Are You a Member of the Flat Earth Society?

Global WarmingI once said that I care about the planet as much as the next guy, unless the next guy is Al Gore.  Update:  make it, unless the next guy is Al Gore … or John Kerry.

Kerry, you may have heard, just said this about what used to be called global warming until it got too cold and they had to change the name to avoid looking ridiculous:   “In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

And I was worried about the old fashioned weapons of mass destruction – like dirty bombs terrorists would like to unleash in Times Square.  Silly me.

Nonetheless, let me state the obvious:  I’m not a scientist, so nothing you read here is an argument against climate change.  I don’t know enough to make a case one way or another.  But, at some level, I’ve always believed in climate change.  The climate over millions of years has changed a lot.  We had ice ages followed by warmer ages followed by ice ages followed by warmer ages.   Are humans responsible, to some extent, for the current era of warming?  Probably.  Without humans and the factories they’ve built there’d be less carbons in the air.  That’s obvious.  Beyond that, I know very little.

But what bothers me about the climate change discussion is that the deck is stacked against anyone who has doubts about whether it’s really as bad as Gore and Kerry and others say it is.  Are we really members of the Flat Earth Society, as Kerry recently said, if we have doubts?

To the true believers, the science is “settled.”  Debate on the subject is a waste of time.  So Kerry said neither he nor the president plans to waste any more of their time on the subject.  They don’t simply see climate change as a scientific issue.  To them, it’s practically a religion; such is their devotion to the cause and their faith in the infallibility of experts on the subject.  And so, to just about anyone who compares climate change to a weapon of mass destruction, everything is proof of climate change.

To them, very cold weather is proof of climate change.  So is very hot weather.

More snow than usual is evidence of climate change.  Less snow than usual is also evidence of climate change.

More hurricanes than the average number is the result of climate change. Fewer hurricanes than the average number is the result of climate change.

Floods?  Climate change.  Drought?  Climate change.

In fact, when President Obama recently visited parts of California that have been hit hard by drought, he and his aides said what’s happening in the west could be the beginning of similar devastating weather across much of the entire United states as human-caused climate change intensifies.

But even a news story in the New York Times, a paper whose editorial page is constantly setting off alarms about the dire consequences of climate change, had this to say about the prediction made by the president and his aides:  “But in [making such a prediction], they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.”

Besides, as the New York Times reports, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation.”  Uh oh!

So if climate change is such a no-brainer, if the science really is “settled,” why does the president feel the need to exaggerate at best and flat out mislead the American people at worst?

And even if, with the stroke of his pen, the president were to issue one of his executive orders to shut down every coal powered plant in the entire United States, it still wouldn’t have much effect on worldwide climate change.  Not as long as India and China exist.  They’re growing their economies like crazy and since coal is cheap, that’s what they’re using.  They’ll worry about global warming some other time.

And why, we members of the Flat Earth Society, are wondering, is Team Obama making climate change such a big issue now?  Could it be because Republicans didn’t stand in the way of a debt ceiling hike which could have led to another government shutdown, which would have been blamed on Republicans, just like the last one?  Could it be the president needed another issue to rally his liberal base and divide the nation?  Is that why, just months before the midterm elections, climate change has just become “the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction”?

But here’s the bad news for those who believe climate change will end the world as we know it:  The American people aren’t nearly as worked up over it.  In a recent Gallup poll of issues we care most about, climate change didn’t finish in the top 10.  And in a Pew poll it finished 19 out of 20.

The president may need to come up with another issue to rally his base and divide the nation.  The midterm elections are right around the corner.  But beware, Mr. President:  the last time a presidential administration warned us about weapons of mass destruction, there was nothing there.

*****

Let me know what you think by leaving a comment.  How much, or how little, do you care about global warming, or climate change, or whatever they’ll be calling it next week?  Thanks.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • LORD MEPHISTOPHELES

    You right , you know nothing as apparently do most of your readers. Judging by the ignorant comments.

  • stmichrick

    Bernie; the contortions that the Left goes to in order to promote the notion of human caused climate change is a red flag indicator of its incredibility. I sensed this when I first heard Al Gore pontificate on the subject. As a former geology major and conservative person, my antennae were aroused! At the time, it was mostly about Gore’s relevance; now it’s about so much more, mainly cash and government control.
    You can think of it like this; given, the climate changes over time in earth history. Recently there has been an increase in a trace element gas in the atmosphere, CO2. It’s Still a trace element though. They have computer models that show too much of this makes things heat up. BUT IT’s ONLY IN MODELS THAT THEY CONSTRUCT USING CHOSEN VARIABLES. Most recently, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that previous warming trends have slowed or stopped in the past 17 years, while the CO2 continues to rise. They can’t refute it, they can just rationalize what some scientists see.
    Topics like this get into the weeds quickly for most people. But there is so much hubris on the surface from the Left that it is hard to deny they have another agenda which has nothing to do with earth or climate science.

  • Rose

    Most of us would prefer to live in cities that are not as polluted as Beijing, whether or not it affects climate change. We like our drinking water to be non-flammable, too. And it is nice to have national parks to revel in the natural beauty of this world.

  • TBuzzard

    What absolute drivel. AGW, climate change whatever you call it is a hoax and it’s only purpose is to attempt gain control of the means of production on a world wide basis.

  • Rose

    I think there are two very separate schools of thought here. The first is that God or Nature controls the global climate and we are helpless to change or even affect it and indeed should not want to. The second school of thought is that while God or Nature controls the global climate, we can do some things to affect it in positive or negative ways. In between, there are many ranges of thought about what can and should be done from prayer to rules and restrictions.

  • David Grant

    You are right that the science isn’t really settled, but there seems to be a lot consensus on the matter. There is a debate on the effects, but not on the cause. I come at this issue using the precautionary principle that while we will never have perfect or settled knowledge on a subject, if there is strong evidence of a problem that you should take action on it. The only debate that is worth having what is the best path forward to a renewable and sustainable economy.

  • Tova Feinman

    I am a scientist so I’ll take a stab at this. Not the merits of whether climate change is or is not occuring, as Bernie has already stated, the climate has been changing since the dawn of time. Ask the dinosaurs (if you can find any). My point is about the concept of “settled science”. There is flat out NO SUCH ANIMAL. It is in the very structure of the scientific method that no scientific question is ever settled. Ask Einstein. For a 100 years physicists have been dissecting his theories. Debates rage to this day as to whether or not he got relativity correct. Scientists STILL can’t come to a firm understanding of what light is. Newton’s Laws of Gravity are still being scrutinized, and no scientist worth his degrees can tell you how life evolved from non-life. No one knows that one either. What I love most about being a scientist is I get to ask questions, hunt for the answers, and then doubt the answers I get. Science is not and never has been about “settling” any kind of inquiry. It is about moving human understanding about the physical universe forward, as imperfect as that understanding is at times. Good scientific research generates more questions than it answers. Calling any topic of research “settled” is a non-scientist’s misunderstanding of what science is and what it is not.

  • David Grant

    Sorry about the double replies. If someone want to remove one of them go ahead, since there is an awful lot of overlap. By the way, if people really want to understand the basics of climate change, there is a book by Andrew Weaver called Keeping Our Cool. He is a scientist, now a provincial politician, that understands the issue and has worked at IPCC. As I stated in my previous posts, there is a lot of information about the accuracy of climate change to check out. If you are a fair and opened minded person, then you will find out that it isn’t a theory. There are, of course, debates about the effects of climate change, but not about the origin. In any case, that is it for me as I have said as much as I can say. I will leave it for others to have their say.

  • David Grant

    Bernie,
    President Obama isn’t taking climate change this strictly as a political issue(although it isn’t a bad one), he is doing it because it is a very serious threat to the survival of the planet. It is pretty sad that you are still in the denialist camp after all of the evidence is out there. You should perhaps contact the scientists in Florida, where you reside, and ask them about climate change. Ask the residents of Bangladesh, and in much of the developing world, and they will tell you first hand about the effects of climate change. The longer people like yourself deny the existence of this phenomenon, the harder it will be to do something constructively. Finally, a trip to New York City, your place of birth, might change your mind. If that isn’t enough, take a trip to the Garden State, and ask the residents of Hobokken about the effects. Bernie, you are friends at Fox, are the parodies of conservatives that Stephen Colbert had in mind when he created his show, which is very sad.

    • VasB

      Climate change is just a natural process. Why melted the ice age? Humans? I think not. What made all the dinosaurs extinct? Humans? I think not. Whilst I agree Humans are having an overall effect on the planet I firmly believe what nature has intended to take course will in the end take course. Can we stop another ice age given they’ve happened before without human intervention? I think not. What is to be will be as long as we’re not reckless in our ways of life it will be what it will be.

  • David Grant

    Bernie,
    President Obama isn’t doing strictly as a political issue(although it isn’t a bad political issue with younger voters)and because a lot of green voters as his base, he is doing it because most of the scientific community believes that is a serious threat to the survival of humanity. If you really have any doubt, you can take a visit to the University of Miami or any other university in Florida, where you live, and any of the scientists there if it is a problem. Furthermore, you can take a visit to New York and ask the residents in Long and Staten Island if they are more receptive to the belief that climate change is a threat and they can give you first hand knowledge. If that doesn’t satisfy you, head over to the Garden State, and old Blue Eyes hometown, and ask the residents there. You can also can the scientists who work in the US military, and the governments of the European Union and you will lots and lots of evidence. There are plenty of books, articles, and programs on NOVA, and exhibits at your country’s museums to give you more information. The fact that you still deep in denial, is pretty sad, in my opinion. You are demonstrating the Stephen Colbert’s satire of conservatives pretty clearly.

  • barnes

    AGW is based on fake physics, manipulated data, and dishonest activist “scientists”. I am worried that if obama and the epa get their way, they will in fact shut down every coal fired power plant (40% of US electric power generation) with no viable alterative to replace it. If that were to happen, we would in fact see a devasting social cost, unlike the manufactured social cost of carbon the admin wants to use to make the cost of electricity “necessrily skyrocket”.

  • kellster

    This was yet again another liberal threat against the Rebublicans on winning in California, by using a threat of nuclear global warming weapons on places like Los Angelos CA.

    • Brian_Bayless

      lol

    • legal eagle

      Republicans winning in California? Winning what?

  • Debdeb

    Captivating writing, Bernie.

    Here’s an absurd thought. Maybe climate change is not really relevant to the “earther gods”. Maybe they just use [climate change, global warming] as a nebulous, emotive issue in order to achieve an unrelated, hidden agenda.

  • wildjew

    Bill O’Reilly on the Jimmy Kimmel show Tuesday night. Barack Obama is a “patriot!”

    Bill O’Reilly is “Killing Jesus.”

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Yes it’s true, but remember, you can still be a patriot and deluded. In fact I think that’s true of most leftie liberal types. They can’t all hate their country?

      • wildjew

        I consider myself a loyal American citizen. I do my best to follow the law and abide by the Constitution, those great principles that I believe apply to me such as the ability to speak freely and to own a gun, etc. I would not think of doing anything subversive to this country’s institutions; a country that has given me so much. I am a loyal American but I do not consider myself a patriot. I do not think Barack Obama is either, a patriot or a loyal American. I think historians will judge Obama very subversive to this nation and her institutions. Sadly, Americans (like Bill O’Reilly and perhaps Mr. Goldberg) cannot see what Obama has done and is doing but in hindsight they will see it; clearly.

        • legal eagle

          More ramblings from Archie Bunker..

    • Jeff Webb

      BOR said that?!

      Jeez, it’s one thing to try to be fair & balanced, it’s quite another to look like a total idiot in the process.

    • legal eagle

      You’re embarrassing yourself with your stupidity..

      • wildjew

        Patriot: a person who LOVES (emphasis mine) and strongly supports or fights for his or her country

        Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama: “For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country.” (“Only her husband’s run for president has made her proud of America?”)

        Barack Obama’s twenty(!) year spiritual and philosophical mentor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcXFxbx1Y4M

        Obama is a patriot? Is that a joke?

        • Burro

          Dear wildjew. It is so wonderful to read your comments which are factual. Thanks for backing up the true scientific findings that climate change is a hoax! The liberal activists supporting the climate change scam are actually the “flat earth idiots”. Also, you nailed Bill O’Reilly who is a bully who an oversized ego and inflated image of himself.

  • Concernedmimi

    Climate changes all the time, duh! Doesn’t mean we need another Ponzi scheme from the Obama administration to sap the hard working tax payer.

  • Vance P. Frickey

    Neither John Kerry nor the part of the climatology community which endorses “global warming/climate change” has really come up with a way to reverse the changes so far, or to get Germany back into Kyoto…

    Since their Green voting bloc will sabotage any coalition that embraces nuclear power, Germany is going all-out building coal-fired power plants (a case where a group of eco-freaks is making the ecology WORSE for people downwind of Germany). China will do whatever the clique in power there wants, and nuts to Commissar Kerry. So will the rest of Asia, and Africa, and South America. Australia is the only sizable country (in acres, if not people) who will pay serious attention to John Kerry’s bleatings. If they do… well, they deserve whatever follows in the way of expense and trouble.

    • legal eagle

      I think Japan has sabotaged nuclear power…..I’m all in favor of building refineries and nuclear plants right next to your house….not mine..

  • worker1950

    Until Al Gore downsizes to
    just one mansion, flies commercial, and takes public transportation don’t
    preach to the rest of us, working folks about ‘global warming’ (aka ‘climate
    change’).

  • Matt

    How about this: if climate change is real, every course of action to combat it would be to the benefit of the world (and to the U.S. specifically). I’m not saying we should follow the Dem. game plan of dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into companies that may or may not succeed. But surely homegrown, alternative clean fuels that aid the environment and the economy is a good thing, no? And the implication that’s it’s simply ridiculous that burning mass quantities of fossil fuels could have some negative effect – really? How is that debatable?

    • Vance P. Frickey

      No one in the political side of the “climate change” community has taken Professor Freeman Dyson’s (of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies) idea of trapping carbon dioxide in rapid-growing trees grown on vast tracts of land seriously. There’s also much to be said for encouraging the use of polycarbonate plastics (such as Lexan, which is what fighter aircraft canopies and NFL helmets are made of) in consumer goods – using carbon dioxide condensed from the atmosphere as the feed stock, and not petrochemicals as is done now. I agree that for a host of reasons, fossil fuels are NOT the way to go for the 21st century – if you think wars were fought over oil up to now, just wait till the Third World industrializes to the point where access to petroleum become one of THEIR “vital national interests,” too.

      One good thing done with Obama stimulus money is funding for a US Navy project to develop nuclear fusion that is orders of magnitude cheaper and safer than the thermonuclear fusion boondoggle pursued by both major political parties for decades. If THAT project works in its most favorable mode, using boron-11 as a nuclear fuel we’ll have energy independence AND zero carbon footprint all in one package. I’m sure the stimulus grant was made to keep New Mexico’s Democrat party boss Richardson happy (the firm with the Navy contract is all Los Alamos scientists), but it’s an ill wind that blows NO good.

    • legal eagle

      The solutions are difficult and complex but doing nothing is the height of insanity….

      • Tim Ned

        Doing the wrong things and dictating the wrong direction is suicide. I had invested in ethanol. It is a ecological disaster as well as financially not feasible. Wind generation is expensive and there is no scientific evidence that it will ever provide competitive energy. It’s also costly to maintain and service. Solar has not moved forward in capability in 80 years. With the technology in gasoline driven cars over the past 5 years that have increased mileage, hybrids will be history. Electric cars are toys for the rich technologists.

        Your president is wasting money on poor science that has no hope of ever accomplishing results. Kind of like what he is doing with health care.

        You employ over 100,000 people at the department of energy and no logical energy policy. Your president stands up and brags that oil production is up in the US during his state of the union.

        You liberals are one nutty group!

        • legal eagle

          So from what you are saying wind, solar, electric cars etc. are, at best, partial solutions to lowering the use of oil…..What’s wrong with partial solutions? Isn’t that the objective?

    • legal eagle

      So your one of the “working folk”? Sounds like a Merle Haggard song..

      • Matt

        I must admit I don’t understand your comment’s relevance. Also, it’s “you’re”.

  • Drew Page

    The November elections are only eight months away. The Democrats have got to come up with something to get people to stop talking about Obama Care; how much it is really going to cost people; how big the deductibles really are; how many doctors are not going to participate in it; how much money is really going to be transferred out of Medicare funding to pay for it; and how much your taxes are going to go up to pay for the bailout of the insurance companies who participate in the exchanges.
    While Benghazi, IRS targeting, NSA spying and Fast & Furious are still unaddressed scandals that are important to many people, they do not affect a majority of Americans. Unemployment, the rising national debt, the expansion of social welfare programs and unchecked government spending are also a concern, but not of sufficient concern to working Americans still able to support their families. Obama’s disregard of the Constitution, his unilateral changing of existing laws and his use of Executive Orders and government agency regulations to bypass Congress are also of serious concern, but not to the majority of Americans. While each of these are obnoxious to millions of Americans, even all of them together will not impact on the vast majority of Americans as will Obama Care.
    This is where the Republicans’ focus must remain. They should refuse to be drawn into arguments on minimum wage, gay marriage, abortion, welfare programs, the national debt, immigration reform, or least of all, “climate change”. the focus should remain squarely on the failure of Obama Care, its costs in terms of premium rates, taxes and loss of full-time jobs. The lies told by Obama and every politician who repeated them to promote Obama Care should be questioned and challenged, over and over again, every day until election day.

    • legal eagle

      The Republican focus is on their usual issues including being anti-immigration reform, anti abortion and anti Obama…As they have no legislative policy they might as well focus on being negative…

      • tim ned

        What’s wrong with the policies you just mentioned?

        • legal eagle

          Being against everything is not usually a great campaign strategy…

          • Tim Ned

            This wasn’t everything. Just three things!

            Wonder why the healthcare employer mandate is delay until 2016? Hmmm….

          • legal eagle

            It’s called politics…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            And somehow that rationale is only acceptable if you’re a Democrat.

          • legal eagle

            You mean Republicans don’t make policy decision based upon politics only Dems?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            That’s not what I’m saying. I’m not the partisan ideologue that you are.

            I’m saying that rationalizing something by saying it’s “just politics” isn’t a legitimate defense. It’s a cop-out.

            I’m sure you would agree with me, but only in the case of a Republican, of course.

          • Tim Ned

            I’m trying to find a piece of legislation passed solely by a Republican congress and President (no democratic support) to which the party ran from once they passed it. I cannot find one, can you?

          • Jeff Webb

            It’s called one of the ways BO and/or the dems admit OC is a piece of crap.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        …says Chris Matthews anyway.

      • wildjew

        B. Goldberg wrote: “…when President Obama recently visited parts of California that have been hit hard by drought, he and his aides said what’s happening in the west could be the beginning of similar devastating weather across much of the entire United states as human-caused climate change intensifies.”

        Remember the wicked King Ahab (who married Jezebel) in the Bible? Those were the days of Elijah the Tishbite. God sent a terrible drought and famine in the days Ahab because of his wickedness. Obama claims the drought is human-caused. Maybe he is right.

        • legal eagle

          One never knows…

  • Concernedmimi

    From all this nonsense coming from the incompetent Obama administration, one can tell his campaign committee is still at work putting talking instructions out to POTUS and Hillary’s protégé, Kerry.

  • woulddragon

    As a fellowmember of “The Flat Earth Society”< I agree with you whole-heartedly, Mr. Goldber. Politicians, and scientists, Have been using "climate change" to frighten us Americans for as long as I can remember (and, I'll be turning "The Big 5-0" this coming April). However, I have never seen politicians like Al Gore, John Kerry and President Obama use this subject quite so flagrantly. What surprises me all the more is that they didn't blame it all of Bush the younger yet (or, if they did, then I probably missed it).

  • scott autry

    Global Warming became a crusade because of it’s potential to cripple industry. This is the same fight the left has been waging since the beginning of the Industrial Age back in the late 18th Century….It was repackaged using Marxism and then loose socialism as the 20th Century progressed, but after the collapse of global communism, using it to reverse engineer industrialism became untenable. They needed something new to push the socialist revolution – something that could reach the common man – since the revolution they were expecting in the 60s and 70s failed to materialize – and Global Warming was what they latched onto.

    They believe it is an issue they can sell to the average person/voter, eventually, if they stay on message and get the institutions under their control (the media, education, and the entertainment industry) to preach it again and again… That is why they are adamant that it can’t even be questioned. That any one who disagrees is evil. They want Global Warming as a tool and they can only accomplish it by winning the hearts and minds of average citizens…

    The Unibomber might have been an extremist nutcase, and his writings an extreme example, but he was basically articulating the heart of this matter — the same basic theme elements on the left have been fighting for for a long, long time….

    The issue isn’t the climate – It’s about the economy and its industrial foundation…

    • Vance P. Frickey

      Rebecca West, in her classic “The Meaning of Treason,” summed up the passive-aggressive opposition to the Industrial Revolution in the part of her book dealing with the roots of the English “march through the institutions” that brought us the Cambridge Ring and English communism in general. She covered the work of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who worked long and hard to move England back out of industry to a darker form of feudalism, and managed to create a generation which agreed with them on the virtues of homespun clothes and homemade furniture, without reckoning on the human cost of keeping such affordable without modern industry.

      One passage of hers sums up these people admirably:

      “The condition of these people’s children was paradoxical.

      They were brought up in a state of complete immunity from any
      form of physical want. Not only did they never suffer from
      hunger or cold or lack of clothing, they lived in a society from
      which such deprivations were being eliminated more quickly and
      more thoroughly than ever before. They were surrounded from
      birth by the affection and extremely conscientious care of their
      mothers and fathers, who took parenthood very seriously indeed.
      They were exempt from fear of war as we now know it, for the
      airplane was still a toy, the British Navy was the supreme munition of the world, and it was an article of faith in this group that all foreigners (except, for some reason, the French) were pacifists. These children were, in fact, more fortunate than any groups which had ever existed previously, save certain scattered patricians during periods when the wind blew war away from their cities and trade was good; and even over them these English children had a huge advantage so far as freedom from violence and disease is concerned. Yet they were taught and believed that they were living in the worst of all possible worlds but that they need not despair, as it would be the easiest thing they and their parents ever did to tear it down and make a better one.”

      And so the progressive wing… who want to tear down all those oil refineries, electric power plants and nuclear power plants, without reflecting (reflection must cause physical pain to them) that without relatively cheap energy, we have to go back to coal-fired everything, or further back to walking everywhere, doing our work without computers or even calculators (I’m old enough to remember my Mom doing her store’s accounts on an “adding machine,” which relied on an electric motor turning cams to do what our smartphones manage with a hundredth the power). It’s well and good to say that to prevent the global temperature going up an average five degrees at the end of the century, we have to stop burning fuels. But if we leave the decision on how to do that to the people who, like John Kerry, sit in the dunce’s corner of the classroom, we might well be sending these posts in by the mail, which could well be drawn from our homes to Mr. Goldberg’s house by horse.

      • scott autry

        What this segment of the left wants is a paternal oligarchy – to rule over the masses – but not them. You will not see Bill Ayers giving up his fortune. What people like him fantasize about is having in their hands all the power to decide who has what. That is why they run to pay homage to the likes of Hugo Chavez or Castro while wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts.

        Star Wars III has a scene where Skywalker lays out the best form of government: One where you pick a really smart person, who knows what’s best for all, and give him the power to exercise his will for the better of society. That is what this segment of the left dreams. Why can’t they take a look around, acknowledge that this has been tried a good number of times around the world, and that it has been a disaster of unimaginable proportions every time.

        Why can’t they take a look at communist propaganda with Joe Stalin and Kim Il Sung and Mao portrayed as the paternal leader – then at the millions and millions and millions who died under such dictatorships – both from murder by the state and severe deprivation – and conclude the obvious — that 1 + 1 = 2.

        They are not really into wealth equalization. They are into – like we have seen before in different parts of the world – wealth redistribution – with the “right” kinda of people deciding who gets what and who doesn’t. Everywhere this has been tried, all you got was a different (smaller) group of people controlling the wealth and hanging onto it by oppression. Oppression that cripples the nation’s economy and infrastructure producing a standard of living far below that of the nations with liberal democratic capitalism.

        Their vision of a paternalistic government with the power to control everything for the betterment of the ignorant masses simply does not work. It is nothing more than going back to the time before democracy. It has been tried diligently in several places, and its track record is horrific.

        • legal eagle

          Representative government is such a pain…How dare they make any decisions that effect the well being of their constituents?
          This same B.S. has been spouted by Republicans since 1932…After 82 years you’d think they’d come up with something new?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Representative government is such a pain…How dare they make any decisions that effect the well being of their constituents?

            Uh, Legal… It’s your guy, President Obama, who keeps touting the circumvention of our representatives in congress.

          • legal eagle

            Circumvention or circumcision? Another day , another whine…President’s sign executive orders because they run the executive branch…Bush signed 291 Executive Orders, Obama 168…I didn’t here you whining about Bush’s issuance of executive orders…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m not whining about ANYONE using executive orders. I’m saying that if you’re going to be snarky with another poster about the importance of representative government, you ought to consider what your hero has been saying and doing.

          • legal eagle

            I stated that the US has a representative government. I didn’t state anything about its importance or lack of importance…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You mocked someone for not appreciating the merits of representative government. But you will not mock your hero for taking the same standpoint, will you?

          • legal eagle

            I know your obsessed with responding to my comments no matter who they are meant for. I don’t know about you but my last political “hero” was Bobby Kennedy.
            Go repeat your boring arguments to someone who gives a crap about your nonsensical lack of insight..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh please. You fawn over the man as badly as Chris Matthews does.

          • legal eagle

            The only men I’ve ever “fawned” over were my father and Mickey Mantle….LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            This would be disputed by absolutely everyone who reads your posts here. You are painfully self-unaware.

          • scott autry

            Since 1932? Probably because it’s been going on that long – and much longer – as two of us above pointed out as our initial thoughts. (On Ayer’s and his family money, I’m sure you can google…)

            Representative government? Not quite.

            You can ignore the reality of a certain segment on the Left if you want. Fine. But you can’t erase facts. The Obamas and Hillarys cut their teeth on the ideas of people like Ayers and Saul Alinsky (and Rev. Wright). Their breast milk was the theme of “Revolution”. The fact they did not accomplish all they wanted does not wipe away what they believed in.

            And it wasn’t all bad. American society needed some reformation, and true democracy did win out: The radicals had some success but in direct proportion to what the average American (voter) could be convinced to support – in terms of race relations, equal rights for women in the work place, and curbing the excesses of capitalism.

            But, you have to stick your head in the sand to not note that these people, and their likes before them, had envisioned far more coming about. Bill Ayers still says he didn’t do enough. Hollywood’s leftist elites continued to pay homage to the likes of Hugo Chavez and Castro….

            There idea of revolution was the “big C kind” as Ayers might put it.

            And they were more than willing to apply undemocratic means to achieve it. This has been well documented. They documented it themselves. The texts are easy to find.

            You have to want to ignore it not to notice it if you give even half a glance….

            Overall, I’m not worried much about Obama or Hillary or Hollywood’s vision of what a “correct” America would look like, because they will never gain enough support among the masses. Whether elements of the Left or Right like it or not, American society is still centrist for the most part. We don’t trust either side with too much power – which was the whole idea in the formation of our government — checks and balances…

          • legal eagle

            It would appear that you believe social change is a bad thing and you have a need to continue the culture wars of the 1960′s…It’s sad to see how much a certain segment of American society fears change…

        • legal eagle

          I didn’t know that Bill Ayers had a “fortune”? Care to enlighten us on the factual basis for your assertion?

  • ted

    They are winning.

  • GclefGinger

    Never put these two words together: Settled and science. Settled science would have dismissed Galleleo and Einstein. As we learn more about this wonderful earth we know we must not settle. Even Sir Francis Bacon knew real science investigation was inductive and not deductive: let the evidence shape the theory and when the theory is not valid change it. But Gore and Mann are deducers and will shape the facts to keep their theory(Computer extrapolations regardless of evidence). Then try to pass it as the equivalent to Laws of Gravity and Entropy. But the reality is profit and power are driving their theory, not evidence.

    • Vance P. Frickey

      Induction requires intellectual honesty, a scarce commodity on either side of the aisle. Otherwise, the temptation to squint at the evidence when millions of dollars (some, you hope, to be yours) are at stake.

  • Dan Pangburn

    Natural climate change has been hiding in plain sight.

    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

  • CmonMann

    global warming is most likely caused by all the airplanes 0bama and Kerry ride around in the decry use of fossil fuel.

  • CmonMann

    this “pivot” by the administration is just another attempt by this feckless white house clown car to change the subject. Kerry is an egotistical fool, and will say anything to get in front of a camera. the question is not whether global warming is legit , the question is – what are they hiding by ginning it up as a big issue right now?

    • legal eagle

      John Kerry is a fool compared to whom…you?

      • CmonMann

        Compared to a fence post

      • Drew Page

        Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

      • Vance P. Frickey

        Compared to anyone who read his autobiography and was convulsed with laughter at all the self-adoration.

  • TransplantedTexan

    A synonym for “climate change” is “the weather”; and has been for years. It has also been changing forever.

  • Pagsullvn

    The flat earth society were the church, government officials and 99.9% of scientists who were defending the consensus that the earth was flat. The science was settled. They had inquisition and locked up heretics who were flat earth deniers. So which group now represents the flat earth society.

    I thought scientists are at their best when they challenge the scientific consensus.

    • Vance P. Frickey

      It’s the accepted way of doing science outside of political climatology. No scientific finding is sacred if someone can come up with enough datasets from reproducible studies which contradict it. That’s how civilization has advanced from the days of Galileo (jailed by the Inquisition for daring to report that the Earth moves around the sun) to now.

      Curiously, it’s only when various forms of Marxism come into play that the exceptions happen. Stalin’s buddy Trofim Lysenko was convinced that you could change the characteristics of an organism if you just changed its environment so he buried wheat in the snow to make it hardy. There were those who were tactless enough to laugh at him, mostly geneticists. So genetics -the whole academic discipline – was made illegal in the Soviet Union until recombinant genetic work in the US suggested the Soviets could make better bioweapons with genetics than without… and they became believers.

      The International Panel on Climate Change works the same way. Even whisper that you doubt all the high p-value results from IPCC studies on the probability of significant global climate change, and if you work in climatology, your research grants magically evaporate. THAT is how IPCC has gotten its vaunted “consensus” on anthropogenic climate change.

      Even so, IPCC has done things some climatologists won’t tolerate. Dr. Chris Landsea of the University of Colorado, a respected authority on tropical climatology, was doing work on an IPCC-connected grant studying the effects of climate change on hurricane activity, and resigned when IPCC fraudulently announced results of that study which Dr. Landsea hadn’t even CALCULATED. In other words, IPCC lied. It turned out later, Dr, Landsea was to conclude from the study results that the impact of climate change on hurricane formation was so slight as to be insignificant.

      But since Dr. Landsea resigned from IPCC after their misrepresentation of his study findings, he’s free to differ from them.

  • Crex21

    Both sides have closed their ignorant eyes and refuse to read, think or listen nd their has been science fraud and dishonesty on both sides.. Look, you have to view this at multiple time frames–a year doesn’t mean anything and global COOLING likely over centuries doesn’t mean much more, but there HAS been warming over past DECADES which is meaningful. Because the leftists have hijacked the enviro. movement for other purposes, the rigt wing is in total denial about most enviro. problems

    • Vance P. Frickey

      I won’t argue with you there. The worst of the climate change deniers on the right are so bad because, like the IPCC, Al Gore and John Kerry, they try to wrap their biases up in the altar linens of science itself.

      But to argue simply that because there’s been such a rapid change in global temperature without firm, unshakable evidence that it is caused by human activity of any kind is just as intellectually dishonest. Too many of IPCC’s published studies on the anthropogenicity of climate change are too shaky to be respected in any other scientific discipline but climatology, or perhaps some of the social sciences.

      IPCC’s methods are so dishonest and so shoddy that they’d do the climate change community a huge favor by simply disbanding and leaving science to real scientists.

  • Florida Jim

    Global cooling, global warming, climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth” whatever iteration they ar now using it is all a redistribution scam to enrich those like Al Gore and Geroge Soros who are both not “flat earthers” but “one- world-society” frauds. There is never enough money for progressives so they scheme in faculty lounges worldwide to come up with nonsense like ” global warming” Read any of Chris Horner’s books, view many videos like John coleman’s or Prof. Joel Roger’s where he outs the scam. These fools waste our time trying to take our monies to give to “more deserving nations” all after they take their handfuls. Think Africa charity times a million that is the scam wake up and vote these fools out.
    Look at whom benefits and awaken.

    • legal eagle

      You mean John Coleman the senile old weatherman? That’s your source?

      • Drew Page

        You called John Coleman a senile old weatherman.
        Are you not satisfied with being a ‘legal eagle’? Do you now pretend to be a geriatric physician as well as a climatologist?
        You once again demonstrate quite clearly that you don’t know what you are talking about.

        • legal eagle

          I watch John Coleman do the weather every night…He’s an old fool with an opinion….

        • Vance P. Frickey

          Yeah, he’s been fattening his resume a bit the last week… psychiatry, gerontology, he just diagnoses and diagnoses with nary a shingle or diploma in medicine to his name. Wonder what sort of qualifications you need to diagnose “overweening arrogance.”

          • legal eagle

            “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows”
            Bob Dylan

  • EdWalton

    Normal barometric pressure 14.7 psi
    Square inches per square mile 4,014,489,600
    Atmospheric mass per square mile 29.5 million tons
    Earth’s Total Surface Area 196,935,000 square miles
    Earth’s Total Atmospheric Mass 5,809,582,500,000,000 tons

    31 billion tons of man made greenhouse gases = 0.000005336% of
    the total Earth’s Atmospheric Mass
    We do need to be a good steward with what we’ve been given, but global-warmest arguments are bogus, we couldn’t raise the atmosphere’s CO2 by 1% in one thousand years.

    • nickshaw

      Excellent, Ed!
      I’m going to check your math but, as it stands, I copied your comment and intend to use it!!

    • Ron F

      How can you make the calculation without including what percentage of the the Earth’s Total Atmospheric Mass is CO2? CO2 is 0.0397% of dry air. To increase it by 1%, you would only have to increase it to 0.040097%

  • CharlieFromMass

    I can’t help but wonder if it’s all the greenie goblins spewing hot air that’s causing most of the global warming nowadays….

  • happel

    Fine points, Bernie. One thing that is readily obvious to anyone that has access to a functioning brain and the ability to do math and use logic – the facts are the rate of population growth will exceed the rate of natural resource growth for food & energy FAR sooner than the alleged warming problem. There are more climatologists that have backtracked on their original positions from 2 decades ago, so one thing is for certain; don’t bother a brainless Democrat with a pen about the facts, rhetoric is a far better campaign tactic and that is what this fellow does best, get on a podium, read from his teleprompter spew nonsense and promises and further indoctrinate the deluded masses. Meanwhile in RealityTown, I will worry more about having enough energy, water & food in 50 years, than something not nearly as catastrophic as Kerry or Obama or Gore will tell you about climate.

  • Tim Ned

    They say my home state of Minnesota will get warmer from climate change. So what is the downside to climate change?

    • Chuck_Borealis

      Yes, they call it ‘spring’.

  • Will Swoboda

    Years ago, Rush Limbaugh said that the commies turned into watermelons! Green on the outside but red on the inside.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    Climate change is what WE SAY IT IS!-Al Gore and John Kerry #Funny #ICallItWeather

  • Will Swoboda

    I think that the powers that be in his day, Galileo were going to execute him because he said that the earth revolves around the sun not the other way around. Old Galileo was right. He may be right but I’m profoundly saddened to find out the earth is not flat.

  • nnw59

    The Earth isn’t flat? Who knew?

  • TransplantedTexan

    With apologies to and to paraphrase Pete Seeger: “Where have all the Commies gone, gone to global warming alarmists everyone.” The Global Warming hysteria (funded by government research money) is simply one more effort to exercise control over people and limit their individual freedom.

    • legal eagle

      Talk about someone lost in the 1950′s…..you’re right at home with the Bernie Goldberg cult members..

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Says the guy who said just last week that he wishes we were back in he 1960s. lol.

        • legal eagle

          My comment was meant to be filed under the term “sarcasm”….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It sure as hell wasn’t. Nice try though.

      • TransplantedTexan

        True, Pete Seeger wrote the song in 1955; however it was not released by him until 1962. It went on to be one of the most popular anti-war songs of the Vietnam era and was sung by many famous singers and groups; such as Peter, Paul and Mary. In 2010 the NEW STATESMAN listed “Where Have All of the Flowers Gone?” as one of the top 20 political songs of all time. Many consider it as relevant today, in the Iraq/Afghanistan era, as it was in the 1960′s. If your comment about being stuck in the 1950′s means that it is OK to be educated and literate; and recognize historical precedents to things occurring today, I plead guilty. If you meant something else; I’m sorry,your ignorance is showing.

        • legal eagle

          I’m familiar with the song…I never heard the “commie” reference in any version I’ve ever heard…If it’s in Seeger’s original, my apologies.

    • Vance P. Frickey

      Of course it is. Obama’s “achievement,” when all is said and done, has been to turn Americans against each other more than they have ever been, and to hem them in with reams of regulations for which they can be arbitrarily jailed, should it become expedient.

      He can’t claim exclusive credit for that, of course – the fingerprints of almost the entire Congress, both parties, were on the PATRIOT Act. But Obama has been busy making it effectively illegal for more than a rich few Americans to heat their homes with wood… to cite one recent “consent decree” allowing the EPA to do what it wanted to do anyway.

      The Koch brothers’ money might be better spent financing amicus briefs contesting seven state attorneys-generals right to impose restrictive regulations which might cause the loss of some Americans’ lives to hypothermia in an emergency. Certainly, such a dim-witted rule would never have passed Congress.

  • sjangers

    Man’s impact on climate change may very well be something that should concern us deeply. The problem is that the left and environmental extremists have been crying “the sky is falling” for so long now that many of us are tuning their message out.

    When I was in school about forty years ago, we heard horror stories about how we would run out of oil by 2000, rising ocean levels would flood our coastal cities not long after that, nuclear catastrophes would depopulate entire regions, overpopulation would overwhelm the world’s food supply and lead to famine and starvation everywhere (so perhaps the nuclear catastrophes weren’t all such bad news), and soon our dangerous behaviors would destroy the earth! I think they meant it literally. The evidence to support their dire predictions, in retrospect, seems a bit underwhelming.

    By overselling their message so recklessly, the Save the Earth crowd forfeited much of their credibility. But apparently they’re still at it. Climate change is the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, indeed! Followed closely by John Kerry’s huge idiot mouth.

    • nepakandy

      I agree about tuning out. I thought it was idiotic when Pres. Bush declared “War on Terrorism” – how do you win that with most of the world hating us. Now we’ve got a “war” on women. And climate change is weapons of mass destruction?? It’s MOTHER NATURE! Aarrgghhh.

    • Sheila Warner

      50 years ago, when I was a child, the prediction was of a coming ice age. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The climate changes. And? It’s been changing since before man walked the earth. It gets cold and then it gets hot, and then it gets cold again. According to John Kerry, I suppose we should all be grateful that we’re even alive. Is he the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Science?

      • legal eagle

        When storms like Sandy hit the east coast there should be concern…Coming up with solutions are far more difficult than recognizing the problem…

        • nickshaw

          The solution is, don’t live near an ocean where storms are generally more intense.
          Don’t try to nit pick that statement either. I just don’t feel like wasting too much time on a putz such as yourself.
          The solution is NOT a carbon tax!
          CO2 has nothing to do with storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, wild fires or anything else you want to bring up.
          Climate changes. Deal with the changes but, there is no blame to be laid at anyone’s feet.
          And that is exactly what you and your feeble minded brethren are trying to do. Blame someone.
          Of course that’s what you always do.
          Progressives, righting wrongs by wronging someone else!

          • legal eagle

            That’s Mr. Putz to you…Climate change is analogous to a treatable disease…just because there is no cure doesn’t mean one shouldn’t treat the problem..
            Solving problems is what politicians are elected to do…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I think it’s cute that you think the administration even has the capacity to “treat” the problem. lol.

            It’s about pacifying the environmental left by throwing them some treats, not saving the planet

          • legal eagle

            Is there an environmental right?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Yes, they’re environmentally conscious people who don’t subscribe to global warming alarmism.

          • Tim Ned

            Read the book “Hard Green”. You bet there are logical approaches to energy to the illogical approaches of your side. The problem is you are a member of the Malthusian society. We are realists and technologists.

          • legal eagle

            Who are the “we” you are referring to?

          • tim ned

            Conservative environmentalist.

  • veeper

    a pea brain in a freakishly humongous head…..

  • Dan Pangburn

    Discover the
    cause of the warming, the end of it, why temperatures are headed down and what
    to expect.

    The two primary
    drivers of average global temperatures explain the reported up and down
    measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and provide credible estimates
    back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    CO2 change is NOT
    one of the drivers.

    The drivers are given at

    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

    which includes
    eye opening graphs of the past, what to expect, and a plethora of links and
    sub-links to the credible data sources that were used.

  • Walt

    I’m more inclined to believe that these airline services who fly thousands of flights daily are responsible for their share of depletion of the ozone and air qualitly in the world. It never gets talked about because it’s the very same people who complain about global warming who use airline service the most. It’s nothing but hypocrisy in my book…

    • kayakbob

      Hi Walt, the late author and anthropologist Michael Crichton participated in a “Global Warming is Not a Crisis” debate sometime in 2007 or 2008. (I’m not sure.). But Crichton took the “Not a Crisis” side. His argument was really less about GW and mans involvement, and more about focus on “real and immediate problems”, like global poverty, which in his experience is a better use of our time, mental energy (i.e. hand wringing) and money, than global warming. But, to your point, one of his points was yours here – jets…specifically private jets.

      My paraphrase of his comment: if you [believers of GW] really want people to reduce their carbon footprint, take the lead and stop traveling by private jet because you added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere getting to this debate than this audience will add all year.

      Crichton, not exactly a right-winger, made several other speeches and lectures on what he termed GW hype. He gave a lecture in 2003 titled, “Environmentalism as Religion”. The anthropologist in him said that we (human beings) are hardwired for some form of “religion”. He wondered if that was why a significant percentage of environmentalist are atheist – significantly higher % than the general population of the USA. (I thought that was ironic because Crichton claimed to be “Deist”, which some people describe as a close cousin to Atheism.)

  • Shane

    Good article! Obama and his EPA have made requirements for new coal power plants so stringent that the plants cannot be build to those specifications. Obama is a tyrant using all departments of the federal government to push his left wing agenda.

  • Seven

    What puzzles me about your article Mr. Goldberg is the fact that a while back you stated on TV that you believed that the earth ( through some kind of scientific settled proof) is 4.5 billion years old. Now, how do you pick and choose which theory or lack of to believe? By a flip of a coin or with your billfold.

  • Sheila Warner

    I thought the job of the Secretary of State was to represent America’s interests abroad. I never knew that it included science lessons.

    • legal eagle

      It’s in America’s interest for China to cut down on CO2 and pollution of the planet…

      • Tim Ned

        China is a world leader in building clean new energy sources in a logical way to meet their energy needs. Including Nuclear, Clean Gas and Coal, Wind, and Water. They are actually permitting these new clean energy powered plants to be built. They don’t have the left wing nuts (or they could care less about them) like us that stop us with any plan based upon fuel, coal, and nuclear. Ten years from now they can put it in Kerry’s face. They will be the technology leaders, not us because your left wing nut cases won’t let our technologies evolve. You think the government through it’s subsidies and laws is going to invent “Magic Fuel” to meet our power needs. Just like you think this “Magic Fuel” will change the climate.

        • Sheila Warner

          Here’s what I found regarding China’s big, bold initiative to be a renewable technology “giant”.

          http://theenergycollective.com/billchameides/274411/climate-change-china-puts-kibosh-new-coal-plants

          Some of what China said is a maybe that it will come to pass. Also, the announced steps will not change the fact that China’s carbon emissions will still go up. The good news touted in this bid by China to move away from coal is only that, at least some improvement will occur. Hardly a reason to jump on the China bandwagon at this point in time. When the thick orange haze is eliminated, and the rivers don’t have industrial waste floating on them, then I’ll believe China gives a d@mn about pollution.

          • nickshaw

            Pollution and CO2 are two different animals.
            I agree pollution needs to be addressed but, CO2 is not a pollutant,

          • Tim Ned

            My point is that China does not have the regulatory restrictions or a left wing stopping every “Smart” energy initiative. Including cleaner coal, gas and nuclear. They will own the energy market in the future unless we vote out our politicians pushing ridiculous energy programs that have absolutely no chance of succeeding.

      • Sheila Warner

        And, India, too. Did you see the news report (I think it was CBS) that showed how pollution from China reaches the West Coast, and that it contributes to the smog in LA? But, fat chance getting China or India to stop polluting the planet. I don’t think we can control changing climates, but we sure as h3ll can control pollution. I’m all for the Clean Air Act and the government stepping in to protect us from uncaring polluters. My sister sent me a link to an article on the terrible pollution in parts of TX. It was a report partly sponsored by the Weather Channel. The corruption of politics by the oil and gas industry in TX is nauseating. My husband and I used to talk about moving to TX because he could easily find a job there, and taxes are lower. After reading this article, I think I’ll stay away from TX. If you’re interested, I’ll be glad to send you the link. Warning: it will make your head explode.

      • nickshaw

        CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It does not have to be regulated. The earth and it’s plants will look after any that we put into the atmosphere.
        Should there be a few ppm extra from man’s endeavors it will make not on whit of difference.

  • Josh

    Politicians on the left have only been able to build this mainstream following due to the fact that many politicians on the right have the scientific understanding of coma patients. It might sound harsh, but it’s tough to win younger people over if your “side” has people raising their hands to signal they don’t believe in evolution. Many people see this and, unfortunately, buy the left’s snake oil by default.

    But the left is inundated with bunk science and mysticism passing as science. They’re not the party of science; liberals are as hit-or-miss on good science as anyone else. Who are those healing crystal people voting for? Who thinks Fukushima has ruined the world? Who holds tree branches and cries through pain transference?

    These are primarily the people who buy everything “climate change” hook, line and sinker. So don’t worry about it too much. It’s just another issue that has polarized America.

    My piddly advice, for what it’s worth: Don’t choose a side. Don’t be one of those guys shouting that the seas are rising and we must tax and spend. Don’t be one of those guys shouting that cold days mean “global warming” is a hoax. Don’t pick a side and you don’t have to worry about it. Don’t go to a damn political source for science!

    Go to scientific sources to view information. Start with what “global warming” actually is, what it means, and work from there.

    The Kerrys and Obamas love that this issue has become political. They win! They have the majority of young folks, an overwhelming chunk of media, and they have the high ground (until it’s covered by water?) being the planet’s self-appointed protectors.

    I’m not saying don’t fight. But maybe it shouldn’t be given the attention it’s getting. The left wants to say something? Okay. They bully people who don’t agree? Oh, the humanity! You’d think this was politics or something.

  • rbblum

    Who would have thought? ‘Climate change’ could actually mean that planet earth’s climate may not be ‘static’. . .it could become cooler. . .or warmer.

    • Shane

      The climate is always changing you moron. Those who blame every unusual weather event on “climate change” actually explain nothing.

  • wally12

    Bernie did a fair job in this article stating that Obama and Kerry believe that the science is settled and man made global warming is real. Therefore, Obama must use his pen and phone to minimize global warming and energize his base.
    Kerry is attempting to do his job by trying to convince China to agree with global warming and to agree with limits on warming. Of course,China will say they agree but they have no intention of actually following a lead by the US. They recognize that any steps by Obama will result in higher costs of energy for the US and a more competitive advantage for China through more products made in china and lower costs for China energy. That doesn’t mean China will not use green energies. Of course they will. They will use green energies where they make economic sense while Obama will attempt to force green energies by law regardless of the economic effect.
    The other reason Obama continues to push for the limits on oil and gas is that he will never admit he is wrong. He proves this in many instances. His reactions show a double down on his former statements.
    He recently showed that he can use his pen and phone by changing fossil fuel usage by enacting regulations for higher fuel efficiencies on cars and trucks. He used his pen trying to prove that regulation was settled science. His claim that fuel reductions would save the ordinary citizen $ 8000 over time. Figures lie and he who lies, figures? The clue was he stated “over time”.
    What a joke! Now I know what he meant by using his pen.

    • legal eagle

      So you oppose mandated auto fuel efficiency standards? Do you also oppose mandatory auto seat belts, air bags and bumpers?

      • Ted Crawford

        Saul? Saul? Is that you Comrade Alinsky? Non-Sequitur!

      • wally12

        I do not oppose seat belts or air bags but I do oppose auto efficiency standards. The standards will increase the cost of cars and trucks and make an auto purchase even farther out of reach of the average public. These measures can be initiated by the auto industry on a time table established by competition. This has been demonstrated in the past by the Japanese who began the process way back in the 1960′s. The free enterprise system can and will do it more efficiently than the government. Sure there was prior government standards when oil and gas was assumed to be on the verge of running out. That is not why Obama is doing this. He is doing it to placate his base and environmentalists that he is doing something that saves the earth from those nasty global warming oil burning people and oil companies. If he succeeds the cost of ownership will increase even more. Tell me do you own an auto and if so what kind and what model and year do you own?

        • legal eagle

          Can you explain why you don’t oppose seat belts or air bags? The auto industry opposed both of them for years…

        • legal eagle

          I own a Jeep Cherokee Laredo…Why do you want to know?

          • Sheila Warner

            I bought a Subaru Legacy new in 1995. Last year I bought a 2007 Subaru Forester, because sixteen years of a remarkably reliable car made me a Subaru fan. Am I unpatriotic for not buying American? Do you think I am somehow proving a point about overseas competition? What year is your Jeep? My husband had an old Jeep Wagoneer, then got an old Jeep pick up. He doesn’t like the newer Jeeps. He said he’d love to be able to have another Wagoneer, but they don’t make them anymore. Do you like your Laredo?

          • legal eagle

            I’ve driven Laredo’s since 1993… I’m so used to looking down at other cars that I can’t break the habit…I think they are great and so does my wife because she’s constantly using it instead of her own car…

          • wally12

            It is interesting how we talk of protecting the air we breath and the actual actions we take. For instance,Legal Eagle owns a Jeep and Sheila owns a Subaru. I bought a hybrid in 2007. Why would each of you purchase a vehicle that gets relatively poor mileage with relatively high pollution while I purchased a hybrid with very good mileage and relatively less pollution? Is the purchase of your vehicle inconsistent with your view of protecting the environment?
            I purchased a hybrid at the time that I owned a pick up truck which was getting costly to operate as gas prices reached $4 per gallon. The decision was one of economics coupled with government incentive, gas saving, a ignorant assumption that gas was truly getting scarce, no longer a need for a pick up and a curiosity about hybrids.
            Also I’ll state something about myself and my opinion of regulations and agencies. I was the environmental engineer for a manufacturing corporation and saw many positives about the enactment of the EPA and the positive results from the Hazardous waste and the air pollution regulations. I also saw some costly and ineffective rules from the EPA that were designed to protect the environment and public health.
            On the positive side, our company was ignorant of protecting the environment in that our waste products from manufacturing were sent to a local landfill. This was typical of many manufacturers, municipalities and the general public. After hazardous waste regulations,
            we became more aware and instituted programs to meet the law.
            On the negative side, some of the rulings by the EPA have a questionable benefit. Our company purchased adjacent land that 20 years previously was an old city landfill. The water for the city was found to contain hazardous chemicals and an investigation showed that the old land fill was a contributing cause. Our company was found to be half responsible since the land now belonged to the company. The solution from the EPA included two installations. A gas extraction system was built to vacuum gas from the old land fill and run the hazardous gases through a carbon filter. The second system was to install a water extraction well to draw water from the well and to run this water over rip-rap (rocks) to allow the release of gases into the atmosphere and to prevent the contaminated flow into the city water wells which were located within a few blocks of our well. The gas extraction system did its job and was allowed to be dismantled. The water well was continued. This well pumped approximately 1200 gallons per minute of water to the river.
            The problem with the EPA solution wasn’t well thought out since the city was also required to use air strippers that removed solvents from their water before further treatment for potable water. Thus the EPA ruling wasted Our company’s capital plus valuable water and electrical energy that was going to the city system for treatment anyway.
            Thus, the EPA is not using science plus economy considerations in the rules they enact.
            The EPA recent ruling that CO2 is a hazardous air pollutant and have directed their solution toward segments of the economy that harm our economy. They like many have bought into the CO2 cause of global warming. That science is not settled but that doesn’t stop them since they have the power and have the President’s blessing and encouragement.

          • legal eagle

            You belong to the “if Obama’s for it, I’m against it” club…It’s argument for argument’s sake similar to opposing counsel in litigation…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            And you belong to the “if you’re against Obama, you’re a racist” club.

          • wally12

            Tell me how much of what Obama says do you believe? Did he lie about Benghazi? How about the ACA? Did he lie to the public? What about Fast and Furious? He stated his administration would be the most transparent. Then why doesn’t he releases all the information on Fast and Furious? I have plenty of reasons to distrust anything and almost everything he says and does.I believe he is the master of stating he is for a particular item and yet his actions show the complete opposite. So tell me how much of what Obama says and does do you believe?

          • legal eagle

            Answer this for me…Tell me a President or any politician who hasn’t “lied”. Tell me any person you know who hasn’t lied..
            Did you vote for Obama? Why not? You didn’t vote for him but you can’t say why, other than he is a Democrat, so you have to come up with an excuse which is “he’s a liar”…Grow up…Do you trust your family? Bet they’ve lied to you…Call them liars and I bet they either laugh at you or tell you to get a life.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Answer this for me…Tell me a President or any politician who hasn’t “lied”. Tell me any person you know who hasn’t lied..

            Is it really your argument that someone who routinely lies is not liar because other people lie too? lol.

            >>Did you vote for Obama? Why not? You didn’t vote for him but you can’t say why, other than he is a Democrat,

            Why would ANY conservative vote for someone as liberal as Obama?

          • wally12

            Who lies? All politicians lie. The difference is that Obama is the grand master in both the number and sign of the lies. He is a master at telling something such as my administration will be the most transparent plus I will go through every bill line by line. Yet his actions show just the opposite. He refused to release the information on Fast and Furious and Benghazi. He didn’t read the ACA prior to signing the bill. Is that enough for you or are you to continue to support everything Obama does?
            Did I vote for Obama? No. Well why not? I didn’t vote for him because I saw samples of what his intentions where. One, he showed his colors in that he wasn’t forthcoming about past. As soon as his minister, Rev. Wright was found to be questionable, Obama threw under the bus. His past record as an Illinois legislator where he voted present. When he did succeed as President, my first thought was maybe it is good for the country that a black becomes president. Boy, was I wrong on that since Obama has shown to be ten times worst than J. Carter.
            I am not sure how my mother and father voted. I suspect they voted for democrats since the one comment I remember is that they blamed Hover for the depression. One the other hand, I remember how my father stated that the WPA was useless since many of the make work projects by FDR caused more damage to the environment than good.
            Do I trust my family? Of course. They also trust me. There is mutual respect and do not call names as some democrats do. Besides, some of my family are liberal. I do believe that they will change their minds as they mature and realize what folly they have followed. After all, W. Churchill stated that if you are not a liberal when you are young,you have no heart and if you are not a conservative by the time you are old, you have no brain. How old are you ? Is there still hope for you?

          • legal eagle

            What does the term “settled science” mean? That every “scientist” has to agree in order to act upon it? What policy are you referring to when you state that EPA policy on CO2 is harming our economy? Can you be specific or is your argument simply ideological?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>What does the term “settled science” mean? That every “scientist” has to agree in order to act upon it?

            What does it mean to you? That President Obama says it’s real – despite all of the scientific predictions proving to be wrong – and that’s good enough for you?

          • wally12

            Settled science is never settled. Science is a building block system where the true science is added to by others to advance knowledge. Unsettled means that there is sufficient doubt in the science that hasn’t shown to be accurate and that further progress can not be made on the subject until more evidence has been presented, reviewed and shown in real life presentations to validate the science. Remember that it took 20 (?) years for Einstein’s calculations that gravity bends light to be accepted by his peer group. They didn’t find a math problem. They wanted physical proof. They were from Mo.. A photograph of an eclipse of the sun proved Einstein correct.
            CO2 has not been shown to be the driving force of AGW. Period! The EPA policy of attempting to regulate CO2 harms the economy by forcing higher cost energies to ones that reduce CO2. Their actions result in making US products less competitive to foreign products.

          • legal eagle

            So it’s your position that the EPA should not regulate CO2 at all including power plant and auto emissions?
            U.S. wages are not competitive with Asia or China wages. Should the U.S. have lower wages to be competitive?

          • wally12

            That is correct. The EPA should not regulate CO2 emissions on power plants and autos. CO2 is not a pollutant.
            Lower wages for US workers? Of course not. Why would anyone in their right mind lower wages? That means less competitive. You know that so why did you ask? If the US wants to compete it must reduce the cost of their products by reducing in other areas. These include excessive regulations ,tax reductions for companies, automation, and energy cost reductions. The best place to start is to make energy costs in the US the lowest in the world and that means making the country energy independent. That means that if the green energies can compete with existing, then I’m all for it. Lower energy prices means more money in everyone’s pocket. It is a stimulus that keeps on giving. It helps the poor proportionally more than every segment. It helps all segments of the economy including the government.

            Best of all, it can be attained by the use of private funding and the free market with no government/tax payer funding.

          • legal eagle

            I guess we’ll agree to disagree…CO2 may not be a pollutant but from everything I have read it contributes to changes in temperatures…All regulation is excessive if it affects your businesses. In my experience, all litigation is frivolous, unless you are the plaintiff….LOL

          • wally12

            You are correct we will not agree until more evidence proves one side is correct. You also can believe CO2 contributes to temperature. I realize it appears that way. They both rise and fall so one can conclude that if CO2 increases then temperature will follow since CO2 is a green house gas. I don’t pretend that I am expert on the subject. Like you my reading has convince me that CO2 is not the driver of temperature increases. Instead I believe temperature is the driver of CO2. My belief is that CO2 at only 400 ppm is only .0004% of the atmosphere and isn’t in significant quantity to be predominate as the driver. Past history of the rise and fall of temperature and CO2 showed that the cycle reverses at some point in time. Does it do so due to reaching some equilibrium of some various factors, is the sun and solar changes responsible or is it a combination of all things? If the cycle repeats as it has for million of years, there is a 95% chance it will happen again. I used 95% because that is what IPPC has used lately. Some say that cooling to glacier conditions will happen in 50,000 years. Thus, will the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere result in higher temperatures until that date? Will the increase in CO2 result in speeding up the glacier cycle? What ever the truth is, the earth will increase in temperature and the sea levels will rise just as it has done before. In the past when oceans rose, humans realized they had a choice. Either they could adapt and attempt to become fish or they could move away from the coastal areas. Of course they chose to move. It appears that present day man thinks he can change the direction of temperature rise and lower the seas by changing their carbon footprint. I don’t believe they will succeed. My opinion is to continue to encourage and review every study in order to advance the science. That means to collaborate rather that fight opposing views because that is the best and quickest way to getting to the truth. What every we do keep the government out of it since it is a scientific solution and government will screw it up with taxes etc. that will have no affect on the out come.

          • legal eagle

            So the dilemma is not whether the patient is ill, but rather whether they should take any drugs? And if no treatment is given will the illness pass?
            One can argue either side….doing nothing seems to be the least favorable option..

          • wally12

            Where did I suggest doing nothing? I assume you mean the government’s involvement. I stated that stimulus by the private sector would be more effective than governmental in terms of spending money. The governments involvement needs to be deregulation of impeding of the free market. That is a sure path toward getting out of this recession. Both of those actions are doing something that results in success.

          • legal eagle

            So you are saying that free market solutions of environmental problems is the answer? Does that include regulation of air and water quality? How about FDA regulation? Does that fall into the same category…Are you speaking theoretically or practically?

          • wally12

            Why do you insist on adding more questions that only lead to more questions about other issues. This appears to be a tactic of lawyers who think that if the debate is continued forever, the defendant will ultimately give.
            If you have read many of my past comments regarding the EPA, you would know that I was the environmental engineer for a large corporation. I was active from the start of hazardous waste laws including air and water pollution. I am one who admits the EPA did some important regulations in those areas. However, the current EPA does resemble those days in terms of their power grab and faulty decisions regarding CO2.

          • legal eagle

            I’d like to hear solutions not identification of problems…You keep mentioning over regulation…What do you believe the EPA is over regulating?

          • wally12

            Where do you say I suggest that doing nothing? If you mean that the government should do nothing, it is correct from the standpoint of allowing the private segment to do what it does best. That means the government does something by reducing restrictive regulations or regulating that promotes the free enterprise system. Allow the free enterprise system to drill on federal and offshore toward the goal of lower fuel prices and more government revenues plus jobs. That would mean private funds would finance the stimulus of the economy rather than tax payer/government financing. That would not be doing nothing.

          • legal eagle

            That’s your suggestion for climate change? Drill more on public land? That’s the best you can come up with? You’re giving me vague generalities about private v. govt. investment…
            Are you suggesting that domestic production will lower fuel prices? Can you cite any study to support that myth?

          • wally12

            Go back and read my previous comments on making the US the low cost producer in the world and get back to me. I am through spoon feeding you.

          • legal eagle

            As usual no solutions only identification of “problems”. Same as all the other whiners on this site…Lets see what happens when they start fracking in your backyard?

          • wally12

            Your comment proves you didn’t read my comments as I suggested. Instead your comeback was the recycled one. If they start franking in my back yard, I will welcome it and take a well deserved vacation.

          • legal eagle

            The CEO of Exxon, a major proponent of fracking, has joined in a lawsuit to prohibit a fracking operation near his home……..

          • legal eagle

            and this has to do with a discussion of the EPA? Hard for me to keep up with the changing subjects..

        • Sheila Warner

          So, a modicum of government interference in car manufacturing is okay, like mandatory air bags and seat belts, but it’s government overreach to mandate fuel efficiency standards. Wouldn’t competition have made the car manufacturers include seat belts and air bags, too? And, didn’t they add to the cost of the cars at the time they were initiated?

          I remember that many people traded in their gas guzzlers when the oil embargo dried up gasoline availability in the 70s. You could only get gas on an odd/even day of the week schedule, and you were limited to $5 per visit. Long lines wrapped around the streets while people waited for their drops of gas.

          Fast forward to the good days, when gas became plentiful and people started getting gas guzzlers again. And boy, did people ever start driving, adding more pollution to the air.

          The car manufacturers will build and sell what the people want, even if the product adds to pollution. The cafe standards are necessary to protect the air we breathe. I know the strict California standards lessened the amount of smog.

          I remember acid rain. I remember rivers so polluted that they caught on fire. I remember Love Canal. We need the government to step in and protect us from people who only want to make a lot of money in spite of what their actions do to our air and water.

          • wally12

            Please see my comments to Legal Eagle on his owning a jeep and you owning a Subaru. I hope that will meet your approval. Its a day or so old.

  • The Hankster

    Shortly after Al Gore wanted everyone to believe that global warming was the next big thing, I remember reading an article by the author of FUTURE SHOCK. He admitted, like you, Bernie, that he wasn’t a scientist either. However, like most of us then (and probably now), he believed that the whole issue was yet another scare tactic politically motivated and designed to make money… What else is new?!

    To support his suspicions, he went to the Internet and found that there were approximately 975+ books/articles on global warming. When he checked for ‘the coming ice age,’ he found approximately 1,100 books/articles. Obviously, the evidence was as clear then as it is now – “The more things change (climate), the more they remain the same!” We have much bigger issues to solve…

  • nickshaw

    You have noticed, haven’t you, Bernie, that whenever Skeeter comes up with a “new cause” it is one that appeals to or has the attention of a small minority of the American public?
    One has to wonder, are there really any big issues that he could tackle that would have the majority with him?
    I don’t think so.
    He is a community organizer and not a very good one at that. He may have big ideas. He may think he can change America by the force of his will and charm but, he cannot.
    The American public may be ignorant but, they are not stupid.
    A community organizer may have some luck with a small group of ignorant people, true but, Skeeter is outclassed on the grander stage. Too many, including liberals (in the classic sense) see through him.
    Our problem is, who on our side is a suitable replacement?

    • legal eagle

      Looks like those “ignorant people” have elected Obama twice….Maybe that’s why Republicans feel they have to restrict the right to vote?

      • nickshaw

        Take a hike.
        No one is trying to restrict anyone’s right to vote.

        • legal eagle

          Really??…ever hear of Voter ID, ever hear of restricting early voting, ever hear of restricting mail in ballots?

          • nickshaw

            Blow me.

          • Cold Fish

            what’s wrong with voter ID?

          • nickshaw

            There is nothing wrong with voter ID.
            It should be the law of the land that valid ID is required to vote, period.
            It is the putz I’m writing to who has the problem.

          • veeper

            it cuts down on democrat voter fraud…..

            can’t have that…now can we…..

          • legal eagle

            Nothing is wrong with voter ID …the question is what is acceptable voter ID…My 95 year old uncle doesn’t have any picture ID, he doesn’t need it and he shouldn’t have to sit at the DMV to get it…College students have ID’s but in places like South Carolina that’s not acceptable…
            Let me know if you think citizens should need an ID to pay taxes?

          • cold Fish

            Your 95 year old uncle should have had an ID from long timr ago. Even as a citizen you need an ID for everything, the most stupid thing and they ask you for an ID and if you don’t have one you are out of luck. Why then not for voting which is one of the most important thing? Do you want people that should nop vote to vote? because that is what’s going on.

          • Sheila Warner

            My 85 year old father still has his drivers license for ID. My mom no longer has a license. If the requirement is for simple ID, I don’t think you’d see such opposition. But some states are trying to pass laws for special picture voter IDs. They won’t accept student IDs, for example, which are nearly always photo IDs. Here where I live, the county clerk’s office is quite a distance for many people in my county, and public transportation is spotty at best. There is only one DMV that offers nondriver’s ID in my county. We’re talking about people who have trouble getting to the agency that will give them the photo ID. People forget that voters in rural areas can’t necessarily hop on a bus and go get the photo ID if they don’t drive. So, we’d have to have volunteers organize and transport the people to get them. That’s a lot of trouble when a simple nonphoto ID would work just as well.

          • Sheila Warner

            My 85 year old mother is in the same predicament as your uncle. She’s very frail, uses a walker, and is in constant pain from failed knee surgeries. My dad, also 85, really can’t drive anymore but he keeps his license because he needs it for ID. And, really, how many 80-90 year old people are involved in voter fraud or identity theft?

            When a person first registers to vote, at least here in NJ, he has to provide proof of residency and identity. Why can’t people just use their voter registration cards when they vote?

          • Josh

            Being in the hair-pulling “bracket” that only pays in and doesn’t get a penny back, I can say that ID is a must when paying taxes. Address, SSN, DOB, and the first year I did them online I had to photocopy my photo ID. I also have to do that with various job boards for their tax purposes.

            At 33, I can’t lie about being kinda flattered when I get carded to purchase my knockoff Evan Williams whiskey. But the liquor store gives me more hassle than registering to vote, by a long shot.

            As to what form of ID is appropriate, I’m not sure. Everyone’s situation may be a bit different. But I do know that voting in America is something that’s supposed to be held to the highest possible standards. That it’s easier to vote in some places than nearly every other thing you’d need ID for is really very odd.

          • legal eagle

            Tell me why a senior citizen who does not drive a car or fly need a photo ID for? To buy liquor? To see the doctor? To get on the subway?
            The answer is they don’t…And you don’t need an ID to pay taxes, or to work, or to apply for Social Security or Medicare…
            Many poor people and senior citizens do not have photo ID which is exactly the people Republicans are attempting to prevent from voting….

          • Josh

            You present your reply as if I’m saying those old folks better get themselves a photo ID, and right soon! I’m not sure how much clearer I could be by writing “I’m not sure,” but I can’t provide troll food and expect not to get bit. That’s on me.

            Though this does strike me as kinda odd. In any other discussion, I thought old people were all the Republicans had. Now they don’t want them to vote? Who’s going to tick R if not old folks?

            Sexist. Racist. Now add ageist.

          • legal eagle

            I think you feel victimized……get over it…Perhaps if you drank the real stuff instead of the knockoff Evan Williams you’d feel better….LOL

          • Josh

            Yeah. Playing the victim is my calling card here on Bernie’s site. I’m a whiner at heart.

            I see many folks here have a rather low opinion of you, and while I won’t jump aboard that particular train, I will say that you’re the non-question-answeringest fool I ever did meet. Full to the brim with accusations and diversions. Empty on much all else.

            But, I guess that’s what makes me a whiner.

            Like: “Hey, the sun will still be burning tomorrow.”

            “OMG, get over it, victim! Stop whining about the sun!”

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            So you’re not against a voter ID. You just don’t want a PHOTO ID? Talk about a scam. lol.

            Validating that people are who they say they are before they cast a vote is about as commonsense as anything I’ve ever heard. And it’s comical to listen to liberals use the “poor” angle when the states trying to enforce voter IDs laws are providing the IDs at no cost.

          • legal eagle

            No cost if you can get to the DMV and sit around for an hour or two….Those poor SOB’s …
            The esteemed founding fathers didn’t even think they should be allowed to vote…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Why would they go to the DMV? It’s not a driver’s license. It’s a voter ID card.

            Have you actually bothered to Google any of this to learn how it works? I realize that’s a rhetorical question.

            By the way, I love it when liberals take shots at government bureaucracies like the DMV while arguing to put the same people in charge of our healthcare. lol.

          • legal eagle

            Tell your wife to blow you…she’ll have a good laugh…

        • legal eagle

          Not in your “ignorance is bliss” world….Stay ignorant…

      • Integrity

        They are not ignorant people. They are morans. QED

        • legal eagle

          What’s a moran? Not nice to talk about your relatives like that..

          • Integrity

            You crack me up. To quote Bill Engvall, “Here’s your sign!” Did you read Bernie’s last column? QED

  • wally12

    Bernie did a fair job in this article in stating that Obama and Kerry b however

  • gold7406

    the administration is throwing up another obstacle to direct attention away from from a multitude of failed policies.
    I still find it amazing the animosity the left has toward conservatives. It’s like all of these people have an ax to grind against their parents or any level of authority.

    • legal eagle

      Oh for the good old 1950′s when no one had an ax to grind against their parents or any level of authority….

      • gold7406

        that type of pettiness usually went away when people matured and started raising families.once they assumed responsibility they were surprised that they turned into their parents. with today’s left, all their problems are being blamed on conservatives.
        I certainly remember, that when the draft was discontinued,that was supposed to alleviate all the problems of the left ever having to risk anything.

        • legal eagle

          The end of the draft simply made it less complicated for those with money and connections to avoid military service ala Bush and Romney…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Did you serve in the military, legal?

          • legal eagle

            No….I, and every other student I knew, did whatever we could to avoid the draft..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            So you were a draft-dodger?

          • legal eagle

            Absolutely…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Nice to see how proud you are of that. And quite telling considering you’ve critically accused others of doing the same when you haven’t a clue whether they did nor not. Self-loathing at its finest.

          • legal eagle

            I’m not a chicken hawk like Cheney, Bush or Romney, who avoided service but supported the Vietnam fiasco. Republicans, like yourself, are not even embarrassed by what they did to John Kerry in 2004

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Even if your premise were true, you’re saying that as long as you’re “anti-war”, there’s nobility in dodging the draft and letting others fight for our country in your place? Keeping telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

            This does explain why you have such little regard for our troops.

            And what “happened” to John Kerry that should embarrass me? Outsider groups held him accountable for his anti-war rhetoric. Are you embarrassed that Obama’s superPAC essentially accused Mitt Romney of murdering a woman?

          • legal eagle

            I’m not sure about nobility but standing against the Vietnam War was a moral decision which millions of my generation shared….Screw LBJ and Nixon…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            And you find moral vindication in knowing that others went to war to fight in your place?

            If “everyone else did it” helps you justify the your action to yourself, so be it… but to actually take pride from that action is something I think most people would have a really hard time wrapping their heads around.

          • legal eagle

            No one went to war “in my place”….That’s a nonsensical statement. No one took Ali’s place, Mitt Romney’s place, George Bush’s place or Dick Cheney’s place either..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Seriously? Are you not familiar with what a draft is?

          • legal eagle

            I’m very familiar with what it is.. Doesn’t mean everyone gets drafted….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            No duh. It means that a certain number of people are required to meet a quota by the military. And when draft dodgers weasel their way out of the pool, someone else’s number gets drawn.

            It frightens me that you don’t seem to have actually thought about this before.

          • legal eagle

            So who took Mitt Romney’s place?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Where’s your proof that he dodged the draft? You outright admit it, and are proud of it. That’s why I’m asking you to explain yourself.

          • legal eagle

            Romney got a 4-D for going on a Mormon mission to France….The 4-D status which was reserved for divinity students was a “special” circumstance arranged in Utah by the Mormon church….Romney was not a divinity student as the Mormon’s have no clergy.
            If you want to argue about whether this was “draft dodging” take it up with Mitt, a long standing member of the lucky sperm club….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            First of all: http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2013/mar/24/liberals-are-cool/liberal-group-claims-mitt-romney-dick-cheney-donal/

            Secondly, I’m taking it up with you because you proudly admit to being a draft dodger. I just want to understand where the pride comes from.

          • legal eagle

            How do you think Romney got a religious deferment? Did anyone make him apply for one? Do you think draft deferments were granted if they were not applied for? Do you think George Romney said to Mitt “I’m a supporter of the war, it’s your duty to serve”? Do you think George Bush didn’t pull strings to get his son into the Air Force Reserves?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            First of all, your premise about Bush is the same baseless accusation that lost Dan Rather his decades-long job with CBS.I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about so try Googling “Rathergate” and then get back to me.

            Secondly, your reply proves that you didn’t bother to read the article at the link I provided for you because it already answered the question you again posed. Big shocker. Try putting your mouse over that link, use your left mouse button to click on it, and them read all those words that appear on page that displays in front of you.

            Once you’ve done that, go ahead and decide if you believe that anyone who applied for a religious or educational deferment was a “draft dodger.”, especially when their draft number was so high it would have never been called in the first place.

            Lastly, why are you so adamant about not responding to the question I’m posing to you? If you’re a proud draft dodger as you claim yourself to be, why can’t you take a moment to explain to me why you were morally justified (which is what you said) in making someone else fight in your place overseas?

          • legal eagle

            I’m not making “accusations” about Bush…Dan Rather’s story was different. His story said Bush did not show up…I’m saying he got in to the reserve to avoid going to Vietnam and he got in due to his father’s influence.
            As far as what number you were no one knew at the time what numbers would be called so your argument has no relevance. There were never any announcements as to what number the SS was up to so deferments were obtained regardless of number.
            I applied for, and received, several deferments and I had a high number. I wasn’t waiting to find out if they were calling my number.
            I, like Romney and Cheney, did not have to apply for deferments. I, like Romney and Cheney, applied for deferments so I wouldn’t get drafted.
            The Vietnam War had been going on for many years before I got my final deferment. LBJ and Nixon didn’t need me or any of the guys I went to school with.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I’m saying he got in to the reserve to avoid going to Vietnam and he got in due to his father’s influence.

            Based on what evidence? Just wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.

            >>I applied for, and received, several deferments and I had a high number.

            Were your deferment requests legit? Did you put accurate information on them? If so, why would you consider yourself a draft dodger?

          • Jeff Webb

            Hate Governor Romney, President Bush, and the others if you must, but I might suggest you be a good little lad and at least stop lying about them. If you can manage that, I’ll pretend you’re an honest, objective guy who’d be just as critical if it were a democrat. Deal?

          • legal eagle

            What lies have I told about your little princes Bush and Romney…that they avoided the draft because they had rich daddies?
            Do you really think I give a crap about Bush or Romney? I point out their hypocrisy and you tell me I hate them?

          • Jeff Webb

            They did not dodge the draft–please try to keep up.

          • legal eagle

            That’s your opinion… My opinion is based upon personal experience…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Personal experience at what? Being a draft dodger? Don’t project your sense of self-loathing onto others, legal. Take responsibility for your own actions.

          • Jeff Webb

            Just because you have your own way of defining what a draft-dodger is, doesn’t mean you’ve established that someone dodged the draft. I’ve looked it up before, and I also clicked the link John posted (which you’ve unsurprisingly ignored).

            It appears your claim that you are all about facts wasn’t a factual statement.

          • legal eagle

            John’s link is a statement of opinion not fact…Perhaps you should research the political term “chicken hawk”. You’ll also find Romney , Bush and Cheney fall into that category…draft dodgers who supported the war but were too afraid to fight in it…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Yes, because calling someone a “chicken hawk” is a purely factual statement. lol.

            All you’re trying to do is rationalize your own behavior by making this irrelevant distinction. Maybe you have a guiltier conscience about this than I thought.

          • legal eagle

            “Chicken hawk” is a factual description of someone who is pro-war but refuses to serve in the military….ala Romney, Cheney etc.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Next time, just respond with something like “I don’t believe in facts,” and save yourself some typing.

          • legal eagle

            I gave you the facts.. your argument is simply ideological… You seem to have a need to defend hypocrites like Cheney, Bush and Romney…be my guest….someone has to defend the political hypocrites who lead the country into war but refuse to serve.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I gave you the facts.. your argument is simply ideological<<

            LE, your arguments are never anything BUT ideological. You couldn't care any less about facts.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            In the world of LE, there is no such thing as a lie, and no such thing as a fact. Gotta love it.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Are you serious? lol. You gave me NO facts. You’ve just been defaming people you don’t like, and then get all flustered when someone points out the flaws in your statements.

            By the way, how do defend the hypocrites who dump on Republicans for taking us to war but defend the Democrats who do?

            And I’m still waiting for your moral argument for dodging the draft (your admission) so someone else would fight in your place.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>John’s link is a statement of opinion not fact.<>Perhaps you should research the political term “chicken hawk”. You’ll also find Romney , Bush and Cheney fall into that category…draft dodgers who supported the war but were too afraid to fight in it<<

            We've gone over this. You know, it's pointless for you to keep lying about them. Even if they were chicken hawks, your being a mere chicken wouldn't make you morally superior, and you know damn well you wouldn't act like this if it were a democrat.

          • legal eagle

            Would you rather I term their actions “avoiding going to Vietnam”? That should end your nonsensical defense of Romney, Bush and Cheney..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            So this entire conversation we’ve been having suddenly has nothing to do with draft dodging? What have we been talking about then?

            This might be one of your more creative ways of bailing on a losing argument. lol.

            And how can the counter argument be “nonsensical” when you can’t even you can’t even explain what YOUR argument is anymore?

            Having a problem with your meds or something?

          • legal eagle

            I rest my case….I’m not going to keep arguing about a subject you have no clue about…If you want to differentiate between “draft dodging” and avoiding going to Vietnam be my guest… to me they were one and the same….If they are different to you…do be it..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal, you have yet to put forth an argument that makes any sense. My guess is that you did more than you’re letting on to “dodge” or “avoid” or whatever back then.

          • legal eagle

            Your guesses are about the same as your opinions…irrelevant and inconsequential…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            With no denial from you. How fascinating.

          • legal eagle

            makes perfect sense to me…”draft dodger” is not a legal term nor does it constitute violation of a law…it refers to making a choice to avoid being drafted…some did, some didn’t….

        • Sheila Warner

          “I certainly remember, that when the draft was discontinued,that was supposed to alleviate all the problems of the left ever having to risk anything.”

          Part of the reason the draft has not been reinstated is that people insist that there be no special exemptions for those in college, or politician’s children, and that women have to be drafted, too.

          As for the situation now, it is still mainly the poorer kids or less affluent middle class, who enter the military because they need the money for college when they get out. Or, there is just no decent job available for these kids.

          We continue to sacrifice the less advantaged and the young in our wars. I look at our troops, of which my nephew is one, and am saddened that they are really mostly babies. War is h3ll.

  • Brhurdle

    As a mechanical engineer, I seriously doubt AGW. I’m not denying it’s possible, but the “proof” does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. There is no such thing as “consensus science” – it is only a consensus hypothesis. If you don’t have an equation that states the relationship between varibles which can be shown to predict the future and past, it is nothing more than a curve fitting exercise. In fact, the effect of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could be a tertiary effect. When you use intimidation and attempt to disparage those who don’t agree with your hypothesis, it is an indication that you know the hypothesis is incorrect.

    • gold7406

      Excellent points. I remember back to Mt.Pinatubo in the Philippines, the volume of debris and ash tossed into the upper atmosphere was more than the pollution of this country for 50 years and within a relatively short period of time the atmosphere cleared.
      When we look at archeological digs, the former civilization is usually buried under several feet of dirt. Debris has always fallen from the sky.

    • wally12

      I agree. Maybe because I am also a mechanical engineer. Some of the data that AGW group has used reminds me of school days when knowing how to present your data was to first draw the graph and then plot your points to agree with the graph. The better the plots fit the graph, the more convincing as in the hockey stick graph.

  • Roadmaster

    My cuticles are cracking badly this winter – must be glow-bull warming….

  • JEQuidam

    Over 30,000 scientists are also part of the “flat earth society” – read their petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/

  • Not a Fool

    I am willing to turn my sword into plowshares only when my enemies do the same.
    I am willing to give up carbon energy only when all other countries do the same.

  • Seattle Sam

    That climate is changing is, in fact, “settled”. It’s ALWAYS changing. What is “unsettling” is the hubris of people like John Kerry who believe that their impotent actions can keep climate from changing.

  • gbandy

    I wonder how many Global Warming zealots realize: If we took every drop of Co2 out of the atmosphere all plant life on earth would perish as plants require Co2 to survive? Or that Co2 levels were 200 times higher just 100million years ago. Guess not many..

    • legal eagle

      What an amazingly stupid comment…..

  • patricia

    ” Mr. President: the last time a presidential administration warned us about weapons of mass destruction, there was nothing there” .Oh yes Goldberg

    • gbandy

      Hmm there sure was a lot of Kurds killed by WMD’s. Where do you think Syria got all of their WMD’s that Obama and Kerry now want destroyed????

    • Skeptic

      We remember that there was concern at the time that WMDs were moved to a neighboring country: Syria. It has not been proven that they weren’t; it has been proven that such weapons have been used.

    • Ted Crawford

      “there was nothing there” Tell that to the 5000 Kurds killed in Halajaba, in March 1988! They will be so happy to know they weren’t killed by these Non-existant WMD’s, it must have been a massive case of sewer gas! ! GET A CLUE !

    • legal eagle

      Quite an analogy….

  • gbandy

    Here is a little more pesky facts that just confound the Global Warming zealots. E15 as it is called the Volcano in Iceland erupted a few years ago and sent a cloud over all of Europe. Now in just 7 days of eruption this volcano negated all attempts of mankind to reduce pollution for the past 100 years. So perhaps Al Gore should push to outlaw volcanoes. Now point two just a mere 10k years ago all of Canada and the Northern US were covered by the Laurentide Glacier. This Glacier was over one mile thick around the Great Lakes region. Global Warming came along (without coal power plants and SUV’s) and the ice melted. This melt created the Great Lakes. My point there is nothing mankind can do to control Mother Nature as we all know there has been dozens of Ice Ages and dozens of melts. Now you know some of the real facts.

    • Roadmaster

      Not to mention some even bigger volcanic eruptions in the past, like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, Krakatoa in 1883 and Mt. Tambora in 1815 which caused such worldwide disruption of weather patterns, 1816 was known as the “year of no summer.”

      Puny man thinks HE is the cause of GW/CC? No, not puny – stupid….

  • Charlie

    Maybe a bit tangential to the main topic but I do get disturbed by the liberals who seem to prefer calling others names by maybe 10 to 1 over cons. So maybe we don’t buy into global warming. We do believe in climate change just as we believe in the extinction of dinosaurs and plate tectonics. Does that make us flat earthers?
    And when did carbon dioxide, as vital to life on earth as anything, become just carbon in this discussion. Carbon, as we know, is yucky, dirty black stuff.
    Nice move alarmists; taking from the Saul Alinsky rules.

  • rgcomega

    The largest weapon of mass destruction is a Democrat; I’ll take my chances with global warming and mother nature.

  • Tim

    The liar and chief at it again.
    I have zero respect for the man or his lying administration.
    People here need to work.
    Cheap energy helped build this country and raised the standard of living for everyone.
    I would like to see all the climate change fanatics give up their homes, their cars and their electricity.
    Go back to a simpler time where we lived in the caves.
    Then when there freezing their butts off they can decide if they want to burn that piece of would or chunk of coal.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, to the true believers, the science behind climate change is just as settled as it was settled to the true believers in the early 2000s that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, all skeptics of the Saddam-has-WMDs hypothesis notwithstanding.

    To the true believers, the Saddam-has-WMDs hypothesis was practically a religion, such was their devotion to the cause and their faith in the infallibility of experts on the subject.

    If “Saddam has WMDs” was such a no-brainer, if the issue really was “settled,” why did the president (#43) feel the need to exaggerate at best and flat out mislead the American people at worst?

    When it came to Saddam having WMDs, Republicans and conservatives at large eagerly subscribed to the majority consensus.

    When it comes to climate change, Republicans and conservatives summarily dismiss the general consensus and latch on to what a handful of skeptics say.

    So what is it that determines whether we subscribe to the majority of experts on a subject (e.g., those that tell us climate change is real and, at least in part, man-made and those that told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs) or to the minority of skeptics (e.g., those that tell us man’s role in climate change is far from settled and that told us the evidence that Saddam “had them” was somewhat inconclusive)?

    • rgcomega

      So, you’re a true believer that Bush is responsible for everything! By the way, every, and I mean every Democrat, including those on the intelligence committee, signed off of WMD based on intelligence reports of a dozen different agencies around the world at the time. When it came politically expedient to forget that and blame bush, they evoked selective memory – per usual.

    • gbandy

      Hillary, Feinstein, Kerry, and many nations also thought Saddam had WMD’s. What about them they are certainly not conservatives.

    • Ted Crawford

      With respect to Saddam’s WMD’s – Halabja, Iraq, March 16, 1988, 5000 dead 9000 seriously injured by WMD’s ! DUH Saddam clearly had them and used them!
      With respect to Climate Change
      Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Seth Chandler Milutin Milankovitch, Jd Hays, John Imbrie, NJ Shackleton: Nutations existing for at least the past 250 Million years!
      Non Grant supported Scientists, each building on the work of those before them all pointing to the same conclusion!

      • legal eagle

        and what threat was Saddam Hussein to the United States?

        • Ted Crawford

          I don’t know for sure, however, ask the families of the 9/11 victims, on 9/10/01 what threat is Mohammad Atta! Hussein was a Radical Muslim Dictator, with an Army and Trillions of dollars to spend!

          • legal eagle

            Total nonsense…Amazing how some still believe the B.S. that Iraq had something to do with 9/11…Atta was a Saudi…Iraq was a war of choice..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. After 9/11, however, our government made the decision that Saddam – a tyrant who the world believed had WMDs – could no longer be left in power and continue his sponsorship of terrorism.

            Iraq WAS a war of choice, but it wasn’t just Bush’s choice. Hillary Clinton chose to take us there too (along with John Kerry and Joe Biden), which I assume means you couldn’t possibly support her for president in 2016, right legal?

          • legal eagle

            I, and many others, did not support her in 2008 exactly because of her Iraqi War vote…If another anti-Iraq war candidate runs I’ll consider whether they are a better option than Hillary..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Don’t feed me that “consider” nonsense. We both know that you’d vote for her in 2016 in a heartbeat. You’ve been fawning over her on this website for as long as you’ve been here.

            What that tells me is the same thing all of your posts tell me. You’re a unprincipled hyper-partisan.

          • legal eagle

            As there will be no anti-war candidate running I don’t believe its an issue…My political contribution in 2008 all went to Obama instead of Hillary and her Iraq vote was the issue..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I guarantee you that there will be a Democratic primary opponent who is anti-war. Probably a few.
            But you’ll vote for Hillary in 2016 because your opposition to the Iraq war is really more of a partisan thing than anything else. No real conviction behind it.

          • Ted Crawford

            Nice try Comrade, however I made no attempt, openly or by implication to link Hussein or Iraq to 9/11!
            I simply intended to point out that it is impossible to know who is a ‘viable threat’, accurately before hand. However it is reasonable to be concerned about someone with the power, and past actions of Hussein, especially given his open hostility to America!

          • legal eagle

            I believe that “imminent” threat is the parameter to consider going to war over not a “viable” threat. Iraq was simply a war of choice.
            What “power” did Iraq have that could have made it a “viable” threat to U.S. security?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The U.S. homeland or U.S. interests abroad? That’s probably what your gal, Hillary Clinton, considered before you instantly forgave her for sending us to Iraq along with Bush.

            And out of curiosity, what “power” did Libya have that could have made it a “viable” threat to U.S. security – either against our homeland or our interests?

          • legal eagle

            Libya presented no imminent threat…That’s why the U.S. did not invade…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Ah, so it’s a full scale invasion that makes the difference. Gotcha.

          • legal eagle

            It’s ground troops that make the difference. It’s American soldiers being killed…It’s Kosovo vs. Baghdad…If you can’t tell the difference ask your kids…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            No, it’s the “D” or “R” next to the politician’s name that does. Hillary Clinton gave us the Iraq invasion along with Bush, and you’ve been singing her praises all along and will reliably vote for her in 2016.

          • legal eagle

            Only in your world of make believe and fairy tales did Hillary make the decision to invade Iraq…but rational thought is not necessary in the RWNJ world…..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Make the decision? No. Wholeheartedly supported the decision with her vote and voice? Yes.

            Bush brought the decision to congress for approval. Clinton gave it to him. And you don’t care because she’s a Democrat.

          • legal eagle

            Supporting a decision is not the same as making a decision….but you know that…You made the statement that Hillary and Bush gave us Iraq…So if Hillary had voted against the war, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq? Just pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. If your assertion is that what congress does is irrelevant, I don’t want to hear you complaining anymore about today’s Republican congress.

  • buckrodgers

    I thought the global warming nonsense ended when Al Gore came out with a inconvenient truth, I am willing to sell out the polar bears for a billion dollars, of course who should be surprised when liberals suddenly become conservatives when it affects their bottom line and that’s the genius of being a liberal, promote nonsense you don’t believe in, make a billion dollars, wait for Republicans to come to your rescue then blame them for being insensitive, look at Bill Mahr and Warren Buffet who ran around the country saying they kept spouting wanting to pay more in taxes, so is anybody on the right demanding that they fill out short forms with the IRS, which would guarantee that they pay more in taxes than their secretaries, or how about Tom Hanks, big believer in civil rights and a Obama supporter, this guy performs in a benefit show at his kids all white school, then stands idly by when a white man wearing a black face and a afro joins him on stage, or how about conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin, this guy runs around the state of Arkansa with a shotgun, telling his constituents that he is pro gun, then turns around and joins President Obama anti gun agenda, Republicans call these sideshow hypocritical , while the Democrats and their allies in the media view them as a stroke of genius, tell Americans everything they want to hear, then turn around and do the exact opposite, wait for Republicans to save the day, then blame them for being insensitive

  • David Gorton

    Bernie, I’m confused, if terrorism morhphs into climate change, and then becomes a weapon of mass destruction, does that mean Mother Nature might get “droned” because she’s part of the “War on Women”? Also, is Mother Nature a member of the Flat Earth Society?

  • Ed I

    Sadly the very worst part of this debate is that real science and Scientific Method, the formal intellectual process that separates science from other activities, have been thrown out the window. Anthropogenic global climate change is now a religion and has nothing to do with science. The advocates want the masses to believe them and bow down and just like in the middle ages want no one to question what they say. After all we were just too ignorant to really understand. Anyone, including especially any scientists that dare questions the orthodoxy is labeled a denier and heretic. Just like the Roman Catholic Church punished heretics so will the government punish any scientist that dare even questions what the latest script is saying. Appreciate that if a corporation or not for profit that can be labelled as supported by the “business community” pays for research then the research is labeled as biased and tainted. Also appreciate that the federal government controls directly or indirectly ALL climate research. Anyone daring to challenge those in charge is cut off from funding and therefore employment. They have even had editors of scientific journals removed for daring to publish letters questioning the science. Remember the Space Shuttle. I bet you thought that NASA’s budget was cut and that is why the program was ended. Nope, the money went to climate change research.

    • Bob Olden

      Great analogy! We’re not moving into a man made warm age or a man made ice age, we’re moving into a man made Middle Ages!

  • teamfrazzled

    We do not know or understand why the earth entered or left ANY previous ice age. Not one. So for anyone to pretend we know it all NOW and it is due to the existence of human beings and what is in reality a MINISCULE elevation in the level of CO2 is ignorance at best and downright deceitful and manipulative at worst. But we do know the earth has existed quite nicely at other times when we know for a fact CO2 levels were significantly higher than today and it wasn’t due to the existence of human beings. The left like to pretend human beings are such a destructive force that even Mother Nature is helpless against it. Not true -if mankind were to disappear entirely tomorrow, earth would wipe out evidence of our existence in very short order and would require some alien archeological team to dig it up. Earth has survived FAR more than puny man and will continue to do so.

    We all know the real reason the theory of global warming was changed to “cliimate change” -it’s because earth refused to cooperate with their pet theory. Surface temperatures, even using outdated methods, even by fudging and taking them only near high density populations -has not increased in the last 17 years. What to do, what to do when the stubborn facts get in the way? Change the name and insist the science is “settled”. It is called “politicizing science” and it is done ONLY by the left and ONLY when they come across a theory they think can be exploited to further their own agenda. AND NO OTHER REASON. The left glommed on to the theory of eugenics and politicized to the extreme to justify forced sterilizations in this country -and genocide in others. The Soviet Union politicized an agricultural theory about increasing production that was such a disaster it led to dangerous levels of starvation and had to turn to the US for wheat -and then kept repeatedly doing the same thing again..and again..and again. Even though it was clearly harming very real people by doing so. But it was a theory that said massive, powerful government was the far better judge in all its wisdom about what, where and how to plant crops than individuals -so it was a theory that justified confiscation of private property and putting it under government control. After all, SCIENCE said so and we all know the left insists SCIENCE is a religion and scientists are infallible gods and we must pay homage or be mocked. They refuse to acknowledge that FAITH is no part of science -only religion. Only God requires my faith. Scientists are obligated to present uncontaminated, uncorrupted, uncontested PROOF that something is scientifically true -after which it is a fact and no faith required. My BELIEF is never required by science and the proper answer to those who demand to know why I don’t BELIEVE in global warming…er…er…oh yeah, climate change……is just that. If scientists are demanding my FAITH -which is belief something is true without being provided proof it is -then it means something is WRONG. Science doesn’t work that way and demanding we treat it as a religion only throws obstacles in the way of scientific advancement. See the right is demanding MORE science -not less. The left is demanding FAITH and belief something is true without proof.

    Once the left has glommed onto a scientific theory and politicized it, they are INVESTED in it and will not willingly let it go. Unlike those who demand more evidence a theory could be true, the left will totally ignore all and any evidence their pet politicized theory is WRONG. History has repeatedly proven they will not and cannot let it go once they have politicized it. Reality and FACTS be damned -they will continue insisting this is “settled” science and not the badly flawed if not outright POS crap theory it is long after the rest of the world accepts the truth. But I can guarantee you this -if the theory of global warming concluded the best course of action to counter (what turns out to be non-existent) global warming was more free markets, the left would have gone out of their way to bury it as fast as possible. But they intend to exploit this theory for as long as possible to pull off THE most massive redistribution of wealth from those who created and earned it -to those who didn’t and massively increase the size and power of government. And NO other reason. Unlike wealth, power is a finite pie and the only way government can increase its power is to strip it from the people. It is why in spite of being repeatedly told the policies they push as part of “curing” global warming won’t do a damn thing they still demand policies that will have no effect whatsoever -except take money from those who created and earned it and giving it to those who didn’t. The left believes theft by government cleanses the act -just as they also believe democracy in action is a discussion about what’s for dinner by two lions and a sheep -and they intend to be the lions. Liars and thieves.

    • Bob Olden

      Hmmm. That’s an interesting statement that “power is a finite pie”. If government were smaller, it would actually be more powerful, in terms of the good results that could be achieved with a little leverage in the right places. Massive government is actually quite weak if you think of it in those terms. But I get what you are saying–if the little people have too much political power, the government can’t control them, so they want to hoard all the power and tell the little people to shut up and stop rocking the boat.

  • delble

    Just like ObamaCare, they will try to force this down the necks of the American people. And just like ObamaCare which has nothing at all to do with “CARE” and everything to do with controlling people and getting their money. The “Climate Change” farce will make life miserable for millions. It will do nothing to help climate. Look for every snow storm, flood, wild fire, blizzard, drouth to be blamed on “Climate Change.” This in spite of the fact that all of these natural events have been taking place since the Earth began. Despicable!

  • sand beach professor

    Right on the money Mr. Goldberg. if obama is so worried about this issue why does he not approve the keystone pipeline so using rail and trucks would not be necessary…certainly a pipeline emits less co2 than a train……….. but excuse me for attempting to use any logic in the argument,,, it only confuses them

  • Buzzeroo

    I guess I’m dating myself when I remember the kooks of yesterday blaming everything that they were against on “THE ATOMIC TESTS”. However things remained pleasant progress continued because President and Secretary of state were not part of the moronic doom and gloom prediction society of the era.Obama and Kerry are two of the most flagrant, scheming bald faced liars in all of history. You can bet the farm that if ‘climate change’ of whatever the name du jour is would benefit them politically or financially they would be all for it.

  • Nicholas344

    Stop arguing and follow Nancy pelosi’s advice. She said to “embrace the suck.” That is all you should do. anything else is racist. Get with the program.

    • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

      Nice sarcasm there! lol…

  • VermontAmerican

    With the fall of the former Soviet Union and other global setbacks, the communists all ran to the environmental movement. Look at their prescription for global warming: carbon credits, wealthier nations reimbursing less developed ones, shutdown of American industry and, thus, our self-reliance. It’s a communist’s dream since environmentalism advances the same objectives.

  • SkyCitizen

    Bernie, As a card carrying flat earth believer I prefer a quick thought experiment when dealing with the subject of climate change information conveyed by politicians. Try to imagine John Kerry as a neurosurgeon or Barack Obama as an economist or perhaps Bill Clinton as provost at a women’s college. Now think of the aforementioned politicians as climatologists Not a pretty picture in any case. So, with this in mind it’s easy to judge the credibility of politicians expounding on a discipline like climate change (formerly global warming).

  • rgcomega

    If we shut down every factory in the U.S., drove no vehicles (can’t even drive electric cars because they need electricity that comes from nuclear or coal), everyone stopped breathing, and cows stopped farting (according to the “change/warming” Mt. Olympus crowd, the all wise, all seeing), the carbon footprint, if that is indeed the culprit that is causing this “weapon” wouldn’t fit on a pinhead. Now, maybe if China, India, and Indonesia et al, and the rest of the world would do something, perhaps there is a sliver in Hell climate is affected. Of course everyone in the U.S. would all be dead from hunger, thirst, and lack of oxygen, but I’m sure the politician and rich cats who want to get richer off this stuff would all have nice houses on the Rivera…what, me worry. Problem solved. Death to America…but have a nice day!

  • paperpushermj

    Please Stop Using “Climate Change” That Title has nothing to do with the “Man Caused Global Warming” Theory.

  • Wheels55

    So, according to Kerry, cow ranchers are terrorists. The gas cows produce is worse than most anything else. Can Obama require a devise attached to the rear of cows that makes our planet safer and Al Gore sleep better?

    • Tom

      He already has. Its called a “Biden”. However, it doesn’t work very well.

      • Bob Olden

        If that’s his job description, I think the “Biden Blower” is very effective indeed. Just give it 4 more years and all this climate mess will be cleaned up.

  • J. Brokenheart

    Another good article.

  • Janice Miksad

    Yes, I’m a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society and anything else that these whack jobs support! I wonder what China and India are doing to the environment, while we are sitting in caves using candles????

  • leo smith

    The big Hoopla on Climate Change is serving one purpose. The Politicizing of the environment. The Liberals think they own it. Just like Benghazi, the IRS scandal,and now Obama wants to make the EPA the strong arm of the lawless government. Times are changing and liberals better start running.

  • HDinTPA

    If those of us who are skeptical of the Climate Change theory are “The Flat Earth Society I’d like to suggest that Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry and other true believers be labeled “The Sky Is Falling Society” as fear mongers they are.
    Furthermore, I don’t think we should let them get away with greasing the pig by changing the name of this phenom when it no longer fits their need.
    They started with “Global Warming” as the rallying cry. Make ‘em stick to it. Even in the coldest, snowiest, iciest winter in decades. Make them use their own term. Global Warming.

  • Tonethousand

    The climate change hoop-la has a secondary, ulterior motive. Which is typical considering this narrative is driven by leftist. But, I digress. As Bernie pointed out they need a boogey-man. And, that boogey-man (climate change) was created by humans, and Americans, in particular. There is an under-current of anti-Americanism in just about all the left’s messages. Start calling a spade, a spade, Bernie. This really isn’t about climate change, for the left it is really about America is a bad place that will destroy the earth to make a buck and you need US (socialist) to affect fundamental transformation to “make the world a more just and equitable place”(gag!!) Never mind that Americans have probably done more than any country on earth to combat climate change. These NWO socialists, like Kerry really do make me sick.

  • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

    I think that blaming everything on Climate Change is what liberals are left with now that blaming everything on George W. Bush has finally run its course.

    • Kevin

      Well didn’t you know that climate change is Bush’s fault?

  • Drew Page

    The Delta Smelt was more of a concern to the Obama administration than the irrigation of the San Joaquin Valley and the farms and farmers it drove out of existence. Once fertile farmland, the Valley is now a dust bowl. It didn’t matter that Governor Arnold Schwartzneger pleaded with the Dept. of the Interior and the Obama administration to keep the irrigation channel open, the decision was final. The Delta smelt was more important than the produce grown in the Valley and the farms and farmers who earned their livelihood there.
    “global warming” was the excuse needed to justify the president’s push for Cap& Trade legislation, which would have done nothing to stop pollution. Companies could continue to pollute so long as they purchased “carbon credits” which would either be sold or taxed by the government, driving the price of electricity markedly higher. As is the case with Obama Care, Cap & Trade was all about government control
    The president is getting used to governing by fiat. He is making and changing laws without the Congress. He issues executive orders and has regulatory agencies from the Dept. of Agriculture to the IRS implementing regulations with the force of law to get his way. If he says the argument is closed on “climate change/global warming” then I guess it means he won’t debate the issue. Just like he wouldn’t negotiate any Republican attempts to alter Obama Care. Only he can alter Obama Care.

  • sam santeusanio

    The science experts of the 15th century thought the earth was flat only to be proven wrong by a lowly sea captain. Climate change is what it is and humans have nothing to do with it. As you mention the world goes through these changes every few hundreds of years. And yes, long before coal.

    • brickman

      I’m not debating you on climate change because I don’t have the science background. Bernie gave as a good a 2 sentence description of my view as I have seen.

      I must , however, correct your statement about the science experts of the past thinking the earth was flat. Aristotle wrote about the earth being spherical about 330 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference in 240 BC. Isaiah 40 speaks of the circle of the earth. So does Ptolemy and Dante. No educated person in the last 2300 years thought the earth was flat. That in mind you’ll pardon me if I don’t take your scientific pronouncements as fact either.

  • hihoze

    Global Warming is Political Science and a financial fraud used to create a carbon exchange for DC’vers and insiders to make Brillions of dollars.

  • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

    This is just the “shiny object of the week” to keep us distracted and arguing about things other than Obamacare and other Obama admin failures.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I think you’re right Eric.

      • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

        If you notice, we’ve been going thru Dem talking points on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. That tells me the Dems can’t get their act together with something that will stick to their Dem voters or the indies.

      • legal eagle

        The negative nabobs are at it again….
        “Something is happening but you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?”
        Bob Dylan

        • Stimpy

          “You can keep your health plan. You can keep your doctor. Period.”
          Barry Hussein O’Bama

          • legal eagle

            Nice change of subject….

    • JMax

      And Benghazi. Don’t forget about Benghazi.

      • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

        I’m not forgetting Benghazi, Fast n Furious, etc. My point is the many non-issues that are flung about by the Dems & their cohorts to distract us from the real issues.

    • KStrett

      Good point. In the wake of the Trevon Martin ruling, the AG, Eric Holder stated the justice department was looking into pursuing federal charges against George Zimmerman. Talk radio and various Fox news shows went ballistic.

      My first thought was they are playing conservatives like a fiddle because at the time Benghazi and the IRS scandals were big issues.

      • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

        Holder said that to appease the liberal base. There have been no follow on press releases since then and I suspect because it’s a very low priority if it’s even being investigated.

        • KStrett

          That is one possibility, the other is he said it to inflame conservatives and take the attention off of the Benghazi and the IRS scandals

  • Seattle Sam

    John Kerry says that good weather and bad, drought and snow are all sure signs of climate change. How is this different from the evangelist preacher who intones that life’s ills and life’s joys are all evidence of God’s plan?

    • Patrick

      One is false, while the other is true. That’s the difference.

    • http://WestValleyGreenHomes.com/ Eric Johnson

      The preacher has the Good Book to preach from. Kerry can’t even keep his lies, er notes straight…

    • Wheels55

      If you don’t believe Obama & Kerry, you must racist (isn’t that what is next?).

  • Patrick

    What happened to “income inequality”? Guess that didn’t poll well. That and the fact that the bad guys with money can bundle and contribute to the other guy. While bad MMGW doesn’t vote.

  • JB

    Liberals (who have re-marketed themselves with the cool and hip term “progressives”) push forward their agenda with fear and the distortion of the truth. “Climate Change = WMD’s”. If the conservatives and republicans won’t re-market themselves, they will continue to lose seats in the Senate and House and the presidency. I’m afraid the media and half of the voting public portray and see them as rich white guys who only care about the wealthy Americans. And they have allowed it to happen because they haven’t figured out how to reach out and market their party and it’s agenda. All the whining and gnashing of teeth by Hannity, Limbaugh, and other conservative commentators have made little difference as no one outside of their audience knows any better. You must present your product, conservative principles, so the average American can understand how it (the product) will improve their lives.

    • stmichrick

      True, JB. Conservative candidates need to stay away from ‘talking point’ phraseology and personalities and focus on a common sense discourse about issues in order to publicly refute the propaganda of the Left.

  • Rob Stewart

    “Consensus science” is like saying “consensus math”. I beg you to find a mathematician who would entertain an alternate sum of 2 + 2 and then call for a math confab to right this terrible wrong.

  • TBuzzard

    It’s a HOAX, Bernie. It’s sole purpose is to gain control of the means of production on a world wide basis. Our own EPA has become the fourth branch of government. Furthermore, a warmer planet will produce more vegetables than a frozen one. Did you know that the “scientists” at NBC espouse the belief that “excess heat” is responsible for the recent cold spells, snow and ice, etc. How low can they go?

  • paperpushermj

    No I’m a part of ” The No Sale ” Group.

  • Ron Becker

    Quote from a NASA Scientist… “in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971#ixzz2tgvjo6wF

  • stmichrick

    Bernie; when politicians make statements about science with the certainty of Al Gore and John Kerry, you know there’s more than science afoot.
    The Big Lie techniques employed by these two and their co-adherents is truly sinister and destructive of scientific discourse. As a former student of geology and lover of history, I am offended by the intentional marginalizing of conflicting data developed by reputable scientists that gives context to current natural events. If we’re discussing science, Gore and Kerry obviously are not.
    The ‘most scientists’ claim that translates to ‘most liberal-leaning scientists’ is the last refuge of these charlatans.

  • pupster40

    Then 1947 must have been one Hell of a climate change year. It snowed so much that year, I didn’t think it would ever stop. Come to think of it Li’n Kerry and Tubby Gore weren’t around then, must not have been climate change back then.

  • wyatt81

    It’s not about “climate change” to the left wing zealots-it’s about power and control, and finding all kinds of ways to strengthen it. This is one way. And the sheep and dummies who go along with them aid and abet it. Dictatorships really aren’t all that hard to implement, are they?

  • savage24

    I really believe that Lurch and Goofy Gore should team up, they could call their act “Gloom and Doom.” When you think of it Goofy Gore has made millions with his solo act of global warming. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.

    • J. Brokenheart

      You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that’s good enough.

  • Ksp48

    Several billion other people want to live just as well as do people in the industrialized west. So China and India are building approximately 5,000 coal fired electrical plants. Keep that in mind as you huddle in the dark.

  • LibertysSon

    Somebody needs to tell these global warming environuts that it was the ruling class that persecuted the folks that said the earth was round. The flat earthers were the oppressive ruling eltes. Seems familiar…:o)

  • JDinSTL

    And, we’ll fix the weather the same way we “fixed” healthcare – with a broad-based tax increase. Democrats are like Dr. Kevorkian. Same Rx – all ailments

  • beniyyar

    Do you realize how irrelevant and trivial this issue really is? But then Kerry is an irrelevant and trivial person so this is right up his alley!

  • KStrett

    The global warming proponents don’t want to debate the issue. They just want assume they are correct and demonize anyone who questions their conclusions.

    Author, Michael Crichton challenged the conclusions and the attack dogs were sent after him. I remember when I heard the news that he died, I thought the media will put a lot of focus on global warming in his obituary. My prediction was correct.

    I was channel flipping a few weeks ago and stopped on a global warming ….. I mean climate change… debate between Bill Nye and another guy. What really stood out was how little science Nye used to back up his position. What science he did cite was refuted. Bill Nye was beaten like a red headed step child.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Sure the climate is changing. Along with everything else. What warms our planet is the sun. Yet it’s been known for some time, the sun both dims and brightens. Hmm I wonder? Could there be any correlation? If correlation, might that mean causation? Of course sunshine may be just be a tad too obvious. The same (so called) scientific consensus that gave us eugenics and Hitler, now give us anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. If global warming is so dangerous, why then does Kyoto (the first main “global” solution), require a massive transfer of western wealth, to dubious entities without any real reductions in CO2 emissions? And if the science is settled, why does John Kerry keep screeching “the science is settled”? Could it be that “global warming” is simply one more attempt by statist collectivist’s to further their agenda? “methinks they protest to much”

    • USMC69

      They want you to believe that CO2 is bad, that way they can tax you for breathing. The solution to reducing CO2 is planting more trees (or other plant life). If you were really interested in reducing CO2.

      • hmastercylinder

        There are more trees growing in North America than at any time since it was discovered.
        This is because people protect them and put out the forest fires that used to burn a path from Texas to Manitoba before extinguishing.
        There are plenty of trees.
        Unfortunately, there are also plenty of brainwashed idiots.
        Therein lies the root of the problem.

        • USMC69

          I didn’t say there were more or less tress in North America, did I? I said more trees would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. But you are very correct about what is the root of the problem.

    • KStrett

      “The same (so called) scientific consensus that gave us eugenics and Hitler,”

      That is the analogy Michael Crichton used in an essay that I imagine really upset liberals at the time.

      http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

      • Brian Fr Langley

        I was not aware of that? I guess “great minds” do think alike?

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Read the link, very, very, interesting.

  • Ron Becker