Man Made BullCrap…

hottest-hoaxI feel like I should do this post for Chris’s sake. Not that I don’t always enjoy covering this topic. But I invited Chris to the site after a small discussion on facebook. We were discussing global warming and I was unable to have the discussion in the limited space of a facebook note, so I invited him here to have the debate. I am hoping that he is still up for trying to defend what I think is one of the biggest farces we have seen in the last decade. It ranks right up there with terrorism justifying the Patriot Act and the Evils of big business justifying the unprecedented move towards socialism. But those are other topics for other days. Today I am talking about anthropomorphic (man-made) global warming, or the lack thereof…

global-warming-is-a-lieWe have watched the enviro-maniacs pursuing this line of reasoning for oh so long. We watched as the “experts” told us in the 70’s and 80’s that we were headed for another ice-age. Then we watched those same experts switch tactics in the 90’s and instead go towards global warming. My personal belief is that the environmentalists didn’t see the angle working their way with a coming ice-age. There was no way to find a thread of logic that would link it to human behavior, and thus serve the purpose of instituting overreaching control over people. So when the earth cycled around to heating up again they made their move. Only now the earth is cooling again, so we are already seeing the beginning of the switch to “climate change” instead of warming.

Let me say up front my overall belief. There is no such thing as human caused global warming. Human beings are awful arrogant to think that our little pissant selves have the ability to impact the global climate by even a percentage of a degree. The earth has been here for roughly 4.6 Billion Years. Humans have been here for roughly between 100,000 and 200,000 years. Spread your arms out as wide as you can. That is the time earth has existed. Take a finger nail file and brush across the fingernail of your longest finger lightly just one time. You have just eliminated the entire time of humans on earth. During this time there have been times of cooling and warming, with humans and without them. 

more-inconvenient-truth-cowWater vapor makes up 95% of the earth’s greenhouse gasses. CO2 makes up roughly 3% of greenhouse gas. So only 3% of greenhouse gasses are CO2. Only 3% of that 3% is attributable to manmade CO2. So do the math here, unless I am too stupid to use a calculator correctly…. and you get to the number that approximately one tenth of one percent of greenhouse gas is attributable to humans. Let’s just average that out for each person on the planet shall we? Let’s round it to 6 Billion people. One person is 0.00000000017% of the population. Take that times the one tenth of one percent and each human is responsible for 0.00000000000017% of the greenhouse gasses of this planet. That is twelve zeros after the decimal point. Remember that number. Are you getting that? It takes 6 Billion people to equal the one tenth of one percent that the humans on earth contribute to the greenhouse gases of this planet. Yet these environmentalists and government folks would have you believe that WE are causing this planet to heat up out of control.

gore-fire-1The global warming hounds will tell you that there is a consensus of scientists that global warming is happening and that man is causing it. This is simply not true. There is no consensus. Just about everyone has a bias. And it is never clear what their reasons are for bias. You can find reports all day long supporting either side of this argument, and this is the common ploy of the environmentalist to prove their claims. They post link after link supporting their side of this claim. The other side can do that too. And the answer is always the same: Your reports are biased by the big oil companies, but mine are unbiased. Not true. My favorite recent one was that “103,000 environmental scientists have agreed that anthropomorphic (man-made) global warming is a fact!” Well the fact is that only about 4% of environmental scientists have actually spent time researching global warming. But just the fact that they know environmental science should be enough to persuade me, right? Wrong.

This isn’t taking into account the number of environmental scientists these days that are unwilling to speak out about the false claims of their peers. Most environmental scientists are afraid to take a public stand if it means appearing to challenge powerful corporations, governments or professions. They are afraid that they might be blocked from promotion, shunted to less interesting work, or even dismissed. Methods of attack against environmental scientists include blocking of publications, refusal of permission to attend scientific meetings, withdrawal of research funding, denial of appointments, removal of support staff, transfers to different positions, dismissals, blacklisting, and character assassination.

gare-acleThe reason for these attacks is straightforward. There are powerful interests involved in environmentally practices and policies. Scientific experts can either provide legitimacy to these practices and policies, or undermine them. If even a few scientists speak out against the standard view, this punctures the illusion of unanimous scientific agreement. Just think about how often the phrase is made that the scientists who don’t believe in anthropomorphic global warming are fringe whack jobs. I think you get the point.

They will tell you that we are using up all the oil and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. False on count 1, Semi-true on count 2. Oil reserves have grown by 1400% since 1948. There is an estimated 1 Trillion barrels of oil still in the ground in the reservoirs that we know about. Oil prices have not risen because of a lack of available oil, they have risen because of the oil cartels, and I am not talking about Exxon and those folks, I am talking about OPEC. As for our dependence on foreign oil. We don’t have to be. All we need to do is tell the environmentalists to shut up about ANWR and we can be self-sustaining. It won’t hurt a thing, despite their radical claims.

gore-hypnotistI could go on for days here and make this a 10,000 word post instead of a 1,200 word post, but it is 4:15 am. The bottom line is that this entire global warming movement has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with control. By perpetuating the lies and myths, the government has been able to take away your rights the same way they did with the Patriot Act and the new private industry infringements. Without these lines of bullshit, there would be no way they could pass the laws that they do which give them unprecedented control. See my recent post on Cap and Trade for a bit more on this aspect. 

Speaking of cap and trade, remember above when I told you to remember that number with 12 zeros after the decimal point? Ask yourself this question: Is the 0.00000000000017 of one percent that you may or may not contribute to global warming worth the estimated additional $3,300 per year in energy bills the Congressional Budget Office estimates you will pay because of the cap and trade restrictions that they are enacting? Not to me. You are going to have to give me better proof that this line of B.S. and non-logical reasoning that I have seen from the left so far.

That should be enough to get the conversation started. So anyone want to try to give it a run and prove that global warming is caused by man? The top scientists in the world can’t do it. But you are welcome to try. I warn you now: I don’t accept any of the left-wing rhetoric or scare tactics. Only facts and logic and reason. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any reason or common sense applied to the opposite side of this debate yet….


  1. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi US Weapon,

    Another great article…I can’t contribute to this as I don’t really have a great deal of knowledge on it other than I do hear/see a great deal about it…most of it is of a Henny Penny nature.

    I can’t wait to get my education today from your posters!

    BTW…My husband thinks the “Global-Warming” is bulldookey! He is fond of telling me that he’s glad of the warming because he hates to be cold!


  2. I agree that the issue is about more control over people, and more of our money being taken away.

    In the 60’s it was the Nuclear Holocaust. In the 70’s the New Ice Age. Recently it’s been Anthrax, Smallpox, Bird Flu, Mad Cow, Space Junk, whatever. Something global that we need to spend a lot of money on right away.

    I also lack the scientific background, so if I am personally contributing to earth’s destruction, please enlighten me.

  3. Truthseeker says:

    I also believe Manmade Global Warming is a farce. I can believe if the Globe is warming or cooling, bucause of its natrual cycles. Does anybody really know what the temperature was 50,000 years ago when there were super continents? Ofcourse the weather changes. I can’t imagine what the weather will be like in another 50,000 years and what the continents look like.

    It is simply Naiveté to think that Humans are causing this problem by Co2 emmisions. It is preposterous to think we can change the climate of the Globe. What people fail to account for the slightest rising in temperature is that the world has an Elliptic orbit around the Sun. At certain periods we are close, and other times farther away. It is not always consistent is its speed and axis to always have the same affect. That is why our seasons have been changing dates.

    Now, the only think I will argue for Co2, is that we all agree we would like to breath fresh unpolluted air. But please spare me any other BS about Co2 and how we are destroying our Planet.

    At lunch with my colleagues, we were discusing the Cap and Trade companies that you can buy credits from. I was telling them that how can these companies prove they are reducing or counter-weighing your companies Co2? Planting a tree will takes years to be effective. Do they decide to save an acre of land filled with trees? Do they buy lots of flat land and plant trees there? There is now real way to prove what these companies are really doing. It is a SCAM!

    • esomhillgazette says:

      TS, once the govt gets Cap and Trade in place, suddenly NO industry will be green. Like you said, it’s a scam. Once it’s law, there won’t be any credits to trade with. Then the govt will have an excuse to step in and nationlize industry. If they can successfully get the banks nationalized too, then wham! The Obamatons and Liberal Climate nut-balls will have the Socialist Nation they have always wanted to begin with. Then it may get even worse than just Socialism. You don’t want the Insane having the keys to the Asylum.

  4. While I agree with you about global BS (and don’t want to start a side debate), I would like to point out that these same scientists who argue for global warming are the ones that say our earth is 4.6 billion years old. You said “[I accept] Only facts and logic and reason,” I say you stop assuming theories about the age of the earth and just skip that argument altogether. It is weak when half of the people who agree with you on global warming disagree with one of your main points.

    Regardless, you’re a great American.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      David, just out of curiosity; how old do YOU think the earth is?

      • from a biblical standpoint ( listed genealogies and a 7 day creation theory), the earth is only about 6-8 thousand years old.

    • USWeapon says:

      Thanks for the feedback David. You make a sound point. I will amend my statement and say that I don’t have any idea how old the earth is. I have just never heard any scientists argue that it is not billions of years old. I am open to learning that I am wrong on the 4.6 number. My point was only that the earth warmed and cooled for a very long time before we were here.

      • This is another area where Science and Religion disagree. I imagine that some physical evidence supports the 4.6 billion years. However, people who follow the Bible think it is much less.

        Still, the point (IMHO) is that the earth was here long before man, and will probably be here long after we’re gone.

        Unless, or course, we decide to blow it up. But to say that CO2 is the culprit is where I throw my BS flag.

        • Wasabi:

          Actually, the Catholic Church supports the Big Bang Theory, and guesstimated age of the Earth…

          First there was nothingness, then God spoke and “Bang”, there it was.
          How long is a day to God? For certainty, we do not know.



          • Lingeringmethane says:

            I am always amazed that the bible has no mention of anything before Adam and Eve… what were the dinosaurs, the cleaners? I think any biblical argument is fairly irrelevant in any of this.
            Fact: Mt. St. Helens blew off more greenhouse gas in one eruption than man has created in his entire existance… how many volcano’s have erupted? Global Warming and Climate Change rhetoric are exactly as you have stated… a way to control the flock.

            Grat illustrations by the way… I am not sure which I like better, the cow or the baboon spitting fire!

            • The Bible mentions 5 days before Adam. These were the days that God created light, the earth, vegetation, water, fish, birds, and other animals.

      • US Weapon,
        The most prominent website/group of scientists that argue for this position can be found at It is a biblical website, but it has a lot of scientific research that refutes carbon dating and other methods of trying to figure out the age of the earth. It is worth a good day of perusing the articles there.

        Truth is, no one knows, no one will ever know. Any idea taken is a theory and it must be taken by faith. The definition of science states that it must be observable. Obviously no one watched God or some Big Bang.

  5. I would agree with USW that the whole global warming issue is a man-made fairytale. I’ve been in many debates with folks who actually believe that we humans are causing it. I ask how they know this and usually get the “there’s scientific proof of it”. I would ask, “proof of what?” Answer: “global warming”. Reply “OK, what proof is there that it’s caused by humans?. Well to make this alittle shorter, thats usually when they start to give up. I will always have an answer for any “fact” anyone brings up, and it’s a simple one. If global warming is caused by humans emmitting CO2, how does one explain the end of the Ice Age?

    I hope that when Congress begins debating Cap and Trade, everyone writes or calls the elected officials an tell them to stick this legislation where the sun don’t shine!!

  6. Truthseeker says:

    Believing the earth is 4.6 billion years old is much more believable then it being ~7000 years old.

    All current predictions are based off of computer models. All it takes is 1 “oops” in the math and you have a different view on what the future will hold.

    Cap and Trade will Cripple the US if no other country implements it. How is anybody going to “force” anybody else to implement this program? What good will “saving the planet” do us if we all suffer imensly because we have to import everthing from countries that don’t implement the program? Guys, the planet will be absorbed by the Sun in 5 billion years. We are doomed to die on this planet anyways. We need to seek out another planet!

  7. Truthseeker says:

    On my 7000 years old comment, it has been DNA proven that humans are atleast 160,000 years old. Go to this website and learn! Journey Of Man

  8. Truthseeker says:

    It didnt post my link they way i thought it would, so here it is:

    • Truthseeker says:

      I wish I could edit this post…But there is also a great documentary on this called Journey Of Man. You will notice on the link above about all the Ice Ages we went through. To think Man has any control of the worlds temperature is very laughable.

  9. The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at,

  10. CWO2USNRet says:

    The one simple fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere consistently lags temperature change by about 200 years completely destroys the Climate Change nee Global Warming argument. I have yet to see a convincing counterargument.

    The massive amount of funding at stake undermines the credibility of the scientists supporting GW/CC. The shenanigans played on the sceptics further undermines their credibility.

    There is much more evidence undermining GW/CC. I don’t have time to cover more. Read Steve Milloy at He provides a wealth of information and analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of numerous studies and theories. Also, Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” is a very thoroughly researched treatise on GW/CC presented as an action, adventure yarn.

    Best wishes to all,

    • USWeapon says:


      “State of Fear” is on my list of books to read. I have had that one pointed out to me as a good one. The interesting thing is that the person who originally told me about it is a big environmental person.

  11. Chris Devine says:

    Thanks for the opportunity to discuss global warming here on your site. I appreciate you giving me a chance to explain my side. However, given your particular stance and the few comments I have read I don’t really see myself accomplishing much on this topic. Please don’t assume that I think your argument is airtight or impossible to argue against. I could also provide facts and figures to dispute your claims and I would (as you suspect) argue that the only ones who deny man-made global warming are the oil companies and their paid hacks. This won’t get us anywhere. Instead I will post some prepared remarks (which you have already seen, but others here have not) and keep an eye out for those who are willing to actually discuss this matter without reverting to paranoid notions of an evil plot by environmentalists to turn this planet into some socialist hellhole.

    “The Rhetoric of Doubt”

    Why am I so arrogant as to assume that the positions I hold in controversial areas such as global warming, the dangers of tobacco, and evolution are the right ones? Perhaps it’s because there really isn’t any controversy. Contrary to the noise of the PR campiagns engaged in by oil companies, tobacco companies, and creationists there is OVERWHELMING consensus amongst scientists that: man made global warming IS happening, tobacco use IS harmful to one’s health, and Darwin’s theory of natural selection IS the best explanation for the origin and diversity of species on planet Earth.

    The real question we must ask ourselves in each of these areas is ‘quo bono?’ (who benefits). In the case of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) it seems obvious (to me anyway) that the oil companies and related industries are the only ones to benefit from denying the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary and delaying any policy actions based upon that evidence. Regarding the dangers of tobacco it is likewise obvious that tobacco companies will have a difficult time recruiting new customers if they are perceived as dealers of death. The third issue, evolution, is difficult to explain because it’s not really about money. However, if you consider that the worldview of a large portion of people seems perilously balanced upon a strict interpretation of scripture (one that seemingly contradicts the scientific worldview), it makes sense that many feel very strongly that evolution should be subjected to a relentless campaign of doubt.

    Another important question regards the tactics used to create the illusion of controversy. In all three cases the most efficacious way to discredit the other side is by infusing just a little bit of doubt into the argument. Apparently a little doubt goes a long way. All it takes is a few ‘scientists’ to effectively dispute the multitudes of others on the opposing side (people like to support the underdog, I guess). However, this reactionary form of science is disingenuous and harmful. Reverse engineering a hypothesis from an ideologically-necessary conclusion is not science.

    The venues that these underdogs choose to fight in should also tell us a great deal about their motives. Deniers of ACC seem more concerned with using PR firms and right-wing pundits to support their side. Why not duke it out in the peer-reviewed journals (because nobody reads them, that’s why)? Likewise, opponents of evolution seem more hell-bent on changing the opinions of school boards and textbook publishers than they do with swaying fellow scientists. Why can’t they pick on people their own size (i.e., trained biologists instead of local politicians)? Thankfully tobacco peddlers seem to have lost their fight here, but sadly they have moved on to browner pastures in the third world.

    You might ask me why I care what other people think. Why does it matter so much to me? In the case of global warming, I would really like there to be a habitable planet Earth for my children and grand-children. Regarding tobacco, I have been a smoker on and off for most of my life and I am currently watching my mother die slowly from smoking-related illnesses (my father died at 58 from smoking and other poor lifestyle choices). The issue of evolution has more to do with a respect for science AND religion. I just can’t understand why some people feel threatened because science says one thing while religion says another. Science tells us HOW, not why. It is the domain of religion and philosophy to answer the ‘why’ part.

    I can understand the frustration of many that we must rely on ‘experts’ to tell us what matters. Once upon a time it was possible for a single exceptional individual to absorb the totality of human knowledge. But since the scientific revolution it has been necessary for scientists and academics to specialize in order to expand upon human understanding of the world. There simply is too much stuff for one person to know it all (believe me, I’ve tried). However, this doesn’t mean the answer is to simplify our understanding of the world or to go back to a time when things were ‘easier.’ I kind of like the fact that human lifespans have doubled.

    The answer it seems is to entrust the ‘experts’ with a self-correcting method for investigating the world around us. We must have faith in the practitioners of the scientific method, provided they faithfully adhere to its principles. If we allow ourselves to become cynical or apathetic regarding the only tool we have for keeping us out of the dark, then all hope for humanity is lost. We must resist the rhetoric of doubt by knowing who benefits from that doubt and continue to honestly ask ‘how’ in addition to ‘why.’

    • Chris Devine says:

      If anybody is interested in seeing a concise rebuttal to USW’s argmuent and the money behind it feel free to check out this link:

      Please do not misconstrue this as laziness or reliance upon somebody else’s talking points. As you will see everything on the above site is well documented and you are more than welcome to take the sources of the information into account before forming your conclusions.

    • Just a couple of counter points to your argument here. You say “there is OVERWHELMING consensus amongst scientists that: man made global warming IS happening”.

      There was also once OVERWHELMING consensus among scientists that the earth was flat and that gold could be produced from other elements. Many early chemists were alchemists. Overwhelming consensus doesn’t equal truth.

      You also say “Why not duke it out in the peer-reviewed journals”.

      If there is overwhelming consensus among scientists and these scientist are hell bent on squashing all counter arguments (although I would argue they can’t be real scientist if they aren’t willing to listen to counter theories with an open mind), how do you ever expect an argument against the consensus to be allowed into a “peer” reviewed journal?

      • Chris Devine says:

        Nobody thought the earth was flat. That’s a cute little myth like ‘George Washington and the Cherry Tree’ that we tell our kids to give them a reason to worship heroes of the past.

        Also, comparing the goals of alchemical experimentation to the goals of science practiced in accordance with self-correcting methods of inquiry is like comparing the views of the Catholic church on heliocentrism in the age of Gallileo to the work of Stephen Hawking.

        Arguments against the consensus appear in scientific journals all the time. That’s how paradigms change. At one point scientific consensus held that Newton’s laws were the best way to explain the motion of objects in the universe. Then Einstein came along and argued against Newton. His explanations were better than Newton’s because they explained things just as well as Newton’s laws and made new predictions born out by further observations.

        • I agree that in the days of European exporation (i.e. Christopher Columbus) no educated persons thought the earth was flat. It certainly was not a widespread thought among Christian theologians as many teach that it was. They weren’t really afraid that he would fall off the end of the earth as he sailed off. However, in the days of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was widely thought that the earth was flat.

          I also agree that chemistry today is vastly different from they days of alchemy. However, alchemy is where modern day chemistry got it’s start.

          Using this same logic, in a few hundred years, our understanding of the climate may very well be much better developed than it is today. Perhaps future generations will view our scientists today the way we view the alchemists and other scientists of yesterday.

          I adhere to the belief that there really is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human nature. As I see it, we are driven by the same motives and desires as the ancients. We are sticking our heads in the sand if we think that since we live in a more enlightened age, we are not susceptible to similar mistakes and misconceptions that were made long ago.

          • Chris Devine says:

            There is a key difference in comparing the ancient views of the world with our views today and the views of present scientists with those of future scientists. That difference is that science as practiced today (and since the scientific revolution) places a premium upon falsifiability and methods available to others to confirm or deny. We can fully expect that our methods of inquiry will still remain good principles in any future generation even if scientific opinion changes on any particular matter. It is our principles that truly separate us from the astrologers and alchemists of antiquity, not our knowledge (or lack thereof).

            • Scientists reach wrong conclusions with too little data.Some of the important scientific data being used to tout global warming,such as the mapping of the thinning Artic ice sheet has only been around since 1979.That the ice sheet has thinned since then is not in question,it has.The question is,what are the long term ramifications of this thinning?This is where prediction enters the picture and there is too little knowledge to even make a SWAG. Yet these guesses are being made.

            • Chris,

              I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t see where our principles are all that different from the ancients. I’m basing this on the amount of politics and the desire for a dollar I see clouding the judgment of scientists today.

              I’m not saying I’m any different. Ultimately I too, must put dinner on the table.

    • USWeapon says:


      I appreciate your willingness to engage over it. You are correct that I already hold a fairly solid opinion on this subject, as do you. That doesn’t mean that that I am not willing to consider that I am wrong. I said no one has proven me wrong yet. And that isn’t because I am simply stubborn and refuse to learn. I hope you will find yourself in the same position.

      I am getting ready to go to work for the day so I don’t have time to do a lot at the moment. But I will check in throughout the day and will do much more tonight once I get home. Again thanks for the opportunity to debate the topic here in a forum where it is a bit easier to discuss it.

      • USWeapons,
        You say “No one has proven me wrong yet”. No one can PROVE your wrong, and you can not PROVE you are right. There are many variables in the earth’s climate, and it is constantly changing.

        I think there is clear evidence that the earth has been warming in the past couple of decades. The arctic sea ice is thinner and retreating more each summer than anytime since we starting monitoring it in the 1970’s, 10 antarctic ice shelves have crumbled in the past decade (and none had crumbled since the 1950’s when we first started monitoring them). Alpine glaciers and snow packs are retreating all over the earth.

        You stated that 3% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 3% of that is man made. That sounds small, but is a big change. Our environment is a very delicate balance – it doean’t take much to change things.

        So if the earth is going thru a natural warming, man made CO2 is helping to accelarte that, and a 3% increase has a big impact in terms of changing weather patterns – drought, floods, heat, cold, etc.

        If we accept your augument that global warming is not man made, there are still other issues:

        Pollution – we’ve made progress cleaning up the US in the past 30 years (and it didn’t kill our economy), but China and the 3rd world are becoming sewage dumps. Their air pollution can be tracked all over Asia and the US.

        Energy – oil is not a long term solution – both polically and environmentally.

        So, do we stick our heads in the sand and just continue on our current path, or do we work on new technology to produce environmentally friendly renewable energy?? Technology that can be exported all over the world??

        • USWeapon says:


          You say “No one has proven me wrong yet”. No one can PROVE your wrong, and you can not PROVE you are right. There are many variables in the earth’s climate, and it is constantly changing.

          You are correct sir. I have not claimed that I was going to prove anyone wrong. I merely stated that I was open to being proven wrong myself. I don’t hold a stake in this in terms of convincing you or anyone. I currently run this site as more of a think-tank than anything else. My hope is that a diverse set of ideas come to visit and discuss things from all sides. The first key is understanding those that think differently than I do. The second step is figuring out that we aren’t all that different and finding compromise that allows us to fix our country. Some will never compromise, and I understand that. But the name calling and childishness that accompanies most political debate isn’t going to get America any further ahead. It will merely lead to us switching back and forth between two parties that don’t have every-day American’s best interests at heart.

          You stated that 3% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 3% of that is man made. That sounds small, but is a big change. Our environment is a very delicate balance – it doean’t take much to change things.

          You are correct that it sounds small because it is small. And it DOES take a lot to change things. That was my point. We are a speck of dust on the gnat on the human’s ass in relation to the earth. She will shake us off when she chooses. Mt. St. Helens put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans in total in history. Yet we are blaming humans over the course of 100 years for a temperature rise that is minimal at best. Perhaps we should find a way to cap all the volcanos? The point is that it isn’t possible in my logical processing that WE are the cause, when nature trumps us in one day. And we think that cap and trade is going to affect something?

          So if the earth is going thru a natural warming, man made CO2 is helping to accelarte that, and a 3% increase has a big impact in terms of changing weather patterns – drought, floods, heat, cold, etc.

          Make sure we keep our numbers straight. That is 3% of 3%, meaning that we are responsible for one tenth of one percent. Say we eliminated humans from the earth tomorrow, 99.9% of the ozone would not be affected one bit. So what makes you think that we can have that much of an impact? It is arrogant at best for man to believe this. And the best estimates we can come up with are that at the cost of trillions of dollars we can impact our CO2 impact by about a 20% reduction if we get the entire world to comply. So best case scenario, the trillions of dollars spent might cause a 2 one hundredths of one percent change in the ozone. And all of that is working on the belief that we might have something to do with the warming we saw (which is now switching to cooling for the record)

          Energy – oil is not a long term solution – both polically and environmentally. So, do we stick our heads in the sand and just continue on our current path, or do we work on new technology to produce environmentally friendly renewable energy?? Technology that can be exported all over the world??

          I am not sure yet that I am buying that oil is not a much longer term solution than environmentalists are willing to admit. I addressed this above. But it isn’t an endless supply. Therefore, I have not advocated sticking our heads in the sand. I have said that the government needs to shut the hell up and stay out of it. They are the problem not the solution. They have already ensured that billions have been wasted rather than pursuing alternative energy. And now people want to believe that they have suddenly seen the light and will make it happen. Let the market come up with the solutions on its own rather than letting government dictate to everyone how much carbon they can use. The market on its own will do it better, faster, and cheaper than anything government gets its hands into. Alternative energy and global warming, from government’s perspective, is nothing but a mechanism to justify taking away personal freedoms and free market principles. The mistake of environmentalists is that they believe government is doing this for the greater good instead of recognizing the truth, government does very little that is not for government’s good. I don’t say do nothing. I merely say do nothing with government’s involvement.

    • Okay Chris,

      Just exactly HOW did life actually begin on this planet?

      One other question . . . Can you explain the previous Ice Ages and warm periods BEFORE man came on the scene?

      My opinion is that Al Gore is full of it with his little Hollywood farce “An Inconvenient Truth” – which turned out to be his very convenient lie.(made him a lot of $$$$$$$$$$)

    • Chris,
      Let me start by saying that I admire your courage and perserverence by engaging a group in which you are largely outnumbered. I sincerely hope that you continue, as it is a good excercise for both you and those here who disagree with you, both to develop our arguments and learn from each other, and to maintain civility in spite of potentially rising emotion.

      Overwhelming consensus is irrelevant in science. Only overwhelming evidence will do. So far, the evidence I have seen amounts to little, and the conclusions drawn are far-fetched at best. If I, as a non-scientist, can see obvious holes in the logic of a conclusion, then the scientific community has either failed to present their evidence clearly, or they are overlooking a major flaw in their thinking.

      I understand the “follow the money” arguments. That sword, however, swings both ways. I have seen the way that climate change has been used to grab power and fund things, and since most science that is held to be credible in this country is government funded, and government is gaining great power through scientific conclusions that support climate change, I would say that there is as much concern over the supporters claims as there is over the skeptics.

      There is a great deal we need to do to improve our efficiency and use better means of energy production. I work in the recycling industry myself, I know its value. I also know that a lot of it is hype, and a lot of it is not economically viable or even environmentally sound in the end. A balance must be found, exaggeration only leads to discrediting, and that makes for no real progress in a given arena.

  12. Truthseeker says:

    I find it funny how you think my opinion is bassed from what Oil companies say. I use common sense and logic to base my conclusion. You only look at the past 100 years, I look at the past 4.6 billion years.

    • Chris Devine says:

      I’m not trying to be funny, I didn’t even see your post before submitting mine (I was busy writing it).

      I find it sad that you think I only look back 100 years.

  13. Thanks for the great post USW. Having some experience working in a public university as a scientist, I have to say the whole thing is money driven. In order to be promoted, you must bring in research money. To do so most people seem to want to generate a crisis of the decade, and convince the government the sky is going to fall. They then proceed to convince the government to give them money to solve the crisis. They then get promoted and get higher salaries, accolades, etc. Global warming is nothing but selfish ambition, not a real crisis.

    Oh crap, I believe that I just played into Black Flag’s hands by saying that if there were no government, there would be no one to go to for handouts, therefore fewer conjured up crises. Maybe he’s onto something.

    • Chris Devine says:

      The ‘funding for science’ argument cuts both ways. Increasingly universities are becoming dependent on corporate donations in addition to government funding. As a result there is often the pressure to fudge the numbers to avoid upsetting potential sources of revenue regardless of whether they are public or private.

      • I see what you’re saying and you make a valid point. However, the vast majority of funding for public universities comes from government (either state or federal) funds.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Universities are going to do their best to avoid biting the hand that feeds them. The trend is towards more private funding due to the lack of public funds. Plus, there are rules that the government must follow when it gives out money. Private money is not held to the same standard.

          • Since I’m someone that is all for smaller government, I hope you’re right and the universities indeed rely more heavily on private funding in the future.

      • It is true that the knife cuts both ways. The missing part here is government. It is they who are using this “crisis” to push cap and trade and thus increase the tax revenue by the greatest amount the world has ever seen. As an FYI, it is my belief that Global Warming/Climate Change is bulldookey. In a couple of years it will be something else…the earth has made numerous climate shifts and we are merely in another.

        In a slightly different vein, I find it ironic that you can tout Darwinism as a natural occurance scientifically explained, but allow yourself to close your mind to the fact that climate change is natural as well…

        • Chris Devine says:

          Are you friends with my uncle Jack (seriously)? How are things in KY?

          The question isn’t whether evolution or global warming is natural. The question is whether human influence plays a significant role. There is such a thing as artificial selection that works much quicker than the natural type.

          • Then why is the “warming” not increasing at an ever quickening pace? In fact most studies indicate temperatures are declining and not increasing…BTW I am not in Kentucky, but your uncle jack sounds like a pretty level headed guy!

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I am an environmental chemist. I have been studying specifically air pollution for the last 18 years.

    I am not going to present you with any opinion here, simply facts which have been measured by actual air monitoring equipment:

    Air monitoring networks throughout the country (mostly located in mid-sized to large metropolitan areas) show a continual DECLINE in the amount of organic, metallic, particulate, and acidic pollutants in the atmosphere over time.

    If you had the “pleasure” of driving I-90 through East Chicago/Hammond/Gary in the mid-1980s and then had the “pleasure” of doing this again once or twice per year from 1985-present, you would not need air monitoring equipment to tell you this. Yes, there is still pollution in that area, but it is obvious to the eyes (and the ears, nose, and throat) that it is vastly improved now compared to 20 years ago.

    This is also true in every major metropolitan area that you hear about. Los Angeles still has smog, but not near the levels of the 70s and 80s. Denver still has pollution problems (mainly due to being in a valley which has many atmospheric inversions, but that is for a meteorologist to discuss) but there has been remarkable improvement in the last 20 years.

    If we are doing such a horrible job of taking care of the environment, why do the actual, measured concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere keep declining?

    Ok, now for some opinion: The earth has gone through many ice ages and many abnormally warm periods throughout history. It will continue to do so regardless of what we do. One volcanic eruption of a medium to large scale puts out more CO2 than all humans combined put out over a 1-year period. Mount Redoubt just put out a proverbial crapton of CO2, quite a bit more than the human population will emit for the rest of this decade. Are we going to cap the volcanoes and tax their emissions?

    Much earlier in the history of the world, vulcanism on the planet was much more active, and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were far higher.

    You see, no matter what they say about “ice-core measurements” or any other such nonsense, we only have accurate measurements of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 30 years or so. Before then, there was simply no way to accurately measure atmospheric CO2.

    Also, when people say that the average global temperature has risen 2 degrees over the past 10 years, they fallaciously attempt to attribute ALL of that temperature rise to man-made global warming. This is both arrogant and stupid. If they were being intellectually honest, they would say that the global temperature would have risen by 1.97 degrees ANYWAY over the past 10 years due to changes in sun-cycles and oceanic cycles and other HUGE environmental factors, while man-made global warming MAY have contributed 0.03 degrees to that temperature increase.

    • From a fellow chemist, thanks for the lesson. We are only one major natural catastrophe – volcano, earthquake, meteor, etc. – from absolutely killing the whole climate change controversy. It’s not a matter of if, but when.

    • Chris Devine says:

      As a chemist you must realize that it is not CO2 (a colorless gas) that is or isn’t observable through the naked eye when you talk about urban air pollution. You might as well also point out that ozone (O3) is both a source of pollution in the lower atmosphere and a barrier against UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.

      Our scientific understanding of the world will always be tentative. All knowledge is based upon assumptions that are deemed reasonable or otherwise based upon their ability to explain current observations and make predictions about the future. Merely assuming the ice core measurements aren’t reliable isn’t science. If you can show how they disagree with recent atmospheric measurements then you might have an argument. However, I suspect that the reason ice core measurements are considered reliable is precisely because they correlate with those recent measurements.

      Would you also say that radiological dating that gives us our estimate about the age of the planet is just as flimsy (even though it is supported by many other forms of independent observation)? Do you concede that we shouldn’t assume the existence of human beings prior top written history like new-earth creationists?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Would you also say that radiological dating that gives us our estimate about the age of the planet is just as flimsy (even though it is supported by many other forms of independent observation)? Do you concede that we shouldn’t assume the existence of human beings prior top written history like new-earth creationists?”

        This is relevant to the topic of global warming how?

        • Chris Devine says:

          It’s an argument by analogy in an effort to determine whether you disagree with the use of scientific observations going back before human history as a matter of principle or whether you only dispute them when they contradict your particular point of view.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            To have that argument be valid, you would have to agree that all scientific methods of measuring anything predating human history are equally valid.

            Is carbon dating fairly accurate? From what we can tell through other methods, yes.

            Is ice-core estimation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past accurate? I don’t know. Are there even any other methods that have been developped to compare answers to, and are those answers similar or vastly different?

            If you can corroborate evidence through a number of different methods (the more methods the better) and each method gives comparable data, then the theory is more likely to be true. It isn’t TRUE, just more likely to be true.

            If you have one method that is purported to estimate something pre-dating human history, but either no other methods of performing the same estimate, or other methods that provide contradictory information, then the theory is less likely to be true. It isn’t FALSE, just less likely to be true.

            • Chris Devine says:

              You are wrong about the validity of my argument. I am only concerned with whether you admit the possibility of reliable scientific observations predating human history, not whether you consider them all of equal value.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I think that it is possible to attempt to measure things predating human history. I am a scientist after all. We tend to feel that anything is at least potentially measureable. Scientists are also supposed to use a process of critical thinking, which ideally involves the evaluation of data using several different methods which APPEAR to be valid. The more evidence that one can amass that shows that a theory or hypothesis is probably correct, the more likely it is to BE correct. However, as evidence has shown, even theories that scientists BELIEVE to be correct from a propensity of current evidence, can be later disproven by other more sophisticated and advanced methods. This is where the “average person” gets into trouble. They blindly believe what the scientists are telling them to be true, and based upon current evidence, it is likely to be true, but later methods may well prove it to actually be more likely to be false. There really are no “absolute truths” in science. There is only what we currently believe to be true based upon the preponderance of what we believe to be valid methods of deriving evidence.

                Science is a continually evolving process of attempting to better understand the universe, which is why the “right answers” observably change from time to time throughout history.

            • Peter, thanks for sharing all the info. I have heard about them trying to use tree ring data on warming also, but their methods have not proven consistent or reliable to date.

              • Black Flag says:

                The dendroclimatologists are in disarray at the moment.

                The tree ring data was becoming aged, and a researcher refreshed all the samples, bringing up the current set to 2007, from 1998.

                Much to the AGW champions, the new analysis shows – a reverse correlation!

                What is starting to carry argumentative weight is that trees are far more ‘water’ proxies than was thought, and definitely far less ‘CO2’ proxies.

                The jury is still out, but it is a great comedy to watch!

    • In the past 30 years industry has been forced to clean up it’s act.I know this to be fact because I’ve been part of it.We went from wide open stacks and wide open dumping of effluent in rivers to advanced particulate removal in stacks and systems of clarifiers and settling ponds for effluent treatment.Air quality and water quality improved dramatically compared to the 60’s in the large paper mill where I worked.This was not accomplished willingly,however.Government mandates were imposed to accomplish it.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        My wife worked for the water department in our town. They processed all of the wast water for the city. The water that they put back in the creek was actually cleaner than the water was IN the creek itself. I wouldn’t have drank a glass, but then I also Wouldn’t have drank a glass of the creek water either. The Fact is, this Planet is already cleaner than it was 20 years ago. Saying more needs to be done is unneccessary. The problem to me is how much faster can you accelerate the cleanup without Bankrupting All business AND the Nation’s population like Cap and Trade will do?

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Just to add… be careful how you view any statistic! I am sure that you have heard that exposure to xyz increases your risk of cancer!

    Just so you know, the unit risk factor used by epidemiologists for cancer is 1:1000000 over a 70 year lifespan. One in a million sounds somewhat significant, right? I mean there are 6 billion people on the planet, so exposure to xyz is going to kill 6000 of them!

    The statistical wizardry going on here is that approximately 1/6 people are going to get SOME form of cancer at some point in their lifetime. That is 18% of the population, or 0.18 of the population, that is demonstrably going to get some form of cancer.

    So, this 1:1000000 increase in cancer risk amounts to 0.18 of the population getting cancer rising to 0.1800001. We must ask ourselves, is that statistically significant?

  16. While I don’t believe in the doom and gloom forecasts from Global Warming proponents, I can agree with some of their points. I’ll point out a few for now.

    It is a good idea to clean up and cut our usage of fossil fuels mearly for the benefits other than global warming. Less pollution and more energy independence is great. But it is dangerous to cut it out altogether. The fact is we are dependent on oil for now so high taxes on oil is only going to hurt everyone. Also, let me point this out. I believe that natural gas companies burn gas at about 70% efficiency. In a cap and trade system they would have to turn people away and toward the electric company. They would sell their extra oil that they can’t burn to the electric company who will then burn it at 30% efficiency while producing the same pollution… Sound good? I thought not.

    I would like to see solar power take some big steps forward, but the fact is we are not there yet, so it is foolish to think we can produce all of our energy with clean methods. Also, we should rely more on nuclear energy. It is clean, cheap and efficient, but the word “nuclear” has become so taboo to non-scientists that they oppose it right off. For instance, MRI is actually NMRI, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, but they droped the “nuclear” because people fear the word. Maybe we should call nuclear plants just energy plants instead and maybe we’d get somewhere.

  17. US,

    I regret to inform you there is an aspect of global warming that is man made and preventable. We could talk about China and the coal power plants they are mass producing, but what would be the point, they will not change their policy regardless of what anyone or everyone in the world thinks.

    But the rain forest’s being burned account for 30% of CO2 AND it could be prevented. They are burning the forest to make crop land to then grow rape seed which is then being sold to Europe for bio-diesel. So if Europe would stop mandating bio-diesel, man made CO2 would be reduced by a third. A policy from the US might impact them here, such as Drill baby, Drill.

    With that said, I agree global warming is not man made. I reach that conclusion by combining history and science. When they agree on something, that is pretty hard to refute. ( Easy to ignore )

    If we go back to 30 B.C., we find the earths temp. was the same as the warm period we have just experienced. Then it got cooler (slightly). Maybe Jesus
    stopped global warming back then and forgot to tell anyone?

    The second event is the Medieval Warm period. The temp. then was about 1.5C WARMER than any other time in human history. This was around 800 to 1200 A.D.
    Environmentalist have yet to explain the cause of this event. I think there were a lot of knights and jousting and such going on then, that must have been the problem. It was resolved by the Little- ice age, that lasted to 1860.

    Both of these events are proven by the ice core data being used for the computer modeling that the claims of global warming are based. They are also confirmed by history. The Medieval Warm period was a rich an prosperous time.


    Pow, right between the eyes
    Oh, how nature loves her little surprises
    Wow, it all seems so logical now
    It’s just one of her better disguises
    And it comes with no warning
    Nature loves her little surprises
    Continual crisis

    Joe Walsh, Life of Illusion

    • Chris Devine says:

      Joe Walsh (aka, the voice of reason). Nice.

      • Thank you, I like a little humor with the debates.

        Any thoughts on saving the rain forest?

        On the time of Christ and its weather?

        On the Medieval Warm Period?

        I find it interesting that Gore and the environmentalists skip these historic events, that science also documents.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth?” He plainly mentions all those and puts them in perspective with a timeline going back 650,000 years.

          • Al Gore taught me two things:As an individual I can use all the energy I want to and that a Nobel Prize is not all that prestigious.

          • “An Inconvenient Truth” is a totally contrived “documentary”. It slants and twists the truth to make it appear that man is ruining the planet. This is nothing more than a scare tactic to empower the government to increase taxation.

          • I remember him talking about them burning the rain forest, but he skips the reason they are doing so, kinda like you seem to be doing.

            He also does not talk about the temp. during the time of Christ, or the warm period.

            He falsely represents the CO2 rise as an event that causes warming, that has been debunked. Warming CAUSES CO2 rise.

            But that is another issue. Your response, that I should see a movie is poor. Should I tell you to read a couple books? I could accept you quoting Mr. Gore’s position. But if you came to this site for honest dialog and debate, it is somewhat disingenuous in my opinion.

            Hey, don’t you know its a waste of your day
            Caught up in endless solutions
            Backed up against a wall of CONFUSION

            You know who

            • Chris Devine says:

              They aren’t burning the rain forests to create more bio-diesel or ethanol or anything for Europe with perhaps the exception of cows. It seems that Europe is catching up with America in its unending desire for hamburgers.

              • Chris,
                I don’t think you are trying very hard here. I realize I’m not a scientist like Peter, or an intellectual heavyweight like Flag, but I do not feel you have answered one of my points yet.
                On your last reply, according to the ultra right web site, MOTHER JONES, the rain forests are being destroyed for bio-fuels. They also list several businesses involved.

                So what was your source?

                And did Jesus say “damn its hot, hey pops, how ’bout cranking up the A/C?”

                • Chris Devine says:

                  Did Mother Jones say in its article that the only reason or primary reason for the destruction of rain forests was for bio-fuel production? Historically the rain forests have been cleared to provide grazing land for farmers.

                  I just read the article and I agree that bio-fuels are problematic. However, innovations and less reliance upon traditional clear-and-sow agriculture will likely solve these problems quicker and better than continued reliance upon fossil fuels.

                  • Chris,
                    It was all Mother Jones seemed to want to discuss. I agree there are other factors. I will still state that short turn, it would be better to reduce the push for bio fuel use and more on research. Why do we subsidise soy beans or corn, which are poor energy producers vs. rapeseed?
                    And why don’t we impeach Barbra Boxer, who is leading the fight against solar power in HER desert?

                    • Chris Devine says:

                      I think you mean Dianne Feinstein. She isn’t against solar power in the Mojave as a whole, only where it conflicts with the preservation of undeveloped areas. There are plenty of other areas available for such use. We used to fly over the “mirror farm” solar array all the time when I worked at Edwards AFB.

          • USWeapon says:

            I have seen an inconvenient truth and I personally think it was a political documentary, not an environmental one. I can’t help but ask if you take Michael Moore’s documentaries with the same unflinching acceptance?

            • Chris Devine says:

              I recognize both as polemical. However, I think they are worthwhile for the same reason I support third party involvement in elections: they bring up issues and encourage debate where it would otherwise not have taken place.

              Do I think that Michael Moore is always right or that he never exaggerates? Of course I don’t. I am conflicted about both Michael Moore and Al Gore because they are lightning rods for controversy and often do a disservice to the causes they support. I can also say that guys like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, et al. are just as biased and prone to hyperbole. I guess I’m a little more sympathetic to the guys on the left because I tend to agree with them and they are vastly outnumbered by blowhards on the right.

              • What! Outnumbered! Perhaps you can watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC for your liberal daily fix, but FOX News is pretty much the only Conservative outlet, unless you tune in to radio where liberal tripe doesn’t seem to last.

                • Chris Devine says:

                  Those media outlets don’t have a liberal (or conservative) bias. They have a corporate bias. Have a look at who owns the networks and you’ll get an idea why those networks are really in the business of selling you to their advertisers.

                  You are the product. An easy way to figure out if you are the intended viewer of any given tv show is to have a look at the commercials. During the day it’s all about life insurance and med-alert bracelets or toys and tampons. At night it’s adjustable mattresses and sleeping meds.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Cool! I like humor in the debates also. Especially when I know I’m right. Love your comments!

          • Esom, thanks, I hope I’m coming off well to all. I still hope for a response on my points, from anyone really. That is my reasoning for not buying man made global warming. Not because of what Glenn Beck or Al Gore has to say. I try to be informed on issues that interest me.

  18. amazed1 says:

    Why is it the smarter, more knowledgeable man becomes, he thinks he can control the world…..this is totally laughable. So I wonder if the ice age and the destruction of the dinosaur were caused by man too. How much “global warming” is caused by man and how much is caused by the natural changes of the earth. Since global warming is a fairly new science without at lot of historical data…..I believe that humans are jumping to conclusions…..getting the cart ahead of the horse sort of speak. Science can not even prove that this will be a continuing trend. If the surface of the earth actually drops 1 degree in the next 10 years does that mean we are heading for an ice age?

    • Amazed1

      Seems like its about politicians gaining more power and many businesses making profits. And this seems to be global for both. Look at what the UN is asking for to combat climate study and change.

      And there is an agenda, the environmentalist that are pushing this are also stopping solar power being developed in the desert. They seem to want us to regress to a pre-industrial society.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Maybe we should just “shoot” the environuts? LOL Just Kidding!

        • Black Flag says:

          Nah, we just have to wait a few generation.

          Their latest kick is “don’t breed!” – and some are actually sterilizing themselves to “save the Earth”.

          Time is on our side 😉

  19. Good day all,
    Excellent points for both sides, and welcome back Chris. While I am not a scientist, I certainly am a fan of the scientific method, which requires logic and reason. That being said; Chris, can you truly defend Gore’s statement that “the debate is over.”? I think the debate has really just started.
    I see this the same way I saw the stimulus bill: those screaming the loudest and shouting down voices of reason in their panic succeeded in forcing something down our throats that, no matter how you look at it, is bad for us. Not a single legislator read this act before it was passed, but we “needed” it passed immediately. I feel much of the environmentally aimed legistation is the same. I am not against them per se, I just want to see a reasoned argument before they are enacted. I feel Weapon’s assertion that there are plenty of arguments for both sides is the key here. If valid scientific arguments can be made for BOTH sides of this argument, then the argument is not settled, and there is NO call to force a potentially crippling set of laws down our throats.
    And, if this movement really wants to get some traction, they need to dump Al Gore, one of the most disingenuous, dishonest, and unscrupulous people to ever walk the halls of DC (and that’s saying alot!).

  20. Admittedly a bit over my head here but I was happy to see Peter address the volcano issue, that’s one I had wondered about for a long time.

    I actually saved an article about global cooling from the January 1976 issue of “Playboy”. Interesting reading these days. Must have impressed me at the time to have saved it.

    When ever I get into a debate on the subject here on the East coast I like to point out that the past three ice ages created Hatteras, Long Island and Cape Cod sequentially. When I talk to some admittedly bright people, they get that blank, glazed look in their eyes when I mention that.

    What about the melting polar ice caps on Mars? In Viking days, what was the climate like in Greenland and Iceland two currently inhospitable places? Back in Roman times and for that matter Viking times, what were the sea levels? Why is Ostia so far from the sea today?

    Growing up in NYC with its 8,000,000 population in the 1950’s, almost all heating as well as electric production was done with coal. You could Simonize the Plymouth, come back in an hour and have a significant dusting on its hood, winter or summer. Admittedly unscientific but pissed off the old man nonetheless.

    I just think the hubris is amazing. The other day I was pondering what happened back in pre-history times when a lightning strike started a forest fire in California. Based on what we see now, with our current ability to fight fires, those fires must have gone on for months and decimated several states. How’s that for a carbon footprint?

    I would have a lot more respect for the opposition if they acknowledged the need for nuclear power to offset fossil fuel. Standardize the plants like the French do and let the Navy run it.

    • Here on the East Coast we need the Gulf Stream to move in shore and push the Labrador out.Then winters would be bearable and I could quit wishing for global warming. Ireland woldn’t like that though,but I don’t live there.

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      As a retired Navy Nuke… Hear Hear! Nuclear is safe, efficient, cost effective, and Green (hate that word but it fits here). Just need to get the numbskulls in DC to override the NIMBY naysayers and get Yucca Mountain open. Or even better, reverse our position on spent fuel processing.


    • C’mon SK,
      Did you just save the articles ?!?

  21. The environmentalists have always been a determined group, no doubt. While GW might be occuring, for some reason, and if it continues to get warmer then apparrently (according to the concensus of scientists) we are in big trouble as humans. That is what I am led to understand by these folks. Considering that scientists have yet to master predicting the weather more than a day or two out, I do have my doubts about the scientific worlds ability to see beyond tomorrow when it comes to GW.

  22. I have never been sold on that it is all our faults that this is happening. But I have been sold on new technology to better us. I am all for getting us off of buying oil from people who have our best interest at heart. I would love to tell the Middle East and other places that they can keep their oil. It is more of being able to control and do thing ourselves that drives me, then global warming.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I too am sold on the new tech part to better us. But on New Laws and Regulations to smother us, NO.

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    We, as human beings, like to think that we have control over many things which we, in reality, have little or no control over.

    The more things that we THINK we can control, the more things that we think we SHOULD control. Controlling everything that we possilby can control is for the “greater good” after all!

    Just what the heck this “greater good” is and who is in control of the definition is the truly critical part.

    If we believe that climate change (and I think we can agree that climate change is and always has been a fact throughout all of the history of the earth whether man has been here or not) is primarily an act of God or a result of natural forces/changes, then we have to admit that we are largely powerless to control climate change in any way. To admit that we are powerless is anathema to a lot of people, especially those that wish for power and control.

    If we believe that climate change is anthropogenic, then we believe that we have the ability to completely control it. This means that certain behaviors become “good”, certain behaviors become “bad” and certain (precious few) behaviors are “climate-neutral”

    For example, let me tell you about the mechanics of ground-level/lower atmosphere ozone formation in the Great Lakes area, specifically around Lake Michigan, where this is still a problem in the Summer months. This is actually something man could control, almost completely!

    In the overnight and early morning hours, pollutants from industry and mobile sources (vehicles) are emitted. The surface temperature over land and the lake are about equal, so this pollution is equally distributed. During the mid-morning through late-afternoon hours, the temperature of the air over the land rises faster than the temperature of the air over the lake. The hot air rises, forming a dome over the top of the relatively cooler air over the lake. Any pollutants within that dome are effectively trapped.

    The organic pollutants and oxides of nitrogen that are trapped react photochemically (with sunlight) to form ozone. This ozone is also trapped over the lake. The three ingredients necessary for ozone formation are organic chemicals, oxides of nitrogen, and sunlight, so the lake acts as a huge reaction vessel for ozone formation.

    In the early evening, the surface temperature of the land and the surface temperature of the air over the lake begins to equilibrate, and a lot of the ozone which was formed during the day over the lake makes its way back over land, and cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, Gary, and Holland have ozone values which exceed the approved environmental standard.

    At one environmental conference, a semi-jokingly proposed solution to the ozone issue in this region was to fill the lake in with fill-dirt and thereby eliminate the lake as a reaction vessel for the ozone formation reaction to occur. This of course SOUNDS silly, but it would actually be an effective solution to the problem. There would be no region of slower heating of surface air during the day, so no dome of trapped pollutants would be created and this large-scale ozone formation reaction could not take place.

    Of course, we could also just shut down all industry and all vehicle traffic from about 7:00 PM to 10:00 AM in the entire Lake Michigan region during the summer months… that would eliminate the problem as well. If we eliminated all sources of pollution during the time-period in which the air over land and air over the lake were approximately the same temperature, there would be no pollutants over the lake when the “dome over the lake” effect occurred. I am sure that solution would go over well in cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, and Gary.

    So, in this case, we have 2 courses of action which could potentially eliminate ozone action days throughout the entire Lake Michigan region. Fill in the lake, or severly restrict all activity in that area from 7:00 PM to 10:00 AM in that entire area. Why then, isn’t Al Gore calling for an immediate implementation of one, both, or some convoluted combination of these two solutions? We know that ground-level ozone pollution is a problem in this region, we can actually demonstrate that it is largely anthropogenic, and we have solutions that would empirically be effective. Come on! Who’s up for implementing the regulations needed to solve THIS problem!

    Ok, so probably not many of us. If that is the case, why are so many of us so anxious to regulate so many things to control global warming, which is something that we can NOT conclusively demonstrate that we are responsible for?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, I forgot to add that on ozone action days, the local governments actually recommend that you wait to fill up your car or mow your lawn until very late afternoon/early evening and to use public transportation during the day in order to minimize the problem.

      If you look at the problem logically, it actually makes a lot more sense to fill up your car and mow your lawn in late morning or early afternoon, and minimize this sort of activity in the evening hours. The hottest part of the day, when the dome of cooler air is already in place over the lake, is actually the best time to be doing any activity that pollutes in any way, becuase that pollution cannot become trapped over the lake. If everyone is mowing their lawn in the summer months in that region at 7:00 or 8:00 PM, they are actually contributing to the problem for the next day, yet the recommendations from the local government tell them to do exactly that. Shows how smart the government is….

  24. Calf Roper says:

    The arrogance of Man. It continually astounds me. I agree that we should all try to be good stewards of this beautiful planet – Conserve and Waste Not. However, when Chicken Little starts telling me that the sky is falling and that we’re all going to die, I like to sit back and say, “Wait a minute, how could you possibly know this?”

    To you alarmist’s out there, are you psychic? Do you have divine prophetic powers? You must if you want to start taxing every business in this great country (including the cow farts and belches that natural born animals produce) in the name of protecting us from the sky falling. What arrogance!!!

    What I don’t get is this (and I’m not a scientist but I do have good old common sense) – CO2 is a natural element. Plants need CO2 to survive and it is a basic part of our planet. Humans are naturally of this Earth and we produce CO2 with every breath we exhale. Therefore, you alarmists with your divine prophetic powers, must also specifically control how we Humans breathe, correct? I mean, if we all emit CO2 with every breath, then we are causing global warming right? So, if some of us want to live on this planet for very long, then we need to kill the rest right?

    Any time you scientist’s start “PREDICTING” something, you have just moved away from science into the realm of prophecy. You say, “but it is based on historical evidence”? And what kind of an indicator is that? Just because something happened in the past means that it will certainly 100% happen in the future? You’ve got to be kidding me.

    If you want evidence of Man’s ability to predict the future, just look to the weathermen. We have studied weather patterns for how long now and they still can’t get a 5-day forecast right? Why? Because they are trying to predict the future based on historical events. Prediction, prophecy. It’s all bulldookey!!!

    • I am a scientist and like to think I have a little common since to boot. CO2 is a natural element and plants to need it to survive. If you really get right down to it, if…(and I don’t), but if you believe that the earth is billions of years old, and we all evolved from ancient creatures, then the fossils that exist all came from our ancestors.

      These fossils took up CO2 from the atmosphere when they were living creatures. Some of these fossils, way long time ago, were trapped underground and over time became oil. So by burning the oil, we are simply replenishing the atmosphere with CO2 that was present a long time ago when obviously, life flourished on earth.

      Funny how those that argue for an extremely old earth and humans as just another animal evolved from other creatures, are so hesitant to allow humans to simply be these creatures and continue down the evolutionary path, using the abilities that they have received as a result of evolution. They are also somehow very hesitant to see the CO2, trapped in the form of oil deposits, released to the atmosphere from whence they came.

      Just something to think about.

      • Chris Devine says:

        We can dig a hole and reinsert thousands and millions of years’ worth of CO2 in an extremely short span of time. However, we cannot put it back just as quick. Saying that our oil comes from the fossilized remains of earlier era does not imply that all of that CO2 was available in the atmosphere at any one time.

      • 1973 SciFi book by D. Keith Mano called “The Bridge”. The enviro’s are in control of the world government. It has finally been decided that man can only stop hurting the environment by voluntary discorporating. Read the book we are headed there. It’s kind of a little Chairman Mao mixed in with Soylent Green.

        • Ever heard of “Ecotopia”??

          Read it back in the 70’s I think, maybe the 80’s.

          There are a lot of folks in the NW who are still trying to live that one out.

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      Roper, your take on humans causing GW by breathing brings to mind the frightening possibility of gov’t mandated population control. How deliciously evil! I say this toungue in cheek, but…

      • Some time in the future it will be very crowded without population control of some sort.China has already dabbled in it.There has to be a limit you know.

  25. esomhillgazette says:

    I won’t try to argue GW with you because, quite frankly, it’s a truckload of bulldookey and you won’t ever convince me that it’s not. Climate change is inevitable. The climate has changed many times since the earth began and will always do so. There. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. You can spout statistics all day and it’s still a crock. I also won’t argue smoking. Even though I am a smoker, no one knows more than me that I need to quit. Quitting is the problem. That is hard! I have had 4 aunt’s, and my granddaddy die of Lung Cancer or Emphysema (all the more reason to quit). But when it comes to Evolution, I will argue with you. I am a Christian. 87% of the Nation believes in God. Most of the world believes in a Supreme Being of some kind. I believe I am right. I know that the other Religions of the world believe they are too. That is a discussion for another time. My point is, I believe in Creationism. I do not believe Man crawled from the Sea, that Man crawled from a puddle of slime, or that Man jumped out of the tree where he spent his Monkey days, to stand upright over time and develop into the Modern Version of Man we have today UNLESS God CREATED them in that way. I cannot argue the Bible with you like my daddy could because he is a Baptist Preacher who knows the Bible like the back of his hand. I can tell you though, what he has taught me and what I believe. First of all, the Earth is not 7000 or so years old. It is billions of years old, just like most people think. The Dinosaurs should be proof of that. Their fossilized bones could not possibly have become rock in only a few thousand years. The Bible says that God created the Earth in 6 days. I believe that. But what is a day to God? Time means nothing to God. For all we know, a day could be a billion years in God’s time. Could it be possible that he gave Man the timetable of 6 days because it was a more manageable time for them to grasp? Or could they simply just could not at the time comprehend a billion years? Or not even the NUMBER (Billion)? I have heard: How do you explain the Dinosaurs? There’s no mention of them in the Bible! Well it also doesn’t say that they WEREN’T on the Earth either. If you have read it, you would know that The Bible actually only mentions the Creation in the beginning. Almost all of Genesis is concerned with Man after God created him. And while it Says that God created Man and named him Adam and the Woman Eve, that would be because the Bible is focused on setting up the bloodline of Jesus Christ, and Adam and Eve are the beginning of that bloodline. There is nothing in the Bible that actually says we ALL came from Adam and Eve. There is also nothing in the Bible that says God didn’t create more than just ONE Man and ONE Woman. Who’s to say God didn’t create a hundred, a thousand, etc.? Too many people focus on reading the words of the Bible and just counting up Bible years. God has no definition of time. Too many also focus too much on the “Dust of the Earth” aspect. Again I will say, that this was God’s way of allowing Man to comprehend what He was telling them. You see, I believe firmly, that God could have created Man just the way the Evolutionists argue. But they didn’t JUST evolve. There had to be a point of Creation for whatever Man Came from, be it SEA, TREE, or PEE! I’m Sorry if I haven’t explained my belief good enough. But Darwin’s Explanation IS called a THEORY after all. If you had any proof it would be called Darwin’s FACT of Evolution! Sorry US if I strayed from the topic of Global Warming. You, however, did not bring up Evolution. Chris did. To me, GW/CC is a no brainer. But I just couldn’t resist the Evolution Comment. Peace Out! LOL(love that abbr)

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Blast, I wrote a whole stinkin’ article, didn’t I!?

      • This is a first, a fairly conservative Roman Catholic not only agreeing with the son of the Baptist preacher man but applauding his explanation!

        See what comes out of a little respect and less yelling.


        • esomhillgazette says:

          Finally!!!! Somebody actually really read it! I was afraid I wasn’t clear enough SK! Then again, how much more broadminded could I have sounded? I was trying to explain Creationism without sounding like a Religious Nutball. I thought I succeded, but I guess to some I didn’t. That is truly the way I was taught the Bible and Creation by my Father by the way, and not just a made up story. My Daddy is not a Primitive Baptist but he is a Conservative Southern Baptist. He’s also a graduate of The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Ignorant Hillbilly he’s not.

          • Kristian says:


            I have heard my own preacher explain it just that way. It makes a lot of sense to me. I think one of the problems that we as Christians run into is that non-Christians want or need to place the limitations of man on God and you can’t do that.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Belief in God does not imply a literal interpretation of scripture. Belief in God does not imply a rejection of science.

      Trying to reconcile one’s narrow interpretation of scripture with belief in scientific principles is problematic at best. You are probably more than willing to accept the science that cures diseases instead of relying on notions of demonic possession. What explains your reluctance to accept that we all descended from a common ancestor?

      If it is possible for God to be speaking metaphorically in regards to the time span of creation, why isn’t it possible to interpret Genesis to mean that Adam and Eve weren’t really people but a metaphor for the entire chain of our biological ancestors?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        This is a point on which I am going to agree with Chris completely (gasp!).

        If you read Genesis, on the first day, God did a number of things, and they were good. On the second day, he did a number of other things, and they were good. This went all the way up to the sixth day, where God did more things, and these were good, and finally on the seventh day, God took a rest.

        Well, who is to say how long a day was to God? It didn’t HAVE to be 24 hours… it could have been a million years, or a BILLION years. There could have been an aweful lot going on during what God considered a “Day”.

        I personally don’t consider the ideas of creation and evolution to be mutually exclusive. I would think that God would have created organisms that would adapt and change in response to changing environments; however, that is just conjecture on my part and what I personally choose to believe.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          That’s EXACTLY what I said above. Was I THAT misunderstood? I could have sworn I said that very thing about what was a day to God.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Just went back and re-read. I DID say that! Maybe I just don’t understand scientists. That above is MY BELIEF. I didn’t mean to step on the scientists toes. I am willing to admit if I am wrong. But putting forth a theory is not proving me wrong. Just as my belief does not prove science wrong. NOW. Was that clear enough?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I should have said that in this case I was agreeing with you and Chris.

              Too be honest, your lack of formatting in your “article” which is basically what it is, made me almost instantly go, “TL:DR” and I really didn’t read the meat and substance of what was there. That makes me seem like an elitist jerk simply because you did not separate your thoughts into parargraphs or something, and I sincerely apologize. I just went back and re-read exactly what you were stating, and what Chris stated, and it seems like at least in this particular case, we all have more points that we agree on than we disagree on when it comes to this particular concept.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                A sincere thank you for pointing out to me that I’m not very good at writing. No insult taken, I just thought for a minute something was seriously wrong. I didn’t realize that I had gotten so into writing that I forgot how to properly do it.

                Oh well. I haven’t been in School in almost 30 years. I’ve forgotten my Letter writing and English skills. Thanks for reminding me of it!

              • esomhillgazette says:

                Go to my site at and see how I did at taking your advice. I told you I was serious!LOL

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Chris, you said “What explains your reluctance to accept that we all descended from a common ancestor?
        I see I didn’t explain it clear enough. When did I say that? We may have indeed “decended” from a common ancestor. I just said that ancestor wasn’t a monkey. However man came to be here, Evolution or not, God first created him. As for “Trying to reconcile one’s narrow interpretation of scripture with belief in scientific principles”, well hmmmm…. I thought I was pretty BROADLY interpreting scripture myself. And who said anything about scientific principles? Calling a THEORY a PRINCIPLE seems pretty narrow minded itself.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough either.

          Why are you willing to agree in a common ancestor but not a monkey? If our observations point us in that direction, what explains your reluctance to accept those observations?

          • esomhillgazette says:

            What observations Chris? Anyone has to admit that their are similarities between Apes and Man. God could have even made man from a monkey. All I am saying is that I BELIEVE that God CREATED Man AND the Earth. HOW he made them is up for debate. As I said, I believe in Creationism as opposed to the Evolutionary Theory.

            • Esom,

              I would like to have an evolutionist explain cotton to me. I am not a scientist, so just how did the perfect plant happen to come into being, that primitive man could use, and is still today the most used source for clothing.

              And don’t forget, God created the sense of humor.

            • I personally hold to the scriptures and believe that God created man by breathing into the dust of the ground. He then fashioned Eve from the man’s rib.

              The similarities between man and apes certainly speaks to me in that I see a common Creator.

      • Well put Chris! Christopher Hitchens where are you!

  26. WOW, I think this subject has hit a nerve for many of us. Thanks to Chris for his views on the subject, I also checked out the link you provided. When I was on the linked site, I couldn’t help but feel someone was trying to SELL me something. Maybe it was the site design. I remember when I was a young kid, and Walter Cronkite was on the news. To this day, I’ll never forget him reporting that scientific studies show that eggs are bad for your health. Well, 10 years or so later, scientists changed their mind and eggs became good again. I felt bad for eggs, because the scientific community lied about them, and they can’t even sue for slander! LOL. Anyway, this is something that may have taught me the science may not be as truthful as many would believe. Like the concensus of scientists believe that global warming is man-made, an older concensus of scientists once held that eggs are a bad thing. Maybe the next generation concensus of scientists will have our kids believe that catching fireflys on a warm summer evening will cause an STD.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Eggs (or rather egg yolks) are still considered bad for you. The fat and cholesterol in an egg yolk, however delicious, are considered just as bad for you now as they were when Cronkite first warned you about them (whereas the protein of an egg white is one of the healthiest things you can eat).

      • The point I was making in my post was that as a kid, someone who was trusted in most households, said that eggs were bad for your health. As a kid, I didn’t eat an egg for years. Later, the threat to ones health do to eggs was deemed to be much less than originally thought. The sky was falling on egg lovers, then they came out and had a “do over”. It was a scare tactic, much like what I believe man-made GW is. Ten years from now, the scientists will likely say that GW is considerably less than originally thought. These “do-overs” have been happening all my life, with just about everything we eat or drink.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I agree that the unavoidable problem with science is the tentative nature of the knowledge it provides. However, I would prefer to err on the side of caution on any particular issue than just continue to fiddle when I smell smoke.

          • USWeapon says:

            Well the problem Chris is that we aren’t just erring on the side of caution here. We are changing global policy, taking money out of people’s pockets through increased energy prices and loss of job because of environmental laws pushing business abroad. The decision to change everything based on erring on the side of caution is costly and dangerous. And it sure seems to me that erring on the side of caution is taking away a lot of our freedoms and rights. Denying this reality is one of the flaws that I have found in the environmentalists arguments.

      • Even this depends on your genetics and your activity level. Some bdy types are able to easily dispose of excess cholesterol, regardless of type. Certain levels of activity and/or metabolism require higher levels of fat to support the life and lifestyle of the person. There are no universal rules, and it is the attempt to implement universal health rules on people for whom such rules to not universally apply that causes such problems. This is one of the problems with government involvement in general, it is too inflexible and slow to change or respond.

    • Chris Devine says:

      It’s about full disclosure. Even if you feel like they’re trying to sell you something, they provide all the information you need to make an informed choice whether to buy or not. That’s more than I can say for the global warming skeptics who consistently try to hide the sources of their funding and rely more on public relations firms and pundits like Chris Horner than they do scientists.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ideally science would be as unbiased a process as possible, but unfortunately that is rarely the case.

        In the case of global warming, you have the government/environmentalists funding studies and basically telling scientists to only publish “evidence” that global warming is indeed occurring and is attributable to anthropogenic sources. Then you have the oil companies funding studies and telling the scientists to only publish evidence that shows that either global warming is NOT occurring, or that if it is occurring it can only be attributed to totally natural forces that man has no control over.

        This is also true of drug companies, where (for example) they don’t want the scientists to come up with a CURE for heart disease, they only want them to come up with drugs that will help lower your risk factors for heart disease as long as those drugs are taken FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!

        After all, what is more profitable? Curing heart disease with a single-dose medicine, or controlling people’s risk-factors for heart disease using a combination of colesterol medication, blood pressure medication, and clot-prevention medication, all of which have to be taken at least once daily from now until the day you die anyway? How many of you are over 50 or have friends/relatives over 50. What percentage of those over-50 people are taking 4-8 different medications EVERY SINGLE DAY?

        Science needs funding. Research is, after all, expensive. However, when the people providing the funding can attempt to dictate the outcome of the research, this results in what Steven Milloy refers to as “Junk Science”, and it is unfortunately rampant. The average person is taught to trust the scientists, but the scientists are being paid to produce garbage. How we solve that issue in the current political and social climate is beyond me. It would require a lot of very well-off people that were willing to fund scientific research without imposing any kind of agenda on that research ahead of time.

        This is why the only discoveries that you can MAYBE trust are the ones that someone discovered while puttering around in their garage on their spare time.

        • Chris Devine says:

          One good turn deserves another:

          I agree with PeterB in that there is a temptation not to bite the hand that feeds you by publishing reports that go against a particular agenda. But I personally find it more plausible that the global warming skeptics funded by the oil companies are engaged in an overt attempt to pervert the aims of science. The reason I feel this way is that a great deal of the measures proposed by governments and environmental groups have other rationales besides global warming to support them.

          For example:

          New energy technologies can revitalize our economy by creating new industries and decrease our dependence upon oil provided by third-world dictatorships.

          Reducing consumption of natural resources is a way to encourage more efficient use of resources and likewise promote innovation.

          Recognition that human actions on a macro-scale can have long-lasting detrimental effects is a good way to keep all of us vigilant and acting in a responsible manner. What if all 6,000,000,000 of us decided it was OK to litter or do our ‘dirty business’ wherever we stood when we got the urge?

          • Calf Roper says:

            But that is not the case. In general, I think humans try to be good stewards of the Earth. I say “in general” because I know there are people, heck entire countries, out there that do not care for how the land and environment is treated. However, we here in the US are making headway in polluting less. So why do the alarmist’s promote cap and trade, population control, and taxing cow farts and spew forth the vile that we’re all going to die from warming? I don’t have a problem with conserving energy and being good stewards. However, I do have a problem with the global warming crowd’s alarmist attitude. I think it a power grab scheme and I think America is waking up to this fact.

            • Chris Devine says:

              What isn’t the case?

              Do you think we should just keep on breeding until there is no land left to grow food on and no fresh water to drink?

              • USWeapon says:

                Another fallacy of the environmental movement Chris. “We are breeding ourselves into extinction!” There is nothing to back up this claim. Interestingly, there are more trees and forested lands in the northeastern US, the highest population center of the US, than there were when the country was founded.

                The vast majority of the planet is not developed land. I have hundreds of trees just on my property. Water is not going anywhere and it isn’t unable to be cleaned and purified. The scare tactic of “Do you think we should just keep on breeding until there is no land left to grow food on and no fresh water to drink?” is a common fallacy but there is absolutely zero reliable research that I have ever been able to find that backs up the claim that this is even a remote possibility.

                • Chris Devine says:

                  Please cite your source regarding forest levels.

                  How many people do you think this planet can hold. 12 billion? 20 billion? 50 billion? Population levels have increased exponentially over all human history and the only thing that slowed it so far was plague, famine, or war. Wouldn’t it be better if we voluntarily limited (not eliminated) the amount of offspring we produce?

              • Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” pretty much had us all dead by now.

                What seems to happen is that poor, uneducated rural folk have bunches of babies. This was originally because of high infant mortality and a need to work the land in substinance farming.

                When my rural Eastern European grandparebnts immigrated here in 1900-10, both sides of the family had more than nine children (not counting the ones who died in infancy). My uncles and aunts all at least finished eighth grade and, for the time, had an average education. Not one became a farmer and only one had three children. Most had two, some one and two had none. Their children predominently had one or none.

                Better education and a comfortable middle class lifestyle will control the population better than anything else.

              • God has ways of controlling population growth via natural disasters, disease, pestilence, etc.

          • I’m not against more efficient ways to live life. If I could afford a solar system or wind system to provide electricity, I probably would if it were feasable where I live. But, science tells me that that there are not enough sunny days for solar to be effective, and government tells me I can’t put up a wind system. So, effectively I’m screwed in any effort to become more efficient in producing electricity. Since I practice conservation already, any legislation such as “cap and trade” would be a no win situation for me. It would simply cost much more money to live, with no available alternatives. What many people don’t quite get, is that many people don’t have alternatives. It’s either because of location (not enough sunny days) or legislation prohibiting certain structures (wind turbines). Cap and trade will do NOTHING for people living in cities or suburbs, except cost more money. It will not lead to “green” electrical power, at least in my lifetime.

            One more thing, we have all seen the commercials about the elderly and drug costs. If our elderly already have this problem, what would a tripled electric bill mean to them? It would mean that life has become unaffordable, and I’m not willing to except that.

            Renewable energy, electric vehicles, everything green is good, until the big picture called reality stands up. Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it, and the problems that go with it.

      • Chris:

        Please tell us who funds the Center for Media and Democracy?

      • USWeapon says:


        I don’t think that is a fair assessment. Those on the side you espouse tend to do exactly the same amount of limited disclosure as those on my side of the argument. The groups of scientists on your side come up with names for their groups that sound official and omnipotent and the names for scientists on my side come up with names that sound official and un-biased.

        To say that anyone involved in the discussions are relying on information from some random scientists is an understatement. In that vein, I try to use my intellect and logical reasoning skills to discern what “makes sense” to me outside of the biased arguments. One of the things that I notice as I have debated this over the last couple of years is that it seems as though those who make the global warming case tend to present their data in a way that would sway the masses, not the critical thinking people. That leads me to believe that the global warming cause knows that they are not going to sway those with critical thinking skills so they don’t bother to try. What does that say about the movement?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Well said USW. Your differentiation between “the masses” and “the critical thinking people” is unfortunately accurate. Too many people are no longer taught the critical thinking process, and God forbid any of them learn even the most rudimentary priniples of logic.

          If you do not think critically, and do not understand the basics of logic, you can be easily snowed by what sounds like great rhetoric, but is, in reality, bombast, doublespeak, and smoke-and-mirrors.

        • Chris Devine says:

          So what I’m hearing is: neither side can be trusted so we should just choose the side that agrees with our own political and personal needs. Is that about right?

          • Funny, thats not what I heard. I could swear he said take the information and synethsize it using your own knowledge. If you don’t understand, then get more education so you can objectively evaluate.

            What I did hear, and do believe, is that science has become politicized and it is getting ever more difficult to believe anything put out by scientists as “objective and unbiased”. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, only that we can’t take their word for it. Of course that is what true science is all about. Question, then question again, until everyone always gets the same answer. Then it is a law, not a theory. And not until then.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            That’s not what I hear Chris. I think most on this site are thinking through our stance on GW and just don’t agree with you or the pro-GW group. I still respect you though for your stand on wish you well.

          • USWeapon says:

            Chris you asked: neither side can be trusted so we should just choose the side that agrees with our own political and personal needs. Is that about right?

            No that is absolutely wrong. I don’t much care what my personal or political needs are when it comes to the issues. Read enough of what I write on this site and you will see that I care not for any party line or political position. The regular readers here know that about me and that is why you don’t see them question me in that way.

            What I do is take my intelligence, which I believe is considerable and certainly sufficient to think things through critically, and discern what I believe the truth to be, regardless of which party says it or how it affects me personally. That is my history here. Again you only need to take a look back through past articles to see that. And while I love to hear the folks tell me we the scientist here says this, I don’t care what he says. I care what he can prove. And for the record, his choice to pursue science as a career doesn’t make him smarter than me or more right in the argument. It is nothing more than a job description. My IQ might be 20 points lower than his. It might me 20 points higher.

            I reject the rhetoric of both your sources and those for my side. Iinstead focus on facts and common sense. Global warming folks cannot seem to produce ANY hard evidence, only models that suggest “X” or irrelevant causal relationships that seem to show a cause or link, but don’t when critical thinking is applied. Give me some PROOF of global warming and I will take it. Otherwise I will assume that someone, somewhere is attempting to manipulate people with this data about global warming, because the science doesn’t meet my common sense standards. Perhaps a bit more healthy skepticism on your part would allow your intellect to trump your heart. Just a thought.

          • Again, for the sake of finding common ground, I have looked at the science of global warming and I have looked at the history. If we can all agree that it has happened in the past (which would be pretty hard not to) then, rather than look to a complex explanation, the more simple one would be that this is more of the same, a periodic shift in the surface temperature of the planet caused by forces beyond our control. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that the temperature is changing. Four score and seven is nothing compared to the age of the earth and the cycles its been through.

            So there you go, not follow what any particular pundit I may like says, but rather the simple explanation. Sir Thomas of Occam anyone?

  27. Chris Devine says:

    Regarding nuclear power there is an unsolvable problem, viz., how do we safely store and label waste that remains toxic for a time span greater than the entire length of written human history in such a way that it will not become a threat to present or future generations. Have a look at Beowulf or Shakespeare and see how language changes over the course of a few hundred years. Imagine what language will be like in ten thousand years. Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves, how do we ensure that the waste we continue to produce remains undisturbed? What if we do destroy ourselves but somehow a few survive? How do we warn these future survivors to stay away from the waste.

    This may seem a little far-fetched but it is worth considering given the lengths of time we’re dealing with when it comes to toxicity of radioactive substances.

    • No problem is unsolvable, not even this one. Consider the recent breakthroughs at the University of Idaho. Basically, waste levels can be drastically reduced, and potentially nearly if not totally eliminated in the future.

    • And, who is to say that future generations will not find a use for our waste? Even we are mining our garbage dumps for natural gas. Biofuels from left over chicken parts? It’s happening now.

      Freezing to death in the dark is not an option.

    • Black Flag says:

      France doesn’t have a waste problem while supplying 90% of the electricity with nuclear power.

      Reprocessing – but that is a bad word in the USA.

      However, nuclear energy does have a problem – too little nuclear fuel to be a long term solution. The stuff is, actually, quite rare.

      But without reprocessing, using Thorium is a no-go. Too bad. We have 1,000 years or more of that stuff, all over the world (not just locked up in a handful of countries like Uranium).

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Oil companies attempt to buy up patents on any alternative forms of energy, simply so they cannot be produced. My father worked for a big oil company. This has actually been done. They want a monopoly on energy production to the largest extent possible.

    Big oil companies also pay scientists to “discover” that global warming is either not occurring or is totally due to natural causes.

    Big Government pays scientists to “discover” that everything put out by using fossil fuels is incredibly harmful and destroys the environment.

    Big Government also pays scientists to “discover” that global warming is indeed happening at a very rapid rate and can entirely be attributed to anthropogenic effects; therefore, the government needs to further control what we can and cannot do so that this imminent and horrifying problem can be mitigated.

    Furthermore, Big Government makes sure to STRONGLY assert that any research that is being funded by the oil companies by definition has to automatically be so biased as to be completely bogus, while STRONGLY asserting that all research funded by environmentalists and the government is automatically unbiased and therefore has to be the unvarnished and undeniable truth.

    The unfortunate outcome of this scenario is most likely that the vast majority of us lose.

    • Very well said!

    • Chris Devine says:

      How do you explain the last administration’s position on oil exploration and climate change? They seem to be an example of big government’s willingness to agree with the oil companies’ views.

      • The Administration’s position was based on the fact that the actual science, at the time, combined with potential economic impacts didn’t support Kyoto or halting use of oil. But you won’t accept that because you believe that only the GW is man made science is true now and always has been.

        Have you ever studied the mathematical models that are used for the GW conclusions? I have and it is mind boggling how many variables are in the equations. Each of these acts against data points to create the allusion of a line. The more variables, a wise scientist once told me, the less there is a true correlation between x and y. You are in fact forcing random data into a line to achieve your desired outcome, or at least an outcome that is not real. This same scientist, who had spent 40 yrs studying the environment, told me any studying concluding there was more than about a 55% chance of correlation in the natural world was suspect of manipulation. That was his view of our understanding of the complexity of the natural world. The most complex system within that world may be the climate.

        Another wise scientist also told me “never assume the obvious”. That one has saved my butt from serious embarassment several times, not to mention economic disaster. His point was that we often start with an assumed relationship because it seems obvious. We then inadvertantly bias our study and findings to support that view.

        One major point here for you and others, and don’t doubt my words, is that the Administration is not the govt that controls the long term agenda.

        Govt agencies have been filled with ideologs for many many years. While GW was extolling the virtues of drilling in ANWR govt employees were working dilligently to prevent it. This of course is against the law if done in certain ways, but so is punishing whistle blowers. So agency heads can do little to subordinates who undermine the administration or congress for that matter.

        During the Clinton Admin old Al Gore and his Algorians figured this out. They placed folks in the lowest levels of govt agencies they could and then conversed with them directly to subvert agency policies, that had been developed to implement congressional law. During that period all agency answers to major environmental issues were cleared through the white house and none were allowed that didn’t agree with the major enviro groups and the Algorians.

        Many of the people who made that all possible are now back in the OBama administration. So do you think we will now be subject to an enlightened period of sound science, as our benevolent Pres. has promised??

  29. Chris,

    You stated or referenced:
    “The real question we must ask ourselves in each of these areas is ‘quo bono?’ (who benefits). In the case of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) it seems obvious (to me anyway) that the oil companies and related industries are the only ones to benefit from denying the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary and delaying any policy actions based upon that evidence.”

    If I were to ask myself who benefits from ACC/GW, I always come up with the government. I could be wrong, but I believe that many of our Politians have investments in alternative forms of energy and that only should make us question some of the validity.

    When scanning through the above you start out with not wanting to get into government conspiracy theories, but demonize other industries and sensationalizing that since they are against Global Warming then it must be true. Seems kind of one sided and close minded to me.

    I don’t believe in Global Warming. Why? Because I have not seen any scientific proof. Our Farmers Almanacs are way more reliable than the statistical models that overkill environmentalist have thrown around. Per Farmers Almanac we have had climate changes before big industries and autos …

    Btw mixing tobacco use and religion as arguments for Global Warming does not help either. Those are completely different topics and show no relevance. What they are good for is firing up emotion and clouding the topic.


    • Chris Devine says:

      Regarding politicians (especially the last batch) there are far more politicians supported by oil money than those supported by alternative forms of energy:

      As far as tobacco and evolution are concerned I have two comments:

      1. I admitted that I was providing some prepared comments and that they weren’t written specifically to address this post.

      2. The lobbies that continually argue against scientific consensus regarding tobacco and evolution use the same methods as global warming skeptics. It can be argued that tobacco companies were pioneers in the field.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Thank you for pointing that last part out. And I fell for it hook, line and sinker! I’m always having to remind myself I’m not as smart as I wish I was.

  30. Black Flag says:

    As a scientist (physics) and mathematician, as well as a computer technologist, I can say this statement: “Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening” is false. There is no evidence to prove this.”

    I can also say that the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming bears merit for study.

    When discussing science, contrary to what Chris may infer, does require science and facts; there is no place in science for politics or social engineering.

    As Einstein retorted when confronted by the presentation the ‘hundreds of other physicists’ disputed his theories, his response of “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” This also applies to Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

    AGW was hypothesized as a cause for the decade long increase in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. A number of GCM (Global Climate Models) seemed to demonstrate, at first blush, a correlation between CO2 concentrations and potential of atmospheric warming.

    Further to these claims, a media system, which survives on sensationalism, over-hyped the ‘consensus’ of science where none existed, and began the interference and distortion of politics into realm of science, initially driven by the politician, Al Gore.

    Since then, the science community has witnessed a number of contrary trends and disturbing incidents.

    Though others here have amply offered many contrary evidence to the AGW hypothesis, I’ll add a few, perhaps, different ones as well.

    1) The measurements of surface temperature is systemically flawed. NOAA’s surface temperature stations have been surveyed, and over 80% of the stations failed NOAA’s own procedures and location specifications making them particularly vulnerable to urban heat island effect. The consequence of the surface station survey was to conclude that the increase of surface temperature could be completely explained by the expansion of cities, and not due to any climatic effect. Further, NOAA has undertaken massive manipulation of the data sets, adding layers of ‘adjustments’ to compensate for UHI effects, and “time of day” measurements. Again, the Canadians have found errors in their methodology, out and out mistakes. One of these mistakes completely reversed a common retort of the AGW adherents – that the 20th century had the warmest temperature on record. A flaw in the algorithm used to calculate surface temperature was found, and when corrected, made the decade of the 1930’s the warmest decade on record. This was mostly ignored by the media and the AGW crowd, for obvious reasons. Further the Canadians continued to demonstrated that, bizarrely, the data sets measurements alternations have uniformly moved the temperature record upwards for data sets in the decades of 1990’s and 2000 and downwards for the data sets in the decades of the 1930’s and 1940’s – bizarre because correction for UHI effects should push the data set corrections downwards for the more current measurements and upwards (or no change at all) for the older data sets.

    2) The “Hockey Stick” graph of the IPPC AR3 has been shown to be an artifact of improper statistical applications. First discovered by two Canadians, one who specialized in statistical measurements to discover fraud in mining claims, recognized the same misapplication of statistics in Mann’s hockey stick. This was confirmed by a committee chaired by the preeminent statistician in the nation, Dr. Wegman, and further confirmed, albeit in a side-ways, politically correct statement, by the NSA. The “Hockey Stick” was quietly removed from IPCC AR4, though it continues to pollute the AGW arguments.

    3) The hypothesis of AGW and CO2 causation has a some very predictable consequences that can be directly measured. One is an increase in warming of the atmosphere in a very obvious “fingerprint” of CO2 causation. However, measurements from satellites show no such fingerprint. On its own, this single demonstration of fact is enough to dispute the CO2 causation hypothesis. Another fingerprint of AGW would be a warming of the ocean, however, current measurements have shown no such effect. Again, this alone is enough to create serious doubt regarding the hypothesis of CO2 causation

    4) The Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere have both experienced a decade long drop in atmospheric temperature. The claim of the AGW Theory was that human causation overwhelmed natural forces, however, nature has shown that even if AGW was true, nature remains the dominate force in climate, easily overwhelming whatever man may or may not do.

    5) Stronger correlations between sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) amply explains global warming, and equally important, global cooling. The AGW hypothesis does not. The sun is currently going through one of the most deep Maunder Minimums in recorded history – remembering that sunspot measurement is the longest scientific recorded event of human history, stretching back over 500 years to Galileo. You can see the update realtime image of the sun from SOHO here:

    6) Dr. Thompson’s study of ice core data has been unverified. Like many scientists dependent on AGW for their funding, he has refused all requests for his data and procedures, contrary to the policies of government-funded science. Followup studies by other scientists studying ice cores have found serious flaws in handling of ice cores, causing a distortion in the measurement of CO2 concentrations. Since Dr. Thompson has refused to release the data and the procedures, he has made it impossible to confirm whether he did or did not account for these distortions.

    The list of contrary demonstrations to the hypothesis of AGW continues to grow. However, as Einstein said, all it took was one.

    Addressing Chris’ direct comments:

    Please don’t assume that I think your argument is airtight or impossible to argue against.

    However, the onus – by the scientific method – is to provide proof of the hypothesis. As data demonstrates that the hypothesis is wrong, a new hypothesis is demanded.

    AGW appears immune to this process. As such, AGW hypothesis has shifted to be no longer scientific, but wholly political.

    Perhaps it’s because there really isn’t any controversy. Contrary to the noise of the PR campiagns engaged in by oil companies, tobacco companies, and creationists there is OVERWHELMING consensus amongst scientists that:

    There exists no such consensus.

    The IPCC participants were dominated by government policy makers and activists. Indeed, there were no more the 450 ‘scientists’, and of those, only a few had expertise even remotely related to climate study.

    However, over 30,000 scientists (having a degree in science) and over 9,000 Phd. have signed a petition disputing the AGW hypothesis.

    man made global warming IS happening, tobacco use IS harmful to one’s health, and Darwin’s theory of natural selection IS the best explanation for the origin and diversity of species on planet Earth.

    Whether tobacco is unhealthy or evolution does or does not explain the species on earth matters not one wit in demonstrating AGW. This is a red herring argument.

    If the discussion is about tobacco, or about evolution, those should properly be addressed individually.

    The real question we must ask ourselves in each of these areas is ‘quo bono?’ (who benefits). In the case of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) it seems obvious (to me anyway) that the oil companies and related industries are the only ones to benefit from denying the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary and delaying any policy actions based upon that evidence.

    Indeed. Quo Bono.

    AGW research is among the largest research budgets in government-science – dwarfing research into things like heart disease. One truly does wonder who benefits.

    All it takes is a few ’scientists’ to effectively dispute the multitudes of others on the opposing side (people like to support the underdog, I guess).

    There is no underdog or overdog in science. There is hypothesis, experiment and proof.

    The failure of the AGW is the lack of experimental proof. And to be perfectly clear, Global Climate MODELS are not proof. The one of the most serious errors of the AGW proponents is the reliance on models as some sort of proof of cause and effect.

    Every GCM model has shown to be 100% wrong in modeling the Earth’s current climate. It is bizarre that these same models are being used to predict with acclaimed accuracy the climate in the next 100 years.

    The best a model can do is create an hypothesis.

    Why not duke it out in the peer-reviewed journals (because nobody reads them, that’s why)?

    Peer review in the Climate Community has been demonstrated to be inferior to weeding out poor study. First, the massive overwhelming number of studies does not allow the through analysis required, and usually by the time the scientific community has completed their assessments, often the paper has been modified, withdrawn, or refuted by other studies. The artificial infusion of government money into Climate science has created a pace of of studies (all demanding access to the largess of funding) that is effectively destroying peer review processes.

    Further, Dr. Wegman’s review of the Climate community found an overwhelming incestuous peer review standards where co-authors of other studies reviewed each others papers.

    Dr. Wegman found that unlike other scientific undertaking in biology, chemistry and physics, Climatologist were incredibly loath to include statisticians to evaluate their data. As amply demonstrated by Mann’s ignorance of statistical methodology, their inability to correctly apply these standards creates serious flaws in their conclusions. This is not merely Mann’s problem, but profoundly systemic in many other Climatologists. See for the statistical review of many climatologists work.

    Without better and more transparent peer review, these serious errors became the basis of other studies, compounding the misapplication of theory, results, and further incorrect and improper conclusions.

    In the case of global warming, I would really like there to be a habitable planet Earth for my children and grand-children.

    There is nothing humans could do to change that – one way or another.

    Science tells us HOW, not why. It is the domain of religion and philosophy to answer the ‘why’ part.

    “Why” is the first question of science.

    Religion has no place in science. That is why the religion of AGW is so dangerous. It degrades the scientific process to a point where the common public no longer trusts science and begins to believe myths, falls prey to illusions, and believe in magic.

    I can understand the frustration of many that we must rely on ‘experts’ to tell us what matters. Once upon a time it was possible for a single exceptional individual to absorb the totality of human knowledge.

    “Expert-itis” is a modern disease. With the ‘dumbing down’ of Americans in the public school system – the scientific and mathematical illiteracy of the American public is astounding and should be of great concern.

    If the people cannot, for themselves, evaluate claims into categories of bizarre, improbable, possible, probable or real, the real danger of agreeing the the enforcement of wrongly derived policy may serious damage their future and their well being.

    The answer it seems is to entrust the ‘experts’ with a self-correcting method for investigating the world around us. We must have faith in the practitioners of the scientific method, provided they faithfully adhere to its principles.

    Faith is for the religious, and has no place in science.

    If we allow ourselves to become cynical or apathetic regarding the only tool we have for keeping us out of the dark, then all hope for humanity is lost.

    If we blindly believe that mere men in white coats ‘can never be wrong’, the people will be easily manipulated by men who merely wear white coats.

    Critical thinking is vital to being a free people.

    Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth?” He plainly mentions all those and puts them in perspective with a timeline going back 650,000 years.

    That, appropriately, is a Hollywood fiction movie.

    Is ice-core estimation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past accurate? I don’t know. Are there even any other methods that have been developped to compare answers to, and are those answers similar or vastly different?

    Science cannot even agree about what the average temperature of the Earth is today – and somehow, there are people who insist that they know with a large degree of certainty what the average temperature of the Earth was hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years ago – and even more amazing, what the temperature of the Earth will be 100 years from now.

    AGW, in my opinion, is a myth. My primary reason for my opinion on this matter is my root understanding of the totality of the Earth’s systems.

    In Earth’s history, it has been hit by asteroids; had super-volcanoes explode; had eons of ice and eons of ice free; had ages of extremely high concentrations of what are, now, mere trace gases; and the Earth is still here, supporting an overwhelming abundance of life.

    The systems of the Earth, by these facts of observation, are wholly negative feed back loops. This is a good thing. If it was as the AGW champions say, a system of positive feed back, the slightest disturbances far less severe than those of geological history would have sent the Earth into a permanent, uninhabitable deep freeze or into a permanent, uninhabitable oven.

    By observation, neither of those cases exist.

    Therefore, the dominating system of the Earth is a negative feed back loop, one that easily manages the tosses and turns of natural forces of humans, of nature, of the Earth itself, of the sun, and of our galaxies influences upon it.

    The Earth has lived for millions of years, and it will live for millions of years more.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Your attempts to bully those you disagree with by rehashing arguments you cut and paste from climate skeptic websites and pass them off as your own is nothing but dishonest. The sheer length of this post can be construed as an effort to drown out dissenting opinion rather than engage it honestly. The fact that you single me out for criticism shows your inability to accept differing views. Don’t bother me anymore. I see through your pompous garbage and don’t care to dignify it or waste my time combating it.

      • Black Flag says:

        Here above, in a short paragraph, Chris has provided the AWG proponents entire argument.

        I couldn’t have put it more succinctly myself.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Can’t you keep your snide comments to yourself? Grow the fuck up! Feel free to continue your pompous crusade but don’t try to drag me into it.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Saying “grow the fuck up” indicates your complete inability to refute anything that BF said and indicates your lack of maturity or ability to think critically.

            There is nothing in anything that BF said that should have elicited a “grow the fuck up”. BF presented pretty darn sound scientific reasoning and good foundations for his arguments. You responded to a well thought out post by BF by saying that he “cut-and-pasted from climate skeptic websites” and then responded to him with a “grow the fuck up” when he basically called you out.

            You can disagree with him, you can think he is pompous, you can even not particularly like the guy or anything he stands for, but if you want to debate here, either learn to argue with some civility or GTFO.

          • USWeapon says:

            You don’t have to respond to him. And trust me, he isn’t singling you out. We have all been the object of his affection at one point or another. I suggest following his line of questioning. You may not agree with him in the end, but you wil understand why you are right better than you did before if that is the case. I know he is frustrating at times, but it doesnt’ make him less helpful to learning and growing through these discussions.

          • USWeapon says:

            And please, while we are all adults here, my requirement is respectful and intelligent debate. No more “F-bombs”, I ask that, not demand it. You are an adult and I am not trying to tell you what to do. I would just rather that the site here not devolve into that. I know how frustrating BF can be, so I understand where you are at. If you don’t wish to engage with him, that is your right. I asked you here to debate with me. As soon as I have the time this evening I will engage more fully.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Since this is BF’s first post on this string it would appear that my frustration is unwarranted. However, I will gladly show you where he has consistently made efforts to frustrate me through his childish impetuousness. I think it’s pretty obvious that he is singling me out given that he cherry-picked comments from my original post here to distort my views on science and the scientific method. If he had either taken the time to read my other posts or consider them fairly he would have seen that I have no delusions about the limits of scientific knowledge or it acquisition.

            I think BF needs to learn how to argue without distorting his opponents views for the sake of stroking his own ego. Often in sports the referee will eject the guy who retaliates instead of the instigator. So I’m dumb enough to take the bait. I hope he’s smart enough to realize that others will see through his scam soon enough (probably about the time he disagrees with them).

            I seriously don’t see why many here hold him in such high regard. I see him as nothing but a dishonest pseudo-intellectual bully. But you’re all entitled to your own views on that and any other matter.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Whether we agree with BF or not, the point is, he makes us think. Whether we agree with you or not, you make us think as well.

              Whether we agree with you or not is somewhat irrelevant. If you help us to evaluate our own positions and clarify our own stance, that is of great value.

              BF has said things that I almost completely agree with (although this doesn’t happen often) and you have said things I almost completely agree with (again, not that often) and you have also both said things that make me evaluate my opinions and question WHY I hold a particular opinion. If your (or BF’s) opinion differs from mine, I TRY to evaluate your position and see if perhaps it might even have more merit than mine does.

              You probably are not going to change my mind very often, and I am probably not going to change your mind very often, because on a lot of things we both have pretty strong viewpoints that are simply not the same.

              So what? We come from different points on the political spectrum. I may never understand the postitions you hold on various issues, and you may never understand the positions I hold on various issues, and as tempting as it may seem to call each other idiots, most likely we are both, in reality, fairly intelligent people who are just never going to fully agree on certain things.

            • Black Flag says:

              Chris, I do not believe anyone holds me of any higher regard than any other audience/responder here on USWep’s site….except for, perhaps, USWep, our gracious host.

              I sincerely you hope you join our little cabal here, and I promise I will continue to annoy you to no end.

      • This is the type of response that led me to developing the Star Trek hypothesis.

        And before any of you get any ideas, I invented the term “Algorians” and you have to ask permission to use it.

        Aaaaahhhh!! OK You have my permission.
        Wouldn’t won’t BF to feel like he needed to steal it.

        Feelin Good

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Well hoss, I invented the term “bulldookey” and nobody asked MY permission to use it! But I see it all the time here now!

          • ESOM
            You’ll have to go back to the Star Trek comment to get the joke. It was primarily for BF’s benefit. Here is another one I think you will like.

            Politician was travelling around the state speaking at various Indian reservations, working hard to get their vote.

            At each stop he would stand in front of the crowd extolling the virtue of his canidacy.
            At each pause in his speech they would cry OOMPAH, OOMPAH, with an exuberance he had never seen.

            At his last stop on the trip he spoke at a local ranch that belonged to the chief.
            Standing in a corral surrounded by locals sitting on the fence he launched into his emotional speech once again.
            By the time he ended the Indian cowboys were standing along the fence, young and old, screaming OOMPAH, OOMPAH, OOMPAH, OOMPAH!!!

            The policitician was most full of himself as he walked off with the chief.
            As they were about to go through the gate the chief leaned over and said….
            Be careful there, don’t step in the OOMPAH!!

            Hope that brings a smile.

    • Nicely done! …. I have been further educated again.

      Good Job

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I knew that at some point BF was going to post something that I > 95% agreed with.

      He just did.

      Unfortunately, there really cannot ever be totally unbiased science. Science is funded by people. Science is performed by people. The vast majority of people have biases and agendas.

      Occasionally, there are people that come around like Albert Einstein, who seem not to give a damn what the anwer is going to be ahead of time, they just want the answer. We tend to either refer to these types of scientists as “crackpots” or “geniuses” depending on if their science turns out to be valid or not.

      What generally happens, is that during their own time, they are referred to as “crackpots” by their contemporaries and peers who are biased toward the current “answers” of that time period, and then later, when the “crackpots” are shown to be brilliantly correct by enough critical thinkers, the “crackpots” suddenly become the “geniuses”.

      • Peter:

        I respectfully disagree with “Unfortunately, there really cannot ever be totally unbiased science. Science is funded by people. Science is performed by people. The vast majority of people have biases and agendas.”

        I have seen “unbiased” science produced by corporate funded scientific studies. The key is to separate agendas from views/opinions/hypothesis in the construct of the study and in the analysis and conclusions. Those with solid ethics can do it. Those who don’t…can’t.

        In short, this goes back to lack of ethics in our society, aka…education and political system, not how research is funded. You know me by now..I like to drill to the core.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          To me, unbiased science can only occur when both the parties funding the research and the parties performing the research have no vested interest in the outcome.

          I guess that me saying that this “never” happens is perhaps going too far. Unfortunately, I have seen far too much bias in science and use of this biased science to attempt to sway people’s opinions, and have become somewhat jaded.

          • Peter.

            I’m not sure how that could happen. Some of our greatest sci. discoveries were made by those with very strong vested interest. They wanted to invent something and profit from it, or to do good for society. I would like govt out of the business as it has lost all credibitility with me.

            Perhaps BF could provide some ideas. Mine is for private sector to supply 3rd party monitoring of procedures thus assuring unbiased structure, analysis and reports. Peer review was supposed to do this but is no longer working because, as BF pointed out, they are often the same folks with interest or really have no expertise.

            Do me favor and respond under a new comment. I’m getting lost looking back for the various strings.
            Best wishes

    • Dear Mr. Flag:

      It is my turn…Bravo, BF, Bravo.

      Now I can delete my response that I was working on separately. It has some other examples of problems with the theory, but I don’t believe in piling on. It’s a social justice thing with me…playing fair and all.

      Some time back I heard the talking Green Heads announce that the hockey stick had been restored by some new evaluation of the statistics. I never could find the actual study making this claim. Are you aware of it and have you evaluated it in any way?

      On second thought, I will add one other point. I read an article a few months ago that gave a pretty compelling argument why an average global temperature was meaningless, both in terms of whether such a thing can be determined and of what use it would be. I had always viewed it as more of a marketing tool. Especially with respect to effects of climate change, which are highly variable based on location.

      You also didn’t mention the range of variability in the models or the avg global temp, which is also dependant on the models.

      By the way, I like it much better when you take the time to create complete thoughts in your prose. It may not be as much fun for you but it is more useful to me.

      Again, BRAVO.

      • Black Flag says:

        I have read the analysis and here is my brief:

        – They utilized the same data set as Mann
        – They utilized the same technique as Mann
        – They got the same result as Mann

        Therefore, they claimed “Gosh, Mann was right!”

        The study was done by Wahl and Ammann, noted co-authors of Mann.

        Even Dr. Wegman felt the need weigh in and speak up on this very bizarre and humorous logic.

        ..when using the same proxies as and the same methodology as MM, Wahl and Ammann essentially reproduce the MM curves. Thus, far from disproving the MM work, they reinforce the MM work….

    • I believe this may be the first time you have written a post that I agree with entirely.

    • KUDOS again, my friend!

      Since you know that I am neither a scientist nor mathematician, I give you a very good pat on the back as well.

      You seem to have brought out the true Liberal/Socialist in Chris. Got him right on down to using the “F” bomb!

      Even though I am a sober alcoholic(been that way since March 15 1986), I would consider buying you a drink – Okay, not an alcohol drink but would sparkling apple cider do? 😉

  31. esomhillgazette says:

    Sorry Guys and Gals,
    I didn’t mean to get into a Religion debate with Scientists. I shoud have known better than to open my electronic big mouth! LOL! I am enjoying the debating about GW though. I don’t feel I have anything to contribute to it. I don’t believe in GW because, as a History Buff and I mean ALL History, I have seen Climate Change Evidence in historical times. I have also seen the evidence both sides bring and have to say that it depends on who is doing the funding for the studies. And since neither side can be trusted, I have to go with the historical evidence. I will trust my own eyes and historical fact.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Religion debates with scientists are fun! Don’t apologize for getting into one 🙂

    • I agree don’t apologize for allowing your religious beliefs to enter in. If you allow your religious beliefs to permeate your very being, they should eventually come out, regardless of the topic at hand. A true Christian is commanded to be driven by Christ in all that we do.

      That being said, we aren’t commanded to approach science, or anything else for that matter, with a closed mind, but to approach everything openly and use the talents and abilities given to us by God, keeping His word as the final authority.

      In fact many of the GW proponents adhere to it with religious fervor.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        What I should have said was that I didn’t mean to get into an agrument over Religion with a LIBERAL ATHEIST Scientist! But my Post above about Creation was what I fervently believe! It’s not the HOW God created, but the FACT that he created!

        Having said that this is the second day in a row I have launched into a Religious debate and we aren’t here to talk about Religion. That’s REALLY all I was apologizing for. Two days in a row I have let myself be caught up in arguing Religion with someone who only knows how to knock a group as a whole that they don’t understand and aren’t willing to try to.

        Is that better use of English skills Peter? LOL Just Kidding!

  32. USWeapon says:

    Chris Devine Said:

    Those media outlets don’t have a liberal (or conservative) bias. They have a corporate bias. Have a look at who owns the networks and you’ll get an idea why those networks are really in the business of selling you to their advertisers.

    You are the product. An easy way to figure out if you are the intended viewer of any given tv show is to have a look at the commercials. During the day it’s all about life insurance and med-alert bracelets or toys and tampons. At night it’s adjustable mattresses and sleeping meds.

    • USWeapon says:

      You are welcome to that opinion. Personally I think if you are willing to saythe networks don’t have a serious political bias, you sir, are sticking your head in the sand. Failure to be able to acknowledge that would say to me that you are an intellectual(self-professed) only seeing what you choose to see.

      There is a significant liberal bias in the media. claiming otherwise is simply ignoring the facts. But hey you are welcome to live in that la la land if you want. I hope that you can see that, like Black Flag can sometimes do, failing to concede to obvious realities renders so much of your other arguments useless as people will simply see you as an idealist who is not capable of seeing anything you don’t want to see.

      • Chris Devine says:

        If you show me your facts I’ll show you mine:

        • My God Man

          If you want credibility stop referencing left wing organizations funded by New World Order types.

          Besides, all you’ll get is someone here posting the right wing sites as a counter point.

          I have worked with, not for, the media for years. The people who work in the media are overwhelmingly left of center and many are far left. It is built into their DNA in college, if it didn’t exist before. They were the first victims of Balkanization of society and it began in the late 50’s and kicked it up a notch in the 60-70’s.

          These folks are left to their own devices most of the time. Yes, if they screw up advertising revenue then hell is to pay. But only then. That is why left wing groups were the first to boycott advertisers to manipulate media output. The right is just now becoming wise to this game.

          Most often their work has a biased taint to it and sometimes its outright obvious. Everytime I have brought examples to them they answer that they are being objective and they gave both sides a chance to respond. This gets to the real issue I have with those who place themselves on the left side….they believe they are using logic and reason and always reach objective unbiased conclusions. No matter how weak the foundation under the house.

          When challenged on the underlying facts or philosophy they resort to yelling and name calling. Now how is that rational or based on reason????

        • Chris,

          An example of media bias that is currant, the AIG bonuses. Big story time, a lot of coverage. Why are there no reports about the bonuses at Freddie/Fannie that are larger than AIG’s?

          There was also a lot of coverage of the G20 protest in London. But almost no reports of the tax “Tea Party” protests in multiple US cities that had much larger crowds than the G20.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        US, I wasn’t going to respond to that comment of Chris’s, but now I think I will. Chris, I am not, In my own opinion as well as others, a smart person. But I don’t need facts or even smarts to tell me that the MSM is HEAVILY biased politically, as well as anthing else Liberal Chic. That is the reason I quit watching them in the first place and, I might add, why I started looking on the Internet for like minded people like US. Because with all the Liberal Bias in the MSM, My voice of protest felt like a Fart in a Whirlwind!

  33. What a great discussion today. It was good to here both sides of the story, and mostly the diverse opinions given. Chris should be commended for coming on board with his position on Global Warming. As is the case seemingly everyday, I have learned something. Thats a good thing. Thanks to all.

    • Agreed, without open debate, we are doomed to a life of having our heads in the sand. I fear that’s were most voters are today.

  34. This is God’s earth and no man on this planet knows how long this earth has been in existance. US, thank you for this site and thank you for continuing to open the eyes of those sleep asleep and have no idea what is going on around us. Global warming now “climate change” is a hoax and is another mean of controlling us as well as other hidden agendas. It’s sickening! Great Job!

  35. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    What is interesting to note here is that I don’t NECESSARILY feel that anthropogenic global warming is a concept that is completely devoid of merit.

    What I do see is that the GW advocates are trying to say that they already have a vast and indisputable preponderance of evidence on their side, and I think that THAT claim is false.

    To me, they have used models with far to many variables, data from studies which failed to control too many contollable variables, and in some cases, outright data manipulation to further their claims. In spite of this, they COULD still be correct that man is causing global warming, but they could be off by several orders of magnitude (factors of 10) as to how much of global warming is actually caused by man. They could also just plain be wrong.

    Whatever the case, I most certainly do not disagree that we should be good stewards of the planet. We should strive to find AFFORDABLE alternative forms of energy that cause less harm to the environment. We should strive to conserve energy as much as we can. We simply shouldn’t be wasteful. However, we should do these things because we recognize that they are better for us and better for the planet, not because some government mandates that we do them or forces us into doing them by taxing “traditional” forms of energy into the ground.

    I don’t see China taxing the use of coal and oil to the point where it is going to put their country back into the stone age, and I don’t see any reason why we should either. We have continually managed to develop more efficient engines and better emission contol systems that have made the use of coal and oil much cleaner than they were in the past, and we will continue to do so.

    Like it or not, the US is a heavy user of energy. It is one of the reasons we are one of the most productive nations in the world and have one of the highest standards of living in the world. We have the capability of developping cleaner, cheaper alternative forms of energy, but this is going to take time. The internal combustion engine didn’t happen overnight, and the next great advance in energy production or useage probably isn’t going to happen overnight either.

    We also have to be open to USING the forms of alternative energy that are available to us, such as solar and wind power. How many times have you heard someone say how great wind-power is in one breath, and in the next breath say that they don’t want a wind-farm near them because it would kill migrating birds or obstruct their scenic view of the ocean?

    If someone were to develop a way to put solar panels on the moon and somehow efficiently through satellites beam that energy back to earth with minimal loss, what bizzare objection would the likes of Ted Kennedy or Diane Fienstein come up with for THAT one???

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Hear! Hear! I agree with you on all of that. I do think AGW is a load, but would admit if it was proven. So far, it has not.

    • Ditto

      My frustration with this whole thing has been the use of science for political objective which has in turn been used to keep us polarized and looking away from the real threat.

      A crisis is needed to expand govt control of our lives. This was the crisis of fashion before the economic meltdown. Now they have combined the two so that “only govt can solve this problem”.

      It also diverts us from real environmental and economic issues we could efficiently address.

      And, for all who flat reject the concept I want to point out that many AGW sceptics concede that CO2 can theoretically increase atmospheric temps. However the existing levels of CO2 do not support the level of temp increase blamed on this factor. Furthermore the levels would have to go far beyond estimated changes in the past 200 years.

      There are some who now think CO2 may be increasing ocean acidity, thus threatening coral reefs. Interestingly, 60% of CO2 produced by man has been trapped in the ocean, supposedly. If true, this could be a real problem. But my other point then applies. There are other factors more immediately threatening coral reefs and we should be addressing those. Instead we will continue to debate CO2.

      By the way, did you all know that there is evidence that the oceans were 26ft higher only a few thousand years ago, and that they were lower only a few hundred years ago.

      You see, Blag Flag’s ancestors stashed some of their profits, from their deals with the Spanish, French and Brits,in caves in the carribean. Treasure hunters now have to use scuba gear to access these caves. Unless of cours Flags ancestors developed gills….wait a minute….didn’t I see one of those in a movie once???? LOL

      • There is a completely different way of looking at the ocean being 26′ higher.The land may have been lower.

        • Ahhhh!

          Ron: I didn’t mention that option on purpose. So lets explore the idea.

          But if the treasure is now underwater the land would have been higher than it is today. If the ocean level was 26ft higher today then the land was 26 ft lower. But that would not allow treasure in the caves.

          So it would have had to rise much higher than 26 ft, then dropped to where it is today. Definitely one possible solution.

          Along those lines, how many of you know that the earth’s crust is still rising in upper US and Canada in response to weight of glaciers having been removed.

          Theory is the Great Basin was created by upward lift of crust due to weight of snake river and columia basalt flows, then glaciers. Some think the divide is dropping since the glaciers retreated.

          Sorry, sometimes my mind wanders to only remotely connected trivia.

        • Ron,
          That was a distortion by Gore. The UN panel projected two different possible ocean rises, 19 inches and I think 39 inches. Sorry, been a while since I read all that. But the 20 feet he pulled out of his posterior brain cavity.

          • I’m sorry but my comment was posted in jest to the erroneous number.

          • Life:

            I posted the 26 ft level but it had nothing to do with Gore.

            It is the physical evidence of where the ocean level was relative to its existing level on at least one carribean island. I happened to pick it out of a TV show on some pirate treasure hunt on TV a couple of years ago. Because I’m tuned into this issue I pick up pieces of relavent info from TV and other media where the purpose is not related. Such as their reference on this show to physical evidence of the ocean level on the rocks of the island.


    • Peter,
      As always well written and informative. On the solar power from space, the objection would be about beaming the power down to earth, likely as microwaves. If it will melt a Hershey bar, its got to be bad for some animal. Also, the receptors would be similar to solar panels, that Barbra Boxer is fighting in the Mojave desert. So the environmentalists that want clean energy will not allow us to have any energy. Nothing is clean enough.

      Its the same old situation
      its the same old song and dance

      • You forgot that if the big mirror(s) on the moon are built by the US they will have the potential of becoming a “Death Ray”. Instead they should be built by a more peace loving people, like the North Koreans.

  36. I know that this is off topic here, but I just found out that MSNBC is conducting an online poll to find out how we think the President is doing. My suggestion is that we all go there and tell them!

    Here is the link –

  37. One More Thought Before I Run Some Errands!!!!!!!!

    There are a lot of very smart people involved in this discussion today, some of whom are obviously good writers, scientists, and techno wizards.


    No wonder the economy is in the toilet. USW found a way to get us all to go John Galt in the middle of a Tuesday.

    Think I’ll get some sun.

    P.S. to USW: Tell your wife congrats on the whole HEELS thing. Boy was I way off. But in my defense I predicted the Florida blow out a couple of years ago when everyone thought it would be close. Also note that Gonzaga played as close as Michigan State, meaning of course they would be #2 if only put in the other bracket. Hows that for an unbiased scientific conclusion?

    • I actually have this blog on my computer all day at work. Basically, if I’m not helping someone, looking up prices, ordering stuff or on the phone getting pricing, I have some dead time to read and comment. I actually have permission to do as I please, because I’m always there and my work gets done. The most important thing to my boss, is me being there every day and getting things done rather quickly. I guess I have a pretty good job!

      • G-Man—Where I worked I chased the parts and got the prices.All you would have had to do was call my order in.You just thought your job was good.

      • GMan
        It was supposed to be tongue in cheek humor, you weren’t supposed to confess.

  38. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is highly tangential, so you have all been warned, but it is an example of how funny science can be (although you have to have a bit of a “dark” sense of humor here.

    One of my Organic Chemistry Professors in College was good friends with the lead scientist that performed the studies that showed that Saccharine caused cancer in laboratory mice.

    You all remember Saccharine, don’t you? Used to be used in all of our diet soft-drinks… and then suddenly WHAMO! It became the DEVIL because it caused cancer. Bye-bye Sacharrine! Hello Nutrasweet!

    Now, this professor of mine asked what the doseage of Saccharine would be in a human being that would induce the same cancer as had been caused in the laboratory mice. The scientist who performed the study calmly stated that a human being would have to consume a Hefty lawn and garden size trash-bag full of saccharine every day in order to have the same cancer that the mice got. They use a number called the LD-50, which is the doseage at which 50% of the study participants experience a lethal effect. So, if people were to consume a 35-gallon trash-bag full of saccharine every day, 50% of them would develop cancer.

    Full of curiosity, my professor then asked the scientist who performed the study why they had never done a similar investigation with caffeine. The scientist responded, “We have! The problem is that all of the mice die of acute caffeine toxicity long before any of them have any chance of getting cancer!”

    • IALMAO!

      Way to go Pete!

      I heard that about Saccharine some years ago. Made me go hmmmmmm?, cause I have known a lot of folks with diabetes who have used it well into their 90’s wit virtually no side affects. Somebody made a lot of money change hands on that one!

      Oh, BTW – What is the main ingredient of all those “Energy” drinks that are so popular now? C-A-F-F-E-I-N-E 🙂

      • OK G.A. you got me.

        What is IALMO?

        I just got LOL figured out and your expanding the language on me.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          I am laughing my a$$ off


          Laughing out loud


          Rolling on floor laughing


          you can put that one together from the above examples

  39. I still have a question. In the current push for renewabl energy, and all this cap and trade save the earth crapolla, I looked into both solar and wind power where I live. While both cost over 10K to install, thats not the problem here. The problem is that solar would not be efficient in my local area due to not having enough sunny days per year, therefore not cost effective as well. Local building codes restrict the hieght level of newly built structures, which eliminates the wind power idea, not to mention I’m in a populated area which inhibits average wind speed. So, in reality, if govt. pushes consumers to go to renewable energy, folks in my geographical area would not be able to be involved. What the heck would all this cap and trade crapolla due to me other than cost big bucks with no way out?

    • G-Man:
      As being proposed it will do nothing for you except increase your cost of living. PERIOD
      Per the latest scientific reports from the AGW group it won’t even save your house if you live within 6 feet if sea level. Because no matter what we do the effects will continue for another 100 or more years before they begin to reverse. That’s if we were to immediately meet the CO2 reduction goals set our by the experts. Cap and Trade wouldn’t meet the goal for at least another 20 years.
      Feeling depressed yet??

      Now for the good news. There is a good chance that there will be major break throughs in solar cell and battery storage tech in the next 20 years. The kind of break throughs that result in greatly reduced costs. These and other tech developments may make this whold debate moot as our need for oil drops off the charts. The interesting thing is that this progress will be made without Cap & Trade or any other taxes imposed to fund the effort. You can’t accelerate it as the left likes to portray with their “Manhatten Project” analogy.

      Furthermore, the same gloom and doomers have produced a lot of data showing oil reserves have peaked and we will reach much lower levels of production in 50 years. Low enough to drive energy prices through the roof. If this is in fact true, which my oil patch friends deny, then as oil supply drops prices will rise and alternatives become economically feasible. Not cheap, just cheaper. At that point they are efficient in that we are not spending money to subsidize one option over another. That is how free market Capitalism should work and will if left to its invisible hand devices. Cap and Trade would lose its butt because oil use would be dropping faster than the reductions demanded by the Cap and Trade program. My oil patch friends tell me that as prices rise more supply becomes available because there is plenty of oil at the right price. That is when other considerations come into play, such as environmental protection. A lot of the reserves are in deep ocean. Accidents could create severe impacts.

      One of my biggest complaints about the Green bunch, especially the politicians who support them, is that they always try to tell the public we can have our cake and eat it to. In my 30 plus years in the environmental business I have yet to see it happen. There is always a cost and a benefit, always a trade off to be made. What the public needs is honest and accurate information as to what those trade offs are so they can make a choice. Maybe they will choose to stop using coal, or maybe they will choose to move our coastal cities inland. It’s should be their choice, not some Bureaucrat or environmentalist group empowered by congress or a president.

      Sorry about getting off track. That last part was for everyone. Been thinking about it most of the day and forgot I was talking to you specifically.
      Best of wishes

  40. Chris Devine says:

    Somebody asked me why I take this stuff so personally. Why do I get frustrated to the point of using obscenities? The simple answer is because these matters matter to me. I’m not doing this for fun or as some academic exercise. I do it because I actually care about these issues. To that end I would like to offer these words I wrote recently that may explain how I feel:

    “Propaganda Triage”

    When treating the sick and injured with limited resources there is a protocol for prioritizing who gets treated first. I find an analogy can be made regarding the amount of effort we should make when discussing contentious matters. Just like it makes little sense to perform CPR on a corpse, I find no reason to continue discussing politics etc. with people who either disagree on a completely fundamental level or those who are so emotionally wrapped up that they won’t listen to reason. This is very frustrating for me (and others I suspect). Likewise, what is the use of perpetual head-bobbing-agreement with people whose views on the world mimic your own? It appears that there is a limited set of people that we should try to reach when it comes to political discourse.

    However, the group of people who can be swayed cannot all be considered reasonable. Consider the film, 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose. Twelve men sit on a jury, tasked with determining the innocence or guilt of a man accused of murder. Three characters stick out in my mind. First, there is the single man who votes ‘not guilty’ on the first ballot thereby forcing the rest to seriously deliberate the fate of the accused. Then there is the prejudiced blowhard who refuses to change his mind until all the others have changed theirs. But the one I find most frustrating is the guy whose opinion changes each time someone speaks. For me he represents America’s swing voter, who sadly seems to be the one determining the outcome of elections these days.

    It would be my fantasy for the prejudiced amongst us to come around to the right (I mean ‘left’) way of thinking and agree with the way I see the world. Perhaps it’s a bit presumptuous for me to assume I’m correct, but I do my best to defend my views without resorting to irrelevant ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. Nonetheless, with the increasing polarization of the majority of voters (in somewhat equal amounts), it appears that the people who are easily swayed by insincere rhetoric are the ones who matter the most. This brings me back to the triage analogy.

    Consider those who are your polar opposite on any given topic. They would fall into the morgue category. There is no line of reasoning or clever argument that is going to change their minds. They have either secured themselves behind an intricate wall of principled and consistent opinion (like I have) or they have hidden underneath a rock-pile of cliches and knee-jerk judgments. Either way you’re not going to have much luck dismantling that wall or getting to the bottom of that pile. They might as well be dead to you unless you’re behind that wall or hiding under the rocks with them. In that case they would represent the walking wounded. Why waste your time on them in either case?

    That leaves two categories: those requiring immediate attention and the rest who are suffering but probably won’t perish. You can alleviate those who are suffering and do them the most amount of good by patiently listening to their thoughts and politely correct them when they stray from reason. Those requiring immediate attention might need to be shocked every once in a while to get their hearts (and brains) functioning again, but you should never give up on them. The last thing we need is more registered voters in a coma.

    You’ve got to pick your battles in life. Maybe by following this framework we can do this world more than a little good.

    • USWeapon says:

      I would have to say it’s a bit of an insult to say that all of us aren’t here because these things matter to us as well. The 4-6 hours a day I spend working on this blog isn’t done because I don’t feel there are enough XBox games to keep me busy.

    • Black Flag says:

      You will never solve all human problems.

      You will probably never solve most human problems.

      You may be able to solve a few human problems.

      The means of determining the solution to a human problem becomes vital, because every action causes a far greater explosion of unintended consequences than the consequence that one desired.

      The best way to ensure the unintended consequences do not overwhelm the ‘good’ you want to accomplish requires the means to be moral

      Rationalizing the use of immoral means (forcing people to comply) almost always leads to far worse problems than what it as meant to solve, thus compounding and adding to human problems.

      Freedom of choice in one’s action is the optimum means to solving human problems, for it creates far fewer and far less uglier unintended consequences then the use of force and compulsion.

      • USWeapon says:

        I am not sure what to do in the rare instance that I agree with any of your bulldookey® (you like that Registered Trademark symbol? LMAO). But I have to agree completely here BF. The key to finding solutions is to at least seek to find the most moral way forward in an attempt to limit the unintended consequences.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Oh GREAT! My word just got jacked! GEE THANKS US! LMAO

          • USWeapon says:

            No way Esom… I simply trademarked it for you. It is yours. That is just me offering up intellectual property rights for my readers, LOL

      • Black Flag says:

        Well, then I have to just use the word Algorians(CCA) …sorta like ‘flying the flag’ – gotta just use the word to keep it free!

        (Thanks JAC!)

      • Chris Devine says:

        You make claims about morality as if they are self-evident basis for all action. Morals are chosen not given and in a civilized society it is your duty to convince us whether your version of moral is correct or not. You’ll likely accuse me of being some moral-relativist because I’m arguing that appeals to moral actions are usually thinly-veiled attempts to naturalize prejudice or bigotry. You pretend to be concerned with the basis for my arguments hoping to expose some weakness of logic or reliance upon some unstated premise. However, your continual reference to morals as if they are somehow universally accepted or understood reveals your own insistence upon unsupported axioms.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Morals are chosen and not given? Interesting. If morals are not a given, then there is no absolute truth, only relative truth. Take the Ten Commandments for example. Even if you are not particularly religious, you see most of these (well, the last 7 in particular) as probably still containing something we can all agree on.

          We should honor our father and mother,
          We shouldn’t murder,
          We shouldn’t steal,
          We shouldn’t commit aldutery (ok some of us seem to now think that THAT is ok to do now)
          We shouldn’t bear false witness against someone else,
          We should not covet our someone else’s wife or their belongings.

          Ok, so if all morals are relative, we can feel free to disagree on the validity of any of the above.

          The decay of society can be directly traced to the teachings that what once was considered good should now be considered bad, and vice versa.

          Liberals have a tautological problem, because on the one hand they say “Do what you want to do because you want to do it, so it is your right to do it the way you want to do it” and yet, on the other hand, they say, “You have no idea what is best for you, so only the government can tell you what is best for you, and the government will either do what is best for you or force you to do what is best for you yourself.”

          How are these not mutually exclusive?

          • Chris Devine says:

            I didn’t say morals are arbitrarily chosen. You appeal to the parts of the ten commandments that “[contain] something we can all agree on.” You hit the nail right on the head regarding my real position (i.e., it is through agreement and consensus that we arrive at morals and laws governing our behavior). It’s not that they are handed down from Mt. Sinai or that they are magically self-evident. I am proposing what we’ve had all along, government through consent of those governed.

            I will say this again because it bears repeating: I am not in favor of some patriarchal notion of a government elite deciding for me and you what is right or wrong. I support a notion of government that relies upon constant interaction and involvement of the citizenry to ensure that it is doing what it is designed to do.

            • USWeapon says:

              I will say this again because it bears repeating: I am not in favor of some patriarchal notion of a government elite deciding for me and you what is right or wrong. I support a notion of government that relies upon constant interaction and involvement of the citizenry to ensure that it is doing what it is designed to do.

              Bravo Chris. I think it is fair to say that most of us on this site agree with that. BF does not, but that is another topic, lol. The problem is that the government, as it stands has no interest in constant interaction and involvement of the citizenry. And government certainly is not doing what it is intended to do. Would you agree with that? If so then I would say the next step is understanding exactly where it is that we disagree on what government “is supposed to do”. I think that is where our paths move apart. I don’t believe it is government’s job to make things socially equal. I don’t believe that it is government’s job to redistribute wealth, promote class warfare, or involve themselves in the operation of private industry. It is government’s job to do a very limited set of actions. Would a post on what I believe it is government’s job or right to do be helpful? A couple of people have asked me to write on that recently.

    • Amazed1 says:

      I would be the first to tell you I know man pollutes…..all you had to do was visit LA in the 60’s and 70’s….you lungs would scream in pain after a few hours there….you could see the horrible smog belt hang over the city….but global warming? I have not figured out how scientist can look at something and tell what the temp was 500 years ago…much less 5000 years ago. We can get lots of rain and the tree rings will be large…but how do you tell if the temp was 98 on july 10 or 101 on july 10th 5000 years ago. It has to be pure speculation…..with out weather data I doubt I they could use any insturment and tell you what the weather was accurately on july 6th 1608.

    • Chris,—I come here to offer my opinion on the subject of the day.I never entertain the thought that I might be converting someone to my way of thinking.We are here to exchange ideas.Every one of us is 100% right or we wouldn’t be posting.

    • I’m not sure that I like the comparison to “12 Angry Men”. Why am I thinking that you reserve the Henry Fonda role for yourself? I guess that means the rest of us are Ed Begley or Jack Warden.

      Actually after a month of dealing with this group, I think back on the scene where Fonda whips out the switchblade and jams it into the table. With our little group I can actually see twelve of us whipping out switchblades simultaneously and jaming them into the table. We want the truth!

      This group is the most fun I have had in a lot of years. What we have here are truthseekers who have varied life experience and ask tough questions.

      Read the book, loved the movie which I first saw with my dad who was also moved. A more apt book though, for most of us, would be Gerald Green’s “The Last Angry Man”. Better book than movie simply because the extra time is needed for character development and it gives a wonderful picture of the immigrant experience in NY City in the early 20th Century. Including the 1918 Flu epidemic (population control anybody?) Like Dr. Ableman, we want truth, we hate “galoots” and “feather merchants”. We have little time for fools and won’t let the bastards get us down. I would be proud to hoist a few with any of you at anytime.

      Salud amigos

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      We understand that these things concern you and that you are interested in solving problems. So are the rest of us to one extent or another. The thing is, there is more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes, and we do not always agree on the skinning method that should be used!

      As for this particular example of global warming, some people are fervently convince that global warming is real, that it is caused by man-made sources, and it is of immediate danger.

      Some people are not convinced that global warming is even happening at all.

      Some people are convinced that global warming is happening, but it is due to natural processes that have been alternately warming and cooling the earth for aeons.

      You wish to somehow PROVE that your particular viewpoint on the subject (which I would categorize as the first viewpoint) is the correct one. There are people on this site (and elsewhere) that will not be convinced unless you can conclusively prove it. You have pointed us to websites that supposedly provide unbiased information supporting your viewpoint, and yet many of us remain unconvinced. Because you are convinced and we are not, you become frustrated, which is natural, since you firmly believe that your viewpoint is correct.

      None of the people here that are firmly convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a sham are going to convince you of their viewpoint either, because you are so firmly convinced that your way of looking at it is correct. Many people here feel that the government and the “greens” are using anthropogenic global warming as an excuse to tax us further, and limit our freedoms further, and one thing that the majority of people on this site value very highly is individual freedom. We also don’t believe that the government or any non-governmental entity knows what is “best for us” or should have the power to dictate what is “best for us”. So it isn’t just about global warming, it is about individual liberty vs. increased government control over our lives.

      I would much rather be playing World of Warcraft (TM)(R) (Whatever) while sitting at my computer right now instead of typing this reply. (My Paladin kicks butt… lol), but I am here because the issues that are discussed here are important to ALL of us, regardless of which side of the political spectrum we hail from.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Chris: I couldn’t have put it better than Peter just did, so I’ll leave it there.

  41. This one’s for Flag, the man who can seem to find info on anything.

    Does anybody have any figures for the amount of oil spilled 1940-1945 in the Caribbean and off the east coast from sunken tankers torpedoed by U-Boats? Thinking back to “Victory at Sea” there sure must have been a lot of it.

    With wartime conditions, there, to my knowledge, was no effort to “clean it up”. So, where did it go?

    This is in relation to the whole question of ocean drilling.

    • Black Flag says:

      Records are sparse at best – and back then, oil spills were not an environmental concern, but a big threat to survivors of burning to death in the scum after the ship was went down.

      As far as oil spills, they eventually disperse all by themselves by wave action. The oil is consumed by bacteria in the water.

      The modern oil spill looks bad, especially if occurs near shore and impacts the local wildlife – which looks even worse on TV.

      But if we just left it alone, it would all wash away. I’m not recommending this strategy, simply recognizing the power of nature to cleanse itself.

      • Rowe,

        No, this is not like Star Wars, this is as dumb as bringing toads and rabbits to Australia.

        Wouldn’t it be a riot if these idiots kicked off an ice age? Could we then bring them before the world court and have them tried and executed?

        • that one wound up in the wrong place didn’t it?

          Actually Flag I was hoping you would have a handle on a source. My friends who graduated from the US Merchant Marine Academy don’t either. It would be a relatively fun thing to throw a number like 7.62 million barrels of oil washed up on East coast beaches and the tides scrubbed it away.

          I assume though that the problem in Alaska was a bit different since the waters are colder and it was in a bay.


  42. On debunking premise (well, some of it anyway) and the prevailing (incorrect?) viewpoints.

    Part of the delicious irony and satisfaction from this blog (honestly, thanks USW), is that we can sometimes learn and gain new perspectives. As I furiously tried to track the onslaught of messages today I thought, “surely the ‘children of the corn’-ish mentality here cannot all be on mark can it?” I sometimes try to sit and observe before I speak so I can (hopefully) have a clue what I am talking about. Part of presenting an argument is what I call setting the table for the argument. When the table isn’t set properly, the argument doesn’t taste as good – such is my disdain for the “global warming is farce” that felt and maybe is just a few bricks shy of a load.

    As oft stated as premise today: “We watched as the “experts” told us in the 70’s and 80’s that we were headed for another ice-age” – there were several variations pervasive directly in the posts today ostensibly to set the table that anyone who would suggest global warming today is a crackpot from or akin to the ice age camp from the 70s. I searched and found (w/o great difficulty I may add) where I think this comes from. You see – if we look at nothing but opinion but not the underlying facts we run the risk of just being wrong. I am guilty of that from time to time as well. I don’t know if it were from reading too much George Will or some other op ed, but there has certainly been a drive from the far right to suggest there is wide spread discord from climate scientists which suggests that (if you’re from the far right) that any notion of global warming or climate change is then mere rubbish. There seems to be some great body of evidence supporting this discord (Mooney, 2009). Rather than fall into a ‘opinion is fact trap’ lets dig deeper:

    A 2008 review of peer reviewed literature and papers demonstrated that from the years 1965 through 1979, seven works were classified as related to ‘cooling’ or as stated herein – the 1970s ice age, 20 were classified as neutral and 44 were classified as related to warming (Peterson, Connolley, Fleck, 2008, p. 1332). Indeed the “integrated enterprise of climate science as we know it today was in its infancy, with different groups of scientists feeling blindly around their piece of the lumbering beast. There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated peer-reviewed literature even then” (p. 1325).

    What to conclude? Well, the notion that there was widespread scientific consensus of cooling in the 1970s is simply, ahem, bullshit. Hell, I’ll even go so far as to suggest that while there may have been 44 papers devoted to global warming, that does not make it so – even the authors of the study agree that the science and data points were too new.

    So now – on to more debunking. I look forward to the responses no less.


    Mooney, C. (2009, March 31). Opinion: Facts too often distorted on global warming. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from

    Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M., and Fleck, J. (2008, September). The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325-1337.

    • Ray:

      I don’t know about others but my experience with the claim, and the statement I have made in this regard, was with respect to 1) What I was told in school and 2) My recollection of some media coverage of the hysteria type that was floating around in the late 60’s early 70’s.

      A better question would be if the science was looking elsewhere, then why did the cooling thing get media legs??? As I recall it had to do with particulates as much or more than CO2 but that was a long time ago.

      As for something I do remember. In a graduate ecology class in 1983 a geoclimatologist gave us a lecture (1/2 day) on changes in micro to macro climate over known records. The conclusion was that man’s records of climate conincided with what appeared to be an anomoly in the geologic record. Namely, a period of relatively stable climate with minor fluctuations. This pattern was breaking down and if geologic studies were correct, we could expect increased variability in climate with wide swings in amplitude. Namely very cold and very hot periods unlike any recorded in the past several hundred years. There was no discussion of a prolonged ever increasing warming. There was reference to the current warming trend that would last for many years before breaking down into a drastic cold period. I took him at his word and suggested we start harvesting forests to reduce density and planting warm tolerant species at higher elevations. As temps warmed these species would survive, thus preventing sudden collapse/change of forest cover types. My peers laughed out loud.

      You are correct however in that all of us fall into the trap of throwing little sayings like that around without giving it another thought.
      Thanks for keeping watch.

      • Thanks JAC – of course I should add that I lived in Southern Arizona in the late 70s and sure as hell it snowed (go figure right?). The media gave it legs likely because it was ‘hot’ (pardon the pun) and was something they could sell. Look – if nothing else this blog has convinced to be even more skeptical of the media and to heavily scrutinize what I read. The gospel it ain’t.

  43. Black Flag says:

    Perhaps BF could provide some ideas. Mine is for private sector to supply 3rd party monitoring of procedures thus assuring unbiased structure, analysis and reports. Peer review was supposed to do this but is no longer working because, as BF pointed out, they are often the same folks with interest or really have no expertise.

    It’s already happening – God bless Freedom!

    Sites like – who, while professing no stake in AGW or not, simply audits the Climatologists use of statistics.

    He does not debate their methodology of collecting their data.

    He does not debate their conclusions that are made from well managed sampling and statistics.

    He rips them apart when they 1) don’t provide their data 2) they use bizarre math.

    He is the bane of the Climatologists, since they love to hide their data and use bizarre math. 🙂

    He is but one out there. Warwick Hughes, Dr. Pielke, Lord Moncton, Anthony Watts, so on and so on … all participate in keeping the science square.

    In the age of the internet, global communication is nearly instant. An example was NASA’s glaring mistake of using incorrect reading of temp. for a Finnish station. It distorted the Jan. anomaly report to claim a massive warming – in the midst of the worst winter in decades. It took the internet less than an hour to highlight the error – to the small embarrassment of NASA. The correction, of course, simply confirmed what we all had already suffered by going outside.

    I believe the free market – as usual – is taking the hand in providing the oversight, because, as you point out, it is in its best interest to do so.

    Wahl and Ammann study, here is
    This site is run by Dr. Gavin Schmidt from NASA, a disciple of Mann’s, and a heavy AGW champion. So this is their take on it… (the site, other than its rah-rah for global warming does have a lot of interesting science)
    Here is the climate audit of Ammann’s statistical technique – McIntyreis quite funny in his presentation (if your a mathematician).
    And further analysis of their study – from the statistical eye.

    • BF:
      Thanks for the sites. I had only found a couple on my own, didn’t know about the others.

      Also, be careful about stereotyping climatologists. I just attended a meeting where one, with a phd and who had spent his career with the Govt. specifically looking at climatic trends, shredded the AGW conclusions. The surprising part of the meeting was the current govt meteorologists and climatologists in the room all nodding their head but remaining silent. How does that go…the silence was deafening.

      He concluded his presentation with the fact that the Nobel prize awarded to Mr. Gore and the international committee of scientists was the “Peace Prize” not the Nobel prize for science. The former being awarded on political grounds and the latter for solid contributions to science that benefit humanity.

      Again thanks for the references

      • Black Flag says:

        I don’t stereotype “all” climatologists –

        I know Dr. Roger Pielke, the father of cloud seeding, and certainly is not a climate skeptic, but not shrill either.

        I’ve been an assistant in review to Dr. Beck’s paper on CO2 measurements

        I’ve met Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski whose paper regarding CO2 in ice cores (as I noted above) raised the alarm of the potential of mis-measurements.

        And I’ve met Dr. Grey, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Ball – noted AGW skeptics – all climatologists with stellar credentials in their field.

        To explain the name dropping:

        All of this was due to an email I sent to a friend who happened to be dating a guy who happened to be the Science Adviser for a political leader. This guy passed that and further communications between us to others in his sphere and suddenly I’m rubbing shoulders with these guys. That’s how things happen, I guess.

        Oh, but I haven’t met THE Algorian, yet. Don’t think that is in the cards either.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Who would want to meet him! Except maybe to slap him and tell him to sit down and shut up!
          CQTM-Chuckling Quietly To Myself

    • Thanks BF – appreciate the linkage!

    • Chris Devine says:

      Regarding the neutrality of climateaudit:

  44. Chris: You said…”Just like it makes little sense to perform CPR on a corpse, I find no reason to continue discussing politics etc. with people who either disagree on a completely fundamental level or those who are so emotionally wrapped up that they won’t listen to reason.”

    I respectfully disagree. While it may be more difficult it is discussion of our disagreements at the “fundamental level” that is the most important. I believe that is why most folks on the left start getting angry the closer you get to the fundamental level. And, I grant that some on the right do the same, because they are standing on something they have not completely thought through.

    Every attempt here to move you towards your fundamental level has caused you to strike out. I will not place a reason on this as you must look to yourself to answer that. I only make this point. If we can not defend our own positions at this level then we must consider making changes until we can stand on a position. In my case I have decided that position must be based on the realiy of the world I live in, the use of my mind to identify, categorize and understand that world, and to use reason to determine those actions that will assure my survival and prosperity, as I choose to define it. My fundamental carries with it an ethic that states all men have this same right as I do, thus I may not initiate coersive force against them. That means doing anything to prevent their use of their mind to learn, to reason and to survive, and the use of their knowledge to secure and retain such property as they wish for their own happiness. I believe that my fundamental is the foundation on which our constitution was erected.

    As I see it, your fundamental is based on some sense of social justice which eventually leads to you, or someone, deciding what is good for all of us then rearranging the social situation to reach fairness or justice, depending on how you define it. You seem to accept your fundamental position as a concrete, but you have not exposed what the primary is to support that view. My primary is man and man’s right to exist according to the nature of man. If we can not explore these fundamental levels of philosophy then we have no chance of progressing past the current situation. That is fighting for the mind of the masses through obfuscation, marketing, agruing, and black mail if needed.

    And before you go off on the hopeless trail again, I was once a bleeding heart Liberal and Democrat, at least as they existed in the 1970’s. Then I started noticing inconsistancy between my views and reality. One of the first major events was when a young Sen. Ted Kennedy came to my home town to lecture us on how greate and endangered the wild horses were. I grew up chasing those knot-headed splay footed nags so I knew he was spreading the OOMPAH. I began noticing that the Dem party was being taken over my people who shared no values with me and seemed to be against everything and for nothing. So, I started reading, then discussing issues with others who did not hold my views. Then one day I found myself making this comment to a conservative who was complaining about welfare. “I am more than willing to pay my $2000/yr for welfare. It’s a small price to pay for keeping all those homeless and poor folks in the city.” It was 1979, thus only $2000/yr. and it was a comment I had heard from other Democratic Party leaders. Hearing myself say that was an awakening. That epiphany and Jimmy Carter made that the last year I associated with the Dem party. After years of study and searching I have come to the realization that I am a flaming radical right wing Liberal. Now I challenge you to describe what that means.

    You have stated your support of the Constitution yet you gave me a definition of individual Liberty that has nothing to do with the term as used in the Constitution. That tells me that you either don’t know what it meant then, or you have decided to modify its meaning to meet the progressive view of the world. On this site, you will get challenged everytime if either of these are suspected. Not because you are on the left but because that is a sign of weak logic and reasoning. Of course I could be wrong and you just didn’t understand the question.

    You are not the first person on the left to tell me they rely on objective facts, reason and logic to reach their positions. From my point of view, you have displayed none of these in your arguments presented here. This is not an attack on you simply a statement of my opinion, based on my use of the terms (which is grounded in Aristotle by the way ). As such one of four situations must exist. One, I am right and you are wrong; Two, you are right and I am wrong; Three, we are both wrong; and Four, we apparently have different views of what those words mean in their application. Debate can reveal the the first three but is meaningless in the fourth. That creates an argument,not a debate, which is what I mostly see from folks who place themselves on the left. For many of us here, defending a position just because I say so or it is what I believe is not enough until we can’t ask “why” any longer. At that point we will have reached the primary, or keystone of your foundation. We may then go our separate ways or one of us may change our mind, much as I did those many years ago.

    And one more thing, Black Flag and I have certainly had our own little dance together and will continue to from time to time. As USW said, his style can be aggravating at times. My real point goes to your continued reference to his accusation that you were insulting him, and your claim that you were not. I am guessing I am not the only one here who thought you were, and in fact called him UnAmerican and Not an American, which to any Left Wing Liberal would be seen the same as well. Why not just apoligize and get on with it, if it was not your intent. Yes, BF is an anarchist and he is not the only one here. His anarchists relatives have been around for centuries and many have been Americans. Your point about living under the constitution is a valid question, but that is not where you started that accusation or argument. Perhaps BF was overly sensitive but given his style I find that hard to believe. So I am guessing he reacted to show the hypocrisy of the Left who hates the use of that term but like to throw it at others. But then may I just missed the point all together.

    Anyway, I hope you will take up my invitation to dig deeper into your “fundamental level” as well as that of others here. Then we will really begin to learn about how the world works, and perhaps find we share more than you think.

    Best Wishes and Have a nice evening.

    • Chris Devine says:

      It is not attempts to get at any fundamental level of mine that caused me to ‘strike out.’ It is the stubborn persistence upon people like BF to feign ignorance and avoid accepting my answers that has upset me. BF is no champion against hypocrisy. I can tell that he and others here like to think he is, but I can assure you his ‘style’ has more to do with reliance upon fallacious arguments from authority (I’m a scientist…, my ancestors…, I’ve rubbed shoulders with…) and disingenuous claims to really want to know how I think.

      My fundamental level, as you have pointed is based upon a sense of social justice. However, it is not based upon some patriarchal notion of a government elite that is responsible for telling us what is and isn’t right. For me social justice comes about as an agreement by all those who leave the state of nature to join in a social contract: the consent to be governed is given by those who join together to form the body politic. Anybody who can’t see that this is where I’m going on any particular issue really needs to brush up on their political theory or clean their rose-colored glasses.

      Those on the right seem to presume that the Constitution is to be interpreted in such a way that the rights of individuals to acquire and dispose of property is primary and that the effects on others in society is a secondary concern. Nature abhors a vacuum and there is no such thing as real isolation in a civilized society. All of your rights to property must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s the whole point of living in a society governed by laws such as the Constitution. Furthermore, regardless of the original writer’s intentions the Constitution is a document that has mechanisms for its own change built right into it. At one point in our history the only people who made any difference politically were rich, white, property owners. Perhaps that’s where you and others derive your original intention arguments and sympathy for their plight. However, 200+ years have gone by and our Constitution has been modified to give importance to other rights besides those concerning private property. It seems to me that all those who hearken back to the good old days are usually must upset that the rules caught up with the game. You aren’t the biggest kid on the playing field anymore and you wished things hadn’t changed.

      My claims that BF is unAmerican or whatever have nothing to do with personal accusations or insults to him. Nor are they attempts by me to affix labels or whatever he wants to call it. They were honest attempts to clarify how he stood on a particular issue. You accuse me of dodging his lines of inquiry yet you can’t recognize when BF is guilty of that same accusation. In addition, your semantic dispute over the colloquial use of ‘argument’ or ‘debate’ is not constructive and goes against any accepted definition of either that I can find.

      I’m sure this little paradise you all have built here is a great way to pat each other on the back and feel superior to all of us sheep out there. But it seems to me that your insistence upon positing some global conspiracy of government control is what really undermines any attempts you make to convince the rest of us that you should be taken seriously. Despite your claims, your persistent reliance upon right-wing conspiracy rhetoric is what truly separates you, not your desire to be intellectually challenged.

      • USWeapon says:

        I’m sure this little paradise you all have built here is a great way to pat each other on the back and feel superior to all of us sheep out there. But it seems to me that your insistence upon positing some global conspiracy of government control is what really undermines any attempts you make to convince the rest of us that you should be taken seriously. Despite your claims, your persistent reliance upon right-wing conspiracy rhetoric is what truly separates you, not your desire to be intellectually challenged.

        You continue to insult my site and all the folks who have tried to talk to you respectfully. And that should be enough of that. You have made plenty of arguments of “fair” and how you “fee”l and about your “moral code” and “social justice”. What you have yet to do is present a single fact that backs up any of your feelings, codes, or justice. It does no good to argue that you seek social justice. Because your version of the tactics to gain social justice are what is flawed. I don’t argue that life isn’t fair. I don’t argue that some have more than others. I do argue that the socialism that we are moving to will make things worse, not better. Show a single instance where the tactics you feel will be best have worked. Kyoto principles raised CO2 levels in Europe. That is a fact. So why try the same stupid thing here? Show me a fact. I am no longer interested in your feelings about what is fair. I am interested in what single tactic you are looking to employ that will positively alter the future of this country.

        And while you can talk about how the expansion of government is a conspiracy that keeps us from being taken seriously. But what you cannot do is find a way to show me a fact that there is NOT a massive expansion of government under your new Messiah’s administration. Don’t call me right wing. I am not. Remember that your version of right wing is the “christian kooks”. I am not a kook, and I don’t go to church. If you are not interested in having conversations where your principles and positions are challenged, then don’t bother. The world is full of people just like that who would rather go with feelings than facts. Your insults to the right are an issue that I simply won’t address. I could address where the issues on the left are, but you aren’t interested in your flaws. You are interested in proving that you are right. But you aren’t willing to take a hard look at your positions and attempt to defend them against someone other than those who agree with your facebook notes and tell you that you are just smarter than everyone they know. I had a feeling that you wouldn’t know how to act when challenged, because your arguments there lacked the insight gained from having to defend them. I hoped I was wrong. But you went to Berkley and that said a lot about where you got your indoctrination to the left. Sorry I wasn’t good enough to remain your friend on facebook. I did notice you deleted me, Hurt my feelings a bit that you wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who challenged you a bit. I certainly didn’t feel that I had treated you badly.

        See BlackFlag, now you are costing me facebook friends.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Don’t take the facebook thing personally. The only reason I added you in the first place was so you could read something I referenced. The ‘friends’ I have on that site are people I have actually met (with a few notable exceptions). Even though we share a hometown and a high school, that doesn’t make us friends (or enemies).

          I have presented facts, but you and others disregard them offhand as left-wing nonsense (perhaps that’s akin to what you are now accusing me of). I am concerned with having conversations about my assumptions and philosophical underpinnings, but time and time again you and others ignore what I say, pretend not to understand, or just accuse me of some hidden agenda.

          Everything I have presented here as fact I have done so in such a way that there is full disclosure. If you want to assume I am biased to the left that’s fine (show me where I’ve tried to hide my political inclinations). However, you should get down off that horse and stop pretending that the sources you cite are necessarily neutral and unimpeachable. When people here stop whining about the “New World Order types” who are behind my sources I might stop crying foul about your own biases and paranoid tendencies.

          The rhetorical BS that is tossed around here about ‘just looking for facts’ is utter nonsense. For the most part all I see here is self-congratulatory arguments about what color coffin you all want to bury opposing views in.

          Here a simple question for you:

          Can you name one significant position you hold on any issue that differentiates you from the right-wing ideologues I am railing against?

          • USWeapon says:

            Again, a fair expression of how you feel you have been treated here. I will be able to address this more tomorrow. I am sorry that I am simply too tired to debate or really even answer. I hold many positions that are not in line with the right. I could list them all, but I imagine it would be easier if you asked where I stand on any issue and I am happy to answer honestly. Two off the top of my head are that I support gay marriage and women’s rights in terms of first trimester abortions. But again I will answer honestly to any topic you wish to know my stance on.

        • Chris Devine says:

          My education at Berkeley was academic, not political. My political leanings predate my college education and were formed while I was serving active duty in the U.S. Air Force (hardly a bastion of liberal activism). Perhaps my frustration here would make more sense to you if you knew the real right-wing kooks I had to work with. Some were religious, some were not. However, they all liked to feel as if their particular slant on the world was correct because nobody they knew personally would make them really think about it.

          For many of them I represented a nuisance. However, the closer I got to the truth about the basis for their views on the world the more I discovered their racist, sexist and other bigoted skeletons in the closet. I might have a sharp tongue and lash out verbally when pushed to the point of frustration, but I never threatened anyone with violence. Nor did I start blaming ‘them’ (i.e., niggers, faggots, uppity bitches, Mexicans, liberals, etc.).

          It has been my experience that violence is the first thing threatened by those on the right when similarly pushed into a corner (more so than those on the left with a few glaring exceptions). Perhaps I am wrong in that regard about people here. But my suspicion is that since nobody here really faces the risk of having those biases exposed I guess I’ll never know.

          I’m all for full-disclosure and honesty about political leanings. Are you?

          • USWeapon says:

            I stand corrected on the Berkeley comment. It was out of line and not relevant to the conversation. I am absolutely fine with full disclosure and honesty about political leanings. I despise the socialist movement in this country. I also have ranted recently against the christian right’s influence in politics. I will bash any party or group. Need to get to bed. It is 5:30 am. I will answer more when I get up.

          • Prejudice is a funny thing, and you certainly have yours. Wish I had the time to go back and see how many times you mention “rich white property owners”. If I didn’t think about that I could agree with you but I do think about it and therefore have to reject it. How rich is an important question is it people making millions or merely hundreds of thousands? Property owners, does this include my primary residence or the ten acres I own in the boonies that I want to build on some day? Now, in Bolshevik circles, having money or property at the lowest end would get me killed. White people? There are no racist non white people? Think Al Sharpton, just for the hell of it. How about my friends in the nation of Islam? Oh yea, just to let you know, as a teenager I liked and admired Malcom X who was killed four blocks from where I lived in an integrated neighborhood.

            This whole thing began with you talking about us, I guess, having some mythical view of the past. I accuse you (as Zola would say) of the same. Same mantra over and over, rich white guys, property owners taking advantage of the plebs. That is just so old and if people can rise out of being plebs just so wrong.

            Power corrupts, black, white, yellow or brown. How many did the Aztecs murder? Tutsi’s or Hutu’s? Chairman Mao’s Great leap forward anyone? The whole Russian revolution ?

            You were in the service as was I, probably before you (1969). Had a real race relations problem back then yet, we could work together. That race problem was more the result of agitation, from both sides, than anything else. To hang out with your “group” white, black or brown, led to calling the others names. Not doing that (hanging out) precluded it. My two best buddies in basic were a black guy from Harlem and a Puerto Rican from the Bronx. Why? Because we were from an even smaller more persecuted group, Yankees from New York.

            I leave you with one of the best quotes I ever heard from an inexpensive, underrated little movie starring Robert Mitchum called “Reunion at Fairborough”. As a rich white guy from the US, his English granddaughter and her friends considered him to be anathema to their peace cause. Great scene, he stands on a chair in their little office and says.

            “If you know me and don’t like me that’s fine. If you don’t know me and don’t like me, well, that’s just plain stupid.”

            I sort of feel that you fall into that latter category.

            • Chris Devine says:

              “Rich white property owners” is not a derogatory term. It is a descriptive phrase that points out who in fact wrote the Constitution, sat in the White House, court houses, Congress, and board rooms for the majority of the past 200+ years. Decisions affecting us all were made by this group of people and until very recently in our history those decisions disproportionally favored that group.

              I never accused anyone here of racist comments. All I meant was that it was my experience that the ultra-conservative people I have known personally will eventually resort to such epithets when frustrated or when they feel that nobody else will object.

              However, I have seen many of you refer to those Lexus driving, X-Box playing welfare recipients. Do you really think that’s who is in charge here? Maybe it’s the environuts or the Obamatrons or some other fringe group holding the reins.

              I’m not particularly swayed by the “I’ve got a (insert minority here) friend” argument. It’s usually followed by “he’s one of the good ones.”

              • Your final comment is insulting. Try reading instead of scanning. I spoke of a survival mechanism at a very specific time and place (basic combat training).

                Rich white property owners, when used as a counterpoint to “the rabble” as you sir call them (another insulting term) is most certainly derogatory. I asked, and you have not answered, am I a rich white property owner?

                The people we must always fight against are those who seek power for power’s sake. Those who have such a noble goal, like the brotherhood of mankind who have killed millions in the 20th century, those who believe that the most noble end justifies the means. It sir, can happen here. On a small scale it has.

                None of our leaders can point to royal blood lines. The Roosevelts worked hard and earned their money. The Kennedy’s stole some and earned some. The Rockefellers, Scrantons, Romneys, Gates, Vanderbilts, all earned it. My NJ governor Corzine earned it, My Senator Lautenberg earned it, Mayor Bloomberg earned it. If those three then wanted to use it to get elected and “help” the people, are they rich white men? Should there be a negative “means” test. For evetry rich white man you can point to, I can point to one who is not or was not when he started.

                Now that I’m on a roll, how about Kerry who married it or Daschele or Reid who started out poor but got rich in public office. Jesse Jackson’s son is not doing too badly eiher.

                Nobody in this forum is resorting to epithets but you. I am as conservative as they come but the N word has never crossed my lips since I was thirteen and the old man carefully explained why we don’t talk that way.

                Lexus driving X box playing welfare recipients exist just as much as Bernie Madoff or the aformentioned Tom Daschele or Harry Reid. When I used to read statistics I noted little items missing like those poor single moms who in my very real world had four or six kids with different last names. That little factoid always seems to be missing and it is the relevant one. Doesn’t matter how much you lie or steal to me just that you did it. Here’s another stat for you, and I think it on the low side. The IG for the medicaid program in NY estimated 1.5 billion dollars are stolen or misappropriated each year. 1.5 Billion, in one lousy state. I just can’t wait for socialized medicine.

                You sir, doth protest too much. You pick and choose what you want to answer, go off on touts, Throw around words like “rabble” to describe your fellow citizens and worse to describe some of us. you have refused to seek common ground that a discussion could build on.

                I , frankly don’t know what to make of it. We have, I think all, been willing to meet you half way. You are intractable and that sir is frightening.

          • Full disclosure would require some additional information from you: how your logical reasoning works. In other words, most of what I have seen here that could be considered an “attack” on you are references to the functionality of your proposed solutions. It is well understood that you have a feeling and a basis of social justice. Some have challenged social justice as a viable basis, some have challenged the definition of social justice. Most, however, have challenged your solutions for bringing about social justice. You have yet to disclose why you think your solution would work, or how you rationalize your thinking. So full disclosure will require a reference to your logical reasoning for your proposed solutions, or it will require an admission that you are not using logical reasoning, which I doubt is the case. What makes you support a government method of wealth redistribution or equalization?

            • Chris Devine says:

              Where is the argument that shows where the free market is a better solution than government involvement? Why should the profit motive be seen as more efficacious than regulatory legislation?

              Please don’t twist my use of the term ‘full disclosure’ on its ear. By full disclosure I meant that the sources I cite provide all the information to both understand their reasoning and their funding. The others I see hear aren’t as transparent.

              I support government intervention because our country is based upon the rule of law. Laws govern action. Are all laws fair? No. But that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water by automatically assuming that all laws are unfair or unjust and that the only laws that matter are those of supply and demand.

              I think the onus is on you to show me why you think laissez-faire capitalism is the answer to everything or that government intervention is necessarily bad.

              • Black Flag says:

                Actually the onus is on you to prove why you want to take away the people’s freedom to forward your ideas.

                • Chris Devine says:

                  Do you honestly think that the market will make you free? Do you think that the profit motive will make you free? Do you think that rights to private property existing in a world of billions of people and limited resources is self-evident? Your brand of freedom isn’t obvious to me, so why have you not provided an argument to try and convince me?

                  You postulate rights to private property as the ultimate freedom but nowhere have I seen you provide the rationale for doing so? Can you do me this small favor? Simply without resorting to appeals to your likewise unsupported notions of morality? Where does your wormhole end?

              • This country has operated with a comparatively free market in the past. It has never had perfect laissez-faire markets, but they have historically been far more free than now. If you look at the history of the U.S. we grew into a superpower because of this free market. Our poorest classes remained better off than the poor elsewhere, and our middle class continually grew. When bad things occurred, such as abuse of labor, unions formed in spite of government efforts to the contrary. Unions accomplished their tasks before the government even stepped in with the regulatory laws concerning labor and began supporting labor unions because of the massive pool of votes they represented. Our country lead the world in innovation, improved efficiency, wealth, opportunity for anyone to become wealthy, etc.

                Other countries who have tried excessive regulation quickly failed and found that their populations were strained, their poor increased, and the opportunities for people were severely limited. None of those countries are still around under those same governments with their idealistic regulations. Even Marx himself admitted the capitalism was required to develop the wealth and economy necessary to support socialism. Unfortunately, he failed to recognize that socialism would destroy that wealth.

                It stands to reason that, with the historical evidence in mind, there is greater precedent for success with a laissez-faire system than with a statist system. Consolidation of power is a recipe for corruption at best, and a tendency to micromanage a socio-economic system to its sever detriment.

                As for the rule of law argument, the very nature of law is the reason it is bad to use as a management of a market. Laws are inflexible. They have to be, or they are useless. Economies are dynamic, and require a self-balancing system, much like the natural world. Laws are ill-fitted to manage an economy. Certainly, there are things in an economy that should remain the same. There are principles of operation that should be in place. The validity of contracts, prevention of fraud and theft, etc. are essential to a free market’s operation, or to any successful economic operation. I have no interest in tossing out the rule of law, it is very useful. I believe firmly that laws have their place. But the definition of laws makes them automatically unqualified to manage an economy as a whole. The free market operates on a similar system to the natural life-cycles of the earth. It is a tried and true system that has yet to be legitimately improved upon, and has been shown to withstand billions of years of chaos.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Of course we are not going to simply “accept” your answers, and we are not going to admit that what you present as facts are, in fact, facts.

        You can present “facts” from one side of the argument, I can provide “facts” from the other side of the argument, and these “facts” are contradictory.

        You claim that your facts come from unimpeachable sources whereas mine come from tainted sources, I claim that my facts come from tainted sources and yours also come from tainted sources, but based upon scientific evaluation, the facts from my sources seem to be backed up by more actual evidence, whereas your facts seem to be backed up by less actual evidence, and recent studies have shown some of the “evidence” that the government and the greens are touting as proof of global warming comes from studies that have now been discredited by more than one source.

        So pardon us if we do not blindly accept your answers or even accept your facts as facts. I do not BLINDLY accept the “facts” used to discredit or attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming either. I have attempted to evaluate both sides of the issue, to critically think it through, and assess which side currently has the preponderance of evidence to support their claims. Currently, I beleive that side to be the one that says Anthropogenic Global Warming is garbage.

        Now, in the future, if the AGW scientists come up with something I believe to be scientifically sound and valid and clearly pointing to BOTH warming of the globe, AND man being the direct causitive factor for this warming, I will certainly pay attention. For now, using my own critical thinking to analyze the available data, I do not believe that anyone has conclusively shown that any temperature trends on earth have been specifically altered by anything that man is doing.

        It is EASY to convince vast chunks of the American Populace that global warming is occuring. Just parade enough government officials and people who simply look like scientists in white lab-coats in front of them telling them the same thing, and they will believe it! They don’t teach critical thinking in the public school system. Hell, anymore, they don’t even teach that there are correct and incorrect answers.

        Since such a large portion of the population has essentially lost the critical faculty of being able to think for themselves, they have to let the government and the scientists in the white lab-coats do their thinking for them. If the government is attempting to allow only one side of the story to get out, and attempting to quash the other side of the story, the side getting the most media-play is going to be believed by the vast majority of the population.

        Right now, please attempt to honestly tell me how many stories you see on “the news” about global warming, and what percentage claim that man-caused global warming is absolutely true, compared to what percentage that even present an alternative viewpoint, compared to the percentage that claim that global warming may or may not even be happening, but man probably has very little if anything to do with it.

        I think that you will find that on television (which is where a ridiculously high percentage of Americans go as their ONLY source of information), an extremely high percentage (probably > 95%) of the stories presented are from the side that says that global warming is real, and it is directly attributable to the actions of man. Just because TV says so does not make it so… but because TV says so DOES make it so for a ridiculous portion of our population.

        We here on this site are generally not like that. You present us your “facts”, we are going to present you with our “facts” then we are going to try to go through all of these supposed facts and try to find support for them or refute them. For many of us, this is NOT because we hail from one particular side of the political spectrum, it is simply because we use our critical thinking processes to evaluate things and decide for ourselves which set of “contradictory facts” actually seem to make the most sense based upon the evidence.

        Frustrating, ain’t it? Especially if you firmly hold your beliefs and truly believe that the “answers” you are trying to provide would actually, in some way, solve the world’s problems! I mean, come on! Your answers are great! They would solve EVERYTHING! How can ANYONE possibly have the sheer stupidity to disagree? These nutty right wingers obviously just have no desire to solve the problems of the world, simply because they don’t agree with what you are saying!

        • Chris Devine says:

          I never said my sources were unimpeachable. All I said was that they were well-documented and you are free to consider that when making up your mind. Where did I ever say “just take my word for it” or “you’re wrong because I disagree?” I provided my arguments and did my best to fill in the gaps when necessary.

          I don’t disagree with you because you are right-wingers, but I do think you overestimate how much critical thinking is going on in these discussions. From what I see it is mostly the same crap over and over again. Where disagreement is found it is usually either off-topic or fairly trivial. You all seem to have put to bed the argument that “the government is out to get us.” Let’s see that topic discussed fairly and critically.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Government is not “Out to get me”. You see, the people in government (and people like you) firmly believe that more government control is a GOOD thing. Rule of law and all that stuff.

            I see natural law as being far superior to governmentally imposed law. I can determine for myself what is best for me and my family based upon my own moral code. In my personal opinion, the government (and particularly liberals) have attempted to erase individual moral codes and replace them with code which states that individuals no longer have the ability to determine what is best for themselves, so this MUST now be done by the government.

            I call bulldookey.

            Sadly, through so-called public education and other government-sponsored indoctrination and stupefaction programs, there does seem to be a large and still-growing segment of the population that really has absolutely no clue what is best for themselves or best for the country (and they don’t even particularly care), and that is what is really criminal.

            I would argue that an entire new subspecies of human has been created that pretty much blindly believes whatever they are told, and that truly is not capable of determining what is best for themselves, so they actually WANT the government to take care of them, and they WANT the government to tell them what the major problems are in the world and what the government is going to do to solve these problems, because they lack the capacity to discern the issues for themselves and they lack the desire to CARE what is happening around them beyond what is on TV that night and what is for dinner.

            This did not happen by accident. This happened by social engineering using the public school system to perpetuate a class of people that was highly gullible and easy to control, and even DESIRES to be contolled.

            There, now I REALLY sound like a right-wing wacko, don’t I!

            • Chris Devine says:

              I don’t believe in “more government control,” I support appropriate levels of government involvement. I don’t see the government as some separate entity that must be held in check any more than I do so when it comes to private control over my choices. Whereas government here in America can be changed through a moderately transparent process there is no similar requirement when it comes to privately owned companies.

              There are companies today with the same level of resources and power as some governments. Why should I be any less fearful of their tendencies to abuse that power than you should regarding the government?

              Do you also contend that private education is immune to corruption? What is there to guarantee that we all won’t be indoctrinated to support some false dogma about the market and its ability to make us free? I went to public schools. Do I sound like I don’t know how to think critically? I realize you may be tempted to quickly respond that I do sound brainwashed, but please show me where I have argued for anything because ‘somebody told me so.’ I put no faith in dogma regardless of whether it is religious, scientific or political.

              The rabble have always been easy to mislead. Always. I think your previous article was meant to point that out. Bread and circuses, right? This didn’t come about as a result of John Dewey or the public education system in America. It is a result of the fact that most people don’t have the time or energy to discuss matters of real importance.

              Most people don’t want to have the heartburn I get from slugging it out here where I am obviously outnumbered. Does that make them stupid? No. Complacent? Maybe. Apathetic? Maybe. Inundated with garbage from all sides (including here)? Probably.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Hi Chris,

                For me, the difference between private entities and government is that with Private, I don’t have to buy their services if I don’t want to. With Government, I have no choice but to buy their services (taxes).

                This brief story may or may not apply here, but “oh well”…

                In 1990, I gave birth to my first child. I was put off work earlier than expected and was receiving only 60% pay…In those days, that 40% was alot of money (living paycheck to paycheck). Anyway, immediately after my daughter was born, it seemed that I was constantly begging money from my parents for diapers and formula. I thought to myself, that’s just not right…I’ve paid taxes, I just need some assistance for 2 weeks until I get back to work.

                So, I called up WIC, explained the situation and was told “no”… Astounded, I reiterated that I just needed help until I got back to work in 2 weeks and that my salary had been cut down by 40% for the last few months. “Nope” again…”You make too much money”…”You should either call a church or family”.

                Well, I thank God that I have a wonderful and supportive family!

                The system is flawed! I paid for services, but couldn’t use them when my child needed them…That’s just “Bulldookey” (to quote Esom).

                I guess if I really needed the WIC, then I should have done something to meet their guidelines, like quit my job and pop-out more babies!


                • Chris Devine says:

                  It seems rather odd that you think you would have been better off by not having any means of support and collecting WIC payments. Do you think those receiving WIC payments are getting more than you through sheer laziness and promiscuity?

                  • Richmond Spitfire says:

                    Hi Chris,

                    I am ashamed…I was being sarcastic there (not towards you). In no way do I believe I would be better off collecting welfare.

                    If it hadn’t been for my newborn daughter having a need that I was unable to fulfill (temporarily) then I would NEVER, EVER resort to Welfare when, I have the ability to work, even at a low-paying wage.

                    My point that I was attempting to make was that even though I have no choice but to pay taxes for Government services; I was unable to use those services that I have helped to fund, when I REALLY did need the assist. I feel that is wrong.

                    • Chris Devine says:

                      I agree that it is frustrating when the public services we need from time to time let us down. However, I think it has more to do with underfunding than it does the inability of government to help its citizens.

                      I find no reason to believe that private services can’t be just as problematic when competition is destroyed through collusion, monopolies or other improper influence over consumer choice.

                      I’d rather take my chances with a democratically elected government than I would with private for-profit enterprise as far as essential services are concerned.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Most people do, or at least SHOULD have the capability to discuss matters of “real importance”. The fact that they do not is something that I do attribute to the craptastic quality of the US public education system… sorry.

  45. USW, BF and a whole host of other writers to this post. You do a wonderful job of making people think. There is no way we would all agree on everything. But this site make you question why you believe the way you do. Mark Twain said in order for a person to be knowlegeable on any subject he must be well read. That means reading books and listening to people who hold different views is important to understanding any arena whether science, politics, religion or even cooking.
    We have a very diverse group here and alot of very intelligent people who are well read….but they are always open to learning something new.
    Thanks Chris for the input…you did not change my mind but I did learn a few things from you and other posters here and I really believe that this is what this site is all about. Learning and understanding other peoples views.
    Once again thanks to all of you!!!

    • USWeapon says:


      I completely agree that learning is what it is really all about. I would love to think that I have the power to change everyone’s mind to believe what I believe. I would also like to believe that I am right even half the time. The higher probability is that neither is true. But, like you, I gain so much from the conversations and the discussion that I value this endeavor more than I imagined that I could. I thought at first that the blog was a place I would vent, what I have learned is that it is a place where I learn and refine my thinking processes and positions. Thanks for your comments.

  46. Black Flag says:

    Your story regarding your path was very interesting and enlightening to me.

    I bet we threw snowballs in school at each other – I come from a household full of Right-wing Statist; Dad was a police officer, Mom a nurse, and lil’ bro a retired Colonel and Doctor in the Army Medical Corps (and Airborne!)

    I championed positions in politics that were ‘right’ past (pun intended) of E. A. Rowe!

    The scientist and mathematician in me eventually took over. The “Why?” with the “Prove it” attitude.

    The first victim of this two pronged attack was …. me! Why did I believe what I believed and prove why I was right.

    I suddenly found myself in an interesting positon.

    I could prove what I believed was right – but only to me. There was no way I could prove my belief to someone else, nor disprove their belief based on my belief system.

    So in my belief system, I could prove myself. Someone could also prove their belief system to themselves. But we could not prove or disprove each others belief systems across from our own system.

    That was a problem because I can no longer say “You’re right” or “You’re wrong” since I had no basis from which to declare this.

    But how did I prove myself right or wrong? My beliefs are right, when I can prove them against my principles. If my beliefs are aligned (that is, consistent) with my principles, then I can prove that belief is ‘right’.

    Ah HA! I also discovered a method to prove whether others were right or wrong too – and it did not matter what I believed or not!

    I simply had to test their beliefs against their core principle for consistency. If they were consistent, then they proved their beliefs were ‘right’ and that it was valid. If they were inconsistent, then their belief was faulty and ‘wrong’.

    Discovering ones core principles is really hard work – just like JAC said above – continuing to ask “Why” until you completely exhaust yourself to the point of saying – “just because” – then you’ve found that core, or as he said “keystone”. All your rights and wrongs are judged from that core.

    Given how hard it is to self-discover that core, trying to discover that from another person is many magnitudes more difficult. It is, indeed, a hellva fight as most people are actually reluctant to discover it; afraid to find that much of their life has been a series of contradictions to their core principle.

    And that is what I found with myself – my core principle of freedom significantly contradicted many of my right-wing, fascist beliefs. My choice: live in contradiction and do evil or change.

    I reached my point of view, not by standing at a smorgasbord and picking the flavor of the day, but working ‘backwards’ until I hit bedrock. Initially, until someone called me die-hard anarchist, I hadn’t actually labeled myself at all – it was just me.

    So, as it has been said many times on my behalf, my goal is not to change anyone’s beliefs (maybe correct facts, a bit) – but to understand their core principle and whether they are consistent in applying it. That is the only truth I seek – if whomever is consistent in applying their core principles into their beliefs, then they are ‘right’ – no matter what that core principle happens to be, including if it is completely different from mine.

    The universe offers an infinite number of solutions for the human experience to discover.

    It is expected that there will be numerous principles, all different, but all able, to successfully solve the human experience equation.

    We can all be right at the same time, as long as we, individually, are well aligned with our own principle, consistently applied defining our beliefs and measuring our own right and wrong.

  47. Dear Mr. Flag:

    Thank you so much for sharing. It seems we are getting ever so closer to that grand discussion. I only hope it does not bore the others.

    As a prelude I would like to point out that it appears to me that your core allows one grounded in altruism to commit violence upon others as his positions and actions would be consistent with his core.

    I give you one more tidbit to consider. My definition of evil, an action that prevents man from using his mind as it was made to be used.

    Therefore, I believe that others can be wrong, even if they are consistent.

    I had actually thought we would walk the same path for a while before going different ways. Now it looks as though we start from different positions and then converge upon the same trail only to part later. This is going to be an interesting journey.

    Best Wishes and thanks again for the insight

    PS: Be Free My Friend

    • Black Flag says:

      As a prelude I would like to point out that it appears to me that your core allows one grounded in altruism to commit violence upon others as his positions and actions would be consistent with his core./

      He would probably fail the consistency part, as he 1) wouldn’t agree that others could do the same to him 2) he probably wouldn’t subject himself to his own tendencies.

      But, yes, I’ve met one who was that way AND consistent. He was a CIA station chief – his core was the “USA is always right”. So it didn’t matter if innocent people were slaughtered, nations nuked ‘just because’, anything – the USA did it, it was right. He was consistent to the point that if the USA used his own family for chemical testing, he believe the government had every right to do so – no problem! Yes, I believe he was insane, but that is merely my opinion.

      I give you one more tidbit to consider. My definition of evil, an action that prevents man from using his mind as it was made to be used.

      The challenge I see – how do I know what the use of a man’s mind is ‘for’ and how do I prove it .

      In matters of reality, indeed, one can be wrong but very consistent, if one starts at a bad premise. I have found, however, that a bad premise is actually a poorly described one (incomplete), or not really the keystone premise, but a faulty abstraction created from the keystone premise.

      Or, like above, the human is merely insane.

      • Chris Devine says:

        In other words an argument can be valid but not sound? So consistency isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, is it?

        • Black Flag says:

          Consistency remains unchallenged, Chris.

          If it fails, it is not that consistency is in error, but because the question was formed improperly.

          I can be logical in my reasoning, proving government is good when it does evil – but I’m sure you’ll find my premise was faulty.

          When the premise is wrong, all the logic in the world after that can’t fix it.

      • BF: I was going to hold off addressing the two questions you raise per my post at the end (see my comment #52 below).

        However, I would like you to take a stab at the second question on your own.

        What is the use of man’s mind, as intended by its creation?
        How do you know it?
        How do you prove it?

        I think you already know where I am coming from so no need to restate my defense, I would rather see yours. Then we could include both in article, if they differ.


  48. on ice core measurements,was it a govt or private funded group that made the California sized mass mistake, how it conveniently bolstered Global warming.. hmmmm

  49. Black Flag says:

    “claims that BF is unAmerican or whatever have nothing to do with personal accusations or insults to him. Nor are they attempts by me to affix labels or whatever he wants to call it. They were honest attempts to clarify how he stood on a particular issue. You accuse me of dodging his lines of inquiry yet you can’t recognize when BF is guilty of that same accusation”

    What OOMPAH.

    You got your clarification – and it is you who confuses geography with principles, and uses the confusion to create labels! Then you have the audacity to sit back and lecture USWep about it.

    What a bizarre muck you make, Chris. Inconsistent, hypocritical, divisive and worse, quite a boor with your profanity and insults.

    One day, I hope you actually come up with an argument in our little dialogue here.

    • Chris Devine says:

      If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it’s probably a duck. You espouse anarchistic ideals and then get all indignant about ‘labels.’

      Do me one more favor. What does “confuses geography with principles” mean? Really.

      Do you honestly believe I have made no attempts to provide constructive arguments? None?

      My profanity and insults are a result of my frustration due to your constant instigating. Does that excuse them? No. Does it explain them? Aptly.

      You accuse me of all kinds of things that you are just as guilty of either through blissful ignorance or shrewd manipulation.

      One day I hope you will realize your own faults and biases and stop lecturing me and others from your ivory tower.

      • Black Flag says:

        I have no ‘problem’ with labels, Chris as I’ve already said.

        I have an issue of argument when you use 1) geography incorrectly. You define American as, roughly, a person who holds your (ie: Chris) belief in the Constitution. Principle beget belief. You use geography (America) to create Principle (believe in pieces of paper demanding obeidence). Hope that helps.

        2) use labels as an allowance for you to insult me and others.

        You can put any combination of letters together and stick it on me. I have already invited you to do so, with the one caveat, that you be respectful.

        I will give you the grace that you have started, however, I feel once my inquiry began to -perhaps- expose inconsistency, in my opinion you bailed into the profanity and foot stomping.

        If you are unable to contain your frustration, perhaps you should find another hobby. If this incredibly insignificant dialogue is enough for you ‘tip’, you are a target for a heart attack.

        I appreciate the ‘shrewd’. However, my agenda is transparent.

        However, given from our first sword-cross, you inferred that use of consistency was ‘an extremists tool’ – I suggested at that time, that if one finds oneself arguing with an irrational man (a man who finds consistency an extreme position to hold), such dialogue would probably be fruitless and futile.

        I also said I hoped that was not the case.

        My hope, so far, has remained unrealized.

        • Chris Devine says:

          It’s not a matter of my beliefs on the matter. It has to do with your insistence that you should be able to live in a country governed by laws without feeling any obligation to abide by them. How do you intend to argue that you have a right to live here without any obligation to follow the rules established by a somewhat democratic process?

          I never said consistency was an extremist tool. I said over-reliance upon consistency is a hallmark of extremism. You continue to distort my views either through a hasty and uncharitable interpretation or through intentional maliciousness.

          • Black Flag says:

            It has to do with your insistence that you should be able to live in a country governed by laws without feeling any obligation to abide by them.

            How do you intend to argue that you have a right to live here without any obligation to follow the rules established by a somewhat democratic process?

            You continue to distort my views either through a hasty and uncharitable interpretation or through intentional maliciousness.

            I did not say ‘no law’.

            I asked what obligates me to follow ‘your law’.

            I asked why you think your law is better than my law.

            I questioned your consistency when you said you don’t follow laws that don’t harm people at your whim, but you complain about people who don’t follow laws that don’t harm people at their whim.

            I said over-reliance upon consistency is a hallmark of extremism.

            Fair enough – I was paraphrasing.

            How can ‘over-reliance’ on consistency be extreme?

            Consistency tends to be binary – either you are or you are not.

            It maybe that one is consistent on ‘this’ principle, and ‘not’ on another – but that is, in of itself, inconsistent.

            • Chris Devine says:

              I’m not talking about my law. I’m talking about US law as laid out by our Constitution. It’s not about whether my law is better than your law, it’s about which law takes precedence. If you live in the borders of the United States of America then you are expected to obey it’s laws.

              If you don’t recognize the authority of the United States Government (or any government) then what are you honestly condoning? Do you condone overthrowing the democratically elected government of the USA?

              You still don’t get it about my thoughts on consistency? What I’m talking about is the fact that people have competing interests in their lives. There are instances where taking a human life is reprehensible and instances where it is understandable (genocide vs. self defense). You can insist that we be completely consistent on any topic and I can readily show you where the consequences will be seen as extreme.

              For instance:
              If you were a fisherman in WWII and you were trying to transport Jews to safety but were stopped by a Nazi patrol boat, would you lie to the Nazis and tell them there were no Jews aboard because there is a maxim that says, ‘never lie?’

              Do you see what I mean?

              • USWeapon says:

                A fair point about consistency Chris. One of the things that has caused me to butt heads with BF in the past is his belief in ideal of consistency. I think we all act inconsistent at times, even BF will admit that this happens to him. What I try to ask myself more often these days, is whether each instance of my operating without consistency is warranted or simply convenient.

                I don’t worship BF. Had you been around for some of our more lengthy “disputes”, you would know that. I can say that each of us has faced him at least once. It is annoying that he breaks things down the way he does. And there are times where I think he distorts what you say or talks in a circle. But I have found that when I try to apply what he is saying to my argument, at a minimum he forces me to refine where I stand and justify it. We often don’t reach a “happy place” where he and I agree, but I do think that we learn from each other. And one thing that I can say without a doubt, while he is annoying at times and to the point in ways that we sometimes don’t like, I have found him to always be respectful and honest. He does practice what he preaches from what I can see. And I definitely do not think he is a bad person. A little mis-guided at time (sorry BF) but with good intentions. There is much he adds to our discussions by making us think more critically. I have to run out to get a haircut and then mow the lawn, but I will be back for more discussion after that.

  50. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    I’m not talking about my law. I’m talking about US law as laid out by our Constitution.

    Let me put it this way, then.

    Why does what some men write on paper obligate me to obey them?

    If I write some things on paper, will it obligate you to me?

    It’s not about whether my law is better than your law, it’s about which law takes precedence. If you live in the borders of the United States of America then you are expected to obey it’s laws.

    I ask: “Who says?”

    That is, by what right does some men demand my life in obedience to them because I was born and live.

    You can’t mean because they wrote on a piece paper that says so is enough to demand it, right?

    If you don’t recognize the authority of the United States Government (or any government) then what are you honestly condoning?

    That all men, born free, are free.

    Do you condone overthrowing the democratically elected government of the USA?

    You mean by acts of violence?

    No, that would be inconsistent to my belief. We got this mess because one group of men thought their ideas of how to rule over another group of men was better, and used violence to prove it.

    Using violence to prove them wrong and me right would only prove them right, once again.

    Mutuality of Action creates my Freedom. If I chose to use violence upon others, I give the right for others to use violence upon me.

    Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you. I don’t do violence, because I do not wish it upon me.

    Freedom is the lack of imposition of one man upon another. If I do not impose upon you, you have no right to impose upon me.

    We are then, both, free.

    . . . .

    And yes, I do see what you mean. So let me explain what I mean.

    The fisherman is perfectly consistent, if his core principle is freedom and protection of innocent life. His desire to be truthful is merely a construct based from that root principle. The primacy of his action is consistent to his root principle and not necessarily to some abstraction from it.

    Him not lying would make him inconsistent to the principle by which he has determined his life – and in your example, he would rather die then do so.

    • Chris Devine says:

      It is not the words that obligate you nor is it the action of putting them on paper. It’s not even the men who wrote those words. It is the necessity of reasonable men living by an agreed set of rules. If you choose to live amongst law abiding people then you do so recognizing that you will be expected to obey those same laws. No more, no less.

      Your attempts to argue that no man has the right to take away your rights is circular. Being born doesn’t make you free. Living in a society that values freedom makes you free. Living in isolation freedom means nothing. Living in a society with no intentions of being reasonable makes you a burden and a nuisance, not a freedom fighter.

      I don’t think you do know what I mean. Or if you do you can’t answer it. How do you derive the maxim “don’t lie” from anything regarding freedom or protection of innocent life? You are dodging my question and answering one that suits your argument for consistency.

      • Chris: Excuse me for butting into your discussion with BF on this but you just posted the type of comment that I tried to explain earlier is so aggravating to me and some others. Let me explain.

        BF’s response was to this comment made by you: “You still don’t get it about my thoughts on consistency? What I’m talking about is the fact that people have competing interests in their lives. There are instances where taking a human life is reprehensible and instances where it is understandable (genocide vs. self defense). You can insist that we be completely consistent on any topic and I can readily show you where the consequences will be seen as extreme. For instance: If you were a fisherman in WWII and you were trying to transport Jews to safety but were stopped by a Nazi patrol boat, would you lie to the Nazis and tell them there were no Jews aboard because there is a maxim that says, ‘never lie?’”

        In my view, competing interests are not the same as competing principles. Your expample of genocide vs. self defense is a bad example to challenge BF or me on our underlying ethic that no man has the right to initiate coersive force on another. This ethic allows for self-defense but not murder, and is thus consistent. Your challenge is inconsistent with the position he and I presented. Kind of like changing definitions in the middle of the debate, remember my previous comment in this regard? I would suggest that murder vs. self-defense is also not competing interests unless you hold an ethic of “thou shalt not kill…period” which is of course a moral absolute. That would have to be your ethic, not mine or anyone elses. Your statement assumes everyone has this ethic for your example to be true. Since the first is false, so is the second.

        No one has asked for consistency on “any topic” only on your underlying principle(s). Again you change the meaning to allow the argument. This may not be intential but it drives me up the wall. Especially when the same occurs time and time again.

        “consequences will be seen as extreme” this contains a relative value statetment based and is based on the prior erroneous comparison of topics and principles. It intimates that the meaning of extreme (a value statement) is dependant upon who it is seen by (relative). I know this is splitting hairs but it goes to the prior comment.

        Then you construct a hypothetical that includes two conflicting principles. BF later addressed this by assuming only one core principle applies, namely protection of freedom and innocent life. The other was of course the moral absolute ethic of “don’t lie”. If you had started with an assumption that the fisherman held such a core principle as a moral absolute then the answer would have been that to lie would be inconsistent. Therefore either his lie was wrong or his principle was wrong.

        Now, without getting personal I earlier accused you of playing tricks, which you denied and I took your word with respect to intent. The hypothetical you constructed is one of those tricks I referred to and which I run into all the time. That is mixing mutually exclusive points in an assumption to disprove a principle that is based only on one of the points presented. Kind of like destroying the innocent through guilt by association. I find it maddening but am getting better at seeing it. I will take you at your word that this is not deliberate.

        Now for my response to your rebuttal. After BF explained his view you resonded with “I don’t think you do know what I mean. Or if you do you can’t answer it. How do you derive the maxim “don’t lie” from anything regarding freedom or protection of innocent life? You are dodging my question and answering one that suits your argument for consistency.”

        As I previously stated your question contained a contradictory principles, forcing BF to pick one or the other. He selected the one that described his views, not yours, and he stated such. But lets focus a second on this part of your comment: “How do you derive the maxim “don’t lie” from anything regarding freedom or protection of innocent life?” Other than the fact that I have never seen BF put forth this maxim I would like to point out that it is not and can not be derived from a core principle that supports freedom or protection of innocent life. Neither can it be derived from a core principle that supports slavery and the destruction of innocent life. “Don’t lie” is a moral absolute and is an ethic and principle all unto itself. In my little world and I think BF’s, the core principles, “primary” support ethics, they are not one in the same.

        My question to you. You have clearly indicated that you understand the various theories of ethics and political philosophy. So why would you interject a moral absolute such as “don’t lie” into a hypothetical situation when discussing a core principle of “do not initiate violence on others, and consistency between that principle and a person’s actions? Especially in the manner that you did, by creating conflicting principles in a single assumption.

        And lest I suffer the slings and arrows of your outrage, let me assure you this is not a personal attack. Although I am sure it feels that way. You are simply using a style of debate that I find common among those on the left, including those fanatics you referred to earlier. This style is conducive to getting a good argument, fight, started but is not enlightening nor pursuasive, as might happen in a debate.

        And one more thing, if you don’t like the definitions I propose for a discussion then propose your own first. But don’t try to tell me that there is no difference between a reasoned discussion of opposing points of view and an outright argument involving name calling and profanity. I choose to classify each separately and have used traditional words that seem to fit the difference. As you recall, that point was made when you posited that you were not interested in debate because it was an academic exercise where anyone could be called on to support or oppose any position. The end result of your position would then be that only an “argument” was possible. If that is true then no discussion at all is needed, because arguments do not result in any resolution, only frustration and anger. I’ve been in enough of them so I know one when I see it. I have rarely learned anything in an argument, except what a jerk the other fellow was, and I’m sure they felt the same. I personnaly am not interested in just opinions of those on the left (your label by the way) as they are abundant everywhere for all to see. I wan’t to understand the rationale behind them.

        To give credit where due, you have provided some of that basis over the past few days. I submit to you that it is not complete, however. You put forth two theories of ethics to support your values. But the rational I have seen you use seems to be inconsistent with one of those. The concept of social contract has little bearing on values as I see it. That concept is only in dispute by a few people here and I am not sure just how far they go in their oppositions to it.

        Enough for now, I am running on at the fingers.
        Best Wishes and stay calm.

      • Chris,

        I have had some exchanges with Flag, and some of your observations match my own. He does cherry pick what he responds to, and will quote you out of context. But he does argue well.

        But I must say to you, pot, kettle. Way back on 17, you responded to only one of my statements. And you were wrong, but corrected yourself after I listed my source, and we came to some agreement.
        But just like Flag, you ” are dodging my question and answering one that suits your argument”.

        Das vadanya, or a polite, formal goodby

    • Black Flag says:

      Chris Devine

      . It is the necessity of reasonable men living by an agreed set of rules.

      I disagree.

      I do not have to live by the same rules you do to be a reasonable man.

      I have asked:
      By what right do you, or anyone, have to set those rules for me to obey?

      If you choose to live amongst law abiding people then you do so recognizing that you will be expected to obey those same laws. No more, no less.

      No, sir.

      I can chose to live amongst whomever I chose, by what ever rules I chose, as long as I do not impose my rules upon them.

      As I do not impose, my rules hold no impact upon them.

      If I am there, or not there, changes nothing about how they rule their own life.

      If they use violence upon me to obey their rules, they are initiating violence upon me and I may chose to respond with my self-defense.

      Your attempts to argue that no man has the right to take away your rights is circular. Being born doesn’t make you free. Living in a society that values freedom makes you free.

      I do not agree.

      The source of human rights comes from humans, not society.

      Society is a abstraction of human thought – it is not the cause of human thought nor the reason for human existence.

      Without the individual, society does not exist.

      Without society, humans still exist.

      Therefore, society gains its rights from grant from the individuals in its society.

      Living in isolation freedom means nothing. Living in a society with no intentions of being reasonable makes you a burden and a nuisance, not a freedom fighter.

      I do not impose upon another, I am no burden.

      You cannot burden me without my consent me without doing me violence to me.

      How do you derive the maxim “don’t lie” from anything regarding freedom or protection of innocent life? You are dodging my question and answering one that suits your argument for consistency.

      A man who is dishonest will face men, by their own free choice, choosing not to interact with the liar.

      Either the liar is able to sustain himself solely from his pure effort, or needs to trade for goods to sustain himself. If he is a liar, he cannot be trusted to keep his word on his side of the trade. Free men will chose not to trade with him.

      It is in the best interest of free men, in their dealings with each, to maintain honesty least from the free choices of men, they be excluded.

  51. Chris: Per BF “Mutuality of Action creates my Freedom. If I chose to use violence upon others, I give the right for others to use violence upon me.

    Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you. I don’t do violence, because I do not wish it upon me.

    Freedom is the lack of imposition of one man upon another. If I do not impose upon you, you have no right to impose upon me.

    We are then, both, free.”

    And therein lies the ethic, the pillars, that is built from the primary of man, the foundation, that all support Laissez Faire Capitalism. You see this economic system comes from a moral base, it does not create nor is it responsible for a moral base as you tried to state earlier.

    And before you go off on the regulation position, let me unequivocaly state that Laissez Faire Capitalism does not eliminate laws that protect us from fraud, theft or other forms of coersive force. The point is that such can be handled through common law and civil court and does not require massive federal or state agencies to enforce it.

    I have one more aggravating idea for you, since you don’t like me creating definitions from original meanings, those who you ascribe to the “right” are not on the right. They are left of center, assuming the center is neutral and anything left of that is “statist” in its nature. That is one clue to help you describe a flaming right wing liberal. Can you complete the description?


  52. USW, Black Flag, et al:

    I have an idea I would like to bounce off you. BF and I are getting very close to unveiling a much more complete look at two similar but different philosophies that form the basis of our more challenging comments on this blog site. I had promised US I would develop a guest piece in this regard as I think it is critical to deciding where we are all going from here. The above conversation has revealed more about both BF and me, with respect to philosophy, than the prior month or more (can’t remember the first time we tangled now). My concern is that in the normal course of commentary to one of US’s posts this discussion can create alot of distraction and it may be very hard for others to follow as it gets scattered among the various comments on comments, etc. So here is my idea.

    If agreeable to all concerned, I propose that Black Flag and I collaborate on an article focused on our two philosophies. We could do this in a format that would compare and contrast for easier consumption by all. Then everyone could pile on with new, revised or old ideas. The only risk is that BF and I would be laying our chest bare. I firmly believe the risk is worth it because if those of us who love liberty do not settle on a solid philosophy to support our postions, we will be buried by the onslaught of venom from the statists, and lost to the pages of history. It does not mean we will prevail, but we can not win without it.

    This might give Chris a break while we pull it all together, but then he and others could see the whole package and debate from a position of full knowledge. I am not sure that putting this stuff out in pieces is helping. Not sure putting it out all at once will either but at least no one can claim we are trying to confuse the matter.

    Your thoughts on the idea????? BF, if you and US and others agree just have US send me an email address. I will contact you to set up.

  53. Has anyone else seen this? I found something like this on Michelle Malkin’s site . . . This is really weird!

    “The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.

    John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

    “It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

    …At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.”

    I think this ranks up there in the Star Wars Defense category . . .

    • Actually Star Wars makes sense next to this. This is more akin to bringing rabbits and toads to Australia.

      NASA is looking for a mission to keep it alive. Their PR director is in the tank. Like a bad ’50’s SF movie, these fools might actually kick off an ice age.

      Can they be tried in the world court if they screw up?

    • I try to always check more than one source – geoengineering is not some obscure backroom liberal concept – it is also being considered by the National Academy of Science, the British Parliament, the American Meteorological Society, the International Climate Change Congress, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute – you should note some conservative heavyweights in there (I hope). I wouldn’t believe a word out of Malkin’s mouth any more than I would Keith Olbermann.

  54. Black Flag says:


    Check this document

    It deals with Pacific Warships, with details on Tankers/Oil ships. It’s a start.

  55. Black Flag says:

    Some more….
    This site has a short break down based on ship class.
    The British list (text follows)


    ALBERT L ELLSWORTH (8,309t, 1937), sunk by U-boat off W Africa. Date approximate, January 8, 1943

    ALCIDES (R, 7,634t, 1930), sunk by Japanese Raider, Indian Ocean. Date approximate, August 2, 1943

    ALDERSDALE (8,402t, 1937), sunk, cause unknown, Barents Sea, Arctic, May 26, 1942

    ANDREA BROVIG (R, 10,173t, 1940), sunk by U-boat, West Indies, June 23, 1942

    BELITA (R, 6,323t, 1933), sunk by U-boat, off Socotra, Arabian Sea, December 3, 1942

    BETH (R, 6,852t, 1930), sunk by U-boat off Barbados, West Indies, May 18, 1942

    BIRCHOL (1,115t, 1917), wrecked off Hebrides, W of Scotland, November 29, 1939

    BOARDALE (8,400t, 1937), grounded at Narvik, Norway and sunk, April 30, 1939

    CAIRNDALE (8,129t, 1939), sunk by U-boat torpedo, W of Gibraltar Straits, May 30, 1941

    CIRCLE SHELL (R, 8,207t, 1931), sunk by U-boat off Venezuela, February 21, 1942

    DARKDALE (8,145t, 15/11/40), sunk by explosion, believed torpedoed by U-boat, St Helena, South Atlantic, October 22, 1941

    DINSDALE (8,250t, 11th April 1942), sunk by U-boat torpedo, South Atlantic, May 31, 1942

    FINNANGER (R, 9,551t, 1928), sunk by U-boat, North Atlantic, February 24, 1942

    FRANCOL (2,623t, 1917), sunk by gunfire of Japanese surface craft, S of Java, March 3, 1942

    HALLANGER (R, 9,551, 1928), sunk by U-boat, W Mediterranean, March 30, 1943

    HAVSTEN (R, 6,161t, 1930), sunk by U-boat, West Atlantic, August 3, 1942

    JOHN P PEDERSEN (R, 6,128t, 1930), sunk by U-boat, N Atlantic, May 20, 1941

    LEIV EIRIKSSON (R, 9,952t, 1936), sunk by U-boat, West Indies, June 27, 1942

    LITIOPA (R, 5,356, 1917), sunk by U-boat off W Africa, October 22, 1943

    MALMANGER (R, 7,078t, 1920), sunk by U-boat off West Africa, August 9, 1942

    MARIT (R, 5,542t, 1918), sunk by U-boat off Benghazi, Libya, October 4, 1943

    MINISTER WEDEL (R, 6,833t, 1930), sunk by U-boat off W Africa, January 9, 1943

    MIRLO (R, 7,455t, 1922), sunk by U-boat, off West Africa, August 11, 1942

    MONTENOL (2,646t, 1917), torpedoed by U-boat, North Atlantic. Sunk by own forces, May 21, 1942

    NYHOLT (R, 8,087t, 1931), sunk by U-boat, West Atlantic, January 17, 1942

    OLEANDER (7,048t), damaged and beached on 26th May; sunk in Harstad Bay, Norway, June 8, 1939

    OLNA (12,667t, 1921), bombed and set on fire, Crete, May 18, 1941

    PERICLES (R, 8,324, 1936), lost in heavy weather on passage to Alexandria, Egypt, April 14, 1941

    PLUMLEAF (5,916t, 1917), sunk by aircraft bombs, Malta, April 4, 1942

    ROSEWOOD (R, 5,989t, 1931), torpedoed and presumed sunk, March 9, 1943

    SANDAR (R, 7,624t, 1928), sunk by U-boat off Tobago, West Indies, May 2, 1942

    SILDRA (R, 7,313t, 1927), sunk by U-boat off W. Africa, August 19, 1941

    SLAVOL (2,623t, 1917), sunk by U-boat torpedo sailing for Tobruk, Libya, March 26, 1942

    SLEMDAL (R, 7,374t, 1931), sunk by U-boat, North Atlantic, June 15, 1942

    SVENOR (R, 7,616t, 1931), sunk by U-boat, West Atlantic, March 27, 1942

    SVEVE (R, 6,313t, 1930), sunk by U-boat, North Atlantic, September 10, 1942

    TANKEXPRESS (R, 10, 95t, 1937), sunk by U-boat off West Africa, July 25, 1942

    THELMA (R, 8,297t, 1937), cause and place unknown, August 26, 1942

    THORSHAVET (R, 11,015t, 1938), sunk by U-boat, Caribbean Sea, November 3, 1942

    THORSHOVDI (R, 9,944t, 1937), war cause, August 4, 1943

    VARDAAS (R, 8,176t, 1931), sunk by U-boat, off Tobago, West Indies, August 30, 1942

    WAR DIWAN (5,550t, 1919), sunk by mine, River Schelde, Holland, December 16, 1944

    WAR MEHTAR (5,502, 1920), torpedoed off Yarmouth, November 20, 1941

    WAR SEPOY (5,574t, 1919), damaged by aircraft off Dover. Constructive total loss, July 19, 1939

    WAR SIRDAR (5,518t, 1920), lost on reef, NW Batavia, March 1, 1942

    World Tanker Fleet as of June 30th 1938

    Number GRT %of World Total

    US 418 2,759,642 25.8
    UK 410 2,672,219 24.9
    Norway 262 1,972,469 18.4
    Netherlands 112 561,946 5.2
    Italy 78 380,488 3.5
    Panama 49 450,261 4.2
    France 40 241,896 2.3
    Japan 39 345,849 3.2
    Germany 31 202,221 1.9
    Canada 28 124,727 1.2
    USSR 27 123,209 1.1
    Sweden 17 144,899 1.4
    Spain 16 76,925 0.1
    Denmark 14 106,786 0.1
    Belgium 9 64,923 0.1
    Others 105 487,220 4.5

    From Lloyd’s Register via Goralski & Freeburg Oil & War: How the Deadly Struggle for Fuel in WWII meant Victory or Defeat, p 339

    The largest Axis tanker sunk was the Iridio Mantovani was carrying 5,032 tons of fuel oil, 1,727 tons of diesel and 1,870 tons of gasoline when she was sunk 70 nm north of Tripoli.

    The largest oil tanker sunk during the war was the EMPIRE HERITAGE. She was a converted whale factory ship. She was carrying 16,000 of fuel and also a large deck cargo which included tanks. She was sunk in September 1944 and is one of the many large ships that met there final fate around Ireland coast during the war.

    Some info on the Empire Heritage,

  56. More debunking (maybe):

    Back again. You see – I must be one of those nutjobs that USW refers to that is full of shit when it comes to GW/CC. Problem is as I try to first challenge my own assumptions first, I find some of my Al Gore/Tom Friedman sourced views are not always on the money, but ironically neither is the spew that is machine gunned into the original posting. This leaves me distressed somewhat as the more I dig the more I think the prevailing view the majority on this post subscribe to is, built on a house of cards. My hope is USW would post his references so we can see that we’re not relaying bad information or drawing conclusions from opinion versus fact.

    “Oil prices have not risen because of a lack of available oil, they have risen because of the oil cartels, and I am not talking about Exxon and those folks, I am talking about OPEC.”

    Analysis: This is not necessarily true either. While OPEC certainly has a role here, there is sufficient evidence to suggest it is the commodities traders than play more in the manipulation (heavy swings) in oil futures (Kroft, 2009). An interesting study would be to detail the OPEC numbers versus what the commodoties traders such as Merrill Lynch do to the final retail pricing structure. But the supposition that it is OPEC does not appear wholly valid as proposed by USW.

    “There is an estimated 1 Trillion barrels of oil still in the ground in the reservoirs that we know about.”

    Analysis: this isn’t really true either. According to current research there is estimated 2.2 trillion barrels and this number only seems to be rising (Kovarik, 2008). This is merely a number though. USW additionally offers though that “They will tell you that we are using up all the oil and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. False on count 1, Semi-true on count 2”. If you carefully look at the data, we are likely to absolutely rely on foreign sources of oil. Areas such as Latin America, largely considered un-tapped, is not considered part of the United States, at least not yet I suppose. As we continue to guzzle, we’ll continue to rely on foreign sources. I will offer that the likely supply surprised me a bit – but does that mean we ignore alternative energy sources since we’re already ‘tooled’ to consume oil?

    “All we need to do is tell the environmentalists to shut up about ANWR and we can be self-sustaining. It won’t hurt a thing, despite their radical claims.”

    Analysis: what exactly is this based on? Okay – let’s shut up about ANWR for a minute – to hell with the wildlife and indigents. What certainty do we have that the Arctic contains sufficient oil to handle current and future consumption? And it won’t hurt a thing? How so? This is a fairly common conservative reaction. It seems as though since things such as the Albertan Oil Sands farms cannot be directly linked right now to longer term environmental damage (or other impacts) then we must be okay right? No damage visible today so drill baby drill (Schorn, 2006).


    Kroft, S. (2009, January 11). Did speculation fuel oil price swings? Retrieved April 8, 2009, from

    Kovarik, B. (2008). The oil reserve fallacy: proven reserves are not a measure of future supply. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from

    Schorn, D. (2006). The oil sands of Alberta. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from

  57. Black Flag says:

    Having fun with this…


    Chris, staring down from a narrow mountain path, as far below Black Flag can be seen running. USWep, carrying ALL THE BLOG, stands alongside. It’s a little later in the morning.

    Give then to me.
    (grabs ALL THE BLOG and starts off)
    Catch up with us quickly.

    (starting to panic)
    What do I do?

    Finish him, finish him. Your way.

    Oh, good, my way.
    (little pause)
    Which way is my way?

    Rocks. Nothing gigantic. b>Chris points to them. There is a large boulder nearby.

    Pick up one of those rocks, get behind the boulder, and in a few minutes, Black Flag will come running around the bend. The minute his head is in view, hit it with the rock!

    As Chris and ALL THE BLOG hurry away.

    (little frown; softly)
    My way’s not very sportsmanlike.

    He grabs one of the rocks and plods behind the boulder and Black Flag…. racing up the mountain trail. Ahead is a bend in the trail. He sees it, slows. Then he stops, listening.

    Satisfied by the silence, he starts forward again and as he rounds the bend — a rock flies by his head, shattering on a boulder inches in front of him.

    USWep moves into the mountain path. He has picked up another rock and holds it lightly.

    I did that on purpose. I don’t have to miss.

    Black Flag
    I believe you — So what happens now?

    We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.

    Black Flag
    You mean, you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword, and we’ll try to kill each other like civilized people?

    I could kill you now.

    He gets set to throw, but Black Flag shakes his head, takes off his sword and scabbard, begins the approach toward the Giant.

    Black Flag
    Frankly, I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting.

    It’s not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise.

    He flips the rock away.

    Black Flag is not now and has never been a shrimp. But it’s like he wasn’t even there, USWep towers over him so much.

    There is a moment’s pause, and then Black Flag dives at USWep‘s chest, slams him several tremendous blows in the stomach, twists his arm severely, slips skillfully into a beautifully applied bear hug, and in general makes any number of terrific wrestling moves.

    USWep just stands there, kind of taking in the scenery. Finally Black Flag pushes himself away, stares up at the Giant.

    Black Flag
    Look are you just fiddling around with me or what?

    I just want you to feel you’re doing well. I hate for people to die embarrassed.

    They get set to begin again. Then suddenly —

    USWep jumps forward with stunning speed for anyone his size and reaches for Black Flag who drops to his knees, spins loose, and slips between the Giant’s legs.

    You’re quick.

    Black Flag
    And a good thing too.

    (getting set for another onslaught)
    Why do you fly that flag? Were you beaten as a child, or something like that?

    Black Flag
    Oh no. It’s just that they’re terribly attractive. I think everyone will be flying them in the future.

    USWep considers this a moment, then attacks, and if he moved quickly last time, this time he is blinding and as Black Flag slips down to avoid the charge,

    USWep moves right with him, only instead of twisting free and jumping to his feet, this time Black Flag jumps for USWep‘s back and in a moment he is riding him, and his arms have USWep‘s throat, locked across USWep‘s windpipe, one in front, one behind. Black Flag begins to squeeze. Tighter.

    (standing, talking as he does so)
    I just figured out why you give me so much trouble.

    USWep charges toward a huge rock that lines the path, and just as he reaches it he spins his giant body so that the entire weight of the charge is taken by Black Flag

    And the power of the charge is terrible, the pain enormous, but Black Flag clings to his grip at USWep‘s windpipe.

    Black Flag
    (his arms never leave USWep‘s throat)
    Why is that, do you think?

    (his voice just beginning to get a little strained)
    Well, I haven’t fought just one person for so long. I’ve been specializing in groups. Battling gangs for local charities, that kind of thing.


    Again USWep charges, slower this time, but still a charge, and again he spins and creams Black Flag against the rough boulder.

    And the punishment is terrible, and for a moment it seems as if Black Flag is going to let go of USWep‘s windpipe and crumble, but he doesn’t, he holds on.

    Black Flag (gasping)
    Why should that make such a difference?

    Well …
    (And now his voice is definitely growing weaker)
    … you see, you use different moves when you’re fighting half a dozen people than when you only have to be worried about one.

    Again USWep slams Black Flag against a boulder, only this time his power has diminished and USWep starts to slowly collapse.

    And there isn’t much breath coming.

    Black Flag holding his grip as USWep tries to stand, halfway makes it, but there is no air. Back to his knees he falls, holds there for a moment, and pitches down to all fours. Black Flag increases the pressure. UUSWep tries to crawl. But there is just no air. No air. USWep goes to earth and lies still.

    As Black Flag turns him over, puts his ear to USWep‘s heart. It beats. Black Flag stands.

    Black Flag
    I don’t envy you the headache you will have when you awake. But, in the meantime, rest well … and dream of large blog audiences.

    A knife pointed at a throat of ALL THE BLOGChris munching on an apple, holding the knife to ALL THE BLOG‘s throat.

    A PICNIC SPREAD is laid out. A tablecloth, two goblets and between them, a small leather wine container. And some cheese and a couple of apples. The picnic is set on a lovely spot, high on the edge of a mountain path with a view all the way back to the sea.

    Black Flag comes running around the path, sees Chris, slows. The two men study each other. Then —

    So, it is down to you. And it is down to me.

    Black Flag nods and comes nearer —

    If you wish ALL THE BLOG destroyed, by all means keep moving forward.

    And he pushes his long knife harder against ALL THE BLOG‘s unprotected throat.

    Black Flag
    Let me explain-

    — there’s nothing to explain. You’re trying to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen.

    Black Flag
    Perhaps an arrangement can be reached.

    There will be no arrangement —
    — and you’re destroying ALL THE BLOG!

    …as Chris jabs with his long knife. The ALL THE BLOG shutters with pain.

    Black Flag stops fast.

    Black Flag
    But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.

    I’m afraid so — I can’t compete with you physically. And you’re no match for my brains.

    Black Flag
    You’re that smart?

    Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

    Black Flag


    Black Flag
    Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.


    Black Flag nods.

    To the death?

    Another nod.

    I accept.

    Black Flag
    Good. Then pour the wine.

    As Chris fills the goblets with the dark red liquid, Black Flag pulls a small packet from his clothing, handing it to Chris.

    Black Flag
    Inhale this, but do not touch.

    I smell nothing.

    Black Flag
    (taking the packet back)
    What you do not smell is called iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadlier poisons known to man.


    Chris watches excitedly as Black Flag takes the goblets, turns his back. A moment later, he turns again, faces Chris, drops the iocane packet. It is now empty.

    Black Flag rotates the goblets in a little shell game maneuver then puts one glass in front of Chris , the other in front of himself.

    Black Flag
    All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.

    But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy’s?

    He studies Black Flag now.

    Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I’m not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    Black Flag
    (And now there’s a trace of nervousness beginning)
    You’ve made your decision then7

    Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

    Black Flag
    Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    Wait till I get going! Where was I?

    Black Flag

    Yes — Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    Black Flag
    (very nervous)
    You’re just stalling now.

    You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you?

    (stares at Black Flag)

    You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    As Chris‘s pleasure has been growing throughout, Black Flag’s has been fast disappearing.

    Black Flag
    You’re trying to trick me into giving away something — it won’t work —

    It has worked — you’ve given everything away — I know where the poison is.

    Black Flag
    (fool’s courage)
    Then make your choice.

    I will. And I choose —

    And suddenly he stops, points at something behind Black Flag.

    — what in the world can that be?

    Black Flag turns around, looking.

    Black Flag
    What? Where? I don’t see anything.

    Chris busily switching the goblets while Black Flag has his head turned.

    Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.

    Black Flag turns to face him again. Chrisstarts to laugh.

    Black Flag
    What’s so funny?

    I’ll tell you in a minute. First, let’s drink — me from my glass, and you from yours.

    And he picks up his goblet. Black Flag picks up the one in front of him. As they both start to drink, Chris hesitates a moment.

    Then, allowing Black Flag to drink first, he swallows his wine.

    Black Flag
    You guessed wrong.

    (roaring with laughter)
    You only think I guessed wrong —
    (louder now)
    — that’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned. You fool.

    There’s nothing Black Flag can say. He just sits there.

    You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” But only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.”

    He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops and is in all ways quite cheery until he falls over dead.

    Black Flag steps past the corpse, and frees ALL THE BLOG

    Who are you?

    Black Flag
    I am no one to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know.

    He starts to lead ALL THE BLOG off the mountain path into untraveled terrain.

    (a final glance back toward Chris)
    To think — all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

    Black Flag
    They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

  58. Black Flag says:

    (did you like the ‘flag’ rewrite – I had to laugh at myself on that one LOL!)

  59. The discussion regarding man made global warming is absolutely wonderful. I have not seen intelligent discussion like this on any blog. Just opinion and “shouting”. I am no proponent of the MMGW position and I too believe it to be a ruse to grab power by virtue of destroying economic freedoms. However, I can think of one thing that may have a positive affect on us all: I believe that if all of the politicians in Washington held their collective breath indefinitely the result would be a measurable decline in not only CO2, but noxious sewer gases as well. Now that would be beneficial to mankind!

    • USWeapon says:

      You bet your butt it would Bruce. I think this is the first time I have seen you post, so welcome to the site and the discussions! I look forward to all you have to add.

  60. Thank you. I will enjoy reading these posts and hope to get up to speed. I am not a Climatologist or Meteorologist. However, I have degrees in Biology and Chemistry and have a sense for smoke disguised as science. Frankly, I believe the only reason the MMGW hoax has taken hold is because people without the basics of scientific knowledge have been frightened into submission by people who know better but have ulterior motives as I eluded to earlier. That being said, what can we do about it? I saw it mentioned earlier that we are one catastrophy away from debunking the MMGW theory. We’ve had considerable volcanic activity over the last 25 years. Measurements of pollutants have declined. The air is visibly cleaner in known hot spots in the U.S.. So far, none of this has mattered a wit. The U.S., and the rest of the world for that matter, is caught in a struggle that most people do not appear to recognize. A designed takeover of personal and economic liberty by a designated few using a global “crisis” as the excuse. I know that this is nothing new to you folks. It is just disheartening to think my children (and all of yours) have been robbed big time! I believe there is a special place in hell for those promoting this incredible hoax.

  61. WOW!
    It is truly amazing how many sites have sprung up with these anti-science type of postings. It is like a mob mentality. Chris and the very few others using critical thinking here are just beating their heads against the wall of denial.
    “We are too small to make an impact (unless we blow it up)” sums it up! Both sides of the mouth…??
    Look out! A black helicopter!
    Lets put more average people in charge of bypass surgery….lets represent ourselves in court….put more white guys in the NBA….

    • Anti science? Can you read brother?

      Chris can’t answer a question without losing it. I suspect you might be the same way.

      Riddle me this science man. If I can prove that there have been huge quickly occurring climate changes in the past which have no relationship to man, then why is it anti-scientific for me, using Occam’s razor, to assume the same today?

      I still have not gotten proper verification of the amount of particulate emissions or greenhouse gas emissions thrown out by a medium volcanic event but most seem to think it dwarfs mans contributiion for a century or more. perhaps you have the answer to that at your fingertips. And of course, why are the polar ice caps shrinking on Mars? I like that one.

    • Anti-science? Consensus is against the scientific method. Exaggerated propaganda, even when it is legitimately based in science, does a disservice to the credibility of scientific study and its findings. Statistical analysis and recommended solutions, as well as their real-life effectiveness, is a scientific approach to things. Emotional and frantic responses to movies rather than numbers and measures and observable evidence and solutions that are equally studies are actually quite anti-science. I am actually appalled that science is being paraded around by those who know nothing about its principles and the importance of maintaining those principles.

    • UK:

      Have to admit you knocked off all contenders on this subject. Yours truly is the stupidest comment here.
      And trust me, I don’t use the word studid often as it is of great offense to me.
      But you have earned it so wear it proudly.


    • USWeapon says:

      Interesting that you see Chris as using critical thinking but no one else. I feel bad for you. I can find flaws on both sides of every argument, but I bet you never find any in yours, right? You gonna feel silly when the alarm clock wakes you from your dreams.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      It is amazing how many people will claim “anti-science” simply because someone disagrees with them!

      More to the point, he obviously either:

      A:) Didn’t read a single post in this thread, or
      B:) Simply has an agenda to make us think that he is completely uninformed.

      Critical thinking has NOTHING to do with blindly agreeing with what someone tells you is “right”. That is called “being a sheep”.

    • Bah, it’s called trolling. US, your getting big time now that you are attracting that type of person and hitting over 300 repsonses to a single post.


  62. Black Flag says:

    Chris Devine

    Missed this as it was buried in the recursive corner…

    Do you honestly think that the market will make you free?

    No, I’m free because of me.

    The free market is a consequence of free men, it does not create free men.

    Do you think that the profit motive will make you free?

    See above.

    Do you think that rights to private property existing in a world of billions of people and limited resources is self-evident?

    It is a requirement.

    Men must live. They also must have exclusive control over their lives. With these two unavoidable aspects, private property is a component of freedom – and yes, 6 billion can easily be accommodated. The free market makes it so.

    Your brand of freedom isn’t obvious to me, so why have you not provided an argument to try and convince me?

    I do not need you, so I do not need you to be free. Whether you chose your slavery or chose to be free, is your choice and matters not to me.

    Convincing a wall to walk is less futile than any attempt to convince you to throw off your chains.

    But if you are sincere…. I’ll certain offer you a path of thought – It will always be up to you to take the walk, of course.

    You postulate rights to private property as the ultimate freedom but nowhere have I seen you provide the rationale for doing so?

    Did I postulate rights to private property anywhere??

    Can you do me this small favor?

    I don’t do favors.

    How much money do you have?

    Simply without resorting to appeals to your likewise unsupported notions of morality? Where does your wormhole end?

    At my freedom.

  63. My oh My:

    The number of comments on Bull Crap and War on Christianity are neck and neck.

    I offer this only to bring them even.

    Smiling very big smile.

  64. Black Flag says:


    A new study has demonstrated an incredible correlation between sunspot activity and change in the rate sea level changes. More sunspots, the great the change in sea levels – no sunspots, slower the change in sea level.

    More demonstration that the Sun is the cause of climate – and man is merely a passenger.

  65. Black Flag says:


    So, look at this figure…. can you figure out what the historical temperature was, with these different proxies???

    …and there are those that believe they know with accuracy that information.

    Yes, you can laugh out loud.

  66. Black Flag says:

    Click to access signpost.pdf

    Navy Physicist warns of possible ‘decades of crushing cold temperatures’

  67. Strange as it may be…I watched a History show about NASA and others talking about a planet alignment coming in 2012. This alignment has not happened in over 20,000 years. They talked about the strong magnetic pull they expected on earths wobbly rotation…possibly altering it or space orbiting comets.

    If this is so…it’s approach could be a slow effect on earth’s crust….such as earthquakes, the recent volcanic activity and ice melts.

    What is truly spooky? The Mayans and Chinese dynastys also predicted 2012 as a great change on Earth.

  68. Texas Tirrell says:


    Thanks for a great article. I haven’t been able to keep up to date lately. GW is something I know little about, but it seems to me to be mostly crap. I’ve learned some new things today and will continue to look for more info. How in the world can the USA be the only country to try and pass destructive laws on her own people. Just doesn’t make sense.

    BF, I like your responses, they really make me think. Everyone else has been great too!

    One little piece of advice to Chris Devine,

    Be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it!

%d bloggers like this: