Secretive UN Legal Conference Wants to Outlaw “Climate Change Denial”

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

global warming

When you’re dealing with one of the most controversial debates in modern history, a little tact is in order. Or at least it should be with global warming, because contrary to popular opinion, it is not a settled science. While the majority of people in most countries believe that it’s happening, many of them don’t think that it’s being caused by human behavior.

And don’t believe anyone who tells you that there is a ‘consensus’ in the scientific community. The oft-repeated statistic that claims 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, is a joke. That number can be tied to a vague 2009 questionnaire that was only answered by 79 scientists from the climate field, and which ignored the opinions of thousands of researchers from multiple relevant fields. There is no consensus.

You could say that none of this is important, because something can be true even if nobody believes it. In our world however, consensus is the closest we can get to the truth. If everybody agrees on something, then there’s a very good chance that it is a fact.

If however, a sizable percentage of the population that consists of both scientists and laymen disagree with popular opinion, then it can hardly be called a settled science. This situation calls for more research and debate until the truth, whatever it may be, becomes indisputable and everyone can get on board with that reality. You know what it doesn’t call for? Persecuting and prosecuting the minority that has dared to disagree with popular opinion.

And that’s exactly what a secretive UN funded legal conference decided to do last month, when they met to discuss climate change and how the International Court of Justice should tackle it.

The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was “overwhelming”, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to deny “the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas”, and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role “in finally scotching these claims”.

“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

On the surface this sounds like what I was just asking for. There should be research and debates until the indisputable truth is found. However, this hardly sounds like a fair debate. It sounds like Sands is calling for an international court to prove what he thinks is true, rather than seeking the truth with an open mind and a consideration for all parties. He’s really just calling for a kangaroo court to make his science official, which would be followed by prosecuting any institution that disagrees. Frankly, that would be incredibly unethical to do, even if global warming was proven to be true.

What I find interesting about this whole situation, is that I don’t remember hearing about anyone calling for pro-global warming opinions to be made illegal (as a matter of fact, if you can find a single instance of this happening, post it in the comments.) This type of behavior seems to stem exclusively from the other side of the aisle, and it doesn’t do their argument any favors. If this is how top global warming proponents approach science and debate, then it’s hard to imagine anyone taking their assertions seriously in the future.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

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

Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
[yottie id="4"]

175 thoughts on “Secretive UN Legal Conference Wants to Outlaw “Climate Change Denial””

  1. Not that he fascist, anti-science left would actually have the intellectual honesty to review this, but here are peer reviewed scientists – in their own words – on the scam of BIG GREEN MONEY global warming: (sorry for the bad line breaks, but from a 400 page paper I did on the scam).

    “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

    “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, whose
    president Danieel Shenton, thinks “the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is
    contributing to global warming.” (See So much for
    Obama’s comment that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth

    “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.

          1. It is in no way dead, it just goes by different names in different places. They run the global war complex.

    1. What really illustrates the hypocrisy involved in this is when Al Gore stammered on and on about moving away from the coasts and then proceeds to buy an $8,875,000 mansion right on the coast of California!
      Perhaps his global warming won’t inundate his home I reckon, lol.

      This is just more wealth redistribution from progressive thought tanks.
      But hey, if it’s raining hard, it’s global warming, if it’s too hot, it’s global warming, if it’s snowing hard, it’s global warming, if it doesn’t rain, it’s global warming!
      They think that they have all of their bases covered.

          1. It figures. I got a big kick out of a plea from an art museum director in London about 15 years ago who begged patrons to “control themselves” as he blamed human farts for the beginning of decomposition of some works of art in the museum

        1. The loony left say that cow farts contribute to global warming. So must all cattle raisers be fined for allowing their cattle to fart or would they require them to attach something to cattle which would “capture” this “gas” and dispose of it in a “proper” way?

      1. That’s why they changed the name from global warming to climate change. They’re too stupid to understand climate change = weather.

    2. I know why it went to an Indian anyway, because I took several trips to India and met with many different classes from the top to the bottom and they are only interested in one thing, Money to buy more things with and will change with the wind and go along with whichever the money wind is blowing!

  2. More peer reviewed major scientists, vs. the anti-science, ignorant/fascist/leftist BIG GREEN MONEY jakarzes

    “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 ttp://
    (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

    “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,

    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

    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.”

    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

    “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,

    “…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.

    “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

    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

    “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

    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:,
    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.;;; 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? 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. , 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.” 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. 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

    “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,

    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,

    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.” Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke

    Heartland Inst.
    confirms this by noting “The IPCC’s climate science assessment is dominated by
    a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside
    the IPCC process.”

    “ 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)

    “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate
    about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every
    possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

    – Former
    Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles

    “I want to …talk
    about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
    science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in
    its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
    scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already
    settled. … “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
    consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
    requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or
    she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science
    consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results…“There is no
    such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s
    science, it isn’t consensus. … .” …
    Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
    Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus
    is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to
    speak that way.”

    – Dr.
    Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology, cited

    scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and
    a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who
    studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a
    skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were
    sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right
    here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s
    climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive
    theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a
    separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that.
    We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we
    have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in
    Albany” New York, he added.

  3. I am a Canadian who hikes a lot in the Canadian Rockies.

    Early pictures from the area vs. today show much glacier recession, at least for some glaciers, such as Bow Glacier (where I just was a month ago), which is the source of the Bow River. The hiking book Classic Hikes in the Canadian Rockies shows this glacier around 1900. If you go there today, the same glacier is much, much receded.

    here is the rub. The same anti-science types, who think science is determined by “consensus” (of which there is none, not even close) rather than **experimentation and hypothesis testing**,
    unthinkingly look at this and make utterly unwarranted conclusions. The fact of the matter is that there was something called the Little Ice Age (LIA, also known as the Dalton Minimum) the nadir of which was around 1790 to 1830. The simple fact is that this was one of the coldest periods since the Ice Age, and we are still emerging from this. THAT, mon ami, is why the Bow Glacier –
    and its sisters – have receded: we are still emerging from that LIA. This is why, according to the Archeological Survey of Canada, the tree line was 100 km. NORTH of where it is today during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period, which was preceded by the similar Roman Warm Period. Incidentally, that emergence from the Little Ice Age has stopped over the past dozen years – there has been ZERO global warming since 1998, which now
    even the co-opted IPCC admits, as did Phil Jones at Hadley , the lead global warmer – until ClimateGate forced him to resign (and you’ll notice the leftists and Agenda 21 scamsters hope you’ll forget Climategate… along with Lois LernerGate

    More evidence. Kegwins’ study in Nature on marine radioistopes shows that we are, today, still BELOW the 3,000 year average.
    If you google “Dr. Tim Ball+picea glauca” or go to
    you will find a white spruce stump on the coast Canada’s Arctic Ocean, dated
    about 5,000 years ago, and NOWHERE near today’s treeline. Of course, no one on
    the left has the intellectual honesty to address any of this.

    reality is that the left, the BIG GREEN MONEY, and the Agenda 21 types want to
    control energy, which allows them to
    control everything that touches, which is… well, everything

    Last Oct. 2013 – March 2014 period was the THE coldest in N. America in over 100 years. China and Thailand lost rice crop – and people died of the cold – during the same
    period. NASA just reported THE coldest temp EVER in Antarctica, of -135.8F, and Antarctic ice is at an all time EVER record extent (same Antarctic the self proclaimed “science guy” Bill Nye thought was the Arctic during one debate). Arctic ice up somewhere around 50% or so as well.

    More for ignorant global warmers: Since when has “consensus,” rather than experimentation and hypothesis testing defined science? Since Galileo?
    Copernicus? Columbus? Since Hitler had published “100 Scientists Against Einstein?” Since Ignaz Semmelweis was drummed out of the medical biz in the 1800s for insisting his doctors wash their hands between operations? Oh, and that consensus horsemanure?

    Al Gore, thas stated about global warming “The debate in the scientific community is over.” In contrast, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, professor of atmospheric science has stated “Al Gore is wrong. There is no consensus on global warming.” and the frantic alarmism all over the media has, in Dr. Lindzen’s own words, “nothing to do with science.” Meanwhile, Colorado State University
    meteorology professor emeritus William Gray says about global warming: “It’s a big scam.” Frederick Seitz Past President of the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a petition against
    the whole global warming façade, which over 19,000 scientist signed this petition… as opposed to the 600 the U.N. could scrounge up, and some of these 600 have since reconsidered their past agreement, such as Nobel Prize winning
    physicist Ivar Glaever who stated in an update to the U.S. Senate Minority report for 2007 that “Global warming has become a new religion” and “I am a
    skeptic,”.Japanese scientist Kiniori Itoh, another former IPCC member who has
    called Gorian warming a “scientific scandal,” while noting that people “will
    feel deceived by science and scientists” when they learn the truth. For a complete list of signees to the OISM
    petition – which includes a simply staggering number of Ph.Ds go to the .oism
    (dot) org/pproject/ site, where they are arranged in alphabetical order.
    Meanwhile a similar petition www (dot) petitionproject – as of Aug., 2008 – had
    31,072 scientist signatures, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds disagreeing with
    anthropogenic global warming.

    1. I am a person with a really good memory.
      You left this comment on this blog word for word a couple of months ago.
      I don’t agree with the man made climate change. But the cut and paste propaganda will not look good to anyone who has an attention span longer than 5 minuets.

      1. Why would you call it propaganda? Facts is facts, so to speak. Also, many of us did not see it when it was posted “a couple of months ago.”
        However, he would have done better to change the line endings so there wouldn’t be so many short lines, such as the word “with” all by its lonesome on the second-to-last line.

          1. Well, yes, as that description fits me to a tee.
            However, not so when one is copying and pasting other text into a post.

        1. Jim Robert states at the outset that he is both cut-and-pasting the remarks, which he had originally made in another place; and also that the textual erraticism was due to the fact that the document had to be scanned before uploading.
          Best to read thoroughly before commenting, RBW.

          1. So what? It’s harder to read those cut and paste jobs when the lines are not properly aligned. Best to thoroughly read posts you are responding to before commenting.

      2. Facts and quotes are not propaganda. Why rewrite something that is cogent and makes one’s point? That would not be logical in my mind.
        That pill in your avatar is disturbing….

        1. p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

          Quits have
          quotations. I’m a Canadian… is not a quotation, nor is it a fact
          based argument. It was well wrighten to look like one, so it kind of
          falls into the propaganda category.
          The pill is acutely from an
          old comic book, but I think it’s original meaning has been long lost.
          I think about changing it. But I have had it so long that the pros
          don’t outweigh the cons because there are more uses for an Avatar than most
          people suspect or conceder.

          1. Well, there were quotes from multiple scientists putting out disagreements with the global warming religion. It has significance in that regard at the least.
            If those are indeed quotes from those scientists it further blows the “97% concensus” propoganda out of the water.

      1. It will be of interest to learn that Galileo’s ideas about the relative orbits of the earth and the sun were based primarily upon the observation that, when looking though a telescope, larger objects tend to be orbited by smaller ones.
        Applying this observation to a theory of the relationship between earth and sun is at best a stretch; and actually has no scientific credibility except as a hypothesis.
        Far more compelling was Tycho Brahe’s development of a model ( that word again) that precisely delineated the mechanism whereby a sun orbited by planets could then orbit the earth.
        This model unerringly explains the periodic retrograde motion of Mars, etc, and all the other local planetary phenomena as seen from earth.
        But strangely, the theory is not referenced except as an aside, despite never having been refuted.
        Once again, a dogma takes precedence over the impartial deliberation of the true scientist.

        1. i’d never gotten that deeply into the Galileo thing, but i do know that many cultures knew that the earth orbited the sun multiple millenia prior to the BC/AD switch.

          India has known about sub-atomic particles, and following an ancient oral tradition, they wrote about this about 1800 BC.

          Personally, i say: never discount a civilization which mentions sub-atomic particles 4,000 years ago as not worth listening to. There are going to be some real gems in there.

          And don’t even get into Ayurveda, where the herbs used and the uses they were applied to actually work, their energy work predated the Chinese Accupuncture system, they brought martial arts to China through Bodhidarma, who taught the monks the arts to defend their selves against warlords and keep them healthy enough to stay awake during meditation, lol.

    2. A devastating critique of the liars and frauds who control mainstream thought; despite the veritable tsunami of evidence against them.
      The logic they use seems to derive more from psychology than climatology; ie, repeat a lie often enough, and most, even if not all, of the money you hoped to gain will be yours.
      Incidentally, although this is slightly off-topic, I noticed one or two references to Flat Earth Theory in Jim’s writing. Impartial analysis of this additional area of controversy also reveals a truth which is actively suppressed by the mainstream, including, as mentioned, by the Champion of Mainstream Logic, Barry Soetoro.
      Never a good man to have on your side if you wish to discover the truth about anything.
      And a final point; the Ice Age which Jim informs us made a sudden appearance a few thousand years ago at a time of high global CO2 levels was almost certainly the result of the Great Flood, and as such, the links between CO2 levels and global climate are seen to be entirely subservient to the Purposes of God Himself.
      Those who might wish to investigate how these things occurred would be best advised to access the w/s of Dr Walt Brown, who clearly and logically spells out his understanding of how these events occurred.
      His w/s is the Institute for Creation Research.

      1. Being afflicted with insatiable curiosity – and finding that various bits of information fit into the most surprising future circumstances – i tend to hoard such (misnamed) trivia, lol.

        Did you have any links? Just read really quickly through as i have to feed my animals and then hit my remodel #2 and move a water heater and lay tile. Not enough time to ….but curious.

      1. Doesn’t matter what you see
        Or into it what you read
        You can do it your own way
        If it’s done just how I say

        Independence limited
        Freedom of choice
        Choice is made for you, my friend
        Freedom of speech
        Speech is words that they will bend
        Freedom with their exception

        ~ Metallica – Eye of the Beholder

        1. A planet of playthings
          We dance on the strings
          Of powers we cannot perceive
          “The stars aren’t aligned,
          Or the gods are malign”
          Blame is better to give than receive
          You can choose a ready guide
          In some celestial voice
          If you choose not to decide
          You still have made a choice
          ~Rush – Freewill

      1. You are the fraud.
        • You initiated a discussion and then complained that I addressed you.
        • You attacked me, but then claimed I made an ad hominem. You provided
        no evidence of either type of ad hominem (there are 2 types) from me.
        • You claimed that Christian theologians teach that any experience
        that proves God is demonic, but couldn’t provide your source theologians, plural, so you called me a body part:

        YOU: “All the claims to theological expertise in this dialogue are yours, and I’m not trying to prove the unprovable.”

        ME: “No. You made this claim: ‘The only personal experience that could prove the existence of a deity to a human being would require occurrences that Christian theologians firmly maintain are not within the Christian experience, and are signs of possession by demons.’

        So, provide the authorities for your ‘Christian theologians’ claim or be known as a fraud.”

        YOU: “OK, I’ma fraud. Now STFU and leave me alone, asshole!”

        • You claimed that Jews teach that a baby’s life begins at conception.
        They don’t teach that. You provided no authorities and, to cover up your
        ignorance (or lie), you diverted into a personal attack.

        You are the fraud.

        1. If you can’t accept my admission of guilt and honor my request to be left alone, your personal credibility is lower than a pile of pig manure. Would Jesus Christ act like you do?
          If so, your god is just as crappy as your credibility.

          1. I have left you alone. You have engaged me reeatedly… as you did in this instance. Hypocrite and fraud.

          2. You can’t seem to move on, that isn’t my stupidity, it is your’s. I have never re-engaged you re the issues that you can’t detach from, so that is your problem. When you expose your superstitious views anew, I will exercise my right to free speech.

          3. YOU requested that I not communicate with you. If YOU don’t want to communicate with me, it is very simple—don’t communicate with me (as you initiated in this thread). If YOU communicate with me, I will respond with YOUR archived history.

          4. Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. According to some research, the projection of one’s negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.

        2. This last point.
          It seems that jews do not teach that a baby’s life begins at conception, but at birth, as Mark says.

          “….Judaism excuses abortion through the “rodef” pilpul, that the baby is a rodef, a
          pursuer, an aggressor, whose life the mother may take. (Among many, see
          “Jewish Law Favors Stem Cell Research,” Jewish Journal of Greater Los
          Angeles, July 30, 2004). Judaism teaches that the baby is not “nefesh,” a person, until it is born.

          “Rashi, the venerated twelfth century Judaic interpreter of the Bible and Talmud, says of the fetus” ‘lav nefesh hu—it is not a person.” Rabbi Meir Abulafia decreed, ‘So long as the fetus is inside the womb, it is not a nefesh and
          the Torah has no pity on it.” The noted Judaic legal scholar Rabbi
          Isaac Schorr stated: ‘The sense of the Talmud is that a fetus is not a
          person’ (Responsa Koah Schorr, no. 20 [“responsa” are authoritative in
          Judaism and supersede the plain text of the “Hebrew Bible”]). The Talmud
          contains the expression ‘ubar yerech imo’—the fetus is the thigh
          of its mother, i..e., the fetus is deemed to be part of the pregnant
          woman’s body. In rabbinic
          law the status of ‘secretion’ lasts for the first forty days of
          gestation. In Judaism the woman is not regarded as pregnant until the
          baby in her womb is more than forty days old….”

  4. Weather is drifting around due to currents in oceans, everyone (asshats that is) thinks climate is changing. In reality it’s weather patterns. Combine this with the cycle of global temps and guess what? It’s good to not burn plastic and update your car if you can. Scrub the coal exhausts and treat the Earth well, but the freak-out is insane.

    1. The climate has always continually changed on the earth. It has never been significantly influenced by human activity outside of major urban areas. We are headed into a mini-ice age, which was predicted back during the first Earth Day, which is part of a 200-year cycle. If you go back and read about the weather that occurred on the North American continent 200 years ago, it will sound much like what we are experiencing today, complete with the economic dislocations.

  5. I do not follow asinine laws made by sell outs and frauds. I do not care who it is that makes them or who they think they are.

  6. Galileo was forced by the Catholic church of the middle ages to state in public that the sun revolved around the earth, even though he had proven scientifically that the opposite was true. If he did not recant he would have been burned at the stake. I find this same scenario happening here with global warming. Creation by God versus Evolution is a similar issue. Power and control often seems to prevail over “truth.”

    1. Actually, the best current evidence easily fits geocentrism and, in order to account for current observations, the Big Bang/heliocentrism crowd have to invoke “dark matter” and “dark energy” fudge factors 20 times the actual observed amount of REAL matter and energy. Galileo was wrong; the Church was and still is right. From a summary in a review:

      NASA and the European Space Agency have sent a series of probes intended to ‘prove’ the homogeneity and isotropy of a supposed Big Bang universe. Such proof would, by inference, demonstrate the insignificance of planet earth and mankind. The outcome? Ever more refined data from higher resolution deep space probes, COBE in 1990, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2013, have demonstrated the opposite, the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the universe with our earthly home at it’s geometric center. The data showed three axes of symmetry intersecting our earth at the center of the universe: (1) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) dipole aligned with the earth’s equator, (2) the CMBR quadrupole aligned with the earth’s ecliptic plane, and (3) concentric galaxy, quasar, and x-ray burst alignment with the earth’s equator and North Celestial Pole.

      1. “The earth also is firmly established; it shall not be moved”.
        1 Chron 16, 30.
        “Yea, let God be true, and every man a liar”.
        Romans 3, 4.

    2. TPTB have always demanded control over the current zeitgeist, regardless of the effects of doing so, because their control of public belief always enhances their overall control over those who believe everything they say.

  7. This is kind of scary, because I’m a real scientist and can’t keep my mouth shut about the truth at all.

    If you ask a “climate scientist” for the working theory, they don’t have one. Ask them how more CO2 will warm the planet, given the physics, they say they’re working on it or tell you some idiotic story how hot air doesn’t rise. Ask them how they know it is man made CO2, and they point to isotope studies that only show the carbon came from a sequestered source. Hey, isn’t all that coral you’ve been whining about dissolving also a source of sequestered carbon? Why, yes it is.

    Then you ask them for the experimental results that show that warming is bad, when the history shows quite the opposite. Nothing rational comes out of their mouths.

    Then you point out that the Climate gate e-mails proves their liars and frauds… “No biggie! We all do that”. No, we don’t! “and we got cleared by the criminals who pay us” Yeah, funny that.

    Now they want to throw us in prison, or maybe worse.

      1. Exactly. They didn’t follow the data collection protocols they claim to use. Watt caught them at that. The warming in the 1990s was overstated by a factor of 2. Then they use their bogus data to “correct” the satellite data that exposed their lie. Any honest scientist would have looked at the satellite data, then questioned the surface data. Not these guys – this was an intentional deception.

        1. Unfortunately they act far more like politicians or government bureaucrats than competent or honest scientists. Fortunately, the scientific community is finally beginning to police itself. Maybe the law enforcement community will catch the virus before we have to start shooting them before they can us.

      2. Also, they fail to take into account, that how accurate was a thermometer 100 years ago? Most were calibrated in 2 degree increments. And were read by a human. So, if you don’t read the thermometer head on, maybe you’re high by a degree or two, or low by a degree or two. Back then, they weren’t looking for accurate, just an indicator.
        Add to the, we didn’t get reliable, accurate electronic thermometers in the field until probably the 60s-70’s. and they’ve been improved upon since then. So, their 2 degrees C is well within the margin or error.

        1. It is fairly easy to calibrate any thermometer, given that the freezing and boiling point of water hasn’t ever changed, and both of the common temperature scales are linear. The standard used for the calibration is usually more important for the accuracy of most thermometers than the technology used to build them.
          Most of the issues with the IPCC’s data relate to inconsistencies in the location of the instrument, many of them having been moved into heat pools before the study reading were taken, and detectable manipulation and/or outright lying by the reporters.
          I have never heard a meteorologist in America use centigrade, nor one in most of the rest of the world, fahrenheit, FWIW.

          1. Not exactly. Water boils at different temps depending upon elevation. I’m referring tomwetbulb thermometers, scales vary.
            They were talking about maintain a maximum of 2 degree C max increase. News casters don’t use C.
            I agree, temp reading locations was also a problem, and how read. Maybe dragging all these facts before a court would be a good thing. As it stands, the climate change people refuse to have the discussion. Not sure how that court would work

          2. Since we are talking about scientific issues, I assumed that you would understand that standard conditions would be assumed. Since they aren’t, apparently, standard conditions apply. Water boils at the same temperature under standard conditions, which is always a specified barometric pressure.

            You must not listen to newscasts anywhere else but in the U.S., because I hear the temperature predicted on Radio Australia every day, in centigrade. They don’t say it, but they are in a country that uses it, so… That, or they don’t get very warm in the summer.

            Wet bulb thermometers are only used on psychrometers, and those are rarely used by anyone, having been replaced by mechanical or electronic hygrometers.

          3. “replaced by mechanical or electronic hygrometers.”
            I said that. I was talking 100 years ago. CC believers are using data back that far and further. my point was, that data wasn’t accurate to draw a conclusion regarding and temp change today.

      3. Neal Boortz commented more than once on his radio program about the locations of many of those temperature-recording stations.

        1. I don’t have a way to listen to Neal Boortz, and I quit doing so the last time I could. He bills himself as a libertarian, but his monologues reminded me of the republicans that swarmed into the LP after they were driven out of their own party by the neo-cons.

          1. Neal Boortz retired from his radio program three years or so ago. The station I listened to in North Carolina immediately took his show off when his impending retirement was announced and substituted another program which was hosted by one of the “talents” which was home-grown by the company which owned that station. I never did hear the replacement program, as my radio then remained silent during that time slot.

            I was not aware that anyone was driven from the Republican Party by those mysterious people known as the “neo-cons.” I haven’t any idea who they are or how they became that, nor has any coherent description ever been provided by anyone. Generally, I’ve just disregarded anyone who uses that term.

            So far as I could determine, Neal Boortz was in fact a libertarian, leaning more toward the conservative side. That is my own position, agreeing with the liberals basically on only two issues–gays and pot.

          2. Yes, I am familiar with the Quiz and have taken it. I scored just inside the libertarian portion. I disagree with the libertarians on some issues, such as a military draft.
            P.S. At one time a few years ago I was on the mailing list of The Advocates for Self Government.

          3. There are two kinds of military servitude, voluntary and involuntary, and involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th amendment to the Constitution, so I guess you are one of those who doesn’t support the Constitution. Those who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution would commit treason if they aid and abet the violation of the 13th Amendment.

          4. The government is also empowered to raise an army, and it is not restricted as to how that is done. The “involuntary servitude” clause does not apply. Drafting a person for military service can be said to be akin to eminent domain, the taking of private property for a public purpose. Don’t get your knickers in a knot over this, as you will merely have knots in your knickers.

          5. The government is not empowered to raise an army by forcing anyone into involuntary servitude, and they have never had to when Congress has declared war, as the Constitution requires. Eminent domain went south with Kelo, are you saying that Kelo is the authority for drafting conscripts? If so, that went away with Kelo.

          6. That is your opinion. Apparently the Supreme Court does not agree with you.

            As for Kelo, I don’t know how you get that eminent domain “went south” with that decision. That decision went off the reservation and greatly expanded the power of eminent domain. Fortunately, some states have reined in their own ability to abuse eminent domain. However, the power of eminent domain to seize private property for an actual public purpose (roads, schools, etc.) is not diminished.

            No, I did not say that Kelo is the authority for drafting conscripts. I said nothing of the sort. Why must you twist others’ words? I simply said that the power of eminent domain, WHICH IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, could be considered to be similar to the power to draft citizens for military service.

          7. Eminent domain is what Kelo destroyed, by saying that any government can take whatever they want, paying you whatever they want when they do. That’s not eminent domain. You were the one that compared involuntary servitude with eminent domain, which is like comparing killing for self-defense with euthanasia. Since they are as bought as the rest of the government, the SCOTUS doesn’t agree with the Constitution in any way that they can sell it out to special interests. I don’t twist words as much as you fail to understand what they meant when they were written.

          8. What I said was that conscription can be compared with eminent domain in that the government can take your property if it is required for a public purpose, and it can also take YOU if necessary in order to raise an army which is needed at any given time.

            Sorry, but your post is nothing at all except gobbledygook.

          9. You must be confused. Where in the Constitution do they get the power to take me? Several of the amendments specifically tell them they cannot. If you don’t know this, you don’t know the Constitution.

          10. You must be confused. The Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an army, and it does not limit the means which Congress can use to do so. The amendments were in no way intended to limit Congress’ ability to do so. If you don’t know this, you don’t know the Constitution.

          11. Actually, it doesn’t give Congress the power to do anything except pass legislation. Why do you think that the executive branch exists? Kindly specifically cite the language that you claim allows them to do otherwise.

          12. I’m somewhat familiar with what the Constitution provides for. We actually had a civics class when I was in high school. The teacher gave me an A+ the first quarter, but I fell down the last three quarters and only received an A.

          13. Are you one of the children not left behind, because they were all left behind? I failed all of the physical fitness tests when I was in physical education in high school, but I got straight As, because I got there on time, stood on my number, listened to the instructor, tried to do everything he asked me to, and didn’t talk back to him. You probably regurgitated everything you were fed, and got a good grade as a reward. That is the way that the public fool system works, and why we desperately need to return to the way that education was done before Dewey and his merry band of psychosocial propagandists took over.

          14. Since none of that is coming from this direction, it all has to be in your head. After all, something has to be filling that cranium cavity you have.

          15. Sorry, but no point has ever been evidenced in any of your posts.

            Perhaps you have the time to continue this silly back and forth, but I do not.

          16. Previous message?
            I still do not have the time to back and forth with you on this, or anything else for that matter. Some of us have a life. Too bad you do not appear to.

          17. “Whatever that is,” displayed your almost complete ignorance about almost everything I post. My life has become dedicated to waking up diphenhydramine addicts like you, usually against their wills, since they are going through life in a media-induced lucid dream. If they don’t engage an educational process, in favor of operating on their specious premises, they will never benefit from what they could learn.

          18. My opinions are based on my own personal experience and observation over a period of many decades. I have no idea what this “vomitstream media” of which you speak, might be. I’ve been a news junkie for decades, avidly reading daily newspapers and following the broadcast/telecast news. (I recall hearing the news broadcast telling that King George VI had died and that Princess Elizabeth–who was on a state visit to Kenya at the time, with Prince Phillip–was suddenly Queen Elizabeth.)

          19. Have you ever done any actual news gathering or news reporting? If you have, than you would know, as do I, that what actually gets in the newspapers and on radio and television reportage is usually a tailored and edited version of what the first responders actually saw and did. The talking heads are most of what we see and those reporters that they break-away to are usually pre-recorded and edited. The misdirection of people like Jamie McIntyre has become less possible in the modern broadcast news program.

          20. I am aware that most tape in news operations ends up on the cutting room floor.
            But I suppose you thought you had a point in there somewhere.

          21. Sharps are not used to edit audio or video tape if they are still used, and they seldom are in well-heeled news operations. Everything is recorded on magnetic or optical discs, or flash memory, edited digitally. All of that is irrelevant to the non-technical editing process applied to the copy and/or the content provided to people like you who believe it all.

      1. Man-made climate change is a reality in the micro-climates of urban areas, where the masses of concrete and asphalt absorb heat by day and release it at different rates depending on local meteorological conditions. That said, the earth’s many climates are all too large to be affected by the tiny inputs that mankind can provide, even if one considers all-out thermonuclear war, which Carl Sagan had to backpedal his nuclear winter predictions regarding after he had reworked the calculations, which reduced what he claimed would be caused for years to something that would clear after that many weeks. His prediction made the front pages around the world, his correction/retraction was scarcely seen above the fold in the back.

  8. Yea, they must suppress honest debate and counter theories because they know its all a fraud. The Earth since her birth has been going through NATURAL WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES. It is called a NATURAL PLANETARY CLIMATE CYCLE.

  9. I think climate change is a cover to keep the masses focused off all the important things like, all the nuclear plants that really are destroying the planet.

          1. There is no way in HELL we would ever get the real results from any reactor from the government. And that goes for any potential threat to the public health. Lies and cover ups ONLY.

          2. That doesn’t change the fact that we already know about every atmospheric test that anyone has made, and the fallout therefrom, and that that exceeds all of the credible releases that could have happened without being discovered or reported.

  10. Seems as if we all are supposed to SIT DOWN! SHUT UP! DO AS WE’RE TOLD! ASK NO QUESTIONS! When We’re told to jump, we DON’T Ask WHY?, BUT… How High?

    Appears “The Maasters of the Universe” are desperate! ( Ok,now let’s go back to discussing Hillary’s E-Mails!)

    1. the constitution doesnt give you crap that you werent born with. it certainly doesnt protect you from the govt as it was written to do. free thought and free speech are mine to employ as I wish and no govt (in any form) can take that away from me and no piece of paper will save it for me.

      1. The Constitution wasn’t written to protect anybody from anything. It was written to define and limit the government which has largely ignored it as well as We the People have our responsibility to enforce it.

    2. The Constitution says that a treaty which has been ratified by the Senate is equal to itself. Unfortunately, most Americans are as ignorant of that as they are about the rest of the Constitution and where we came from, in general.

        1. True, but they aren’t the constitutional arbiters of what is and isn’t constitutional, the Supreme Court is, but they decided in Marshall that they could decide what they would decide and what they wouldn’t, and largely decided to abandon the Constitution in a similar fashion to the way that We the People have. Any law that no one enforces is no law.

  11. Of course they do. They realize people are waking up to their treachery of attempting to impoverish the whole of humanity with their “taxing” scheme. UN has got to go, preferably by force.

  12. Looks like the Christians are once again demanding that anyone that says the Earth goes around the Sun be arrested.
    And if the deny Mars goes in retrograde they should be burned at the stake. When will they let the enlightened secularist say what’s right and wrong?

    Oh, wait….

  13. Yet those same “Claimers” fly around in private jets, ride in limousines, have large mansions with a multitude of housekeepers, AC in summer (true sign of global warming), heat in winter (Global Cooling?)………

  14. The measure of the rigor of a science is it’s ability, to predict
    To this point, the green wienies are batting zero.
    Cut all funding to the UN, give it one year to find a new home

  15. Typical actions of a petty tyrant put in charge of a run amok government agency. Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. Stop funding these third world tyrants, who only want to control everybody.

  16. There is so much money involved in the Global Warming/Climate Change scheme that leftwing lunatics aren’t going to drop this, remember Obamacare, and this is an international redistribution of wealth. In Europe this has been going on since the 80s and look where they are today?
    God Bless the USA!

  17. There is no question that, as Vaclav Klaus said, Green is the new Red. The irresistible vanguard of human progress, before which all must bow and which must liquidate the “wreckers” who criticize it, is not Communism or Maoism or Ingsoc but the global warming hoax, and the avatars we must not just obey but must love are not Stalin or Big Brother but Al Gore, the smartest man who ever went to Harvard, and the two most corrupt couples since the Medicis and the Borgias, the Blairs and the Clintons.

  18. Here is my ” little tact ” — F–k the UN.obozo, gore, soros, clintons and the rest of these lowlife scammers. Is this tactful and politically correct enough ????

  19. Well the UN can shove that up their butt. They dont run this country. They r just guests and a whole building off liberal, power grabbing idiots.

  20. The UN does not make LAWS in the United States, does not have the legal authority to make laws. Obama can not do this through EXECUTIVE POWER.

  21. Hay UN Fuck you and your global warming, America does not want you here just a traitor in our white house. And while your at it tell our DOJ they can fuck off also. You slime balls haven’t seen any violence yet but guess what it is coming and guess who will be targeted.

  22. In a recent Congressional inquiry Trey Gowdy while questioning some big shot from the EPA told him that satellite data that was monitoring temperature changes proved that the planet was not heating up. The EPA was asked if they would accept this data as proof. The EPA said they would stick with the supposed 97% of scientists who say that the planet is heating up. Their agenda will never admit that they are nothing but scammers and frauds.

  23. I see a lot of claims on both sides of this issue but I have no idea who is right. The planet has undergone climate change as far back as we can trace it with modern science. That is a fact. Human existence has changed so drastically that we are very well indeed, polluting the atmosphere. That is also a fact. so what to we do about it? Use our scientific knowledge to create a cleaner environment. We are actually in that process. But the process has to take its course. Alternate energy is coming. We keep advancing science at whatever pace we can to make it more affordable. But we cannot just stop doing what we are doing or we stagnate into oblivion.

  24. I deny it now, and I’ll deny it on my deathbed. There is NO such thing as “man made global warming/climate change”. The first one trying to arrest me for that will get a severe case of lead poisoning, in numerous locations. Global warming is a scam meant to redistribute OUR wealth to 3rd world countries.

  25. Stop the ECO Engineering, their use of HARRP and those sprays. They say we have dirty air, well if they stop spraying the moisture disbursements and other, we could get rain that cleaned our air decades ago. Now we get heat and humidity instead of rain here in commie California, just outside of America. Before you get you panties in a bunch democrat dudes, and say aw they can’t do that. Um, can you build a computer? Yet you have one, right? How about water as a gas? or a way to turn seawater into abundant fresh water and energy? I can do those and more, yet most can’t and I’m saying you air is poisonous, your water is poisonous and your GMO foods are poisonous as well. Baah, baah, baah, right Sheeple? You see lines in the Sky’s, your under attack with Aluminum 13, possible coal ash and the special sauce mixes of nano and mm mm mmmm, “other.” Baah, baah, baah, right? Most people would get angry, but at me, yeah. Oh, how nice would it be to have an all electric car? eh, right? How about one with out a gas kicker and no plug. Yeah, it’s been done, and they the democrat socialists can’t tax that, or fee that without being “outed” as anti American and anti world. Well, it’s been done, yeah, and they killed the guy. Learn your “MARKET.”

  26. There is no end to the ~500 year effort of tyrants to deny the empirical fact that the Sun Copernicus discovered at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543:

    1. Made every in the solar system
    2. Exploded five billion years (5 Ga) ago and birthed the solar system
    3. Sustains every atom and life in the solar system today via invisible force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core.

  27. How can the seas be rising when we still have the same sand flats at our beach when the tide goes out that we had 50 years ago? They would no longer be visible if the seas had risen.

  28. I think it is getting close to that time when those who do not like our country, our Constitution and our way of life need to start looking over their shoulder. Both foreign and domestic. We need to take the country back!

  29. The UN should be disbanded or at the least told to leave the US, they have no relevant purpose so they have to make things up as they go. Because Obama made it clear that global warming is his biggest complaint, the UN jumped on that band wagon other wise they would disappear. 90% of all the scientific community has made it clear that the warming trends are not manmade, they are a natural part of the evolution of this planet. Some day this idiots may get their head out of their asses and see the reality of it.

  30. My analysis of global warming is rather simplistic.
    Al Gore has blowing his horn the loudest about this alleged climate change and, well, none of the stuff he and his scientist cohorts has really come to pas.
    Well, I guess it does get cold in the winter and it gets warm and hot in the summer.
    On those points he is kinda correct.
    But, I did not get to Washington,DC, in time to reserve a spot at the Washington monument to tie up my yacht.

    In other words, NATURE takes care of herself.
    It is rather presumptious to think man can create more pollution than all the volcanos around the world that spew 100 times or more the noxious gases that modern day climate liars are saying modern day man creates.
    Climate change is nothing more than a bunch of people being spooked by faulty scientific data in an effort to make a few people, like Al Gore, very, very rich.
    Of course, there could be one more explanation.
    I always believed God made the earth and all the people in it and any where else in the universe. And, of course, everything in and on the earth.

    Why would people like Al Gore think we can destroy that which God made????
    Hasn’t God also given us the power to think and create and CONTROL what we think and create.
    Man, without the help of the EPA realized what pollution was and worked on things to minimize emissions.
    Enter Al Gore and the climate criers wanting MORE to be done to minimize emissions.
    Guess what??God already took care of that. TREES!!!!!!!

    CO2 is plant food, period!!!! And, what does the plant give off??

    Isn’t God wonderful???????????????

  31. UN also wants to force social media and the internet to censor EVERY POST that MIGHT offend feminists!!

    And some people think that calling the UN a tool for global control is some conspiracy. Aren’t those people NUTS?

  32. This is the main reason for chem trails! To politicize and gain control? News for the UN… You are NOT God! Leave us alone!

  33. How conceited do those who believe in Global warming (now in some circles referred to as Climate change) have to be? Of course climate change exists and has for at least a million years (probably more — a billion?). But referred to as global warming? Well lets see it gets warmer in the spring and summer and colder in the fall & winter (a pun perhaps, but it makes as much sense as global warming). However, it has been on a cooling trend for some 15 + years now. As a young adult in my thirties I remember when these same people were crying ice age coming. A lot like “the sky is falling.” No that ice age thing did not work out for them either.

    There is climate change because the earth climate is dynamic not static as some of those unable to think on their own seem to go along with from the perpetrators of this horrendous lie. BUT IT AIN’T MAN MADE. Furthermore, as others have said before me it is a way to gather wealth form those ignorant to fall for their con. From about 1960 to present will, I’m sure in the future, be known as the con age. Similar to the iron age and the industrial age. Only not as authentic!

    About seventy-five percent of the earth is covered with water. That leaves 25 percent of the 25,000 mile around earth for us humans to live on. The oceans are in places up to seven miles deep. There is no way humans could possibly effect the atmosphere more then the water does. The water temperature controls the climate and the sun heats the earth AND the water. Currents in the ocean create climate changes including drought and floods. It takes moisture to create rain and the oceans provide the moisture. Warm water puts more moisture in the atmosphere then cold water. Hey democrats starting to get it?

    Do yourself a favor try to THINK for yourself and you too will see how stupid this whole thing, some refer to as man made climate change, really is. A little common sense may come in handy also!

  34. What has happened to science? I can think of several ‘settled sciences’ we are not allowed to question. Seems to me, science has prostituted itself to it’s funders. There is little independent research. There are flash mobs in some cases who will storm any university which teaches anything but the required belief. Most of the scientific journals are now so timid that some dissenting scientists prefer to publish in the Far East rather than be constantly rejected by servile editors. Individual Professors and [Academic] Doctors are being dismissed from their posts, and threatened with cancellation of their academic qualifications. This is not science. This is the totalitarian road to irrelevancy. Hitler, Stalin and other imposed this same ‘ve vill ask ze qvestions’ approach to science. Look what happened to them. Sadly, this is not being restricted to science. It is in schools, in the corridors of local and central government, in hospitals and the justice system. Questioning the required worldview can now land you in prison.
    Again I suggest the most serious question facing the Western world is how to rein-in out of control governments.

  35. The UN is the biggest bunch of gas bags in the world. There’s your global warming but the people that are the biggest addictives of it have multiple cars planes and use them constantly.

    I guarantee you they won’t turn down there heat in the winter time to 55 degrees in their home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.