January 18, 2007
Faith-based initiatives

AP headline: "Science, religion find common cause in global warming"

Saying they share a moral purpose, a group of evangelicals and scientists said Wednesday they will work together to convince the nation's leaders that global warming is real.

"We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative," the new coalition said in a statement sent to Bush and leaders of the House and Senate.

Oddly, there are no complaints about the inappropriate incursion of religion into politics.

But the initiative to convince people that global warming is real couldn't have been better timed.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 18, 2007 12:34 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Dear Reverend, lest you forget, there is a God and you ain't it. Don't play God with the weather!!

Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2007 12:31 PM
2. I think in this case the "scientist" aspect of it is a bit dubious.

Posted by: H Moul on January 18, 2007 12:48 PM
3. "Global warming" is a religion all its own. Looks like these ministers are being proselyted.

Posted by: sro on January 18, 2007 12:54 PM
4. Religion and global warming. I wonder if David M. will have anything to say?

Posted by: Pssst on January 18, 2007 12:56 PM
5. The New Religion is Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese (February 16, 2005)

The UN finally got what it wanted. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty becomes 'international law' this month on Wednesday. The treaty went into full effect with the approval by the Russian Federation, even without the support of the United States. Time will tell if and when the treaty will begin to affect the U.S. economy. What is certain is that truth and reason had no part in the process.


Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact. I did and for my trouble I was labeled a "moron," a "liar;" one who wants to "blow up the world," and just plain "evil" to name a few from a mass of mail I received.


In particular, my article stated that there is no scientific evidence to support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is division among scientists and that there is no "consensus" among them.

I also reported that there are scientists who promote political agendas over truth to keep the grants coming in. And I said that the UN's 1996 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was edited at the last minute to remove two very important paragraphs that specifically said science showed no clear evidence of man-made climate change. Those were all facts.


Apparently I'm a moron for reporting them because as one letter said, "Everyone knows global warming is real."


In response to these Luddites, I simply present this: A federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea has resigned from the UN-sponsored climate assessment team because his group's leader had politicized the process. Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's assertion in October that global warming was responsible for the strong hurricanes experienced this past year and that "the North Atlantic hurricane Season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."


Said Landsea in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."


Landsea closed his resignation letter by saying, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."


There you have it. Two kinds of scientists. One standing for true science based on the facts. The other pushing a political agenda that says science be damned, our global religion is at stake.


Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global Warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.


The fact is the Kyoto Protocol will have absolutely no effect on climate change, but the faithful demand that it be implemented anyway, because "we have to do something." In 1990, Timothy Wirth, who later became Bill Clinton's Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong we will be doing the right thing..."


Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.


The truth is there is no man-made global warming. There's only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery. I rest my case. Amen.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 01:02 PM
6. Oh, good grief!!! This will attract that insufferable David Mathews for sure ...

Posted by: Peggy U on January 18, 2007 01:11 PM
7. Leave the poor scientists alone. They have to eat and support their families too.

The irony is those who routinely blast religion as unfounded and corrupt will place science on a pedestal.

As we can see, scientific method isn't free from agendas and corruption.

Posted by: Jack Burton on January 18, 2007 01:49 PM
8. Q: How can you tell a scientist is lying?

A: The grant is about to expire.

Posted by: Jack Burton on January 18, 2007 01:50 PM
9. Hello Peggy,

> Oh, good grief!!! This will attract that insufferable David Mathews for sure ...

I cannot help but note the lack of intellectual content in this conversation as was amply demonstrated in the previous one.

Note that the article which JDH referenced says the following: Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets.

Oh my, I feel so terribly bad for those poor obese Americans who are going to lose their wealth because of the global climate change conspiracy led by the elites of the UN.

What these obese Americans fail to realize is that the UN doesn't need to conspire to remove America's wealth and privilege. Americans are busy accomplishing that task on their own.

Don't you people realize that America already has a national debt of $8,000,000,000,000 dollars which continues to increase with each passing day? Don't you realize that America has both a trade deficit and a budget deficit? Dpn't you realize that China, India and a host of other impoverished nations are taking away all of America's manufacturing jobs and doing that work better and for less than the uncompetitive American workers?

The UN does not need to use climate change to redistribute the America's wealth. The United States of America is a country which is living well beyond its means and is declining perceptibly.

America is going to lose its wealth and become an impoverished nation even if it refuses to limit its pollution in any way. It is the natural course of events for nations to reach their apex and then decline and ultimately collapse.

Do you remember what happened to the Soviet Union? It seemed very much like the Soviet Union would exist forever but the evil empire collapsed virtually overnight.

The United States of America is poised to collapse, too. It may not happen today or tomorrow but it will almost certainly occur within our lifetime.

Why should America care about climate change, then? Because climate change is one force of nature which could very literally kill us.

And if the oceans rise from the melting ice caps the United States of America could very well lose its coastline and $trillions worth of property would become owned by the waves. Do you know what would happen to America'e economy should that ever occur?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 01:57 PM
10. If "America is going to lose its wealth and become an impoverished nation" it's because of tolleration of retards like you.

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 02:00 PM
11. Peggu U, God has spoken!! He is reincarnated as David Mathews and intends to change the weather!! I am more scared of that than I am of global warming, if it does exist.

Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2007 02:04 PM
12. Hello Jack,

>As we can see, scientific method isn't free from agendas and corruption.

Need I point out the obvious?

Conservatives have their own agendas & corruptions.

Corporations also have their own agendas & corruptions.

What conservatives fail to realize is that the corporations are not looking out for their interests. If the climate changes and the oceans take away America's coasts these corporations are not going to help the displaced Americans citizens nor will they replace all of the industrial and power plants which are lost to nature.

Climate change is an issue which transcends politics. If conservatives would open their eyes a little they would realize that it is their grandchildren who will inherit this mess and they will suffer the horrendous consequences of our destructive behaviors.

The corporations simply do not care whether your grandchildren live or die. They are concerned about present day profits not the future health & well-being of Americans.

You conservatives are fighting against your own self-interests by defending the polluting, environment-destroying lifestyle.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:05 PM
13. Hello JDH,

> If "America is going to lose its wealth and become an impoverished nation" it's because of tolleration of retards like you.

You really are a blind person, JDH. You cannot see beyond the end of your nose. And ... if you are going to throw around insults you should at least avoid the spelling errors.

Hello swatter,

> Peggu U, God has spoken!! He is reincarnated as David Mathews and intends to change the weather!!

Do you really want to hear what God says about humankind's future? The Bible ends with the Apocalypse of St. John.

Do I need to read the scriptures to you, Swatter?

"Leave alone who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this truth: that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts." (Qur'an 6 Al An'am:70)

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:15 PM
14. Hello David,
Could you kindly point me to some data to back up your claims?

Posted by: Eric on January 18, 2007 02:27 PM
15. I noticed no one wants pray for wisdom about whether or not this political movement called global warming has any factual basis or not.

Apostates or outright frauds like Rev. Rich Cizik are convenient pawns of Algore and blowhards from places like the Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School that will use what ever tools they can to carry out their worship of the creation and not the Creator.

I would encourage aforementioned groups to also team up to combat other worldwide threats such as dictatorships, rouge nations, abortion, muslim terrorists, communism, drug cartels and other activities that defile human life and spread death cultures. After all they said "We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative," and I agree. Unfortunately the outcome of their actions will only result in further declines in the life on this earth as justification for the mass slaughter of humans is the only likely outcome of their false point of view. We see written that 20th century governments (like the one they are lobbying) killed about 100 million citizens and human caused global warming killed about zero.

This repackaged death culture now wrapped with an apostate reverend cannot have a positive outcome for your existence should they gain traction. I encourage all to pray for the confusion to fall over this movement and for God to win again! It may look impossible to stop this and that we may all be forced to ride bikes and fart into charcoal filters and kill everyone that is sick so as to reduce their carbon footprint from medical care that will have no real benefit but hey God likes long odds...after all how are we going to seek Him; when times are good or when the reverend and his UN crew is coming at you with a gun?

Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 18, 2007 02:31 PM
16. What does God say about humankind's future?

"[T]he seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.
"The first sounded, and then their care hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth were burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.
"The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood,
"And a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed.
"The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell upon a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.
"The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the water became wordwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter.
"The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way.
"Then I looked, and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice, 'Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the tree angels who are about to sound.'"
(Revelation 8:6-13).

But the most terrible prophecy regarding humankind's future is contained in the next chapter:

"And in those days men will seek death and not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them."
(Revelation 9:6)

So if you people want to talk about humankind's future based upon the scriptures, I am inclined to have this sort of conversation.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:35 PM
17. Figures that DM would quote the Koran...

Citing it as the "word of God", yet...

DM has substituted a personal walk with GOD, for the psycho-babble religion of environmental extremism.

Posted by: BRC on January 18, 2007 02:37 PM
18. Hello Eric,

> Could you kindly point me to some data to back up your claims?

It is not my job, nor my duty, to educate the uninformed. Conservatives who are unfamiliar with this subject are simply ignorant and their opinions are therefore worthless.

I will argue with informed people and allow the ignorant to remain in their ignorance. Anyone who wants real substantial information can find it easily enough.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:39 PM
19. "..no complaints about the inappropriate incursion of religion into politics"

Touche. (we kind of didn't expect any of those types of complaints, did we?)

Posted by: Michele on January 18, 2007 02:39 PM
20. Both Darwinism in the form of macroevolution (trans-species evolution) and global warming extrapolations predicting impending doom, which are man driven, are THEORIES. Got that, you bugger eatin' moron Theories, spelled T-H-E-O-R-I-E-S. You may want to look that one up in a dictionary. Here I'll help you:

Hypothesis:
· A tentative explanation or idea about how things work
· A hypothesis guides you in further work to get a better answer
Example of a hypothesis: "The moon is made of cheese" (note: this is the kind of hypothesis my wife would come up with). How could we test this hypothesis?
· Construct a rocket to go to the moon and return with samples
· Make a cheese pizza substituting the moon samples for the cheese
· Ask people (e.g. graduate students. No, wait, they aren't real people...) to eat the pizza and see if they can tell any difference from pizza made with real cheeseTM (from Wisconsin)
· Most likely conclusion: Hey, this pizza tastes like dirt
New hypothesis (altered to include additional information from above experiment): The moon is not made of cheese, but is made of dirt, sort of like the Earth

Theory:
· A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena with considerable facts to support it
· A theory remains valid only if every new piece of information supports it
· If a single piece of available information does not support a theory, then the theory (as proposed) is disproved

Fact:
· An indisputable truth


Neither Darwinism in the form of macroevolution (trans-species evolution) or global warming are proven FACT, and what is more they both are examples of theories which require a giant leap of faith to accept. Furthermore both rely on browbeating and perversion of science to advance their agendas. This alone should be enough to arouse questions regarding the authenticity of the claims of their devotees.

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 02:40 PM
21. Hello BRC,

>DM has substituted a personal walk with GOD, for the psycho-babble religion of environmental extremism.

There is a religion of greed & gluttony & obesity which governs Americans. That religion is called "capitalism" and it is supported by the propaganda and brainwashing of marketers and incessant advertising.

God doesn't approve of America's greed, gluttony and obesity. God will judge and destroy the United States of America.

When God's judgments fall upon the United States of America, one thing is certain: Obesity will disappear and Americans will become familiar with hunger in its most intense and unrelenting form.

Pray that you don't live long enough to witness God's plagues falling upon the good ol' U.S. of A.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:43 PM
22. David M.
At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

Real Global Temperature DATA

And my favorite; when I was in school the scare de jour was GLOBAL COOLING this scare was pandered to the hysterical masses by the same bunch now selling global warming.

Answer me this David Matthews the same bunch has offered two theories 30 years apart, why is one wrong and one right and why should we accept one theory over the other.

Please back up you answer with real data.


Posted by: JCM on January 18, 2007 02:44 PM
23. Hello JDH,

> Neither Darwinism in the form of macroevolution (trans-species evolution) or global warming are proven FACT, and what is more they both are examples of theories which require a giant leap of faith to accept. Furthermore both rely on browbeating and perversion of science to advance their agendas. This alone should be enough to arouse questions regarding the authenticity of the claims of their devotees.

Somehow, JDH, I don't imagine that you are especially well qualified to judge scientific theories based upon the distinctions which you described.

You do know that the Bible predicts that humankind is headed to an apocalypse of truly biblical proportions, yes?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:47 PM
24. Hello Daft Matthews...

It is not your place to judge others for their actions, especially when you are just as guilty as all the others for partaking in what you believe to be so "evil". That makes you a hypocrite. So, unless you're living in a yurt, light and heat your hovel with candles and wood (isn't that ANTI-environmental??) and only rely on foot or pedal power to get from point A to point B, I suggest you SHUT the HELL UP.

We switched to the internal combustion engine so we didn't have to wallow through streets full of horseshit, now you're trying to shovel it back into our paths...

Oh, and by the way...

PRIDE (as you exhibit here by your condescension and "holier than thou" tone) IS one of the "seven deadly sins".

Physician, heal thyself...

:~\

Posted by: BRC on January 18, 2007 02:49 PM
25. Hello JCM,

>Answer me this David Matthews the same bunch has offered two theories 30 years apart, why is one wrong and one right and why should we accept one theory over the other.

Because humankind has learned a whole bunch in the last three decades via an intense scientific investigation of the climate both in its present form and also its history as recorded over the last 600,000 in the ice caps on the world.

But, even if all this information was not presently available, it is pure insanity for humankind to continue pumping pollution into the atmosphere at ever-accelerating rates under the theory that there are no consequences.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:52 PM
26. Take a look here, for starters, and educate yourself about how one progresses from hypothesis to theory and on to fact. But be forewarned facts are only recognized as such until they run up against a single piece of evidence that disproves them...as Newtonian physics did. Global warming as preached by Gore has been blown out of the water years ago. It is not a fact, in fact it is not even a valid theory at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 02:54 PM
27. The nomination for the best kool-aid drinking, moonbat tin-foil troll of the last 4 years goes to:

David Matthews

Thank you David for providing the fodder for the most amusing moon-battery on this site in a long time.

You're welcome.

Posted by: dan on January 18, 2007 02:56 PM
28. Hello BRC,

>It is not your place to judge others for their actions, especially when you are just as guilty as all the others for partaking in what you believe to be so "evil". That makes you a hypocrite. So, unless you're living in a yurt, light and heat your hovel with candles and wood (isn't that ANTI-environmental??) and only rely on foot or pedal power to get from point A to point B, I suggest you SHUT the HELL UP.

BRC, you really don't care about your grandchildren growing up under hellish conditions on an Earth which is overheating and failing to support a human population of 9,000,000,0000 and included among them 400,000,000 very poor, very deprived Americans?

You see ... I am arguing with you on behalf of your own grandchildren. I'd rather that these children not live in hell-on-earth because that is exactly what they shall inherit if humankind continues treating the Earth as if it was created by God to serve as humankind's sewer.

Let me tell you the true scale of the problem:

If humans mess up the Earth there is nowhere else for humankind to go in order to escape from the consequences.

Which is also to say:

Homo sapiens evolved and will go extinct on the Earth.

The heath & well-being of future generations of Americans depends in large measure upon the wisdom and foolishness of this generation of Americans. If you love your children you will choose wisdom.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 03:00 PM
29.
There is a religion of greed & gluttony & obesity which governs Americans. That religion is called "capitalism" and it is supported by the propaganda and brainwashing of marketers and incessant advertising.
DM

Other than a reversion to the stone age, where 25% of children die in infancy, old age is 35, with no treatments for disease or injury, just where are the technologies to deal with warming going to come from? Somalia?

Even if the human portion of warming can be corrected, warming from solar, orbital, and natural cycles will continue.

Any solutions are going to be invented and produced by the very mechanism DM hates the most.

David in his hysterical panic based on zero real data would eliminate the very source of salvation for the world, humanity and the remaining 1% of species that have not gone extinct in the history of earth.

Posted by: JCM on January 18, 2007 03:00 PM
30. Hello Dan,

> The nomination for the best kool-aid drinking, moonbat tin-foil troll of the last 4 years goes to: David Matthews

I am not especially concerned about what ignorant, uneducated people think of me. Ignorant, uneducated, scientifically-illiterate people are wrong about a great many things.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 03:02 PM
31. Hello JCM,

>Other than a reversion to the stone age, where 25% of children die in infancy, old age is 35, with no treatments for disease or injury, just where are the technologies to deal with warming going to come from? Somalia?

If you believe that technology is going to save humankind from the consequences of human misbehavior on the Earth you are worshipping a techno-god. Don't you know that humankind's technology can -- and will -- fail?

>Even if the human portion of warming can be corrected, warming from solar, orbital, and natural cycles will continue.

Of course. Here is an analogous argument: If a person does not smoke he will still die of natural causes. So why shouldn't a person smoke?

>Any solutions are going to be invented and produced by the very mechanism DM hates the most.

The techno-god will save humankind. I feel sad for the followings of the technology-religion. They will cry out to their techno-god and that god will not answer. They will suffer and die while waiting for technology-salvation.

>David in his hysterical panic based on zero real data would eliminate the very source of salvation for the world, humanity and the remaining 1% of species that have not gone extinct in the history of earth.

You are a man of faith, aren't you? Technology won't save humankind from the apocalypse which is fast approaching.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 03:09 PM
32. More crushing of dissent:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

"The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of man-made catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

"The Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe. "

Yup, nothing like free and open debate.

Posted by: Frank Black on January 18, 2007 03:09 PM
33. Mr. Mathews

Please give up trying to convince/persuade these fools about climate change. They probably don't belive in "gravity" yet.

Willful, proud, deliberate ignorance is what they agressively pursue.

Posted by: Jim on January 18, 2007 03:14 PM
34. Hello David,

I am not concerned about what super-intelligent, educated people think of me. Super-educated, supposed scientific-literate people are wrong about a great many things.

May I ask exactly what it is you personally are doing to alleviate global warming besides reading about it? Do you think that simply educating the great unwashed masses about the end of the earth is enough to stop the tide? Where does the paper to print the books and magazines come from for the ones that are too poor to afford electricity and computers?

I personally have great faith in the ingenuity of mankind to be able to overcome some obstacles in this life on earth, given the freedom to innovate.

That makes me an optimist. As are most people on this site. Sorry to say, your view of the future is rather bleak for someone who has a full stomach and a roof over your head.

Posted by: dan on January 18, 2007 03:15 PM
35. Look Jim, if you think you are in need of this buffoon's condescending one-way enlightenment of the benighted, by all means take advantage of his "wisdom." As for me I prefer to go where the evidence leads, and let me assure you it does not lead to AlGore's preposterous conclusions.

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 03:26 PM
36. Religion and Global warming. A match made in heaven. Both are based on faith instead of reality. How perfectly fitting. Maybe this will help expose Global Warming as the emotional dogma that it is.

Also, please stop feeding the troll.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 18, 2007 03:28 PM
37. David,

You accuse me of being an acolyte in the temple of technology.

Are you not an acolyte with an unblinking belief in human caused global warming?

In my faith system the end is at an unknowable time, I must be prepared in my life and faith to meet my end at anytime, years from now in old age or in the next instant from any number of causes.

That does not mean I put my head between my knees, cry and whine.

I plan for both short and long term.

In the physical world I do have enormous faith in the boundless, God given intellect, ingenuity, capacity of humans with the liberty to exercise all their endowments from God to make life on this earth longer, with less discomfort, and an unlimited horizon.

I leave the metaphysics to God.

Posted by: JCM on January 18, 2007 03:28 PM
38. Global warming or global cooling?
SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR



RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 03:37 PM
39. Frank Black @#32, "More crushing of dissent:"

I'm shocked, shocked that socialists would crush dissent.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 03:39 PM
40. Hello Everyone,

Needless to say, the opponents of global warming on this website have failed to present any arguments possessing intellectual content much less any scientific (or religious) evidence contrary to the rock-solid principle:

All actions have consequences.

These people would have you believe:

Technology has an infinite capacity to save humankind from the consequences of its actions.

And I have to tell you, that is simply a naive faith in technology and nothing more:

According to the techno-optimists, humankind would already have a base on the moon and Mars by now.

Hard to believe, isn't it? You should read all the euphoric predictions which were made after the Apollo missions' success.

Does anyone really believe that:

Humankind is presently on the path to utopia on Earth, and the conquest of the Universe?

Because the Earth doesn't look very much like a utopia. There are plenty of places on the Earth which are positively hellish. Americans are also suffering from stress, sickness, psychological ailments, and fear.

Does anyone here actually believe that the United States of America is a country whose success is guaranteed and whose prosperity is a God-given entitlement?

Open your eyes, people. The United States of America cannot capture even Osama Bin Laden, nor can it reduce its oil addiction, nor can it bring peace & democracy to an illegally occupied colony. How then is technology going to save us?

Maybe you people need to get away from your televisions and computers and cellphones and reaquaint yourself with Nature. If you open your eyes you will see that Nature's smallest accomplishments are more impressive that humankind's greatest accomplishments.

What you people have done is exalt humankind to godlike status by your pride and faith in humankind's omnipotent, omniscient technology.

You are following a form of idolatry in your faith in humankind and hope in technology. This is your only true religion. God is largely irrelevant because you believe that humans can solve every problem and live without any fear of consequences.

Don't you know that from a religious standpoint the Apocalypse has always served as a Divine rebuke of this specific form of human pride?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 03:49 PM
41. Wonderfully reasoned post @#38 JDH.

The left has been busy recently re-marketing itself as "progressives"

Meanwhile they work tirelessly to shut up any opinion they disagree with. Dennis Kucinich (D-Jupiter) wants to re-introduce the "Fairness Doctrine" to cut off conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Medved
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20070116-011540-7199r.htm

What these people really ought to be called is "controllers". We've all encountered these kinds of people, at school, at work, and in our personal lives. The are the disgusting snotty little prigs that get their jollies telling other people what to do. They aren't happy unless they are telling us what to eat, what to drive, what we can do with our property, and what to believe.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 04:05 PM
42. maybe it's just fat people that cause global warming. It seems that "we" americans are all fat. I'm not, DM are you?

I've noticed that some of your comments seem to be the same as communists would say about the decadent west. Are you a communist? As for America failing like the USSR, that might be true if politicians like Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Reed, Kucinich, etc have their way and turn us into a socialist system and put our heads on a chopping block for islamofanatics.

As for global warming and my descendents...i hope they do as well as I have from my ancestors...the Vikings. I wonder if there were people telling them that they were going to all die off because of all the pillaging of towns that cause to much smoke and that the weather was going to change. It sure did...they lost their summer homes in Greenland.

One final point...you talked about water rising and we lose all the prime coastline and loss of trillions of dollars...yes that might happen, but you know what....we'd have new coastline worth trillions of dollars and huge economic growth from the boom of rebuilding. Shocking huh?

I lied one more question, all joking aside, do you believe it is only man's fault that the planet is warming? I can't remember from all the posts you done and that would help me understand where you come from. If you don't think nature has a role then no facts would sway you.

Posted by: Dengle on January 18, 2007 04:22 PM
43. Get those scientists who predicted an ice age in the '70's back. They were so successful at stopping the advancing glaciers that it has cascaded the other way. If they could figure out how to stop that ice age, surely they can get this global warming stopped in a flash!!!

They must have also been the ones who changed the warm climate in Greenland 1000 years ago so that Eric the Red and his men couldn't over winter cattle and horses there anymore because it got so cold they couldn't raise enough grain. It's still so cold there they can't raise sufficient grain. But, remember Al Gore says we're hotter now than ever before.

Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on January 18, 2007 04:30 PM
44. Hello Dengle,

>maybe it's just fat people that cause global warming. It seems that "we" americans are all fat. I'm not, DM are you?

All Americans are obese. If not in the physical form of our body, we are all still obese in our consumption of the Earth's resources and discharge of pollution on the globe.

> I've noticed that some of your comments seem to be the same as communists would say about the decadent west. Are you a communist? As for America failing like the USSR, that might be true if politicians like Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Reed, Kucinich, etc have their way and turn us into a socialist system and put our heads on a chopping block for islamofanatics.

America is a decadent civilization. If the communists said that Americans are decadent they were correct and very perceptive about America's faults.

Regarding America's collapse: Such is a natural and inevitable outcome which does not relate to the politics of the Democrats nor to the actions of the islamofanatics. All empires collapse. The last 10,000 years of human history testify to this fact; All empires collapse.

America is not exempt from the laws of Nature. America will collapse.

>As for global warming and my descendents...i hope they do as well as I have from my ancestors...the Vikings. I wonder if there were people telling them that they were going to all die off because of all the pillaging of towns that cause to much smoke and that the weather was going to change. It sure did...they lost their summer homes in Greenland.

The Viking loss of Greenland was a catastrophe which involved these Viking inhabitants of Greenland starving to death and otherwise dying horrendously. your descendents will likely face a similar fate.

>One final point...you talked about water rising and we lose all the prime coastline and loss of trillions of dollars...yes that might happen, but you know what....we'd have new coastline worth trillions of dollars and huge economic growth from the boom of rebuilding. Shocking huh?

When America loses its coastline it will certainly have a new coastline, well inland from the present coast. What America will not have is the resources nor the wealth to rebuild the entire coast. America is in the process of becoming bankrupt because of exhaustion of its own natural resources. The America of the 22nd century will not recover from the loss of the coast. Many will suffer, many will die, and America will cease to exist as a nation.

>I lied one more question, all joking aside, do you believe it is only man's fault that the planet is warming? I can't remember from all the posts you done and that would help me understand where you come from. If you don't think nature has a role then no facts would sway you.

None of the proponents of Global Warming deny the existence of natural forces and natural components of climate change. Humankind is not responsible for the climate -- the Sun is the primary force driving the climate -- but humans are responsible for polluting the Earth and destroying the natural ecosystems which functioned to maintain the climate at its present state of equilibrium.

The changes that humans have made to the Earth -- slight as they are -- are sufficient to eradicate civilization and drive Homo sapiens to extinction. What this indicates is not that humans are especially powerful but instead that humankind's domination of the Earth is that tenuous.

If humans were wise the species would recognize that the Earth is our only home & the only home that Homo sapiens will ever have. Humankind has taken a big gamble with its abuse of the Earth and the species will undoubtedly lose that bet. The consequences: Horrendous suffering for future generations and ultimately the extinction of humankind from the Universe.

I cannot say that this punishment is undeserved.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 04:45 PM
45. Hey, Daft Matthews!!

What say you about the MWP (Medieval Warm Period, for those who read the Koran), where Iceland and Greenland were settled by Vikings, where it was warm enough to support crops and large herds of livestock? What caused that "global warming"? Norwegian flatulence?? Too many internal combustion engines dumping "greenhouse gas" causing emissions into the atmosphere?? Too much greed and corporatism? Vikings apparently didn't care much about their grandchildren EITHER, because they let it get COLD and FROZEN up there!!

HOW DARE THEY!!!

BTW... you'd figure that "scientists" would be wondering why earth is constantly in a cycle of heating and cooling. First it was warm and moist...life began. It got warmer and moister (sic)... dinosaurs ruled. HOLY CRAP it got COLD... dinosaurs forgot their parkas and croaked. Except for the Mammoths... they lasted a little longer, 'til it got too COLD even for THEM. Then it warmed back up! Vikings migrated, raping, pillaging, plundering, FARMING in areas that TODAY are FROZEN!! (Guess it got cold again??) Now, with all the industrialization, the pollutant belching, evil automobiles, the corporations bent on plundering the earth's resources, rendering the air too toxic to breath and the waters too poisonous to drink (sarcasm), and the mean earth temperature has risen what? A degree?? As somebody pointed out earlier, how much has the temperature risen on Mars? On Venus?? How much sunspot activity has been recorded in the last several decades?? How much more volcanic activity has occurred around the globe in the last 30 years??

And you expect all of us to fall for your Chicken Little story?!?!?!?

Yer off yer meds!!

(Did I spell everything good 'nuf fer ya??)

Posted by: BRC on January 18, 2007 04:48 PM
46. Here's a link to the Unabomber's Manifesto.

It reads a lot like the anti-mankind troll rants in the past few posts on Global Warming here at SP.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 18, 2007 04:56 PM
47. Hello BRC,

The sad thing is that you really do imagine that you are asking an intellect question although you are not.

An analogous argument: How can an autmobile kill a human when for thousands of years humans died by non-automotive means.

Yes, BRC, the climate does change naturally. But, no, natural climate changes do not disprove in any way the conclusion that humans are modifying the Earth's climate in a reckless, harmful and ultimately tragic way.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 04:59 PM
48. Just a heads-up to all you on-the-fence liberals and moderates that might happen to be reading Sound Politics over the past few days. Here's an education opportunity.

Read the comments from David Mathews. He's posted on almost every topic. Read them all, (or as much as you can stomach).

This is the real thing. We're not making it up. Mathews is the face of the modern American left.

Thousands, (if not millions), of lefties think the same way he does. American public schools and universities teach this garbage.

You can't buy this kind of education.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 05:07 PM
49. DM AKBAR !!!

You have proven the point of this whole discussion. Not only do you blindly follow the false god of psudoscience, you fancy yourself a prophet.

You declare that all who do not believe are ingnorant, stupid, infidels. Those in your camp have issued fatwas on the infidels. The more militant, like the members of E.L.F have declared jihad on capitalists. They have no moral issue with burning businesses and homes to save the environment. There can be no questioning of the religion of global warming.

Over and over you state dire predictions of the future, yet you refuse to back it up with fact. You state you don't have to because those who don't believe are ignorant.

You do not even acknowledge those science behind those who disagree with you. Since their facts don't support your religion you must ignore them and declare them to be ignorant.

Everybody must bow to the goddess mother nature. Those of us Teddy Roosevlet Repubs. who call ourselves conservationists do not go far enough. Protecting the environment is not enough, you must worship it. Your extremism to you is a virtue, but turns many against your cause.

Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on January 18, 2007 05:24 PM
50. Hello Jeff,


> It reads a lot like the anti-mankind troll rants in the past few posts on Global Warming here at SP.

Jeff, I am not saying anything which God hasn't already declared a long time ago.

"Then the Lord say the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
"The Lord was sorry that He made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
"The Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land ... for I am sorry that I have made them.."
(Genesis 6:5-7)

Nothing at all has occurred over the last several thousand years to refute the conclusion that God reached concerning humankind's fatally flawed nature prior to the flood.

Conservatives -- especially well-informed religious conservatives -- have no excuse for their ignorance regarding human nature.

Nor is there any excuse whatsoever for all the expressed faith in the techno-god to save humankind. The techno-god is a false god and it is a fallible god which has, can and will fail.

You claim that what I am saying is an anti-human rant but I must point out that it is your lifestyle and your decisions that is going to kill billions of humans over the next several centuries.

Those people who really love humanity would never behave in such a reckless manner.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 05:26 PM
51. Eric,
David has an opinion, and that should be good enough! What do you want, solid (and, unfortunately, unattainable) definitive proof?! How demanding can you be? Sheesh!

As to you, David, I have to take exception to your remark: "Maybe you people need to get away from your televisions and computers and cellphones and reaquaint yourself with Nature."

Maybe you need to read your posts and recognize that they take up more space than anyone else's. Exactly WHO is spending too much time at the computer? Kindly go play outside for a while ... go make the acquaintance of a polar bear or something ... there might be a few around, with the kind of weather we have been having!

Posted by: Peggy U on January 18, 2007 05:29 PM
52. Hello surf,

Here are some facts which stand behind my prophecies of certain doom for both America and humankind:

1. The human population continues to expand from 6.5 billion to 9 billion.

2. Plenty of humans are suffering already and at least 2,000,000,000 are locked into perpetual impoverishment and deprivement without any hope whatsoever of escape.

3. Humans currently consume 85 million barrels a day, 25% of which is consumed by one particularly decadent, gluttonous and obese nation (The good ol' U.S. of A.).

4. All of the Earth's resources are finite and subject to depletion.

5. The pollution generated by the burning of the fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) have already generated millions of tons of pollution which is evident throughout the globe, from pole to pole and sea to shining sea.

6. The climate is already displaying evidence of change.

7. Glaciers are melting and ice caps are shrinking throughout the world.

8. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that humans are often incapable of adequately planning for predictable and expected natural catastrophes.

9. Should the ice caps melt and the oceans rise by five, ten or twenty feet humankind will face a catastrophe of unprecedented, global proportions.

10. On a planet with 9 billion hungry people a drought could very well push a billion humans over the edge of starvation. Do you know the only appropriate description for a tragedy of that magnitude?

Now one thing is certain: The conservatives here are not thinking very far into the future. If they did they would know that a catastrophe is fast approaching.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 05:37 PM
53. "You claim that what I am saying is an anti-human rant but I must point out that it is your lifestyle and your decisions that is going to kill billions of humans over the next several centuries.

Those people who really love humanity would never behave in such a reckless manner"

Am I dreaming? This is too much!

Follow Mathews link to his website and note the "reckless manner" in which he must behave in order to do the traveling he does.

Off to your teepee with you, David!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 05:40 PM
54. Hello Peggy,

> Maybe you need to read your posts and recognize that they take up more space than anyone else's. Exactly WHO is spending too much time at the computer? Kindly go play outside for a while ... go make the acquaintance of a polar bear or something ... there might be a few around, with the kind of weather we have been having!

Peggy, you apparently cannot see anything except for your own local weather and this is the reason why you remain so terribly ignorant about what is happening on the Earth.

My posts take up more space than these others because these other people have nothing to say. Don't blame me for the lack of intellectual content in these conservatives.

And, Peggy, I can and do often go and play outside. I spent Monday at Anna Maria Island right here on the Gulf Coast (yes, it is warm enough for the beach here in Florida), and I spent Tuesday at Redington Beach, and Wednesday was spent at the Ringling Museum of Art in Sarasota.

I spend plenty of time outside but I don't see Polar Bears. What I do see, however, are alligators, pelicans, herons, egrets, ibises, storks, fiddler crabs, horseshoe crabs, and plenty of other animals that inhabit Florida's environment.

I love to see these animals and it is a great tragedy to think that humans have destroyed their planet. I know that a day will come when the humans will be gone and the animals will again have a healthy, flourishing, living planet to inhabit.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 05:45 PM
55. I agree with Serf. DM's contents are quite theocratic. Very Islamic. It would be easy to show the logical fallacies of so much of what DM has written. But you can't argue with a fool. And all it does is feed the troll.

I encourage everyone to go read the Unibomber's Manifesto, and also to read the speeches of Khameni, Khomeni, Bin Laden, etc. You will note the parallels and similar authoritarian dogma to what you are reading in so many of the comments here from DM.

To DM, it's our fault. We are not natural. Everything we do is obese and immoral, and the only salvation is to refute all of our existence. DM, you first.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 18, 2007 05:48 PM
56. Seventeen entries by one indvidual! This is becoming less like a blog and more like a soap box for David.

Stefan! Its time to exercise some editorial control!

Posted by: deadwood on January 18, 2007 05:59 PM
57. Hello Jeff,

> To DM, it's our fault. We are not natural. Everything we do is obese and immoral, and the only salvation is to refute all of our existence.

1. Yes, Jeff, of course it is your fault. You are responsible for your own decisions, right? Or do you reject the concept of human free will?

2. Yes, Jeff, humans are not natural nor are humans behaving in a natural manner. Humans are anti-natural and we demonstrated as much by destroying the entire Earth's ecosystems and polluting the rest.

And, yes, faith in the techno-god is a distinctly unnatural, anti-natural behavior.

3. Yes, Jeff, the United States of America is an obese nation filled with plenty of obese citizens. If you doubt the truthfulness of this accusation go down to the mall and observe the American hyperconsumers in their "natural" habitat. They don't look healthy! And they are not healthy.

4. Yes, Jeff, the United States of America is an immoral nation. The United States is a materialistic nation which is addicted to consumerism and profligate oil consumption. The President himself said as much in his State of the Union speech.

5. No, Jeff, I don't believe in salvation for humankind. Homo sapiens is a suicidally self-destructive species which is ultimately fated to become extinct. At this point humankind has already inflicted a fatal wound which renders of extinction an inevitable and inescapable fate.

I don't believe in salvation in any sense. There is no eternity awaiting the human soul: No heaven, no hell, no immortality on the Earth, nor any memory whatosever of humankind's existence after our species has become extinct.

And, yes, God has already said this much to humankind in the Scriptures. You would know that much if you read your Bible attentively.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 05:59 PM
58. Stefan - Please!

Posted by: deadwood on January 18, 2007 06:02 PM
59. "I know that a day will come when the humans will be gone and the animals will again have a healthy, flourishing, living planet to inhabit."


...

Not until that load you've been shoveling disappears. In the meantime, I have a family to go feed. You've been fed enough, obese troll!

Posted by: Peggy U on January 18, 2007 06:08 PM
60. Let him spew, deadwood. He's a judgemental liberal nutcase...notice his obsession with obesity. It's good to let viewers of this blog see what these people really are like. This is a guy who wants to tell you how to live. Like so many liberals he won't walk the walk,(can you say mayor Nickels?), he just talks the talk.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 06:31 PM
61. Hello deadwood,

> Stefan! Its time to exercise some editorial control!

Conservatives who beg for censorship are conceding that their arguments have been whipped.

"Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; assuredly he will not go unpunished." (Proverbs 16:5)

"Therefore justice is far away from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, but behold, darkness, for brightness, but we walk in gloom. We grope along the wall like blind men, we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at midday as in the twilight, among those who are vigorous we are like dead men.
"All of us growl like bears, and moan sadly like doves; we hope for justice, but there is none, for salvation but it is far away from us.
"For our transgressions are multiplied before You, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities:
"Transgressing and denying the Lord, and turning away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words.
"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the street, and uprightness cannot enter."
(Isaiah 59:9-14)

When God's judgments fall upon a prideful, evil nation the citizens of that nation cannot help but suffer. How then will humankind survive God's plagues following upon the entire planet?

Humans have brought all of these sorrows upon our own heads. Too bad for humankind.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 06:32 PM
62. It's obvious that David Mathews is the illicit love child of Patty Murray and Al Gore. I think he should breed with Cindy Sheehan; the off- spring would be the ideal Progressive candidate for 2040. (But alas, the child could not survive in the earth's broiling climate. Those poor souls that do survive will scatter entire fields of stem cells in hopes of a fall harvest of Soilent Green.)

Posted by: Doc-T on January 18, 2007 06:43 PM
63. "Conservatives who beg for censorship are conceding that their arguments have been whipped."

They don't want censorship, they're just sick of you. There's a difference.

I'm not. I want you to babble on and on. I have old friends that sound just like you. Their politics haven't evolved beyond the 1960's...kind of like a former first lady I won't mention by name.

You are mightily deluded David if you think even one conservative has been influenced by your rantings. Do the words waste of time mean anything to you?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 07:10 PM
64. DM...

If you get banned here (which is unlikely, because Stefan is highly tolerant of idiots), it's not CENSORSHIP. You have your right to spew your drivel as much as you want. Stefan, on the other hand, has no obligation whatsoever to provide that venue for you to spew. You can stand on a street corner and talk to whoever is unfortunate enough to come within earshot of you.

Until the government would come and muzzle you, you don't know what censorship really is. Come to think of it, isn't that what progressives want to do??

C'mon, DM! Admit it... Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel really got you all 'randy' yesterday, didn't she?

Posted by: BRC on January 18, 2007 07:30 PM
65. David Mathews, you are so full of it and you know it. You invoke judgment of God and Bible verses frequently, but you show the most ungodly trait in your demeanor.

You said in #40:

Needless to say, the opponents of global warming on this website have failed to present any arguments possessing intellectual content much less any scientific (or religious) evidence contrary to the rock-solid principle:

Yet, you are the only one who has failed to give any sceintific evidence that global warming is a real thing. Many people quoted scientific studies that dispute global warming, yet you haven't shown or refered a single study proving that the theory holds any water.

Stop declaring everyone to be ignorant, uncaring, unintelligent, or whaever adjective you've throwing at people; rather, see if you can actually make people shut up by showing them the real scientific evidence that the theory is real. Until you can do that, just shut up and keep your faith of global warming to yourself.

Posted by: C. Oh on January 18, 2007 08:13 PM
66. "If not in the physical form of our body, we are all still obese in our consumption of the Earth's resources and discharge of pollution on the globe."

WTF? This has to be the biggest load a nonsensical crap I've ever heard.

"All empires colapse"

Good thing we are not an empire, but I do believe that not sticking to the founders of this countries original tenants will lead to hard times, as will the communist preachings you hold.

Vikings did die horribly.....they shouldn't have been polluting huh? Oh wait nature can do that can't she. Can't it. Don't want to offend anyone.

On natural resources....should we stop all together building or eating? I guess a commune is best. Darn all those hatcheries, and reforresting projects, you are a waste of time. Heaven forbid we also look to use resources that we have too. I mean in 200 years we would be out of oil....but really we have wind power so we're all set.

Aren't humans part of the natural ecosystem? Haven't they been able to help renew areas of the world that we have harmed along with nature? And if we are more powerful than nature, why can't we just "stop global warming" this next year. I guess we could try....Though I know it's taken years of abuse (though our world is more "clean" today than in the 70's) to get us to the point that the world will end in 10 years. Hogwash!

Posted by: Dengle on January 18, 2007 08:16 PM
67. Hello Dengle,

> WTF? This has to be the biggest load a nonsensical crap I've ever heard.

The principle is not nonsense by any means: It is a fundamental religious concept. Do I need to teach Christianity to you?

> Good thing we are not an empire, but I do believe that not sticking to the founders of this countries original tenants will lead to hard times, as will the communist preachings you hold.

Not only do all empires collapse, all nations also collapse. But the distinction between nation and empire is rendered irrelevant by the simple recognition that America is, indeed, an empire.

>Vikings did die horribly.....they shouldn't have been polluting huh? Oh wait nature can do that can't she. Can't it. Don't want to offend anyone.

Nature climate change can eradicate a colony (as it did to the Viking colonizers of Greenland). Of course, nature can destroy the hopes of humankind: A hurricane demolished New Orleans.

Don't you see, Nature is a force which is more powerful than humankind. Nature is a force which can easily eradicate humankind from the Earth simply according to Nature's own whim.

That is why humans are fools to fight this perpetual war against Nature and provoke Nature's wrath by polluting and abusing the Earth. An angry Nature is a deadly Nature.

> On natural resources....should we stop all together building or eating? I guess a commune is best. Darn all those hatcheries, and reforresting projects, you are a waste of time. Heaven forbid we also look to use resources that we have too. I mean in 200 years we would be out of oil....but really we have wind power so we're all set.

Yes, we should stop building, we should stop eating excessively, we should stop shopping, we should stop polluting, we should stop destroying the natural environment, we should stop all of our addictions, and we especially should stop killing those poor innocent Muslim civilians of Iraq.

We should stop. And we will stop. Nature is going to impose this decision upon humankind whether Americans like it or not. Nature has powerful and effective techniques to bring all of this human foolishness to an absolute and eternal end.

Nature is more powerful than both humankind and human technology.

> Aren't humans part of the natural ecosystem?

No. Humans are not. Humans are a primate species which has rebelled against both God and Nature. Humans are anti-natural but not supernatural. Humans are a primate which is presently in intensive care as we rely entirely upon machinery to keep our species alive.

> Haven't they been able to help renew areas of the world that we have harmed along with nature?

No. You are vastly overestimating humankind's power.

> And if we are more powerful than nature, why can't we just "stop global warming" this next year.

Humans are not more powerful than Nature. Comparing humankind to Nature is similar to comparing a candle to the Sun.

Do you want to know what is the most powerful demonstration of humankind's weakness compared to Nature? Homo sapiens will go extinct and Nature will survive and flourish for at least a billion years after humankind is gone.

> I guess we could try....Though I know it's taken years of abuse (though our world is more "clean" today than in the 70's) to get us to the point that the world will end in 10 years.

The world is not going to end. This is a fundamental misconception of the technologists.

Humankind's abuse of Nature will not bring this world to an end. Humankind's abuse of Nature will only serve to bring humankind to an end.

Nature is ancient and powerful. Nature has endured every sort of catastrophe over the last four billion years. A primate -- not even a primate so foolish, violent, destructive and polluting as humankind -- is not powerful enough to kill Nature.

Humans are only powerful enough to drive humankind to extinction. Nature simply doesn't care whether humans survive or go extinct. Nature did very well for four billion years before humankind evolved and Nature will continue along very well for another billion years after humankind is extinct.

Homo sapiens is an endangered species. The primate appears positively suicidal in its behavior on the Earth.

But this is case where no amount of warning or wisdom will cause any change to the primate's behavior: Homo sapiens will go extinct. Our fate is sealed. God's plagues and punishments must certainly fall upon us.

Humans have worked very hard at driving our own species to extinction, and we have succeeded.

It is a tragedy, but only to humankind. Nature doesn't need us and God has grown weary of struggling with a rebellious primate.

So much for humankind.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 09:03 PM
68. Holy Moly Batman, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh wait, I guess that's just troll turd liberally heaped upon us ignorant capitalist types. Yeesh.

Posted by: Ed on January 18, 2007 09:16 PM
69. "your arm's off!" "No, it's just a scratch"

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 09:16 PM
70. I think I'll stay with my Lutheran teachings thanks. I do believe we are stewards of the world, but I also know that we are sinners and that the #1 fundamental is that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins. I also don't believe that everyone is evil as you do. I also believe that you are evil, a snake that the devil puts forth to drive the Lords flock from him to the worship of Nature. Nice load of crap that last sentence huh? That's what you sound like.

Your off topic of killing the Muslims in Iraq....shouldn't that be the Muslim terrorists? They are the ones killing their own. Did you see that they have killed ~1500 teachers since the fall? Why? Because the know education can/will bring them down. Just like Stalin and Hitler.

Back on topic.....We're primates only? How about a virus? Is that a better analogy? You are saying that humankind has done nothing to ever better the world...only destroy it. If so, why haven't we destroyed the world already? If not now, why in 10, 20 100 years? If we followed what you said, wouldn't we also all die? Look at Africa....most of the continent does drive cars and aren't industrial, but they are dying by the 1000's. Would that happen here? Or is it our fault that they are hurting? Would embracing democracy and the christian fundamentals this country was founded on help them? I believe they would.

As I sign off I think....may DM you must have one lousy life....everyday looking at your fellow man and hating him. Tomorrow, I emplore you to go out and make it a great day. Without love for your fellow man in your heart and respect for yourself, you will continue to be miserable. At least it sounds like you have the Lord and I just hope you find the meaning in Jesus teachings and not just the words.

Posted by: Dengle on January 18, 2007 09:44 PM
71. Here's an interesting article I found on Drudge about Global Warming. I'm no scientist, however I too am inclined to believe that this global warming is alot of hype. Recently I was reading an article telling about the waters around Antarctica as being tropical waters. If so, where did all those fish go? Shouldn't we also be concerned about that too?

The Weather Channel Mess by James Spann, ABC-TV Meterorologist

Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go.

« Pineapple Express Stays Active - Still Cold

Weather Mess Lots of comments

Posted by: Janet on January 18, 2007 10:18 PM
72. Well, I would have thought that an educated man like Stefan would know the difference between weather and climate. But then I realized how cruel reality has been for you conservatives lately, so I guess we can allow a little comforting fantasy to make us all feel better.

The big question is, why do most conservatives deny the most basic cause and effect? If the activities of man are producing more carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide than ever before in the history of the world, why would any educated person think that man has no effect on climate change?

Secondly, what exactly is in it for the environmentalists? Do they profit from getting industry to heed the warnings of climate change? Of course not. The flip side is that businesses suffer in the short term if they are required to mitigate the causes of global warming, but in the end, it's the preservation of the planet that's the motivation here.

This isn't a case of liberals feeling good. It's a case of caring about the world we're leaving our children. And I for one, don't believe that conservatives have fewer children than liberals. So why choose some silly ideological line in the sand over logic? Why make our kids clean up after us simply because we CHOOSE to be myopic?

Posted by: km on January 18, 2007 10:38 PM
73. I see Stefan is still striving to be irrelevant. Keep up the good work, Stefan.

Posted by: me on January 18, 2007 10:39 PM
74. Hello Dengle,

> I think I'll stay with my Lutheran teachings thanks. I do believe we are stewards of the world, but I also know that we are sinners and that the #1 fundamental is that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins. I also don't believe that everyone is evil as you do. I also believe that you are evil, a snake that the devil puts forth to drive the Lords flock from him to the worship of Nature. Nice load of crap that last sentence huh? That's what you sound like.

You are a Christian, Dengle? So am I. "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward." (Qur'an 5 Al Ma'idah:9).

> Your off topic of killing the Muslims in Iraq....shouldn't that be the Muslim terrorists? They are the ones killing their own. Did you see that they have killed ~1500 teachers since the fall? Why? Because the know education can/will bring them down. Just like Stalin and Hitler.

You say you are a Christian and then you express hatred, bigotry, prejudice and a bloodshed against the Muslims. Somehow I think that Jesus message was completely lost upon you:

Christians who hate Muslims blaspheme Jesus.

"But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23).

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:43-44).

Christians are under a divine obligation from Jesus Himself to love the Muslims, including those Muslims who for whatever reason are our enemies.

> Back on topic.....We're primates only? How about a virus? Is that a better analogy? You are saying that humankind has done nothing to ever better the world...only destroy it. If so, why haven't we destroyed the world already? If not now, why in 10, 20 100 years? If we followed what you said, wouldn't we also all die? Look at Africa....most of the continent does drive cars and aren't industrial, but they are dying by the 1000's. Would that happen here? Or is it our fault that they are hurting? Would embracing democracy and the christian fundamentals this country was founded on help them? I believe they would.

Yes, humans are just primates ... nothing more, nothing less, and especially nothing eternal.

And, yes, Africa is suffering a great deal. The Christian West has committed sins and atrocities against Africa for centuries. These sins continue and the Christians bear responsibility for all those people who are dying.

As to what is going to happen to America: Yes, Americans will lose their cars and Americans will also die by the thousands. Americans cannot blame anyone else except for their own gluttonous selves for the tragedy which is going to overwhelm the United States of America.

> As I sign off I think....may DM you must have one lousy life....everyday looking at your fellow man and hating him. Tomorrow, I emplore you to go out and make it a great day. Without love for your fellow man in your heart and respect for yourself, you will continue to be miserable. At least it sounds like you have the Lord and I just hope you find the meaning in Jesus teachings and not just the words.

See, this is where you make a big mistake. I love humankind. I love all of humankind. I love the entire Earth's population of 6.5 billion humans. That is why I am drawing your attention to the apocalypse which is coming and letting you know that Americans bear some responsibility for all those billions of people who will die.

If Americans were willing to make some substantial sacrifices these might serve to mitigate the suffering which is most certainly coming. American greed & gluttony is an evil force in the world which is already generating a horrendous amount of suffering among the impoverished today.

Dengle, the world that you inhabit is only a delusion, a fiction, a lie, and it will not endure. If you are a Christian you should know this already.

And if you are a Christian you are obligated to love all of humankind, not merely Americans nor merely the Christians, but all of humankind. You must love the Muslims, too, all of them, and without any distinction whatsoever between the Muslims and the Christians.

If you are a Christian you must know that God is not an American. Jesus did not die on the cross for the United States of America.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 11:11 PM
75. Re: David Matthews

David if you are going to turn these discussions into a semi-theological one from a supposed Christian point of view, you ought to at least study authentic historic Christanity and accurately represent it.

#1 The Bible does not teach in Genesis 1 & 2 that man is a primate - but a distinct creation made originally in the image of God

#2 "Nature" is a heathen diety. Which has nothing to do with divine providence and divine government of creation from a christian point of view.

#3 your quotation from Revelation 16 in in post #16 ignores that the text referenced is speaking of divine acts of judgment and not human induced enviornmental processes. These judgments do not come upon the world because of an economic system such as captalism orand obesity, but for spiritual moral wickedness, and godlessness.

Posted by: TomasM on January 18, 2007 11:29 PM
76. It's obvious there are too many people on this planet. As a Christian I have complete faith that my Lord God's Will will be done. I have complete faith that when He deems it appropriate for an apocalypse or an armageddon, he will install such leaders as necessary to bring that about and will use the Holy Spirit to guide them to that end.

I have no faith in so called 'religious leaders or ministers' who profess to know what is right for this world vis-a-vis global warming based on their reading or interpretation of the bible. If their instruction isn't coming from the Holy Spirit but instead is coming from their brain or heart then they need to step back and get back in touch with God.

Posted by: Doug on January 19, 2007 12:17 AM
77. Peggy 6: a one-man moveon.org energizer bunny.

funny--liberals hate monopolies--except when they grace (monopolize) a blog with their wisdom.

like the Mon. morning 20-min bagel meeting that turns into 2 hours of kvetching about everything from a to z.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 19, 2007 12:43 AM
78. Hello TomasM,

> #1 The Bible does not teach in Genesis 1 & 2 that man is a primate - but a distinct creation made originally in the image of God

Don't blame me for the Bible's flaws. Such errors were acceptable during the era of human ignorance but there is no longer any excuse for believers or anyone else to assert that humans are anything other than a primate.

> #2 "Nature" is a heathen diety. Which has nothing to do with divine providence and divine government of creation from a christian point of view.

Nature is a powerful god and it is a servant of the one true God. Christians should know that by messing with Nature they are struggling against God Himself. God did not create the Earth to serve as humankind's sewer.

> #3 your quotation from Revelation 16 in in post #16 ignores that the text referenced is speaking of divine acts of judgment and not human induced enviornmental processes. These judgments do not come upon the world because of an economic system such as captalism orand obesity, but for spiritual moral wickedness, and godlessness.

Capitalism is a spiritual moral wickedness and godlessness. Obesity and gluttony are sins against God Himself.

Americans blaspheme God every day in their lifestyle of greedy materialism and the technology-idolatry. God has plenty enough reasons to bring both plagues and judgments upon the United States of America.

And God will. You can know that for certain: God wil punish the United States of America. Americans will lose much of what they take for granted now, and then Americans will likely lose even the necessities of life.

All empires collapse, including the United States of America.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 05:16 AM
79. Hello Doug,

> I have no faith in so called 'religious leaders or ministers' who profess to know what is right for this world vis-a-vis global warming based on their reading or interpretation of the bible. If their instruction isn't coming from the Holy Spirit but instead is coming from their brain or heart then they need to step back and get back in touch with God.

Would you prefer that the religious leaders encourage you to shop?

Do you really believe that God loves the American Way of Life regardless of all the damage it is doing to His creation?

Do you suppose that God really did create the Earth to serve as humankind's sewer?

If humankind went extinct, do you imagine that God would care?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 05:19 AM
80. David Matthews, Yer a loon.

You're as ignorant and misled about theology and Bible doctrine as you are about the "global warming crisis".

You take scripture out of context to try to prove your point, then in the next breath you say the Bible contains "flaws".

Which is it? Can't have it both ways, Bubba. You're "ship of logic" is so full of holes, and the bilge pump has quit pumping.

Better abandon ship while you still can!!

;~)

Posted by: BRC on January 19, 2007 06:38 AM
81. Man, this guy is one very sick puppy!
David M.

I hate to say this, but why don't you go outside and remove yourself from this earth.
That is,if your really that worried about MOTHER EARTH.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 19, 2007 07:04 AM
82. Oh puleze, take DM off this site! He's soooo very boring.

Posted by: Clusiana on January 19, 2007 07:33 AM
83. Hello David,

I do not pretend to know what God thinks of today's world. I am also surprised that you as well as some Christian leaders do seem to claim to fully understand God's will in relation to global warming. I continue to live my life guided by the Spirit and I can truly say if God wanted me to be doing something else then I would be doing it.

As for religious leaders, I prefer that they do not cast away one iota of the Spirit for fear that they would then encourage the masses to do something 'Christian' based on their own will rather than God's.

Posted by: Doug on January 19, 2007 08:09 AM
84. One day David Mathews was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on his head
"Oh my goodness!" said David Mathews. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

On his way to the king's palace, David Mathews met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said David Mathews. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."
So Henny Penny joined David Mathews and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."
"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."
So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along as fast as they could.
Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.
"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.
"The sky is falling!" cried David Mathews. "We must tell the king."
"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."
But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!
Just as David Mathews and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.

It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.

After that day, David Mathews always carried an umbrella with himr when he walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, David Mathews didn't mind a bit. In fact, he didn't notice it at all.

The End

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 08:10 AM
85. DM, man or animal? Read his web site for an answer to the question.

The 6th grade daughter and I got into it last night on the global warming phenomena. She said it was a fact; I then popped off several instances to contradict her 'indoctrination'; she said she would check with her teacher. This could get good.

I didn't play the Greenland card, yet; so far it was polar bears and loss of some ice in Antartica. My response on those were lack of food caused by fish migration caused by current changes; the polar bears need to migrate to the food. I also mentioned it was a problem with whales (which the teacher didn't get to mentioning). And, I also mentioned Antartica was getting more ice in spots.

The wife helped me out, too, by humphhing and muttering, "Democrats" and shaking her head at the same time.

Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2007 08:11 AM
86. One day David Mathews was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on his head
"Oh my goodness!" said David Mathews. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

On his way to the king's palace, David Mathews met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said David Mathews. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."
So Henny Penny joined David Mathews and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."
"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."
So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along as fast as they could.
Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.
"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.
"The sky is falling!" cried David Mathews. "We must tell the king."
"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."
But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!
Just as David Mathews and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.

It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.

After that day, David Mathews always carried an umbrella with him when he walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, David Mathews didn't mind a bit. In fact, he didn't notice it at all.

The End

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 08:12 AM
87. A Very Political Climate (Weather Channel climate expert responds to blog fervor)
The Weather Channel


I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.

Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.

The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.

However, know that we here are focused on moving this discussion forward.

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 08:21 AM
88. Ah, quiet at last! I hope. Now I can read posts with more diverse opinions.

Posted by: Clusiana on January 19, 2007 08:52 AM
89. While I find DM highly amusing, the thought processes are very frightening because so many are buying in the tripe.

There is a large group of folks from the UN to our own government who would turn the earth in a large Gulag based on DM's type of thinking. Humans are so evil and destructive that the Enlightened Elite must determine the lives, and lifestyles of the unwashed ignorant masses (like us here at SP).

Poke around Discover the Network and see for yourself the links between the Nuclear Freeze movement of the '80 which was tied to the KGB, current Communists, Leftist and the Green movement.

The Global Warming scare is not about science, concern for the environment, concern for mankind or saving anything.

It is nothing less than a distraction to keep people from noticing that our fundamental rights have been abrogated in the name of an unproven, questionable theory.

David Matthews missed the biggest philosophical, cultural and governmental revolution in the last 300 years.

Individual Liberty.

Posted by: JCM on January 19, 2007 09:13 AM
90. It is kinda fun to watch as the self proclaimed "most sophisticated" among us fall for such obvious sucker plays as the union driven anti-Wallmart hysteria, global warming, macroevolution i.e. trans-species evolution etc. But it does loose it's entertainment value after a while. One of their favorite "slams" is that someone they disagree with is a "tool," perhaps a good look in the mirroer is in order.

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 09:31 AM
91. JCM,

Bingo. And those who seek to control their fellow man have been in a tailspin ever since. The creation and signing of the U.S. Constitution as an instance of governance by rule of law, with explicit purpose of insuring individual freedom is the single greatest moment in human history.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 19, 2007 09:34 AM
92. Because I want to protect myself from those Muslims that want to kill me I'm a bigot? Not all Muslims are trying to kill us, just those that have twisted the religion or as some say are true followers. I'm not a scholar on that, but I just know that there are many in the world that would want to take a sword to my sons' necks. I will not stand for that. Would you? Maybe since OBL would like the world to be 7th century again, you probably agree with him in some ways.

Would Jesus approve of me if I did as the islamic terrorists want and for me to forsake him for Allah?

I do pray for those that persecute me because of my religion, but I also will protect my family and religion from harm.

Posted by: Dengle on January 19, 2007 09:51 AM
93. Liberalism-

It's more than a mental disorder - it's a death cult.

(I'm not joking on this one, unfortunately..)

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on January 19, 2007 10:04 AM
94. "i voted for global warming before i voted against it."
"...and i didn't inhale."
(finger waving at camera) "I--did--not--have--CO2--emmissions--with--that--woman."

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 19, 2007 10:27 AM
95. Liberalism at one time was a political and philosphical movement that belived in indivisual liberty and limited government.

The left in America and elsewhere, whose ideals can be better decscribed as collectivist, and in many instances as fascist, have stolen the term and flipped it on its head in an Orwellian manner.

The debate before us here on the mechanism of planetary scale climatic changes is indicative of the "science" practiced in collectivist societies such as Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany where advancement and even employment were dependant on adherance to political rather than factual science.

We face many important challenges in this age. If science is controlled by the political elites (of whatever side), then we will be intentionally limiting our ability to adapt to the these challenges.

The most basic of all liberties is the freedom to think. I see the on-going efforts to marginalize and punish the skeptics in this debate to be an attack on freedom of the worst kind.

Posted by: deadwood on January 19, 2007 10:45 AM
96. DM reminds me of Jim Jones of Jonestown. Very cultish. Only difference is, Jones murdered believers in his cult (two of whom I held dear as poor, misguided friends) and DM would like to knock off anyone who doesn't agree with him. No big diff!

Posted by: katomar on January 19, 2007 10:48 AM
97. The Doombat DM has been a prolific pest, here is just a sample of the kind of stuff a quick internet search will turn up:

rockmetteller - November 7th, 2006There's a new poster that's getting annoying as all get out, calls himself dmathew1, some kind of weird gay passivist liberal dreamer. ...
rockmetteller.livejournal.com/2006/11/07/ - 19k - Supplemental Result -

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 12:18 PM
98. The best example yet of having it both ways. No matter what happens they claim that it proves their theory.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/normal-hurricane-season.htm

According to award-winning Harvard global warming researcher, Prof. Simon Ivorytower, global warming theory predicts increases in all kinds of weather. "Not only does global warming theory predict more storms, more droughts, more floods, it also predicts more normal weather as well. This is what makes global warming theory so powerful...it can explain anything", Prof. Ivorytower told ecoEnquirer.

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 01:27 PM
99. Go back to science class, morons. Do you know what scientific method is? Have you read any science journals? Do you read or understand anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions? I can't believe you people represent "conservatives" in this region. All you spout is liberal economics, radical theology, and perverted pseudo-science.

Posted by: Mark on January 19, 2007 02:11 PM
100. Hello BRC,

> You're as ignorant and misled about theology and Bible doctrine as you are about the "global warming crisis".

Theology and Bible doctrines are subjects so diffuse as to make impossible any distinction between "right" and "wrong". Christians have debates these subjects for two thousand years and they have consistently failed to reach any sort of conclusion.

> You take scripture out of context to try to prove your point, then in the next breath you say the Bible contains "flaws".

> Which is it? Can't have it both ways, Bubba. You're "ship of logic" is so full of holes, and the bilge pump has quit pumping.

I quote the Scriptures because they are relevant without making any claims of Biblical infallibility. The doctrine of Biblical infallibility was thoroughly refuted centuries ago.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:15 PM
101. Hello Swatter,

> I didn't play the Greenland card, yet; so far it was polar bears and loss of some ice in Antartica. My response on those were lack of food caused by fish migration caused by current changes; the polar bears need to migrate to the food. I also mentioned it was a problem with whales (which the teacher didn't get to mentioning). And, I also mentioned Antartica was getting more ice in spots.

Your ignorance of the polar bears is absolutely astonishing, Swatter. You should let your 6th grader teach you.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:19 PM
102. Hello JCM,

> The Global Warming scare is not about science, concern for the environment, concern for mankind or saving anything.

> It is nothing less than a distraction to keep people from noticing that our fundamental rights have been abrogated in the name of an unproven, questionable theory.

If you say so ...

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:23 PM
103. Hello Dengle,

> Because I want to protect myself from those Muslims that want to kill me I'm a bigot?

Yes. Your irrational fear of the Muslims is bigotry.

> Not all Muslims are trying to kill us, just those that have twisted the religion or as some say are true followers. I'm not a scholar on that, but I just know that there are many in the world that would want to take a sword to my sons' necks. I will not stand for that. Would you?

You are certainly not a scholar, Dengle, nor are you well informed about the Muslims. Needless to say, this abhorrent hatred and irrational fear are common among the conservatives.

> Maybe since OBL would like the world to be 7th century again, you probably agree with him in some ways.

You really don't know what you are talking about. That is about all that I gather from the ignorant statements above.

> Would Jesus approve of me if I did as the islamic terrorists want and for me to forsake him for Allah?

Jesus loves the Muslims and would still love you if you became a Muslim.

"All that they said was: 'Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and anything we may have done that transgressed our duty: Establish our feet firmly, and help us against those that resist faith.'
"And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent reward of the hereafter. For Allah loveth those who do good."
(Qur'an 3 Ali Imran: 147-148)

If you want to convert to Islam, I encourage you to do so.

> I do pray for those that persecute me because of my religion, but I also will protect my family and religion from harm.

That's not enough, Dengle. Will you protect the Muslims and Islam from harm? If you will not you are blaspheming Christ in your behavior towards your Muslim neighbors.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:33 PM
104. Hello Katomar,

> DM reminds me of Jim Jones of Jonestown. Very cultish. Only difference is, Jones murdered believers in his cult (two of whom I held dear as poor, misguided friends) and DM would like to knock off anyone who doesn't agree with him. No big diff!

That's a pretty amazing display of ignorance and irrational fear. Not that these traits are uncommon among conservatives ...

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:39 PM
105. I just have to ask, David, do you support the continued presence of the state of Israel in the middle east?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 02:43 PM
106. Hello JDH,

> rockmetteller - November 7th, 2006There's a new poster that's getting annoying as all get out, calls himself dmathew1, some kind of weird gay passivist liberal dreamer. ...
rockmetteller.livejournal.com/2006/11/07/ - 19k - Supplemental Result -

Thanks for pointing it out. It is wonderful when anonymous ignorant people say things about me.

Ted Haggard was a devout anti-homosexual conservative who happened to love both the sin and the sinner. Your leaders are homosexuals and that probably should inform the conservatives about the nature of their prejudice, bigotry and irrational fear.

Conservatives are afraid of a lot of things but they certainly do love pollution, obesity, gluttony, greed and addiction to oil. Needless to say, the sins of the conservatives are no less offensive to God than the sins of the homosexuals.

And what of the conservative homosexuals? God still loves them, too. God loves the Muslims, the conservatives, and the homosexuals.

Isn't it wonderful to know that God loves everyone?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:46 PM
107. Hello Bill,

> I just have to ask, David, do you support the continued presence of the state of Israel in the middle east?

I love the Jews and have always loved the Jews.

The citizens of Israel ought to love their Muslim neighbors, the Lebanese and the Palestinians. Israel needs to behave in a just manner and live peacefully with all of the Muslims.

If Israel wants to remain in the Middle East forever it must live at peace with all of its neighbors. I am in favor of peace in the Middle East and am opposed to all warfare, bloodshed, prejudice, bigotry and hatred.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 02:51 PM
108. Does it not follow then David that Israel's neighbors must live at peace with Israel?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 03:21 PM
109. Hey Doombat,

"If Israel wants to remain in the Middle East forever it must live at peace with all of its neighbors."

Name me one conflict, anywhere on the face of the earth, in which "Muslim neighbors" are not involved?

Islamic fundamentalism is defined by warfare, bloodshed, prejudice, bigotry and hatred.

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 03:33 PM
110. Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock
By James Lewis

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles --- because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word "hypothesis.")


OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's what it's for.


Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true.


If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.


Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.


So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.


The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?


Or should we just blow it at the dog races?


So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up, instead.)


That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.


Probably.

James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. He blogs at Dangerous Times.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html at January 19, 2007 - 06:51:46 PM EST

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 03:37 PM
111. Hello Bill,

> Does it not follow then David that Israel's neighbors must live at peace with Israel?

I am in favor of the Muslims living at peace with the Israelis. I do not approve of any violence regardless of who is killing whom.

I wish that the United States of America would stop killing Iraqis. America has spilled too much blood. America has transformed Iraq into a hellish place.

George W. Bush's crime against Iraq is considerable more evil than Osama's crime against America. George W. Bush was killed more civilians than all the Muslim terrorists combined.

Americans are responsible for all this bloodshed. Americans are responsible for all the civilians killed in the Iraq war.

I really do wish that American Christians would cease their violence. America's Christians rank among the world's most violent people. There is plenty of blood on all of our hands.

Christianity is not a peaceful religion. I wish it were different, but history testifies that Christianity is the most violent religion to ever exist on the Earth.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 03:40 PM
112. And here's another one for you Doombat, just in case you question my assertion that leftwing sh*tfingers like yourself are claiming that cow farts are going to be the death of us.

Where`s the Beef?
By Timothy Birdnow

In the mid 1980`s the Wendy's Hamburger chain ran an attention-grabbing advertising campaign in which an octogenarian (who sounded amazingly like Helen Thomas) bellyached about the stingy amount of meat on her sandwich; "where`s the beef?" became a nationally known slogan, and embodied the prosperity of our nation. We were red blooded Americans, by God, proud and vigorous, with hearty appetites for red blooded all American beef!


In many ways, this advertising campaign embodied part of what it means to be an American; beef lies at the heart of our cuisine, and was the staple of the cowboy, the cavalrymen, the settlers on the Great Plains. The Texas Longhorn wandering the dusty backcountry of the Lone Star State was the symbol of American grit, American independence and cussedness. The dairy farms with their quaint barns and quiet pastoral scenes in Wisconsin or Iowa were a part of Americana as were the great open ranches of Montana, or the boxcars transporting cattle across the width and breadth of these United States.


When that elderly woman wailed so plaintively about her missing meat, she was reaching into the heart and soul of Americans, tugging at something very fundamental in the American psyche; other nations might make do with fish, or rice, or vegetable stir-fry, but here in the U.S. of A. we eat the good stuff - U.S.D.A. prime (for those who can afford it). Our identity as Americans was being challenged by the skimpy portion of meat that that the old woman received. Even Walter Mondale, in his 49 state losing campaign for President, adopted the slogan. Perhaps the voters just wouldn't buy it as authentic coming from a very liberal Democrat.


This slogan did not sit well with many on the Left, either; there had been a movement for decades to do away with beef. Vegetarianism had been a part of some Asian religions for centuries (and liberals love to push alternatives to our Judea-Christian ethos), and meat avoidance had its place among left-leaning Protestant sects during the 19th Century.


Environmentalists hated beef because it used land which the tree-huggers wanted to return to pasture or forest; anti-capitalists hated beef because it was a symbol of the triumph of wealth over poverty. The poor throughout the world traditionally couldn't afford to eat it. Advocates for the poor hated it because it takes much anywhere from 4 to 10 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, presumably denying the poor their land for soybeans and wheatgrass. Animal rights nut-jobs hate it because, well, it's taken from animals. All of these disparate groups were gunning for that symbol of American bounty, and now they think they've found the means to permanently remove that patty from Granny Wendy's bun.

Back about the same time that Wendy's was running their `"where's the beef" ads, Leftist the world over were flocking to yet another doomsday theory, one which made the case that human industrial emissions were raising the temperature of the Earth. Since Carbon Dioxide is emitted by virtually all human activity-including breathing, the Left had a perfect tool to force their particular nightmare vision on the world. Global Warming predicts spectacular disaster resulting from Man's every action, which means that we need to have international regulations on all economic activity, on our diets, on our fertility, on our land usage and our general way of life.


Automobiles: restrict them! Factories: force "carbon trading" to restrict the developed countries (of course, exempt the socialists and developing countries like China). Don't allow poor farmers to clear fields in the Amazon Basin or the Congo. Restrict fishing while we're at it! Oh, and absolutely, positively, get rid of Beef!

There was absolutely no way anybody who has followed the Environmentalist Movement couldn't see this coming; a United Nation report now claims that cow flatulence is a major cause of Global Warming. That's right; every time you enjoy one of those juicy Hardee`s Thickburgers, you, you personally, are helping to destroy Mother Earth. Every steak you buy, every potroast you eat, is encouraging the despoilment of the air you breathe, the sinking of the seacoasts, the melting of the glaciers and the desertification of now fertile land. All this is caused by cattle and their poor etiquette.

As James Lileks points out:

In another display of pitch-perfect priorities, the U.N. has released its findings on cow flatulence. There`s quite a lot of it. The 400-page study, $27 million of which probably went to Saddam Hussein for old times? sake, discovered that the planet`s livestock, including 1.5 billion cattle, produce 18 percent of greenhouse gases. Apparently the beasts of the field do nothing but wander around all day asking their brethren to pull my hoof? Every time a cow feels a small sense of relief, a polar bear goes through the ice.
So, there you have it! American beef is killing Mother Gaia!

Back in the early `80`s liberals were all spouting off about our collective guilt at enjoying beef while people starved. Their argument was that, since it took many pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, we should eat just one pound of grain and give the rest to the poor. Of course, this completely disregards basic economics, and ignores the real problems of hunger in the world; left wing socialist policies. Most hunger worldwide results from artificial conditions such as civil wars, despotism, atrocious fiscal and economic policy, and strife-all of which ultimately derive from liberal theories implemented in the newly independent nations in the '60`s.


The drive toward de-colonization, the implementation of socialist or Keynesian economic theories, etc. produced much of the poverty we see worldwide today. Old wounds were opened between tribes, with nobody to stop the bloodshed once the Europeans were gone (at the insistence of the Left) and evil ideologies flourished, helping the local strongman justify and consolidate his power. State takeovers of businesses, of land, nationalizing the main industries destroyed economies throughout the Third World. Remember the great famine in Ethiopia? Socialist policies and distribution problems were at the heart of it. Ditto most of the famines of the 20th Century. Why is Zimbabwe such an economic basket case today, while the old Rhodesia prospered?

The liberal believes, in her purity of heart, that America and the West are eating up the future. Back in the `80`s I spoke to a liberal from Brazil, and commented on her home country's success at using sugar cane to produce fuel. She grew quite angry with me, demanding to know how we dare grow crops for fuel when people were starving. I pointed out that more food would be produced by mechanized farms, that the loss of farmland producing food would be more than compensated for by the extra acreage that could be cropped via tractor. I pointed out that much of the hunger in the world was a problem of distribution, that civil wars and tyrants would simply hijack any charitable donations for their armies (as they had done in Ethiopia during the great famine), and that spreading misery equally was hardly an optimal solution. She couldn't answer any of these points, yet continued to assert her fundamental tenant of faith that this was somehow immoral.

The Liberal believes that we, by breeding cattle, growing tobacco, and manufacturing goods, are causing Third World deprivation. These are the roots of poverty, hunger, and oppression (not the policies which they themselves advocated) and these terrible things must be removed in the interest of "fairness". We must all live a simpler, more natural, poorer life where misery is equally spread.

That is at the root of liberal Puritanism. This is why they tend to support measures which restrict alcohol and tobacco consumption, and why they are so heavily on board with the "health lobby." Knowing better than we how we should behave, they seek a transformation in our way of life to bring us to an agrarian Eden where we live forever.

The Left has thrown away the God of the Bible, and has been forced to find cheap substitutes. The ``People`` and ``Equality`` are some replacement gods. Gaia, the ancient goddess of the Earth, is the most recent usurper worshipped by the Left (the Gang Greens I like to call them.) As with any false religion, sacrifices and rituals are needed to placate the deity in question; in the Environmental religion those sacrifices and rituals consist of living poorly, treading lightly on the Earth, sacrificing our automobiles, our high-energy lifestyles, separating our trash for recycling, composting our excrement, and, yes, giving up beef.

It also explains the strange dichotomy in liberal thought; the inanimate Earth is to be protected, animals are to be protected, but the babies and the unborn can be harvested for their stem cells or killed for convenience. Chickens are tortured in supposed Nazi-style concentration camps, but it is a medical procedure to shove a scissors and tongs into a human baby's skull to kill it.

Of course, those cute little deer and other animals of which the liberals are so fond likewise contribute to global warming, but you will never hear a proposal to lengthen the hunting season from them.
In fact, there is a radical wing of Environmentalism called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which calls for:

"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."
To the more radical worshippers of Gaia, Man is a pestilence to be eradicated. We certainly have no right feasting on greasy cheeseburgers while poisoning Mother Earth.

Cow farting is now taxed in New Zealand. If we can regulate bovine flatulence, how long before human flatulence is regulated and taxed? How long before we are all fitted with a gas-o-meter to determine how much we are emitting for tax purposes? And if meat is off the table and the predictable consequences legume consumption taxed, starvation may be the only alternative. The extinctionists may yet get their way, voluntary or not.


I for one intend to continue breathing, and I will continue to enjoy the standard of the American diet. But if the Left has its way, we may all join with Granny Wendy in search of our beef.

Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html at January 19, 2007 - 06:59:10 PM EST

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 03:44 PM
113. Hello JDH,

> So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

Are conservatives the most scientifically-illiterate, devoutly ignorant and gullible people on the Earth? There is at least 36.6% chance that they are ignorant and uninformed.

What the fool who wrote this article is saying: I am ignorant! You are ignorant! Keep on Shopping! Keep polluting! What we don't know cannot kill us!

What the fool fails to realize is: You people are playing a dangerous game with the lives of 9,000,000,000 humans. If your bet fails these people will suffer and die because of your greed, gluttony and self-involved wastefulness.

There is no hope whatsoever for humankind because the species is governed by ignorant, selfish, fools who care only about their own self. These conservatives apparently don't even care if their own childrean and grandchildren die.

Too bad for the children of this generation. They will inherit the mess created by their ancestors and they will die. Too bad for them.

But keep on shopping! The President wants Americans to shop, shop, shop!

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 03:50 PM
114. "Americans are responsible for all this bloodshed. Americans are responsible for all the civilians killed in the Iraq war. "

And are Americans also responsible for the innocent Israelis that are killed by car bombs, suicide bombers, and Hamas rockets?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 03:57 PM
115. Guys, I think we need to show a little conservative compassion for poor DM. I think he may be lonely. It appears no one actually wants to have a face-to-face with him, so he is forced to spend his hours as a blog-bully with his repugnant diatribes, flitting from site to site until he is finally banned and has to move on. You need to get out among folks more, Dave.

Posted by: katomar on January 19, 2007 04:09 PM
116. Hello Bill,

> And are Americans also responsible for the innocent Israelis that are killed by car bombs, suicide bombers, and Hamas rockets?

America is responsible for the American bombs that fall upon civilians whether those bombs are dropped from American or Israeli jets. America is responsible for the bullets that kill civilians whether those bullets are shot by American or Israeli troops.

Hello Katomar,

> Guys, I think we need to show a little conservative compassion for poor DM. I think he may be lonely. It appears no one actually wants to have a face-to-face with him, so he is forced to spend his hours as a blog-bully with his repugnant diatribes, flitting from site to site until he is finally banned and has to move on. You need to get out among folks more, Dave.

I could really care less what some sort of anonymous nobody has to say about me. And, Katomar, you probably should get out a little more.

You conservatives are filled with hate and fear and that is the real tragedy. You kill for the sake of peace, and blaspheme God while claiming Christ.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 04:15 PM
117. So David, who is responsible for the killing of innocent Israelis by car bombs, suicide bombers, and Hamas rockets?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 04:31 PM
118. Hello Bill,

> So David, who is responsible for the killing of innocent Israelis by car bombs, suicide bombers, and Hamas rockets?

There are violent, murderous Muslims just as there are violent, murderous Israelis and violent, murderous Christians and violent, murderous Americans.

Violence is a universal trait of humankind. Homo sapiens are Nature's most violent animal.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 04:56 PM
119. Is anyone in Iraq not being killed by Americans, David?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 05:11 PM
120. Understand that Mars is experiencing global warming. Does this mean the cause of global warming on Mars is the industrial revolution?

Perhaps, just maybe, it may be the sun causing the global warming on Mars.

Do you think it may be the sun warming the Earth?

Perhaps? But that would mean that weather is a natural process? Why we can't have that. Think about the people that depend on "Global Warming" for their livelihood. The grants, the charity, the enviromentalist movement, the schools and tenure professors. Forget that Mars is warming. And that bright object in the sky is nothing more than another light and inconvenient heat source.

We need "Global Warming." For without it, reality returns. Hysteria is replaced by common sense.

On the other hand, resources and money will overcome the truth. The world as we know it is saved.

Posted by: Snuffy on January 19, 2007 05:12 PM
121. Hello Bill,

> Is anyone in Iraq not being killed by Americans, David?

Iraq is occupied by the United States of America. The anarchy, chaos and bloodshed which is currently happening there is ultimately the responsibility of George W. Bush.

As the saying goes, "The Buck Stops Here."

George W. Bush is responsible for all of the killing and all of the dead in Iraq. He invaded the country, he destroyed its infrastructure, and he has allowed the country to slip into a bloody anarchy.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 05:27 PM
122. The mating call of the doombat:

Gloom, despair, and agony on me
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all
Gloom, despair, and agony on me

We figured she was rich, loaded to the hilt
And we figured she had class like the Vanderbilts
'Cause we had heard for years how she was so well reared
How was we to know they meant the way she was built

Gloom, despair, and agony on me
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all
Gloom, despair, and agony on me

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 05:41 PM
123. And before Bush invaded Iraq was a middle eastern paradise. Right David?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 05:43 PM
124. "Are conservatives the most scientifically-illiterate, devoutly ignorant and gullible people on the Earth? There is at least 36.6% chance that they are ignorant and uninformed."

If that is how you interperate what the author is saying....you are stupider than I had given you credit for earlier. No what the author is saying is we don't know, period. So you want to take the world's economy down to that of the most backward third world shithole based on a theory? You are indeed a sicko!

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 05:47 PM
125. And another question, David. Who do you believe was responsible for the tragedy of 9/11/2001?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 06:10 PM
126. Hello JDH,

> No what the author is saying is we don't know, period.

I know that the author of that editorial doesn't know. He comes across as an ignorant, uninformed person. You really do need to become scientifically literate, JDH.


Hello Bill,

> And before Bush invaded Iraq was a middle eastern paradise. Right David?

The Middle East has had its problems but it was a paradise compared to Europe. 100 million Europeans died violently in warfare throughout the 20th century. The Muslims were never so violent.

> And another question, David. Who do you believe was responsible for the tragedy of 9/11/2001?

Osama Bin Laden and the Saudis were responsible.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 06:37 PM
127. David, do you approve of Muslim's treatment of women? Do you agree with their view of abortion?

Do you agree with their views on homosexuality?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 06:52 PM
128. Hello Bill,

> David, do you approve of Muslim's treatment of women? Do you agree with their view of abortion? Do you agree with their views on homosexuality?

I am under no obligation to agree or disagree with the Muslims. The Muslims do not need my approval.

Don't you know, the Christians are guilty of plenty of sins. More sins than the Muslims.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 19, 2007 07:05 PM
129. Gotcha!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2007 07:10 PM
130. This thread has run its course.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 19, 2007 07:13 PM