Jul 16 2010

Climate Change Skeptics Make Me Want To Puke

Published by at 12:25 pm under Uncategorized

We all believe the Earth is round. We believe humans evolved from primates. And we believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Well, most of us would agree with these ideas, anyway. That’s because these theories have been tested scientifically.

It’s not like we’ve done these scientific tests ourselves. I have not gone into space to see with my own eyes that the Earth is not a flat disk. I haven’t gathered specimens of differently-evolved species on the Galapagos Islands. And I haven’t surveyed a thousand chain smokers to see what has resulted from their pack-a-day habit.

But we don’t have to. We have scientists. And when just about all of them tell us the exact same thing, we tend to go with the majority view.

Not so with climate change skeptics, though. The National Post’s Jonathan Kay takes on these people with brutal honesty:

How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon…

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The vitriolic response in the comments section (119 and counting) pretty much proves Kay’s thesis. A sampling:

Find it hard to type whilst looking down your nose J? If you could prove your theory that Climate Change is real we wouldn’t need to deny the existance of your theory. Come back when you can provide evidence that hasn’t been peer reviewed by monkeys and special interest activists who hike for a living.

Well, this article was utter crap. The vast majority of actual scientists who have backgrounds in climate have never signed on to this easily-disprovable, far-leftist hoax. An analogy for Kay might be asking the preeminent phrenologists their opinions on phrenology, or the leading communists their views on economics. Asking those with a massively biased view does not give a representative sample of anything. That, and the unbelievable fraud perpetrated at the top might lead some scientists who never see the whole picture to believe that their contributions support the junk science being spewed out the other end.

What drivel, Jon boy. The Greenies and Warmies seize on every chicken scratched note by a tree hugger to prove they are right and won’t look at any evidence to the contrary that disputes their religious beliefs in the warming gods.

You should have been on my deck this week, 20 degrees below normal, makes you look silly barbecuing in a parka and mitts in the middle of July, but then, that is absolute proof of global warming, is it not?

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Climate Change Skeptics Make Me Want To Puke”

  1. Ken Finneyon 16 Jul 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Puke Away!

  2. Glenon 16 Jul 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Enjoy your cold expensive to heat winters.

  3. WTFon 16 Jul 2010 at 1:08 pm

    You forgot the Man Made in front of that headline. Climate always changes. Besides belief is for religion, not science. You know things and then speculate about the rest. What I don’t believe is the individuals who stand to lose a pile of money if there little social engineering experiment fails. Other than that all I can ask is what flavour of kool-aid is that you are drinking?

  4. Frankon 16 Jul 2010 at 1:16 pm

    If the science was real and not fabricated then you would have no skeptics. Thank God there are people who see the scam for what it is and not for what they wish it would be.

    The first clue was when they wrote the summary before the report was even written. The summary is based on the report not the report based on the summary.

    The second clue was when real scientists wanted their names removed from the report because their findings were misrepresented – some even threatened to sue to get their names taken off.

    The third clue was when the hockey stick chart always appeared regardless of the input – i.e. this is the result we want regardless of the facts.

    The fourth fact is that they say the science is conclusive and there is nothing left to discuss. This is not the way real science works. Real science has skepticism as the norm.

    Dream on my friend for you have been had. I can see your name on your forehead: “SUCKER”

  5. Monicaon 16 Jul 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Sorry but it’s not science, you and your ilk are obsessed and turned what use to be a scientific theory into a new Political Ideology. Puke away but people like you scare me to death, you are sounding more and more like the radical Christian fundies. As for a mere 2 to 3 percent being the fringe I suggest you do some actual research the Deniers are the majority these days not the Climate Zealots.

    I must of missed the Email when did Harper appoint J. Kay to be the official voice of the Conservative Party?

  6. kevanywhereon 16 Jul 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I will ask for simple proof. Show me the high and low for two dates, say Jan 15 and July 15, from several places around the planet, pick the places yourself and go back as far as records exist. There is a catch, the temp has to be gathered the same way, from the same place, and not adjusted or averaged. If you can show an increase in temp that is consistent I will believe in global warming, if not, can you still believe in it?

  7. Powell lucason 16 Jul 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Those people who are willing to bankrupt us through a plethora of non-proven, knee jerk solutions to a “theoretical” problem make me want to puke.

    The environmentalists touted ethanol fuel as one of the solutions to the problem and all that did is raise the price of corn in this hemisphere to levels that threatened to starve a goodly portion of the population and produce more CO2 than oil production.

    Another green solution that is as idiotic as the ethanol charade has the people of Ontario paying 80 cents a kilowatt for electricity that is given priority over over sources that can produce it for less than one-tenth that price is not a solution either.

    As for the stated figure that the consensus among climatologists is that the earth is warming as a result of human activity is a specious argument at best. Once upon a time the consensus among the scientific community was that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the earth was 6,000 years old, and that all the stars in the sky were part of our galaxy. Einstein, and many of his colleagues, were convinced that the universe was static. All have been proven wrong. Consensus does not equate to fact.

    And just as certain as five pound robins are fat, is the idea that shipping vast sums of money to some Uzbek goat herder for a new enclosure for his animals is a hare-brained scheme that will do nothing to halt the increase in CO2 levels. If this is the best the believers can come up with, I’ll take global warming and believe the astronomers when they say that the co-relation between the sun’s activity and the earth’s temperature changes are a much better fit than some trumped up, and discredited, hockey stick graph.

  8. Taylor Cutforthon 16 Jul 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Whats the top heat sources for the planet?

    “Can’t be the Sun of course… its just so far away….”

    “Can’t be the earths core…. it’s just too deep into the dirt…”

    “I can’t be hot from my own body temperature… since stress can’t EVER cause anyone to sweat bucks or feel their blood boiling…”

    “Yes, Co2 is even responsible for sunburns. Clearly.”

    Morons… why don’t we all kill ourselves to “save the planet”?

    The Path Environmental Martyrdom.

    Hurrah… Too bad you don’t live in Ontario where they just brought in an eco-tax.



    (the youtube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE430w3pwB8&feature=player_embedded )

    Oh and Ontario’s energy prices are going up 20% because they chose to invest in inconsistent “Wind” energy rather then build nuclear plants which are stable, clean and safer than ever.

    “SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!” Cuz apparently loggers don’t tree farm.
    Which actually they do… How else would the industry support itself. If they cut down “all the trees” there would obviously be too much wood and prices would drop too low.

    Step outside sometime its safe… this isn’t industrial china. Take a look at THAT county’s “environmental” policies. It’s a friggin waste bin. Some neighborhoods you need more than a air-mask to go outside.

    Oh joy they have a plan to fix it all:


    Cuz really, “it’s all capitalism’s fault!”

  9. Taylor Cutforthon 16 Jul 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Some relevant videos to watch and enjoy.

    Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique


    Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 1 of 4

  10. ferrethouseon 16 Jul 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Most “scientists” thought the world was flat for a long time too. At what point exactly do you adopt the theory of the majority? In the 1970’s most scientists thought we were heading towards an ice age. Should we have instantly adopted plans to warm the world at that point?

    Science research is always evolving and opinions change. When it comes to climate science there are no solid facts. The models are simply too complicated. You seem to be implying that we should never have dissenting opinions in the scientific community. Let me remind you that without dissenting opinions we would still believe the world is flat.

    It is precisely the fact that we have dissenting opinions that keeps scientific research honest and accurate. Puke? Really? Let’s try to be a little mature about this shall we?

  11. Taylor Cutforthon 16 Jul 2010 at 2:56 pm

    One last thing that ties into Eco-socilaism:


    Taken from the vid info:

    The collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t mark the end of the Cold War. The Cold War never ended, and were losing this war. As the collapse became imminent, they were already enacting their final strategy. The case is rather simple, and Mikhail Gorbachev is the key.

    Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987

    As the Soviet collapse became imminent in the final years, the Communist strategy became to infiltrate global environmental organizations. Gorbachev was active in this effort as early as 1990.

    Read the rest of the vid’s info for more.


    The term “new world order” was always a communist term to begin with. Not a “right-wing” conspiracy for “elitist bankers to take over the world”.
    What better enemy to communism than the supposed “division” of money and bankers to use as a scape goat, eh?

  12. Alexon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Go on puke then. Something told me you were just like that whiny loser from friends.

    Its on Narvey.

  13. jnarveyon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Hey Taylor,

    I couldn’t have asked for a better example of what Kay was talking about than your own comments. Re-read what you posted on my blog. Then re-read this paragraph from Kay’s column:

    “Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon…”

    Oh, and suggesting the Soviet Union — one of the most eco-unfriendly regimes in modern history — was exporting an ethos of environmentalism to bankrupt the West… LOL.

  14. climatecriminalon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:08 pm

    if climate change is such a looming disaster then why do all the people who beleive continue to use computers, drive etc. All those people have the option of adopting a close to zero carbon aggrarian lifestyle; why don’t they?; either they don’t really believe or they are hypocrites, these are the people who make me want to puke

  15. jnarveyon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Bring it, Alex.

    And I do not look at all like David Schwimmer.

    OK, maybe a little.

  16. Grumpy Old Manon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Anybody who still believes what Gore and Suzuki are preaching is either wilfully ignoring the facts or is too dumb to come in out of the snow.
    How do we know the people pushing ‘man made global warming’ are not telling the truth? They keep pointing to their ‘ hockey stick graph’ and saying ‘it’s never been this warm before!”. And when questioned as to why the (well documented) Medieval Warm Period isn’t shown on their hockey stick graph… they either clam up or worse, deny that there is such a thing as an MWP.
    Us skeptics keep turning up new evidence of fraud and deception by IPCC contributors and supporters and it gets brushed off as inconsequential by IPCC supporters. “Doesn’t matter that we had to adjust the temperature records! And you can’t prove it anyways because the dog ate the records so you can’t see them and you’ll just have to trust us!” Sure, and Santa lives at the North Pole…

    So puke away. Just don’t try to use my money to do it.

  17. Garyon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:31 pm

    People still call Oil a fossil fuel when the evidence now shows how BP found Oil at 20’000 below the Gulf’s 5000 of water.
    Don’t tell me dinosaurs sawm to the Arabian desert to die in mass or walked to Alberta tar sands, or now went to the Gulf and dove down 5000 feet to then bore down another 20’000 with a pressure of over 80’000 psi’s to comit suicde in mass .

    We can see the earth is round,we’ve been to the moon and the North Pole, and Mars too……but man-made Global Warming is a theory fabricated by faulty DATA to construct a past andthen project forward as some do to claim we came from apes.
    But we still have apes and where did they split-off and produce Homo-erectus to leave apes behind,sharks are still sharks and the average male in some Nations has grown to be about 5′-8″ from 5-7″ or so.
    If the moon always faces earth from a rotation equal to its revolution,then how did the craters get on our side rather than get sucked into earths gravity because the craters appear as direct impacts with a few angled hits . Here’s a revelation,we’re all going to die….some day and then people that predicted my death can say they were right that I would die. Global Warming and Climate Change is real,I noticed it gets cold around November and then heats up around june every year since I can remember.
    My Dad called them Seasons and they were summer and winter where water went from a gas to a liquid to fall from the sky and then from a liquid to a solid gorm as snow.

    Al Gore may be right,it does get hot in july but it then cools off which is not on his pretty charts or videos.

  18. melwildeon 16 Jul 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Well, It seems we still have much to discuss. I agree, climate is changing. The question is; What is causing those changes.
    Unfortunately, the author frames his dissertation in derogatory terms and it’s that sort of scribbling that causes the real problem.
    We have forgotten how to discuss a serious subject without nastiness.
    Perhaps someday folks will re-learn the fundamentals of honest discourse and learn how to deal with tough issues. Until then, have a nice day!

  19. Sean Johnon 16 Jul 2010 at 4:08 pm

    actually, we don’t believe the world is round. It is round because we can, and have, sailed and flown around it. the climate alarmists expect us the take their word that we are in immanent peril unless we give Robert Mugabe money for our ‘climate debt’. Do we have an impact? probably. Is the world ending in 10 years? no.

  20. Lorion 16 Jul 2010 at 4:23 pm

    We can agree that climate is changing.

    We will have to disagree that:

    1) this is mostly humankind’s fault
    2) changes in human activity can do much about any change that is happening.
    3) It’s that big of a deal if things heat up a bit, or cool off a bit (meaning a degree or two).

    The climate change debate was highjacked by green activism, and this destroyed its credibility with ridiculous claims that have been proven to be patently false and based on no science at all.

    There is also a reflexive mistrust in conservative circles whenever the UN and its kleptocracy gets engaged. I still feel that way.

    Probably there is a core of science there, but we no longer trust the people involved. How that trust can be regained, I don’t know.

  21. Adrianon 16 Jul 2010 at 5:19 pm

    You totally look like David Schwimmer. But you’re a hell of a good guy and not at all whiny.

    p.s. Anthropogenic Climate Change isn’t real

  22. Alexon 16 Jul 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I take it back. You aren’t a loser like Schwimmer. Your title got the best of me as designed I’m sure. Well Done.

    …And I always bring it, though it might be best directed towards a real enemy.

  23. Fred from BCon 16 Jul 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Pretty much every response I could have given to this rant has already been given (quite eloquently, in some cases). Every couple of weeks or so a new nail appears to be driven into the AGW coffin anyway, so as time goes on you are going to find yourself being labelled as the “denier”. I’ll just add one more thought: follow the money. Who benefits the most from this fearmongering (remember Y2K? How many people cashed in on that one?)? How do you account for the fact that the AWG Industry (and yes, that’s exactly what it is: an industry) spends three thousand times as much as the anti-AGW forces and the so-called Big Oil combined?

    Follow the money. Governments all over the world LOVE this stuff for one very obvious reason…

  24. Mike Murphyon 16 Jul 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Mr. Narvey you seem confused. Climate is always changing. What you fail to state is whether it is induced by, for example, your own flatulence or other green house gases. Today we have seen published two scientific studies showing that the extinction of Woolly Mammoths both increased warming and also induced cooling. Thank goodness for us skeptics otherwise you warmists would be supporting every tin pot despot dictator in the third world with my tax dollars and the fraud of cap n trade. Keep bleating though. Al the Goracal needs you to support his lavish lifestyle, his interests in carbon trading and purchased carbon credits to assuage his guilt. Does that help you to get over your Liberal sense of knowing what is best for the world – even if you are wrong.

  25. kevanywhereon 16 Jul 2010 at 10:35 pm

    How come you didn’t take my challenge? When I tried it, I couldn’t find any spot, well the ones I looked at anyway, that showed a consistent warming. Some were colder one year and warmer others, or the other way around, but none showed just an increase in temp year over year, with no cooling. Now you try, if you dare.

  26. Blame Crashon 17 Jul 2010 at 7:42 am

    The puke reflex is caused by the growing realization that it’s all a big hoax and the believers have been “had” and been made a fool of.

    Hence, they must lash out at the messenger. It’s just the “same old same old” isn’t it!

    Ps : cancer is not caused by smoking cigarettes. Maybe you meant to say that it accelerates the onset of cancer, which would be true.

  27. WTFon 17 Jul 2010 at 8:10 am

    And there is a growing body of evidence that homosapiens did not evolve from apes but both apes and humans are offshoots of a common ancestor.

  28. Cytotoxicon 17 Jul 2010 at 8:42 am

    Okay, go ahead and puke. Doesn’t matter; John got fisked like nothing else by Corcoran:

  29. Taylor Cutforthon 17 Jul 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Really? Thats what you think?

    Did you re-read my posts?
    Watch the Lee Doran videos?

    I like how you just tossed everything I said and posted aside and then cheap shotted me with that remark.

    I’m not from “small dead animals”. Though even if I was that wouldn’t discount everything one has to say on any given topic.
    Least of which AGW.


    Before how I go on a tangent on how it is totally possible and very likely that some odd bits of the old soviet intelligence still exist and have infiltrated and hijacked various environmental of the last few decades (which IS true btw, this shit happens); I should point out that CO2 even with some mild help from the sun (a degree or two) does not melt Arctic Ice.

    But rather, volcanic activity can.

    see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/

    oh, but thats just a climate denier site anyway, it doesn’t count!

    okay then, enjoy typing this up into a search engine:

    volcanic activity under arctic ice


    That said, and like I was saying before: if you haven’t figured out that all/or 92% the various environmentalist movements are either various mixtures between Marxists and commune hippies pushing socialistic policies, then I don’t see why you bother having a political blog.

    As thats what this is, and your whole post. POLITICAL.

    Not scientific.

    The same goes for your whole arguments on this page of your site.

    Since this is the free world and all, your entitled to your own opinion. “We the group-think collective of right-wing bloggers who are all clearly alike and agree on everything from apple pie to starwars (of the none fictional type), say were okay with that!

    You are free to go about your business of ignorance. Be saaaafe.

    ~voice of the “The Many”

  30. Taylor Cutforthon 17 Jul 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Oh and for the rest of you who’ve been reading these comments with interest here’s an even more interesting–(–nay! awesome)–read from all the way back to 2002:


    In his book Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Eco-Savage, Robert Whelan provides many quotations showing that the Greens, like those who wrote the Jo’burg Memo, believe that “indigenous” primitive groups lived in a perfect state with nature before the arrival of the evil westerners.

    Perked anyones interest? it gets better.

    It also does a good job of shutting up Neo-Luddism without even trying.

    I for one don’t want an Amish lifestyle forced unto me either.

  31. Taylor Cutforthon 17 Jul 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Not meaning to beat a dead horse but who said this?:

    I was to discover that a lot of “liberals” just couldn’t accept the notion that Moscow had bad intentions or wanted to take over Hollywood and many other American industries through subversion, or that Stalin was a murderous gangster. To them, fighting totalitarianism was “witch hunting” and “red baiting. ”

    Ronald Reagen.

  32. Roy Eappenon 17 Jul 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Totally disagree with you on this one. Do you have a scientific background. I have been to see gore and suzuki and I have heard Prof Lindzen of MIT. Lindzen wins.


  33. klemon 21 Jul 2010 at 9:32 am

    “Well, most of us would agree with these ideas, anyway. That’s because these theories have been tested scientifically.”

    Absolutely correct, all of these theories are tested over and over again, the results are the same over and over again, the studies are repeatable. That’s the trouble with climate science; virtually none of the science is repeatable. Even when the physicists do the math and the AGW theory is supported, another physicist will come up with different numbers and the support falls away. Gravity is a perfect example; the math to describe and predict a falling object is accurate to within thousandth of a degree on each test, but with climate science each run of the climate model brings a different result. So they have to run it 1000’s of times and then do an average. I wonder what kind of science is this anyway.

  34. Steveon 22 Jul 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Hi Jon,

    I’m an Engineer who has no formal training in anything climate related. However, I pride myself of being balnaced and fair. I have made it a point ot trya nd understand the whole climate debate at some depth.

    I think the earth goes through periods of heating and cooling, and while we as humans may have some miniscule impact, compared to say the iceland volcano etc , we are almost unnoticeable. the fact the medaevil warm period existed is proof of this.

    I have spent the last 4 years reading both sides of the argument. I have seen the push from both camps and weighed it all up.

    I have to conclude that :

    (1) The science is NOT settled. To assume so is dangerously arrogant and irrisponsible. The powers that be – govt, al gore, IPCC etc trying to shut down dissent – this only firms up resolve of those of us who care about a balanced debate, to dig deeper and check & recheck facts and theories. So far, the warming camp is losing badly.

    (2) There is a massive “Establishment” push – media, govt, interest groups – who seem to want to push the warmist agenda. This always makes wise people sit up and become cautious in what this cabal produces – so far most if it seems unreliable and heavily ( wrongly ) biased toward warming.

    (3) The Incovenient Truth was a blatant, poorly researched but masterfully presnted pile of inaccurate science and outright lies and distortion of truth. The fact this was the poster child of the pro-AGW camp is frankly embarrassing. The fact in a UK court it was shredded scientifically is proof of a bigger deliberate game of distortion of truth at work.

    (4) The ClimateGate email scandal – in politics they say “Never hold and enquiry unless you know the outcome beforehand”. The whole scandal was cleverly whitewashed and used faulty terms of reference to guarantee a favourable outcome. The fact the pro-AGW camp in East Anglia Uni was caught with its pants down in a deliberate obscufication or deletion of material that would have destroyed its credibility and proved AGW was a lie is no surprise – its a pity it didnt happen sooner. Climate gate just proved what most rational people have thought ofr a long time.

    I hope enough people now take the govt, politicians and pro-AGW crowd to task at length and really put them through the wringer.

    AGW is a THEORY – it hasnt been proven yet. We cant forecast weathe rbeyond 2 weeks, how can we forecast climate at 50-100 years? Anyone who say we can is a liar and should be aashamed of themselves. At least it will save them form being publically ridiculed and self-humilated.

    And no , I dont work for any interest group. I started researching climate when all thi sblew up, and I wanted to be able to explain to my little girl what was what with this whole debacle. My little girl will be told the earth has its own natural heating and cooling cycles, and while its good to be energy efficient, we are in NO danger of destroying the planet or killing everything on it. Our planet is a magnificent self-healing eco-system that is beautifully built and run, which has its seasons and temperature set by solar activity.

    I hope people who create the chicken-little panic with AGW can live with themselves when it all come scrashing down around thier ears.

    As to me, I am calm and relaxed. Things will continue as they have for millenia.

    Have a good weekend.

  35. freedomwriteron 23 Jul 2010 at 6:28 am

    Control. That’s what this is all about. Who has it and who wants it. The vast majority of the solutions proposed by warmists have been about control. It’s alarming how many of them have spoken of Nuremberg type trials for dissenters of the so-called settled science. In their world within their minds anyone skeptical or speaking freely should be jailed because of the destruction such speaking will do to future generations. It would appear this “settle science” is like a giant crystal-ball with which to view the future.

    More alarming than this are the shouts from certain people for the need of global governance. Specifically a “global climate dictator.” It’s almost unimaginable that people who have enjoyed the freedoms and gifts of democracy could seriously suggest such a thing! They seem to suffer from the delusion that humanity is enlightened enough that that dictator would of course only and always be a benevolent one. Recent history and the present suggests otherwise.

    Perhaps in the near future alarmists will get down on their knees and thank God for the existence of the “deniers.” Without the influence that deniers are having on the AGW debate in our democracy the warmists would be faced with a world devoid of freedoms which even they would be unable to bear. A world where climate and temperatures would be the least of their problems.

  36. blablablaon 13 Aug 2010 at 2:23 pm

    OMG! It’s so hot! It must be global warming. OMG It’s cold! It must be global warming! OMG there’s a tornado! It must be global warming! OMG It’s an earthquake! It must be global warming! OMG! It’s a hurricane! It must be global warming! OMG the ice caps are, are not are are not are are not melting! It must be global warming! OMG! It’s a volcano! Nah, that can’t cause global warming because global warming is caused by man!

    Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

  37. D Ranton 09 Dec 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Morons that believe in climate change make me want to puke.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply