To Obama, Gore Bloomberg and other Profiteers

[Guest]

"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientist are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meterorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past two decades.The trend show no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere__from the unexpected persistence and thickness of ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940's the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F. although that figure is at best an estimate, its is supported by other convincing data."

Cite-From Time magazine, June 24, 1974
Reprinted WSJ April 30, 2015 in Notable & Quotable

[Guest]

Another flat earthier!

[Guest]

Another flat earthier!


This, I take it, coming from a Global Warming True Believer who is likely still driving his (or her) fossil fueled car and golf cart??

[Guest]

Another flat earthier!

We all know the knee jerk name calling routine :icon_bored:.

Do you have anything to say one way or another about the subject presented. We know you are not prepared....take your time do some research about what was in the article. Then present what you think.

Surely you can lay the slingshot down long enough to participate....really participate.

[Guest]

You all do know that the intent of the article was to explain that climate experts in 1974 were pushing an ice age ( dangerous cooling) and now they are pushing just the opposite global warming (dangerous rising of heat)
illustrating how wrong such predictions can be.

[Guest]

You all do know that the intent of the article was to explain that climate experts in 1974 were pushing an ice age ( dangerous cooling) and now they are pushing just the opposite global warming (dangerous rising of heat)
illustrating how wrong such predictions can be.

What it illustrates is how consistently wrong liberals are about most things.

However, on a more serious note, it does illustrate PERFECT consistency ... whether it's getting too hot, or too cold, or even if it's just right the liberal solution is always the same -- a more powerful central government to fix whatever they think needs fixing.

Hmmm ... maybe they should work on fixing themselves first come to think of it??

[Guest]

We all know the knee jerk name calling routine :icon_bored:.

Do you have anything to say one way or another about the subject presented. We know you are not prepared....take your time do some research about what was in the article. Then present what you think.

Surely you can lay the slingshot down long enough to participate....really participate.

Just can't find the time to talk with idiots!

[Guest]

Just can't find the time to talk with idiots!

:censored:

[Guest]

[B][/B

I am the OP and shared this quote from Time to illustrate the human experience. The same type of thing evolved around over population and how we would all suffer from starvation. However man's ingenuity and survivor instincts kicked in and man developed via technology better way to grow more crops, etc.

Now we have these same individuals referring to GMO as frankenfoods when this technology has been around for many years in the livestock and agriculture industries with not one factual piece of evidence that anyone has been harmed.

Yet a push to eliminate GMO is starving people in the underdeveloped world, and liberals by their green agenda against goal are creating the same effect. People are forced to use woodstoves which is killing kids

Am I against green or organic no but I believe humanity should proceed with a rational and balanced policy to move from theory to fact and build a better world.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Just for the record, there is actually no real data that proves how much of man's activities are responsible for climatic changes. Climatic changes have always taken place and always will. The argument that man's activities are actually responsible for non-natural climate change comes from computer simulation models. While there is little doubt that man's activities have contributed to some of the climate change, the real question is how much: 5%, 10%, 50%?? The physics incorporated in computer simulation models is incomplete and these models, in my opinion, are not ready to be used as a tool for shaping public policy because they cannot answer the question of how much of the climate changes are do to man's activities. It is not enough to say "some of it". Full disclosure, I developed computer simulation models for the Government and I am well aware of their limitations and the assumptions used in construction such codes.

Another flat earthier!

[Guest]

Just for the record, there is actually no real data that proves how much of man's activities are responsible for climatic changes. Climatic changes have always taken place and always will. The argument that man's activities are actually responsible for non-natural climate change comes from computer simulation models. While there is little doubt that man's activities have contributed to some of the climate change, the real question is how much: 5%, 10%, 50%?? The physics incorporated in computer simulation models is incomplete and these models, in my opinion, are not ready to be used as a tool for shaping public policy because they cannot answer the question of how much of the climate changes are do to man's activities. It is not enough to say "some of it". Full disclosure, I developed computer simulation models for the Government and I am well aware of their limitations and the assumptions used in construction such codes.

The other question that no one on the Left ever answers is ... ok, let's assume their is "climate change" (ie a euphemism for global warming) WHAT are we supposed to do about it?

Close down the economy? Stop driving cars? Stop using electricity? Starve and go away? Also, will the other countries do this if we do? (answer=no)

In short, no solutions ever offered ... just doom and gloom.

[Guest]

Essentially, your standard of living is proportional to the amount of energy you use. Fossil fuels provide cheap energy. Most other forms of energy are more expensive, especially in the case where you need to have a reliable power supply 24x7. Moving away from fossil fuels can be expected to decrease your standard of living. Not too many people want to talk about that.

The other question that no one on the Left ever answers is ... ok, let's assume their is "climate change" (ie a euphemism for global warming) WHAT are we supposed to do about it?

Close down the economy? Stop driving cars? Stop using electricity? Starve and go away? Also, will the other countries do this if we do? (answer=no)

In short, no solutions ever offered ... just doom and gloom.

[Guest]

Essentially, your standard of living is proportional to the amount of energy you use. Fossil fuels provide cheap energy. Most other forms of energy are more expensive, especially in the case where you need to have a reliable power supply 24x7. Moving away from fossil fuels can be expected to decrease your standard of living. Not too many people want to talk about that.


EXACTLY right ... and the party that b*tches about income inequality wants to further impoverish everyone.

[Guest]

EXACTLY right ... and the party that b*tches about income inequality wants to further impoverish everyone.

Except themselves, of course.

[Guest]

Except themselves, of course.

Yes, some perfect examples are the wealthy liberal enclaves in California.

I'm truly surprised the average run of the mill working class democrat has not exercised more skepticism in this regards. The wealthy liberals are the aristocrats, the working class the serfs, but the liberals keep them at bay by telling them stuff they want to hear while refocusing their anger on the "enemy republicans". It's a pretty good scam and it does work.

[Guest]

Yes, it does work great because the majority of people won't spend the time and don't have the interests to educated themselves on the issues. That is why political advertisements work. Probably the same reason why celebrity endorsements of products work.

Yes, some perfect examples are the wealthy liberal enclaves in California.

I'm truly surprised the average run of the mill working class democrat has not exercised more skepticism in this regards. The wealthy liberals are the aristocrats, the working class the serfs, but the liberals keep them at bay by telling them stuff they want to hear while refocusing their anger on the "enemy republicans". It's a pretty good scam and it does work.

[Guest]

You two ever get tired of talking to yourselves?

[Guest]

A word of advice. It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a jerk then open it an remove all doubt.

You two ever get tired of talking to yourselves?

[Guest]

Like I said my tea ****** friend, do you two ever get tired of talking to yourselves?

[Guest]

Like I said my tea ****** friend, do you two ever get tired of talking to yourselves?

Actually I'm convinced you do talk to yourself all the time

You also seem to have genuine rage issues

[Guest]

I do feel a rage, against your tea party, the homegrown terrorists hiding behind our flag!

[Guest]

I do feel a rage, against your tea party, the homegrown terrorists hiding behind our flag!

You're either a lunatic or imposter ... not clear which.

Besides, your side of the political lineup used to burn the flag so it's obvious you've never loved it nor served it

[Guest]

Funny, you're all funny. My best friend, who has a Princeton PhD in terrestrial hydrology and understands the literature better than anyone on this forum, is certain that human activity is greatly contributing to global climate change and that those changes are significant and will endanger millions of people in the next 50 to 100 years if not sooner. And climate change is the correct term because when the oceanic gyre is disrupted there will be areas that will become significantly cooler than they are now.

There have been many proposals for deceasing the damage, so don't claim that those liberals AKA scientists have no suggestions. But somehow all the proposals get stopped. I wonder by what consortium of people who profit from fossil fuels?

[Guest]

NASA budget: GOP committee wants to slash and burn Earth Sciences. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/30/nasa_budget_gop_committee_wants_to_slash_and_burn_ earth_sciences.html)

So cut the NASA budget to study the earth especially climate which has long been a NASA mission. Once they can't study it, then the GOP can say, well there is not good data, the science is not settled, etc.

And of course sneak the language change into the bill at the last minute as you know you don't want a discussion of the merits, or perhaps you just were awaiting the marching orders from your masters.
Congress, we have a problem | TheHill (http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/240549-congress-we-have-a-problem)

[Guest]

And what does the most successful corporation on the planet think about this? You might want to stop buying stuff from Apple if you're upset about it.

[Guest]

Funny, you're all funny. My best friend, who has a Princeton PhD in terrestrial hydrology and understands the literature better than anyone on this forum, is certain that human activity is greatly contributing to global climate change and that those changes are significant and will endanger millions of people in the next 50 to 100 years if not sooner. And climate change is the correct term because when the oceanic gyre is disrupted there will be areas that will become significantly cooler than they are now.

There have been many proposals for deceasing the damage, so don't claim that those liberals AKA scientists have no suggestions. But somehow all the proposals get stopped. I wonder by what consortium of people who profit from fossil fuels?

Ok, serious question for you ...

What would you DO about it ? What policies are needed and how do you avoid wrecking the economy (aka making the poor poorer) given that Russian, China and others will not change a thing?

[Guest]

You're either a lunatic or imposter ... not clear which.

Besides, your side of the political lineup used to burn the flag so it's obvious you've never loved it nor served it

Was a proud member of the vva. I served with distinction and have been fighting the right wing lunacy trying to start a war a week ever since. You probably cowered under your bedsheets or joined a fraternity in a community college!

[Guest]

Was a proud member of the vva. I served with distinction and have been fighting the right wing lunacy trying to start a war a week ever since. You probably cowered under your bedsheets or joined a fraternity in a community college!

You delight in being a lunatic don't you?

[Guest]

Ok, serious question for you ...

What would you DO about it ? What policies are needed and how do you avoid wrecking the economy (aka making the poor poorer) given that Russian, China and others will not change a thing?

I am neither an economist, climatologist, hydrologist, nor any other expert in the relevant fields. But before there are solutions there needs to be recognition that action is needed. And that even if Russia and China and India don't act we need to lead. We are a huge percentage of the world's economy and yes we might take a hit, a tiny hit. And yes, as a progressive I would support the 1% which includes me, taking a bigger hit to protect the middle and lower income co-citizens from being driven further into income inequality. When Florida actively works against solar power you know something is very wrong.

[Guest]

You delight in being a lunatic don't you?

As you delight in being a useless tea party nut job!

[Guest]

I am glad he is certain. The problem remains that the only evidence of man's impact on climate change is from simulation models and they can't reliably indicate how important man's activities are on the naturally occurring climate change. By the way, papers are peer reviewed.

The only proposals are to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. It doesn't matter what the US does because China and India are the long poles in the tent.

Funny, you're all funny. My best friend, who has a Princeton PhD in terrestrial hydrology and understands the literature better than anyone on this forum, is certain that human activity is greatly contributing to global climate change and that those changes are significant and will endanger millions of people in the next 50 to 100 years if not sooner. And climate change is the correct term because when the oceanic gyre is disrupted there will be areas that will become significantly cooler than they are now.

There have been many proposals for deceasing the damage, so don't claim that those liberals AKA scientists have no suggestions. But somehow all the proposals get stopped. I wonder by what consortium of people who profit from fossil fuels?

[Guest]

You have no idea what the impact on our economy will be from the only solution being put forward. A "tiny hit"? Seriously, where do you come up with this? If you want to put up solar panels then go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. In fact, the Federal Government will give you a fat tax credit (i.e. my tax dollars will subsidize it). I can only assume that you are upset that Florida doesn't also want to subsidize, through my tax dollars, your solar panels. Do you have any idea how clueless you sound? You are the perfect left winger: uninformed.

I am neither an economist, climatologist, hydrologist, nor any other expert in the relevant fields. But before there are solutions there needs to be recognition that action is needed. And that even if Russia and China and India don't act we need to lead. We are a huge percentage of the world's economy and yes we might take a hit, a tiny hit. And yes, as a progressive I would support the 1% which includes me, taking a bigger hit to protect the middle and lower income co-citizens from being driven further into income inequality. When Florida actively works against solar power you know something is very wrong.

[Guest]

Like I said my tea ****** friend, do you two ever get tired of talking to yourselves?

Dear guest that is the typical alinsky indoctrinated liberal response answer with an insult and avoid the debate. How convenient

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Ask the citizens in Nepal if they have a concern about climate change because climate change had nothing to do with 4000 people dying.

Fossile fuels provide economical energy around the world and by interfering with its production only the poorest or poorer will suffer the consequences.

Renewals should be developed but in conjunction with fossil fuels. Renewables to date have proven to be unreliable and/or too expensive and if the greenies get their way will create shortages that could wreak havoc on our way of life.

I posted an article on TOTV about 6 months ago where a computer expert went in detail how data can be manipulated to result in the wanted outcome. He said it is often applied because of invested interests both economically and vanity wise.

The green movement is about control and profit from the likes of people like Obama, Gore Bloomberg

Such individuals also operate on conceit. One natural event like an earthquake, valcano eruption can create collective more damage in one event than climate change.

Yes we should be mindful and responsible to protect our natural resources but these doomdayers are trying to mandaciously panic the masses.



Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

Ask the citizens in Nepal if they have a concern about climate change because climate change had nothing to do with 4000 people dying.


So as I understand you are using the death of over 4000 in Nepal to prove that human climate change is a non-concern. I looked to see what Nepal thinks about climate change. Turns out they are very concerned. But the likelihood is their scientists are capable of seeing the difference between climate policy and earthquakes, unlike you.

From the Government of Nepal

The Government of Nepal has been actively involved to address the adverse impacts of climate change in the recent years. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) - the focal point for climate change activities including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol - has initiated a number of climate change-related activities namely National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), Strengthening Capacity for Managing Climate Change and the Environment, and Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR). MoSTE has also initiated the Second National Communication (SNC) and Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) Projects.

[Guest]

I am neither an economist, climatologist, hydrologist, nor any other expert in the relevant fields. But before there are solutions there needs to be recognition that action is needed. And that even if Russia and China and India don't act we need to lead. We are a huge percentage of the world's economy and yes we might take a hit, a tiny hit. And yes, as a progressive I would support the 1% which includes me, taking a bigger hit to protect the middle and lower income co-citizens from being driven further into income inequality. When Florida actively works against solar power you know something is very wrong.

I'm surprised ... you usually post well researched and/or well informed responses. However, in response to my question of what you would actually DO about climate change, you essentially punt.

We might take a "tiny hit?" In other words, you don't have any idea what the impact would be, but because you’re really smart friend says it’s a problem we need to then “do something??” We do this even if no other major country (China, India, Russia etc), where most of the coal and other hydrocarbon emissions stem from, will do anything except guilt trip gullible leaders like Obama into screwing ourselves economically. How can someone as smart as you possibly take a position like that?? … I mean it’s quite mystifying.

The real economy under Obama, unlike the stock market, is still very depressed. Thus, it makes no sense to me to take an unknown level of risk regarding economic damage to satisfy what sounds more like a religious belief that a bonafide, empirically based threat that has a quantifiable, economic risk reward tradeoff. In addition, the working man will take the hit even more so that well-to-do affluent liberals like yourself. Or, think about the hopeless underclass in places like Baltimore. Their lives are already horrible … so a “tiny hit” may be actually quite large in impact, and probably larger as it usually is.

Your concern is clear but your recommend solution is not in the least persuasive. I don’t really care all that much about environmentalists’ intentions …. I only care about the likely results and impact from their policies on peoples’ lives.

[Guest]

Ask the citizens in Nepal if they have a concern about climate change because climate change had nothing to do with 4000 people dying.

Fossile fuels provide economical energy around the world and by interfering with its production only the poorest or poorer will suffer the consequences.

Renewals should be developed but in conjunction with fossil fuels. Renewables to date have proven to be unreliable and/or too expensive and if the greenies get their way will create shortages that could wreak havoc on our way of life.

I posted an article on TOTV about 6 months ago where a computer expert went in detail how data can be manipulated to result in the wanted outcome. He said it is often applied because of invested interests both economically and vanity wise.

The green movement is about control and profit from the likes of people like Obama, Gore Bloomberg

Such individuals also operate on conceit. One natural event like an earthquake, valcano eruption can create collective more damage in one event than climate change.

Yes we should be mindful and responsible to protect our natural resources but these doomdayers are trying to mandaciously panic the masses.


Very informative post. People who want to ban, get rid of or whatever regarding fossil fuels have NO IDEA what they are talking about. They do not understand basic physics and thermodynamics.

As one of many examples, just do the calculation for power required to “lift” a large airliner and then try to get an airliner airborne on solar power, Or, figure out the energy needed to get a container ship underway on battery power, and have it haul 100,000 tons of cargo around the world.

For liberals who have swallowed the anti-fossil fuel ideology, here’s what getting rid of fossil fuels means for everyone … massive poverty and learning to live how people did it in the 18th century. It would also mean shortened life spans, increase in crime and no doubt war to squabble over what was left.

In sum, it’s just plain f***ing crazy to argue for elimination fossil fuels (especially while opposing nuclear), and another reason why many people increasingly believe full throated liberalism is a genuine mental illness.