Stop denying climate science and ACT! (before people realize it’s a scam)

131 262

Collapsing science, economies and international cooperation require that we refuse to act

The full-court press is on. Alarmist scientists, politicians, pressure groups, newspapers, ministers, rabbis and bureaucrats want Americans to “stop stalling” on climate change. They demand that we embrace “revenue-neutral” carbon taxes and carbon dioxide regulations, before it’s “too late” to prevent “catastrophic” global warming, “monster” storms and rising seas that will “inundate our coastal cities.”

Anyone dissenting from this “call to action” is a climate change “denier” – a pejorative devised to vilify and silence anyone who rejects this agenda, by linking our views to Holocaust denial. What nonsense.

climate_change_encyclopaediaAll of us “deniers” know climate change is real and has been throughout Earth’s many cycles of warming and cooling, storms and droughts, ice ages and little ice ages. Striations (scratches) on a chunk of Niagara Escarpment limestone that I dug out a mile from my boyhood home memorialize stones dragged by the last glacier that buried Wisconsin under a mile of ice. Countless climate changes have buffeted our Earth.

What we deny are assertions that human carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the myriad of complex, interrelated planetary, solar and cosmic forces that caused previous climate reverberations, and that what we are experiencing now is unprecedented and likely to be catastrophic.

Not one of the alarmist claims is supported by actual observations or scientific evidence. Even worse, the claims are getting more ridiculous with every passing day: “children aren’t going to know what snow is,” crime is rising, oceans won’t smell the same, and storms are getting worse – because of global warming.

Contrary to the hype and hysteria, our planet stopped warming 16 years ago, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to climb. That prompted climate catastrophists to start talking about “climate change” and blame every “extreme weather” event on CO2 emissions.

As I have pointed out before, far from being a “dangerous pollutant” (as President Obama and EPA keep saying), carbon dioxide makes all life on Earth possible. It makes food crops and other plants grow faster and better, loads them with more nutrients, helps them survive droughts, and makes our planet greener.

This trace gas has almost nothing to do with planetary warming or climate change. But it’s worth noting that the United States has slashed its CO2 emissions more than almost any other country – sending them back to where they were 30 years ago, thanks to the environmentalists’ latest target: fracking! And the daily human contribution of CO2 to our atmosphere is equivalent to a penny out of $1 million!

CO2 levels have “soared” to 400 ppm (0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) not because of the USA or other developed countries – but because China, India and dozens of other countries are working desperately to lift billions of people out of abject poverty. To do that, they need fossil fuels, which provide 80% of the energy that makes modern civilization and living standards possible – and these countries are not going to slash their hydrocarbon use. To suggest otherwise reflects callous contempt for the needs of families that want to take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.

No one would suggest that the absence of extreme weather events over a particular time period is due to humans. However, recent history certainly contradicts incessant claims that our weather is getting worse. In fact, no category 3 or higher hurricane has struck the United States in eight years, the longest such stretch since the Civil War. With only a couple of exceptions earlier this summer, the US is enjoying its longest respite from major tornadoes in decades. We are also witnessing the highest August Arctic sea ice extent since 2006, amid the coldest summer on record at the North Pole; record August lows for Alert and Eureka, in Nunavut, BC; and record highs for the extent of August sea ice in Antarctica.

Equally fascinating, most of the record high temperatures that the alarmists are trumpeting beat the previous records, mostly set in the 1930s, by mere hundredths of a degree. Yet, somehow that’s news.

As to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. The steady 2-3 mm per year rise in sea level, it turns out, is because scientists “adjust” the raw data (always upward, never down, for some reason). But even 200-300 mm (8-12 inches) per century, or by the year 2100, is a far cry from the 3-20 feet that President Obama and former VP Al Gore have warned us about. Even Mr. Obama was off a few years when he said June 2008 was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” But it’s one more climate cataclysm that we can erase from our worry list – especially compared to the 400 feet that the world’s oceans have risen since the end of the last ice age.

(Mr. Gore is also famous for misinforming his 2009 “Tonight Show” audience that the Earth’s interior is “really hot, several million degrees” – the core is actually 9,000 degrees F – and for refusing to debate anyone on climate change or even take audience questions that he has not preapproved. Perhaps in his defense, Nobel Laureate Gore managed only a C+ and a D in the only science courses he ever took.)

If it’s “weird weather” you seek, just peruse Richard Keene’s fascinating weather guides, Skywatch East and Skywatch West, for numerous examples of wild and wacky weather in the USA. For more examples, check out the Tri-State Twister and Children’s Blizzard, or consult the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2011 interim report, Climate Change Reconsidered. You will be amazed at how different the facts are from the fallacies, fibs and fear mongering you find in the “mainstream media.”

One final point. No tax that penalizes people and businesses for using fossil fuels is “revenue neutral.”  Any such tax or regulation kills profits and jobs, turns full-time jobs into part-timers, and adversely affects people’s health and well-being. Millions of families cannot heat and cool their homes properly, pay their rent, mortgage or other bills, take vacations, or save for retirement. The increasing stress results in sleep deprivation, poor nutrition, more commuting, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, lower life expectancies and higher suicide rates. Climate taxes and regulations also force us to spend billions subsidizing environment unfriendly biofuel, wind and solar energy.

That’s an intolerably high price to pay, for “protection” from illusory and exaggerated climate dangers.

Climate alarmists are trying to sucker, snooker and stampede us into taking “immediate action” on job and economy-strangling taxes and restrictions, before more people catch on to what’s really happening. This protection racket is one more example of passing a law, so that we can find out what’s in it. We simply cannot afford to let science continue being coopted to serve anti-hydrocarbon political agendas.

Demands that we “stop stalling” on “catastrophic manmade climate change” have nothing to do with preventing warming and cooling, storms and droughts that have been “real” since time immemorial. They have everything to do with regulating and restricting the use of hydrocarbons that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern civilization and living standards possible. They have everything to do with giving politicians, bureaucrats and pressure groups more money and more control over our lives and economy – but with no accountability for the lies, mistakes, job losses, ill health and deaths that are inevitable as US living standards deteriorate, and Third World lives remain destitute and desperate.

Computer models and scary predictions are not evidence. Basing energy and economic decisions on climate models is akin to betting your life’s savings on a computer model that focuses on middle linebackers and ignores quarterbacks and offensive lines, in predicting the Buffalo Bills will win the 2014 and 2015 Super Bowls – and when the prediction falls flat insisting that the Bills really did win, and reality must be “adjusted” to make it conform with the predictions.

Climate “deniers” and rationalists should support Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and other politicians and scientists who are under constant attack by climate alarmists, for daring to dissent from approved orthodoxy. Their vigilance and determination are all that stand between energy and economic sanity – and America heading down the same destructive path that Europe has trod for the past two decades.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

You might also like
131 Comments
  1. Red47 pffft says

    I really like the clarity here. It is nice of Mr. Driessen to only infer that the climate scare people are dishonest.

  2. gman4691 says

    water vapor contributes a great deal more to the greenhouse effect than CO2…perhaps we should outlaw evaporation…not to mention transpiration of the forests…perhaps more deforestation will result in less transpirartion and thus, less water vapor to contribute to the greenhouse effect…yeah, right

    1. Guest says
  3. anarchyst says

    Three words come to mind–“follow the money”. So-called “science” is not immune to political and financial “pressure” to come up with a “preconceived solution” or outcome.
    A good example of this was a study on marijuana commissioned by the Nixon administration. When the committee came up with the conclusion that marijuana was safer than just about every other “drug” (yes, even alcohol), the study was quietly quashed. You see, the conclusion did not “fit” what the promoters of the study wanted . . . the TRUTH became a casualty . . .

  4. Progressive Republican says

    So apparently the insurance industry, the World Bank, and the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject are all wrong and this… well he’s either an idiot or a liar… is right?

    Pff.

    >Every glacier on Earth is melting.
    >Both polar icecaps are melting. Declassified spy satellite imagery of Antarctica dating back to the 1960s has revealed that the world’s largest ice sheet is melting. Big Oil has announced plans to drill in an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2040.
    >World Bank Group President Jim Young Kim said: “Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”
    >Levels of co2 are higher than they’ve been in over three million years and have skyrocketed in the last ten.
    >Climbing temperatures have allowed frozen methane to begin escaping from under (the now thawing) permafrost and ocean floors. Methane is twenty-one times more damaging a greenhouse gas than co2.
    >The U.S. National Climate Assessment reports how human-induced climate change has caused far reaching consequences far dire than previously estimated, affecting all regions of the U.S. “Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont have observed changes in their local climate that are outside of their experience,” the report said.
    >US median temperatures have risen by 1.5 degrees F (.83 degree C) since 1895, when the first reliable record keeping began. Of this dramatic warming, around 80% has occurred during the past three decades, coinciding with the rapid industrialization of the developing world, especially China.
    >Peer-reviewed articles are the absolute standard for a researcher. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles, 24 have been denying climate change. This translates into 0.17% or 1 in 581 papers written by climate change deniers. There is no other active debate so scientifically one-sided.
    >9 out of 10 climate-denying authors have been liked to Big Oil.

    There are TONS more examples to display, and this liar/idiot has the temerity to say, “Not one of the alarmist claims is supported by actual observations or scientific evidence.”

    Moran (that was deliberate, btw).

  5. DEfromDC says

    Climate change is political science not based on reality just getting money through taxes and taking money for the productive nations, mostly money out of the US economy. We do need to support the real scientists, the ones that are willing to say this is a fraud.

  6. USAVeteran says

    The Climate is ever-changing, there are 10 year cycles, 40 year cycles, hundred year cycles… and we don’t have records beyond that. Everything man does on this planet, Nature balances out. Automobiles are much cleaner than horses – manure hurts the environment much worse than exhaust, so doing away with cars and going back to horses would be stupid.
    But, whatever your belief, scientists can’t stop an earthquake, let alone, even predict when one will happen – without a degree, even I can say there’ll be another one… soon. Scientists can’t even create a storm, let-alone a drizzle… so how stupid is it to throw a billions of dollars at “climate change”?

    1. Guest says
      1. USAVeteran says

        Manure produces Methane gas CH4, which has more than 20 times the effect of Carbon Dioxide CO2 on “Climate Change”. If we replaced all the cars with Horses, we would be in a world of shitt.

        1. Guest says
          1. USAVeteran says

            Actually 50% of CO2 is absorbed by Plants and the ocean. Plants turn CO2 into Oxygen O2 through photosynthesis. Also, using enzyme-modified Titanium Oxide TiO3 which excites the electrons of CO2 into jumping onto the enzyme (again and again(reusable)) and then allowing visible light (and NO oxygen near it) to reduce the CO2 to Carbon Monoxide CO – which can be used to create electricity or Hydrogen.
            Source: Mar 10, 2010 – Learning from Nature: Scientists Break Down Carbon Dioxide into Carbon Monoxide Using Visible Light. Results can be found in the Journal of the American Chemical Society – online edition.

          2. Guest says
          3. USAVeteran says

            There is a lot of man-made CO2, and so the problem is how to use it up – something on a large scale. I believe in the future, Power Plants will do exactly that. Using Visible Light to breakdown CO2 into CO (Carbon Monoxide), which can be converted by known catalysts into hydrocarbons to produce energy at a much lower cost than with what we use today. Also, CO can be readily turned into methanol for use as a liquid fuel. The answer is not how to stop the anthropogenic CO2 production, but how to Harness it by using it as fuel, and thus, finish creating a full cycle for man-made CO2

          4. Guest says
  7. iamcurious says

    Thank you for some more truth on this issue! It’s badly needed!

  8. Rich2741 says

    That’s about as thorough as it gets when exposing the scam. I think the only thing he left out were the thousands of E-mails between climate ‘scientists’ that were stolen (WikiLeaks?) which shows they were lying to us to keep their grants going. Oh, and volcanoes; we can’t forget that; oh, and the Sun, the greatest impact of all when it comes to weather. …The idiocy is staggering when it comes to these liberals.

    1. Guest says
      1. Rich2741 says

        ‘Alex M’ –

        You said: “…there’s not enough variation in solar output to account for that.” I can’t even begin to tell you how wrong you are. I’m sorry, are we talking ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’? HAHAHAHAHA! I guess you are one of those people that thinks if it is a cloudy day that you are safe from UV, or don’t understand the borealis, or that we have 22-year cycles of radiation with extreme highs and lows, or that electric charges that cosmic rays generate in the atmosphere affect how dust and other aerosol particles coalesce, or simply that it is the Sun which drives our weather systems (I said that in the last post, didn’t I). It is not the ‘variation’ that does it; it is the tipping point of reactions… just under, nothing happens; just over, something happens.

        You said: “…the Earth (Capital “E”, meaning the whole planet.) is closest to the Sun in winter and farthest in summer.” Wrong again! The seasons on our planet, having two opposing seasons located in two opposing regions at the same time, are due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis as we wobble around the Sun.

        From roughly 1974 to 1977 ‘climatologists’ were talking about the coming ice age. You look old enough to remember that, so, what say you?

        1. Guest says
          1. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            [“Try.”] Actually, I already showed you your errors. Please read my post again, s-l-o-w-l-y.

            [‘Seasons’] Via a ‘cute’ response to being exposed over a stupidly structured sentence you wrote, you have made a fool of yourself yet again. Go back to your -exact- statement of “seasons” (or are you not a scientific person?). It is the tilt of the Earth with the sun being higher in the sky during the summer months which causes higher Sol-based radiant flux. Again, not a matter of ‘variation’ (gross change), but rather a tipping point reached.

            [‘Weren’t’] Oh please. Why didn’t you also include Mike Wallace and CBS, and Time magazine as part of the impure perpetrators as you see it? So the whole mess was just a faux pas, eh? Why didn’t you rush to the media and expose it?

            I’m disappointed. I thought you were a pro at this. My mistake.

          2. Guest says
          3. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            You wrote: “All I can see that you said was “I can’t even begin to tell you how wrong you are”.”

            Really? A leading sentence of scorn within a paragraph? You didn’t read the rest of the paragraph? [Now I’m even typing s-l-o-w-l-y.] OK, I’ll humor you and repeat the conclusion: It is not the ‘variation’ (gross swing) that does it; it is the tipping point of reactions… just under, nothing happens; just over, something happens. There does not need to be a huge swing. Cause and effect can be extremely subtle, along with Occam’s Razor, along with the nature of self-serving men.

            I’ve now stated it twice. Do I need expound further? (I probably won’t as my personal time is valuable to me).

            …and yes, I, as most would admit to being, am open to the possibility of being in error (everyone is). I place my odds at exactly 98% in being correct for the points I have addressed (132 IQ / top 2%).

          4. Guest says
          5. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            What, no apology?

            Hmmmmm, I don’t think so.

            Actually we’ve been going about this all wrong. As a result, new rules –

            It is you whom must prove your point, for it is you that has accused human beings of causing [fill in the blank].

            Please expound to your heart’s delight. We might read it, we might not.

            I actually have more important things to do (like getting my famous flag truck ready for public display on September 11th), and I have pointed out the errors of your ways. If you do not wish to accept my explanations, so be it.

            Keep it honest, and may you learn something new every day.

          6. Guest says
          7. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            Yes, and I stand by my comment concerning weather. I’ve already expressed myself, I’m not going to start writing a dissertation for your satisfaction. BTW, “Solar activity” encompasses 0 Hz to roughly 5 YHz, so be more specific ‘Bob’, because it hasn’t.

            Anyway, no more questions monsieur… tell us your position… in great detail.

            Please report to the short bus if you can’t follow along.

            Thanks, it usually does.

          8. Guest says
  9. cleanwater2 says

    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect
    does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically
    reviewed by Ph.D physicists (at least 4). Ph.D. Chemical engineers
    (at least 2 at last count) and others Ph. D’s in other fields The
    experiment is found on the web-site http://
    http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on
    page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which
    can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does
    not exist”

    The
    Greenhouse Effect Explored

    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012

    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or
    Negative?

    Exploiting the medium of Youtube
    Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating
    experiment he performed to

    test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.

    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse
    effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback”
    hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the
    temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of
    water into water vapor.”

    Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3
    The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

    Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon
    dioxide levels

    Posted on June 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE
    4th 2013

    CARBON DIOXIDE

    There are two gases in the earth’s
    atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.

    Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by
    volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about
    0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most
    living organisms on earth could not exist at all.

    This happened when the more complex of
    the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process
    called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a
    chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and
    convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical
    compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances
    provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a
    chloroplast organelle in their cells.

    This process also produced all of the
    oxygen in the atmosphere

    The relative proportions of carbon
    dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.

    Oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical

    CO2_temperature_historical

    It will be seen that there is no
    correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the
    temperature at the earth’s surface.

    During the latter part of the
    Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period,
    250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what
    it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen
    in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period

    From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to
    100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon
    dioxide.

    The theory that carbon dioxide
    concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface
    is therefore wrong.

  10. Johnny Geetar says

    There was a hardcore hot spell during the time of the Crusades. Yeah, climate cycles were occuring even back THEN. Question; what caused that?
    A) Richard the Lionhearted’s SUV
    B) Bovine Flatulance
    C) Jerusalem’s Air Conditioning use
    D) Saladin’s ice maker
    Man-made climate change is complete bunk, and leftists are bleeding heart suckers! Just throw an emotional spin on ANYTHING, and you limp-wrists jump right on the bandwagon. When are your ilk going to get tired of dishonest folks making your decisions and doing your thinking FOR you? Pathetic……

    1. ahb111 says

      It was camel flatulence. They didn’t have a lot of cows.

    2. Kent2012 says

      (E) all of the above and the coal fired sword firing pits………

    3. Guest says
      1. Johnny Geetar says

        And again Alex, we circle back to the SAME old problem. WE DON’T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE BEING PROFERRED by the current crop of scientists, most of which have been PAYED for via government grants. There’s that stinky hand of government in the mixing bowl again……
        I don’t care WHAT book or source that it came from; leftists have SO tainted informational sources and twsted them to their ends on this closet “Cap and Trade” scam, that damn near NOTHING printed, cyber-espoused, lectured upon, or divulged in a classroom setting is reliable any longer. Do you SEE the problem yet in selling this?
        Your problem in selling this, is that once government got it’s hands on it, and turned the issue into a money-making scam, ALL credibility on the issue, especially from scientists that MAKE A LIVING on government grants, just went out the window! THAT’S what happens when said government gets caught lying to their people time and time again. The problem is your SALESMAN! And he’s sitting in a round office in 1600 Pennsylvania avenue!

        1. Progressive Republican says

          So it looks like you prefer to believe “scientists” paid by Big Oil instead?

        2. Guest says
    4. Red47 pffft says

      Ahem. I caused it and I’m very sorry.

      1. DGJC says

        It was the vinyl hotpants. :o)

        1. Red47 pffft says

          I didn’t want to brag…

          1. DGJC says

            Ha ha. I appreciate your humility, Red.

          2. Red47 pffft says

            More than the hot pants, I guarantee!
            I might have made a lot of money if I had invented vinyl…just sayin’

  11. Haqodeshim says

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmRD1asThcQ1JM8RANkIdCQgvW7Znq7VH
    – There is good science here, enough to debunk the man caused Climate Myth change quack science sellers.

    Carbon Emissions FOLLOW a rise in Global Temperature, they never precede it, so they are a by-product and not the catalyst that causes – http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE7982D330411C89C

    1. Guest says
      1. Sue says

        It has been suggested the concept of global warming is to further the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

        1. Johnny Geetar says

          Sue, tell that to Alex, who seems to think we’re all gullible enough to buy into leftist-sponsored science. Obama, AND THE UN, can suck peaches and crap fruit salad for all i care….. on supposed “Climate Change” AND gun control! How’s THAT for Climate change denial? lol

        2. iamcurious says

          That is a heck of a lot more plausible than the crap that climate change suckers sell.

          1. Sue says

            Mr. M appears to be a paid shill.

          2. Guest says
          3. Sue says

            Sir, I have no problem with your opinions. I would donate but my money’s going to the world global warming tax.

            Surely you can see this issue has immense implications to shackle the world. My question: within your own field there are so many who disagree with your findings. If it is so apparent to you, why not to all?

          4. Guest says
          5. Sue says

            Dissenters, yes. This is more than a few and they are climatologists.

            The overwhelming consensus in climatology, however, is that climate change is happening and it is linked to human activities. I hadn’t thought there was a vote on it. Perhaps I’m wrong.

          6. Guest says
          7. Sue says

            Thank you! Found it!

          8. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            Science does not operate by vote, it is a system.

          9. Guest says
          10. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            In a broadest sense, yes, there is a link between smoking and cancer, just like any other factor that can impact our organic life as determined by our genes and the epigenome system.

            *Correlation does NOT equal causation.* If you are as scientifically minded as you tout, you know this phrase.

            In the real world of science, carcinoma disease is most of all a factor of gene defect. It is, in the end, genes that will deprive you of your life after a few decades, instead of 1,000 years. It is only through gene therapy that cancer can be cured on a one-to-one basis, and not the scam of big business cancer and chemo / radiation therapy. Please read up on the likes of Dr. Burzynski.

          11. Guest says
          12. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            Much more than ‘cautious’; scientific. One may speak of theories and supposition, but must always CLEARLY state so in the scientific arena if they are to be considered professional. A submission of a Proof before peers centers on this factor of science.

            You wrote “In smoking, however, the evidence is rather well established.”

            Negative; public opinion, driven by old Class Action lawsuits won due to probabilities of loss in law (not science), driven by media and complicit doctors (on the dole of pharmacies), driven by propaganda IS well established; but not by Science. Are you aware that the warning label on packs of cigarettes has now dropped to simply “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.” Wow, talk about backing-off the lies of yesteryear.

            Let me be clear here: No cancer can exist from natural/environmental causes unless there is a defect in the genes to allow it, unless such factor is EQUAL across all beings, such as being exposed to lethal levels of radiation. In a reverse example, consider the melanoma rate among blacks vs whites. Blacks have additional melanin to negate the effects of the Sun upon the skin. Or in reverse again, the rate of drepanocytosis in blacks vs whites. It is all about genes. Things do not ’cause’ cancer, genetic defect ‘allows’ cancer. Please remember such conditions such as emphysema are not cancer. All previous points aside, of course, as common sense dictates, smoking is not a healthy act, as it is not a natural function. Neither is sky-diving. Some get nailed (poor genes), others don’t; some wind-up splattered on the ground (poor packing), others do not. It is not the cigarette nor the parachute that kills you.

            NO CARCINOMA’S are genetic (caused by gene action [on]), they are the result of a failing of the gene sequence (gene inaction [off]). NOBODY inherits cancer, just a defective gene/s making them susceptible to a particular cancer possibility. Silly man, of course carcinoma are somatic.

            Individual gene-based therapies are not a long way off, and in fact is the only way to address most cancers, short of introducing poisons/radiation that take a huge gamble on killing the patient (targeted or not) before the disease. Dr. Burzynski has been conducting antineoplaston therapy for decades. Please contact someone at “burzynskiclinic.com” in reference to your query of research.

          13. Guest says
          14. iamcurious says

            Sue, I grew up on the coast of eastern NC, just 300 yards from a large salt water sound. The “climate change” believers have advanced that if the polar caps melt in their entirety, the oceans will rise 219 feet above present levels. I visit my boyhood hometown periodically and I notice that the ocean, the sounds and the objects in or in close proximity to the water remain in their same relative positions and the sea level is still where I remember it being as a child, over 50 years ago. With so much alarmist talk about how so much of the polar ice has melted already, what am I to conclude? I conclude that it’s not science and believe Dr. William Gray, it’s “political science” (with a political agenda to further the cause of the NWO)

          15. Guest says
          16. Haqodeshim says

            Then what do you do about the rise in the ocean levels being due to space-ice that enters our atmosphere yearly? If the oceans were truly going to rise, shouldn’t this have drowned us all long ago, but if it is adding, then it is probably true that atmosphere is lost to space (you know things like Oxygen and Hydrogen which make up water in addition to Carbon Dioxide? – http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmRD1asThcQ1JM8RANkIdCQgvW7Znq7VH

            When I listed this link earlier and said there was plenty of “real science” to dismiss the man caused global warmer snake oil elixir sellers, that wasn’t just a tongue in cheek comment, I meant it. Check out the real science and you’ll see what is being sold by the UN, their precious IPPPC, and the MSM is quack science, but then again this may be insulting the birds who may have yet more intelligence.

          17. Guest says
          18. Sue says

            Thank you IAC. I will look him up.

          19. Rich2741 says

            ‘iamcurious’ –

            Curiously, I too have done a similar thing. My reason is that I live right on the water, and my interest in the truth is paramount. I have my yacht docked outback, 50 feet from the back of my home, so I’ve been very aware of the tides (which can change by 3′ here in S Florida), and any rise in sea level… it behooves me to.

            Result over the last 17 years? The sea level (Atlantic Ocean) has not risen 1 bit. ‘Global Warming’ is hooey.

          20. Guest says
          21. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            Although I was indeed short in my statement (forgive me oh gods of perfection for my horrible transgression), I believe you, as everyone else reading my post, understood it to mean -at my location- (along the Atlantic Ocean).

            So… let’s play your game. YOU failed to state “mean”, as in AMSL (versus “absolute”). Your statement also reads that every year’s rise was exactly the same (no mention of “average”). Additionally, you have included an end-date of 2013 (this is 2013, which can not be included in a span, as it [the year] is still going on). Furthermore, according to your relayed rise of said ocean, that would mean that I could not have experienced less than a rise of 54.4 mm or 2.1417 inches.

            Now, to address your statement of ocean rise… My dock has massive piles (12″ by 35′) of modern design driven into coral bed that allows me to see exact levels, along with exit drains through the sea wall (from the 33,000 gallon in-ground pool and the 950 gallon in-ground hot tub) revealing specific points that need to be examined so that no crustation build-up occures. There has been no change in the mean level at my location from 17 years ago. Of course this is not a scientific study, and markings in millimeters were not taken at specific moments of every day, but I can attest that no rise of visual perception has occurred using said markers as reference. Ergo, my statement of the sea level not rising at my location 1 bit in 17 years is true and correct.

            BTW, you do know that the Earth is an ellipsoid, bulging at the equator (where oceanic levels would be higher than at the poles), right?

            Anyway, your responses are becoming less and less significant, and if there is nothing further, such as some new overwhelming evidence for your position, I feel you are just effectively wasting my time. Although fairly articulate, your mind set seems to have slipped into banality in your course to extend that you are correct. I hope you are being paid.

          22. Guest says
          23. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            See how much time you’ve wasted for both of us? “Specifics Bob, specifics.” (from the movie ‘Phenomenon’). You do realize you are a joke now, right?

            Yep. (lol) No, it is actually your portrayal of the data that is the conundrum.

            My first-hand data tells me that the ocean has not risen at all where I live, not 2 inches, not 2 feet, and not the 60 feet they wish me to fear is coming. As a Electromagnetic Spectrum Authority/ Emeritus, I am well aware of nomenclature, data collection parameters, data extrapolation, and pointed use of data.

            It is the likes of persons like you that extend and skew the numbers/functions for your own agenda (Gee, where else does that theme pop up?). Stop doing that, it makes you a very small person.

          24. Guest says
        3. Guest says
          1. Sue says

            The whole sentence reads: the concept of global warming is to further the United Nations objective
            of building support for world taxation and rationing of
            industrially-useful energy.

            http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

            Your answer while perhaps bringing a smile doesn’t negate the sentence.

            supply and demand: In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market.

            Rationing:is the “controlled distribution” of “scarce resources”, goods, or services. Rationing controls the size of the ration, one’s allotted portion of the
            resources being distributed on a particular day or at a particular
            time.
            As you can see these are 2 different terms.

          2. Guest says
          3. Sue says

            BTW: I do appreciate your answers. Debate is always healthy.

            You also do realize the limitless potential for corruption in this consensus. Remember the Y2K scam. If you tell me you believe that, I will be sad.

            Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims

            Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been
            caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is
            a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global
            warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative
            journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied
            on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most
            prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors
            deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist
            the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

          4. Guest says
          5. Sue says

            Not your information, sir. Climate change and thoughtful government “servants”. Have you had time to look at the Forbes article?

          6. Guest says
          7. Sue says

            I know some of those Y2k “teams” personally. They made some extra money and went home. In my experience it’s a scam. .

          8. Guest says
          9. Sue says

            Thanks again Mr. M. These were not personal computers.

          10. Guest says
          11. Sue says

            These were corporate computers. If you’re asking specifically what kind I can’t answer as I’m not positive as to what they were.

          12. Guest says
          13. Sue says

            You are most welcome. I enjoy your writing style.

            Yes, I did see the authors classifying their own papers. Thanks.

          14. Sue says

            Okay Mr. M. I do realize this is from 2007 but this man was supposedly the big mahoff. The number one BMOC:

            Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of
            Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research,
            The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding
            Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists
            regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade
            global warming absurd.

            Some Common Fallacies

            1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and
            unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific
            literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one
            way or the other for at least a million years.

            2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic
            in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That
            is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of
            causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon
            dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon
            dioxide alone.

            3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide.
            Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide,
            so small variations in water vapor are more important than large
            changes in carbon dioxide.

            4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a
            doubling of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show
            this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the
            present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called
            accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show
            that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order
            of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the
            same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide.
            For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.

            5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done.
            Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is
            often less than acceptably scientific.

            6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide
            induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no
            vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those
            who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant
            fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a
            significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific
            truth.

            So What Can We Say about Global Warming?

            We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century.
            We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of
            “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such
            as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during
            the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.

            We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the
            climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it
            has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a
            scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a
            national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that
            people could possibly change the climate!

          15. Guest says
          16. Sue says

            I don’t take your word for it and like you research the things posted on both sides. No, I don’t claim to be a scientist but I believe anyone can get a firm grasp of subject if they’re willing to dig.

      2. Kent2012 says

        No ding bat CO2 causes cooling, unless of course you believe the lying prick$ in the democommie party………

        1. Guest says
          1. Kent2012 says

            “Large Russian volcano eruptions tend to cool the Midwest,” Historical Climatologist Evelyn Browning-Garriss said.

            Read more: http://joemiller.us/2013/09/global-cooling-at-full-tilt-this-summer-scientists-blame-volcano/#ixzz2dqK19IBi

            notice that the woman referenced in a climatologist, not a$$hole hustler like al gorehole…..oh and this is not something that has just popped up concerning atmospheric changes when volcanos dust the world……

          2. Guest says
    2. Red47 pffft says

      I happen to disagree, quite profoundly, with Alex. Still, you and the guy on the thread above could take a lesson in civility from him. You both sound cranky and he sounds civil. Why no civility? He isn’t poking your eye out, just discussing.

  12. $13614178 says

    Climate change is continuous and cyclical , it has always been and always will be , it is just that now hundreds of scam artists have figured out how to make a fortune off it . CLIMATE CHANGE IS , EVEN IF WORLD ENDING , PREFERABLE TO A PROGRESSIVE ( COMMUNIST ) AMERICAN NATION , as Obam-ass and his supporters are pushing .

    1. Guest says
      1. Johnny Geetar says

        Balls, alex. ANY science proferred by the “bought and payed for” left is as questionable as Obama’s birth certificate. He blew his chance at climate change the second he turned it into a money grabbing scheme. People do not trust leftists with ANYTHING. Climate change is no exception. They have only themselves to blame for turning it into a world-wide population control mechanism. We do not believe Obama on Benghazi, the AP scandal, The NSA spying scandal, the IRS scandal, OR his hidden Muslimism. What makes you think America is ready to take his word, AND his cronie’s word on this? I don’t think so…..

      2. jameshd says

        So tell us how to measure it accurately. And where to get the accurate information to do the measuring.

        1. BGills says

          Why all you have to do is ask Al Gore!

          He’ll tell you where to find every single bit of information that supports his ground-breaking claims, and he should know exactly where to find each, and every one of those studies, after-all, he was personally involved in some way with procuring the funding for almost every one of them.

          He has to be right! What else could possibly explain his skyrocketing net worth since he began this whole “Sky is falling!” campaign against global warming.

          I mean climate change, or is it human induced weather events now?

          Anyway, that Nobel Prize proves he’s an expert on anything he talks about.
          They should give another one to Obama for transparency in government, then we’d have to believe him about all those “phony-scandals” that are preventing him from saving the planet.
          Has anyone else noticed, the more money these guys make off their carbon credit scheme, the worse their predictions for our future?
          Hey, maybe if we tax them into poverty, the climate would improve.
          It’s about as viable a hypothesis as anything I’ve heard from them.

      3. Kent2012 says

        no it is bull$hit from communists like that $lut alphonse gorehole and those clowns in their brightly colored moo moos in the united “hate America” nations…

      4. iamcurious says

        Alex, you’re an idiot!

        1. Guest says
          1. Big Dave says

            You’re an idiot, Alex. Now, about that beer…

          2. Guest says
          3. Big Dave says

            My poison’s not quite that exotic. I prefer Alaskan Amber, from the panhandle of Alaska (Juneau).

          4. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            When I stoop to the fermented (not very often) [not including champagne], I choose original Beck’s in a bottle. If you chill it to 36.5 degrees Fahrenheit, it is my opinion that it is the finest beer on the planet. Otherwise (not very often), Johnny Walker Blue and a good stogie in a moody, old leather atmosphere (or to the melody of lapping waves at the dive platform).

          5. Guest says
        2. Johnny Geetar says

          Iamcurious, as the primary one that has been beating on Alex like a flea market snare drum all night, I will be the first to say he is hardly an idiot. In terms of the nuts and bolts on the issue, he’s more astute than both you and i put together. I’ll give kudos where kudos are merited. I submit however, he’s swinging the bat for the wrong folks. His concern comes from the right place, but i think he trusts current scientific sources entirely too much, and doesn’t see the political manipulation of the issue quite as astutely as someone as smart as he is, SHOULD. This is NOT unheard of…. He’s a trusting soul, and that’s not a crime. He SHOULD be able to trust current scientific output! Unfortunately, NONE of us can any longer. Research seems to be his forte. I would say that MORE research on government involvement on the issue would be of benefit.

        3. LEHensonPROAmerica says

          Alex is right, those damn cavemen caused the ice age too!
          Americans factually suffer more gall bladder failures than any other country. Why? Refrigeration, IE: cold drinks.
          Global warming (by man is bullshit). Oh, and the world is flat.
          Idiot is the wrong word, evil is far closer. TRUTH has no agenda – Alex does.

          1. Guest says
      5. NavyVeteran42 says

        How’s that Kool-ADE, Alex?

        1. Guest says
          1. Rich2741 says

            ‘Alex M’ –

            Well, at least you you know how to affect your state of coherence in style. Now just understand the scam that is going on and everybody will start singing, smiling, and drinking Cocacola.

  13. Guest says
    1. Johnny Geetar says

      That’s YOUR story, Alex. The physics of leftist Bullsh*t and socialist control of the planet via the UN are ALSO well understood……..

      1. Kent2012 says

        It is a shame that we have a republic sometimes, I think that only for a second or two. I must be fascinated by the fact that idiots exist in places like north korea, but are not allowed to participate in anything………….

      2. Guest says
        1. Johnny Geetar says

          Eggheadism doesn’t impress me when political distortion is involved, and when the Marquis keeps changing (Global cooling to global warming to climate change) to accomodate the lies being perpetrated by the left. You say molecules have no political affiliations. That’s the SMARTEST thing i’ve read here. Unfortunately, the issue HAS BECOME politicized, and is being manipulated to serve a socialist agenda. I don’t NEED a degree in molecular science to know i’m being lied to by the government on this one. Their “Science” proferred to try to sell this massive cap and trade scam bounces off politically aware folks like a BB on a freight train. When folks refuse to believe them, they have only themselves to blame.
          Selling this is going to be an uphill battle, Alex. Why? Because it’s being sold by folks that LIE to the American people on a regular basis. I don’t believe them on the NSA scandal, Benghazi, the AP scandal, the IRS scandal, obamacare, the economy, Obama’s camaign promises, OR the current condition of our dollar. Suffice it to say, I don’t plan on taking their word on THIS one EITHER. Ditto for 10’s of millions of others. Call it a character flaw…

    2. Kent2012 says

      sorry to disrupt you thought patterns, but CO2 is absorbed by plant life that then processes, through a process similar to photosynthesis, and releases oxygen. The communist $luts like nance pe$lutsi and the rest of the imbeciles that get elected by the welfare crowd and the pseudo intellectual twerps think that the chief totem stroker al gorehole is a wizard instead of a criminal…..

      1. BGills says

        Climate change enthusiasts can’t comprehend any component that doesn’t support their sky is falling science. The fact that any marked rise in Co2 levels would encourage an explosion in plant growth, which in turn would increase O2 conversion, there-bye invoking a self balancing atmospheric mechanism which has been around for eons, just doesn’t make sense to them. Co2 drops, plants die off, impeding O2 conversion, allowing levels of Co2 to rise again.
        I suppose if we started planting trees to help compensate for any claimed Co2 rise, they would start screaming about O2 levels being out of control…

        1. Guest says
          1. BGills says

            Not only is it important to prevent CO2 depletion, but enrichment to levels much greater than atmospheric levels is known to boost plant growth by over 40%.
            Biologists and plant physiologists have long recognized the benefits of higher CO2 content in the air for plant growth. This type of increased plant growth directly translates into an increased conversion of Co2 into O2, it is natures balancing mechanism for an optimal atmospheric balance to support life. A symbiotic relationship of sorts, that is older than man, and which has allowed life to flourish on this planet despite numerous global catastrophes causing multiple extinction events. The time frame for models developed so far to support claims of catastrophic climate change, are based mostly on 50-100 years of data, completely ignoring billions of years worth of climate change data. It’s like claiming one could accurately predict the winner of the World Series, based solely on the first pitch of the season.

          2. Guest says
          3. BGills says

            This is just one quick mention of the statistic you’ve questioned, not quite a scholarly article, but I can find others if you really feel the need to dispute the figure. It’s common knowledge among anyone with experience growing plants, that increased Co2 levels improve growth rates. http://www.quickgrow.com/gardening_articles/co2_enrichment.html

            Here’s another mention. A bit more scholarly: http://www.futurevigil.com/2009/08/underground-crops-show-heavy-yield-and-promising-future/

          4. Guest says
    3. Picachu1 says

      You are full of bull and that is well understood.

      1. Guest says
        1. Johnny Geetar says

          HA! Good one, Alex! You seem like a great guy. We simply differ on opinion here. I think calling you names and slandering you is out of line. Your concern comes from the right place, and i acknowledge that. Sorry to have been so brutal on you, but we simply do NOT trust the folks in charge. Period. I wouldn’t leave them in charge of a taco stand, much less an issue of THIS magnitude……

          1. Guest says
          2. Johnny Geetar says

            Universally agreed just doesn’t do it for me, Alex. Folks that were in favor of Obamacare were ALSO “Universally agreed.” Modern science is for sale. That’s not even up for dispute. You see my problem? As long as government, especially THIS SOCIALIST government, has ANY hand in driving this, i won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
            That may strike you as a tad unreasonable and positional, but again the motives of this collection of meat popcicles, like MOST initiatives they have put forward, have been designed to corral a world population and control them. As long as the potential for government misuse on this subject remains prevalent, I will fight this and reject this. This smells about as valid as their last gun control initiative.
            Dissasemble the entire cap & trade scheme, and profer a law to completely banish and OUTLAW it, And ANY other money-making schemes associated with it, and ANY mechanisms by which the UN, or ANY government entity can IMPOSE this, and maybe THEN people’s guards will come down on the issue. The problem here is trust. THAT is what must be recaptured before ANY progress on this issue will move forward WITH the consent of the folks. Same reason the anti-gun initiative failed; TRUST! An unpopular Obamacare and the resistance toward same; TRUST. Smart meters slapped on the side of our houses AGAINST our wishes; TRUST! They are no longer trying to SELL this, they are now trying to IMPOSE this. You’re probably the smartest guy, pound for pound, answering this thread, and i’m certain this has NOT escaped your attention. And yet, you do not address it…….. You folks wanna sell this? You’re gonna be FORCED to go back to the starting point on it.

          3. Guest says
  14. ligersaurus says

    Misinformation, disinformation, and low information…breakfast of Democrat champions.

    1. grassroot says

      And, this is how he got ” elected,” or should I say Shooed in.

    2. georgegallo says

      Right back at ya.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.