The American Spectator : The Real Climate Deniers

The Real Climate Deniers

By Peter C. Glover & Michael Economides on 4.3.09 @ 6:07AM

For at least a decade, intimately connected with energy use, have been claims on climate change. Richard Lindzen, arguably the world's most renowned climate scientist, describes our understanding of the science of climate as "primitive." Yet many in the media persist in treating alarmist "climate experts" as "all-knowing." But then the same media have a long history of taking up "end is nigh" scaremongering. It's good for ratings. We have had a litany of warnings that "billions could die" when AIDS, Avian flu, SARS, Ebola, mad cow disease, the millennium bug -- the list is endless -- hit the headlines. When they didn't of course, media alarmists shrugged, claimed they "simply report the facts" and moved on to warn about the next looming disaster.

Since man set foot on the earth, however, nothing has quite gripped the angst-ridden imagination like the weather gods visiting their fury at human behavior and life, so much connected with the use of fossil fuel energy. Media editors know this. Where once we banished such "end is nigh" eccentrics to the limits of society, today, they are fêted for spinning prediction as science and conducting publicly funded research to "save the planet." Their messages are aided by apocalyptic video game scenarios passing for media news reports.

Nowhere has this been thrown into more graphic relief than in two international climate conferences held in March this year. The "expert" conclusions of each could not have been more starkly divergent. But it is in the aims, nature and public pronouncements of each conference that we discern where the real science of climate understanding lays, and thus who are the real "climate deniers." All of which has profound implications for the future of energy, energy policy and energy investment.

The Alarmist Conference

The climate alarmist conference met in Copenhagen March 10-12 and was attended by over 2,000 activists, mostly non-scientists. It was billed as an "emergency summit" ahead of next December's UN global climate summit to be held in the same city. Such is the panic among climate/political activists that world governments will use the economic crisis as an excuse to avoid committing to binding national carbon targets come December, it was felt vital to up the political ante. If you thought that would mean scientists pointing to the latest accruing scientific evidence of impending disaster, however, you would be wrong. Far from presenting any new (or old) actual evidence, the conference majored on politicians doling out the media's headlines based on the latest apocalyptic computer-modeled predictions.

The conference duly warned of even higher sea levels and even higher global temperatures all presaging even greater catastrophes. Apparently warnings of temperature rises of 2 to 3 degrees C. clearly were not shocking us enough. Now they could be as high as 4 or 5 degrees C. The London Times reported the conference as claiming the "ice sheets are melting" and that increased global warming would lead to other "impacts," including more hurricanes, floods, and starvation.And just to show how previous prevarication by world leaders has already cost us, we learned that "two years ago it was widely thought that holding temperature increases to a maximum of 2C was achievable if governments made the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. It is now recognised that an 80 percent cut is needed."

To sum up, the alarmist conference in Copenhagen was not about science, it was about politics and prophecy. For the actual science, including the latest scientific evidence and trends, observers in Copenhagen would have had to travel to New York.

The Non-Alarmist Conference

Seven hundred climate "skeptics," many of them scientists, including Richard Lindzen of MIT, attended the Second International Conference on Climate Change, "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?" The conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, was held in New York on March 8-10. This was a wholly different kind of affair. It focused on the empirical science of climate, the latest scientific data and climate trends. As such, in dealing with the gritty reality of climate science, it duly got almost zero mass media coverage. Most journalists, it seems, do not like dealing with real science and allaying public scares is just bad for business.

In complete contrast to Copenhagen, the New York conference was addressed by a who's who of distinguished climate scientists. As well as hearing from Professor Lindzen, the conference was addressed by Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to name but a few. These eminent scientists are the very ones the media likes to smear as "crackpots" and "climate deniers." What the conference received was the fruit of real research and study that showed sea levels, far from experiencing dramatic rise, are seeing the same level of rise they have been seeing for over 200 years. Professor S. Fred Singer, highlighting the claim of one alarmist who warned a rise of even 18 cm over a century would be "catastrophic," pointed out that the gentleman concerned is "apparently unaware that 18cm a century is the ongoing rate of rise -- which implies no additional rise in sea levels. In other words, the human influence is zero."

Alarmist claims over the "melting of the Western Antarctic ice sheet" also got short shrift as it was revealed the long-term melting of the Western ice sheet has been known about for decades. Far more significant was the data that confirmed how the Antarctic is not melting at all except for one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. The lack of scientific evidence that global ice was in meltdown was tied in with the fact that key computer-modeled temperature predictions -- upon which the whole alarmist edifice stands -- assume a linear rise in temperatures as carbon emissions rise. But such computer predictions were shown to have proven consistently and hopelessly inept. Far from following the linear rise anticipated by the alarmists, the actual satellite-measured global temperature data reveals that global temperatures have flattened out in recent years and, more recently, dropped. On the plain scientific data, if the present trend continues, the world will in fact be 1.1 degree C. cooler by 2100. In short, the world's ice is not in meltdown. Similarly, claims that hurricane activity was rising was refuted by the scientific data showing hurricane activity, currently, is at a 30-year low.

Much more could be said, but reading the New York presentations (linked below) one can only be impressed by the standard of empirical scientific study and debate and, in Copenhagen, the distinct lack of it. The juxtaposition of these two conferences is thus iconic of the entire climate debate -- or rather the mass media's collusive and shameful closing down of it. Unfortunately, many political leaders have simply bought the media-dominating alarmist line.

Vaclav Klaus, keynote speaker at the New York conference and current president of the European Union, lamented that, "the minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers." Yet it's those same leaders who are about to consider diverting vast economic and energy resources at the current G20 and at December's "Kyoto II." Frightening, when you consider they will do so based on an agenda propagated by a highly anti-intellectual, exclusively prophetic, anti-science 'faith' movement -- the real climate deniers.

(Go here for a list of links to the audio, video, power point and pdf presentations from the ICCC's "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?" -- decide for yourself.)

Letter to the Editor

Nem| 4.3.09 @ 7:48AM

The proof of this thesis is simpley in observing that when the "climate change" crowd postulated that the Earth was cooling, it was a disaster. When the Earth started to warm, rather then cool, It too, was a disaster. Apparently the only possible good outcome is for everything to stay exactly the same. Wait a minute!? Wouldn't that be called conservatism? So why is it that the folks who accept the fact that things change and we need to adapt to them called ignorant conservatives? While those who believe that the only way to save the Earth and Human kind is if we can somehow manage to perpetuate the climactic staus quo are the intelligent progrssives? Sounds a little bassackwards to me. In times of old, those who said they could control the weather were seen for what they were, charlatans. Not much has changed except that perhaps we are more gullible.

Pingback| 4.3.09 @ 7:51AM

The Real Climate Deniers - The Global Warming Skeptics Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Thread Tools Display Modes # 1 Today, 12:51 PM AEGeneral Administrator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Saturn Posts: 1,239 Blog Entries: 1 The Real Climate Deniers The American Spectator : The Real Climate Deniers Quote: Since man set foot on the earth, however, nothing has quite gripped the angst-ridden imagination like the weather gods visiting their fury at human behavior and life, so much…

Big J| 4.3.09 @ 8:11AM

Liberals cannot be bothered with facts. Want proof? Just ask one about any issue, and you will receive a barrage of answers based on "I feel" instead of "I think" or "I believe".

Besides, climate change is a huge money-maker. Why didn't I think of that? Selling imaginary "carbon credits" is ingeneous! I have often wondered about the convenient timing of T. Boone Pickens' "plan". Nancy Pelosi and several other politicians are heavily invested in such "plans", and stand to benefit greatly in the pursuit of global warming legislation.

Honestly, it is pretty conceited to think that we could control anything as powerful as climate. We can no more control the weather or temperature than we could change the time of sunrise or sunset, re-direct a hurricane or tornado, make it rain or stop the rain. That is much better left to God. He has become very proficient at it. I would venture to say that he is pretty irritated that there are those among us who feel we could do a better job.

I am going to go out on a limb, here. I think (believe, feel, etc.) that the primary source of climate change is (drum roll please.....) THE SUN! Maybe I fall into the catagory of the climate deniers as well.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:18AM

Peter Glover and Michael Economides are both lying shills for the oil industry ...

You can tell easily enough by their publication, The Energy Tribune:

http://www.energytribune.com/

Carbon communism? Conservatives are carbon dioxide activitsts!

These two shills for the oil industry are lying and slandering science in a manner which can only be successful when addressed to an audience of scientifically illiterate talk radio listening Idiot-Conservatives.

The Heartland Institute isn't a scientific organization. The Heartland Instititute's climate conference contained numerous explicit references to fundamentalist Christianity and conservative extremist capitalist ideology.

Any climate conference ending with that buffoon Christopher Monckton declaring that he is a "Christian man from a Christian nation" and giving a Christian blessing isn't a science conference.

Conservatives have become politically irrelevant extremist losers for a reason/ If you people insist upon remaining scientifically illiterate fundamentalists you are going to remain irrelevant forever.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:23AM

Hello Nem,

* "Apparently the only possible good outcome is for everything to stay exactly the same. Wait a minute!? "

Are conservatives really so uneducated and stupid? Yes, of course. No one is demanding a stable climate. We just want humankind to stop treating the Earth like a sewer.

* "Wouldn't that be called conservatism?"

No, conservativism is pure plain uneducated stupidity combined with Christian fundamentalism and a desire to live with a 19th century mindset.

* "So why is it that the folks who accept the fact that things change and we need to adapt to them called ignorant conservatives? "

Because you are ignorant conservatives.

* "hile those who believe that the only way to save the Earth and Human kind is if we can somehow manage to perpetuate the climactic staus quo are the intelligent progrssives?"

Because the educated people of the world don't want to live in your sewer no matter how profitable dumping pollution might seem to you.

* "Sounds a little bassackwards to me. In times of old, those who said they could control the weather were seen for what they were, charlatans. Not much has changed except that perhaps we are more gullible. "

Evidently you are very gullible indeed! You should try reading a book and stop listening to those idiot blowhards on Talk Radio lie to all the time.

Mattled| 4.3.09 @ 8:23AM

Liberals are science deniers.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:27AM

Please don't respond to me. I am nothing but a name-calling 'ho with nothing substantive to add to anything including life itself.

I most likely will not reproduce because I can't get a date in the first place.

Please, please DON'T respond to me. The more you respond, the more I will just name-call and try my best to throw hissy fits.

I sincerely have nothing to add to ANY conversation. Seriously.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:29AM

Hello Big J,

* "Liberals cannot be bothered with facts. Want proof? Just ask one about any issue, and you will receive a barrage of answers based on "I feel" instead of "I think" or "I believe".

Conservatives really are uneducated scientifically illiterate idiots, aren't they? The science behind global warming constitutes many thousands of pages of evidence gathered over the last 150 years.

* "Besides, climate change is a huge money-maker. "

Unlike, say, the oil industry ... ?

* "Why didn't I think of that? Selling imaginary "carbon credits" is ingeneous! I have often wondered about the convenient timing of T. Boone Pickens' "plan". Nancy Pelosi and several other politicians are heavily invested in such "plans", and stand to benefit greatly in the pursuit of global warming legislation. "

Blah blah blah ... conservatives are so ignorant and uneducated it is quite literally astonishing to hear them blather.

* "Honestly, it is pretty conceited to think that we could control anything as powerful as climate. We can no more control the weather or temperature than we could change the time of sunrise or sunset, re-direct a hurricane or tornado, make it rain or stop the rain. That is much better left to God. He has become very proficient at it. I would venture to say that he is pretty irritated that there are those among us who feel we could do a better job. "

God is very happy, then, when humans treat the Earth like a big sewer for our own toix pollution? Conservatives blaspheme God all of the time with their thoughts, words and actions. If God existed certainly she would become greatly offended indeed by these fundamentalists claiming to honor her while behaving in such a foolish, destructive and reckless manner.

* "I am going to go out on a limb, here. I think (believe, feel, etc.) that the primary source of climate change is (drum roll please.....) THE SUN! Maybe I fall into the catagory of the climate deniers as well. "

Eh ... is there any such thing as an educated, scientifically knowledgeable conservative? I suspect that they have all left the Republican party and this might explain why the conservatives have become so very dumb and irrational and desperate in their denialism.

Conservativism is politics for the uneduated.

Indiana Alex| 4.3.09 @ 8:31AM

David,

I pray for you and your movement to gain some knowledge at some point in the future.

God Bless!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:32AM

Hello Anonymous Nobody,

* "Please don't respond to me. I am nothing but a name-calling 'ho with nothing substantive to add to anything including life itself. "

Watch the conservatives cry ... driven insane by their own loss of status, extremism, fundamentalism and political irrelevance.

Poor little anonmymous nobody conservative ... Rush Limbaugh got your tongue?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:34AM

Hello Indiana,

* "I pray for you and your movement to gain some knowledge at some point in the future. "

You should pray for your own self because the Republican party is led by extremist know-nothing idiots and blowhards such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Steele and Sarah Palin.

Perhaps Bobby Jindal can exorcise the demon of ignorance from the Republican party ... but then again, Bobby Jindal's god couldn't exist without a gullible, ignorant, easily manipulated uneducated public.

PNMNM| 4.3.09 @ 8:36AM

Anything comments besides vitriol, DM? Just read your own bitter comments. Hatred for Christianity. Hatred for facts. Hatred for conservatives. Sounds like you've got a lot guilt going there, buddy. I would recommend a good long confession to get rid of some of that stoppered up guilt. Perhaps, you will have a little room in your wounded mind to let a little light in.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:36AM

I know I look foolish anyways, but I'm so cwazy, I'm responding to myself now.

See how easy it is? I love myself ssssoooo much, I can just as easily hate myself---doesn't make sense?

It's OK---neither does anything I post.

ACYNIC| 4.3.09 @ 8:38AM

To David Mathews;

GREAT JOB !!!!!
I respect your views because your critique provided ample scientific data and facts to support your argument and to refute what the article stated.
You did not slander or otherwise personally attack the authors of the article or question their intent.
It is very important that all debate on the issue of AGW be based on facts, data and real science.
You should be very proud that you are one of the very few that can actually provide real data and facts to refute the AGW deniers.
GREAT JOB DAVID MATHEWS !!!!
By the way, perhaps you can use your perceptive powers of analysis and analytical skill to help counter the utter falsehood and lies promulgated by those who claim there was a HOLOCAUST.
What a lie that is, don't you think ??
I think the leadership of the American Nazi Party , and the Klu Klux Klan can really use your exceptional talents to find and present real hard core evidence and facts to refute THAT malicious falsehood.
I am sure the leadership of the American Nazi Party and the Klan is breathlessly waiting for a man (you are a man I presume) with your talents to help them out.

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!!!

By the way, I am curious, who do you most respect; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Himmler, Mussoline, or Kim Jong ???

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:39AM

Hello PNMNM,
"Anything comments besides vitriol, DM? Just read your own bitter comments. Hatred for Christianity. Hatred for facts. Hatred for conservatives. Sounds like you've got a lot guilt going there, buddy. I would recommend a good long confession to get rid of some of that stoppered up guilt. Perhaps, you will have a little room in your wounded mind to let a little light in".

You're absolutely correct.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:44AM

Hello ACYNIC,

No I am not a man----I am a quite un-attractive woman with no talents.

I know I am, but what am I?

I'm so conflicted. It makes sense for me to be a member of the KKK btw---the only serving KKK senate member is a liberal.

Indiana Alex| 4.3.09 @ 8:45AM

I knew that would get him.

Heh.

PNMNM| 4.3.09 @ 8:47AM

Have a good day.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:50AM

Hello PNMNM,

Is it time for OPRAH yet? Arrrggghh!!

Why does it have to be on so late in the day?

Where are my Bon-Bons? Why can't they be in different flavors?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 8:58AM

Hello Idiot-Conservatives & Lunatic-Conservatives,

Seems like you conservatives have thoroughly lost this argument. All you have left are the ravings of uneducated nobodies spouting forth all sorts of nonsense on your behalf.

ACYNIC blathers ...

* "I respect your views because your critique provided ample scientific data and facts to support your argument and to refute what the article stated.
You did not slander or otherwise personally attack the authors of the article or question their intent.
It is very important that all debate on the issue of AGW be based on facts, data and real science."

When do conservatives ever talk science? Conservatives need at least a rudimentary knowledge of science if they want to talk science.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:00AM

* "Anything comments besides vitriol, DM? Just read your own bitter comments. Hatred for Christianity. Hatred for facts. Hatred for conservatives. "

Conservatives are the primary political proponents of hatred, racism, bigotry and xenophobia in this country ... so perhaps you people should look in the mirror and observe your own small little minds and tortured little souls suffering from your own little delusional ideas about what constitutes facts, reality and morality.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:02AM

An Anonymous Idiot-Conservative Nobody said ...

* "No I am not a man----I am a quite un-attractive woman with no talents. "

Ann Coulter is posting messages on this blog under my name! That nasty transvestite Ann Coulter ....

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:13AM

Hello Conservatives,

Sorry, had to go to other conservative websites and post. Hate is a one-way street and I own it.

Notice I have never refuted the fact that I am an unattractive woman. Makes sense, dontchathink?

Anyhoo, I post the same thing over and over and over and over----whew---sorry. I am so over this match.com thingy.

Where was I?

JJ JR| 4.3.09 @ 9:15AM

Y'all,

Might I remind the conservative bloggers at TAS to not respond to David Mathews--he's seminar-trained liberal troll targeting this site. He (and some say she--maybe Janeane Garafalo) is all about sowing confusion and disrupting the usual constructive and information-rich debate here--ignore he/she.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:15AM

Hello Uneducated Semi-Literate Idiot Conservatives & Ann Coulter,

Look at your president:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7981181.stm

Se how the world loves him!

You conservatives are driven insane by your bitterness and irrelevance. Since you people insist upon living in the 19th century it is only proper that the Republican party goes the way of the whigs.

The educated Republicans were the RINOs and they have left the party for good. All that is left for the Republican party now is the Deep South, Dittohead Drones, Christian fundamentalists, unreformed racists, and (of course) that unattractive "woman" Ann Coulter.

Of course it is impossible to engage in a scientific discussion with such people. Of course these are the sort of people who would prefer to live in a sewer of their own pollution rather than behave in a responsible manner.

Now you people are sad and bitter and you spend all of your time whining and crying. The Republican party's anti-education anti-intelligence anti-science agenda has led to this pathetic state of political irrelevance.

It is a fate worse than death, isn't it ... to see the world pass you by and leave you in the dustbin of history.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:16AM

Oh, now I remember where I was.

Is it me or is Rachel Ray's butt bigger than mine?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:18AM

Hello JJ,

* "Might I remind the conservative bloggers at TAS to not respond to David Mathews--he's seminar-trained liberal troll targeting this site. He (and some say she--maybe Janeane Garafalo) is all about sowing confusion and disrupting the usual constructive and information-rich debate here--ignore he/she. "

Construtive and infromation-rich debate is not possible among the uneducated dittohead drone crowd. These bitter, angry, increasingly irrelevant conservatives cling desperately to their talk radio, fox news, guns and fundamentalist religions for a reason.

Ann Coulter the ugly transvestive conservative hatemonger is even here posting messages under my name. Poor Mann Coulter ... why won't anyone buy your books anymore?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:19AM

See what happens when I respond to me? I yell and scream and project like no honky can!

Sure, I know the emporer has no clothes, but who cares? I loves me some Obamalongalinglong!!

One-trick pony---look it up and you see a picture of me!!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 9:21AM

JJ JR,

Yeah, I know---I can't help but respond to myself. It's an affliction I got from being dumped by my father, then my mother and being raised by my Kenyan half-brother----oh wait---I'm confusing myself with Oprah.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 9:37AM

I wonder if bleeding heart liberal girly-men have ever heard the expression: "You can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar." For those of you in Rio Linda, that would be a metaphor. Translation : "You can attract more Conservatives with reason than with callow drive-by assaults."

Probably not. Not alot of time to learn such things while spending the last 8 years cowering under their beds, sucking their thumbs and wetting their pants, waiting for President Bush and Vice President Chenney to kick down their doors and take them away.

PNMNM| 4.3.09 @ 9:47AM

The sorry thing about the global warming non-debate is that the proponents of it originally required the alarm feature in order to acquire funding to study the problem in the first place. Climate is a legitimate topic for study, but it was not a big target on the budget radar. Because it requires a lot of money for the supercomputers needed to run the GCMs (that's general circulation models, DM, not global climate models), exaggeration was the order of the day in the late 70's and 80's when climate science was just gearing up. Mother nature cooperated in the ensuing years, up through 1998, providing the warming that the AGW movement's prophets said was coming. That brought a lot of people into the fold. Nevermind, that we have had bouts of warming like that in the 30's and 50's and the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age.

During the last 30 years, the climate modelers made a lot of progress in simulating the climate with GCMs. But not enough. Because the atmospheric system is so complex, many of the processes in the GCMs are approximated with parameterizations that may or may not be realistic. Many of those parameterizations have coefficients that can be adjusted, and are adjusted, to bring one or more parameters, such as Earth albedo or surface temperature, into agreement with observations. But there are many more that cannot be touched because doing so would cause the original parameter to go out of whack and disagree with the original result. It is a dirty little secret, one that you will not hear discussed, but many of those other parameters are not in agreement with the available observations, cloudiness, for one. Jim Hansen's model is one of the worst in this regard. One of the features of all GCMs is that they either assume that the relative humidity remains constant on average throughout the atmosphere or they are tuned to do so. That requires the addition of more moisture to the atmosphere when it warms. More water vapor causes more greenhouse warming and the relatively small impact of doubling CO2 is enhanced by a factor of 3 or 4. This is source of the dire predictions of global meltdown. It is also the effect that the IPCC says is most confidently known.

This assumption has never been challenged, or if so, the challenges have never been taken seriously. However, the data show the opposite has been happening as the Earth warmed up to 1998. The atmosphere dried out in the upper levels letting more radiation out. It did not enhance the warming at all. This key assumption in the GCMs, which is essential for the catastrophic warming, appears to be a bogus assumption. It makes sense, of course, since, if there were nothing to counter water vapor feedback, then it would just spiral into a Venusian situation. Prof. Lindzen is accurate when he says climate science is primitive. There is much we do not know or understand about the atmosphere. But many think they know all they need to know already.

Sorry, DM, most, if not all, of those closed-minded climate bigots are liberals and, like you, do not tolerate other views or facts that counter their opinions. I notice that all you have said about the topic is vitriol or pointed toward pollution. None of us wants to sully our nest, but we do not want to burn it up either. Find a good priest.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 10:03AM

I wonder if any of the bleeding heart liberal girly-men out there would care to tell me at what temperature does water boil?

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 10:11AM

Well guys. Here it is April 3rd and guess what. It's snowing in Seattle.

We would love some warming up here. This makes our 4th years in a row that we have had late winter and lower temps.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 10:13AM

Did anyone read about the sun spots have set an all time low for 2008 and 2009 is on track for even lower numbers.

Pingback| 4.3.09 @ 10:30AM

Topics about Climate » Archive » The Real Climate Deniers links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Topics about Climate » Archive » The Real Climate Deniers Topics about Climate The Real Climate Deniers Posted in Climate Topics on April 3rd, 2009 The American Spectator created an interesting post today on The Real Climate Deniers Here’s a short outline For at least a decade, intimately connected with energy use, have been claims on climate change. Richard…

Peter C Glover| 4.3.09 @ 10:39AM

I have just one point to make and its to Dave Matthews. Michael Economides owns Energy Tribune, an independent magazine. I am a British associate editor. Michael is a university professor of chemical engineering at Houston and runs a number of consultancies that work all over the world in mining, gas et al. Neither of us receives a penny from the oil industry. We write because we know the facts and watch in horror at how the MSM refuses to publish them. However, such facts will never prevent the long-time brain dead from trotting out the old chesnut whenever they run out of reasoned arguments, I find.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.3.09 @ 10:40AM

Facts have never gotten in the way of a good scam.

Marc Jeric| 4.3.09 @ 10:43AM

I have one serious proposal for the readers of the American Spectator - let us all ignore the sick missives and name-calling by this utter ignoramus and goon of the fascist far-left, namely David Mathews. Let him wither on the vine - he is only another Politbureau goon fed manure by our tenured radicals and scientific genius of that inventor of Internet and re-inventor of government Al Gore who takes his tax-free carbon footprint money and invests it in his own company, also tax-free.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 10:50AM

Just as I thought.

Bleeding heart liberal girly-men don't know the temperature of boiling water, but they know eveything about one of the most complex systems on Earth because algore tells them what to think.

Way to go climate science deniers!

Big Leo| 4.3.09 @ 10:55AM

My father worked for the oil industry for years. The best scientists were chosen for private industry, including oil. The government and schools got what was left.

The blind are so motivated by personal bile that they can't conceive of how the best scientists (and the best people), in private or public service are motivated by a desire for truth. When you name incredibly talented and scientists who are of another opinion, to the liberal they are all dishonest, senile, or incompetent. The only bright people are on his side. This type of thinking, whether it is on the left or the right, is a symptom of a very immature mind. It is the child who sees only black and white, not the adult.

mike| 4.3.09 @ 10:56AM

David, did you read the article, some of these scientists that are listed do not seem like crackpots. They seem to be reputable scientists. We all want cleaner air and water but please stop trying to tell us that Albert Gore and Hansen from Nasa can set the thermostat on the earth. Take a look at the other side of things.

Steve| 4.3.09 @ 11:13AM

I use to like the Dave Mathews Band.

Thomas| 4.3.09 @ 11:14AM

David Mathews said:
" Please don't respond to me. I am nothing but a name-calling 'ho with nothing substantive to add to anything including life itself.

I sincerely have nothing to add to ANY conversation. Seriously. "

How refreshing. Truth at last. And he did not miss a single opportunity to interject his "Oh, Yeah?" responses at every turn.

Priceless.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 11:18AM

Peter C Glover|
________

I went to your website. Good info.
Thanks

Anthony| 4.3.09 @ 11:35AM

This is not about science nor is it about rationale debate. This is about control. The AGW proponents know this; they don't buy into this crap any more than we do, but that's not the point. AGW is a useful tool in order to acheive one world governance. Just watch the G 20 summit and observe the conception of the new world order, as Obama willingly subjugates American sovereignty to new one world body. Hugo Chavez's prayer that capitalism die might well become fact, sooner than later. The final push is on folks, time to man battle stations. P.S. let's follow the advice of Marc Jeric, please!! D.M. is a vulgar, vile & truly sick person who needs to be ignored.

Ron| 4.3.09 @ 11:40AM

Rush says a liberal will usually resort to name calling, etc. after the first sentence due to lack of substance or knowledge. DM can't even make it through the first sentence! Has DM proven Rush wrong on something?

Iaidoka| 4.3.09 @ 11:50AM

Dustoff, the same Dustoff at Skill-Club?

I am a semiconductor process engineer. Not surprisingly, I work with other engineers. And guess what happens sometimes. We don't all agree. But you know what happens when we don't? One of us will prove the other wrong through hypothosis, experimentation, observation, and deduction. The one proved wrong will usually say, "Damn, you're right!" Isn't it amazing how science actually works when practiced by rational people?

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 11:55AM

Iaidoka
Dustoff, the same Dustoff at Skill-Club?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No. The term "dustoff' is for Medical evac by helo.
I'm a Flight Nurse.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 11:56AM

Hello Iaidoka,

* " I am a semiconductor process engineer. Not surprisingly, I work with other engineers. And guess what happens sometimes. We don't all agree. But you know what happens when we don't? One of us will prove the other wrong through hypothosis, experimentation, observation, and deduction. The one proved wrong will usually say, "Damn, you're right!" Isn't it amazing how science actually works when practiced by rational people? "

How could a semiconducter process engineer really be so very stupid? Climatology is a science because the scientists actually do behave in this manner. Conservativism is a fundamentalist religion specifically because it does not behave in this manner.

Reality based conservativism is as much a myth as scientific creationism.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 11:57AM

Iaidoka
rational people
____________________

It's getting hard to find them these days.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 11:58AM

Hello Ron,

* "Rush says a liberal will usually resort to name calling, etc. after the first sentence due to lack of substance or knowledge. DM can't even make it through the first sentence! Has DM proven Rush wrong on something? "

Oh my, a mindless dittohead drone!

It is as absurd for Rush Limbaugh to comment on name calling as it is for him to condemn drug addiction and homosexuality. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect conservative: An anti-intellectual hypocrite who couldn't graduate from college.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 11:59AM

People, "don't feed the fool"

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:00PM

Hello Anthony,

* "This is not about science nor is it about rationale debate. This is about control. The AGW proponents know this; they don't buy into this crap any more than we do, but that's not the point. AGW is a useful tool in order to acheive one world governance. Just watch the G 20 summit and observe the conception of the new world order, as Obama willingly subjugates American sovereignty to new one world body. Hugo Chavez's prayer that capitalism die might well become fact, sooner than later. The final push is on folks, time to man battle stations. P.S. let's follow the advice of Marc Jeric, please!! D.M. is a vulgar, vile & truly sick person who needs to be ignored. "

Step back from the talk radio, Anthony, otherwise you might come across as a lunatic conspiracy theorist ... oh, I guess it is too late for that!

Conservativism divorced from science and sanity a long time ago.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:01PM

People.... "don't feed the fool"

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:02PM

Hello Mike,

* "David, did you read the article, some of these scientists that are listed do not seem like crackpots. They seem to be reputable scientists. We all want cleaner air and water but please stop trying to tell us that Albert Gore and Hansen from Nasa can set the thermostat on the earth. Take a look at the other side of things. "

The Heartland Institute conference sounded more like a Christian & Capitalist fundamentalist revival than a science conference. Those crackpots and kooks and buffoons at the conference made the place sound like some sort of circus or Sarah Palin rally.

Poor Ronald Reagan spins in his grave!

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:03PM

People... "don't feed the fool"

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:05PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "My father worked for the oil industry for years. The best scientists were chosen for private industry, including oil. The government and schools got what was left. "

Oh my, the oil industry got the best scientists just as the tabacco industry got the best medical doctors. The liars and the shills aren't winning many battles anymore since the idiot-in-chief left the White House and returned to afflict his Dallas neighbors with his bad karma.

* "The blind are so motivated by personal bile that they can't conceive of how the best scientists (and the best people), in private or public service are motivated by a desire for truth. When you name incredibly talented and scientists who are of another opinion, to the liberal they are all dishonest, senile, or incompetent. The only bright people are on his side. This type of thinking, whether it is on the left or the right, is a symptom of a very immature mind. It is the child who sees only black and white, not the adult. "

Blah blah blah ... the oil industry scientists are known liars. The oil industry pays them to lie on their behalf. Only the gullible and easily manipulated scientifically illiterate uneducated conservatives are stupid enough to believe their lies.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:06PM

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:07PM

Hello Nick,

* "Bleeding heart liberal girly-men don't know the temperature of boiling water, but they know eveything about one of the most complex systems on Earth because algore tells them what to think. "

Even worse, the Lunatic-Conservatives don't know that they lost even though they have spent the last six months crying, moaning and whining.

Too bad for you ... you people just don't matter anymore.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:09PM

Hello Marc Jeric,

* "I have one serious proposal for the readers of the American Spectator - let us all ignore the sick missives and name-calling by this utter ignoramus and goon of the fascist far-left, namely David Mathews. Let him wither on the vine - he is only another Politbureau goon fed manure by our tenured radicals and scientific genius of that inventor of Internet and re-inventor of government Al Gore who takes his tax-free carbon footprint money and invests it in his own company, also tax-free. "

Bitter much ... ? I observe all the conservatives crying and must insist that they keep on crying. The conservatives are poor losers indeed ... you people are driven completely insane by your political irrelevance.

The Republican party sticks with you only because that is all the Republican party has left. The Republican party is out of touch and out of time.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:09PM

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:13PM

Hello Peter Glover,

* "I have just one point to make and its to Dave Matthews. Michael Economides owns Energy Tribune, an independent magazine. I am a British associate editor. Michael is a university professor of chemical engineering at Houston and runs a number of consultancies that work all over the world in mining, gas et al. Neither of us receives a penny from the oil industry."

Thanks for conceding the point, Peter Glover. You and Michael are lying shills for the oil , coal and every other polluting industries.

You slander both science and scientists as you address your lies to an uneducated, scientifically illiterate talk radio listening audience of easily manipulated idiots.

Unfortunately for you, these idiots represent a dwindling extremist minority.

* "We write because we know the facts and watch in horror at how the MSM refuses to publish them. However, such facts will never prevent the long-time brain dead from trotting out the old chesnut whenever they run out of reasoned arguments, I find. "

You are a liar and the author of slanderous accusations against science and scientists. The creationists engage in similar tactics in their own desperate, futile struggle against science.

The oil industry has treated the Earth like a sewer long enough. Some day you vile liars are going to be regarded with the same sort of disdain as the lying shills who served the tabacco industry.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:15PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "We would love some warming up here. This makes our 4th years in a row that we have had late winter and lower temps. "

Conservatives who confuse weather with climate are as scientifically illiterate as the creationists who claim, "I don't see evolution happening!"

Conservatives need to start reading books so that they might stop sounding like uneducated idiots.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:15PM

People... "don't feed the fool"
(-:

This is fun

Ron| 4.3.09 @ 12:20PM

Al Gore failed in divinity school. Do you hear me DM? Al flunked God! He also dropped out of law school. I guess he's just better at selling snake oil.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:23PM

* "The sorry thing about the global warming non-debate is that the proponents of it originally required the alarm feature in order to acquire funding to study the problem in the first place. & etc. "

This is a lie. The government has funded climatological research for over a century specifically because weather poses a mortal threat to the health and well-being of Americans on land, the sea and in the air.

* "Climate is a legitimate topic for study, but it was not a big target on the budget radar. Because it requires a lot of money for the supercomputers needed to run the GCMs (that's general circulation models, DM, not global climate models), exaggeration was the order of the day in the late 70's and 80's when climate science was just gearing up. Mother nature cooperated in the ensuing years, up through 1998, providing the warming that the AGW movement's prophets said was coming. That brought a lot of people into the fold. Nevermind, that we have had bouts of warming like that in the 30's and 50's and the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. "

These is a bunch of slanderous lies commonly told to the uneducated scientific illiterates because they are too ignorant and lazy to actually open a book and learn actual science.

* "During the last 30 years, the climate modelers made a lot of progress in simulating the climate with GCMs. But not enough. Because the atmospheric system is so complex, many of the processes in the GCMs are approximated with parameterizations that may or may not be realistic. Many of those parameterizations have coefficients that can be adjusted, and are adjusted, to bring one or more parameters, such as Earth albedo or surface temperature, into agreement with observations. But there are many more that cannot be touched because doing so would cause the original parameter to go out of whack and disagree with the original result. It is a dirty little secret, one that you will not hear discussed, but many of those other parameters are not in agreement with the available observations, cloudiness, for one. Jim Hansen's model is one of the worst in this regard. One of the features of all GCMs is that they either assume that the relative humidity remains constant on average throughout the atmosphere or they are tuned to do so. That requires the addition of more moisture to the atmosphere when it warms. More water vapor causes more greenhouse warming and the relatively small impact of doubling CO2 is enhanced by a factor of 3 or 4. This is source of the dire predictions of global meltdown. It is also the effect that the IPCC says is most confidently known. "

Here is another big load of BS which sounds so very much likes the commonly accepted lies about science among the creationists. It is easy enough to lie to the uneducated but, unfortunately for you, the uneducated form only a extremist minority in American society.

* "This assumption has never been challenged, or if so, the challenges have never been taken seriously. However, the data show the opposite has been happening as the Earth warmed up to 1998. The atmosphere dried out in the upper levels letting more radiation out. It did not enhance the warming at all. This key assumption in the GCMs, which is essential for the catastrophic warming, appears to be a bogus assumption. It makes sense, of course, since, if there were nothing to counter water vapor feedback, then it would just spiral into a Venusian situation. Prof. Lindzen is accurate when he says climate science is primitive. There is much we do not know or understand about the atmosphere. But many think they know all they need to know already. "

Another huge stinking pile of anti-science BS which might only appeal to the low education voters who populated the Talk Radio - Fox News crowd.

* "Sorry, DM, most, if not all, of those closed-minded climate bigots are liberals and, like you, do not tolerate other views or facts that counter their opinions. I notice that all you have said about the topic is vitriol or pointed toward pollution. None of us wants to sully our nest, but we do not want to burn it up either. Find a good priest. "

The pro-pollution advocates claim that they would rather not live in their own toxic sewer. Sorry, PMNMN, your actions and words contradict your own claims.

The conservatives have become pollution advocates and carbon dioxide advocates. I wonder why the Republican party has fallen from grace so completely?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:25PM

* "Al Gore failed in divinity school. Do you hear me DM? Al flunked God! He also dropped out of law school. I guess he's just better at selling snake oil. "

God, conservatives are so extraordinary in their stupidity.

Climatology is a science. Al Gore is just a human.

Now you conservatives can go back to worshipping the B-movie actor, the moose-killer, the formerly-Hindu Catholic exorcist, and the oxycontin addict who seems too well informed about homosexual practices ...

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:25PM

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 12:25PM

You would think a bleeding heart liberal could answer a 5th grade science question.
But then again, it is always the liberals who go out on the first or second question on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?".

Science is truth. And the truth always repels stinking liberals. Just like Christianity is Truth, and lefties flee and cower at any mention of Christian thought or His image being displayed.

Liberals are modern day vampires. They can't stand the sight of a Crucifix and they suck the blood of society.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:32PM

Guys.
Everytime you respond to DM, the stranger he gets. He feeds off of it.

Time to starve the beast..

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:34PM

* "You would think a bleeding heart liberal could answer a 5th grade science question. "

Only a scientifically illiterate conservative dittohead drone would ask a 5th grade science question. So maybe you should spend more time reading books so that you might in the future ask intelligent questions.

* "Science is truth. And the truth always repels stinking liberals. Just like Christianity is Truth, and lefties flee and cower at any mention of Christian thought or His image being displayed. "

Yeah ... Christianity is true, there is a Santa Claus, the Earth is flat and less than 10,000 years old, and Adam had a pet dinosaur.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:34PM

PNMNM| 4.3.09 @ 12:35PM

Nice one, Nick!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:37PM

* "Everytime you respond to DM, the stranger he gets. He feeds off of it. "

What could be more strange than one conservative affirming his fundamentalists beliefs and another conservative claiming to refute global warming because of his local weather?

Peter Glover and Micheal Economides can afford to be liars and slanderers because they know that they are addressing an uneducated, ignorant, scientifically illiterate, incurious, fundamentalist audience.

The Republican party has died for a reason. Shilling for the oil industry isn't a successful political strategy in the 21st century.

Big Leo| 4.3.09 @ 12:41PM

The nature of science is that there is no one, totally encompassing final truth. I keep up in the one scientific field I am educated in, astronomy, and the changes in the last forty years are astounding. The changes in biological and climatological areas is even greater.

I don't mind when people treat AGW like a scientific problem and develop theories about it. The continued study of climate is giving us increased insights into the complex functioning of weather systems every day. However, when one set of theories that aren't that convincing to a lot of legitimate climatologists and other scientists is treated in a manner usually reserved for revealed religion, I smell a rat. The type of shrill, dogmatic argument we see for AGW simply isn't in the best scientific tradition.

We know the earth has been warming for about 15,000 years, with many dips and rises just over the last millenium, let alone the last million years. Climatology is not about weather, which is what the warming trend between 1980 and 1998, or the cooling trend since then is. Just weather. It is about substantial changes which last for centuries. We know that particulate matter in sufficiently large quantities can produce cooling-- that's been established. We do not know that CO2 produces warming-- some good scientists say yes, many other equally good scientists say no. I don't see any compelling scientific evidence for AGW. What I do see is the politicizing by the left of a scientific theory that most of them couldn't define to save their lives. AGW is argued for as if it were a religious revelation, not a scientific theory. It is argued as dogma.

Not a single argument in favor of AGW on this thread is presented in scientific terms-- only abuse and cant. No one but a child finds that convincing. It is language designed to cow, not to convince.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 12:42PM

yawn............

Don't feed the fool.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 12:50PM

* "The nature of science is that there is no one, totally encompassing final truth. I keep up in the one scientific field I am educated in, astronomy, and the changes in the last forty years are astounding. The changes in biological and climatological areas is even greater. "

In keeping up with astronomy it is quite evident that you have missed everything else.

* "I don't mind when people treat AGW like a scientific problem and develop theories about it. The continued study of climate is giving us increased insights into the complex functioning of weather systems every day. However, when one set of theories that aren't that convincing to a lot of legitimate climatologists and other scientists is treated in a manner usually reserved for revealed religion, I smell a rat. The type of shrill, dogmatic argument we see for AGW simply isn't in the best scientific tradition. "

More scientifically illiterate nonsense from the Talk Radio - Sarah Palin crowd.

* "We know the earth has been warming for about 15,000 years, with many dips and rises just over the last millenium, let alone the last million years. Climatology is not about weather, which is what the warming trend between 1980 and 1998, or the cooling trend since then is. Just weather. It is about substantial changes which last for centuries. We know that particulate matter in sufficiently large quantities can produce cooling-- that's been established. We do not know that CO2 produces warming-- some good scientists say yes, many other equally good scientists say no. I don't see any compelling scientific evidence for AGW. What I do see is the politicizing by the left of a scientific theory that most of them couldn't define to save their lives. AGW is argued for as if it were a religious revelation, not a scientific theory. It is argued as dogma. "

Blah blah blah ... is there any such thing as an educated conservative who knows anything at all about either science or climatology?

Someone who stopped their astronomy studies for decades ago is evidently not equipped to to anything much more than spout ignorant conservative anti-science nonsense.

* "Not a single argument in favor of AGW on this thread is presented in scientific terms-- only abuse and cant. No one but a child finds that convincing. It is language designed to cow, not to convince. "

Preaching science to an audience if fundamentalists is futile. The fundamentalists have rejected science so there is no legitimate basis for an argument.

Conservatives have got to stop living in the 19th century.

A.C.| 4.3.09 @ 12:55PM

"Conservatives who confuse weather with climate are as scientifically illiterate as the creationists who claim, "I don't see evolution happening!"

"The government has funded climatological research for over a century specifically because weather poses a mortal threat to the health and well-being of Americans on land, the sea and in the air."

David, you're contradicting yourself in the same comment thread. But that's not the primary weakness of your arguments. Your replies are so filled with vitriol and ad hominem attacks that, even if you were providing compelling factual evidence — which you're not — most people will rightly tune you out. If you've got factual data, bring it out and present it calmly and cogently — as this article does. Otherwise, go do some yoga, get some serious data to back up your responses, and come back when you can discuss this issue reasonably.

J Webb| 4.3.09 @ 1:02PM

"Hello ACYNIC,

I'm so conflicted. It makes sense for me to be a member of the KKK btw---the only serving KKK senate member is a liberal. "

Dave,
Does that mean you are a transvestite? Wow! I never met one of those. Tell me what it's like to be one. Are there a lot of tranvestites in your neighborhood? Tell me how you expect President Obama to help you enhance that lifestyle?
This is much more interesting to talk about than politics.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 1:04PM

PNMNM,

Thanks!

To paraphrase Chris Rock from years ago: "You want to keep your money from being stolen by [liberals]? Hide it in books. Books are like Kryptonite to [liberals]."

Climate Science Deniers (CSD's) hate science. That is why they follow, lemming like, that noted climatologist Al Bore. He makes a propoganda film Goebbels would envy, and they spew it's lies like Koko the trained gorilla making signs when she's given a banana.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 1:13PM

Don't feel the fool guys.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 1:17PM

Hello A.C.,

* "David, you're contradicting yourself in the same comment thread. "

No, you are speaking in a silly and scientifically illiterate manner. Climate research has never had to worry about its funding even prior to the advent of the modern Global Warming concern because climate research is directly tied to study of the weather and this sort of study is considered by vital for the military, industry and the safety of the public.

So you people need to stop imagining clever conspiracy theories and begin dealing with reality. Climatology isn't involved in some vast conspiracy meant to create a scare in order to gain funding. Climatology is something which the government has always supported with or without global warming.

* "But that's not the primary weakness of your arguments. Your replies are so filled with vitriol and ad hominem attacks that, even if you were providing compelling factual evidence — which you're not — most people will rightly tune you out."

Conservatives are so hypocritical that even they must rocognize how absurd they sound while they are whining.

* "If you've got factual data, bring it out and present it calmly and cogently — as this article does. Otherwise, go do some yoga, get some serious data to back up your responses, and come back when you can discuss this issue reasonably. "

Conservatives are incapable of engaging in a reasonable, scientific discussion of this matter because conservatives have rejected science altogether and instead adopted a fundamentalist mindset instead.

Such people rightfully belong out of power as a politically irrelevant extremist minority.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 1:19PM

Hello J Webb,

* "Does that mean you are a transvestite? Wow! I never met one of those. Tell me what it's like to be one. Are there a lot of tranvestites in your neighborhood? Tell me how you expect President Obama to help you enhance that lifestyle? "

Ann Coulter is a tranvestite and Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual. Conservatives are a bunch of scientifically illiterate idiots who get their misinformation and uneducated rantings from their sexually perverted drug addicted blowhard leaders.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 1:21PM

* "Climate Science Deniers (CSD's) hate science. That is why they follow, lemming like, that noted climatologist Al Bore. He makes a propoganda film Goebbels would envy, and they spew it's lies like Koko the trained gorilla making signs when she's given a banana. "

Conservatives have really adopted lunacy as a lifestyle.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 1:25PM

Folks don't feel the fool.
+++++++++
Lib's have really adopted lunacy as a lifestyle.

TJ| 4.3.09 @ 1:29PM

"Ann Coulter is a tranvestite and Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual. Conservatives are a bunch of scientifically illiterate idiots who get their misinformation and uneducated rantings from their sexually perverted drug addicted blowhard leaders."

Kinda hard to square the liberal's all inclusive love of humanity with language like that! Or is it just liberal queers and cross-dressers you love?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 1:36PM

Hello TJ,

* "Kinda hard to square the liberal's all inclusive love of humanity with language like that! Or is it just liberal queers and cross-dressers you love? "

I don't object to Ann Coulter's tranvestitism nor do I object to Rush Limbaugh's homosexuality. What I object to is when tranvestites and homosexuals are forced into the closet and therefore hate their own self so much that they spend all of their time spreading hatred, fear, bigotry, racism, xenophobia and so forth in order to cover up (in vain) their own secret sin & shame.

If you conservatives would accept tranvestites and homosexuals as-is these two individuals wouldn't have to spend their entire lifetime locked up inside their own private hell.

Todd| 4.3.09 @ 1:38PM

You are a perfect liberal Dave, someone with no real world experience and has never had a real job but thinks they know what is best for everyone else. Actually, that might qualify you to be President now that I think about it. Did your auntie make you a delicious grilled cheese sandwich for lunch? How unfair they are making you wait till you turn 25 to get your hard earned trust fund, life just ain't fair is it?

TJ| 4.3.09 @ 1:44PM

My mistake! I guess I should have inferred all that other bullshit after you said "Ann Coulter is a tranvestite and Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual " and called them"sexually perverted drug addicted blowhard leaders" .

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 2:06PM

It's too bad these bleeding heart liberals are so ignorant about science. If they would just educate themselves, they would know James Hansen is a fraud. They would know that Michael E. Mann's, Raymond S. Bradley's and Malcolm K. Hughes' "hockey stick" graph was a lie.

But alas, they are just mind-numbed robots dutifully spouting liberal agitprop like the useful idiots they are.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 2:25PM

Hello Todd,

* "You are a perfect liberal Dave, someone with no real world experience and has never had a real job but thinks they know what is best for everyone else. Actually, that might qualify you to be President now that I think about it. Did your auntie make you a delicious grilled cheese sandwich for lunch? How unfair they are making you wait till you turn 25 to get your hard earned trust fund, life just ain't fair is it? "

Blah blah blah ... bitter conservative blather.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 2:29PM

* "My mistake! I guess I should have inferred all that other bullshit after you said "Ann Coulter is a tranvestite and Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual " and called them"sexually perverted drug addicted blowhard leaders" . "

Yes, TJ, it was your mistake. Conservatives are out of touch with reality about a great many things. Homosexuality in particular is one thing which conservatives aren't equipped to handle in any sort of responsible manner ... hence the need for so many Republicans and fundamentalists preachers to live a second life in the shadows of their own unhealthy shame.

Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have to treat women so badly and would have avoided his drug addiction if he was taught a healthy attitude regarding accepting his homosexuality.

Conservatives are filled with hate regarding a great many sins which they routinely commit. Christianity has taught these people to condemn others for the sins which they commit on a daily basis.

Isn't it ironic? I guess that explains why the Religion of Love could spread the gospel using a Bible and sword and proclaim throughout this time that it was honoring God by covering the Earth with the blood of numerous people killed in greedy genocidal rage.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 2:34PM

* "It's too bad these bleeding heart liberals are so ignorant about science. If they would just educate themselves, they would know James Hansen is a fraud. They would know that Michael E. Mann's, Raymond S. Bradley's and Malcolm K. Hughes' "hockey stick" graph was a lie. "

The scientifically illiterate are following kooks and lying shills for the oil industry and they don't know it ... this is also the reason why Christian fundamentalists can claim to be "scientific creationist" with a straight face. They are simply too stupid to know any better.

Peter Glover and Michael Economides know that they can get away with lying about science and slandering both science & scientists because they know that their audience is too stupid and uneducated to recognize their lies & slanders.

These two liars represent the oil, coal and every other polluting industry. They speak with the same lack of integrity as the shills for the tabacco industry during the cigarette-cancer controversy.

Peter Glover and Michael Economides are vile people without integrity because they profit from treating the Earth is a big free sewer for their pollution.

Mike| 4.3.09 @ 2:40PM

I don't think this scam can hold up much longer. When the alarmists conferences offer only media communiqes and are devoid of any discussion of science, their days are numbered.

David J| 4.3.09 @ 2:43PM

I see MR. Matthews hasn't learned anything since the last Climate story was posted. He says: Ann Coulter is a tranvestite and Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual. Conservatives are a bunch of scientifically illiterate idiots who get their misinformation and uneducated rantings from their sexually perverted drug addicted blowhard leaders.
If this isn't a typical Liberal argument about climate science, I don't know what is. Name calling and denial of facts charactorize these libs. Dave Mathews is a great example. If you can't come up with a good argument (or refutation), call the opposition names and yell as loud as you can: These people are too this or too that to argue with me!
Now that shows intelligence.

larrydalooza| 4.3.09 @ 2:46PM

I pray to AGW that we overcome the evil CO2. AGW bless America.

David J| 4.3.09 @ 2:50PM

David Mathews, are you saying you are a conservative?
Scientists know that facts are facts and a hypothesis is NOT a fact. It is a guess. We conservatives (awful as we are) still love you though. We want happiness for all people - even liberals.

David J| 4.3.09 @ 3:05PM

Mr. Mathews said: These two liars represent the oil, coal and every other polluting industry. They speak with the same lack of integrity as the shills for the tabacco industry during the cigarette-cancer controversy.

Yes, David Mathews, I am sure that these scientists, as well as all of us conservatives, live just to pollute the Earth. We really want Earth to become a big ugly sewer. Now, you don't really believe that, or the BS you are spouting, do you? Please get real.

David J| 4.3.09 @ 3:07PM

OK I will quit trying to talk to you, David Mathews. Your loss.

Steve R| 4.3.09 @ 3:09PM

There is no God but Gaia and AlGore is her prophet.

Pingback| 4.3.09 @ 3:12PM

Climate Change: A Tale of Two Conferences | National Federation of Republican Assembl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Change: A Tale of Two Conferences Posted by NFRA Staff on April 3rd, 2009 No Comments Printer-Friendly Editor’s Note: We are reprinting Peter C. Glover & Michael Economides’ " The Real Climate Deniers " from The American Spectator in it’s entirety. We encourage you to visit the original. For at least a decade, intimately connected with energy use, have been claims on climate change.…

Ryan| 4.3.09 @ 3:25PM

Mathmatically, performing a linear regression on the average temperature of the Earth against the amount per billion of CO2 yields an R2 of .7. This means that statistically, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can only account for 3% of the variation in the average temperature. For DM's benefit, I will explain that means that 70% of the variation in the global average mean temperature cannot be accounted for by the amount of CO2.

If you take the CBO figures of the cost of the various "cap and trade" proposals and the results of the linear regression, you will find that at a cost of $12-$30 trillion, the world will accomplish a .125 degree decrease in the average global temperature in 100 years. This is providing that CO2, in fact, accounts for the full 3% that is possible within the context of the regression.

Then you add the fact that bacteria introduce 7 times more CO2 into the atmosphere per year than all human activity and you begin to see the folly in this hoax. I seriously question the mental health of anyone who buys into this nonsense.

The science is pretty conclusive now, that the effect of CO2 levels on the mean average temperature is either non-existent or too small to measure.

Al Gore is tantamount to a witch doctor declaring the Earth is flat and he need trillions of dollars to sacrafice to the sun god to avert disaster. Any genuine scientist would laugh in his face. Its a farce and the people who are perpetuating it know its a farce. Its like a religious cult of some kind. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Unfortunately, DM is an excelent example of the kind of pedantic and purile mentality behind the lies. I feel sorry for him, but I believe he's dangerous.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 3:28PM

* "I don't think this scam can hold up much longer. When the alarmists conferences offer only media communiqes and are devoid of any discussion of science, their days are numbered. "

Scientifically illiterate babble from the uneducated conservatives doesn't constitute a very effective argument.

Conservatives really do need to start reading books ... talk radio is killing your brains.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 3:30PM

algore, or as I like to call him, Forrest Gore:
"Mama ... always ... said, ' ....life....was....like.... a....lock.....box. You never know when Occidental Petroleum was going to make your daddy a rich, racist, corrupt senator; make you join the Army in a failed attempt to save daddy's re-election; have daddy make the Army give you a bodyguard; try to act like a war hero for taking some pictures; and use that evil oil money to get your daddy's senate seat.'"

And when that oil money starts to run out feeding and medicating you and your wife, get in on the phony cap 'n' trade con by promoting pseudo-science.

Run Forrest, Run! You look like Orson Wells!!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 3:33PM

Hello David J ,

* "If this isn't a typical Liberal argument about climate science, I don't know what is. Name calling and denial of facts charactorize these libs. Dave Mathews is a great example. If you can't come up with a good argument (or refutation), call the opposition names and yell as loud as you can: These people are too this or too that to argue with me! "

These are the whinings of the perpetual conservative losers. The science on thsi issue is settled. All that you have left on your side are the creationists, the kooks and the lying oil industry shills (such as the authors of the above article).

* "Scientists know that facts are facts and a hypothesis is NOT a fact. It is a guess. We conservatives (awful as we are) still love you though. We want happiness for all people - even liberals. "

Creationist-style arguments which are effective only in the bizarro world of Talk Radio and Fox News.

Perhaps the world really is flat ...

* "Yes, David Mathews, I am sure that these scientists, as well as all of us conservatives, live just to pollute the Earth. We really want Earth to become a big ugly sewer. Now, you don't really believe that, or the BS you are spouting, do you? Please get real. "

Peter Glover and Michael Economides are not scientists. They are editors of an oil industry rag, Energy Tribune, which is routinely filled with the most vile sort of conservative BS regarding climate change, regulation and taxation.

These people make their living polluting the Earth and they are more than happy to let you live in their sewer of toxic pollution.

Peter Glover and Michael Economides are the most vile sort of liars who slander both science & scientists for the sake reason that the tabacco shills engaged in their warfare against medical science.

Conservatives who are gullible enough to rely upon lying oil industry shills for their science are also gullible enough to take Rush Limbaugh's buffoonery seriously.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 3:35PM

Ryan,

Bleeding heart liberal girly-men didn't get past "Mathmatically..."!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 3:39PM

Hello Ryan,

* "Mathmatically, performing a linear regression on the average temperature of the Earth against the amount per billion of CO2 yields an R2 of .7. This means that statistically, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can only account for 3% of the variation in the average temperature. For DM's benefit, I will explain that means that 70% of the variation in the global average mean temperature cannot be accounted for by the amount of CO2. "

This is pure BS suitable only for the fairy tales which uneducated conservatives tell each other. Science has already resolved this issue. Conservatives who are engaged in a war against science are engaged in a battle which they have already lost.

* "If you take the CBO figures of the cost of the various "cap and trade" proposals and the results of the linear regression, you will find that at a cost of $12-$30 trillion, the world will accomplish a .125 degree decrease in the average global temperature in 100 years. This is providing that CO2, in fact, accounts for the full 3% that is possible within the context of the regression. "

Again, more BS suitable only for the uneducated talk radio audience. I can see why Sarah Palin was so popular among the conservatives ... the lowest common denominator principle.

* "Then you add the fact that bacteria introduce 7 times more CO2 into the atmosphere per year than all human activity and you begin to see the folly in this hoax. I seriously question the mental health of anyone who buys into this nonsense. "

I serious question the mental health of anyone who prefers to believe lies regarding science rather than facing the reality that human behaviors have consequences. Those who value the economy over the health of the planet are going to drive the Homo sapiens extinct.

* "The science is pretty conclusive now, that the effect of CO2 levels on the mean average temperature is either non-existent or too small to measure. "

More lies suitable for the low information talk radio crowd. All the educated people have abandoned the Republican party so these lies are quite effective for the extremist remnant that remains.

* "Al Gore is tantamount to a witch doctor declaring the Earth is flat and he need trillions of dollars to sacrafice to the sun god to avert disaster. Any genuine scientist would laugh in his face. Its a farce and the people who are perpetuating it know its a farce. Its like a religious cult of some kind. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. "

Again ... talk radio buffoonery suitable only for the ignorant, uneducated Republican base.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 3:42PM

* "algore, or as I like to call him, Forrest Gore:
"Mama ... always ... said, ' ....life....was....like.... a....lock.....box. You never know when Occidental Petroleum was going to make your daddy a rich, racist, corrupt senator; make you join the Army in a failed attempt to save daddy's re-election; have daddy make the Army give you a bodyguard; try to act like a war hero for taking some pictures; and use that evil oil money to get your daddy's senate seat.'"

* "And when that oil money starts to run out feeding and medicating you and your wife, get in on the phony cap 'n' trade con by promoting pseudo-science. "

The Republican party is a politically unpopular extremist minority because all that it has left are uneducated fairy-tale-believing idiots such as yourself.

It is easy to understand why Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party. After all the intellectuals have abandoned a political party there are only clowns & tokens left to lead it to oblivion.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 3:43PM

* "Bleeding heart liberal girly-men didn't get past "Mathmatically..."! "

Mathmatically?

Conservatives really should buy a dictionary. Otherwise you'll come across as uneducated semi-literate low information voters.

REV Soulja| 4.3.09 @ 3:45PM

To Dave M.

As they say, unsolicited advice is worth what you pay for it. Mine to you:

PLEASE DO NOT GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY!!!

(you do understand this don't you?)

Ryan| 4.3.09 @ 3:49PM

Fortunately for you Dave, I have a few sources so you can check my math.

UAH MSU http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

Archibald, D. 2006, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response
Energy and Environment, 17, 29-38.

NASA GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Modified from IPCC 1990 TAR

IPCC 1990 TAR

Graph after Dansgaard et al., 1969, and Schonwiese, 1995

Vostok ice core over the last 400,000 years (Wikipedia graphic)

Sediment records (Wikipedia graphic)

Temperature after C.R.Scotese, CO2 after R.A.Berner, 2001

Butler, C. J. and D.J.Johnston., 1996, A provisional long mean air temperature
series for Armagh Observatory. J. Atmos. Terrestrial Phys., 58, 1657-1672.

Archibald, D. 2007, Climate Outlook to 2030 Energy and Environment, in press.
Original data provided by Jan Janssens, Belgian Solar Section

http://members.chello.be/j.janssens/SC23web/SCweb4.pdf

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Biesecker.ppt

Archibald, D. 2007, Climate Outlook to 2030 Energy and Environment, in press.
Original data from:
http://members.chello.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

K.Schatten pers. comm..

Archibald, D. 2007, Climate Outlook to 2030 Energy and Environment, in press.

Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder
Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03

Developed for this presentation http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/aus.htm

Idso, C. 2007, “A Science-Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the
United State Senate Environment and Public Works Committee” Center for Science
and Public Policy.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:03PM

Hello David Mathews,

It is hard being a liberal these days. It was much easier during Clinton and Carter days when there wasn't Fox News and TAS to expose us for what we are----angry shills with big butts.

WE fail at everything we do:

Great Society--Failure
Welfare---Failure
New Deal----Failure
War on Poverty---It was a failure unless you look at how we created a permanent class of poor Black people who will always vote Democrat. The more they learn the more they earn= bad for us. So we gots to keep them on the "new" plantation.

So you can see why I'm always angry, other than just being mad at my parents for having such bad genes (I can't stand to look at myself).

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:05PM

Wow, this cut and paste feature where I just write the same thing over and over and over and over on all the Conservative sites is sssoooo easy, a big butt, Oprah lovin, chocoholic, acnied-no date chick like me can do it.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:06PM

I'm waiting for algore and Rahm Emmanual to fax me some more talking points.

In the meantime, Conservatives are stupid and Rush is a big fat poopoo head.

* "Fortunately for you Dave, I have a few sources so you can check my math. "

Throwing a bunch of kooky sources together on a post does not in any way reduce the kookiness of your argument.

The creationists write a bunch of crap, too. It doesn't change reality at all, though ... they lost the argument and their struggle is altogether in vain.

The conservatives might as well stop fighting against science ... otherwise you'll gain a bad reputation for your lack of education and inability to handle harsh, unpleasant truths.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:07PM

Hello Ryan

Way way too many facts for me to handle. Really, I just hurl insults, capeche?

Facts are anathema to liberals, silly. Anyhoo, time for Oprah, si?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:08PM

Hello REV Soulja,

* "PLEASE DO NOT GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY!!! "

The Christian fundamentalists should follow their own advice ... too bad that these people are intent upon overpopulating the planet with their poorly educated backward-thinking fantasy-believing fundamentalist children.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:10PM

Hello Rev,

Don't worry about me multiplying---there's no man within a hundred miles with Slick Willie's willy who would come near me. Something about an odor.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:13PM

Hello Y'all,

I can see that the anonymous nobody loser conservative has returned to post bitter conservative weepings under the name "David Mathews" ...

Needless to say, the conservatives demonstrate that they are failures a thousand times over every time they attempt to argue against science and fail miserably and are left babbling such nonsense to each other as you hear every day on talk radio and blogs such as American Prospect.

Your side lost ... your side is stuck in the past ... your side is headed to oblivion.

I guess that God really doesn't love conservativism. You people have so many children but when they grow up even they reject fundamentalism and move forward into the 21st century.

All that is left is the old, old conservatives who haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan's first term. These are the traits of a brain-dead political movement nearing the end of its existence.

So you weep uncontrollably and all you have speaking on your behalf are these anonymous lunatics who cannot engage in any sort of rational argument because they were raised on a steady diet of anti-intellectual talk radio blather.

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 4:13PM

Yes, like Koko the trained gorilla, bleeding heart liberal girly-men (and manly-girls), can be trained to cut and paste over and over again.

Unfortunately they can't be trained to know what quotation marks mean.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:14PM

You are right----see how dumb we David's sound. The different posters with the same name are virtually indistinguishable (Hey---I spelled that w/out spelchck)!

Anyway, anyone know who's on Oprah today? Is it a repeat? DON'T tell me if it is!!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:17PM

Hello Everyone,

Since it is evident that intellectualism has abandoned the conservatives and only the lunatics are left ... I am going to conclude that the present argument is finished.

You Lunatic-Conservatives and Idiot-Conservatives can spend the weekend deluded yourself about your place in the Universe if you wish. The rest of the world has moved on and they don't care whether you remain idiotically stuck on your 19th century mindset forever.

Politically irrelevant minority parties are doomed to follow their clowns into the abyss. Rush Limbaugh symbolizes that Republicanism and conservativism have run their course.

The creationist persist is their failed war against science, though, so there is every reason to believe that uneducated Americans will continue to deny global warming even after the oceans have risen and swallowed the coastline. Uneducated people are like that ... these are the same sort of people who are gullible enough to believe in ghosts, the Bible, God, Heaven and Hell.

Religions persists because ignorance persists. Humankind can never escape from ignorance and superstition.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:18PM

Hello David Mathews

OmiGod, I capitalized God!!

I didn't mean it----

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:21PM

See, this is what happens when I debate and deface myself. I don't make sense even to myself. I end up calling myself names and the self-loathing begins. I even called myself Ann Coulter. What was I thinking?

Maybe if I started juicing-----that might clear my (pea) brain?

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 4:24PM

It's too bad not one bleeding heart liberal could refute the author's essay above or answer a simple question like at what temperature water boils. I've searched all the comments and not one stinking lib even attempted to rebut the article or the numerous posts.

What a shame. Where does one go to find an intellectually honest liberal?

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 4:24PM

I think I'm going to take my own advice. I'm going to stop replying to myself. That will show all those evil Bush-lovers they can't push me around.

Anyone seen my Deepak Chopra book?

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 4:29PM

Do I smell Michigan Matt-spews?

Vlad-the-Impaler| 4.3.09 @ 4:35PM

Could the administrator please kick the a_shole Dave Mathews off this site. I'm tired of wading through his moronic rants. He's obviously a George Soros/Moveon.org/democrat party/ paid troll and adds no value to any discussion.

Jim| 4.3.09 @ 4:47PM

V-T-I: DM only serves to discredit himself. What Culter, Rush or the Rep. Party have to do with climate debate escapes me. All liberals just throw things out to confuse the issue so there is no debate. As Obama said: "I won!"

Mathew David| 4.3.09 @ 4:52PM

DM, the simple fact is that various parties within the UN have openly admitted that the root of the GW movement is the transfer of wealth and restructuring of global power. If you spent some time reading rather than posting incessantly on the websites read by people you detest, you might know a bit more about topics you choose to rant about, rather than coming off as the stereotypical arrogant liberal prick.

Jim Tuttle| 4.3.09 @ 4:59PM

This thread is absolutely priceless. Many thanks, David Mathews, for the entertainment. You should really take this show on the road !

sestamibi| 4.3.09 @ 5:06PM

David Mathews--

And your band sucks, too!

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 5:25PM

Hello V-T-I,

Yes I would like myself to leave as well as I am schizophrenic and posting to myself. My sentences are run-ons and the themes are all the same:

Liberal=Good
Conservative=Bad

I have nothing more to add and only wish I could be as successful as Ann Coulter, but my appearance and body (ssshhhuuddddeerrr) won't get me far. Posting here is what ACORN told me to do. Our official name is Saving Homes In Taking Hard Environmental Abilities Disabuse Society to make us sound innocuous.

Or just take the first letter in each title word for our acronym to spell it out.

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 6:29PM

GUYS....why do you keep feeding this FOOL!

Dustoff| 4.3.09 @ 6:33PM

Vlad-the-Impaler
WELL, if you GUYS would stop talking to him, he would go away.
I'm not sure who is the bigger fool???

Jerzzzzz guys wake up. STOP FEEDING THE FOOL!

Charles Martel| 4.3.09 @ 8:00PM

No point in reading his repetitious drivel. I mean, how many ways can he be wrong? Who cares?

The point is that the science is on the side of good. All we have to do now is dig in and wait Barry out.

When "no" is the correct answer, only fools like Mathews insist on "yes".

+++

Big Leo| 4.3.09 @ 8:30PM

I've waited and waited for someone to present actual evidence of AGW that is confirmable. No-one on this thread ever provided an iota of proof. And I'm still waiting for DM to explain what 'tabacco' is.

Atlas Shrugged| 4.3.09 @ 9:02PM

In the deceptive world people like DM live in, A does not equal A and facts and reason have no effect on what he believes because only his emotions matter. Nevermind the facts of human history and what has made the high standard of living we enjoy in this country possible, he does not care for such facts. As he has stated himself, he lives off others and is biding his time till he gets his hand on money he has not earned being a trust fund liability. No wonder he clearly hates himself and mankind as people who produce nothing always do. Just finishing Atlas Shrugged, DM reminds me of Reardon's loser brother Phillip who gets what he deserves in the end. Those who have read the book will know exactly what I mean.

gofer| 4.3.09 @ 9:14PM

Gore also flunked Earth Sciences. He also ignored Earth Hour and left his home flooded with light, even the trees were all lit up.

David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 10:22PM

Hello Dave,

Everyone should post as David Mathews, very amusing and confusing!

Tired of David Mathews| 4.3.09 @ 10:32PM

Can we all just ignore Dave Matthews? He is simply a waste of everyone's time... a clever nihilist who serves no real purpose, no solutions, no ideas, and a worn out, unimaginative response routine. He's probably blogging from a mental ward.

Let's all say "Goodbye Dave"

Nick| 4.3.09 @ 11:33PM

Even bleeding heart liberal girly-men trained like gorillas, who know nothing about science, should be able to see through algore's lies.

Not literally, of coarse.

dwilden| 4.4.09 @ 2:45AM

tired of dave mathews, I couldn't agree more! People, you are trying to argue/debate with an imbecile, not a liberal! He provides no facts or data to back up his points. The best he can do is call conservatives uneducated, poorly read, talk radio addicts who are all losers. My, how intelligent. It is tempting to refute his messages but is pointless. Don't ban him from the site, as he is a constant reminder of how dangerous these people can be. Just ignore him. As Dustoff has constantly said, "Don't feed the fool"!

Ron| 4.4.09 @ 8:30AM

I don't think DM can go anywhere without somebody beating him up. He's like having a small child around during adult conversation that won't shut up. I'm mad at his parents for not giving him any kind of proper home training. He's like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. He's like a bad set of luggage you can't get rid of. He's like.......

David Mathews| 4.4.09 @ 9:38AM

So I'm sitting watching some BOKO (Best Of Keith Olberman) and eating some cottage cheese when I realize that the cheese looks familiar.

Crikey!! It looks like my thighs!

Anyhoo, did anyone see that it's supposed to snow in Georgia Monday?

Crikey! Al Gore must be headed there or something. Cripes---we liberals are having the hardest time sticking to this Global Warming thingy.

So my sort-of-comrade-flunky calls me and says" Why on earth is the Earth Alliance Fund running Global Warming ads right AFTER the snow prediction?" Oops.

*sigh*. We can't get this thing right. Maybe the dumb public will forget like they did the whole we're gonna freeze to death campaign in the 70's and 80's. Maybe.

iknownothing| 4.4.09 @ 9:54AM

test

Nick| 4.4.09 @ 1:18PM

Am I the only one who sees the irony in some people admonishing others to ignore a troll while at the same time taking their own shots at said troll?

Spike| 4.4.09 @ 6:11PM

I find David "don't confuse me with the fact!" Mathews interesting. I live in Connecticut. Our local weather men have difficulty predicting the weather five days out, how can the so-called climate experts predict climate change 25, 50 or 200 years into the future. By the way, I have not and never will vote for Sen. Dudd!

Dave Mathews| 4.4.09 @ 6:58PM

To all Spectator Readers,

I am truely sorry for my trollish actions, and promise to be good in the future. To show how sorry I am, I shall put my 1998 vintage Mac Powerbook on e-bay, subscribe to American Spectator, get a job, take a shower, and vote for Sarah Palin come 2012.

stmichrick| 4.4.09 @ 9:49PM

Once again we are treated to the textbook definition of leftist insanity, Mr David GlobalMathews.

Intentional ignorance, endless bile and a desire to annoy everyone without end is amply 0n display in his posts.

It is also becoming pretty obvious that he does not do this for amusement but probably for compensation by the same leftist internet media outfit that funds jharp and Bob.

How else to explain the repetitive smearing and condescension to every type of rebuttal. My only question is, what are they expecting to accomplish?

I think some technical detective work will provide an interesting story about the trolls among us.

Patricia A. Helvenston| 4.5.09 @ 1:33AM

When I perused the comments on this site there were 114 of which 42 were contributed by David Mathews - over 37% of the total. This is absolutely ridiculous, especially since in not one comment did he have anything to say, he just kept repeating himself over and over and over and over and over and over - get it? I used to love reading comments on this site, but I won't bother in the future because they are all either David Mathews or someone trying to actually have a debate with him, which is impossible. I am contacting American Spectator and asking them to ban him from the site. He has metastisized all over conservative sites and effectively destroyed all meaningful communication. He was kicked off of Human Events site but needs to be barred from all conservative sites or his comments limited to 2, I prefer the former. I urge everyone who is fed up with Mathews to also contact American Spectator and request that he be dumped.
Patricia A. Helvenston, Ph.D.

Terry| 4.5.09 @ 6:25AM

Count me amongst the group lobbying for restrictions on posters. Beginning to view comments on this article, a single posters dominates, with no real contribution to any sort of discussion. Personally, I would not object to one post per article, why not make that a policy?

stmichrick| 4.5.09 @ 10:22AM

Dr Helvenston;

Do you really think you can ban someone without banning everyone else here? All he has to do is change his screen name.

There is something to be said for ignoring him but I prefer perserverance. I think his goal is to generate reaction such as yours.

He actually reminds us all of what we're up against in the liberal psyche. Pretty sad stuff.

I get satisfaction knowing that when it comes to his issue, state-enforced climate beliefs, events will overtake him and he will be reduced to drooling in his oatmeal, snarling about the good old days when politicians were on his side.

Anthony| 4.5.09 @ 10:24AM

Limitations on posts and/or turning away from TAS is precisely what some of these serial leftist posters want. While I share Dr. Helvenston's dismay, nonetheless, TAS remains a vibrant intellectual discussion board, and the instant postings lead to some excellent give and take.
Why some posters insist on engaging these other fools is beyond me, as Messrs. Jeric and Dustoff have repeatedly warned. Scroll past the serial posters and engage only the serious discussions; it's not that hard to ignore these pathetic creatures, they offer no substance, so why get sucked into their intellectual pigpen?

Ray| 4.5.09 @ 12:36PM

Here's a self-evident truth that Liberals always seem to ignore: The climate is changing, the climate has always been changing for at least the last billion years, and the climate will continue to change for the next 5 or 6 billions years (at least). Despite all this "change," life on earth has adapted to this change and every major climatic change has brought a profusion of new species into existence. Why would the current "global warming" be any different? It isn't any different, but don't tell that to a Liberal as they don't understand what a natural process really is and they REFUSE to admit that that we are a part of the earth's natural process of change begetting change.

Here's another self0evident truth the Liberals are afraid to admit: Contrary to some people's beliefs that we are 'treating the earth as a sewer," we are acting no different than any other species on earth. ALL forms of life change the environment as they inhabit it. This is a natural process that has existed on earth since the beginnings of life on this planet. If it's natural for something as simple as bacteria to transform our atmosphere by removing CO2 and introducing high levels of O2, as has happened over the last 3 or 4 billion years, why is it NOT natural for us to restore some of that sequestered CO2 BACK into the very atmosphere where it originated due to our consumption of hydrocarbons (and, yes, using oil for energy is CUNSUMPTION that is no different than consuming food and water, the end process is the same)? Contrary to logic, the Liberals think that we're doing something unnatural, when, in fact, we're simple completing a cycle that has existed for the hundreds of millions of years that animal life has existed on earth.

As I said before, we are a natural process on this planet, so nothing we do can EVER be considered unnatural. And no matter what we do, life on this planet will exists and prosper, although individual species may, and should, change during that process, despite the fear mongering of a few God wannabes like Al Gore and his fellow Liberals.

Liberals, we're not gods, so stop assuming we can stop natural process from occurring, we can't and it's foolish to even imply that we can. Also, stop treating mankind as some sort of harmful parasite on this planet, taking away from life om earth without giving anything back in return. Nothing can be farther from the truth. We belong here and everything we do is just a part of the natural processes of life on earth. I suggest you learn to live with your lowly existence on this planet an stop acting as if your a God.

Ray| 4.5.09 @ 12:40PM

"Personally, I would not object to one post per article, why not make that a policy? ":

Freedom of speech, ever hear of it? That means I get to make as many posts as I want, any time I want. As long as the owners of this site allows this, and they seem to want this type of public exchange as they are gracious enough to allow for public comments without the limitations you feel is warranted, why should you care how many times a person posts? No one is forcing you to read them, so what possible harm can come to you by people posting them?

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 5:05PM

By now, most of you know who I am. I look at the data and come to factual conclusions. I was trained in that discipline. When I looked at economic data, for example, it was obvious that tax cuts do not produce any more revenue than tax increases.

However, in this case, I've looked at the data and have found it to be inconclusive. There is certainly some evidence of global warming, but there is little or no evidence that the bulk of it is manmade and also no evidence that it is not a cyclical event. Lindzen is an absolutely brilliant scientist with an excellent skill set, and while right wing partisans will use his work, it does not diminish his findings.

I thus agree with most conservatives on this issue that until we have substantial evidence, devoting significant resources to this subject when we have a financial crisis and a number of other pressing issues, does not make any logical sense.

Jim| 4.5.09 @ 6:50PM

A lot of posts from DM, he must need money. Obama should fund an agency to help people like DM, a drug addled, angry trans gender freak with a fetish for algore.

stmichrick| 4.5.09 @ 10:13PM

Welcome to Global Warming threads, Bob!

It is comforting that your incorruptible analysis has you in partial agreement with those of us in the uneducated right-wing rabble. However, there were a few tip-offs on the surface of this issue that might have saved you a few evenings' poring over the 'data.'

First, Algore was leading the charge. This charlatan, who tried to steal an election by eliminating military votes, has been in search of a legacy. In finding enviromentalism, he declares that scientific 'consensus' and 'settled science' support a 'scientific' theory that plays into statist goals. Both of those terms aren't familiar to anyone with education in science (I have some), as they suggest that there are ends to scientific inquiry.

Second, the Global Warmist theories are ignorant of the magnitude of geologic time, forces and space. I find them to be consistent with other narcissistic tendencies of the baby boomer variety of leftist spawned in the Sixties.

Third, these days it isn't hard to find out about things like sea ice trends and the effects of solar events on the earth. Anyone with curiosity can easily see the half -truths and deception practiced by environmental extremists, who seem to tie every natural event to man- made Global Warming causes.

Thank you for advocating NOT squandering taxpayer money on a THEORY.

Nick| 4.5.09 @ 11:44PM

stmichrick,

I like your first "tip-off" to the fraud that is AGW. It is a criterion I use often: who is the messenger.

I start from this basic premise: Everyone on the left is either a liar or an useful idiot. Unless I can independently verify what a leftist says, I assume it is a lie. Or at least question its veracity.

This really saves alot of time, as you pointed out to Bob. Great post, stmichrick!

Russell Seitz| 4.6.09 @ 5:03AM

Comparing the proceedings of the ICCC with the substance not just of the IPCC reports , but the scientific literature at large , one must ask if Messrs Economides & Glover have assembled this piece as a belated April Fool stunt ?

If the conference did not exist, it would be necessary for Chris Mooney to invent it.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 9:06AM

stmichrick -- I never use the "messenger" argument as you do. For example, the messengers who wrote this article are suspect and biased. However, the expert they brought forward has done excellent work and is highly educated. I always believe in reviewing the data myself. I have the background and it doesn't take that much time. Besides, I'm retired.

I believe it is a huge mistake to use the "messenger" as a way to determine truth. That's the problem with most of you on this board.

stmichrick| 4.6.09 @ 9:59AM

Like I said in another post to you Bob, an elite education can totally overlook common sense and recognition of human nature.

Others show concern about environmental issues without the slide/sideshow and invention of new terminology designed to shut down argument.

Simple.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 10:27AM

And like I said stmichrick, common sense cannot exist without knowledge. An "elite" education is only as good as the person receiving it. There are lots of people in all universities with closed minds who disregard factual information. I find that many of them are social conservatives. That's too bad, because if they actually opened their minds, there are some very strong intellectual arguments for conservatism.

stmichrick| 4.6.09 @ 10:51AM

And Bob;

In the Global Warmist's world, a little knowledge is dangerous...

Nick| 4.6.09 @ 7:10PM

Bob,

"I find that many of them are social conservatives."

Yeah right!
Because we all know academe is replete with social conservatives. In fact you can't swing a dead cat at Harvard or Yale without hitting a soc con, can you Bob?

stmichrick| 4.6.09 @ 8:47PM

Careful Nick

Bob is going to tell you how uneducated you sound...he thinks social conservative means you drive a pickup, collect guns, married your cousin and wear white sheets on Saturday night.

Nick| 4.6.09 @ 11:18PM

He's already questioned my morality, logic, and ability to "look at the data", so I'm used to it.

Alleena| 4.7.09 @ 1:29AM

Please don't feed the troll(s). It just sets off another boring (yawn) and pointless rant.

No one can predict the future. Science based on observation not computer models does not show global waming. Sadly, this whole thing has taken on a life of its own and become dogma. Too many careers and too much money is at stake for the pro global warming crowd to back down. In their zeal to "save" the earth, they will backrupt us all.

stmichrick| 4.7.09 @ 8:57AM

Welcome Alleena

I think your cautionary phrase, Please Don't Feed the Trolls, should be posted at the beginnings of each Comment section.

Best remedy yet.

Russell Seitz| 4.7.09 @ 4:28PM

Nick ;
Please send along a dead cat and I'll give it a swing.

I suspect it should thwack about 2.3 social conservatives per theocon, and upwards of six libertarians per soi disant neocon.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:49PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:14AM

Anybody knows the numbers of in CA,Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
I need to call them and get my bag repaired.