When Global Warming Propaganda Is So Lame It Hurts

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


And the saddest part is, you can tell they actually think they are being clever here…

Sorry if this climate change propaganda makes your forehead ache like you inhaled too many Slurpees.

At least you were warned.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Melissa Dykes of The Daily Sheeple.

Melissa Dykes is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa and Aaron also recently launched Revolution of the Method and Informed Dissent. Wake the flock up!

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Razedbywolvs

    I was really wondering about the environmental impact of from everyone in CA removing there laws to save watter and get $500 from the city. Especially wen they replace the lawn with fake plastic grass.

  • jim_robert

    Real peer reviewed scientists, in their OWN words, vs. BIG GREEN MONEY global warming leftists. You decide (and google the quotes for verification – you don’t want to end up ignorant like the leftists here)

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. (Note: there really IS a Flat Earth Society, at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/, whose president Danieel Shenton, thinks “the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.” (See http://www.tinyurl.com/ozn2wfe. So much for Obama’s comment that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8039) (In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate Research, had published a peer-reviewed article saying the recent warming is not unusual, relative to previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics

    “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA

    “Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/seasoned-veterans-view-of-ipcc.html, or http://www.Climategate.nl

    Sir Fred Hoyle – who should need no introduction to anyone past a junior high education – said about the climate modeling that keeps failing: “Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not require complex computer models in order to calculate useful numbers for debating the issue… To raise a delicate point, it is not very sensible to make approximations… and then perform a highly complicated computer calculation, while claiming arithmetical accuracy of the computer as the standard for the whole investigation.” [1] (In fact the famed W.C. Rontgen wrote in 1894 about models, noting “It is almost always possible to compare the results of thought processes with reality to provide the experimental scientist with the proof he needs. If the result does not agree with reality, the former in necessarily incorrect, even if the speculation that led to the result was ever so ingenious or fanciful.” – cited from A.N. Tschaeche of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in Chemical Health and Safety, July/Aug. 1996)
    David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, who is skeptical of climate change predictions of catastrophe, realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees. “There’s a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey.” [2]

    Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University noted the “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming.” While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.” [3]
    “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I’ve studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don’t buy that, and I certainly know we don’t have any proof of it. I’m not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I’m very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079
    “…hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2. Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years… Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling” – Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s earliest green energy investors and global warming supporters. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

    “On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

    A former high-ranking Obama administration official, Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University says climate science and the implications of global warming are not “settled,” and has insisted such claims are “misguided” and stifle debate on the matter. Koonin also stated that group think among experts has been inhibiting “the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” Story at http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/#ixzz3E0DrtCmj

    Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Adjunct professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and the School of International Service, American University, is a liberal Democrat, but accepts that science – as opposed to Al Gore’s conception – is science — no matter what your political persuasion. Says Rossiter about AGW: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe” and “Obama has long been delusional on this issue” and “Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.” Of course, for having the temerity to present his findings about the climate, Professor Rossiter was booted out of a 23 year association with the Institute for Policy Studies. This is the kind of retaliation academics who speak honestly about the climate have come to expect. More details on this at http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/23/politically-left-scientist-dissents-calls-president-obama-delusional-on-global-warming/

    “During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past,” -Habibullo Abdussamatov, astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. According to Abdussamatov, our planet may enter what he calls “a mini-ice age” at the beginning of next year. “The ‘mini-ice age’ is associated with a change in the power of solar output and has a quasi-period of some 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries, plus-minus 70 years,” as reported by RIA Novosti.
    At one Congressional hearing, distinguished climatologist and professor Judith Curry testified that recent data “calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.”
    “This is not about the weather. It’s not about climate. It’s not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda.” – Joe Bastardi, Accuweather meteorology, then WeatherBell Chief Forecaster. Bastardi also noted “And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it’s really disheartening to see this going on in my country.” And about the NYC March of Sept. 2014, that attracted a third of a million people, “The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it,” said Bastardi, who earlier this week suggested climate science was “prostituted” by global warming activists. (see http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/weather-chief-obama-prostituting-climate-science/#mG4jYGTcOugUAlz4.99
    Heck, even some of the uber warmers are getting a clue! “Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations,” wrote Science magazine scribe Richard Kerr. “Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.” That was six years ago. Ok… maybe he still doesn’t have a clue.
    Even Mr. Warmer himself, Kevin Trenberth, wrote back in 2009 “[W]here the heck is global warming? The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Need more? Here are a thousand other scientists in a 321 page PDF who also disagree with faux global warming: http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf, and few more here, for whom I do not have quotes:
    And here are websites you can go to that attempt to look at the C02 issue from a balanced perspective: C3 Headlines, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Inst., Centre for Global Food Issues, Hudson Inst., Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Heartland Inst.; Climate Change Reconsidered; Climate Depot; Climate in Review; Climate Policy, Heritage Fdn; Climate Scientists’ Register; Climate Wiki, C02 Science (Craig Idso); Cooler Heads Coalition; Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation; Global Science Report; Global Warming, Cato Inst.; GlobalClimateScam.com; GlobalWarming.org; ICECAP by Joseph D’Aleo; International Climate Science Coalition; International Conferences on Climate Change, Heartland Inst.; JoNova (JoNova); Junk Science (Steve Milloy), Master Resource, Power for USA; Real Science (Steve Goddard); Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP); Science and Public Policy Inst., The Climate Bet; What’s Up With That (Anthony Watts); World Climate Report (Dr. Patrick Michaels).
    And what is the actual presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? Spectator.org notes that it is 390 ppm, or less than 0.04%, up from 320 ppm, or 0.032% 50 years ago. Of the remaining percentages, nitrogen amounts for 78%, oxygen 21%. Of the 1% that then remains, 90% of that is argon, with less than 4% of that 1% being carbon dioxide (these percentages exclude highly variable water vapor, which is usually around 1 – 4% of the atmosphere – and a much more major contributor to global warming, estimated at being 50-90% of the greenhouse effect). Of course the logarithmic effect of CO2 means each additional increase has less impact that the prior, same sized increase. Even more, about 96 to 97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay and volcanoes. [4],[5] In fact, relative to volcanoes, former FDA investigator Dr. Arthur Evangelista, noted that the 2010 eruption of Eyafjallajokull in Iceland emitted, in four days, enough CO2 in four days to negate every single effort mankind made that year to reduce CO2. But this volcano was a piker compared to Mt. Pinatubo, which when it erupted in the Philippines in 1991 “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth.” [6] And this doesn’t include that fact that, as he notes the “bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.”
    Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch. [7] Mr. Theon also noted in a Jan. 28, 2008 report that computer models used to determine future climate are not scientific, in part, because researchers resist “making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.” This violates a fundamental tenet of the scientific principle. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the “International Journal of Forecasting,” confirmed Theon’s statement, noting, “The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed,” and Theon and Armstrong both noted the 1995 IPPC report contained only opinions, no scientific forecasts, and revealed an audit of the procedures used to come to their conclusion “clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting,” with the forecasts following this one simply again repeating the same procedural errors. (Apparently, it was not only the French nobility of the 1700s of whom it might be said “they learned nothing, and they forgot nothing.)”

    • RobSa

      If these people were correct they would have peer-reviewed scientific papers to support their views. They don’t so their comments are instantly dismissed.

      • jim_robert

        Truly, you cannot be serious, can you? Have you ever even HEARD of MIT? Dr. William Gray, the #1 hurricane forecaster in the world? John Coleman – who has, along with Gray and Lindzen – called AGW a scam? Instantly dismissed? Your utter and complete ignorance of who these people are means either you are joking, or you are truly representative of the utter, staggering intentional ignorance of the Cult of Al Gore. I know the internet is full of insane people, but you take the cake. Seriously.

        • RobSa

          No-one cares if someone labels AGW as a scam because that is not what the science says. You have no science so you have nothing. Until there is a large body of research which is peer-reviewed, published and widely discussed attributing the warming to something else then your views will remain on the fringe. Anyone in the denial camp, like you, is ignorant and verging on the insane. You might also think all the world’s major scientific organisations are out to tax you and your redistribute wealth or some of the other crazy theories put forward by your type.

          We only have one atmosphere. Lets look after it and stop dumping heat-trapping gases into it. Its not too much to ask.

          • kathleenbeck

            You sound like ‘science baaaaa’ when they are REPEATING the same words Gunther Schwab said in his fictional novel. Now sheep, please go gas Jews.

  • jim_robert

    More peer reviewed scientists in their own words

    “Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.

    Dr. Willam Gray, Colorado State Univ., also cited elsewhere in this paper, noted AGW is “the greatest scientific hoax of all time.”
    “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” Prof. Martin Keeley, University College of London, cited from Newsmax Magazine March, 2010, p. 52

    In 2014, famed astronaut Walt Cunningham went to that year’s global warming UN climate Summit and called the whole AGW gambit “one of the biggest frauds in the field of science.”

    Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist, withdrew from membership in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, citing unbearable group pressure to conform to the AGW hypothesis, which threatened his ability to work and even his safety. Similarly, climate statistics professor Dr. Cliff Rossiter wrote in the WSJ that global warming was “unproved science,” he was terminated form his 23 year fellowship at the liberal Inst. for Policy Studies (see article by Climate Depot, http://tinyurl.com/p6otgd9.
    NASA and NOAA, which get a half billion dollars a year from the government, “have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature for years, making ‘global warming; look worse than it is.: Joe D’Aleo, American Meteorology Society fellow, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf

    Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”

    “The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.” Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

    “If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.”[9] Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke University

    “ Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” Shariv notes that “solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming” and greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant to the climate, stating if the amount of C02 doubled by 2100, it “will not dramatically increase the global temperature….” And “Even if we havle the C02 output, and the CO2 increates by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant” Dr. Nir, Shariv, top astrophysicist and assoc. professor at Hebrew Univ.

    “Dr. Harold Lewis, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated about ClimateGate (exposing the outright fraud behind AGW), said he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.” http://tinyurl.com293enhl
    “I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates….I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”

    – Dr. Dennis Jensen, only science Ph.D. in Australian parliament
    (Note: William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology also disagrees with the global warmers)

    • Meltonmark

      Now, apply the same reasoning to the ridiculous nonsense known as Darwinian evolution. Exactly the same counter-arguments and contrary data are presented, and with exactly the same ridicule, stonewalling, discrimination against the professors, and so on. Despite all the discoveries and contrary evidences presented over the last 10 years, we are still given the same BS that DE is ‘proven science’. No it it NOT and never has been.

      • Reverend Draco

        I can prove evolution with 4 letters.


        You’re welcome.

        • It doesn’t take an organism with metabolism to prove evolution. Viruses mutate with virtually every victim, making vaccinations made with one mutant useless in stimulating immunity against another. Prions demonstrate the same ability to a lesser degree.
          No theory was ever been demonstrated to the degree required to establish it as fact, nor does such need to be done to make well-recognized reality rise to the level of proven science, which is an oxymoron.

    • RobSa

      No-one ever made a convincing point by cherry-picking quotes.

      • kathleenbeck

        No one believes Gunther Schwab, an Austrian Nazi began this lie thanks to a fictional novel,

  • RobSa

    Does Dykes actually think a poorly worded puff piece for a company have anything to do with decades long temperature records, climate models which have become more accurate, record setting years like 2014 and 2015 or the other reams of empirical evidence which support the consensus of human-induced global climate change?

    • Joe2D2

      Go back to sucking your owner’s cocks. Your pathetic shilling packed with loaded data is as shallow as it gets. Quite fucking pathetic of you to drop by. Oh, is that Al Gore ringing your bell for another polishing? Better get back to doing what you do best and leave the real thinking to us grown ups.

    • You mean The decades long temperature records that show the earth has been cooling for the last two decades? Or do you mean the commonly cited NOAA data they admitted to having “adjusted”

    • joetentpeg

      You’re dang right!!

      The nerve of these denier fools.

      Just wait till that class action lawsuit is settled against the Neanderthals for ending the last Ice Age with their SUVs!

  • jim_robert

    Oh… and here’s a few more astronauts and renowned scientists who sent a group letter to NASA i

    March 28, 2012

    The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
    NASA Administrator
    NASA Headquarters

    Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds
    of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists
    publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming
    particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the
    exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and
    employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

    Thank you for considering this request.



    CC: Mr. John
    Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

    CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese,
    Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

    Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

    /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle
    Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

    2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate,
    32 years

    3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science
    Directorate, 41 years

    4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science
    Directorate, 23 years

    5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

    6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics
    Division, MOD, 41

    7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate,
    40 years

    8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

    9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal
    Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44

    10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

    11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis
    Office, 5 years

    12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration,
    MOD, 30 years

    13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel,
    16 years

    14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

    15. /s/ Anita Gale

    16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

    17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

    18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

    19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of
    Johnson Space Center, 22 years

    20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and
    Engineering Branch, 31 years

    21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon

    22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

    23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and
    operations, 3 years

    24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

    25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

    26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space
    and Life Sciences, 22 years

    27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development
    Division, MOD, 40

    28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and
    Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

    29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight
    Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

    30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

    31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr.
    Directorate, 30 years

    32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and
    Advance Programs, 40

    33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and
    ISS Program Offices, 33 years

    34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director,
    Space Station Program, 28 years

    35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6

    36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge

    37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

    38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

    39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch,
    Engr. Directorate, 40

    40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power
    Division, Engr. Dir., 48

    41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

    42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

    43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space
    Shuttle, 37 years

    44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years

    45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters,
    15 years

    46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering
    Directorate, 30 years

    47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury,
    Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

    48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering
    Dir., 40 years

    49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

    50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist

    Even Isaac
    Asimov, in discussing the warming and cooling that caused the ice ages, noted
    “There are too many possible triggers and the difficult task it to choose among
    them.” He then cited various possibilities such as variations with the sun,
    such as the Maunder minimum, variations in the Earth’s orbit or tilt of the
    axis, causing Milankovich’s “Great Seasons” of 25,000 years, or the earth
    passing through a cloud of galactic dust, among others. Yes, Asimov did
    consider CO2, but felt that even an increase to 600 ppm would only cause a
    slight increase in temperature. At the time of his writings on this, he
    predicted a rise from 290 in 1900 to 320 ppm by 2000, but felt it would take
    much more than that to seriously affect the climate. Asimov felt the real
    threat to humanity was energy starvation. Energy is needed to remedy issues ranging from
    water to pollution (e.g., think of the drought in California, and how that
    could be helped by a nuclear plant built safely,
    to use for desalination of sea water).

  • James

    Here we reved up global warming this week. That put some dust & gas up there. The dust & gas made it cloud up & rain cooling things down this way off a bit. But the volcano settled back down. So all back to normal.

  • Another Thought Criminal

    “uninhabitable for millions,” If it were true, it would open more land for habitation- large areas of Siberia, Greenland, Canada, etc. Global warming would actually create more land and more life.

  • You know that’s the entire point to the global warming sham…. Right…?

    • Chir

      Money. Green Money.

    • Global warming and global cooling are well-documented historical facts. Human causation of either is, at best, pseudoscience. As the IPCC practises it, it is outright and blatant fraud, illicit control being the sole purpose.

      • no kidding. hence why I said “the global warming sham”.

        • The global warming is real, having ended almost two decades ago, when we started into global cooling. The scam is not the self-evident natural climatic cycles of the planet, the scam is in the claims that humans have anything to do with causing it.

          • Again, no kidding. That’s where the “sham” part of that comes in.

          • The sham is the shameful way that supposedly serious scientists aid and abet the fraud.

          • I agree completely.

  • Same baloney algore was pushing in 2006. He claimed the earth would “cook” and become inhabitable in ten years. Guess what? That deadlines only about 6 weeks away…

  • straight shooter

    That’s what the propaganda initiative called global warming or climate change is all about–the perpetuation of a very lucrative business known as the carbon credit market. Using fear porn and junk science, the oligarchs fleece major corporations while keeping the public in a frenzy grabbing sides in a debate based on falsehoods, as a major underlying cause is kept hush-hush.

    So is the climate changing? You bet it is. But the utter and pathetic irony? Not for the reasons argued in 99% of climate change debates. To begin to see the elephant in the room, understand the true causes and grasp the devastating consequences, one must research the H.A.A.R.P. program.

    • joetentpeg

      Aye matey!!

      Ahhh for the good ol’ days when ‘wetlands’ were swamps, ‘rain forests’ were jungles, and ‘climate change’ was…

      …the ‘weather.’

    • RobSa

      Just where are all these carbon credit millionaires? If heard of lots of oil tycoons and coal barons but never have I seen reports of someone getting rich from mitigating climate change.

      • straight shooter

        In this case, it’s not individuals getting rich per se, it’s the IRS/Fed consortium collecting taxes on so-called emissions ‘violations,’ the degree and nature of which are highly questionable at best.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for big corps paying their fair share and for being reined-in on any and all environmental offenses. But meanwhile, people like the Kochs can continue freely dumping as much toxic sludge into any river or lake having the misfortune of being near one of their facilities.

    • renkentom

      You mentioned “climate change debates” and for the life of me I can’t recall any actual debates between qualified scientists from both sides. Did I miss something or am I just to follow the rhetoric and believe the sicko media and their agenda? I sure would like to see both sides face off with actual facts for us poor slobs to make up our own minds who is telling the truth.

      • straight shooter

        You are not to follow any mainstream anything. Why don’t you start by reading read Jim Robert’s excellent posts on this very thread. An awful lot of great sources are cited.

        Or, how about, say, doing some research on the life of the recently deceased Maurice Strong, mysterious globalist extraordinaire, sometimes referred to as the father of the climate change propaganda movement. He was the one who organized some of the main framework for the theory at the outset–i.e., organizing research so it fit pre-eastablished (by him) guidelines. What kind of “science” do you think that creates? Get to it, man–it’s out there.

        • renkentom

          Believe me, I don’t follow the liberal leftist papers. My concern, and I think you missed it, is the total lack of earnest actual debates regarding this mythical subject called “climate change”. So far as I know there have never been both sides of this issue discussed by qualified scientists in a true debate.

          • straight shooter

            I understand your point–and I believe the reason there has never been, and will never be, such a debate is because the creators of the propaganda are deliberately, and thus far, effectively, preventing it from taking place on a mainstream level. The fact that this hasn’t happened should give any thinking person pause.

  • When I saw the draft which was of 7159 dollars, I accept that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his spare time with his computer. . His aunts neighbor has done this for only 10 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car .This is what they are donig …

    >>>>> Visit my ƤŘỖƑĮĹẸ for the site address


  • Guillotine_ready

    The climate of the earth is in a constant state of change. The earth unlike people renews itself. A few centuries after man has destroyed himself there will scant trace left.
    So we could say this is a a nation that is so lame it hurts along with all of its allies.

    • RobSa

      But what has been different for the last dozen decades is that we have been digging fuels up, burning them and releasing the emissions into the atmosphere, where they trap heat. Its very basic stuff really.

      • Bloodnut The Flatulent

        Trap heat? Basic stuff?
        So explain how they had “global cooling/coming ice age” in the ’70s? (that falls within your ‘last dozen decades, does it not?)

        And up until that point, I suppose all the “dirty coal” and wood that people burned in their fireplaces, the blacksmith shops running their forges (fueled by the same stuff) had no effect whatsoever, right? For God’s sake, air quality is better now than it has ever been, and yet you uneducated cretins are still crying the “Chicken Little” bit.

        Pathetic, to say the least…

  • At least those who “log mine or dig for oil” do something productive and beneficial for those who fund their activities, which is more than be said for any government or military organization employed by one.

  • a.e.hurtado m

    NO2NWO that is HOAXing humanity into genocide & slavery!

    • kathleenbeck

      NWO=already here mate for 1000 years.