April 25, 2009

I find it amazing that so many Americans support terrorists, support destroying their planet, support foreign oil dependency, and hate their children

I find it amazing that so many Americans deny settled science.

I find it amazing that so many Americans are so, frankly, ignorant.

I find it amazing that so many who call themselves religious don't do everything they can to protect and nurture the one planet god gave them.

All because they hate Al Gore.

Destroy the planet, do nothing about climate change, all because they hate Al Gore.

The older ignorant generations will eventually die off. Goodbye WWII generation - you'll truly be missed. Goodbye baby boomers (sound of crickets chirping). Goodbye Gen X and Gen Y - you started the change, good for you, but you didn't do enough.

And in the not-too-distant-future, those too young to vote today will be stuck with the mess left by the self-centered, short-sighted and ignorant now destroying their world.

And history will not be kind.

In fact, history will be brutal.

Despite what Fox News and ignorant talk radio tells you, this isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It isn't a left vs. right thing. Just look at John Warner's testimony. Even the now-dead GOP is starting to get it.

No, this issue is simply right vs. wrong. It is simply enlightened vs. ignorant.

So, what side of history are you on?


Anonymous said...

Change is settled because it happens on planets without humans too. What happened to warming?

Proposals to tax by the mile, which decrease incentives to purchase fuel efficient cars, make it hard not to believe this is really about more taxes and invasion of privacy.

A Republican pushes to legalize industrial hemp to reduce the use of pesticides and petroleum, and to increase US jobs that don't involve loan modifications. The Dems, instead, continue to dump $ on banksters, GSEs and baby factories to further encourage overconsumption and overpopulation. If there were less market interference, people would actually have an incentive to save and consume less.

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled Keith. Warner is probably on some board at XYZ company that stands to gain from the media hype and hysteria around so called global warming. And further is isn't settled. I'd wager a guess at how many academic departments rely on government money (all around the world) to help fund their pretty little projects. I think you fail to factor in that a lot of R & D gets done at the university level. Think patents.... Besides the sheer enormity and tonnage of waste that comes from all the animals we eat
(industrialized nations) out strips the mere footprint we humans would put out. Answer : Eat less. Also one good volcano puts out more pollution than all the cars on the planet for a year. And lets not forget that the Sun is acting fucked up. I think the easy answer is to conserve what you can and strive to recycle. Do with a little less.

Wind Farmer said...

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is crucially important for life on Earth, since as well as it maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.[2][β] The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts :[3] which is about six times larger than the yearly power consumption of human civilization.[4] In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.

Let's see, all live on Earth is carbon based. Let's make carbon an element of Pollution. Let's tax it.

Calling climate change a "settled science" is just STUPID. Not ignorant, STUPID. Even you, Keith, invite debate. If I had a strong position on something, like Al Gore has on climate change, I'd welcome all comers to debate the issue. To say the debate is over is so wrong-headed, I'm stunned. Why won't Gore debate it? Because he's no scientist. He's a nobel prize winning power point presenter. Academy Award, too? Oh boy.

Hey, just make everyone plant some trees. Want to tax something, tax people (more than one child)....OH, this is a way to do it!!! Carbon Taxes on EVERYONE.

Global warming is the biggest hoax in history. And that's saying somthing!

Keith, I'd be interested...have YOU ever taken any biology, chemistry, agronomy, earth science courses? College level? Just askin.

Anonymous said...

"...look at John Warner's testimony..."When gas was pushing $5, all the politicians had to offer was making fun of Obama's tire pressure distraction.

A FAR BIGGER effect would be Warner's national speed limit proposal.

The difference in MPG with my little Toyota pickup between going 65mph and 80 is around 20%; verified over quite a few tankfuls.

Twenty percent.

Yet America as a whole is not even interested in something we could do TODAY, with very little effect on daily routine/commerce.

I realize it's not something we want to do, so reap what you sow, America.

Ph.D in Physics said...

Keith, there is no such thing as "settled science". Please stop making a fool of yourself by using that phrase.

Aunt Fanny said...

I'm not so sure the world will be in better hands with future generations. Yes, the Boomers and WWII'ers have their faults. And I too once wished for their hurried demise so that we could enjoy smarter, kinder, better leadership in all areas of our lives. However, upon looking around at the new generation of Americanos coming up, I have become disillusioned and disappointed. These kids are even worse than their parents and grandparents. They (in general) have no values, no ethics, no rules, no goals and no ideals. TV, MTV, computer games and internet porn have rotted and corrupted whatever promise they may have had in the womb. I don't have much faith in what they can bring to the world stage. They may twitter, but they are TWITS!!

Ross said...

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I don't believe a word that extremist says anymore, sorry.

Climate Change is simply his agenda. He owns "carbon trading." FOLLOW THE MONEY

Anonymous said...

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing


“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance.


Destroyed Planet said...

A lot of people came THISCLOSE to death last year. Bet you never even heard about it.

On August 28, 2008, an over-pressurized waste tank containing Methomyl exploded at a Bayer CropScience facility in Institute, West Virginia, sending a fireball hundreds of feet into the air. One Bayer employee was killed instantly, and another suffered third-degree burns and died one month later. Eight other individuals, including six emergency responders and two contract employees, reported symptoms of chemical exposure as a result of the explosion.
The Committee initiated its investigation because the explosion came dangerously close to compromising another nearby tank filled with several tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC), an extremely toxic chemical that killed approximately 4,000 people after a leak in Bhopal, India, in 1984. Twenty-five years later, Bayer’s facility in West Virginia is the only site in the United States that continues to produce and store large amounts of MIC.
The explosion at Bayer’s plant was particularly ominous and unnerving because a “residue treater” weighing several thousand pounds rocketed 50 feet through the plant, twisting steel beams, severing pipes, and destroying virtually everything in its path. Had this projectile struck the MIC tank, the consequences could have eclipsed the 1984 disaster in India. As part of its investigation, the Committee reviewed more than 200,000 pages of documents, as well as audio and video recordings, obtained from Bayer, the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), the independent federal agency charged with investigating chemical accidents. Committee staff also inspected Bayer’s plant in West Virginia and interviewed more than 20 Bayer employees, first responders, elected officials, and concerned residents. Evidence obtained by the Committee demonstrates that Bayer engaged in a campaign of secrecy by withholding critical information from local, county, and state emergency responders; by restricting the use of information provided to federal investigators; by undermining news outlets and citizen groups concerned about the dangers posed by Bayer’s activities; and by providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public.
On the night of the explosion, Bayer failed to provide emergency responders with critical information about the scope of the explosion, the potential chemical hazards involved, or the actions needed to safeguard the surrounding community.

I've had it said...

Global Warming is a farce. Even the GW Cult knows this, which is why they now call it Climate Change. It has been so cold the last few years it's not even funny. There have been record cold temps and snowfalls all over the world...Colorado just had another major snowstorm last week in April!

The GW Cult is all about the following:

1) for Scientists: keep the research money flowing for their studies;

2) for the Globalists: create a one-world government (based in Brussels);

3) for the Leftists: create a global taxing infrastructure to achieve their vision of global income re-distribution and population behavioral control;

4) for Academics: to allow them to continue their classroom tirades against America.

This is the reality of the GW political movement. The lies and shoddy research and conclusions have been exposed. But those who staked their reputations on it (like Al Gore) would rather continue lying and fudging the numbers than to admit they're wrong.

Don't fall for the GW/CC lies.

Gabor said...

We had global warming in the middle ages too. This is due to sun spots.

Anonymous said...

settled science? there is rarely such a thing.

why are the global warming proponents so sensitive to having their work examined, questioned, criticized?

isn't that what science is all about?

Anonymous said...


global cooling was "settled science" back in the 70s.

please stop using the term "settled science", i am not sure there isn't such a thing.

December 2008

Anonymous said...

Global warming is the new religion of the ignorant with Al Gore and his henchmen as the high priests. This is all about money and control. James Madison stated that 'Knowledge is liberty'. This global warming crap is just pure indoctrination for the ignorant and used to suppress debate. Those with knowledge will be free, those without will be ruled and used because they know no better. That is what James Madison was saying. What is the difference between Al Gore and the Pope of medievel Europe and the Muslim Imams? None. They are all obstacles to the freedom and enlightenment of the human mind and the human spirit. I would rather go down fighting than submit myself to this tyranny.

Anonymous said...

"and hate their children"

yea, i have never understood liberals fascination with killing babies.

Pay Lay Ale said...

Keith, are you living on another planet? The planet I'm living on has been experiencing cooling for the last couple of years. The planet I'm living on has a city called Las Vegas, that got snow in April.

Also in my solar system, there's this planet called Mars, which was experiencing global warming at the same time my planet was in the 20th century. How is that possible?

Paige Turner said...

RE: I find it amazing that so many Americans deny settled science.One of my college professors said that if you ever see the following preamble to a question on a true or false test, mark the question FALSE:

"ALL scientists agree..."

However, there is little doubt that human activity is destroying the earth. The immediate extermination of most of the earth's human population is the only solution to this problem.

Americans, as well as other people, are very reluctant to accept the fact that there are plans in the works which will accomplish this necessary population reduction in the very near future.


Anonymous said...

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing


“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

wow. settled science, huh?

gore with his settled science should be able to decimate that skeptic.

Anonymous said...

bwah bwah bwah Global warning is lie bwah bwah bwah....

Anonymous said...

What about those that support other country's manufacturers over their own? Support the decemation of our job base and manufaturing abilities?

Dude there seems to be a mote in your eye.

GT Charlie

Batman said...

To PhD in Physics (I got one too dude): if you really are a scientist and not fundamentalist survivalist, you'd know even if nothing is 100% sure, we act on the balance of the evidence. If we needed 100% proof of our theories we'd never do anything. That's what makes it different than religion. The door is always open to new evidence but let's say there is only an 80% chance of human generated CO2 accelerating our demise, perhaps it might be a good idea to do something about it?

And as for the rocket scientists who saw that it was colder in their back yard or up their ass this year compared to last year, maybe, just maybe, your sample size is a tad small. It's about the polar ice, not how much snow was on you pickup truck's hood this morning.

So if you paranoid anticivilization Oklahoma bomber types don't like anything the government does, you can try to building all your schools, highways, sewer systems, defense systems and god knows what else yourselves. But get out of the way if we're trying to stop the overpopulation of the planet from killing us all. Do you think we can just go to a population of a trillion and there won't be any side effects to the earth?

By the way, what was that post about photosynthesis? Can you explain what that has to do with anything other than showing us you took grade eight biology? Polite applause, now figure out how to add as many trees as the earth human population has grown this century (btw, most of the CO2 is converted by algae anyway I think), or how about this, just to keep the number constant?

It's more than just the CO2. It's the whole damn infinite earth theory that people think we can keep pissing in our own well and it will all be fine. It's called denial man, that's how the folks on Easter Island ended up gnawing on each others' bones in the end, they ignored the obvious problem of continuous exponential growth in a finite system. How obvious can you get man?

So if we need to focus on Al Gore's Christmas lights or the boogey man, to deflect our own contribution to the worlds problems (I have my own part in making it worse too), I guess the important question is : "Is the human race worth saving?".

I Hate Al Gore More Than I Love My Children said...

2 Questions:

Is Global Warming Happening?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Second Question: Is this caused by human activity?

Very likely," the IPCC said in a February 2007 report.

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

Mike Hunt said...


It's not settled science.

True we are in a sunspot low cycle so that explains some of the cooling in an otherwise 2 decade warming cycle.

However what about the increased growth of plant mass when CO2 levels increase. Is it really clear that CO2 levels cause warming? Isn't Gore's thesis based on correlation? If the hypothesis for causation is the greenhouse effect, what about the effect of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than CO2?

We need to think through these things before we implement a Carbon tax which is just another financial distortion.

Actually we should all be consuming less- forget CO2. This is the right strategy overall for us.

But you'll notice your hero, Obama is just scared to death of that happening. Instead he is talking about spending more, junking your old car and getting tax credits to buy new cars. How much CO2 is generated building a new car, even a hybrid with Nickel Hydride batteries? Answer: a fucking shitload. Much more than driving a Hummer H2 into the ground with reduced consumption in daily driving. Fixing things and making them last is always a better use of energy than the throwaway society we have. Yet Obama can't seem to wrap that around his Harvard educated brain. I think you can though.

Think about that paradox before you make posts like this. You keep saying you want to avoid GD II but do you realize the positive effect a 10% contraction would have on reducing CO2 output? Yet Gore doesn't seem to be celebrating this nor our current contraction in car sales and miles driven as a step forward.

Wonder why? Oh yeah. Follow the money.

You want us to think and welcome open debate. What is your counter argument to what I just said?


Anonymous said...

Global warming, Oops I mean climate change is simply a shakedown

A new way to Tax under the "It effects us all emergency"

Gore is a Hypocrite of the first order.

Why will he Not Debate this openly?

West Coast Willie said...

To all "follow the money", what's their agenda fu*kos.

You keep talking about the agenda that all the thousands of scientists who detect global warming have that skewers their objectivity.

If they all are willing to lie about the scientific evidence because they are all small minded grant grubbers, surely you would agree that those who espouse the view that there is no threat from global warming, the science is not "settled" etc. must also have an agenda.

Oh wait, you're just interested in the truth. Right? Be honest, and tell us what your agenda is or shut the fu"k up.

Keith, I thought you were going to shut down the anonymi bullshiters unless they got a handle.

Anonymous said...

Go back and review the prognostication of the 'scientists and experts" at the time of the first Earth Day. You will LOL and 25 yrs. from now the current claims will appear just as ridiculous.

duarte said...

USS Skate at the ice-free North Pole in 1959:


Arctic Sea Ice cover growing rapidly:


Cooked books by Climate Scientists:


Settled Science?


As for the future...no sea level change and people so poor and hungry they don't care about the damn polar bears.

duarte said...

To I-Hate-Al-Gore-More-Than-I-Love-My-Children: Check the stats i just posted. Al's data comes from before 2007. It's because the sea ice is increasing since then. Look at the numbers from my link, above.
All in glorious color charts and graphs.

Anonymous said...


Obama flew Air Force One to 'Earth day' events...

that's a lot of Jet A being burned

Big Carbon footprint!

Not very Eco-friendly!!!!!

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...

It amazes me that someone intelligent enough to recognize and warn about the fraud and corruption in the housing bubble is blind to the purpose of the "global warming" nonsense. This is nothing more than the next Great Scam. The dot-com debacle and house as ATM flim-flam will pale in comparison to this latest benefit the few to the detriment of the masses boondoggle.

Verbosity Dogood said...

First, the IPCC is a creation of the United Nations. Nah, no politics there.

Secondly, because of the political nature of this question, I found the below site interesting, as it uncovers mistakes and manipulations within the IPCC's 4th assessment report from 2007, upon which these claims of 'settled science' rest.


Here are but a few of the many things wrong with the report (available at the link).

The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph, in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.

The IPCC's own data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text states the opposite.

Downplaying the urban heat island effect. The IPCC significantly underestimates the influence of the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities.

For those interested, I'd take a look. I have a hard time agreeing with the 'settled science' conclusion from a political organization where it looks as though it is manipulating and/or ignoring data to reached a preordained conclusion.

Ross said...

West Coast Willie.... hahahaha..... my agenda? I don't have an agenda other than getting my opinion out and doing some research in my spare time so that I don't end up like the other sheep.

You want to fight about it???

I love internet tough guys. Ok Willie, I'll shut the f*ck up because you are just willing to bend over and take it from the MSM and I'm not. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

You truly are a raging fanatic of a demagogue, Keith.

First of all, it is not a settled science AT ALL.

Secondly, it is not just the "science" that is disputed it is also the response that is disputed. Laying down further taxation on "carbon" is a ludicrous assertion and will only profit these Chicago carbon exchange swindlers like Al Gore.

We don't dispute that we should limit pollution to the environment but if you truly want to be scientific you measure the true costs of all forms of environmental pollution and you measure the likely effects of any proposed action to combat said pollution.

How can you say it's a settled science when even the name of this so called crisis has not been settled. Come on Keith! What is it? Is it global warming? Climate change? Global cooling?

Stop arrogantly ear bashing us all as if we are ignorant and un-scientific. I am not ignorant. I do my research. I am a scientist by trade so I understand the scientific method and Al Gore's tactics and *your* tactics do not fit that method.


Anonymous said...

You folks really have a hard-on for this topic; don't you?

Anonymous said...

this tax scheme sounds more like a religion now that they're silencing scientists who point out there was more warming prior to the industrial revolution, and it more accurately tracks with solar activity rather than industrial

Mike H. said...

Batman said:

"Limitless exponential growth in the face of fixed resources"

(Golf clap)


You've got it in one. Well said.

Nobody wants to talk about sustainable population levels as it's a political hot button. Why? Well besides India and Latin America who sport the highest growth rates, the biggest breeders in the US are the Hispanics. Unfortunately that's also a good part of the Dem's base. Limitless population growth is not an entitlement- we need to put policies in place that address this.


Anonymous said...

Polish Academy of Sciences Questions Gore's Man-Made Global Warming Theory
By: Kevin Mooney
Examiner Investigative Reporter
04/24/09 9:18 AM
Just as Al Gore prepares to testify on the dangers of Global Warming and urgency of new legislation the Polish Academy of Sciences has published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming. Gore’s testimony today caps four days of hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on climate change legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, have introduced a draft version of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” which calls for imposing a cap and trade scheme.
This report from a major scientific institution in the European Union shows the “consensus” position is becoming increasingly untenable.
The report is as follows:
The climate change of our planet, which can be observed more frequently in recent years, has become alarming for the public opinion. Various methods to remedy the situation are elaborated on the international level by decision makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (operating since 1988) and different ecologic organisations.
Having a part in this significant debate, the Geologic Science Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences wishes to turn to 10 fundamental aspects of the problem closely related to the functioning of geosystem - the complex interdependence of processes occurring in the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere. The knowledge of these factors should be the foundation for any rational and careful decisions, which could interfere in the geosystem.

1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth's yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents' position as a result of their permanent wandering.

2. Geologic research proves irrefutably that the permanent change is the fundamental characteristic of the Earth's climate as throughout its entire history, and the changes occur in cycles of varied length - from several thousand to just a few years. Longer climate cycles are provoked by the extraterrestrial factors of astronomic character as well as by the changes of the Earth's orbital parameters, in brief - by regional and local factors. Not all reasons for climate change or their phenomena are fully known yet.

3. Although in the history of the Earth, a considerably warmer climate than today had dominated, there had been repeated occurrences when the Earth experienced massive global cooling which always resulted in vast ice sheets that sometimes even reached the subtropics. Therefore, reliable forecasts of changes in the Earth's climate (not to mentioned efforts to prevent, shape, or act against them) must take into account the results of its research of the Earth's geological history - a time when humanity (and the industry) were not on our planet.

4. Since twelve thousand years ago, the Earth is in the another phase of cyclical warming and is near the maximum of its intensively. Just in the last 2.5 million years, periods of warming have on several occasions intertwined with ice ages, which have already been well identified.

5. The current warming is accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: water vapour is dominant among them, and in smaller quantities there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and ozone. This has always happened because it is an occurrence that accompanies cyclical warming and cooling. The periodic increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, sometimes a value even several times larger than at present, has accompanied previous warming even before man inhabited the Earth.

6. Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar 4 times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times, in total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.

7. After a warm period in the past millennium, by the end of the thirteenth century, a cold period had begun and it lasted up to the mid-nineteenth century, and then a warm period in which we are living had begun. The phenomenon observed today, in particular the temporary rise of global temperature, are the result of the natural rhythm of climate change. Warmer and warmer oceans have a smaller ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and reducing the area of the long term permafrost leads to more rapid decomposition of organic compounds in the soil, and thus to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. For billions of years, Earth's volcanic activity along the lines of lithosphere plate boundaries, hidden mainly beneath the surface of the oceans, has been constantly providing the atmosphere with CO2 with various levels of intensively.

In the geo-system gas is removed from the atmosphere to the biosphere and from the lithosphere through the process of photosynthesis that is bound in the living organisms - including the shell carbonate marine organisms and after their death it is stored in the huge limestone on the bottom of the seas and the oceans, while on land it is bound in various organic sediments.

8. A detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only regards parts of continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established - as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.

9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend.

10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.

The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start .....

it's all settled science....

Anonymous said...

To all the tree hugger schmucks...

From all scientific studies so far, all of the coal, oil and natural gas trapped underground is the result of ancient vegetation and micro-organisms which were buried millions of years ago.

As such, ALL of this trapped carbon used to exist on the surface or in the air at one time in history! Since then it has been trapped underground.

So my question to the environmentalists is this...

If all this carbon used to exist on the surface, why are you complaining about human activity which is restoring the natural balance and putting that carbon back to where it's supposed to be?

Perhaps nature created us and gave us intelligence for the sole purpose of liberating the carbon trapped underground so that the carbon cycle can continue on this planet.

Therefore, I would think ANYONE trying to prevent humans from liberating carbon, are enemies of nature and life on this planet.

Pheenix11 said...

Hey Keith, I heard the swine flu has arrived in the UK. Better go get a flu shot, because you believe everything scientists do right?

Anonymous said...

dems wont allow debate!!!

see the other drudge headlines.

carbon tax is a scam to destroy the american middle class- why does china and india get away with pollution?

cfl bulbs are made with mercury!!1
do you want mercury in your home?

on top of that they are made in china- what other poisons are in them. how do you dispose of them?

from drudge:
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

i like your blog keith, been a fan since the old haousingpanic days, but on this you are SO WRONG!

Jasen said...


There is no such thing as settled science. Global warming proponents like risk analyzers use models to prove their theories. Is Climate Change occurring? probably in some form or another. Doubtless there is a trend worth trying to model, but that doesn't mean it's really a threat, or even that any action we take will have a remarkable effect.

Is a cap and trade or some other method going to solve it? how about EPA regulated C02 limits? probably not. a cap and trade is going to slow, not reverse the release of C02 while C02 production in China and India will increase. How do you measure the release of C02 from a factory? an estimation of the amount of carbon going in? who gets to decide how that is estimated?

Cap and Trade with be another speculative market. Oh look I added VFD's to my industrial motors, where's my tax credit!! I dumped 9000 tons of fertilizer into the ocean and made an algae bloom, I deserve $10 million in credits, i did the maths and can prove it absorbed 50 tons of C02. no really.

If we take Climate Change as real, we should probably accept it as inevitable, yet Al Gore isn't doing that. he is proposing silliness legislation when he should be proposing Sea Walls around NYC. There are no good guys, merely interests.

Weiner said...

I have kids. I am much more fearful that they live under a command and control economy than that they live in a world that is 2 degrees warmer. Empowering the government with more contol over us will wreak much more havoc than warmer temperatures. I am not sure why, after all the evil governments have perpetrated in history (including, according to most people on this board, over the last 8 years)one would trust them to tell us exactyl what kind of toilets, light bulbs, cars, etc. we can use and expect it to not end badly. ESPECIALLY when we know China, India, etc are not going to adhere to reduced "greenhouse" emissions, why would we tie our hands behind our backs in an economic fight?

And I do not hate Al Gore, I just know he is wrong.

West Coast Willie said...

CEO of Duke Energy on 60 Minutes tonight. The commie, liberal, pinky, axe to grind, Al Gore wanna be nut actually said carbon is bad for the enviornment and we can't keep building coal fired plants.

Man did he drink the coolaid or wait...did the UN get to him???

Reality said...


You are unfortunately channelling Des Cartes regarding his "delimma" on religin: i.e. even if there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of God, what if there is one, it would be safer to worship than not to worship. The Cartesian "solution" is easily rebutted thus: what if the "True God" is a very jealous one and doesn't like you worshipping the one that you are worshipping?

The overwhelming historical evidence seems to indicate that warming periods coincide with economics prosperity and human advancement . . . whereas cooling periods usually led to wars and devastation. I'm of the opinion that human regulation of CO2 won't have much effect on CO2 level, just as whether you worship whatever won't have much to do with the blessings that humanity can receive from the deity. On the other hand, a tax, just like a tithe or jizier, does have the tendency to clog up the economy.

It's interesting that you brought up Easter Island. Let's not forget that the islanders clear cut their forest in a religions pusuit: carving, moving and erect giant stone statues, presumably as a way to solve their deteriorating ecology. That's a classic objective lesson in state religion barking up the wrong tree, exacerbating the problem. I have a feeling that human endeavors to cause global cooling, to the extent there is any effect at all, is a negative one, just like the Easter Islander's Moai building campaign.

As for the old claptrap about over population, people were complaining about over population back in the 1600's, when English population increased to 5.6 million from 2.6 million a century earlier. That's why they had to go out and establish colonies. Today, the population of England is close to 40 million; London alone has more than 5.6 million people. The technology advances in per acre food production and transportation to move food around to where people need them (including refrigeration prenting spoilage) has made it all possible. People in 1600's England probably would laugh at the thought of having 7 million people packed into a city like London. They didn't even have widespread use of indoor plumbing, much less water treatment plant; they probably would think the Thames would be a smelly cesspool if there were that many people in London.

Anonymous said...

Here's a perfect example of "settled" science:


Of all the boneheaded, pea-brained ideas ever to come out of the mouths of these retards who call themselves scientists, definitely climate warming, change, cooling, or whatever you want to call it has to rank up there with pissing on a live transformer.

They have no clue how the weather on this planet works - they can't even predict next week with certainty, but they absolutely know what it's going to be like 50 years from now.

Climate change - what a crock.


Singular said...

What can you expect from a country where half the people believe in creationism?