The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Cancer of Tropic

By on 8.19.10 @ 6:07AM

Republicans are not supposed to be warming to opposition to global warming.

A smarmy article in Politico has gained a wide audience in recent days after being featured on the Yahoo homepage. It includes extensive reporting peppered with many quotes. The theme is the tendency among Republican candidates for high office this year to be more explicit in challenging the science of global warming. Some say it is not true, others say it is not proven and still others say that even if true and proven we cannot cure it by bankrupting ourselves with restrictive legislation.

The reporter, Darren Samuelsohn, grants the final say to Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. “Republicans running for Senate, House and governor who question the sound and settled science of climate change are following in the footsteps of a Republican leadership team that is heavily financed by and strongly influenced by Big Oil,” he said. This despite Politico’s own reporting in previous articles that oil companies have been giving evenly to Democrats and Republicans since 2008, with Barack Obama receiving more from BP than any politician over the last twenty years.

Putting aside the asinine comment by this activist bully, who should never have been quoted in a serious analysis, we have a presentation which assumes a series of points. 1. Global warming is scientifically proven. 2. No serious thinker would legitimately dispute this premise. 3. Any politician maintaining otherwise is either ignorant, pandering to ignorant constituents or corrupted by venality.

My challenge to Mister Samuelsohn and his too-numerous-to-enumerate brethren practicing putatively objective journalism is to stop picking a fight with politicians who can be accused of pettiness. Stand up and do battle with me, a public intellectual with no interest beyond the truth. I spend my life reading and studying for the sole purpose of educating myself sufficiently to provide salutary guidance to readers. What I say here is what I believe (if I held otherwise I would be saying it in The Nation), if anything toned down a tad in the interests of diplomatic discourse.

NOW THAT IT’S YOU AND ME, PAL, here we go. Not only is global warming not true, not only is it not proven, but any reasonable person can determine those things by thinking straight with no prejudice.

Firstly, the theory of global warming currently espoused is only about twenty years old. It was not developed by millions of scientists simultaneously cross-checking data from multiple disciplines. There has been no trillion dollars of governmental research. No Manhattan project, no space program. We all read the newspapers and we are well aware when huge world-beating globally interacting monumentally financed projects are being carried out over decades. Nothing of the sort happened here. Pfizer spent more developing Lipitor and devoted more lab hours to that end than this entire misbegotten venture can boast.

Take a moment to think about this. The very fact that the nerve center of all research on global warming is East Anglia University should tell you all you need to know, even were the professorial e-mails generated there models of pristine objectivity. Wait, East Anglia, isn’t that where they split the atom?

Secondly, the field of climatology is in its infancy and has never proven itself. It has not demonstrated the ability to predict accurately the weather conditions of the next year, the next decade, the next century. Until quite lately, we never heard of climatology. All weather-related information, whether practical or theoretical, was in the purview of meteorology. Here is a thought experiment: can you name a single famous climatologist? A single major theory developed by this field? A single major innovation credited to this discipline? This is not an area populated by Einsteins and Fermis, with all due respect.

Thirdly, the theory of global warming has not been tested nor can it possibly be without a few hundred years, perhaps a few thousand years. The first rule of “sound and settled’ science is that a theory must be falsifiable. The only way to disprove the projection of continued warming is to observe the opposite, or the lack thereof, over the coming centuries. Thus, at the very best this theory is a speculation which is prevented by circumstances from being verifiable any time soon. Whatever warming has occurred thus far has been slight, about one degree over the past hundred years.

Additionally, as I have pointed out in a previous column, these same scientists agree that the earth is some thirteen billion years old. That does not sound like a heck of a lot in the world of Obama where we borrow that many dollars every three days. But in mathematical terms, that 13,000,000,000 is an awful lot of zeroes. In climatological terms, that means the stability of planetary temperature has survived every imaginable permutation.

Okay, I’m just warming up, no pun intended. For today let’s stop right here. We have seen that a group of no-name scientists in a field with no track record have produced without much research an unproven and unprovable theory which assumes that the earth could survive the Ice Age and the Stone Age but not the Cadillac Age. And you mean to tell me that any politician who raises an eyebrow has to lower his profile? Piffle, I say. You lose, Mister Samuelsohn, and I did not even need the obvious Son-of-Sam joke to put you away.

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (73) |

Richard Strimple| 8.19.10 @ 7:49AM

Good start and I agree with you but the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be roughly 14 billion years old.

Miss Alabama| 8.19.10 @ 9:29AM

Mr. Homnick, your credentials are impressive: "commentator and humorist." Wow! And your scientific knowledge, no doubt, is prodigious.

When conservatives continue to dispute (or as the lovely Sarah Palin would say "refute") the global warming studies of the majority of the world's leading scientists, we look more foolish, more idiotic with each passing day.

Time for conservatives to employ a little critical thinking when it comes to these two hot issues: global warming and same-sex marriage.

Conservative commentators are dead wrong on these two issues. But I have found that the conservative mind is mostly reactionary and not open to critical thinking. So this is why we are becoming the laughing stock of the nation.

A pity for us educated, cultivated fiscal conservatives, because we are lumped in with the shrill cynics of the right-wing nuts, who, by the way, populate a majority of AmSpec's readership.

Warrior | 8.19.10 @ 9:44AM

Stick to the evening gown and bathing suit parts of the competition. You obviously do not have the intellect for the Q and A. Nice try with the head fake on the fiscal conservative statement, but no dice as your post has all the qualities of a liberal troll.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 8.19.10 @ 9:56AM

Oooooh, Miss Alabama. Love reading your posts, and the little dig at Sarah Palin's "refute" gaffe made me laugh out loud.

The male readers of this swinish, antideluvian hog blog must think you are a bitch on roller skates. Keep on skating, baby.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 8.19.10 @ 9:56AM

Oooooh, Miss Alabama. Love reading your posts, and the little dig at Sarah Palin's "refute" gaffe made me laugh out loud.

The male readers of this swinish, antideluvian hog blog must think you are a bitch on roller skates. Keep on skating, baby.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 8.19.10 @ 9:56AM

Oooooh, Miss Alabama. Love reading your posts, and the little dig at Sarah Palin's "refute" gaffe made me laugh out loud.

The male readers of this swinish, antideluvian hog blog must think you are a bitch on roller skates. Keep on skating, baby.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.10 @ 10:42AM

Anna, honey;

When you click "Submit" your post is going to be posted. It does not mean that you are about to receive another transmission of indoctrination and that you need to empty your mind. (Which doesn't look like it'd take long...)

Anna K. from Emory U.| 8.19.10 @ 11:06AM

So sorry, Dan, honey.

I clicked the submit button and waited, and nothing happened. I clicked again and waited and waited . . .

I have learned my lesson. From now on, I shall click only once and wait patiently.

I blow you a kiss . . .

Anna

Dai Alanye | 8.19.10 @ 11:52AM

Are Miss Alabama and Annie K unaware that "refute" is a real live word? If so, I refudiate their conclusions.

Sarah's gaff, if that's what it was, consists of combining "refute " and "repudiate," giving us the useful neologism "refudiate." I personally like it and intend to use it along with "misunderestimate." I also plan to create a few new words of my own. As Sarah has said, if it's good enough for Shakespeare...

Eenymeenyminymo| 8.19.10 @ 2:08PM

Dai,

Your misspelling of gaffe diminishes your credibility as a word maven

Dave| 8.19.10 @ 4:05PM

don't forget strategery!

Cabermon| 8.19.10 @ 4:20PM

You people really flustrate me.

Bohred| 8.19.10 @ 6:43PM

Blow me.

owyheewine| 8.19.10 @ 9:58AM

I'll skip the obvious shots at Miss Alabama and get straight to the point. I'm not a shrill cynic nor a right wing nut. I'm a chemical engineer with three decades of practice in the fine art of thermodynamics, and I can say without a shred of doubt that the whole global warming "settled science" theory only works if the laws of thermodynamics are totally ignored. I guess it's a little much for those who blindly buy into this fraud to take a science course and work to understand the physics of the question.

Nunya| 8.19.10 @ 5:55PM

Nice post Owy, good job!

While I am not an engineer or a practicing scientist, I do have the ability to think critically. Rather than quoting the laws of thermodynamics, I usually tend to just "follow the money". If one does that, they will see that Mr. Gore stands to make many millions (or possibly billions) from global warming hysteria. That is enough for me to doubt the hype and do more study. Using the laws of thermodynamics to dispute the hype is just icing on the cake. :-)

joli| 8.20.10 @ 10:08PM

Miss Alabama, is your name Patsie by any chance? Without the true believers like Miss Alabama, Mr. Gore would have to do a lot more of the footwork to make his billions. As it is, he has positioned himself via his carbon credit scam to rake in the $$ while he leaves it to the patsies with their religious zeal to convince the rest of the population. As you say Nunya, follow the money.

Liveaboard| 8.19.10 @ 6:51PM

Doh! The last glaciers in Glacier NP will be gone in less than thirty years! Wow! When did they start melting? A million years ago! Damn those Athapascans and their SUVs!

ggoblue| 8.19.10 @ 10:38AM

i look forward to the day we prosecute criminals like you for the damage done to states like mine. michigan.

Albert| 8.19.10 @ 11:55AM

Miss Alabama says, "I have found that the conservative mind is mostly reactionary and not open to critical thinking." This ad hominem argument is probably the dumbest thing I have heard lately. Leftists are immune to facts and logic. Leftists are emotion-based, not thought based. Leftists worship Socialism as a proven science despite over 100 years or empirical evidence to the contrary. Leftists theorize about the World and then present their theories as proven facts and when data arise to dispute their theories, they resort to the sort of argument that Miss Alabama employs: "Well, you boys just can't THINK, that's all!" The advancement of science is fundamentally conservative as indeed it must be. "Liberal" thinking is itself reactionary and does not lend itself to the scientific method, relying as it does on wishful thinking and propaganda. "Man-made global warming" is based on unproven computer models and propaganda, not science. Plus it is a wonderful source of income for frauds like AlGore.

Izzzmeister| 8.19.10 @ 4:55PM

"Leftists worship Socialism as a proven science despite over 100 years of empirical evidence to the contrary."
Okay, Al, maybe socialism has never worked until now, as is being proven in the European countries speeding towards insolvency, Venezuela's sinking economy, and the crises in Medicare & Social Security. (Whoops, forgot BHO just announced that there's no immediate crisis in SS!)
However, this will be DIFFERENT, because 1) Obama will do it SMARTER, 2) more REDEMPTIVELY, and 3) his intentions are more NOBLE!
So there, Albert, you bad, bad man!

Nunya| 8.19.10 @ 5:59PM

Excellent commentary Izz. LOVE it. :-)

John W.| 8.19.10 @ 12:00PM

I normally don't waste time responding to AGW cultists, but ...

Having 38 years in research and engineering, your "world's leading scientists" would be considered third rate hacks in any field other than their own. And in quite a few, their "methodolgy" would cost them certification, their job, probably a stiff fine and possibly jail time.

Jay Pitsby| 8.19.10 @ 1:53PM

Don't feed the f**king trolls!

Little Mary Sunshine| 8.19.10 @ 2:12PM

Manners, please!

You must refrain from profanities and obscenities. There are children on this blog.

Tiny Tim| 8.19.10 @ 4:58PM

...AND you hurt the self-esteem of our sulky (and, if you have your way, hungry) trolls, a capital offense!

Clinton nee Publius| 8.19.10 @ 2:23PM

Keep living the dream! Yeah! You tell 'em, sister. It doesn't matter if the science is bogus, the means and methods aren't scientific and none of it passes scrutiny. You believe! The Great Pumpkin of sucker plays that makes the Madoff scam look like a three-card monty play in a backstreet alley.

Right on! Sling it and sell it, sister!

hahahahahahahahaha... You believe! That's all that counts. What a stupid loser.

Paul from SA| 8.19.10 @ 5:35PM

The majority of the world's scientists believe it is bunk. You are wrong.

As yet, there is no proof of AGW. Please study the issue.

Are you intimidated by Sarah?

Mr Alabama| 8.19.10 @ 10:02PM

Fuck you whore

Marc Jeric| 8.20.10 @ 12:25AM

Well, Miss Alabama, let me give you an authoritative answer in the name of 31,478 independent American scientists, of whom 9,029 sport PhD degrees, that state that the man-caused (anthropogenic, but you would not have understood) global warming is a giant hoax perpetrated by government-paid drones of whom a majority are rejects of private enterprise. See Internet for "Global Warming Petition Project" to read those names and attached scientific analyses.
Also "Manhattan Declaration" with more names of qualified scientists who state the same. Also a little perspective:
1) The conspiracy started in the 1970's with the global cooling scam; when that did not work, the same bunch of rejects invented
2) Global warming hoax in the 1990's; what with 11 years of considerable cooling they invented
3) Climate change flimflam in the 2000's; when that provoked laughs across the globe, we have now
4) Cap & trade power grab.
In all these transformation the aim has been the same - massive nationalizations and the UN-sponsored socialist world government with those drones in charge.
By the way - I am a scientist, with the PhD degree in Engineering (UCLA), knowleadgable in heat & mass transfer and thermodynamics; also one of the signatories of those petitions. And I never worked for any oil company, and nobody is paying me for my opinions.

Marge| 8.19.10 @ 5:36PM

Allow me to quote Revelations 8:7:

The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

If God wants us to burn, we will burn. And most of you liberals are going to burn for eternity in HELL!

I'm ready for the fire. You can call it global whatnot, but I call it God's wrath.

67onwaytoheaven| 8.19.10 @ 5:38PM

Goodness gracious!

Sounds like Marge is off her medications . . . again!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.19.10 @ 8:16AM

Politico is staffed by incompetent writers who often contradict themselves or write stories that simply don't make sense. Since they are liberals they are often quoted by other liberals to prop their arguments.

Curly Smith| 8.19.10 @ 8:18AM

I'm a bit confused about the requirement for a "trillion dollars of government research". The US government alone has spent some $80 billion on AGW "research", add money from individual states and other countries and the total likely approaches $100 billion.

But that total pales in comparison to the carbon credit trading scam that bilks consumers of over $100 billion annually. Taken together, the amount of money stolen by the eco-profiteers may exceed a trillion dollars but... so what? Money spent or confiscated in the pursuit of fraudulent science is still money spent on fraudulent science. It's immaterial whether you spend $1 or $1 trillion -- it's still a fraud. Of course the opportunities for graft and corruption are much better if the pile of loot is bigger.

FWIW: http://eureferendum.blogspot.c.....posed.html
"In fact, it points to the enormity of the fraud perpetrated, which is now worth $128 billion annually, in traded credits, to the great benefit of traders, financiers and brokers. Having ripped of this huge sum, they make Bernie Madoff – who only took $18 billion – look like a rank amateur.

The difference is, of course, that Madoff went to jail, while the perpetrators of this scam are still roaming free, supported by the UN and all the governments of the world, including the EU. But then, the best way to rip off the public has always been to get government approval first. All you have to do is cry "global warming" and the world is your oyster."

justasimplepatriot| 8.19.10 @ 8:20AM

And please do not leave out the fact that 9 out of 10 (that's 90% for you liberals) of the official temperature reporting sites in the US are biased by artificial factors such as asphalt roads, air conditioning units, trash burners, etc. Visit http://www.surfacestations.org/ for details.

It doesn't get more basic than this.

Harry the Horrible| 8.19.10 @ 8:27AM

Don't forget the people analyzing such statistics are biased by government money... After all, how big a grant would they get for "all's well?"

Gary McCollim| 8.19.10 @ 8:21AM

You missed the point with your phrase "the stability of planetary temperature." That's Michael Mann's theory that led to the so-called hockey stick that says after a thousand years of stability the temperature has risen in the last 30 years. Mann has never revealed the date he used to measure the temperature 1000 years ago and refuses to do so. We know about agriculture in Greenland 800 years ago, farms high up in the Alps, and other indicators that the temperature was higher in the past before there was one internal combustion engine, one coal-fired electric plant, or six million humans on the planet. The medieval warm period is the weak point for the global warmists. Saying the temperature has been stable surrenders to their argument.

Nunya| 8.19.10 @ 6:03PM

Don't forget that Mann has also said that he has since "thrown away" the data used to create the phony hockey stick graph--like any credible scientist would EVER allow their most important life's work to be trashed.

Liveaboard| 8.19.10 @ 6:58PM

Doh! Again! The Hockey Stick is a plot of FABRICATED DATA. Cooked! As in 'its a Lie'...
It's a darned good thing that airplane you fly on isn't built on cooked data...or maybe you'd like us real scientists and engineers to fake it up a little, Huh?

Paul Ashley| 8.19.10 @ 8:25AM

Any "scientific" theory that moves people to ban incandescent lightbulbs in order to "save the planet" is false on its face!

Izzzmeister| 8.19.10 @ 5:14PM

What a brilliant idea, Paul! A light bulb just went on over my head!
(Admittedly, a second later than it used to, as the starter needed to engage first.)

Bob K.| 8.19.10 @ 8:25AM

It is a hypothesis looking to become a theory so it can become a science and then move on to becoming a law of God. The proponents behave much like Galileo's critics.

JP| 8.19.10 @ 9:03AM

"Here is a thought experiment: can you name a single famous climatologist? A single major theory developed by this field? A single major innovation credited to this discipline? This is not an area populated by Einsteins and Fermis, with all due respect. "

Real scientists go into engineering, physics, chemistry, and biology. Activists go into Enviormental Studies and Climo. Many moons ago, Climate Science had perhaps a 1000 scientists who quietly did research into such boring subjects as dendro-sciences, paleo and forensic climatology. Thier trade journals were filled with mind numbng statistical and differential field equations. Very little hard ground breaking work was done. But that was 30 years ago -Before ALGORE and Hansen began thier Magical Mystery Tour.

Alert1201| 8.19.10 @ 9:11AM

I can name on famious climatologist. Rebecca Miller, the weather person here on WAAF in Dallas. That is about a famious as a climatologist gets. Or are they meteriologists? I always get them mixed up.

Carpenter| 8.19.10 @ 9:31AM

The University of East Anglia, in Norwich, UK, has been a beacon to soft studies for decades. I lived nearby for more than twenty years and can attest to the departments for which the university is well known: Environmental and Earth Sciences, Peace Studies, Women's Studies, English.
My own beloved youngest daughter studied sociology there and after graduating, and some further intensive retraining, is now qualified as a second grade teacher in Texas.

Petronius| 8.19.10 @ 9:59AM

A heads up to the parents of 2nd graders in Austin. Even if we debunk the global warming myth as a political vehicle, we still have to do something about the driver who's goal is to hijack free people by controlling attitudes, appetites, and consumption.
I didn't elect these prats.

Mike Rogers| 8.19.10 @ 10:00AM

I, too, can name famous climatologists, but they don't support AGW - Fred Singer and Roy Spencer have both written well-researched books showing the history of global temperatures and the self-moderating mechanisms built in to our climate system.

Louis Jenkins| 8.19.10 @ 10:35AM

Yeah, its hot. Boy it must be hot, I fried an egg on the sidewalk. I know, let's call it global warming. And the science began. People (Al Gore for instance) began exchanging carbon credits. Twenty years worth and it's now a fact. What a bunch of morons!

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.10 @ 11:01AM

Hey!

One of the biggest lies in the whole shebang is the concept of "settled science."

Exactly what areas of science are settled?

Did not Galileo, Newton, Bernoulli, Faraday, Pasteur, Einstein, Hawking, and hundreds of others periodically come to better understand our physical world and run the "settled science" of their day into the compost heap?

Yes, Virgina they did. Whenever we hear of "settled science" we need to understand it to mean some aspect of that is not fully understood, and that our current, incomplete understanding of that physical phenomena will be overthrown by brighter smarter men and women sometime very soon.

There are lots of examples of "Settled science" the four Greek elements,
the flat earth
the earth as the center of the universe
the ether,
trial by fire,
and
global warming.

In actuality, there is NO SUCH THING as settled science. Any more than there is a free lunch.

What a bunch of maroons!

uyt654| 8.19.10 @ 2:04PM

Speaking of "flat earth," the religious right (biblical literalists) still believe in the flat earth concept. They say, "The Bible says it; I believe it, and that settles it."

It's settled isn't it? The flat earth theory, I mean.

bunky| 8.20.10 @ 8:33AM

I don't believe the bible weighs in on the physical aspects of the Earth.
Can you enlighten me with the passages?
Maybe it is a bunch of straw held together with the emotional conviction of liberalism?

Hirsch E. Barr| 8.19.10 @ 5:20PM

Dan, you may think that you can use your Animal Magnetism to convince us, but even if it takes all the gold created in my Alchemy lab, I will prove you wrong!

Liveaboard| 8.19.10 @ 7:05PM

Thirty years ago, while wandering around in the Emission Labs of the big Three, we observed that the exhaust of the test cars was virtually pollution free, and wondered out loud, now that we've proven that we can clean this up, what'll they do next, make carbon dioxide and water a poison? We spoke too loudly...

Bob Miller| 8.19.10 @ 11:09AM

Here is our 21st Century model for the advancement of Science:

Investigator A cooks data to support a political/scientific theory that will get him a nice grant and also advance the expansion of government, the grantor.
Other investigators (A1....An) know a good idea when they see it and do likewise.

Investigators B, C...find major holes in the theory, and also communications that demonstrate how the data were cooked or invented.

Investigator A and his like-minded colleagues and political patrons dump all over B and fellow dissenters, who have dared to counter self-serving garbage with facts.

Big Jim| 8.19.10 @ 11:15AM

Miss Al;
While Palin may have created a neologism in part useing the word refute, the word refute is a real word. You and Anna appear to be less than educated.

ABNCP| 8.19.10 @ 11:23AM

I have never understood how any serious person
can put any faith into man made Global Warming. If anyone that has the brains God gave an earthworm does not understand that this world we live in has had climate changes throughout it's many centurys of history than they should be declared beyond human help. Come on folks, we have had ice ages where northern Europe and North American were covered with hundreds of yards of solid ice! It isn't there anymone. I guess because oh yeah the climate got warmer. Let's see was that before mankind had internal combustion
engines? Was that before mankind was burning coal? And of course that was before Gore figured out he could make a ton of money by B.S. the folks. Come on America lets all grow up.

Oso Politico| 8.20.10 @ 8:37PM

+1

Even the AGW believers have to admit that the Earth's climate has changed many times over millions of years. Ice ages, anyone?

Out of curiosity, I wonder why, in all of these discussions water vapor is never mentioned. Afterall, it is, by far and away, the most predominant 'greenhouse gas'. Even if human activity is slightly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, in percentage terms it is insignificant. (And besides, the plants seem to like CO2).

james wilson| 8.19.10 @ 12:34PM

There is over eight billion tax dollars funding "science" in the global warming hoax, and we wonder at the result? None have a future in finding it a fraud.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite--
Ike's fairwell address

Steve A| 8.19.10 @ 2:01PM

Miss Alabama & Disciple, Please enlighten me on this nagging question I have. What, exactly, caused the last Ice Age to end?? How in the world did those glaciers recede back without my Ford F150 here to get the ball rolling?? Is there any dillema, real or imagined, that you people do not answer by a proposal to raise someone's taxes or fees?? It's a comedy show to watch you people in action.

James S.| 8.19.10 @ 2:31PM

If you believe that global temperature can be measured to less than .1 degree C using somewhere between 1500 and 6000 meteorological stations scattered haphazardly around the world, you too can be a climatologist. Note, I didn't say scientist...

Boston12GS| 8.19.10 @ 3:09PM

In the distant future--say, the next 6 or 12 months--these global warming extremists will still be tossing small bones on the floor and digging their fingers through entrails looking for signs of truth.

If it wasn't for various forms of "grants" funelling billions of dollars to the global warming hucksters, and the single-cell brains of most mainstream media brains, this would never have gotten traction at all.

It did, however, gain traction. Thank God for the exposure of their lies.

In a more primitive society--say, modern day Islam--these hucksters would be stoned to death. In our more forgiving society they should merely be laughed at endlessly for the rest of their lives. And certainly not given any more taxpayer funds.

Fairbanks99| 8.19.10 @ 8:25PM

We could impose temporary Sharia just for them! I'll bring some stones.

dw| 8.19.10 @ 3:27PM

This whole hoax is another house of lies brought by the mindless left. The only proven science here is the exposure of the constant lying that permeates the entire socialist personality. Starting with Obama and Gore, who's lies made both of them multi-millionaires, the leftist complex has used the ignorance of the multitudes to build a brigade of minions who long ago ceased to pay attention to facts.

Steve A| 8.19.10 @ 3:48PM

Regardless of the question: Insert any topic. Global Warming / Cooling. Health Insurance Reform, Unemployment, Poverty, Education, Financial Regulation, the left has a grand total of 3 answers EVERY TIME: 1) raise taxes; 2) spend someone else's $$; 3) more government control. The conservative theory goes with; 1) less taxes 2) less spending 3) less government control & free market solutions. Gee, what a tought choice.......

Paul from SA| 8.19.10 @ 5:25PM

How can they prove climate change is not natural?

Paul from SA| 8.19.10 @ 5:26PM

You cannot apply a single temperature to the planet. It's like asking someone, what's the tempertature of your house?

Paul from SA| 8.19.10 @ 5:29PM

It's not surprising that liberals believe in global warming because that's what they're told by the liberal media, while conservatives research and study the issue on their own and conclude it's bunk.

RCV| 8.22.10 @ 2:09PM

Right. Their "research" consists of sitting on their butts and swallowing whatever Fox and Beck feed them.

Paul from SA| 8.23.10 @ 12:08PM

I've read dozens of books and dozens of scientific research papers and thousands of articles on this subject. I am still waiting to see some evidence.

Most AGW books lie thru ommision. I even watched Al Gore's fictional movie.

Rich Rostrom| 8.20.10 @ 12:54AM

The University of East Anglia is famed for its outstanding facultyl. For instance, Arthur Figgis.

"But Mr Figgis is no ordinary idiot. He is a lecturer in idiocy at the University of East Anglia."

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode20.htm#13

Yosemeti Sam| 8.20.10 @ 1:39AM

Where are all the - THERMOMETERS located?

LOL.

solo| 8.20.10 @ 7:22AM

And......according to the "settled science", what IS earth's 'ideal' temperature?

John DuBose| 8.21.10 @ 11:05AM

The problem with APG is that there are so many variable inputs. Many can only be guessed. It is so difficult that some scientists run the other way for fear of making a big boo boo. It is true that the earth is warming. But so are the other planets in the neighborhood.

In any case, the newly developing nations are not going to give up carbon based prosperity no matter what anyone says. The experiment is on.
No US policy can stop it.

Joanna | 6.6.11 @ 4:42AM

What an interesting article- I hope to read more like this, thanks!UTI Treatment

More Articles by Jay D. Homnick

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Loss of Trust

June 18, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

June 17, 2013 | Frank Schell

Liberalism Is Bankrupt

June 14, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Endless War’s Pin-Up Girl

June 13, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

The Role of the Federal Government

June 12, 2013 | Lisa Fabrizio

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/19/cancer-of-tropic

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.