Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.

The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.

The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”

Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:

There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:

More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:

Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:

  • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
  • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.

H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).

254 thoughts on “Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

  1. Well I never…. but then again… most of the elected ones are cancerious as well….

    I wonder if the Royal one was Koch funded?

  2. I like to think I have a good understanding of human motivations, but some of the stuff that is coming out of the right wing fundie group about breasts and contraception leaves me scratching my head.

    Women are encouraged to breast feed their babies, but then fired from their jobs for using pumps at work. They are ejected from public places for discreetly nursing babies. The flash of a nipple at a ball game results in draconian fies for a network.

    Then there are the lies. Abortion causes breast cancer, Really, now? Where are the studies?

    A number of years ago, I got a phone call from the youth minister of a local church who wanted me to come and speak to his group. I agreed, since I always am interested in giving kids good information. Then he said he wanted the topic to be about how Rock music causes sexual promiscuity, miscegenation, and abortions. When I told him there was absolutely no scientific or rational basis for such a claim, he hung up on me.

  3. I grew up in a moderately religious family. I went to weekly bible study and, in my teen years a youth club that had weekly fun events. What surprised me was when I discovered that they would lie for Christ. I was an amateur magician (and a darn bad one!) of about 15 when I saw some clown perform cheap magic acts and pretend God was making it happen. When I pointed out I could do that without divine intervention it was not appreciated. I have also seen the bait-n-switch designed to draw in a crowd & wondered if God is so powerful why do they have to lie and cheat to be successful? Those are the tactics of Satan, or at least you would think.

  4. OS, some rise in the morning needing to busy-body those around them. They are not happy unless they are meddling and controlling the lives of others. When this converges with male-dominated monolithic religious claptrappery, the busy-bodying becomes self-righteous. When you converge this with belief over reason, you get hung up on by “priests” when you state the bloody obvious.

    Until recently, due to a misguided interpretation of the First Amendment in which we are all encouraged to accept the magic-thinking of others “just because,” the busy-body never heard the one word that shuts them down: NO.

    I will be voting that notion.

  5. You, sir, are the liar. Yesterday I challenged you in a comment to follow the truth wherever it might lead, while expressing doubt that you would do so. And indeed, true to form, all you’ve done today is quote the same tired old authorities, and you think this is enough to declare those who are well aware of what these authorities say, and who have actually read the studies, and in some cases have actually cross-examined these “authorities” on the stand in court under oath, catching them in documented inconsistencies and contradictions, to be “liars.” (For what it’s worth, I don’t believe abortion, at least during the first trimester, should be criminalized. My views on the morality of abortion and whether it should be legal do not color my view of the scientific evidence linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk. I can’t say the same for you. And the real issue here is not whether abortion should be legal or illegal, but informed consent. I thought liberals believed in informed consent.) You have demonstrated that you have no interest in learning anything about this issue in order to have anything worthwhile to say, but for the benefit of your readers, here’s a link to just one actual study on the subject (note in particular the year of the study, the authors and where they come from, and the first three sentences of the Results section):

  6. Could someone please link to a study in a peer reviewed medical journal that supports the position there is a statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion. If that theory were provable, then you can bet the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association would be all over it. I subscribe to online professional journal search services, and there is NOTHING there. As Holmes observed, “The dog did not bark.”

    That there is some risk factor associated with some contraceptives for increased risk of stroke and cancer is true, but those are of minimal risk when compared with risk factors for pregnancy complications, not to mention the psychological and economic toll of unwanted pregnancies. There is no medicine, even aspirin, where there is not some side effect. The truth is, there is no correlation at all between abortion and cancer.

    There is a very high risk of death or sterilization due to botched abortions done in a non-medical setting.

  7. John Kindley, did you read all the way to the bottom of that linked article? There is a disclaimer down at the bottom, to wit:

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    The authors PAID the journal to publish their article. That is what “page charges” mean, and that under 18 U.S.C. § 1734, it is classified as an advertisement.

  8. Let’s take a look at what David Gorski, MD, PhD, wrote about the article John Kindley linked to:

    Abortion and breast cancer: The manufactroversy that won’t die

    According to the table [Table 1], the odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer in women who have had one or more abortions is 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.8), a barely statistically significant result.

    In any case, it’s barely statistically significant and comes from a pooled retrospective study where the most recent cases date back to the early 1990s, both factors that make it very prone to bias or spurious results. More recent research done prospectively should have (and does have) greater weight.

    Given the problems with the study and in light of data gathered over the 15 years since the last of the three studies whose subjects make up this reanalysis was completed, I am completely underwhelmed with this study as any sort of strong evidence for an ABC link.

  9. Kairho: If you follow the link to Drumm’s post yesterday that prompted this post today (as I’d hoped Drumm himself would do), you’ll find a law review comment with plenty of cites to the scientific literature (and I think you can safely assume that the editors of said law review checked all of those cites for accuracy before they decided to publish it), a list of all the studies in the worldwide literature published to date and their results, and appellate briefs quoting the trial transcripts of cross-examinations of experts in this field.

  10. At the end of the Third Quarter, Kindley fumbles the ball! Drumm scoops it up, and suddenly wants to buy something pink…

    OS: Great sign! On billboards across the country, please.

  11. What Gene said. A trial transcript or footnote in a ruling is not a scientific study. There are over1,600 professional journals being published in medicine and science. They are always looking for sound scientific content. One should not have to base opinions on shaky data in a thirteen year old paid advertisement.

    Does anyone have a clue as to how many cutting edge research articles have been published in medical and biological science journals since 1999? I don’t, but it runs into the tens of thousands. If there was anything there, somebody would know about it.

    Best evidence. Everyone ought to have some.

  12. With all of the energy going on between the commentors here I have just one suggestion for a fair and balanced discussion of health vs. heathen issues and the role of the Susan G. Komen whatever foundation. If I was on that board of that Susan foundation I would take the G spot out of the name. It would be ok if it was Susan B. Komen as in Susan Be Comin. But the G spot just commingled with a Cure is too much. If an abortion causes cancer then how can more satisfying sex cure it? And why is she For the Cure/ How about In Favor of A Cure. How do we know that there is One Cure or The Cure?

    Folks should not donate money to a collection of confused zealouts. Or is the word Sellouts? And what salaries are all of these people making who are komen and going into that foundation? Its kind of like Iran. The Iranians talk about a nuclear energy program but they have not broken ground to build the nuclear power plant. The Komen for the Cure is just a fishy.

  13. From the National Cancer Institute:

    Factors of Unproven or Disproven Association

    The RR [relative risk] of breast cancer for women with spontaneous abortion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.04 for those with prospective data collection and 0.94–1.02 for retrospective data). The RR after induced abortion was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.96; P = .0002) if the information was collected prospectively but was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06–1.16) if it was collected retrospectively. Additional analyses of the number and timing of aborted pregnancies were performed, but none showed a significant association with breast cancer.

    Emphasis added.

  14. Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk
    National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health


    A woman’s hormone levels normally change throughout her life for a variety of reasons, and these hormonal changes can lead to changes in her breasts. Many such hormonal changes occur during pregnancy, changes that may influence a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life. As a result, over several decades a considerable amount of research has been and continues to be conducted to determine whether having an induced abortion, or a miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion), influences a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life.

    Current Knowledge

    In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop.

    NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. To view regular updates on this topic, please go to the Breast Cancer PDQ® summary, which is part of NCI’s comprehensive database.


    The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.

  15. It is important for everyone to realize that when the Fat Cats in Washington start screaming loudly, there is something going on at the local level they don’t want you to notice.

    Check out what the religious right and their republican allies are doing in your State legislatures … especially “Personhood” bills being introduced.

    If you are stuck with a Republican representative in your district then reach out to the closest district with a Democrat. They will put you on their email list and keep you informed as to how the War Against Women is being waged in your state. If there isn’t a Democrat close then contact the State’s Democratic Party and they will keep you up to speed.

  16. The Gorski article Mr. Drumm linked to is interesting. There’s this:

    “Another thing that you need to know about the ABC claim is that the evidence is quite conclusive that spontaneous early miscarriages neither protect against nor decrease the risk of breast cancer. Other than possibly for women who have suffered more than three spontaneous miscarriages (the data are equivocal), pregnancy loss appears to be more or less neutral with respect to influencing breast cancer risk, neither increasing nor decreasing it. These observations are fairly strong suggestive evidence that an elective abortion would probably not behave any differently than a spontaneous miscarriage at the same point in pregnancy from a biological standpoint. These data are not enough to dismiss the ABC link in and of themselves, but they do lessen the biological plausibility of such a link. Not enough to reject further study, but enough to cast a skeptical eye on the retrospective studies that exist.”

    It’s well known that miscarriages are typically characterized by estrogen levels not rising as they do in a normal, healthy pregnancy, but Gorski does not acknowledge this well-known fact, which even Planned Parenthood has explicitly admitted. The difference in epidemiological results for miscarriages and induced abortions actually support the biological plausibility of the induced abortion – breast cancer link.

    There’s also this from Gorski’s article:

    “These studies were all retrospective, with all the potentials for confounding factors to which retrospective studies are prone. Moreover, it was a study based on interviews, in which women were interviewed about their health history and known and suspected causes of breast cancer. Recall bias is a well-known confounding factor that plagues studies of abortion. One reason is that, because of the social stigma associated with abortion, women tend not to tell everything about their history when it comes to abortions, either not admitting to the procedure or, if they’ve had more than one, not admitting to all of them. This may have been particularly true for older studies, when abortion had even more of a stigma attached to it. The other reason is that women with breast cancer who have had an abortion in the past tend to be more likely to admit to having had an abortion they think it might be a cause of their predicament. It’s very hard to evaluate the significance of recall or response bias and how much they might have affected the results of individual studies. In any case, such problems are why prospective studies are less likely to produce spurious associations. . . . Other aspects that might make ABC more credible would be if there were a “dose-response” effect, in which more abortions would increase the risk even more, or some apparently biological specificity for certain subtypes of cancer. Neither of these exist, and this study sure doesn’t provide such evidence.”

    The 1997 Melbye study on Danish women, which for a long time was touted as the “best evidence” that there is no “overall” increase in breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion, was a “prospective” study, with no possible chance of “recall bias” (which hypothetical explanation for the positive associations found in earlier retrospective studies has also been tested and disproved by other studies) influencing the results, and actually reported that “with each one week increase in the gestational age of the fetus there was a 3% increase in the risk of breast cancer” (a trend which was itself statistically significant), and found a statistically significant 1.38 relative risk associated with abortions performed after the first trimester. There’s your “dose-response” effect. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good account the Melbye study:

  17. The Breast Cancer Epidemic:
    Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
    and Other Risk Factors

    “Using national cancer registration data for female breast cancer
    incidence in eight European countries—England & Wales,
    Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech
    Republic, Finland, and Denmark—for which there is also
    comprehensive data on abortion incidence, trends are examined
    and future trends predicted. Seven reproductive risk factors are
    considered as possible explanatory variables. Induced abortion is
    found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor.”

  18. The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics
    Trumped Science and Informed Consent

    “Significantly, the absolute numbers of reported excess cases
    agree with a prediction made in a 1996 review and meta-analysis.
    Its lead author, Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology
    at City University of New Yorks Baruch College, concluded
    from a review of the 2001 report: Abortion can explain the
    entire rise in breast cancer since the mid 1980s, and it’s not just
    because the rise is in women young enough to have had an abortion.
    It’s also that the absolute numbers of increased cases fall within the
    range of the numbers we predicted in our 1996 meta-analysis”
    (Brind J, personal communication, 2002).
    Brind et al. estimated that in 1996 an excess 5,000 cases of
    breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that the annual
    excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted
    25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.”

  19. Kindley,

    You read studies like the devil reads the bible…..or worse.

    The study was concerned with the effect of oral-contraceptives—-admittedly an area we must monitor closely.
    But it’s results were mildly conclusive by own admission “considerable heterogenicity”.

    And again, then followed by the old graphing sucker game.
    An increase from one occurrence in ten million, to two in ten million gives an increase in risk factor by one-hundred percent. WOW!

    Impressive yeah. It’s down in the noise factor, if you even understand what that is, or with the sample size, drawing such conclusions from such fine deviations is RIDICULOUS.

    As you are, dear sir.

  20. “Women who have abortions are not at higher risk of developing breast cancer, says a report out today.

    Previous research had produced conflicting results, with some findings showing a link between terminations and a slightly-increased chance of contracting the killer disease.

    However, an international study led by Oxford University – the biggest of its kind – has concluded that having an abortion or suffering a miscarriage does not heighten a woman’s risk of suffering breast cancer.

    Soaring cancer rates

    There had been fears that a record level of cases of the disease – more than 41,000 a year in the UK – was being driven by rising abortion rates over the last 40 years.”

  21. Elaine,
    You are right. One of my favorite quotes. Isn’t alcohol use a risk factor in getting breast cancer? Shouldn’t the bishops be going on a campaign to bring back prohibition?

  22. “”Monsanto’s Paid Scientist Richard Doll Participated in Abortion-Cancer Cover-Up”

    The term, “Oxford University Cover-Up,” has taken on a new dimension. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer originally employed the term in an October press release to describe five, seriously flawed studies authored by researchers at the U.K.’s Oxford University – studies that have been widely used to erase the abortion breast cancer link from the public mind. [1,2,3,4,5,6]

    The late Sir Richard Doll, Oxford’s esteemed lung cancer researcher, participated in the Oxford Cover-Up by signing on as a co-author in two of the five abortion-cancer studies. [2,4] Doll is best remembered for having demonstrated a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in 1950 and for having fingered the tobacco habit as “a major cause” of lung cancer.

    Last week, the British press implicated Doll as a paid consultant for U.S. and British chemical corporations. [8,9] It is not considered unethical for a scientist to act as an industry consultant, but he (or she) is ethically obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest.”

  23. Bdaman, correlation does not equal causation.

    A famous statistical study done as an exercise in just that phenomenon demonstrated a very high correlation between time of day of births at Chicago hospitals and train arrivals at a terminal in either Norway or Sweden (cannot remember which one). So, by that logic, train schedules in Scandinavia cause birth times in Chicago.

    There is something called “intervening variables.” Oftentimes there are literally too many variables to study, because there will always be a wild card. Pollution levels change, living near sources of cancer and other environmental disasters, new and untried medications, and so forth. To say that a single variable causes another single variable in a meta-analysis is almost always going to guarantee a Type II error.

  24. “idealist”: Dr. Stuart Donnan, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, which published Joel Brind’s meta-analysis in 1996, wrote the following in an editorial in that Journal:

    “Some readers may consider that the calculation made by Brind and colleagues of possible numbers of breast cancers following–conceivably caused by– induced abortion is alarmist. It is certainly true that a relative risk of only 1.3 adds up to a large absolute increase in risk with a very high prevalence of the underlying factor. However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people–in this case the women–concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called ‘pro- choice,’ you need at the same time to have a view which might be called ‘pro- information’ without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.”

  25. The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.

    I Feel Duped on Climate Change

    Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.
    He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.

    “The climate catastrophe is not occurring,” he writes in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

    SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?

    Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

  26. A perhaps scurrilous sociological comment:

    Liars figure, figures don’t. BUT, people with preformed convictions ofter end up in perhaps odd professions: like lawyers, and “scientists”,
    Googling properly would probably expose the scientists as having no earlier merits publication-wise.
    Kindley has demonstrated his lack of judgement well enough here already.
    His dreams of fame and fortune, shows that juridical diplomas should be conditioned on passing a psychological test of some sort.

  27. Bron,

    The American Cancer Society has pulled together research on risk factors. There are studies that indicate a positive correlation between high levels of estrogen and cancer. There are two kinds of estrogen; endogenous and exogenous. The former is that produced naturally by the body, and the latter comes from an external source, such as hormone pills.

    Here is the information from the ACS that is written clearly and simply, bypassing the actual sausage-making of the highly technical studies on which these findings are based.

  28. Mr. Kindley,

    I won’t give you the respect of calling you a liar. That would presume you were smart enough to actually read and understand your own evidence. I actually took the time to read it and there are two glaring evidential weaknesses to it as an affirmation of the relationship of abortion to breast cancer.

    1. The first was that it was a study about oral contraception and breast cancer, not abortion and breast cancer. The mildly increased possibility of breast cancer and oral contraception has been known for years and is even referenced in TV ads for oral contraceptives.

    2. Secondly, the small section (two statistical lines) presented about abortion and breast cancer showed statistically insignificant results. As a comparison, to stay alive I must take medication that has about the same statistical risk as that in the study. Secondly, in the last two years I have undergone heart biopsy’s also to keep me alive. These procedures have the same relative risk factors as those in your study, meaning they are not significant enough for me to avoid.

    This is a made up issue, by people like yourself who have come to a conclusion and then stretched the facts to agree with them. That some of them are Doctors and scientists is no surprise. Religious faith can make the most intelligent people believe without evidence, which is after all the basic meaning of faith and those people will unconsciously manufacture the evidence to support their beliefs. You are quite quick to attack and defame, however, in your haste you neglect to examine your own evidence.


    Same old, same old. JPands is a joke. However, I understand your need to present this stuff stems from your deep faith and I respect that as long as you don’t impose it on others.

    On a personal note though, I hope that you, your whole family and Mom are doing well and have recovered from your recent travails.

  29. Blouise, there have been several studies that show women do better living without a man than men do living without a woman. Women are good for men in terms of happiness; the converse? Not so much.

  30. Gene, I have a copy of a cartoon from the New Yorker magazine somewhere around here. It shows two lab rats in a cage talking. One rat tells the other, “See how well I have the psychologist trained? When I push this button, he gives me food.”

  31. Just trying to introduce some sanity into this debate … :evil:

    My maternal Grandmother, Mother, and maternal Aunt all died from breast cancer. My nephew heads one of the top ranked (#3) Breast Cancer Research Facilities in the nation. To say that he is appalled by this politician/priest led insanity would be an understatement.

    If one wants some actual information here’s a good place to start

  32. Mr. Spindell: First, I was called a “liar” here first, before I called anyone else a liar. Second, the result in the study to which you refer was indeed “statistically significant,” meaning it’s 95% likely that the positive association is not due to mere chance. Third, it’s interesting that your doctors apparently informed you of the risks associated with those medications and those procedures, even though they were not large enough for you to avoid those medications and procedures. Fourth, women have been informed for years about what you describe as the “mildly increased possibility of breast cancer” associated with oral contraception.

  33. Maybe people who smoke cigarettes are more likely to have abortions. We know that breast cancer is associated with smoking. Maybe people who are careless about their lungs are careless about making their partner spend a quarter on a rubber. It would not take a scientist to sort this out. Ask the janitor at the abortion clinic if there are a lot of patients smoking before and after the procedure. He/she would know from the refuse and observing the persons smoking with the nurses and doctors at the smoke em if ya got em station just outside the door of every clinic in America.

  34. Mike S……did you see my earlier post. But much better done by you, I admit.

    Blousie, …..although facetiously meant, your joke does incite recall that papillomavirus causes cancer, both of the cervix and of the rectum! Interpret the latter as you will, don’t have the root data myself.
    But I guess one can get STDs from scissor sister exercises as well.
    Or if she smokes, even worse. (My facetiousness is grosser than yours)

    Thank goodness I belonged to the post-pill and pre-AIDS generation.
    Did we have fun!!!

    All: If you check out Kindley’s own site, he intimates he was going to get rich mimicing the cigarette case. In this case, women who had gotten breast cancer, and that through having had an abortion. He says he put his own money in and lost it all. Read and get your own take.

    I think the Kindley is here looking to get some to follow to his site and debate him there. It’s probably pretty lonelly there. Weirder ideas have been shown to be the truth.

  35. Got to love the antichoicers (John Kindley I am looking at you) leaning on shamelessly biased groups for their information (with a url like, can there be a doubt about the bias?)

    This all boils down to wanting to control women’s bodies… period. Not just abortions, which make up an almost infinitesimal portion of what PP does, but birth control as well. There is a small but rabid minority in this country that would like to go back to the days of de jure (not just the de facto we have now) second class citizenship for women. Sadly some of these are women themselves.

  36. John K, I read the study you posted. It didn’t say what you thought it said. It again reinforced the connection of estrogen to breast cancer, something I’ve been reading about for 25 years.

  37. The scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. I have a friend with estrogen dependent breast cancer. Her oncologist is advising her to do every she can to eliminate the production estrogen in her body. She is on a strict organic diet with ,of course, hormone free dairy and meat. He also told her to eat grass fed beef and not to drink alcohol. Exercise is another component of her regimen.

  38. Christine N.: As I noted upthread, I do not support making abortion illegal. What this “all boils down to” is the powers that be thinking that the increased breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion should not be relevant to a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion. They’re thinking for you. They don’t want you to worry your pretty little heads about it.

  39. Conspiracy theories abound in the face of fact and research.

    Kindley, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have provided none. The our-of-date journal article you proudly touted is nothing but a paid advertisement. The correlations you cite are not proof of anything.

    There is a known correlation between high levels of estrogen and increased cancer risk. There is no known correlation between abortion (whether spontaneous miscarriage, or induced) and breast cancer. Or any other kind of cancer for that matter.

    You have been provided a great deal of information, but insist on being disingenuous and a contrarian in the face of facts.

  40. Just finished watchin this on 6o Minutes

    Deception at Duke – Scott Pelley reports on a Duke University oncologist whose supervisor says he manipulated the data in his study of a breakthrough cancer therapy. Kyra Darnton is the producer.

    If you missed it it only goes to show you how a mass of people can be duped by a doctor. We see it time and time again.

  41. Regarding your “advertisement” misconception, here is the section of the U.S. Code referenced in the study which required that disclaimer:

    The claim is not extraordinary. Given what is known about the biology of both pregnancy and breast cancer, it would be surprising if induced abortion did NOT increase breast cancer risk. See here (co-written, presumably, by Joel Brind):

  42. Bron in the 60 minutes case above the doctor fabricated his data. The doctor was exonerated after an independent review and he was able to resume with his so called breakthrough treatments. In the end they were able to figure out this was a fraud

    Michael Mann of Climategate has been accused of fabricating his data. He refuses to turn over that data for scrutiny from others. He has been cleared of wrong doing from independent reviewers. In the end people with common sense know global warming is a fraud.

  43. We see this time and again. Just last month.

    An extensive misconduct investigation that took three years to complete and produced a 60,000-page report, concludes that a researcher who has come to prominence in recent years for his investigations into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”.

  44. And the all time scientific fraud

    Piltdown man

    The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

  45. Don’t forget Dr Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield fabricated and falsified his data. In addition, he was found to have had significant financial conflicts of interest and to have violated standard ethical practices when conducting his study on vaccines and autism.

  46. Mike somehow I just ran across your comment. I don’t know how I missed it earlier. Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am making it everyday. I am one month removed from smoking cigarettes after being a pack a day smoker for 35 years.

  47. Bdaman,

    It’s great you stopped smoking. I started at 13 and look what happened to me. Hang in there with it and you’ll get to the point where you won’t understand why you ever started it in the first. Keep conquering it and you can have the satisfaction of beating what I think is the worst addiction.

  48. What you are doing is prevaricating on a large scale.

    Did you really have hopes that you could start a legal case accusing the state,et al for misleading women who have abortions and later get breast cancer, on the basis of information withholding, a la cigarettes and lung cancer?
    And you lost money on it too, you say on your site?

    Stop beating a dead horse. The bell has rung. Go get a new life as confirmation of you worth. You won’t find support here for your false-flagging of concern for breast cancer patients who were denied knowledge of the effects of abortions.

  49. I started also a 13, quit at 48 after first heart attack. Tough then, but no sweat after 27 years. Even my smoking in my dreams has stopped. (smile)!
    Except for bypass/aorta valve/pacemaker etc. have had NO subsequesnt effects (irony intended).
    Wish we would raise the age of smoking to 25 years.

  50. Well, when my law review comment was distributed to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives by a Congressman / M.D. along with a letter urging them to read it, which I don’t believe typically happens to law review comments, my hopes for successful litigation went up significantly.

    As I also indicate on my site, I’ve long ago washed my hands of this issue, and have, as you suggest I do, moved on. After all, not only has the “breast cancer awareness” movement and the “pro-choice” movement long known the facts underlying this issue, so has the so-called “pro-life” movement, and contrary to popular belief the latter movement has for the most part done precious little about it over the years. It doesn’t really fit in with its agenda and its priorities. If none of these people care about it, why should I?

    It’s an understatement to say I “won’t find support here” for what I’m saying, no matter how true it might be. It’s a rather inconvenient truth. I was quite naive when I started this whole thing. I figured everyone, liberals included, would agree that women considering abortion had the right to be informed about this information prior to undergoing an abortion. (Indeed, all of my fellow law students on the editorial board of the law review who decided to publish my comment were “pro-choice,” and you can bet they rigorously scrutinized it prior to agreeing to publish it.) Boy was I wrong. I had yet to discover that abortion, and any perceived threat to its legitimacy, trumped everything, and especially trumped the rights and autonomy of women who have abortions.

    I didn’t go out of my way to pick this fight here. But I think I’ve made my point.

  51. We should really drop the ‘page charges’ and ‘advertisement’ issues. I’ve published in journals that do the same thing. ‘Advertisement’ is just a legal term. It’s triggered by some journals’ routine practice of charging authors per-page fees. If you don’t pay the fees, you don’t get your article published. I consider it an insult to the authors, to charge them by the page. The authors did all the work, after all. But the practice exists.

    Having belabored that, I totally agree with David Drumm’s viewpoint.

  52. Bdaman:

    Your assertion, “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. ”

    is right on-the-money. There’s no real debate on either one. Arguing about either is a waste of time. New, compelling data are needed to renew either debate.

    There’s no substantial evidence that abortion significantly increases cancer risk.

    There’s no substantial doubt among scientists that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. The evidence is overwhelming that we are.

  53. John Kindley,

    You seem in a better mood today. Good, and please excuse the personal comment. I take those risks at times.

    I’m glad you are aware of your situation here.

    I can’t speak for others, but the aggressiveness of your post prompted careful analysis of the evidence you referenced ( I think you will agree poorly underpinned) and that historical facts, etc did not support your “case”.

    As a perhaps compulsive doubter of the accepted consensus, I am inclined to leave an open door to your supported possibility of evidence suppression.
    (how many times have we been screwed by the agencies charged with protecting us, who either sell out or yield to political steering)

    But in the meanwhile, we have to live with the polluted waters, food, air, soil, oceans, and medicines with risks as side effects.
    I hope you feel that you received an honest hearing here and rebuke based on analysis of facts and not ad hominems.

  54. Bob K.
    What you say is true in itself.
    But politically it amounts to a hill of beans in face of the rabid attacks on both points.

    What the “facts” and scientists say are just a red cape to the idiotic bulls pursuing a defeat of Obama, and hopefully a ride back into power, funded thanks due to SpC opening the gates to unlimited and secret contributions. (For all we know, they could be funding some really out of this world stuff.)

    Your cocksure confidence in the effect of “facts” is naive, I believe.
    If it is so as you believe, then how did we get to here from the New Deal; or pick your own starting point.

    Contentiously yours.

  55. Let me make the point again more strongly to all. (Rant?)

    We have been “managed” for decades, soon a century, with increasingly effective propaganda. Ninety-nine percent (symbolically at least) of informtion is steered. Santorum sees education as a left-wing indoctrination. A shame that the opposite is true, and no one can effectively challenge him and this lie in the ongoing circus.

    What’s my point? Simply, that one should, in the light of these incontrovertible facts (IMHO), analyze every information flow´impacting on your life.
    This is quite serious. We can’t and won’t have the time for Descartian philosophizing. But it is a life issue for all of us. And then the inevitable question.: How can this be handled?

    This is the major issue for us and our societies. All else, including climate warming is trivia If rectitude (choose your own word) can not be restored, then is it worth living in the Matrix? For us to descend into something related to the USSR is painful to consider, world dominance does not taste that good to me.

    We are very lucky actually. We still have our models in the FF’s in sight.

  56. There’s no substantial doubt among scientists that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. The evidence is overwhelming that we are.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA fake evidence. Fabricated just as the examples I point out above. Scientist behaving badly.

    Global warming is a fraud. Yes the globe has warmed and it has cooled and it will and is doing the same again. The whole theory of regulate CO2 to 350 ppm, the so called safe zone, see is a joke. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature has leveled off for the last 10-15 years. Sea level has dropped not increased. Worldwide Tropical cyclones have decreased not increased. Tornado’s, droughts and floods have also decreased. YOUR A FOOL if you accept that any of those have increased. The data is there you just have to see it for yourself to believe it. How can 350 ppm be a safe zone. How can this possibly be a safe zone when the world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. The only time in recorded hurricane history to have 4 active hurricanes all over the course of several days happened when CO2 was below 350. Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. As they say everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own set of facts.

    Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

  57. How warm was Greenland?

    The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their liking of beer and mead and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000: The climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing barley?

    Researchers from the National Museum in Copenhagen say the answer to the question is ‘yes’. In a unique find, they uncovered tiny fragments of charred barley grains in a Viking midden on Greenland.

    The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley – the most important ingredient in making a form of porridge, baking bread and of course in brewing beer, traditionally seen as the staple foods in the Vikings’ diet.

  58. Someone needs to learn how the chemistry of carbon works.

    In a lab is one thing in the real world it is proving to be quite another.

  59. Chemistry is chemistry, Bdaman. It behaves the same universally. Carbon retains heat in nature just as well as it does in the lab. As to the sun? The sun does cause periodic warming and cooling which has nothing to do with increasing heat retention by altering the chemistry of the atmosphere with gases that retain more heat by containing carbon based or other greenhouse gases. The Sun’s effect on the Earth’s temperature is related to its native heat output which varies over the life-cycle of a star. Apples and oranges in re causation and mechanics.

  60. My goodness … the right must be feeling the pinch … Global Warming and Breast Cancer … “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.” (bda)

    Can anyone spell distraction?

  61. Chemistry is chemistry, Bdaman. It behaves the same universally. Carbon retains heat in nature just as well as it does in the lab.

    You can’t reproduce the climate and all that affects it in a lab. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature is suppose to be going up. The hockey stick told us that.

    but yet………..

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

  62. My goodness … the right must be feeling the pinch … Global Warming and Breast Cancer … “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.” (bda)

    Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

    “Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.”

  63. Scientist believe that the sun’s radiation has increased by twenty-five per cent since the beginning of life here. It is expected to continue to rise, and will be a challenge to surface life eventually.
    As to cycle 25, is this a reference to the twenty-fifth cycle of 11-year (approx.) sunspot cycles. We don’t have reliable data or definitely established correlation between those cycles and climate. Or do we? Links?

  64. What an odd conversation.
    “Your cocksure confidence in the effect of “facts” is naive, I believe.”
    I stated no confidence in the effect of “facts,” so it couldn’t be “cocksure” or “naive.”
    I merely stated the consensus, among scientists (not wing-nut blogs), of what the facts seem to be.
    You’re arguing against a point that I didn’t make.

    Where is the evidence (not videos or blog rants) for your accusations that human-caused global warming is a fraud?
    Cite us some research, some studies, some measurements. Not books. Anyone can write a book asserting anything.
    Peer-reviewed articles in established scientific journals, or a review citing them, would be useful. “Useful” in the sense of “that’s all I’m going to believe.” Call me picky.
    If you tell us, as you did, that the sea-level hasn’t risen, show us the measurements.

    If you can’t, let’s get back to the subject of this blog post: “Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link.”

    You’ve wandered into the deep end of the pool. You really can’t swim that well.

  65. bob kauten,

    Take off your defensive eyeglasses and read my post again, please.

    It was in NO WAY meant as a challenge to you or your scientifically supported what ever your point was.

    I challenged, hold your breath, your tone of confidence (in my ears) that FACTS WOULD PREVAIL.

    I say that deception, skillful propaganda, buzzwords, emotionally loaded argumentw without factual merit are stronger than facts in the public mind, not yours but theirs. Short fables survive facts and go to legacy, when facts have long disappeared from folk memory.

    Sincerrly hope I enticed you off your affronted position, and you could manage to chew through my very overlong sentences. It is one of my handicaps., sincerely meant Wonder if a course in brevity might help.


    PS not to piss you off more, but get off the run you and Gene H. were on, and take a look at what the authorities are planning for your future. fas is the federation of american scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project pre-1945. But then you may know of them, otherwise you will manage. But do look and give me your reaction. I’m really interested what someone with your acumen will decide afterwards.

  66. Where is the evidence (not videos or blog rants) for your accusations that human-caused global warming is a fraud?

    “The whole theory of regulate CO2 to 350 ppm, the so called safe zone, see is a joke. We are approaching 400 ppm. The temperature has leveled off for the last 10-15 years. Sea level has dropped not increased. Worldwide Tropical cyclones have decreased not increased. Tornado’s, droughts and floods have also decreased. YOUR A FOOL if you accept that any of those have increased. The data is there you just have to see it for yourself to believe it. How can 350 ppm be a safe zone. How can this possibly be a safe zone when the world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. The only time in recorded hurricane history to have 4 active hurricanes all over the course of several days happened when CO2 was below 350. Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm. As they say everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own set of facts.”

    Google away

    So the question becomes at what level must CO2 be stabilized in order to control the weather, even though weather is not climate but yet adds up to be climate, from the daily, then weekly, then monthly, then yearly average means.

    And to be honest is just about moot anyways as the carbon markets are near complete collapse and green energy is as well.. Especially now that Germany will phase out all of their nuclear facilities by 2020 or there abouts and revert back to burning fossil fuel. Every week another solar or wind company goes bankrupt. Solyndra, Evergreen Solar Inc, SpectraWatt, Cardinal Fastener and Specialty Co, Bergey Wind, Gaia Wind. Not to mention that 80% Chinese wind turbines companies might be bankrupted. You can google all those as well. You can only link two links in each comment that you make.

  67. Bdaman

    Mmmm…no, I’m not doing your research for you. You evidently quoted something from yourself, e. g., one of your comments, above. You are not quoting a scientist.

    I doubt that someone in a refereed scientific journal article said, “YOUR A FOOL”? I’d love to see that. No reputable journal would allow that kind of language, or let an obvious spelling error like that one, pass. Or allow the numerous punctuation errors.

    Yes, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But an opinion based on bogus evidence is not equal in value to an opinion based on reproducible observations.

    It’s very difficult to argue with you. I can’t follow your argument, primarily because you’re not following your argument. Did you catch the clever use of ‘you’re’ and ‘your’ in that sentence?

    You’re out of your depth. Stay in the shallow end of the pool. Bye.

  68. Bob go look each one up yourself. This is the only way you will learn and believe.

    Here we will start you with this one. But remember after Katrina Gore said Katrina type storms would become the norm.

    On December 4, 2011 it will have been 2,232 days since Hurricane Wilma made landfall along the Gulf coast as a category 3 storm back in 2005. That number of days will break the existing record of days between major US hurricane landfalls, which previously was between 8 Sept 1900 (the great Galveston Hurricane) and 19 Oct 1906. Since there won’t be any intense hurricanes before next summer, the record will be shattered, with the days between intense hurricane landfalls likely to exceed 2,500 days.

  69. By the way this just in.

    Ailing Energy Conversion Devices Inc. said Tuesday it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Michigan and hopes to sell its United Solar Ovonic subsidiary and other assets.

    “What would happen to Energy Conversion Devices is that it would be wound down,” said spokesman Michael Schostak. “It’s essentially a break-up of the company.”

    The bankruptcy is at least the fourth by a solar manufacturer in the past year in an industry plagued by declining prices, too much product and reduced government subsidies. The filing was predicted by several analysts, who were concerned the Auburn Hills-based solar products manufacturer would not be able to make a June 2013 payment, totaling more than $263 million, which will be due on notes.|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

  70. Oh and I forgot to mention Genesis.

    Another Taxpayer Funded $825 Million Solar Loan Going to Waste

    Solyndra? Let’s try Genesis. In Southern California, federal and state governments have been working to expedite a solar project in order to satisfy President Obama’s solar agenda. The problems that could derail the $825 million taxpayer funded project? Kit foxes and an ancient burial site.

    The $1-billion Genesis Solar Energy Project has been expedited by state and federal regulatory agencies that are eager to demonstrate that the nation can build solar plants quickly to ease dependence on fossil fuels and curb global warming.

    Instead, the project is providing a cautionary example of how the rush to harness solar power in the desert can go wrong — possibly costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and dealing an embarrassing blow to the Obama administration’s solar initiative.

  71. Bdaman,

    In re your post of February 14, 2012 at 4:26 am.

    You are displaying a lack of understanding of complex systems and how adding entropy (heat) into them causes failure. Global warming does not mean that daily temperatures are going to immediately rise (or fall) for a given period. It means that the aggregate heat load of the atmosphere is growing and this growth will cause unstable weather (at both ends of the spectrum) as that aggregate heat load increase. These fluctuations are a sign of systemic instability – chaos. As the wavelengths shorten and the amplitude of the fluctuations increase over time (as they will as long as entropy/heat is added to the system), eventually a tipping point is reached and the climate will “break” – a new level of homeostasis will be sought to accommodate the extra heat added to the system.

    The immediate threat of global warming is unstable weather.

    The long term threat is radical climate shift.

    These are not things about which scientists disagree . . . unless they are being paid by someone with a vested interest in not reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons. And that second type of “scientist” is in the minority and not really a scientist but rather a paid spokesperson.

  72. And that second type of “scientist” is in the minority and not really a scientist but rather a paid spokesperson.

    Gene we are seeing a growing number of scientist coming out of the closet. These scientist were believers and are now deniers if you will.

    It won’t be long now. As I said Green Energy companies are collapsing left and right. Germany is going back to burning coal and oil after being the leader in green technology use. This after Germanys father green recently became a denier. Go ahead and tell me who’s paying him to flipflop. You can read about him here.

    Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

    I have shown you time and time again that the leading body on climate change the IPCC gives out false and erroneous information. There reports are riddled with errors.

  73. Bdaman,

    “It won’t be long now.” I don’t care what you think is going to happen. I’m interested in what the scientific consensus is now. Someday someone might trump Einstein in toto, but until it happens, I’m sticking with Uncle Albert. Right now the consensus is that global warming is both real and a threat for the very reasons I mentioned about instability and eventual shift in climate.

  74. So you think 350 ppm is the safe zone? If we can get it there everything will be fine. We wont have any major hurricanes floods droughts ice melting. Its gonna be like we all live in Hawaii right. Again ROTFLMAO

  75. Here’s the first funny

    The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3).

  76. Here’s the second one

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    IPCC reviewer resigns from AGU saying: I will not renew my AGU membership.

    Martin Hovland writes in with this statement. It seems that AGU Position Statement keeps costing them members.

    He writes:

    Although I have been a long-time member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), I hereby refuse to pay my membership fees. The main problem is the organization’s Position Statement on the purported “Human impacts on Climate” This statement includes the following statements: “During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it.

    Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”

    As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.

    Martin Hovland

  77. And finally this one is getting alot of air play.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Find out who Mike Stopa is first

    What if They are Wrong?

  78. “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.”

    Then again, it might not be wrong either. Considering the possible negative outcomes, an ounce of protection beats a pound of cure. But if you’d rather gamble with the future of humanity so you can have an SUV now? Be my guest. Dumb isn’t against the law. We’re all screwed in 250 million years anyway when Pangaea Proxima forms, but as a species we’ll probably manage to off ourselves through our own stupidity long before then if an asteroid or comet doesn’t take us out.

    The only person Bdaman takes to the woodshed on AGW science is himself, Bron. With or without your cheerleading.

  79. By the way I’m currently driving an old company vehicle. A 2000 Ford E350 with a V-10 Triton. Varooooommmmmm Yeah Baby you can hear it sucking the air down that deep throated throttle body each time you stomp the gas.

  80. INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax
    By Brad Johnson on Feb 14, 2012

    Internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green reveal that the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Microsoft, and other top corporations, is planning to develop a “global warming curriculum” for elementary schoolchildren that presents climate science as “a major scientific controversy.” This effort, at a cost of $100,000 a year, will be developed by Dr. David E. Wojick, a coal-industry consultant.

    “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,” Heartland’s confidential 2012 fundraising document bemoans. The group believes that Wojick’s project has “potential for great success,” because he has “contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in producing, certifying, and promoting scientific curricula.” The document explains that Wojick will produce “modules” that promote the conspiratorial claim that climate change is “controversial”:

    Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

    Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather“), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.

    Wojick will receive $5,000 per module, with twenty modules produced a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv, is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology.

    The Heartland Institute also runs the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a conspiracy-theorist parody of the Nobel-prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Heartland’s NIPCC project “pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered.” Their climate-denial work is funded anonymously.

  81. “Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they’re running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands,” said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. “We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family.”

    Against this backdrop, the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland-based watchdog group that supports the teaching of evolution through advocacy and educational materials, plans to announce on Monday that it will begin an initiative to monitor the teaching of climate science and evaluate the sources of resistance to it.

  82. Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

    In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.

  83. Bdaman,

    “Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.”

    So glad I live in the Northeast liberal state of Massachusetts.

    I remember a time in history when Galileo was sentenced to house arrest. Back then, many people chose not to hear the truth–and some chose to punish those who dared to speak it.

    Is Earth really the center of the solar system?

    The religion that burned and tortured “heretics” and punished Galileo is the same religion that believes that using contraceptives is immoral.

  84. ?????????? Bdaman is STILL talking? It’s like talking to a cement mixer:


    If you ask it to explain itself, it just makes the same sound…

    If you leave for a few hours, and come back, it’s making the same sound…

    Just chuggin’ away to itself. The concrete solidified hours ago. Nothing useful coming out of there.

    There was no intelligible response hours ago, and there’s still none.

  85. Elaine,

    As an aside, tomorrow (2/15) is Galileo’s birthday. He would have been 448. Happy Birthday, My Man From Padua Via Pisa!

  86. “Deliverance” the movie was not about Louisiana. It was about the Appalachian area near where I live–what the Cherokee called the Otteray. The movie was filmed along the Chattooga River and in the Tallulah Gorge. This is in the Appalachians near where Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina come together.

    THIS is Louisiana music:

  87. As I remember it this thread was on the lies being spread about abortion causing cancer. Nicely played Bdaman to derail one losing argument with another. All in defense of people who hate America and it’s Constitution. I never took you for being a humanity hater, but I guess hate the sin but like the sinner.

  88. Mike, well played to remind everyone of the original intent. This is the nature of extended threads on blogs–they tend to wander off into the rough, to use a golf term.

    Anyway, this whole argument was going nowhere, as you pointed out. Like climate change, abortion causing cancer is a favorite whipping boy of a certain element of the so called conservative crowd. In actuality, they are not conservative at all. They are reactionary.

    I see that in some states schools will be required to teach climate change denial in science classes, just like evolution denial. Next thing you know, they will want to teach that tobacco does not cause health problems. I think a lot of them are still smarting over losing the tobacco argument.

    Now off to turn in, it has been a long day.

  89. Reviewing the above while you are sleeping, have come upon two solutions to offer..
    We need a bartender, who says: “Take it outside, boys”, or a variant: “Go talk to a wall, XXX.”
    Or, we need to refer two contrahentants to a fight room removed from the original thread. “Y’all can fight as much as you like, but not in my living room.”

  90. For those so inclined:
    Non-linear systems are interesting to study. Particularly the point mentioned about their seeking a new oscillation point when being sufficiently “triggered”.
    Nice of God to give us such a one to play with in the earth’s climate system.

  91. Gene H:

    “The only person Bdaman takes to the woodshed on AGW science is himself, Bron. With or without your cheerleading.”

    AGW is a politically based ideology. The only science behind it is political science. The only calculus used is figuring how to get funding from politicians.

    The sun is what changes the climate and I would say we ought to start figuring out how to prevent the next glaciers from rolling south. Crank up those coal fired plants and fire up that SUV, baby its [going to get] cold outside.

  92. Bron, I’ve notice a trend in the main stream nightly news. NBC Brian Williams had a story on the mild winter we are having and the effect on plants blooming early this year which has created alot of pollen. My wifes allergies are killing her. Not once did he mention climate change or global warming. The flipside is I have yet to see any reference to the record snowfall and cold Europe is experiencing once again. Not to mention last month snow fell in the Sahara Dessert and in Rome. First time for both since the late 70’s if my memory serves me correct. Back then, climate scientist warned us we were entering the next ice age and there were too many people on earth. That if population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come. You see back in the 70’s there were approximately 210 million people in the U.S. and at the time was considered too many and the projected 280 million in 2040 was likely to bring lots of misery here. So there were calls for forced abortions and to put chemicals in the water supply to steralize women from having more children. Kinda like China’s one child per couple policy. Now the U.S. population is about 310 million. Thats 30 more than what was approximated for the year 2040.

    I guess they were wrong then Gene but they are right this time.

  93. Bron,

    You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what political science terms actually mean – making up their meaning is your signature move – and your grasp of actual science beyond the basics required for engineering is tenuous at best. AGW is both science and the scientific consensus whether you like it or not.

  94. Hi Gene,

    So Galileo’s birthday was February 15 a date shared by another good man; I’m hoping Buddha is laughing and am wishing him a very Happy Birthday!

  95. CEJ
    Buddha’s birthday in Japan is on April 8th.
    We celebrated it once at the world’s largest wooden structure, a Buddha temple, in Nara, south of Kyota. Recommended.

    Or did we misunerstand?
    Still recommended. Seeing a modern city with a species of deer running loose was special.

  96. Never seen this shot. Speculations of a nightcourse attendee.
    Bisymetrical jets? The two “flower blossoms”? Irradiated solar winds outerst? Composite image? IR? UV? X-ray? False colors?

    Don’t bother asking. I’ll check it out.

  97. Happy Birthday B I L

    At the Maldives’ National Museum, smashed Buddhist statues are testament to the rise of Islamic extremism and Taliban-style intolerance in a country famous as a laid-back holiday destination.

    On Tuesday, as protesters backed by mutinous police toppled president Mohamed Nasheed, a handful of men stormed the Chinese-built museum and destroyed its display of priceless artefacts from the nation’s pre-Islamic era.

  98. This is funny

    With global efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions stalled, the United States and five other countries are starting a new program to cut other pollutants — including methane, soot and hydrofluorocarbons — that contribute to global warming.

    Lets see we cant get everyone on board to control a trace gas in the atmosphere so lets target another trace gas that doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long.

    Because of that……………..

    “The new program, will not set targets for reductions in pollutants. Rather, it will fund education projects and joint public-private efforts to reduce emissions, said three people briefed on the announcement. They said the new program is likely to encourage nations to reduce diesel exhaust, stem the burning of agricultural waste, and capture methane from landfills, coal mines and natural gas wells, among other policies.”

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Methane makes up close to one part per million in the atmosphere, and has little effect on the radiative balance of the atmosphere. Water vapour has thousands of times more effect than methane.

  99. C.Everett Kook 1, February 15, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

    Kook is as Kook does

    PRESS RELEASE 11:45 AM – source

    One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

  100. Major embarrassment for Joe Romm, and DeSmog and their unthinking fans.

    In the hours after the ClimateGate emails were released, skeptics asked about their authenticity (as we are want to do). In the hours after the Heartland Documents (including at least one complete fake) were released, the commentators on the other side did not even ask (just as they uncritically accept any weak report in favour of their pet theory).

    They leapt to their defamatory conclusions in a smear-fest. At least one person out there has probably committed a criminal act. The rest are guilty of small brained unskeptical blind hatred, defamation, and ignorance. And will any of them apologize? I’ll be shocked if even one has the decency or manners.

    We should not allow them to forget it. DeSmog=DeSmear. They are a group happy to promote lies with no compunction. They are not interested in the truth, just in the PR. Oh the fool journalists who think the paid hacks at DeSmog ever had anything to say on science that was not biased or deceitful. Richard Littlemore, where is your apology? Instead, knowing the document is

    faked, he continues to promote it. So does Brad Johnson, and Joe Romm.

  101. Internal Heartland Institute Email Blasts “Lamestream Media” for Climate Leak
    —By Kate Sheppard
    | Thu Feb. 16, 2012

    It’s been an interesting few days in the climate denial world. On Tuesday, DeSmogBlog and Think Progress posted what they described as internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a fossil-fuel-funded right-wing think-tank that spends much of its time denying climate change. The posted documents include plans for disseminating climate change disinformation to kids and to provide funding for science deniers.

    Heartland responded on Wednesday, claiming that some of the documents are real, but others are a “total fake,” and still others are being reviewed. The group wrote in a press release:

    The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

    It’s worth noting that Heartland didn’t seem to mind when emails between climate scientists that were stolen from a server, made public, and lied about on the internet—either the first or second time it happened. It’s only now that that type of behavior is “just despicable,” a “violation of journalistic ethics,” and a criminal offense.

    Now Heartland is using the incident to fundraise, according to an email to donors obtained by Mother Jones on Wednesday night. The email complains that “scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media” are posting and quoting the documents, and says that what New York Times’ Andy Revkin did—i.e. publishing some of the documents—”was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal.” It also asks for donations to the organization’s legal defense fund to fight “false and defamatory” stories. And it apologizes to funders whose names were made public by the incident: “We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you.”

  102. Elaine,
    Thanks for your post.
    “left-wing activists and their pets”

    I’ve always wanted to be the pet of a left-wing activist! Where do I sign?

  103. Confronting Falsehoods about the Charles Koch Foundation’s support of The Heartland Institute

    Documents and analysis about the Charles Koch Foundation’s support for The Heartland Institute, posted on February 14 by a partisan blog calling itself “DeSmogBlog” are demonstrably FALSE in several key respects.

    The documents presented by the blog indicate “[the Foundation] returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012…if our focus continues to align with their interests.” But this is not so. The Foundation gave just $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (the only such donation to that organization in more than 10 years) and that funding was specifically directed to a healthcare research program, and not climate change research, as was erroneously reported.

  104. Lets look at some budgets shall we.

    Heartland Institute 6.5 million 2012

    Greenpeace International 310 million 2011

    Sierra Club 100 million 2012

    Natural Resources Defense Council 95 million 2012

    UK CRU 360 million 2011

    What a major difference. The Sierra Club listed a category for $1,000,000 donations by “anonymous donors” in their 2010 annual report. Sierra Club annual report mentions “Matching Gifts”, and apparently supporters who matched gifts include the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more.

  105. What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

    Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

    Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

    what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out.

  106. Not to mention according to the polls less people believe and or care about climate change year after year despite all the money and the so called consensus. Now thats a fact jack.

  107. Hilarious!
    There’s no one else in the conversation!

    Bdaman is posting diatribe after diatribe, and no one’s reading it!

    I didn’t.

    I just ran my eye down the last 20 comments, and they’re almost all by one person!

    Save time…scan in the NYC phonebook, convert it to text with an optical reader, and paste it in this thread.

  108. Bdaman is posting diatribe after diatribe, and no one’s reading it!

    I didn’t.

    Thats what you call is a closed mind. TISK TISK

  109. Do you call yours open. Try airing it, I know it is hard.

    Somebody take down the flag. He doesn’t honor it. Sounds like a one-man equivalent to a cable news program. Always more to come.

    Let’s de-troll him. No more replies. He’ll wind down in a few years.
    Maybe somebody will unplug him. I hope. Just think of all the tired computers listening to his yackety yack.

  110. Bdaman, No actual climate warming for 15 years? I beg to differ. Last year I wrote a long, generally boring posting about the warming caused death over the last 10 years of most every woody-stemmed plant in my yard. I won’t repeat it but finally the USDA has caught up to not only my observations but those of the guys that tend my diseased trees and the licenced arborist that I brought in for a consult. It’s getting warmer. And before you say that it’s all part of the govt. conspiracy consider how many people and business (including agribusiness) that rely on the USDA data for their planting thresholds. To lie to all of us and risk 10s of millions of dollars in crop loss for a propaganda point just isn’t plausible, big-agra wouldn’t stand for it. :-)

    Those of us that do put out plants in the spring and maybe a few tomato plants welcome the USDA finally updating its planting guide map. WooHoo, a new map with lots of colors, map fans rejoice! :-)

    “Long Overdue Plant Hardiness Map is a Hothouse”

    “Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States. This is mostly a result of using temperature data from a longer and more recent time period; the new map uses data measured at weather stations during the 30-year period 1976-2005. In contrast, the 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986.”

  111. Who’s Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?
    By BRYAN WALSH Tuesday, Oct. 04, 2011
    Time Science,8599,2096055,00.html

    As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That’s the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. “Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades,” Dunlap and McCright write. “The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.”

    For those who’ve followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there’s not much new in Dunlap and McCright’s chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV.

    All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don’t straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are “unsettled” and that “more research” is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That’s made all the easier because whether you’re quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don’t like pain.

    “It’s reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking,” write Dunlap and McCright.

    It’s certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama’s election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans “look like a joke,” Clinton said from the stage of his foundation’s annual meeting last month. “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial.” That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore’s recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.

  112. Bdaman:

    by now I would have thought you would understand that only a certain element within our society has any interest in AGW.

    People like Gene who wouldnt know an isobar from an O Bar.

  113. Elaine “…It’s certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama’s election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans “look like a joke,” Clinton said from the stage of his foundation’s annual meeting last month. “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial.” That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore’s recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.”

    LOL, ain’t it the truth? When my insomnia keeps me up all night and I’m just sitting here at 3:30 am I keep hearing this low level ringing in my ears. I thought it was tinnitus from previously working in a high-noise job but then I realized that it was daytime in Europe and they were laughing at us, for this and so many other reasons. It’s so embarrassing :-)

  114. An isobar is a line on a map indicating zones sharing the same barometric pressure.

    An O Bar could be any number of things.

    See, unlike you, when I don’t know what something is? I don’t make up a definition to suit my purposes. Why don’t you make something up and tell us what an O Bar is, Bron.

    That’s what you’re best at known for around these parts.

  115. Bdaman, No actual climate warming for 15 years?

    Lotta that is correct. Even the CRU agrees now Google it it’s there.

  116. On the off chance there is actually something like that O Bar thing bron mentioned, I did some high powered Googling. There are indeed a couple of pubs using the name “O Bar.” But that was about it.

    Speaking of isobars, where I live, when the wx chart comes up on the computer machine and I see a lot of them bunched up close together, I go out and make sure everything is battened down. When the pressure gradient spikes, the wind is a lot worse in these narrow valleys due to the Venturi Effect. Every year, the dense layer of oak leaves in my yard will be there in the evening and when I get up the next morning, they will be gone. Where, I have no idea. You would think that if my leaves blow away, somebody else’s will take their place. It is all the fault of those isobars.

  117. Santorum suggests abortion causes breast cancer
    By David Edwards
    Sunday, February 5, 2012

    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday suggested that Susan G. Komen for the Cure shouldn’t provide grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings because abortions cause breast cancer, a false claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

    The candidate told Fox News host Chris Wallace that he didn’t agree with the Komen Foundation reversing itself last week and making Planned Parenthood eligible for future grants.

    “I’ve taken the position as a presidential candidate and someone in Congress that Planned Parenthood funds and does abortions,” Santorum explained. “They’re a private organization they stand up and support what ever they want.”

    “I don’t believe that breast cancer research is advanced by funding an organization where you’ve seen ties to cancer and abortion,” he added. “So, I don’t think it’s a particularly healthy way of contributing money to further cause of breast cancer, but that’s for a private organization like Susan B. Komen to make that decision.”

    According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the several small flawed studies that suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer have been disproven.

    “Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted,” the institute’s website said. “These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.”

    In 2002, the Bush administration temporarily altered NCI’s website to say that scientific evidence supported a possible link between abortion and breast cancer. After an outcry from the scientific community, NCI corrected its website with an accurate fact sheet.

    A study released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in 2006 found that the Bush administration also used pregnancy resource centers — commonly known as “crisis pregnancy centers” — to falsely inform pregnant teens that the risk of breast cancer increased by 80 percent after an abortion.

  118. Elaine, shame is a concept totally foreign to the reich wing. They have no honor or decency. In fact, their gurus such as Rush the Limpburger seem to pride themselves on the size of their whoppers.

    By Mark Ames

    Yesterday, our old friends the Koch brothers were back in the news. The DeSmog Blog exposed how some of the most rancid trolls in the world of climate change-denialism are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, one of the Koch Cartel’s early propaganda mills set up during the Reagan Era.

    Among the Heartland Institute’s disinformation projects: paying schools to spread pro-pollution lies to K-12 students by “providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain.” Also memos exposed direct funding deals from the Heartland Institute to pseudo-contrarian “scientists” like S. Fred Singer, named one of America’s top climate change-denialists, who also serves in a variety of Koch propaganda mills like the Cato Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies and George Mason University.

    The main thing to remember in any story involving the Heartland Institute is that it is a direct project of the Koch Cartel (you gotta admire the Kochs’ ability to generate so many bland names for their propaganda outfits, that blandness acts like a wizard’s cloaking power).

    Heartland’s founder, David Padden, was an early member of the Koch Cartel. In 1977, when the Charles G. Koch Foundation of Wichita rebranded and renamed itself the Cato Institute, David Padden was a founding board member of the new Cato Institute. Padden headed a financial services firm in Chicago, Padden & Co. Chicago is the “heartland” of financial derivatives, the “financial weapons of mass destruction” that are screwing America and the world, so you can imagine the Kochs and Padden had plenty of work in Chicago. The Chicago Board is the largest financial derivatives exchange in the world—Koch sockpuppet Rick Santelli launched his Tea Party Rant while standing on the floor of the Chicago Board, blathering about “losers” who lost their homes. Another banker who was a founding board member of the Cato Institute was Sam Husbands, an executive at Dean Witter Securities, now part of Morgan Stanley. And of course, heading Cato was Charles Koch, heir to his father’s oil and chemicals fortune.

    Yep, they were underdogs and rebels all right, these “radicals for corporate pollution.”

    Like a lot of libertarians in the 70s and 80s, Padden styled himself as an anti-EPA hippie for capitalism, forming his own zany libertarian outfit called—get this—the “Loop Libertarian League.” Krazy Koch-heads, those guys! Of course, there’s a practical use for putting a hippie front-group on your resume: Gives the impression that when Padden and his Heartland Institute comrades promote climate change lies and pro-pollution corporate propaganda, what they’re really doing is “bucking The Establishment” and “stickin’ it to The Man.” Cuz you know, you environmentalists and anti-poison types are just so conformist, man—only a true rebel spends tens of millions of dollars poisoning the public’s minds, so that it’s easier for corporations to poison the environment.

    In 1984, the Kochs expanded their corporate-hippie libertarian network with a handful of new propaganda mills.David Padden must’ve done something right at Cato because he was installed as the head of one of these new libertarian mills, The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago.

    Padden joined the board of another Koch libertarian propaganda mill set up that same year, “Citizens for a Sound Economy” (later renamed “FreedomWorks”). The Kochs installed Ron Paul as the first chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy—yep, that Ron Paul, the “maverick” Ron Paul. Sorry, folks, but it’s true: Ron Paul and David Padden go way back too, as does Ron Paul with the Koch brothers.

  120. OS:

    “shame is a concept totally foreign to the reich wing. They have no honor or decency.”


    The criminal who has revolted against society, hates it, and considers himself in the right; society was wrong, not he. Has he not, moreover, undergone his punishment? Accordingly he is absolved, acquitted in his own eyes.

    ~Feodor Dostoevsky, The House of the Dead

    That old Russian knew a thing or two about the human heart.

  121. In the case of Rush, we could be talking about the size of either his head or his ass. I cannot tell the difference from here. I don’t even want to think about the rest of him.

  122. mespo quotes, “The criminal who has revolted against society…”


    The operant word here is the second one…..’criminal.” Descriptive and accurate.

  123. “Bdaman
    1, February 16, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    Gene H Isobar has different def’s as well”

    So what? See, unlike you and Bron, I don’t think a homophone is something you call your gay buddies on. You and Gumby were talking about the weather. I’m pretty sure the physics and chemistry definitions of the term don’t play into it so I used the relevant definition of the term according to the context.

  124. Earlier I was being too hasty in stating that Bdaman had hi-jacked the thread. He was merely developing a thread sub-set: Lying for the Koch Brothers. To many their money has replaced The Gospels.

  125. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the answer to the problem that solves the theory is done. Reducing CO2 emissions ain’t gonna happen. What we’ve seen in the last few years is no binding agreements by countries to reduce emissions. Koyoto II was non binding and countries did not sign on anyways. In fact, one country, Germany is going back to producing emissions as they phase out all nuclear facilities by 2020 and revert back to burning coal and fuel. They can’t depend 100 percent on alternative energy and that industry is on it’s last breath. Wind and solar manufactures are closing the doors in record numbers. Carbon markets have all but closed and no one that is trading is making money at it except for all the thieves who stole credits.

    Say what you want, call me names and laugh in my face, We are approaching 400 ppm and the weather is no better or worse. Thomas Jefferson thought of Climate Change before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. Thats how long it’s been around.

  126. Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’

    Marc Morano – Climate Depot

  127. You want to talk funding ?

    Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

    Keep in mind the majority of these companies ARE NOW BANKRUPT!!!!!!!

    Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.

    Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.

    Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

  128. Gene H:

    An O Bar is or was a bar in Palm Beach, Florida.

    and you would have known that an O Bar had nothing to do with science if you actually knew anything about science.

  129. Bdaman:

    did you know electric cars run on coal?

    Did you know the environmentalists are trying to stop a copper mine in Alaska?

    Did you know windmills are killing endangered birds like the Bald Eagle?

    Did I mention you need copper to make windmills?

    You know what I see?

    Lots of contradictions.

  130. Marc Morano of Climate Depot once worked for climate change denier Senator James Inhofe.


    This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax

    Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry’s presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. Somehow, he seems to be winning.
    By John H. Richardson


    Capitalism vs. the Climate
    Naomi Klein
    November 9, 2011

    There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row.

    He introduces himself as Richard Rothschild. He tells the crowd that he ran for county commissioner in Maryland’s Carroll County because he had come to the conclusion that policies to combat global warming were actually “an attack on middle-class American capitalism.” His question for the panelists, gathered in a Washington, DC, Marriott Hotel in late June, is this: “To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?”

    Here at the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, the premier gathering for those dedicated to denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet, this qualifies as a rhetorical question. Like asking a meeting of German central bankers if Greeks are untrustworthy. Still, the panelists aren’t going to pass up an opportunity to tell the questioner just how right he is.

    Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who specializes in harassing climate scientists with nuisance lawsuits and Freedom of Information fishing expeditions, angles the table mic over to his mouth. “You can believe this is about the climate,” he says darkly, “and many people do, but it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner, whose prematurely silver hair makes him look like a right-wing Anderson Cooper, likes to invoke Saul Alinsky: “The issue isn’t the issue.” The issue, apparently, is that “no free society would do to itself what this agenda requires…. The first step to that is to remove these nagging freedoms that keep getting in the way.”

    Claiming that climate change is a plot to steal American freedom is rather tame by Heartland standards. Over the course of this two-day conference, I will learn that Obama’s campaign promise to support locally owned biofuels refineries was really about “green communitarianism,” akin to the “Maoist” scheme to put “a pig iron furnace in everybody’s backyard” (the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels). That climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism” (former Republican senator and retired astronaut Harrison Schmitt). And that environmentalists are like Aztec priests, sacrificing countless people to appease the gods and change the weather (Marc Morano, editor of the denialists’ go-to website,

    Most of all, however, I will hear versions of the opinion expressed by the county commissioner in the fourth row: that climate change is a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with some kind of eco-socialism. As conference speaker Larry Bell succinctly puts it in his new book Climate of Corruption, climate change “has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution.”

    Yes, sure, there is a pretense that the delegates’ rejection of climate science is rooted in serious disagreement about the data. And the organizers go to some lengths to mimic credible scientific conferences, calling the gathering “Restoring the Scientific Method” and even adopting the organizational acronym ICCC, a mere one letter off from the world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the scientific theories presented here are old and long discredited. And no attempt is made to explain why each speaker seems to contradict the next. (Is there no warming, or is there warming but it’s not a problem? And if there is no warming, then what’s all this talk about sunspots causing temperatures to rise?)

    In truth, several members of the mostly elderly audience seem to doze off while the temperature graphs are projected. They come to life only when the rock stars of the movement take the stage—not the C-team scientists but the A-team ideological warriors like Morano and Horner. This is the true purpose of the gathering: providing a forum for die-hard denialists to collect the rhetorical baseball bats with which they will club environmentalists and climate scientists in the weeks and months to come. The talking points first tested here will jam the comment sections beneath every article and YouTube video that contains the phrase “climate change” or “global warming.” They will also exit the mouths of hundreds of right-wing commentators and politicians—from Republican presidential candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann all the way down to county commissioners like Richard Rothschild. In an interview outside the sessions, Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, proudly takes credit for “thousands of articles and op-eds and speeches…that were informed by or motivated by somebody attending one of these conferences.”

    The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”

    There were no balloons or confetti descending from the rafters, but there may as well have been.

  131. Windmills did you say windmills ?

    End of tax credit a blow for wind power industry
    Up to 37,000 jobs, many in Illinois, could be lost as projects are halted or abandoned

    The state is home to more than 150 companies that support the wind industry. At least 67 of those make turbines or components for wind farms. Chicago is the U.S. headquarters to more than a dozen major wind companies that wanted to take advantage of powerful Midwestern winds.–20120217,0,7153601.story

  132. Wind turbine expert Dominique Roddier

    ‘We can design turbines that will sustain the highest hurricanes without a problem. They will just be a lot more expensive and maybe not worth it’

    Could hurricanes wreck $700m offshore wind farms in U.S.? Experts predict HALF of proposed turbines will be ruined in 20 years

  133. Mike S.–the true Gospels have been replaced by AstroTurf. And means whatever the Koch Crime Family and their minions want it to mean.

  134. Way to attack the messenger instead of the message Ms. Elaine.

    Stick to the facts and don’t deflect.

    Fact : Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’

  135. Where is all this ghost money from the Koch Brothers going vs the billions upon billions the other side gets.

    Here is just but one example

    Yes we can turned to I just can’t

    “I want to look him in the eye and say, ‘Thank you so much’ ” for his work, said Buell, who expresses deep disappointment in the president’s leadership on environmental issues, especially climate change.

    With Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign in full swing, “I would just love to write my big check … or have a high-dollar dinner here” on his behalf, she said. “I can’t.”

  136. Bdaman:

    doesnt the left have a big ole fat sugar daddy who doesnt create anything but makes his money on misery? Didnt he almost tank a country?

    What is that assholes name, George somebody, oh yes Soros. He doesnt make things as far as I know, he just makes money on people who make things. Now that I think about it, typical progressive, use productive people as milch cows to fund your enterprises.

  137. Bdaman,

    What message?

    Didn’t Morano work for Rush Limbaugh at one time?

    Are you suggesting that Morano doesn’t have an agenda? I like to look at the sources of information.


    Silencing the scientists: the rise of right-wing populism
    by Clive Hamilton on March 2, 2011

    Last month, Americans were shocked at the attempted murder of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six bystanders. The local County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik captured the immediate assessment of many when he linked the attempted murder to the rise of violent anti-government rhetoric and imagery, observing, “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”
    When asked if the Congresswoman had any enemies her father replied: “Yeah. The whole Tea Party”. Many, including Giffords herself, had had a premonition that the inflammatory language of radical right-wing activists would sooner or later find real expression.

    The same hate-filled rhetoric that created the circumstances in which Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down also stokes ferocious attacks on climate scientists and environmentalists in the United States. Debunking climate science is official policy at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News; a leaked memo from management has instructed reporters to always cast doubt on data reporting global temperature increases.

    Some of the bitterest attacks on climate scientists are made by commentators employed by Fox News. Fox ranters Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity often ridicule climate science. Glenn Beck calls global warming “ the greatest scam in history” and gives air-time to Christopher Monckton to attack the work of climate scientists as fraudulent with his unique blend of statistical gobbledegook, invented “facts” and off-the-planet conspiracy theories. The network sometimes features Steve Milloy, an energy lobbyist who ran the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a front group initially devoted to denying the link between smoking and cancer. As James Hoggan points out in his book Climate Cover-Up, Milloy is introduced as an expert on “ junk science”, meaning climate science.

    Another Fox regular is Marc Morano, the former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe, founder of the most malicious anti-science blog, and the man who said climate scientists deserve to be publicly flogged. Last April on Fox News, Morano launched a virulent attack on Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, calling him a “charlatan” and responsible for “the best science that politics can manufacture”. When Morano singles out a climate scientist for attack on his website he includes their e-mail addresses and invites his followers to “get in touch”. Many of them do.

  138. Bdaman:

    this is why milking the cow doesnt work:

    It you keep repeating a lie long enough, people eventually start to accept it as truth. So even as the Federal debt hit new record highs and bankrupt entitlement states like Greece collapse, how else to explain the persistent belief among many politicians and policymakers that the American economy’s continuing woes stem from a lack of consumption.

    .It’s the modern incarnation of Keynesian economics, the belief that the economy grows as a result of government spending. By putting more money in people’s pockets, so the thinking goes, they will spend more and stimulate growth. This approach holds forth that that consumption itself is the source of prosperity.

    The falsehood has been repeated innumerable times in recent years under both the Bush and Obama administrations. It has been used as the economic justification for government interventions like Cash for Clunkers (to boost auto sales), homebuyer tax credits (to boost housing prices) and the supposed “shovel ready” stimulus jobs that even President Barack Obama admitted never materialized as hoped.

    Yet you hear it over and over again.

    As then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said back as 2008, “Congress is committed to completing action quickly so that we can get money into the hands of families who will spend it to spur American job creation and economic growth.”

    Just recently Rep. Mike Honda, (D., Calif.), who serves on the House Budget and Appropriations Committee, remarked: “If we invest money into this economy and get cash into people’s hands, they’ll spend it and once they start spending the money, it starts to circulate through our economy and it’ll stimulate the economy.”

    Creating a job is easy. But as has been evidenced by the still persistently high unemployment rate, despite the record stimulus (read: spending), creating a remunerative job — one that actually results in the production of new wealth — is an entirely different matter. Wal-Mart’s (WMT: 62.04, 0.28, 0.45%) two million employees, for example, produce over $200,000 in revenue each. Those jobs don’t cost investors (let alone taxpayers ) a dime. They create wealth, not consume it.

    From food to fashion, the desire and need to consume is a given — and limitless. Regardless if it’s a cup of coffee or a Caribbean vacation, we desire things which improve our lives and happiness.

    But before wealth can be consumed, it must be produced. Our very lives depend on the creation of new wealth, not the forced redistribution to homeowners, car companies financial firms or anyone else bureaucrats determine is a “public good”.

    Either by taxes or inflation, the belief that the economy prospers when government takes from those who produce and gives to those who do not evades the obvious: no wealth is created. It’s just transferred from those who’ve earned it to those who have not, precisely why deficits have skyrocketed under the “consumptionist” approach even as unemployment and GDP growth have barely budged.

    —Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitaistpig Hedge Fund LLC

  139. “Either by taxes or inflation, the belief that the economy prospers when government takes from those who produce and gives to those who do not evades the obvious: no wealth is created.”


    Let’s see, the government takes in tax revenue and subsidizes critical industries who must use the money to purchase infrastructure. That infrastructure has to be populated so workers are hired either here or abroad. The goods and services rendered are purchased by consumers who pay in dollars or other currency which is returned to the company which in turn pays dividends to investors or is reinvested into business infrastructure. Think GM and Chrysler. You’re right Mr. Hoenig no wealth created there just jobs, infrastructure, and ROI. All economic “bads” if you want to bankrupt the country and kill teh government — especially a Democratic government.

    No worry you’re probably just used to looking around your hedge fund and seeing money made by playing the market. Now that my fat cat friend is creating no wealth at all — except for your regulation-free brethren.

    You Republicans are so transparent.

  140. MS Elaine I’m speaking of the money from the Koch brothers.

    I post a statement made by Morano

    Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’

    and then you post an article about Morano working for a denier James Inhofe.

    Funny thing is that despite the so called consensus 97% of scientist agree, and the billions of dollars the alarmist get they have lost the global warming debate even though Al Gore said the debate is over. Poll after poll shows less people today believe in the junk science than as recently as three years ago. If the message was so clear and the science indisputable that would not be the case. Nor would the failure of the green energy sector. Instead of curbing CO2 emissions we are increasing them.

    Where is the actual proof of the exact dollar amounts that the Koch brothers provide funding for Heartland and other various organizations. Then take those figures and match it to the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS the other side receives. Despite this they not only are losing the battle but are losing the war.

  141. Mespo, they are just True Believers. Facts be damned. If the facts don’t fit, make up some. Some witty attorney told me years ago, that if pressed for a source of some statement, some so-called experts will cite a study done at Yale. A lot of studies are done at Yale and no one will be able to verify it. That reminds me a lot of the climate change deniers. They often cite studies that cannot be verified, or if so, one bought and paid for study leads to another astroturf study and so on.

    When some folks are so vehement about the subject and absolutely will not let it go, I am reminded of the admonition of “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal, “Follow the money.”

  142. Yeah think of the Chevy Volt thanks Big Government.

    Read this MESPO

    and this–20120217,0,7153601.story

    Then you’ll get your answer to

    the government takes in tax revenue and subsidizes critical industries who must use the money to purchase infrastructure. That infrastructure has to be populated so workers are hired either here or abroad. The goods and services rendered are purchased by consumers who pay in dollars or other currency which is returned to the company which in turn pays dividends to investors or is reinvested into business infrastructure.

    That is unless those companies go bankrupt which is exactly what is happening. Not only here but elsewhere where in China despite the government subsidies 80% of Solar manufactures are projected to go bankrupt.

  143. Bdaman,

    Do the Koch brothers provide funding to just one institute/center that promotes the “there is no such thing as climate change” agenda?

    The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine

    The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA

  144. Mespo:

    the amount of money spent on infrastructure is very small compared to the entire GDP.

    From the CBO:

    “In fiscal year 2007—the most recent year for which data on combined spending by the federal government and by state and local governments are available—total public spending for transportation and water infrastructure was $356 billion, or 2.4 percent of the nation’s economic output as measured by its gross domestic product. For the purposes of this study, transportation and water infrastructure encompasses infrastructure for all forms of surface transportation (highways, mass transit, rail, and waterways), aviation, water resources (such as dams and levees), and water distribution and wastewater treatment.”

    And from US Government Spending:

    Transportation is 5% of the Federal Budget.

    Hoenig is just saying that stimulating the economy doesnt work, the fallacy of the broken window is correct.

    By the way, Hoenig is not a republican.

    Liberals are so knee-jerk.

    If you would embrace capitalism you could have plenty for all and a safety net for those who need one as long as you keep government spending at around 15% of GDP. So if you want more money you expand the economy but keep spending at 15% of GDP.

    Everybody is happy, poor people have a job or a safety net, liberals get to have money for social programs, rich people get to make more money, the middle class can afford to have some extra money in their pocket, roads get built.

    But the down side is personal responsibility and an end to security.

  145. Solar power bankruptcies loom as prices collapse

    Governments across the world are curtailing benefits enjoyed by solar installers as panel prices drop because of industry overcapacity and low demand from traditional markets such as Europe.

    China launched an aggressive project, Golden Sun, to boost solar installations. Home to seven of the world’s eight largest solar panel manufacturers, China added a meager 490 megawatts of solar installations in 2010.

  146. MS. Elaine at the two minute mark of your video speaks volumes. The Koch Brothers are kicking George Soro’s ass. Like I said the so called consensus and the Al Gore proclamation that the debate is over is far from it. People are not stupid and can see right through the alarmist bull crap. And even if CO2 is warming the planet it’s a good thing as the opposite would be far worse as the recent example of what is happening in Europe shows us. Over 500 people died in the last month due to extreme cold.

  147. Al Gore’s new direction

    Blood, Gore and capitalism

    THESE are busy days for Al Gore. In late January, the former vice-president turned climate-change warrior took to the high seas, leading a luxury cruise-cum-fact-finding mission to Antarctica for a bunch of billionaires and policy wonks. They were to see for themselves the melting ice shelf and enjoy what remains of the spectacular views. Then, on February 15th, he was in New York to launch a manifesto (pdf) for what he calls “sustainable capitalism”.

  148. Bdaman,

    “And even if CO2 is warming the planet it’s a good thing as the opposite would be far worse as the recent example of what is happening in Europe shows us. Over 500 people died in the last month due to extreme cold.”

    I take it you’re not so sure that the planet isn’t warming because of CO2 emissions.

    BTW, we’ve had the warmest winter I can remember here in Massachusetts–and I wasn’t born yesterday!

    Did I say anything about Al Gore? I’m not really interested in what he’s up to these days. You can keep tabs on him, if you like.

    I also didn’t bring up George Soros. I have no great love for the man–sorry to disappoint you.

    BTW, you didn’t answer a question I posed to you earlier this morning. I’ll repeat it for you: Do the Koch brothers provide funding to just one institute/center that promotes the “there is no such thing as climate change” agenda?

  149. Bdaman,


    Warm winter weather impact on W. Mass

    SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – We’re more than halfway through January and there’s hardly any ice near the Connecticut River here in Springfield. But these warm conditions could be affecting more than just those snow boarders and skiers plans.

    On January 24 temperatures in the area soared to 52 degrees. That’s 20 degrees above average. For many families that means saving on the often expensive winter heating bill.

    Nicole Chisholm told 22News, “You don’t have to bundle up in a bunch of blankets and worry about the heating bills, electric bills, that’s definitely one good thing.”

    Kids who are normally outside sledding down hills only have had a couple days to fit those winter activities in.

    Willie Williamson of Holyoke told 22News, “This is his first time going sledding this winter we had the snow, he really liked that so he’s kind of disappointed about the sledding but he gets to go outside and play still, he’s not inside he’s not cooped up, so he likes that.

    But overall, this whole winter has been mild. In December, Massachusetts recorded 12 days when the temperature was more than 10 degrees above normal. And if that pattern continues, it could start affecting crops.


    Warm winter weather worsens beaver problems

  150. How is New England being impacted by climate change?

    Part of New England’s charm is the distinct four seasons—a climate that includes crisp falls, snow-filled winters and temperate springs and summers. The climate has started to change, however. Snow cover is decreasing and spring arrives earlier. And the number of extremely hot summer days has been increasing. According to a report from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA) team, since 1970, the Northeast has been warming at a rate of nearly .5 degrees F per decade, with winter temperatures rising faster, at a rate of 1.3 degrees F per decade from 1970 to 2000, all changes consistent with those expected to be caused by global warming. 2010 was the warmest year on record.

    New England has clearly warmed since the end of the 19th century, with winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures, and with the greatest warming taking place in New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island. Annual precipitation has increased. While more rain has fallen in intense storms, snowfall in northern New England has decreased since 1953.

    According to the New England Climate Coalition, temperature increases could affect New England’s brilliant fall colors as trees migrate north or die out, and maple syrup production may be jeopardized because sap flow depends on freezing nights and warm days. And the ski industry will face the threat of less natural snowfall and the inability to produce artificial snow, which requires temperatures of 28 degrees or less. Under a high emissions scenario, for example, only western Maine is projected to retain a reliable ski season.


    I love New England in the autumn. Unfortunately, we didn’t have brilliant foliage around here last fall. Some of the leaves just turned brown on the trees and then fell to the ground. It was very disappointing.

  151. “Gene H:

    An O Bar is or was a bar in Palm Beach, Florida.

    and you would have known that an O Bar had nothing to do with science if you actually knew anything about science.”

    I didn’t say it had anything to do with science. I said it could be any number of things. But you keep making things up, Bron. Like I’ve said, it’s what you’re best at known for.

  152. BTW, we’ve had the warmest winter I can remember here in Massachusetts–and I wasn’t born yesterday!

    Ms. Elaine just because your having a warm winter doesn’t mean people AROUND THE GLOBE are. In fact people in Europe are freezing to death. Last count is near 500 in the last thirty days. Rome has snow for the first time since the 70’s. Sahara Desert sees snow for the first time since around the same time.

  153. “The Koch Brothers are kicking George Soro’s ass”

    Perhaps they are on the climate issue. This is especially important to them since they earn their money via environmental destruction and became wealthy through nepotism, rather than working for it. They are tied for fourth on Forbe’s list of the 100 richest American. Perhaps that is why there are so many people willing to lick their nether regions. Having read the Gospels and respecting their message, the phrase from John Prine’s song “Sam Stone” comes to mind: “Jesus Christ died for nothing, I suppose”.

    In this original thread about lying about cancer causes and in the sub-thread you’ve inserted to divert from the original, I see the same pattern. Worship of those with money which are the sins of greed and envy as defined by Christianity as two of the “Seven Deadly Sins.

    From the Torah (What Christians call “The Old Testament”) we have:

    “In the Book of Proverbs (Mishlai), King Solomon stated that the Lord specifically regards “six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth.” namely:

    A proud look.
    A lying tongue.
    Hands that shed innocent blood.
    A heart that devises wicked plots.
    Feet that are swift to run into mischief.
    A deceitful witness that uttereth lies.
    Him that soweth discord among brethren.”

    It seems that any way you look at it we see here examples of how religious teachings have been perverted in the service of worship of Mammon. A sad state for this country to be in. We are all of course responsible for our own moral and ethical conduct and will be judged, or not, after we’re gone. I do believe the stricture from Jesus: Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” is wisdom no matter what one’s faith. Therefore I am morally precluded from commenting on your adherence to your faith.

    However, to take things out of the religious range and put them in ethical terms I think you would benefit from reading this book which is a free download in PDF:

    Perhaps in the reading you might gain insight into why you act the way you do when it comes to the politics of protecting those of great wealth and also the perversion of religious belief in the service thereof.

  154. Oh and who was it that tells me that one day of weather does not equal climate. We’ll one winter doesn’t either. Just a couple of years ago it was snowmegeddon and snowpocalypse. Oh forgot that was caused by Global Warming. Too hot, Global Warming, Too cold, Global Warming. Drought, Global Warming, Flood, Global Warming.

  155. How much did BP give the Heartland Institute ?

    On February 1, Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, announced an agreement between BP (formerly British Petroleum) and the University of California at Berkeley to establish an Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) on the Berkeley campus. Under the agreement BP will provide the university with $500 million over 10 years. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is “by far the largest alliance ever between industry and academia.”

  156. Bdaman,

    “Ms. Elaine just because your having a warm winter doesn’t mean people AROUND THE GLOBE are. In fact people in Europe are freezing to death. Last count is near 500 in the last thirty days. Rome has snow for the first time since the 70′s. Sahara Desert sees snow for the first time since around the same time.”


    There you have it: CLIMATE CHANGE!

  157. Elaine:

    Bdaman has never said the climate isnt changing, climate changes all the time as history and science proves. The idea Bdaman disagrees with is that it is caused by man when there is an inconvenient large orangish red orb way out in space which provides the energy for our little home. Every man made thing you see on earth is a result of the energy provided by the sun. Well that depends on whether or not you believe the earth is full of methane. If you dont though, then all the energy we use is only the energy of the sun laid down millions of years ago. Excepting nuclear energy.

    Fossil fuels are organic.

  158. Bron
    1, February 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Fossil fuels are organic.

    so is cancer

  159. From the Atlantic

    Heartland Memo Looking Faker By the Minute

    Feb 17 2012, 12:14 PM ET

    After yesterday’s post on why I thought that one of the documents in the Heartland leak was a fake, I discovered that David Appell had been investigating along the same lines. Appell, however, looked at one thing that hadn’t occurred to me: where the PDF was created. One of his commenters elaborates:

    I used a pdfinfo script to analyse the memos. The info I got is that all the meta data dates changed on the day of the leak in the Pacific time zone (-8 GMT). This is likely where our thief resides. This is also where the “fake” was created on 2/13. The other docs, with the exception of the IRS form were in the central time zone (-6 GMT). The IRS form was -4 GMT. This has been corroborated by a commenter at Lucia’s. Based on this, and I’m not sure if I’ve covered every base, the strategy memo is a fake.

    The only other option would be if the create dates were faked, highly, highly unlikely or, the sender from HI didn’t have the doc, and someone from the west coast scanned it , emailed to her to send to the leaker. This, to me, doesn’t seem likely either. Logically, I have to go with HI’s story.

  160. The Koch brothers contribution

    Foundation gave just $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (the only such donation to that organization in more than 10 years) and that funding was specifically directed to a healthcare research program, and not climate change research, as was erroneously reported.

    Statistically speaking, the Foundation’s contribution represents approximately one-twentieth of one percent of Heartland’s total funding over that ten year period. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.

    And indeed, when you look at the fundraising document, the coding next to Koch’s donation is “HCN” which certainly seems to be their health care code–other donors with that code include Bayer, Amgen, EliLilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

  161. The Earth has warmed, the earth has cooled the earth shall warm and cool again.

    There you have it, Climate Change.

    Thomas Jefferson


    ” A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an ascendency as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their developement, from every danger of returning cold. The accumulated snows of the winter remaining to be dissolved all together in the spring, produced those overflowings of our rivers, so frequent then, and so rare now.


  162. I’m confused is this before or after the industrial revolution. Was this before the safe zone of 350ppm or where we are now close to 400ppm.

    America’s First Great Global Warming Debate
    Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster argue over conventional wisdom that lasted thousands of years.

    As the tumultuous century was drawing to a close, the conservative Yale grad challenged the sitting vice president’s ideas about global warming. The vice president, a cerebral Southerner, was planning his own run for the presidency, and the fiery Connecticut native was eager to denounce the opposition party.

    The date was 1799, not 1999—and the opposing voices in America’s first great debate about the link between human activity and rising temperature readings were not Al Gore and George W. Bush, but Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster.

  163. Ms Elaine this speaks to your comment.

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Feb. 14, 2012) — During some winters a significant amount of snow falls on parts of California. During other winters — like this one (so far) — there is much less snow. But more than 130 years of snow data show that over time snowfall in California is neither increasing nor decreasing.

    Despite this winter’s snow drought, California’s snow isn’t disappearing

  164. Bdaman,

    Your attempts to derail the original topic are breathtaking in their profusion and consistency. I really hope you get paid well for this “flakking” for the 1%.

  165. I wish I was getting paid but like the myth that big oil and the koch brothers and the heartland institute are funding a massive financial campaign towards climate change denial is just like climate change/global warming due to mans activity is just that a myth. There is far more money pumped into the other side. There is the so called consensus but yet the message is failing and on the ropes of complete breakdown. So when gas prices get to $5.00 a gallon, have just hit $4.00 in California overnight, and the price of goods and services increases just remember you are helping solve a non existing problem that has lasted for years called Climate Change.

  166. Not even a tort lawyer would think of using abortionists as expert witnesses in the courtroom to deny an abortion-breast cancer link – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Asking them whether abortion raises risk is akin to asking the tobacco industry whether cigarette smoking raises lung cancer risk. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can recognize that if medical texts, medical authorities, and the American Cancer Society agree that increased childbearing, starting early before age 24, sharply reduces risk, then having an induced abortion leaves a woman with a higher risk than does having a full term pregnancy. That is a RECOGNIZED risk of abortion, like it or not.

  167. Mr. Drumm, you are incorrect in saying there is no link between breast cancer and abortion.

    More women than men by far get breast cancer.
    More women than men by far get abortions.

    Therefore, breast cancer equals abortions.

    (I thought you would have known that by now!) :mrgreen:

Comments are closed.