Weather Channel Gives Glacial Response To Breitbart’s Climate Change Denial

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-7-29-07-amThe Weather Channel is not where one would expect a media scrum but the venerable channel went after conservative site Breitbart with a haymaker of a video after Breitbart used one of its reporters, Kait Parker, for a story suggesting that the Earth is actually getting colder. The video is below.

Parker was not pleased to see a clip featuring an earlier segment that she did as support for what she argued was a distortion of the available scientific data. As noted earlier, I am in agreement with her view of climate change. However, I have disagreed with the unilateral actions taken by the Obama Administration in the area to circumvent Congress.

Parker notes “Last week, Breitbart-dot-com published a story claiming global warming is nothing but a scare, and global temperatures were actually falling. The problem is, they used a completely unrelated video about La Niña with my face in it to attempt to back their point.”

The rest can be seen below but this is a debate that is likely to heat up in Washington with President-elect Trump’s selection of a climate denier and oil industry advocate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

180 thoughts on “Weather Channel Gives Glacial Response To Breitbart’s Climate Change Denial”

  1. Here is an interesting article describing what the oil and gas subsidies actually are. It includes the same write-offs that individuals and other companies get. I do not consider a tax deduction a subsidy. Foregoing royalties may be, however.

    I disagree with long term, true subsidies, because it really does not save the consumer any money. The subsidies are paid for by taxpayers, so who cares if you save money on the front end if it gets taken out on the back end in taxes? Energy needs to be cost effective.

    1. Here’s a useful and true rule of thumb. There is only one payor. That’s the one at the end of the chain of production that accepts the service and pays for it or the food and eats it or the clothes and wears them or the car and drives it. etc. That End User pays the entire freight for all that went beforeo, occured before, happened before.

      With After Taxed Devalued Dollars made whatever good or service he or she is making. There is no escaping or passing on this cost unless one is completely on the dole. Makes Nothing provides nothing only consumes everything of the only free lunch.

      TANSTAAFL Someone always has to pay.

  2. Of course one could read something factual such as David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” before commenting. Professor Archer also uses “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas.

  3. I cast an absentee ballot for Hillary. But now that I watch Trump on TV putting together his cabinet I have decided that he was the right choice. Not from the right and not that choice not an echo thing. He is not a true Republican and he will reform that party to a better outlook on life. Or he has reformed it already. All this climate change stuff has annoyed me for the past few years. I came from a state up by Canada and am in need of a warmer climate. When I get out of the hen house I will try to get a job in the auto industry. I used to make cars in a factory. The best course would be to get some money and open a bar and restaurant in my other home town of Dallas. It climate change occurs and it gets too hot then I will stay in the AC.

    Over time more Americans will come over to the Trump crowd. One does not have to be totally sane to pull the right lever. Or left lever. One thing I hope he does is get us out of the Middle East and Afghanistan and other stan territories. Climate change is like any change and it can be for the better.

    1. I like your consistency, but still think that both renewables and fossil fuels should receive government subsidies due to the benefits received by all. As it stands, of course, the metric for who gets what is highly political (decided by lobbyiests and gifts, I suppose), but if it were based more on merit and value provided, it could be a good thing.

      I’m not sure how guilty climatologists, or others, are of ignoring the importance of fossil fuels going forward under any possible scenario, but I suspect again, the greater the experience in climatology, the greater the awareness of just how massaive an effort the transition to renewables/nuclear will be.

      My own issue with nuclear, besides the massive cost of installations and the “obsolete before key in hand” effect, is not so much the technology – which each generation of enthusiasts swear on anything holy to them is TOTALLY SAFE this time – for sure – honest!!! – ahem, not so much with that as with the massive corruption we see all around us in politics, both parties, and throughout industry and finance. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an excellent example of profit coming before safety and the human tendency to under develop rather than over develop safety features into such projects due to cost and time constraints means that future projects have a high chance of being far less reliable than advertised – and the consequences can be and are tragic on a truly epic scale

      1. Gee and I felt so good about the purchase price. It is a market economy after all. So why should I pay twice? Laissez Faire Nous. Make that a market capitalism economy and one day maybe it will be unfettered.

        1. I agree that subsidies are a difficult issue. If we really had a market economy, or something even remotely similar, … No, they would still be needed, just as they are now, in our monopoly market capitalism, for projects that have benefit to all but little promise of immediate profit.

          1. No. Really? Then how do you explain the miracle of the bagels. Ever morning there are exactly the right amount of bagels with exactly the right amount coffee and all that goes with it – for the nine million people of New York City. That is a tiny sliver of the nation wide market economy and is the part that barring government interference or the weather does work. Amazon is another form of proof as are ALL the chain stores and beiyond them all the mom and pop stores.

            For Ford, GMC, Chrysler to survive every morning exactly the right amount of car parts and so forth are at hand where they need to be along the assembly line even though they come from perhaps five or six different couontries.

            Every morning gasoline and diesel in the amounts needed are at the local station ready to pump into the tanks of the nations vehicles along with a cappucino.

            The profit is both immediate and that includes taxes to the government.

            Market Capitalism is not interfered with through such examples as State Economics using FDR styile oligarchs to control everything is the only system that works well.

            Including the making of and sending of this post.

            Economics 101 and it’s not accomplished by talking about it but by everyone doing their part.

            1. The Capitalist Manifesto Prof. Gary Wolfram is the source of the bagel story. He’s the follow on to Hazlitt.

            2. The economic theory of bagels. Sorry, don’t buy it. I’ve noticed that mom and pop stores are almost extinct in my area, such as book stores, and variety, other than what is permitted (i.e. profitiable) has been gone since the 1960’s. I can’t even get an inoculation for Lyme disease because while the vaccine exists, it is not sufficiently profitable to produce and monopoly capitalism in the form of runaway patent law has made it impossible for others to enter the field. If you believe that 9 million bagels every morning = market or any semblance of such an argument, I certainly wouldn’t be able to convince you otherwise.


              1. Yop must be blind or pay some one to do your shopping. It’s nationwide in every block in every town I just mentioned one small tiny slice. Time to get your head out of your fourth point of contact and look at the real world. How sad a comment. Do you look in the mirror and reject yourself?

    1. Define fossil fuel subsidies. Are you talking about intangible drilling costs deductions? Do you even know what those are?

      1. He’ll have to see if that’s in the fine print of the Natural Resources Defense Council blast fax he got.

      2. Subsidy is a subsidy never mind what for or what ever. It’s when taxpayers foot part of the bill. In this case it’s in the same category as cost over runs and so forth. Once the hog got his nose in the trough to get he contractor or the two big to fail corporation’s nose under the tent flap the extras start appearing. and the Costs show up. Two new AF-1 for two billion each? Even counting the devaluation of the dollar by a third it’s value after 2008 why do they get what in effect is a COLA while the retired people get shafted?

        Right now there is NO replacement for the A10 Warthogs. F35 went through some testing by different pilots including A10 pilots but they were the only group not polled on it’s ability to do Close Air Support. Reasons will be the same as they were in the past. Too fast to react to anything and not enough armor etc etc. etc. etc.

        What will happen then? if the infantry is lucky in 10 or 15 years there will be a replacement ont he drawing boards. It’s all about empire building and squeezing the taxpayer one way or the other.

        As subsidy is when someone else takes the hit and pays the price. Which reminds me on the offshore oil rigs did they ever get them all inspected as is required?

        Wow let’s rent or lease some mini subs and mixed gas divers and pay them a fortune there are what 10,000 of them under the Gulf and did BP ever pay the FULL price for that screwup?

        Bail out, ‘subsidy, cost over run…….it’s all the same just different words. FTT and the last T is Taxpayer. .

    2. Global product is roughly $75 tn. In a typical country, value added in extractive industries of all kind is usually a single-digit share of the whole, i.e. around $5 tn if that. So, you’re claiming that subsidies to coal and oil production are in excess of the total value-added in extractive industries worldwide?

  4. I will believe in the wind farms when people continue to build them even without government grants and subsidies.

    1. Do you know that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of over 50 billion dollars? It is called welfare for the oil and gas companies.

    2. Foxtrot, One of the classic hypocrisies was some years back there was a plan to put windmills in the waters between Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod. There is always wind there making it perfect. But, when the windbag, Teddy “Fredo” Kennedy got wind of the plan he got the project cancelled. That wind is for his, and all the rich limo liberal sailors! Screw the environment if it’s in my back yard!

      1. As a middle income if I stay south of the boarder and learned to steer around future windmill platforms. It’s not hard if you remember to follow the Rules Of The Road and not demand the whole freeway. A perfect description of Teddie and Bobbie. What an insult to bears.

  5. And by “you didn’t read the article” I meant Mike A. Mike – you make really great posts but this time I wish you would read the bloody article and take a more moderate approach, seeking to understand the other side.

    Nick – you are right. There are billions to be made out of ACC. So many are in a rush to replace fossil fuels today, right this minute. They will depend on “something” happening so that its replacement will be affordable, our energy bills will remain the same, and that it’s nothing but greed and stubbornness in the way of replacing fossil fuels.

    We will replace them at some point. Our technology is improving every year, and by definition fossil fuels are finite. But we are not quite there yet. Alternative technology is still heavily subsidized, and our rates increase every time we get a percentage increase in clean green energy. For the coastal elites, that might not matter, but for those struggling to pay healthcare premiums and deductibles, buy food, and keep the lights on and their homes warm in winter, it’s a problem.

    We need to ensure clean energy is out of its beta phase, that we don’t waste all our financial resources on technology that will just be replaced in 10 years, and that energy needs to be cost effective. It’ll come in its own time, and wishful thinking will not bring it any sooner.

    On a side note, recall how I’ve bitterly complained about conventional wind farms chopping up birds and bats and the noise is just awful? I read about this fantastic new idea in Spain, I believe, where an inventor came up with a blameless wind turbine that is like an oscillating pole. No more putting birds through a food processor.

    Except…oops…we’ve spent all our treasure on conventional turbines that coat the hills and are decimating birds, including endangered species. I believe the design is Inplix.

    I think this is the right video:

    And this is just one solution. We have to fix major design flaws, like the noise and wildlife threat of conventional turbines, before we scale them up to the degree that we have.

    1. Great comments, Karen. Yes, MikeA can be frustrating w/ his closed mind. But, he is a free speech absolutist so he has that core that I respect. Plus, he’s a native New Englander like myself. I just got back from being a pallbearer @ my mom’s fraternal twin brother funeral. Uncle Mike lived in rural Vermont and made it to age 90. He was buried on Pearl Harbor Day, fitting since he fought as a Marine island to island in the Pacific. I must have seen 100 Bernie yard signs, a few Trump signs, and not one Hillary sign, in the Green Mountain state. Uncle Mike’s widow[retired grammar school teacher] was a big Hillary supporter, but even she didn’t have a Hillary sign.

      1. I’m so sorry for your loss, Nick. How are you? Are you OK? Losing family is so hard. You guys will be in my prayers.

  6. OK. I see you did not read the article. There are many issues – is the climate changing, how much is it changing, is it getting colder or hotter, are humans effecting change, and are they a majority influencer as in greater than 50%. There is no one basket of “climate change deniers.” That’s just yet another one of those nifty ad hominem memes where instead of addressing individual concerns they just get thrown into the evil/stupid basket, or the receptacle of your choice. And then the Left feels morally superior without having to clarify their position, discuss solutions, or otherwise have a pleasant conversation.

    Here’s some science on that 97% on which most of the Left base their claims of unanimity in science:

    “But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

    Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

    The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

    “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

    —Dr. Richard Tol

    “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

    —Dr. Craig Idso

    “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

    —Dr. Nir Shaviv

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

    —Dr. Nicola Scafetta”

    That does NOT mean that the above authors believe the climate is not changing, or that humans are the cause. The difference in opinion is the rate of change, direction, and the proportion of influence humans weird. The climate has always changed, and will continue to change if all of mankind leave Earth in a space ship. The question is how much are we changing it ourselves. (As stated earlier, I believe we are but have not drawn a conclusion as of yet as to percentage.)

    1. Karen S,

      Alex Epstein, champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas based on the bio of the article you linked to. It’s how he makes his living. According to Desmogblog (not your link), Epstein is not a climatologist, but he did get his B.A. in philosophy and is a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. Besides college lectures, Alex Epstein offers corporate speaking and consulting services for the energy industry to combat “formidable attacks by so-called environmentalists that can put a halt to your projects and sabotage your bottom line.” To get to this, append (https) and (:) and (//) and (www.) to

      The article you linked to was published from Forbes at the beginning of 2015. Since then, Cook, the climatologist Epstein challenges, has published a synthesis of consensus estimates – multiple papers on consensus by different authors/groups on human-caused global warming. It was published in April of 2016.

      The abstract:

      The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. [Emphasis mine]

      I did not preserve the links in the above abstract because there is a two link limit for comments on this site and I wanted to post the link to this paper (One can find the links I left out here.):

      One’s expertise and experience in climatology seems to make a considerable difference in one’s opinion about global warming and human contribution to it. That does not mean there are not fully qualified climatologists who disagree with the thesis of human causality, but rather that the overwhelming consensus among scientists who specialize in this field is that global warming is real and humans have and are contributing to it significantly (particularly via the use of fossil fuels).

      The argument that the renewables industry is behind the scientific consensus is rather weak. Renewables is a nascent industry, and hasn’t had the time or resources to generate the kind of (corrupt) relationships it would take to create such a massive conspiracy. The fossil fuel companies, on the other hand…

      1. Oops, the indented quote should end starting at, “I did not preserve the links in the above…”

      2. Brookline Bridge,
        Consensus and expertise do not guarantee accuracy. The “consensus” over the past 50 years has been that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. Gary Taubes not only eviscerated that argument but convincingly showed how dissenters were shut out of the discussion, their character maligned, powerful people in key positions (Ancel Keys) that steered the narrative inaccurately.

        While there may be a consensus, the models they are using are incomplete. To my understanding, the models cannot currently handle (or simply lack the data) on the effect the soil microbiome has on the climate. How does soil health (plant life, humus, micronutrients, insects, use of pest and herbicides and inorganic vs organic fertilizers, etc) affect the respiration and carbon sequestration abilities of the resident microorganisms? How do pollinators and large animals–are they eating Round-Up ready corn?– affect the microbiome? How does the loss of wetlands factor in?What about the chemicals from warfare–e.g., Agent Orange? Tons of variables and insufficient research.

        Reining in chemical companies and changing our farming and animal “husbandry” practices may address the issue of climate change to a greater extent than solely targeting factories. Many of those changes should come from understanding, not regulation. Carrots are better than sticks.

        More research is needed. I am not sold on consensus this early in our understanding of the synergistic and complex system of earth and climate.

        I will look at your articles, though. 🙂

        1. Four years of FFA vocational agriculture in highschool and you would know everything you needed to know about how to use synergy and nature.

          1. ???

            Not sure how to interpret your comment. Sarcastic or sincere? Could you clarify?

            1. Certainly. In Vocational Agriculture and it’s attendant organizxations 4-H and FFA or Future Farmers of America each student gets or has an agricultural project. All kinds of those. Mine were feed lot finishing of beef and hogs, field corn, and ornamental shrubs – and a horse. We had wood shop, metal shop, machinery mechanics, plumbing, electrical all sorts of skills over the four years but the main part was to use the land not only in a productive manner but being ‘good stewards’ and practicing conservation of resources.

              One learns by doing how it all fits together. Along with rules such as work with nature not against nature.

              Also some business practices such as book keeping. You see mankind IS part of the whole.

              Some of the city kids went to technical high schools and learned to work within the nature of a city environment Many of were full loaded in the school and doing college prep at the same time.

              Some actually became farmers but all of us learned ‘synergism’ and the rest of it and always ‘good stewards of the land.’

              Others did not have such opportunities and lerned to …… stare out of windows and never found the library.

              I wonder what happened to them.

              1. Feedlot finishing and confinements are not synergistic or good examples of animal husbandry. And, the model of corn/soybean rotation is not fantastic for the soil considering the fields’ barrenness all winter, etc. I hope the FFA is doing more than inviting Joel Salatin to speak at local chapters.
                I was not in FFA, but my extended family farms and my dad farmed til the mid 80s. My family’s practices are not particularly synergistic (rotate corn/beans is about it).

                You might enjoy these articles on the FFA and Salatin:



                1. I guess you missed the point.

                  As a high school student I made enough ‘profit’ to pay for two years of college.using as piece of scrub land that provided a service for the neighboring farms used what was good to raise corn on rotation and now the place is owned by some corporation who use it for a 150 acre retreat and are thrilled by the various plants that finally grew into full size trees -on scrub land that was growing nothing. You see feed lot fences can be rotational as well as corn and a side benefit ….here’s the horror story. The corn attradted bambi so we had venison as well as beef and pork oh yes I forgot the chickens and turkeys etc. but that was for the table. Now it looks like as manicured forest in Europe with riding trails. etc. Dad bought it for $10,000 and our old trailer and sold it for $250,000. The last buyer paid $5 million. but hen they were from California. I didn’t mention three acres or so of truck garden for the family that were in the rotation That FFA project provided 3/4ths of the families food in those years. Plus a couple of .30-30 shells. Venison makes real good smoked sausages.

                  I’ve been to and lived in cities. They have not much to recommend them other than some very good cultural attractiions – symphonies, museums etc. The rest is something to sneeze at.

                  1. That sounds like it was a fabulous project.
                    You may still enjoy the links to articles I included.

        2. Prairie Rose,

          I see no problem with healthy skepticism regarding climate change and/or global warming. 🙂

          1. Thank heavens! Too often I get the impression that there isn’t any room for any skepticism about climate change/global warming and the causes, both man-made and natural, as well as the extent.

            I just read an article by a climate researcher who was being shunned and pilloried because he questioned the EXTENT of extreme weather due to global warming.

            Glad you are open to inquiry and discussion.


            1. I don’t consider my self to be a heretic since I don’t belong to the secular progressive religion. If one does not belong they can be neither heretic nor apostate. Especially where thie change a minute catechism is so irrelevant to any form of realism. But if I were rich enough….then I too could belong to the Church of Holy Liberalism. Trouble is I’m not that stupid.

              1. ???

                I do not consider myself a progressive either.

                More libertarian, but not quite.

            2. Somehow I doubt that an article in the Wall Street Journal (devoted to money and the making thereof) gives a careful scientific analysis of the problem. Ditto for the reference elsewhere here mentioning an article in Forbes.

              But I put the whole matter as follows: Are we willing to risk really screwing up the earth tomorrow, in exchange for economic benefit (for some) today?

              1. Jay S,
                Please read the article. Pielke adheres to the global warming theories overall.

                I also recommend Gary Taubes, which examined, in part, what happened due to the “fat and cholesterol cause heart disease” consensus.

              2. Jay S – in life there are risk takers and risk avoiders. I will take the risk.

                1. Sort of laughing at some of this. earth is just dirt. Poster probably meant The Earth meaning Terra the planet. Which reminds me of the old engineer definition between earth, pebbles and rocks. Rocks wont’ pass through a 4″ screen. I forget the size for pebbles. That led to drips, drops, seeps, and leaks (rate of flow) and the true meaning of ‘berm.’ Turns out there are four depending if you are Infantry, Engineers, or building a canal and that led to the true name of a 60″ pry bar. Tanker Bar or Engineer Bar. The answer is, of course, depends what they are serving. If they are serving skeletons the order will be for a beer….and a mop.

                  Benefits of a well rounded education.

                  1. Michael Aarethun – so few people appreciate the value of a well-rounded education. 🙂

          2. And yes, consensus as a criteria does have problems – though I think these are somewhat mitigated among scientists, particularly when there is a high degree of it. Obviously, as your example demonstrates, it isn’t fool proof, but then nothing is. It worked with tobacco and one is only sad that people didn’t pay more attention sooner. Many hundreds of thousands suffered needlessly and died an early death. In making judgements about these things, I for one am very limited because I am not a climatologist or even familiar with the science. Like many, I must go by more indirect criteria such as consensus or the notion of who benefits from taking one position or another.

            The idea that so many scientists are part of a conspiracy, or the notion that few of them actually agree on the subject when every single one of them that I have ever heard completely agree, strikes me as possible, but not something I would bet significant amounts on. That said, I have indeed come across skeptics who are qualified to raise doubt and so like you, but perhaps on the other side of the coin, I try to be respectful of those with different views. If, as claimed, global warming is an extinction level threat, or even close, and one that could be averted by immediate action, then we are likely in for some rough times ahead.

            1. Aggg. Sorry for sub-sub comments.

              I Don’t mean the above to obviate or belittle skepticism. When I say we may be in for rough times ahead, I am being fatalistic. Skepticism and caution are hard virtues to do without, so if they are a trap, then the future is somewhat at the level of fate – or the state of our evolution and ability to judge danger as a whole – that we deal or don’t deal with this.

              That said, those who manipulate our skepticism for profit in this area, if indeed that is the case, no matter which side they do so for, are a sorry excuse for humans.

  7. The “sky is falling” chicken little are seeing their house of cards crumbling. Remember, they first predicted back in the 70’s that fossil fuels were causing global cooling. They also predicted back in the 70’s that by 2020 we would be OUT OF OIL. Well, now it’s global warming and we have more oil reserves now than we had in the 70’s, thanks to technology. And, the more oil we can produce in the free world, the less dependent we are on those crazy sharia law countries. It’s all good and getting better. The MSM still are the Goebbels for these chicken little, but less than 20% of the population believe the fake news/MSM are credible. It’s bad times for these science/economics/security deniers. Bad times indeed. These alleged do-gooders are motivated by greed, invested heavily in alternative energy scams, highly subsidized by taxpayers. They see their profits crumbling. I’m loving this.

    1. Oh for shame on these “do gooders” that want clean air and water… terrible they are. Maybe they just want to be good stewards of the earth as one is supposed to be rather than be like these climate change deniers that worship at the altar of the oil and gas companies.

      1. The reframing is getting desparate. First you claim facts not in existence and watch that torn to shreds then you try one thing and another. All ends up the same. Nothing but wishful subjective thinking. Thing is saying is not the same as doing. Saying it three times does not make it true except to those who come from a background of no morals, values, standards and ethics. Maybe it’s because you were taught that anything said that is good for the party is the truth. Maybe….it’s being a product of a social promotion school system where attaboy good try is the same as earning a deserved grade.

        Rejected F you may proceed to the ultimate argument. “But we did provide proof!”

        No you didn’t and never forget we don’t serve the party and we don’t much appreciate the waste and the diversion from serious environmental issues. So no you may not claim you provided proofs even if you did say it three times.

        Facts and proof according to the standards of people with morals, values, ethics and standards. Not party propaganda. So really are any of you getting a share of the loot Goire has pulled in or are you allowed to ask that question. Sorry I forgot you aren’t allowed to question the party. Just obey.

      2. Bess, I too want to take care of our environment. I don’t want to make DRASTIC economic changes based on fake news and “settled science.” Any TRUE scientist will tell you a FUNDAMENTAL rule of science is theories are NEVER settled. EVER! I drive small vehicles, am always walking instead of driving whenever possible. I use reusable shopping bags. I recycle. I compost. I just don’t buy the snake oil these “scientists” are selling. Global warming is the religion for liberals. It has all the tenets of a religion, right down to original sin and penance, and virtually none of the rules of science.

      3. Oh for shame on you and your oh so limited and simplistic misunderstanding of the issue. It might help to broaden your understanding beyond skeptics are bad awful people who don’t care about clean air or water and those who go along with the climate change party-line propoganda are the good stewards of the earth. But as long as you feel you are a self-righteous ‘do-gooder’ then I suppose that settles it in your own narrow mind.

        1. btw Bess, you are making vast assumptions about those who remain skeptical. I eat mostly vegetarian due to environmental concerns with the food industry, I drive a Prius, was a Peace Corps volunteer, use my own bags, recycle, am an outdoorsy person who loves hiking, sailing, kayaking, scuba, etc. And I consider myself to be intelligent and reasonably well informed. And I am STILL skeptical about all this climate change hysteria and intimidation. I absolutely DO care about clean air and I especially care about our oceans and waterways. So please don’t assume you know who the skeptics are. It is an example of self-righteousness at its worst.

            1. Last thing…..did anyone notice that both Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio visited Trump Tower to discuss climate change issues with Trump. Like I said, I voted for Trump and feel really good about it.

              1. He’s seems pretty good about listening to a lot of people. What’s nice is when we make a suggestion his campaign now turnover group actually reads the comments and acts iupon then says thank you. I’m still wondering about the VA haven’t seen those results yet. But a majority of good choices is fine with me. No one is going to get their whole loaf of bread.

            2. Double Ditto. I voted aganst Klington, against the Socialist Democrats, against the Republicans in name only and for Trump as the most useful tool available. So far so good.

              I see the 1% that would be the Green Party kicked Klein out for making them look foolish. I’m very glad the DINOs are that smart. Greens should pick up more members because of Pelosillyni. Benita is our very own secret weapon.

            1. Mostly racing on J-boats and other classes….and some cruising as well. I started out many decades ago as a kid sailing on a Sunfish. It’s in my bones. I love being on the water.

              1. My first one was a Sunfish followed by a Mercury class racing sloop. But I’m not a racer just a cruiser. My boat does have all the features of a racing set up except mast bending. Cruisers learn a lot from racers about rigging and sail shaping. Applied we save days on long passages as compared to seconds on race course. Same deal. Max efficiency with the least wear and tear. I’m currently on a twin keel Westerly. Small world but a good one to join.

                1. Excellent! I owned an old Sabre 28 cruising boat at one time but now sail on OPB’s (other people’s boats!!) Fair winds and following seas to you!

          1. lily, WOW! What a superb comment and beat down of a boilerplate global warming ditto head.

            1. Mike, I’m not calling you a liberal ditto head. I’m referring to Bess.

            2. Thank you… your term “ditto head”……so perfect! Though I don’t feel good about the term “beat down” because that wasn’t my purpose. I just wanted to point out that not everyone can be put into a neat little box of assumptions. That’s all I was trying to get across. Don’t box me in!! Don’t assume you know things you can’t possibly know. That’s all!!

    2. Unless new oil is being created underground, eventually there will be no more. So more efficient extraction schemes will help, for a while, but cannot alter the ultimate end state.

  8. Climate change denial is not motivated by scientific skepticism. It’s primarily based on good old materialistic greed, a concern that efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels, for example, will mean that we won’t be able to afford as much cool stuff.

  9. Here is some interesting information about that famous “97% of climate scientists agree” quote that is passed around. The scientists referenced do not agree with that claim. Here, Forbes indicates what they really said, and how their opinion was twisted a bit for political gain. Before anyone goes completely insane about Flat Earthers – the article is fair and in the middle, so read it. It deals with a common problem in scientific literature regarding selective editing or adulterating others’ conclusions to suit your own paper.

    I think that we need to maintain a gaseous profile optimal for mammalian life. I think humans change the planet and climate – man made desertification is a prime example. I think that de-vegetation and the pollution of our oceans, where phytoplankton produce most of our world’s oxygen, are major existential threats to our current Cenozoic era. It seems intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that an intelligent oxygen-breathing species should protect its world’s oxygen factories and air scrubbers. I think the climate has always changed, and will continue to change, and if our species will not or can not adapt to that then we will go extinct just like all the species that failed before us. I think that insisting that only mankind changes the climate, or that any single elected official or human intervention can permanently freeze (pardon the pun) the planet at its current average climate is incorrect. Claiming we are the most influential factor is actually still in debate among most climate scientists. We are definitely one factor. Even man made desertification and deforestation changes the climate – decreasing rain, decreasing oxygenation, and decreasing humidity. The Green Belt Project in Africa is changing local climates. I also think countries like China, India, and Russia cannot keep pumping toxic sludge into our water and atmosphere without there being consequences, and I think we have no moral high ground to stand on because our purchasing decisions drive much of that pollution (with socialism and communism and poor regulation or respect for its own citizens’ rights co-navigating.)

    Having a bit of a puckish personality, I find it humorous that the reality is a bit different than those on the far end of both sides of ACC would have you believe.

    1. You mentioned de-vegetation, desertification, and deforestation. I’m not saying that these haven’t happened, but overall the earth appears to be getting greener: “A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” (

      If an icehouse climate is truly better, I find myself wondering if it wouldn’t be possible to artificially create a mini azolla event:

      “The greenhouse climate ended 50 million years ago when levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) suddenly fell. This resulted in an abrupt temperature fall and shift in the Earth’s climate from a greenhouse world, with its warm global temperatures, to our present icehouse climate with its permanent ice and snow at both poles. Geologists have shown that our icehouse climate is very unusual compared to the Earth’s previous climatic history. So why do we now have an icehouse climate?”

      1. I agree that increased CO2 can lead to increased greening, and that a warmer climate has more biodiversity. Our warmer eras had far more species diversity and quantity, but during several of those periods species were also adapted to a higher CO2 level.

        When I was in the rain forest, it was absolutely teeming. When the generators came on, and I was unfortunately wearing a white shirt, eating something mixed with white rice, I had to grimly scoop out the bugs, eat as fast as I could and then scoop out the scrim of bugs again, all while ignoring all the insect life clinging to my shirt and face. You really do get instant feedback when the DEET wears off. (And I had a fabulous time, aside from losing some enthusiasm about dinner.)

        My concern about de-vegation is from several fronts. The rainforests produce much of our oxygen from land sources. They have been cut down so often that pristine Old Growth rainforest (the kind that does not require a machete to walk beneath) is hard to find. On the continents, we remove native plants and replace it with hardscape as well as maladapted landscaping, which leads to increased water runoff, which lowers the water table, and the removal of our continental forests dehumidifies the air, changing weather patterns. It’s amazing how these changes can have far reaching effects. I recall reading how re-introducing the wolf to Yellowstone completely changed the landscape, because it impacted the grazing habits of elk. Plus, our plastic waste has broken down to the molecular level and enter the plankton food chain, and we all know about mercury contaminating all of our oceans. Phytoplankton generates the vast majority of our oxygen. If we ever manage to poison it and wipe out enough of it, we’ll have killed off our oxygen factories. There has already been severe declines in some dominant phytoplankton species. And then we have the advancing desertification, which we could address with expanding Green Belt projects.

        So I agree with you that there has been some greening in some areas, but there has also been the removal of significant mass in others. Correct vegetation distribution of species, and cleaning up our water, will go far towards our self sufficiency (in regards to water resources, humidity, and rainfall) and health, more so than average global temperature.

        1. I forgot to add that if one could go to the beach, and look high up on the cliffs at ancient waterlines, which level is morally superior to all the others? Which watermark carved into the stone of ancient seas was the optimal, ethically preferred one? Which climate would be best to force the planet to adopt? All changes in climate have caused great inconvenience to species, and those changes often drove natural selection. Is it even possible to stop the planet from changing? Is it possible to remove all of our influence? Is it hubris to declare that any one politician or policy or party can artificially halt the change of a mercurial planet?

          Far better, and with more immediate benefits, is to focus on the real and present danger of water runoff, erosion, desertification, toxic pollution and contamination of our air, land, and water, as well as to keep a healthy vegetation level on land and at sea. That will benefit all mammalian life, not only ours, immediately.

          1. If the temperature goes up or the temperature goes down – it matters not and I will reframe the discussion back to it’ original purpose in order to cut off a lot of extraneous BS that is diversionary at best to continue – goes down matters not there will be two results.

            a. Nature will have it’s way and not give a fig newton about any of the current species.

            b. Man will move food production further north or further south. Animals AND plants will move further north or further south. Only the mineral kingdom will wait on instructions from – nature.

            Thus you have the nature of things.

            Best example. If man decides to strew garbage what is the most likely response of nature. Wild life primarily rats will move in if it’s edible. if it holds water from rain then mosquitos will findi breeding grounds. The people who through the garbage wherever wil be visited by nature in the form of disease or in one graphic case the cycle of rats, snakes, Do we have snake killers like the mongoose in North America?

            If mankind moves and continues the same practice the diseases, snakes and rats will follow.

            It is the nature of things. And so are weather cycles although they too can be altered by a number of things. One is volcanos. Another is forest fires.

            Which returns us as the species capable of thinking, reasoning and acting upon our thoughts to change nature or change ourselves.

            Easily solved problem. Be good stewards of the land and all it contains. That solution requires only application meaning action. It does not require BS nor making people millionaires and then….watching them do nothing except ask for more.

            That statement defines Al Bore for what he is. Just another form of someone on welfare.

            Good Day!

  10. I was waiting for Lee Harvey to enter a comment. I have been given privileges to use the house computer at the asylum which Lee used when he lived here. I have a pseudo name. Jack Ruby.
    Lunatics run this asylum. I am not one. Three squares a day and no duty to go work in the fields or some factory. Free TV, and access to a gym. No cover charge. It is better than living on the streets begging on street corners.

  11. Trump also interviewed the former CEO of Exxon Mobil for Secretary of State. Going to be a polluting oil and gas friendly administration but nothing new here as we already knew it. If one is lucky enough to live in a state that has laws in place that go beyond the feds in protecting the environment consider yourself fortunate and for those that live in pro fracking states like Texas look out.

    1. I would also expect that the climate change deniers would more than likely deny that fracking causes earthquakes.

      1. Dave – the real science is still out on whether fracking causes earthquakes. There was a study not too long ago that said it didn’t.

        1. Paul S, You are just too predictable. 🙂 The fact that fracking has caused a multitude of earth quakes in Okalhoma and Texas is getting harder and harder to deny.

          1. Dave – can YOU prove that fracking is causing the earthquakes or do you feel the earthquakes are causing the earthquakes? Earlier this year my non-fiction reading group read a book on fracking and I come down as neutral.

            1. I suppose some (even in Oklahoma) will just throw up their hands and say, “It’s God’s will.”

  12. Eskimos can move North. Cubans can move to China. People in Chicago can go sailing in the winter. Global warming has benefits. Less fuel consumed to head homes. Coal miners daughters who are minors can go to school. Trump Tower will not be without power. Power to the people–even on a steeple. One thing though. Do not name your new child Josh. I cannot reveal why at this time.

    1. Huh ? It is also possible that the middle East and parts of India and even southern Europe may well become uninhabitable. And almost all of Florida will go under the waves.

      In my case, my house is at elevation 209′ and I have read that, if all the world’s ice melts, the oceans will rise 214′. So I have some concerns, though not in my lifetime.

  13. Maybe, just maybe if government had any integrity remaining many of the skeptics would be more open to the “settled” science. Isn’t it reasonable to question the validity of the data? Jonathan Gruber comes to mind.

    If we considered the planet as one big Planned Unit Development (PUD), while some of the units in the development have agreed to go solar, capture rainwater and turn off lights, there are massive homes running the A/C with the windows open, burning their trash in their fire pits and draining their perpetually running Class A motor home into the storm drain.

    So at this point, what difference does it make?

    1. The thing is, Olly, that all these effects are estimable, and their effects on climate modle-able. Many many scientists have waded through the detailed bookkeeping of all these things, and compared it to recorded climate data. The consensus is that man-made climate change is real and accelerating.

      1. Jay S – it doesn’t make any difference who goes through the books if the books are cooked. And, actually, Michael Mann is sitting on his data, if you can call it that, and will not allow others to look at the raw data.

Comments are closed.