.
            I’m waiting for an answer….

          • Rick Tucker December 19, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

            Actually the whole god will fix it thing isn’t even in the bible. God said he wouldn’t destroy the world again, (after noahs ark.) he never said a thing about us destroying it ourselves. Gods not going to knock a glass of poison out of your hands because you’re stupid enough to drink it. If anyone is stupid enough to believe that they should hang out with the holy snake wranglers in the bible belt.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 2:28 am #

            It just seems that religious people shrug off caring about the planet and the living things on it with some comment abour how” god will handle it, i have faith”

            So ignorant and irresponsible. Sigh.

          • wakerider232 November 4, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

            oh god….go thump some bibles, this is science talk

          • Scott November 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

            You mean Scientology?

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:19 am #

            Not when you have Mistrix talking.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:17 am #

            I base my opinions on the claims made by scientists, and you think i am the least sciency? Lol! You’re funny

          • mikebartnz December 20, 2015 at 5:57 am #

            You don’t as I have already caught you out in being dishonest about the draughts.

          • mikebartnz March 26, 2016 at 1:25 am #

            Must have been thinking of it.

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

            LOL. Waiting for you to type something sciency.

          • Scott November 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

            Finally someone put the creator in charge, not mortal leaders! Thank you!

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

            Destroy the planet because god will clean it up for us!! Yay…..oh wait. Thats stupid as hell.

          • fatdaddy November 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm #

            You forgot to ask about drinking soda,, do you realize how much CO2 is man made just to carbonate soda, just to have someone open the bottle and release it into the atmosphere?

            Hey,, I drink a lot of soda and drive a Dodge Ram 2500 at 9 miles a gallon, to tow my 30 footer with twin diesels… but it is a green truck (painted green)

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

            Do you crap in your house to? Or do you have a cognition gap in understanding that the earth is our home and the home of your future generations. Hopefully though you don’t have children.

          • Nick Eberle December 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

            Whenever people make claims about global warming it’s about the oil companies. People don’t realize that on the other side the only clean energy capable of sustaining our grid is nuclear. The thing is there is waaaay more money in nuclear than oil power it also has a massive barrier to entry both legislatively and financially when compared to conventional oil and coal power

            There is a lot to be gained by lobbyists when global warming is a thing. I have no doubt they will win the fight but the truth is still out there global cooling in 1970s, global warming in the 90s and now climate change because you better bet it is going to be about shifting temperature regions in the near term which is easy to prove repeatedly while you grab more power from the people and put it in the hands of un-elected officials.

          • Rick Tucker December 21, 2015 at 3:46 am #

            global cooling was never a thing. There was a small handful of papers about global cooling, the most popular being a single newsweek article. There was a good amount of media coverage, but very little in the scientific community. The majority of scientists have been concerned about AGW since the 60’s.

          • edjweaver December 22, 2015 at 1:53 am #

            Again, that word, “scientists.” The first 400 times Al Gore and his minions made that statement, they all used the word, “climatologists.” Then they soon realized how horribly inaccurate such statements were.. so they switched it two “scientists,” just as they switched from “global warming” to “climate change.” The vast majority of scientists and climatologists who do believe man is causing global warming receive some sort of grant(s) from the U.S. government. Dr. Roy Spencer is still the leading climatologist in the western hemisphere and his worked has clearly shown the folly of global warming. You hoaxers just deny the forged data, the junk science, the e-mails that prove it is a hoax from within. Denying reality doesn’t remove the realism. You all have a nice frigid winter but I hope you all stay nice ‘n’ toasty — indoors.

          • Rick Tucker December 22, 2015 at 4:30 am #

            Ok, so your actually saying the majority of climate scientists don’t believe in AGW?

            That’s every peer reviewed paper on climate over a 20 year period. 97% of them agree AGW, real and man made. If you don’t believe me look up each paper yourself.

            Roy Spencer is the only denier who has a shred of credibility. But he’s also paid by energy companies. “Roy Spencer testified on behalf of coal giant Peabody Energy about the social cost of carbon in front of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, along with Roger Bezdek. ” So you don’t trust someone who received grants, but someone who testifies on behalf of a coal company is completely fine? He also has been caught making up flase claims

            “Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell’s paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer’s claims.”
            He’s also not a “leading climatologist”. For one he’s a meteorologist. ”
            In Andrew Dessler’s view, “[This] paper is not really intended for other
            scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s
            been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox
            News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional
            staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom
            this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”

            His paper was so incorrect, the editor lost his job. “In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say:”
            With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the
            authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the
            paper’s conclusions in public statements…”
            “According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy,
            admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they
            said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest
            layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was
            occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.”
            Leading scientists don’t usually prove the opposite point they were trying to make.
            I didn’t even mention all the work he’s done with exxon funded heartland institute. I could go on but i proved my point about spencer.

            You say most climate scientists receive grants (I guess it’s ok that almost every single skeptic or denier has ties to oil like tim ball or willie soon) from US government, but what about climate scientists in other countries?

            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt

            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand

            Are they all paid of by the US govt? Over 200 countries all paid off by the US? And no word or evidence of the government being involved in distorting data has ever been uncovered (the emails you mentioned have no connection to the government). Almost 200 countries signed the paris climate deal, are they all paid by our government too. And why would the US, the biggest exporter of oil in the world, want to cut emissions from one of the biggest exports we have?

            And as for the climategate emails. They were cleared of wrongdoing in over 7 separate investigations. So it proved nothing.

            So glad i could clear all that up for you. Any other climate myths you need cleared up? (thanks for wishing me to stay toasty indoors but it was almost 70 in PA today, so i was just fine outside.)

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

            You talk about scientific theories and computer models and so forth but all these such deductions are based on totally BS data. Theories made from lies are themselves lies. Start with the credibility of the real data and ALL of the facts (not just those in support) and you get GW= Grand Hoax.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 7:45 pm #

            Climategate did expose a considerable amt of lying and data manipulation/ faking and your is a leftist political organization!

          • Rick Tucker December 23, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

            So joe, if the data is all crap, then how do you know your data
            is right? Have you actually seen any? Why aren’t you positing it here.
            Of course when i post something, it’s suddenly a lying leftist commie site.
            Show me this “REAL” data. You deniers always talk about the real data, but yet i’ve never seen it. I show you were i get my info why can’t you? You posted 4 times and not a single source.

            It’s clear you don’t read the whole story on any of these subjects.

            A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
            Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”

            A UK Parliament report
            concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of
            climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

            The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

            The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

            The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

   debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

   rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as “false.”

            An Associated Press review of the emails found
            that they “don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world
            is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

            How many do you need? If it’s not fact checked by reagan himself it’s not good enough for you.

          • VooDude March 25, 2016 at 8:20 pm #

            0.343% or 41 out of 11,944 papers – no “97%” there! Cook puts the CON in consensus!

            A 15 May 2013 paper by John Cook, and his pals, (Cook, John, et al. 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters

   claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that mankind had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. Cook and his volunteers read abstracts of papers supposedly relating to global warming, and graded them into seven endorsement levels. Note that they didn’t read the actual papers, just the abstracts. 0.343% or 41 out of the 11,944 papers explicitly endorsed the “Global Warming” viewpoint. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.” – José Duarte.

            According to a paper by Dr David Legates, (a climatologist) and his colleagues, published in Science and Education, only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers that Cook et al. examined, explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook et al. tallied up 64 papers, supposedly supporting the “consensus” position, but 23 of the 64 tallied actually had not supported the “consensus”.

            Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs 2013. “Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change.” Science & Education


            Dr William Briggs: “[Cook] arbitrarily excluded about 8,000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not. In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

            Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.“

            Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

            Dr Legates: “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

          • Rick Tucker March 28, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

            There was never just one study.
            There’s half a dozen there.
            “Beyond his and Cook’s study, a 2010 study of over 1,300 climate researchers and their work also showed a 97 to 98 percent consensus.”

            Also, no one that wrote that paper has any credibility. Monckton lies about his credentials constantly. Here’s a fun quote from him. “”official survey after official survey had shown that homosexuals had an average of 500-1,000 partners in their sexually active lifetime, and that some had as many as 20,000.” “”there is only one way to stop AIDS.
            That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all
            carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should
            be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the
            virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily,
            immediately, and permanently.”
            Willie soon is under investigation for not disclosing over 1 million in funding from exxon. Legates co authored a dozen of those papers, and was fired from University of Delaware and received funding from koch brothers. He’s also a scientist for george c marshall institute (as well as several other oil funded groups), the same institute hired by phillip morris to deny smoking causes cancer. Briggs has no degree and has never studied climate. I don’t feel like providing more sources so google if you don’t believe me.


            “The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above
            to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified
            human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all
            12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the
            consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this
            argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the
            peer-review process.”

            So correct me if I’m wrong but you’re saying that more than half, apparently over 99% don’t agree with AGW. Don’t you think if that were even close to true, there would be at least one scientific organization that would say that. But there isn’t. There is not a single organization in the world that does any research that denies AGW. Explain to me how that’s possible if 99% think it’s false.

          • VooDude March 28, 2016 at 9:30 pm #

            Yes, never just one. However, the one, mentioned, is decimated. You should not engage in a fight, by leading with your chin. Your reputation suffers, by introducing such a thoroughly trashed study.

          • Rick Tucker March 29, 2016 at 10:53 am #

            The study by legates is also decimated. A “study” run by oil paid non scientists that shows .03 scientists is clearly not the reality. You can go read all the papers and make your own conclusions. It’s clear the vast majority of scientists are claiming AGW is real, and i don’t understand why this debate still exists. 200 countries just signed on in paris, and this debate still exists.

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 11:14 am #

            Note that they also received communication from 1200 authors representing over 2100 papers that rated their own papers, and over 97% of those ratings ALSO supported the consensus view on climate change. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you accidentally overlooked that half of the study, and are not trying to be deceptive. As Tucker points out, this is also only one of many studies that reached the same results, and it used 2 completely different methods to reach that conclusion.

            Many papers do not explicitly state that they support the scientific consensus on global warming because 1) it is demonstrated by their research and 2) the publishing scientific community agrees on the consensus view (hence, consensus) and the research is focused on much smaller technical details.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm #

            It was a thing by NASA, NOAA, and Columbia University. It was claimed to have been caused by particulate matter from auto exhaust. I know because I remember the hype. They were talking about the coming Ice Age and how we were going to deal with it.

          • Rick Tucker December 27, 2015 at 11:14 pm #

            Not really, it was thing by a small handful of scientists, less than the amount that deny global warming.

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

            Thank you bro!

          • Pete February 19, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

            Climate change is a hoax?
            Religion is not?
            One oil drill in the 40’s in the gulf of Mexico, today 31k.
            Over 400 major glaciers studied past to present and 300 have gotten smaller, 80+ gone, 4 have gotten larger and the remaining no change. Source National Geographic. So if we plan to stop listening/reading encyclopedias or good sources then as a human race we deserve to be controlled and manipulated as they do today. Maybe worry about cigarettes killing 15 million a year globally, coral refs depleted 50%, fish and many other animals driven to near extinction. Why murders are being rewarded with gold plated toilets on 100 million dollar yachts. Stop letting them divide everyone. I’m not a government supporter, frankly don’t think we need them but I’m also not someone who supports a moron who says China invited global warming, or is a racist, just like I don’t support a women who is part of the corruption. I don’t get caught up in Democrat or Republican BS…

            People go to or and get BS statements and try to pass them off as facts. Facts are out there but you have to choose to read and watch good sources. I read a post in this long thread of banter that China’s air and many Asian cities air are unbreathable, so that must be a good thing and not causing any harm to the environment. Let’s say global warming is not true. So continue to kill off the ocean and destroy the air, water, soil ect ect??? Let’s say it is true, same things apply, so we should continue to destroy??? See my point? I’ve read threads for an hour plus and the puppet masters get you all to argue over shit they honestly could careless about, distracting you from common sense and dividing you all. You think one person in this giant argument is someone worth more than 20 million?!? I’ll bet 99% of the people in here make less than 150k a year and in fact make under 65-70k a year. Point is when we start worrying about why someone makes 40k an hour and someone else is starving, then as a human we will start to hang together. As Benjamin Franklin said and then later MLK reworded, “We better all hang together or assuredly we will hang separately”.

          • John Buck January 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

            Nuclear fission or fusion? Also what about Solar panels, and wind turbines. Solar panels cost like a few grand and produce more than you need, most people make a profit off them. That would destroy the fossil fuel industry. Completely.

            97% of climate scientists who study these things for their life support man-made climate change while the 56% of congress being paid off by fossil fuel lobbyists doesn’t.

          • Nick Eberle January 9, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

            We consume so much energy that when we talk about these short timelines to get to clean energy we are talking about nuclear. I wish we could just go solar as easily as environmentalists make it sound and I plan to myself as soon as the gigafactory gets running well and the battery aspect of off grid is more practical.

            Things to note about solar is it is super dirty to manufacture currently so what you make up in carbon are definitely off set in pure chemical waste. Wind is really cool but only applicable in certain areas. Water has it’s own environmental issues. When it comes down to it the practical application of carbon free power people in who are in power with money are looking at nuclear. So when you see these big environmental pushes like cap and trade you are making a huge financial bonus for nuclear. This is just a fact and until people either consume less or choose to operate independently of the grid pushing for carbon free energy is pushing for nuclear even if that is not what you want personally.

          • John Buck January 14, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

            Actually, solar panels are getting cheaper than oil for the same energy, and using a battery system you could technically have almost no emissions and still be connected to the Grid. Only issue is that efficient Solar panels cost a lot, and only work well during the summer at the equator.

          • Nick Eberle January 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm #

            They are getting cheaper after both you and the government borrow money to install them on your home or after a energy company builds them. We already have a multi billion (most likely trillion) energy infrastructure that would need to be replaced. Just like you with switching a car for energy savings the cost per mile can’t be comparable in order for you to replace something that works and makes you money with something else it has to be profitable. Companies don’t just go and replace their oil power plant with solar because the cost per KWH is comparable. It has to yield a profit to merit infrastructure expenditure. With 42% of our energy form coal there would need to be a beyond massive investment.. unless we went all nuclear and taxed carbon emissions which was my original point then a couple people would make bank and a bunch of family owned businesses would be completely eliminated (rich families yes but not behemoth multinationals.)

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 12:47 am #

            Grid-connected solar panels, whether rooftop or industrial-sized acreage, don’t help peak demand.
            Grid-connected storage is the problem with wind and solar.

            Excess production threatens grid stability. Sudden drop-outs require stand-by generation. The graph is of California, and is produced by California’s grid-stability regulator. The onset of demand at the end of the day exceeds the ramp-up rate of the area’s non-solar generators, so thermal (like natural gas) generators have to be started up around 10 to 11 in the morning, so they will be able to accept loads when the sun goes down. It takes about eight hours, and about $10,000 USD worth of natural gas, to take a modern gas plant from cold, to hot-standby.
            Well, natural gas prices have gone down, but the CO2 released should be assigned to the solar panels, which drop the load each sunset.

          • John Buck February 20, 2016 at 7:44 pm #

            Batteries. Selling to grid? Tesla’s powerpack and powerwall could do that easy.

          • Sumeo December 19, 2015 at 11:27 pm #

            “Do you crap in your house to?” Yes, I am sure he uses a bathroom. Do you use an outhouse?

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:43 pm #

            Do we have to worry about crap too? Other than this GW stuff?

          • joe HUSSEIN smith December 23, 2015 at 8:42 pm #

            What about flattus and volcanoes (earth flattus)? How do we deal with that? Ants fart too you know. They may be small but when you add them all up you could fill up 256,000 large blimps with CO2. That’s 26 million tons a year. I’m investing in Amdro!How are we gonna stop that in the Amazon without disrupting the ecosystem? I give up! I’m moving to higher ground and selling dingys!

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 2:03 am #

            ❝I’m moving to higher ground …❞

            All this crud, claiming that we have to keep the earth’s temperature rise to less than 2°C. So, how far north would you have to move, to experience the same average temperature?

            “The CERES data says that the average temperature change with latitude equator to pole in the Northern Hemisphere is about 0.5°C per degree of latitude.”

            “A degree of latitude is exactly 60 nautical miles, or about 111 km. This gives us a temperature drop of 0.0045°C per km.”

            1.2°C north, because we’ve already experienced the 0.8°C of warming since the ‘industrial age’ … that leaves us with 270km to move … about 160 miles.

            The quotes above are from


          • Mark O November 7, 2015 at 3:34 am #

            I would ask that you consider and respond to the following since you say pumping chemicals into the air is causing global warming:

            It is widely accepted in global warming circles that CO2 is not just part of the cause but by a large margin THE factor which causes global warming, now called climate change. So lets go to the biology behind this. Animals and the burning of fossil fuels consume O2 and emit CO2. Plants consume C02 and emit O2. Plants take the carbon out of C02 and turn it into sugars used by the plant to grow, known as photosynthesis.

            According to the Government the US emits 5.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

            Roughly 11 trillion pounds.

            According to the government the US produces 13.6 billion bushels of corn on approximately 81 million acres (127,000 square miles) of land,


            Corn weighs 56 pounds per bushel so 13.6 billion * 56 is 761 billion pounds. That’s not counting the plant on which the grain grew which by conservative estimates is another 400 billion pounds or 1.1 trillion pound of corn material grown every year in the US.

            Therefore, if we produce 1.1 trillion pounds of corn material annually, and that plant matter comes from C02 by way of photosynthesis, we are using 10% of the total C02 produced (11 trillion pounds) with just corn. That corn was grown on just 127,000 square miles of the total 3,800,000 square miles of total US land. And not taken into account yet are, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice, fruits, vegetables, forests, grasses, or phytoplankton which live in the ocean and by nasa calculations account for nearly 1/2 the world’s photosynthetic activity. All of these use C02 to grow.

            Its a balance, the more we consume O2 and produce C02, the more plants grow and produce O2. Corn production follows a similar line with population and C02 levels.

          • Mistrix November 7, 2015 at 3:44 am #

            Excellent points. You are correct we need co2 in the air. While we do grow plants, we also are chopping down trees at an alarming rate. It is at an imbalance. According to exxons own scientists in 1977 our use of oil could cause global warming and “Catastrophic results”. Exxon knew about global warming and chose to stiffle it so they could make money. Maybe you haven’t heard. The documents were just leaked in october.



          • mmama November 11, 2015 at 1:39 am #

            Actually, since 1900 the USDA Forest Service says forest size has statistically stayed the same or even gotten larger.


          • Mistrix November 11, 2015 at 2:00 am #

            That only covers the usa. The global deforestation rate is estimated at 13 million hectares per year during the period 1990–2005, with few signs of a significant decrease over time. In case you don’t know a hectare is 2.47 acres. (I had to google it. Metric throws me off)

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:11 am #

            In the last twenty years the world has got greener but I agree that we shouldn’t be chopping down vast tracts of forest to grow crops to turn into bio-fuel.

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:08 am #

            What a joke so you are saying that back in 1977 Exxon scientists knew more about the climate than any other climate scientist on earth which about that time were predicting another ice age.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:09 am #

            Yes. They hired climate scientists to do a study, the scientists found out increased greenhouse gasses would heat up the planet etc. They predicted global warming and had plans to hire the misinformation team the tobacco industry hired to confuse the public so they could get as much oil as possible before the gov shut them down. They even planned how to build thier structures to accomodate rising sea levels and that they would drill in the acrtic when the ice melts. The docs were leaked in october (i think?) of this year and they are under investigation for them. Google search “exxon knew” and you will find a ton of articles about it. That is if you dare to step outside the box. I double dare you. 😉

          • Mezoceph April 8, 2016 at 10:43 am #

            First of all, their internal documents do in fact reveal what Mistrix said. Are you claiming that these were forged, because not even Exxon is claiming that.

            Second of all, the predictions of an ice age were by no means shared by all climate scientists. At that time, many were already concerned about global warming, and some had been for 2 decades at that point. (See or the book by the same author, Spencer Weart, which thoroughly discusses the history of climate science. You can look up the papers that he cites if you don’t believe his summaries). During the entire decade of the 1970s, only seven peer reviewed papers warned of global cooling (Peterson et al. 2008). SEVEN! During the same time, 42 papers warned of global warming. There was absolutely no scientific consensus regarding global cooling. It was suggested by a few scientists and then exploded in the media.

          • mikebartnz April 8, 2016 at 11:09 am #

            Just like there is no scientific consensus about CAGW now so nothing has changed.

          • mikebartnz April 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm #

            Quote *There was absolutely no scientific consensus*
            Science and consensus are two words that should never be used together.

          • 85vintage November 7, 2015 at 10:46 pm #

            Are you kidding me right now? Do you honestly think a pound of plant consumes a pound of carbon dioxide? You win the impromptu Google search of the year for finding random facts. You lose the intelligent human award by too many orders of magnitude to count. A pound of plant does not consume a pound of carbon dioxide. On average a grown tree consumes roughly 48 pounds of carbon dioxide, possibly more accounting for standard deviation. A pine tree can weigh more than 2,000 pounds. Do that math.

          • mmama November 12, 2015 at 4:05 am #

            A corn plant grows from a seed weighing a gram to a mature plant weighing well over 1 kg dry weight (water removed). So where does the 1 kg of plant material come from if not from co2?

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 3:55 am #

            Plants absorb nutrients from soil.

          • Henry Grau November 23, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

            Mistrix global warming isnt real its just a hoax for the government to get lots of money from tax payers to solve a problem that isnt even there

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            The government isnt getting extra money from taxpayers for global warming. They have been giving out some money to support green companies. They have been spending it on global warming research. But they haven’t been getting money for it.

          • Joy Likens Dragland November 30, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

            They already have tax plans in place that up to now have been placed on the backburner until they can get majority population acceptance of GW. Trust me, the GW taxes are already ready. They’re just waiting for us to acquiesce. They have already acquiesced on state levels. Just look at California for a litmus test if you want proof.

          • Mistrix November 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

            Honestly they should just eliminate oil subsidies and tax the oil companies and let them pay to clean up the planet. They are the ones who got rich destroying it.

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 8:04 am #

            I wouldn’t argue about removing subsidies for oil as long as all subsidies for so called green energy are also removed and by that I also mean those on solar pumping energy back into the grid should only get wholesale for it not retail as otherwise those not on solar; and they are often the less fortunate; are subsidising those on it.

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:40 am #

            Remove ALL subsidies- especially for Ethanol!

          • Mistrix March 1, 2016 at 6:19 am #

            Sounds great to me!

          • jester6 December 13, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

            You may not consider subsidized ethanol a tax or tax dollars wasted on “green” companies like solydra a tax. Call it what you want, but it is still money taken from working Americans by the government for the purpose (purportedly) of solving global warming.

          • Mistrix December 14, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

            I agree. Tax payers shouldn’t pay for that either.

          • Joe gideon December 14, 2015 at 7:56 pm #

            Look at the “fees section” of any college, CC to Masters programs and you will find Green Fees – students being charged $100 + for the purpose of planting trees in Brazil to offset the school’s alleged heavy carbon footprint. In the olden days, they were known as Indulgences; “sinners” would pay to have time taken off in Purgatory. So Yes, the Government IS getting extra money from taxpayers.

          • Hair of Goat February 19, 2016 at 6:39 am #

            Is this your evidence you will use to debunk climate change?

          • Rick Fitz March 1, 2016 at 3:39 am #

            Are you really that stupid? No wonder you love Bernie.

          • Henry Grau November 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

            Also if you want proof read this link it contains proof that global warming isnt real also Im not trying to harm you or anything I just want to prove my point but i respect your opnion and your rgith to think that way

          • Mistrix November 23, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            Thanks i respect you too. I already have read everything in that article. Roy spenser is associated with groups that recieve large sums of money from oil companies so anything he says is biased.
            That whole bit about the scientists signing that petition is misleading because they arent even climate scientists. They are people with any bachelors degree as long as it has some studies in any scientific field. Technically I have a bachelors of science and my major was graphic design so I qualify to sign that petition. It’s a joke. 97% of CLIMATE scientists say global warming is real and man made.
            The arctic ice thing I’ve explained in earlier posts.
            I don’t care what Al Gore says. He isn’t a scientist. I’m sure he said some correct things and some imcorrect things.

            It’s easy to point at one incorrect thing and claim well they were wrong about that one thing so everything they say must be a hoax!! But these scientists are doing their best to predict the future to keep us safe. They arent psychics. There are going to be mistakes. Overall they have been right. There IS proof that the oil industry knew climate change would happen. They DID fund scientists to deny it. They are a corporation. A corporations job is to make as much money as possible. Not to look out for fellow humans or the environment. I’m sure some people are making money from green energy. That is smart of them. Doesn’t change that exxon knew, and not only planned a disinformation campaign but also planned how they will drill the ice caps after they melt. If you really want to know the truth you should read all of the info on both sides of the issue before you make a decision about which side to be on. I did!

          • Henry Grau November 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            Ok good points but those are facts you cant really deny them since their facts but you had some good arguments and a good rebuttal but all stuff is true but you have to right to believe what you want ps im not like everyone else here who just wants to start fights

          • mikebartnz December 9, 2015 at 7:59 am #

            Quote *Roy spenser is associated with groups that recieve large sums of money from oil companies so anything he says is biased*
            You really are pathetic as you never concede the opposite when just about all the CAGW scientists get their money from lovely government grants and going by the current USA dickhead of a leader they are producing exactly what he wants to hear.

          • Mistrix December 20, 2015 at 3:02 am #

            They would get funding regardless of the results. They whole point of doing a scientific study is to get answers.

            Who do you think is greedier, a corporation or a scientist?

          • mikebartnz December 20, 2015 at 6:00 am #

            It has been shown time and time again that if you can link climate change into your research that you are as good as guaranteed to get funding whereas without it you are far less likely to do so.

          • Mistrix December 24, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

            Well a scientist can study climate change and get funding without having to lie about the results.

          • nerevar59 December 29, 2015 at 12:50 am #

            So, corporations are the greedy ones, eh? Do you like your a.c., and heating? Your car? Your phone? All made by greedy corporations.

          • Mistrix December 30, 2015 at 12:11 am #

            True but destroying the planet to make money is unethical.

          • VooDude January 16, 2016 at 1:19 am #

            ❝destroying the planet to make money❞

            Oh, That’s a good business plan. Kill off your customers. .

          • Mistrix January 16, 2016 at 3:12 am #

            They will get rich now, the future generations will pay the price

          • Biosphere Lover July 2, 2016 at 11:07 pm #

            It is everything they are destroying for future generations. Look at our mass produced food and the effects it has on each human that consumes it. People need to question absolutely everything. What started for me as a concern for the Environment, opened up to be a trail of deception. Someone previously mentioned HISTORY, can I suggest a good read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a book by Yuval Harari. Reality is a way of living is what is destroying us and the future. Human Change not Climate Change.

          • Donald Bly August 10, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

            How much longer is the average life span now? Damn that mass produced food…. it’s sooo much more PC to starve to death…

          • Elizabeth Cazares August 15, 2016 at 7:38 am #

            While our life span has increased because of wonderful inventions like soap and medicine, now our food is being made with all sorts of chemicals so although we have the ability to live longer… We’re also quickly becoming more sickly. Lookup the food you eat and how it’s made, and you’ll realize you’re eating shit. Our bread isn’t even technically bread. Chocolate milk is old nasty puss cow milk, given coloring so they can still make profit off of it. There’s so much more it’s disgusting…. What I find funny though, is that your arguing for the people who aren’t on your side… Corporations don’t give a flying fuck about you or their consumers. They feed us shit and we eat it. They destroy our planet and we take it. They fuck up our economy and we pick up the pieces.. Wake up.

          • Donald Bly August 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

            While you’re worried about the content of your chocolate milk… others are worried about whether they’ll have anything to eat at all… I’m arguing for all the people that can’t afford the luxury of insisting on only organically grown non GMO food. Millions of people’s very lives depend on crops that won’t die because they are now drought resistant… or disease resistant… etc…

            All this barking about evil corporations is ironically laughable as we type away at our corporate supplied keyboards..

          • Vasillios September 15, 2016 at 1:37 am #

            Where are these millions of people? And what drought resistant crops are they depending on?

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            I’ve been growing corn for as long as I can remember. In 1992 the average corn yield in the US was 94 bu/acre. I’m 2005 it was 147 bu/acre. All of that increase can be credited to genetics.

          • Barkfin October 5, 2016 at 11:58 pm #

            Respectfully, Monsanto’s patents on GMO product only last 20 years. They have a guaranteed-in-law monopoly on their invention for that duration, and they are free to charge what the market will bear, or even withhold it from everybody for no other reason than they feel like it.
            Any patents that were granted before the era of Windows 95, including every patented technology within Windows 95, is now freely available as public domain technology.
            I’m sorry that this simple system doesn’t work for you, what alternatives do you propose? If you hurry maybe we can implement your new patent system in time to wrest control of Monsanto’s GMOs out of their filthy, greedy, money-sucking hands before they are turned over to the public domain anyway.

          • Bruce9 December 6, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

            and Corporate produced Smart Phones, TV’s, Autos, Furniture, Clothing, Shoes, etc, etc, etc…

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 4:06 am #

            Im a socialist myself and you couldn’t be more wrong. First of all governments and corporations are both massive institutions with corrupt ends but the business needs consumers to decide to pay for their products to survive. They absolutely care about their customers. Go work for one and you will see. I quit since I hate corporate life but still. Second, our lifespan has increased because we aren’t starving! A century ago the world had no way to feed 7 billion! Sure there are compromises but you are asking for perfection while most just want to stay alive first. When everyone is full and fed we can work on utopia. Lastly, how do companies fuck up the economy when they ARE the economy?? If chocolate milk is made from straight dog snot but feeding the whole planet, its better than mana from the gods that feeds 20 people. Why does no one else on the left seem to understand the basic things every leftist and Marxist knew was common sense a few decades ago?

          • Elizabeth Cazares February 2, 2017 at 11:12 pm #

            Congratulations on being a Socialist? Also, a Marxist’s idea of a functioning economy is not one I particularly care for…and I’m not a leftist, I’m a proud Independent.

            Corporations absolutely care about their consumers? Yeah they care about their money. They love those profit/loss margins. Corporations focus on making the most cost-efficient product, not the best product. Otherwise we wouldn’t offshore jobs ;). I’ve only worked at a corporation once and one of the first things I was taught was to never admit fault… Now does that mean corporations are the scum of the earth and we should shut all of them down? No, that would be stupid. All I am saying is that while people have purchase power, that does not mean that corporations automatically work for the best interest of people. They compete with each other and in effect give consumers the best prices. Two different things.

            Like all things in life, they are best when kept at a balance. Corporations are good at competing with each other and driving the prices down, thus giving us good cheap products. However, there is also a positive correlation between growing wage inequality and corporate growth. Also, Corps can afford better product prices because of their purchase power on vendors. Making it hard for smaller businesses and Mom and Pop shops to compete. Therefore, instead of you getting to own a little store in your local community and earning a decent living. You might just work at a slightly more than minimum wage job in that Corp.. And once again while that is not all bad, it’s also not all good. We do best as an economy when we have more small businesses. (Small businesses distribute their income among each other better than Corps).

            And I don’t know from what country you’re from, but I’m from the US. We bail our corporations out, or at least we have. Just look into US Government bailouts. Look into ‘corporate welfare’. Then look into oligarchies and unfair competition…

            The point though is not to build a Utopia. However, if we have the power to build a better economy that also benefits the planet, why not? That’s not Utopian, that’s smart. Truth is we are affecting the planet. You don’t have to be a scientist to figure out that maybe things like fracking and smog impact the planet… But who stands to lose in all of this? (Some) Big corporations, oil cartels…just follow the money.

            Truth is we can have a booming environmentally friendly economy, but some people are either too thick to understand that or too comfortable gaining from the current processes and stand to lose in this…If you want to believe in the 3% of scientists vs the 97%, cool. Your life.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:57 am #

            Human change….that would be social engineering? The hard truth for most liberals to hear (I am not a conservative btw) is that uprooting the social order is the most destructive thing they could do if they intend on using cooperation to achieve anything. Conservatives can be crazy assholes the same as some liberals but some of them are also quite wise. They do understand social reality far better than the left…the problem is they hate change while the liberal problem is they can’t live without novelty. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…that’s what the left needs to learn about the past. You can’t write off all historical knowledge as sexist racist garbage lol. That’s why the left will start its decline and start losing after its made some good gains the last decade

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:59 am #

            YOU need to question more too! Mass food production is bad?? How do you think most of the 7+ billion earthlings survive today? Drum circles? The GMO argument is stupid as well. Either accept risk or kill half the planet! Or be an engineer and fix the issues that concern you

          • Elizabeth Cazares August 15, 2016 at 7:32 am #

            🙌🏽. All truth.

          • SteamChooChoo September 21, 2016 at 9:37 am #

            Mistrix – I’ve been hearing that for generations and I am still waiting.

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

            That sounds more like jealousy than fact.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 10:58 pm #

            You think I am jealous because I secretly wish I could make billions ruining the planet? What the hell is wrong with you? You must be a sold out soul.

          • Mistrix May 29, 2016 at 10:07 pm #

            It will hurt future generations. They don’t care. They have plenty of customers.

          • Jo Mormont December 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

            Reducing the population is actually very beneficial for those in power.

          • Scott Hecker July 6, 2016 at 8:51 pm #

            Pre industrial levels of CO2 were @ 278 Parts Per Million which started @ year 1760.

            So in 2014 – 1760 = 254 years
            CO2 has increased from 278ppm – 400ppm = 122ppm

            So in 254 years CO2 has increased by 122ppm

            The alarmist would point out this is a 44% increase which is true

            But it’s and increase of PPM so 122/1,000,000 = .0001 or .01% in total increase over a 254 year period…. and Humans don’t account for all of CO2, volcanoes, decaying matter, cow flatulence account for the vast majority of CO2. Humans emit 29 gigatons of CO2 verses total atmospheric CO2 of 750 gigtons or .039 or 3.9%

            so of the increase over 254 years of 122PPM humans activity is responsible for (122ppm*.039) = 4.72PPM

            So over 254 years world wide human activity has accounted for (let’s round up) an increase atmospheric 5 PPM

            That is 5/1,000,000 or .000005 = .0005%

          • John Dure July 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            This logic is wrong Scott. because of: it desnt matter is PPM’s thats could be enough. For instance tyiny amount of poisons can kill people (as example, not saying Co2 kills people)

            Also, humans dont account for all CO2 increase but most. volcanous are 5% compare d to us and the 750 gigatons you mention, are natural and are in balance with the econsystem. A plant emits oxigen and an animal or person breaths it and exales Co2, the amounts gets balanced “in a cycle”. The problem is the extra one from burried lands (fossil fuels), and plants do not have the capacity to breath it all (they do breath 50% of all that burned CO2… but is not enough and over time CO2 increases)

          • Scott Hecker August 1, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

            First where do you get your facts “humans don’t account for all CO2 increase but most.” This is grossly false, unless you consider 3.4% which is the correct percent Co2 humans to be most. This concept natural and balance are not supported by the science. Consider during the Cambrian Period, nearly Co2 was 7000 ppm. This is about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. Curiously the Late Ordovician Period (450 Maya) was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentration was nearly 12 times higher, about 4400 ppm. So how do you explain an Ice age with Co2 at 4400ppm. Additionally this wipes out your critical tipping point of Co2 having disastrous effects.

            The real alarm is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

          • Diane Hovinga September 24, 2016 at 3:22 am #

            Has it ever occurred to any of you that there are also a whole lot more people populating the earth now than say 5000 years ago?

          • George October 12, 2016 at 12:57 am #

            Your point is?

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm #

            Climate supporters immediately turn to emotions when they are rebuted. Look at the terms bandied about here like “morally criminal”.

          • Aneesh Saripalli October 10, 2016 at 3:56 am #

            That math made me want to cry. It’s not how alarmists do the math, it’s how math is done.
            The way you calculate percentage change in something is (final – initial) / (initial).

            So the change from 2 to 5 is (5 – 2) / 2 = 150%.

            Similarly, its *according to your data which I’m assuming has not at all been fudged with* (400 – 278) / 278. This is ~.44 or 44%. It’s not divided by 1 million. A percentage sets it relative to the comparative value. This is so that a change for 10 to 20 is the same comparative change from 20 to 40.


            They’re both equal to a 100% increase. The CO2 increase IS 44%, over 254 years, and probably at an exponential rate.
            Though CO2 levels have been this high before, they’ve always came back down. They’ve been flat out for the last thousands of years, but this has been increasing with constant growth, with no sign on coming back down.

            Nature is used to it’s own CO2 cycles, with animals and plants balancing it out. The ocean accounts for the storage of a lot of CO2. Further evidence for human made CO2 release can be seen in the sudden increase in ocean acidity levels, which are directly a result of Carbon emissions. Basically, the ocean absorbs a lot of the atmospheric CO2 and stores it as Carbonic acid, which can tell us about CO2 levels at the time. The consistence of ocean acidity levels is what allows coral reefs to survive and other environment sensitive species to survive. Arguments that humans nature is the cause of this can be argued otherwise by the continuing existence of massive coral reefs that would’ve died in continuously acidic water. The truth is, humans are releasing unsustained levels of CO2 release into the environment, further pressing the issue with deforestation (the natural filter). The ocean is the only mechanism left, and after some time, will eventually cause massive oceanic destruction as well. While the amount we release is relatively insignificant to the amount released and absorbed by nature itself, all of this release is release that can not be absorbed by nature, and therefore is left in the atmosphere. This has added up exponentially since the dawn of Industrial Revolution and is yet to be controlled.

          • George October 12, 2016 at 12:52 am #

            You can’t prove anything you have written. You are full of yourself and it.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 3:50 am #

            Does anyone REALLY know the global carbon levels in 1760?

          • Josh December 9, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

            Yes, they can date them much farther back with Ice Cores. But that’s just Science, people don’t like science anymore, or facts. Causing drama and misplaced influence are the really important things in life.

          • Kenneth Clark July 24, 2016 at 12:47 am #

            So for the Gubment to do the same and worse is cool with you?

          • Mistrix July 25, 2016 at 9:53 am #


          • Kenneth Clark July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am #

            That is exactly what Gubment is doing.

          • Aneesh Saripalli October 10, 2016 at 3:59 am #

            It’s not at all convenient that you happen to have cherry-picked sample of 7 years.

          • nissangtr October 10, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

            Find me a accurate temperature chart from 1750 to 2000.

          • Josh December 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

            Did you even bother looking at the dates here? Not sure what you’re trying to prove but if these are for comparison, they don’t make any sense.

          • SAGE CRANNELL December 7, 2016 at 3:52 am #

            Dude, I have to write a speech about the dangers of denying climate change, and you’re kind of my hero right now.

          • Flamingpitbbq December 8, 2016 at 4:10 am #

            Are you being sarcastic? She’s basically made me decide to deny it myself! Lol

          • ATR December 31, 2016 at 8:07 pm #

            and going back to the stone age just to say i stopped CO2 is stupid

          • SSingularityy December 31, 2016 at 10:07 pm #

            So, you don’t think we can find better ways to harness energy?

          • ATR May 21, 2017 at 10:36 pm #

            ive changed my opinion now but im still not for green energy im for nuclear energy not modern nuclear energy but future nuclear energy (such as molten salt reactors)

          • Oliver Swack April 27, 2016 at 2:46 am #


          • Mistrix May 29, 2016 at 10:06 pm #

            Of course i enjoy things made from corporations and creating and building is a wonderful thing. Doesn’t mean i can’t want those companies to make ethical decisions about the environment.

          • Michael Oedy October 4, 2016 at 1:49 pm #

            No, it sounds like you want to punish with a two-fisted heavy-handedness. The movie John Q launched the movement for a government controlled health care system. The producers sent an emotionally charged message of punishing the insurance field. Now, 12 years later it is clear that the only people punished has been the middle class. I’m paying $1,100 more a month for medical premiums before the movie John-Q and America is less healthy.

          • Mistrix October 29, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

            Obamacare sucks except for the removal of pre existing conditions. Health insurance in general is stupid.

          • Richard A. Fletcher November 26, 2016 at 2:20 am #

            Done properly, catastrophic health insurance is a great idea, meaning that one pays mostly for the normal checkups and medicines needed, but it is some really serious happens, one is now no more than X number of dollars. That’s the kind of health insurance I had before Obamacare took over.

          • Bruce9 December 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm #

            Good old Obammycare. Payments went up 6 Times! Repeal!
            Make portable.

          • Biosphere Lover July 2, 2016 at 10:50 pm #

            I have none of these, for the reason of Climate Change. I buy nothing new, there is enough on this planet already to supply our needs. I see first hand how my country has been degraded by corporations and I see the news how corporations destroy lives & land without any conscience. I studied two years of an environmental science degree and had to stop, because the reality was so depressing and I needed to be a part of the solution now. Its should be all about People Change not Climate Change. and yes I have a computer, which I built out of discarded ones I found at the tip. The big problem I see, is we have no alternate options. I am having to produce my own bio fuel, because the corporations have the hold on oil.

          • Kenneth Clark July 24, 2016 at 12:46 am #

            The oil which is heavily regulated by government agencies for taxes. Gubment must get the largest piece of the pie.

          • Donald Bly August 10, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

            Why do you need biofuel? You know corporations don’t produce crap that greedy consumers don’t want… they produce what consumers lust for… blame humanity not the corporations.

          • John G August 12, 2016 at 3:04 am #

            Hey – you are where I was several months ago regarding the worry and wanting to be part of a solution to AGW. Then while looking up scientific articles to reference in a Disqus comment I stumbled across a big initial piece of the solution for AGW. It is called Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment (CFD) and is being proposed by a volunteer group of over 30,000 people called Citizen’s Climate Lobby (CCL). So I’ve redirected some of my worry energy into positive action by working with them to do what I can to help get a solution put in place:


            The solution is to put a tax on fossil fuels based on resulting greenhouse gas emissions and return all the money collected (net) back to American households on an equal basis. This tax will increase each year, and is called a fee because the money collected is returned as a dividend right back to households. This proposal will cause the market to respond to a predictably rising fossil fuel price, which will make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels within a decade, and which will encourage entrepreneurs and investors to lead the way to a clean energy future. I like the fact that this method does not require the government to choose the best solutions: it allows the free market to operate efficiently to do the picking based on the merits of all available options while encouraging the development of new solutions.

            This is the best idea I’ve seen to get us well on the path off fossil fuels. Because it is revenue neutral it can be supported by everyone in Congress who wants to do something about AGW. And because about 2/3 of all households will either break even or receive more in their dividend checks than they will pay in higher prices due to the fee, this plan actually helps the economy and protects the poor and middle class.

            CCL has a goal of getting Congress to pass a bill to implement this in 2017, by gathering support from citizens to create the political will and by lobbying Congress. Take a look at the group, at their Carbon Fee and Dividend solution in detail, and if you like it call or write your Congressmen to tell them you would like them to consider it. If you really like it, talk to your friends and family about it and encourage them to do the same. If you love it, join the group and learn how to help contribute to make the goal a reality next year.

          • Charles Campbell October 29, 2016 at 9:00 pm #

            Taxing people into submission to your [hoax] agenda is about as far from a free market solution as you can get. In case you haven’t heard, a REAL free market solution is fast approaching, and it’s driven by true market forces (or so I’ve read), not by people who think that a “warm blanket” effect of greenhouse gases (just CO2, really), produced by the activities of mankind (producing something close to 0.2% of the CO2 total, as I recall), is somehow causing BOTH warming AND COOLING (i.e., climate CHANGE). Someone please try to explain that one. Anyway, setting that aside, the “solution” to calming the rabid fears of those who believe the hoax is that the price of solar energy (per what I’ve read) has dropped about 98 or 99% over the past decade or two and THEREFORE, due to true market forces (better, cheaper, faster ideas and products), nearly free energy is coming soon. These “climate change” arguments will subside and disappear, because the hoax-believers will get what they want … or what they say they want. But the one-world-govt people won’t get the power that they want, so keep an eye on them and don’t let them declare some emergency that “requires” a world-wide “solution” and/or govt to solve. Technology and innovation solve problems; govt power brokers create problems. And once we have abundant, nearly free energy, don’t expect the climate to stop changing, or change less, or anything of that nature. THEN, HOPEFULLY, the hoax-believers will stop electing imbeciles and/or putting them in charge of universities and school systems; and maybe true science will be reborn.

          • John G October 30, 2016 at 3:41 am #

            The problem with letting the current market arrive at the eventual solution of solar over fossil fuels is the timing. The business as usual scenario, where we just let current market conditions evolve on their own, is projected by most climate scientists to push the Earth past tipping points and into very bad territory.

            Why do you think the energy market is currently efficient. Do you not see the costs that all of us are paying in higher taxes due to costs that only exist because of the fossil fuel industry? For example, $60 billion/year on military bases and related sea lane patrol near the Middle East to ‘protect our oil supply’. If we did not need oil, we would have no need for almost all of those bases. How about the 10,000 deaths each year from health-related issues due to burning coal to generate electricity. Imagine the number of people who do not die each year from the problems, but instead suffer from asthma and other health effects induced from the toxic air from coal. Then consider the health care costs, lost productivity, and other costs associated with those problems. The costs keep adding up. I’ve seen estimates anywhere from $600 billion/year to $5 trillion/year (the IMF) for the world-wide costs to society of the use of fossil fuels. That’s not including the actual price we pay for them. That’s just the costs of the negative externalities.

            Take all those costs and add them to the price of fossil fuels, and you get an efficient market. That’s what Carbon Fee and Dividend does. And by returning all the money collected (minus administration costs), all the fears you mentioned above do not apply. The government does not decide what to do with the money collected. Each of us does when we receive our dividend each month.

            CFD fixes the broken energy market, protects our purchasing power, does not grow government, and promotes all the right behaviors because all energy options end up competing on all their true merits, not on which ones have been able to swing the biggest subsidies to keep their prices to consumers unrealistically low.

          • Charles Campbell October 31, 2016 at 7:05 am #

            What kind of a response is that? Sounds a lot like Hil-liar-y’s canned responses in the presidential debates. It’s very late so I’ll have to keep this short.
            Let’s ignore the information I provided, for now, which is what you’ve chosen to do anyway. Except to say that
            it blows your “timing” premise out of the water. And who cares what the projections of most
            climate “scientists” are when most climate “scientists” are ignoring the basic
            principles of science (obvious, long-standing principles like ensuring that
            your data is taken in such a way as to be unbiased/true; and letting the data
            lead you to a valid theory, rather than fudging the data to make it support
            your theory and/or ignoring the data that doesn’t support your theory) in order
            to get the govt grants provided by globalist government leaders? “In the latter days people will surround
            themselves with teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear.”

            I said nothing about thinking that the energy market is
            currently efficient. But apparently you
            wanted me to, so you could actually respond, rather than pretend you were
            responding. But I will say, since you brought
            it up, that a FREE market (where individuals “vote” with their purchases,
            uninfluenced by govt manipulation such as that you’re proposing) is efficient
            at making the right decisions (those that serve the people, since they make the
            decisions), and is vastly superior to any centralized govt in making the right
            decisions. But that hardly needs to be
            said, especially at a time when the govt is run by idiots.

            Until the oil price war was started by Saudi Arabia, the USA
            (due to technological advances) had become the world’s largest producer of oil. But prior to that point, the entire world
            needed existing oil supplies in the Middle East to be protected from the likes
            of Iran. It was a matter of national
            security for most nations. Ignoring, as I
            said, the wave of nearly free energy that appears on the horizon, that would
            continue to be the case and those military bases would continue to be
            needed. Taxing the bejeezus out of
            American taxpayers, as you propose, would make American taxpayers poorer, but
            would not decrease the need for those military bases and therefore would not
            save us money. Your statement, “If we
            did not need oil, we would have no need for almost all of those bases,” is probably
            correct. Given the “if.” But in the scenario we’re talking about, and
            are used to, we do need oil and arbitrarily raising the price of oil –
            especially if it gives even more power to a centralized govt – doesn’t make us
            not need oil and causes us even bigger problems with our inept, bloated, highly
            inefficient, and dictatorial federal govt.
            Those figures you provided probably come from those lying climate “scientists”
            you mentioned. But it makes no
            difference; the point is, you first create the scenario where “we do not need
            oil” (e.g., by fixing the problems of cost and energy storage, which appear to
            be on the verge of being solved, with respect to solar power), THEN whatever
            minor problems are caused by use of oil or other fossil fuels will simply go
            away … WITHOUT expanding the bureaucracy or corruption of the federal govt.

          • John G October 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm #

            I was not diverting from the question as most politicians seem to be expert at on both sides. My comment directly addressed your concerns but perhaps not explicitly enough.

            Not every market should be allowed to run ‘free’. For example, manufacturers would dump their pollution into local waterways or in their back woods because that would allow them to reduce costs, and thus be more competitive. Laws are required to protect local residents and anyone living downstream from those things, which economists call ‘negative externalities’. When there are negative externalities in a market it is defined as being a broken market.

            Fossil fuels have enormous negative externalities. From military spending in the Middle East, to health care and insurance costs from coal exhaust and smog from transportation, to economic impacts on areas that are hit by accidents during extraction, transportation and storage of fossil fuels. Also, costs paid by taxpayers to clean up toxic sites left by bankrupt coal operations. The IMF estimates the world-wide cost of using fossil fuels (not including what consumers pay directly for them) at $5 trillion/year.

            The energy market is a broken market. To fix the market and get the benefits of an efficient energy market, the price of fossil fuels must be increased to reflect those costs and the estimated costs of climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification that result from using fossil fuels.

            How that is done, and what is done with the money collected, will make the difference between success or failure of the solution. Raising the price of fossil fuels will certainly send a clear market signal and direct consumers at clean energy options. But it would be possible to shock the market, hurt the economy, drive down individual purchasing power, grow government, and make conditions ripe for fraud and cheating if done poorly.

            That is why I am encouraging everyone to not just tell Congress we need a price on carbon, but we need the specific solution called Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariffs. This calls for gradually raising the prices of fossil fuels by starting with a tax of $15/ton CO2 emissions at the source (well, mine, port of entry) and rising $10/ton CO2 each year. All the money collected will be returned back to all American households on an equal basis (1 share per adult, 1/2 share per child for up to two children per household).

            Under this plan 2/3 of all Americans will break even or receive more in their monthly dividend than they will pay in higher prices due to the fee. The poor will mostly spend the difference each month, which will give the economy a boost. And the third part of the plan, border adjustment tariffs, will protect US jobs and companies by normalizing the cost of doing business in the US compared to other countries that do no have a comparable price on carbon. This will strongly encourage all of our trading partners to also put a price on carbon.

            This solution does not grow government or government control, it does not put the government into areas in which it is not needed. It simply creates an efficient energy market, which over time will accelerate the trend to a clean energy based world.

            If you don’t believe that is needed you are wrong according to all the major scientific organizations around the world, and you should check out this TED talk from James Hansen:


            If that motivated you to seek out more understanding about the best solution to our fossil fuel problem, check out Carbon Fee and Dividend here:


          • Lee January 2, 2017 at 7:02 am #

            Basically the globalists want to kill the USA economically so they can do whatever they want to, like Sharia law, or communist China law, or USSR law, anything but the USA, because we actually try to help people. China already emits far more CO2 that the USA, but they can burn whatever the hell they want!

          • Scott Evan December 11, 2017 at 8:23 pm #

            Lee do you really think were spraying chemicals into our air??

          • KC9GEU January 19, 2018 at 11:04 am #

            Wake up and read about geoengineering little boy! I have watching it happen all century.

          • Scott Evan March 1, 2018 at 11:48 pm #

            ya i did its a bunch of bs just like flat earth giant retard duurururuururururuur i r smart but ir no facts duruururu

          • Scott Evan September 14, 2018 at 6:15 pm #


          • kathyelmo December 22, 2016 at 3:41 am #

            The benefits from burning fossil fuels overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives…. do your research.

          • John G December 22, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

            I’ve done a lot of research. Into the science about the problem, and into the options to fix it.

            I suggest you do some. Start yours here:

            Then look at a market-based, revenue neutral solution that will give us all the benefits of energy, with none of the existential threat downsides that continued use of fossil fuels entails.

            Carbon Fee and Dividend:

            Let me know how it goes.

          • emmet September 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm #

            You seem to be under delusion that money and Congress can change the ways of Earth. That is thinking small, very small, johnG

          • John G September 7, 2017 at 11:22 am #

            You didn’t read enough about Carbon Fee and Dividend if you think that.

            Money is the solution. It is what drives progress and is how most people vote for things. Factory farm chicken or free range organic: your choice is a vote for more of the same production process.

            Put the costs associated with global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions into the price of fossil fuels, and people will make different choices. Do it gradually and industry will have time to provide options, and consumers will shift to them over time.

            Return all the money collected back to American households on an equal basis each month and we protect middle income households’ purchasing power and help the poor. Helping the poor in this way will grow jobs and the economy.

            Border adjustment tariffs will protect US jobs and strongly encourage all our trading partners to follow our lead.


            Watch the two minute video on this page and follow the link to the REMI report for details. 20 years of this and we’ll be down to 50% of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll have created 2.8 million new jobs (net), and prevented 200,000 premature deaths from air pollution from coal burning power plants.

            It’s not my idea, I just like it a lot. What is your big thinking if this one is not that?