The Ruling Class Wants You To Be Afraid of Climate Change

By Vin Armani

In this video, Vin Armani talks about why the-powers-that-be are pushing climate change alarmism. Did you think the elite suddenly care about humans? No. They are using climate change to control you as the priest class has done throughout time.

Watch the full broadcast here
Want more freedom? Join the Counter Markets newsletter and community

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show on Activist Post, TV Star of Gigolos on Showtime, and co-founder of Agorist newsletter Counter Markets. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. Vin is available for interviews at email Vin (at) VinArmani.com.


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

196 Comments on "The Ruling Class Wants You To Be Afraid of Climate Change"

  1. John Hankinson | April 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm | Reply

    Pump enough chemtrails into the atmosphere and climate change will be man-made. A self-fulfilling prophecy with the added benefit of poisoning people as well. What a deal!

    • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Reply

      Q: What are HAARP and several dozen very similar facilities worldwide?
      A: IONOSPHERIC HEATERS, pumping terawatts of radiofrequency energy into the upper part of Earth’s atmosphere!

      Maybe Dale-O and others like him should start with shutting those down if they’re feeling so gosh-darned HOT.

  2. Sun Tomorrow | April 5, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Reply

    What an absolutely ignorant, irresponsible ‘journal’ you are! Fearmongering conservatives at their best at being the worst. I’m unsubscribing to EVERY group even acquainted with you nutcases.

    • How tolerant……

    • What’s your opinion of fearmongering Liberals?

    • Oh no, please don’t go.
      Don’t leave us please.
      Oh dear oh my, what will we do now.
      I can’t believe you are leaving.
      You are leaving EVERY group, how could you do that to us?
      Thousands of people will self-harm, dozens may contemplate suicide, how could you? how could you? after all we have done to welcome you?
      Oh all right, if you insist, just p1ss off.

      • When ignorance drives out the intelligent, expect the worst and resort to gutter sniping. That will show us.

        • When someone quotes these figures he really should not talk about ignorance in others.
          “dismiss the agreement of 100% of the world’s climate scientists, working for corporations, public and private universities, etc that global warming is an empirical fact and the unrefuted studies which show 97% agree human activity is the cause, with 3% wanting more evidence to be proved. Have these figures been refuted? Not by an peer-reviewed research. 12,000 peer-reviewed studies were examined dealing with climate research, and 97% were found to accept AWG.”
          “edit duplicate
          Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away.Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this, but again such studies are hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of a good study or a good research proposal.

          Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

          So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”

          Appeal to authority is a really poor argument
          “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
          “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. … It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.
          …..
          In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

        • SINCE 110 % OF SCIENTISTS ADMIT THAT CO2 WAS MUCH MORE PLENTIFUL IN THE PAST – THEN DALE – WHERE DID IT GO ??

    • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 6:19 am | Reply

      Doesn’t matter who you leave or where you go. The evil agency has infiltrated every internet site and uses a. I. to filter and process all our communications to aid them in herding the people with info.
      Many comments are fake to promote public opinion or test what the people think.

  3. “The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor… Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

    – “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome. Members of the Club of Rome include: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, George Soros, Bill Clinton, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Henry A. Kissinger and author of the Kyoto Protocols Maurice Strong.

    Bonus quotes:

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

    – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

    – Dr. David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a
    predicate for opening up the audience.”

    – Al Gore, climate Change activist.

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

    – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

    – Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor.

    • Wirth is a former Senator, not a scientist. Science is made by actual scientists.
      Global warming is accepted as an empirical fact, based on measurments, by 100% of the world’s climate scientists. 97% agree that only human activity can be the cause, while 3% do not dispute GW but want more information to show proof of cause.

      Global warming is not based on models but actual measurements. The Berkeley EArth Project, funded by climate denier/polluters Koch bros and led by a climate science skeptic, found the official data to be totally valid and not skewed or distorted. See Dr. Muller’s NYTimes oped Conversion of a Climate Skeptic.

      The Koch brothers, who paid expecting to get a report that confirmed their claim that global warming is a hoax and thus regulation of pollution is not necessary (the cost is shifted to the public) were so upset they no longer openly fund research or propaganda but do it through dark money.

      Some catastrophes are fake, some are real. It is as dangerous and absurd to claim all claims are true as that all are false. If you don’t believe the world’s 10,000 climate scientists in 180 nations working for universities, public and private, and private corporations, whom will you believe: those who make billions by shifting cost of pollution/emissions to the public?

      It was Exxon scientists who first determined that CO2 emissions were causing global warming; their findings were buried as Exxon spent millions to promote the lie that global warming was a hoax.

      The nations that have taken global warming seriously, such as Germany, Sweden, Ireland, and
      Canada all have carbon taxes, which profits no one and returns no money to the government; the cost of regulated emissions are given to consumers out of taxes paid by polluters. These programs are revenue neutral and have resulted in all these nations no evidence of economic collapse (they are among the strongest economies in the world), lowered emissions, support for renewable energy, innovatioin in removing pollutants and emissions, and with no added cost to consumers.

      The lie that global warming is a scam to make money is refuted by these carbon tax nations. Look it up.

      Here is the news from British Columbia: ” The British Columbia tax started at C$10 (U.S.$7.40) per metric ton of carbon dioxide on fossil fuels consumed in the province, and it ratcheted up to C$30 per metric ton by 2012. The tax is revenue-neutral, with proceeds used to cut corporate and personal income taxes.

      Most academic studies find that British Columbia’s tax is reducing carbon emissions by 5 to 15 percent without hurting economic growth, and that a special tax break to offset its impact on low-income families has succeeded. ”

      None of the taxes, by law, can be used for government projects, the Bill states. It was promoted by conservatives. Likewise in Ireland and other nations, the results are all positive with no negative consequences.

      Here is the news on Ireland: “Environmentally and economically, the new taxes have delivered results. Long one of Europe’s highest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases, with levels nearing those of the United States, Ireland has seen its emissions drop more than 15 percent since 2008……when the Irish were faced with new environmental taxes, they quickly shifted to greener fuels and cars and began recycling with fervor. Automakers like Mercedes found ways to make powerful cars with an emissions rating as low as tinier Nissans. With less trash, landfills closed. And as fossil fuels became more costly, renewable energy sources became more competitive, allowing Ireland’s wind power industry to thrive………Even more significantly, revenue from environmental taxes has played a crucial role in helping Ireland reduce a daunting deficit by several billion euros each year.

      The three-year-old carbon tax has raised nearly one billion euros ($1.3 billion) over all, including 400 million euros in 2012. That provided the Irish government with 25 percent of the 1.6 billion euros in new tax revenue it needed to narrow its budget gap this year and avert a rise in income tax rates.

      The International Monetary Fund, which oversees the rescue plan, recently suggested that Ireland should “expand the well-designed carbon tax” and its automobile taxes to generate even more money.

      Although first proposed by the Green Party, the environmental taxes enjoy the support of all major political parties.”

      “and avert a rise in income tax rates….” Are you listening?

      • What a boring post – I refuse to damage my mind by reading it .

        BOTTOM line – there is no temp increase in 100 years

        There is no accurate way of measuring the temp of the earth and there was even less chance 100 years ago with a few thermometers – but what about the deep ocean , the sky
        – how do you measure temp in the deep ocean 100 years ago .

        Weather by its nature has always changed – lol
        1 molecule in 2500 CO2 affects nothing
        WE NEED CO2

        You are the stickiest , clingyiest , fakey accurate , pseudo poseur of a troll on this site .

        • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Reply

          [Applause]

          Dale-O: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

        • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Reply

          Unfortunately, Dale represents the mind that has bought into this so much he will double down on pounding that square peg no matter how much common sense or fact you provide for him.
          I predict he will come back and leave a response to that effect.
          That is the point to move on to someone who is open to logic and reason.
          Your wisdom is wasted on him.

          • HIS AMBITION is to one day be called Dale Ruff the climate guy – with the bow tie !

        • William Burke | April 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Reply

          “Pseudo poseur”. ROFL! No room left for legitimacy in that, now is there?

        • insults= trolling

      • William Burke | April 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm | Reply

        You are such a bore. But I imagine that’s not the first time you’ve heard that one.

    • William Burke | April 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Reply

      Justice an equality! We can justify ANYTHING by invoking “justice and equality”. Especially injustice and inequality. And most especially mass murder.

      • I.5 billion is the ideal population for the world apparently.

        • With the 1% greed merchants of the way there is room for billions more – the earth is empty. England is nearly at the top of population density and without northern England would probably be the top .
          I have driven round many times and there are wildernesses and empty spaces abound.
          The country has tons of food – wastes 50% – has very good standard of living etc
          WE need people for economic success .

          So we could have another 30 billion – many ladies so that the men have a good choice – lol

  4. gozounlimited | April 6, 2017 at 1:57 am | Reply

    In 1997 former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen said “Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our [counter-terrorism] efforts.”

    Which means our government is engaging in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…And they need a cover.

    • A claim by a non-scientist to the DOD that terrorists are using climate terrorism hardly proves “our government is engaging in eco-type terrorism…” This is a suicidal leap of illogic from a questionable comment to a meaning the opposite of its intention.

      • gozounlimited | April 6, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Reply

        Your inane comment doesn’t deserve a reply.

        • It is not silly to call out taking a quote and giving it the opposite meaning. If my comment doesn’t deserve a reply, why do you reply with an insult. If you have logic, present it. If you don’t, your comment is inane.

          • gozounlimited | April 6, 2017 at 1:16 pm |

            When you possess a masters degree in Psych/Sociology…. like I do…. we’ll talk.

  5. Gorbachev, after handing Russia to the world bankers and exploiters, stealing all the assets built up over 50 years and siphoning all future development of the natural resources from the Russian people, moved to America to head the ‘Green Movement’.
    The world’s second most powerful man, one of the smartest strategists the world has known (step aside Machiavelli) moves into a fringe weirdo culture.
    Did pretty well didn’t he.
    PS ‘They’ don’t care whether you are afraid, as long as you are obedient.

    • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 6:12 am | Reply

      Fear and obedience walk hand in hand.

      • Sometimes through fear, sometimes through conviction, sometimes as an opportunity for power, or promotion, or gratification, sometimes for rewards.
        They will use all motivators and fear is only one of them.
        “I don’t care why you do something as long as you do it.”

        • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 6:30 am | Reply

          Technology and mindless following, on our part of social media and PC language promoting, is making it very easy for them to nudge us in the direction they want.
          The WHY you do something is being figured out to be used as a tool to be more efficient in the nudges.

          • I like you….you are one who gets it!!
            and you state it well…

          • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm |

            Thank you. While I am grateful for your comment I must emphasize, I am not important, but it is the message to all people. Look at the big picture. See what they DO, not what they say. (perceived authority). Don’t let the noise and rhetoric of TV news casters, big business and government officials distract you. Most of everything they spout is for their own interests. It can be very confusing when you hear lies 24/7 from them.
            We must face the fact that much of what we see and hear from perceived authority has been corrupted by money and private greedy agendas.
            Do your own research. Ask yourself, does it make sense in the big picture. Would it hold up in a court of law. Make up your own mind and don’t worry about not following the crowd. They are usually wrong.
            Plant these seeds with the hope they will grow. It may be the best we can do right now.

  6. Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 6:25 am | Reply

    The ruling class wants you to be afraid of EVEYTHING. Divide and conquer.
    That phrase could be tattooed on everyone’s forehead and we would still fall for it.
    Have you looked at the comments on many websites? People instantly fight one another because they think differently. Many fake, just to galvanize that separation, and it appears to be working. An ignorant and emotional populace is easily manipulated.

    • Very good comment.
      Thanks.

    • I agree with @thanks.

    • It is not the ruling class but the 10,000 actual climate scientists from 180 nations, many working for oil companies and private universities, who have found global warming at an unprecedented pace with no other logical explanation than the 40% increase in CO2 (and methane) since 1800, over half in the past few generations. Whether the ruling class (which includes climate deniers like the Koch bros and Climate change fighters like Gates) agrees with science or not, facts are facts whether you believe them or not. The Koch brothers campaign to stop regulation (they are able to shift the cost of human and environmental damage to consumers) is divide and conquer, confuse the public, buy off Republican politicians, and keep the billions flowing by continuing to shift costs to the public.

      The fight you observe is the goal of the Koch brothers and others whose profits are based on shifting costs and continuing pollution. There is no fight among actual scientists…….97% (based on a study of 12,000 peer-reviewed publications that deal with climate change) of real climate scientists agree human activity is the cause, while 3% say they want more information to determine the causes of undeniable global warming. The 5% who disbelieve the scientists are all scientific illiterates prey to Koch propaganda. It’s real, folks. Deal with it. When rulers refuse to deal with realities (like Trump), they are negligent and guilty of crimes against humanity. Who do you believe: Trump or the world’s climate scientists? None is a member of the ruling elite, but Trump is.

      • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Reply

        2016: the mildest summer of all my 69 years. This is “climate change” I can get behind!

        However, I do agree with Dale-O that Trump is a reality.

        • Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
          March 2017: 407.18 ppm
          March 2016: 404.83 ppm
          Last updated: April 5, 2017

          Elevation 13,700 ft.

          Climate Central reports: “The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

          As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we’re rapidly headed now.

          According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere,” May/2013

          • YOU ARE TELLING PORKIES AGAIN
            LIVE SCIENCE :-

            CO2 FIVE TIMES HIGHER IN THE DINO ERA

            “Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth’s climate may change in the future.

            The findings are detailed in a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

            SO WHERE O WHERE DID THE CO2 GO ?

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 3:45 pm |

            To make plants bigger and greener.

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm |

            Plants in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is measured at 13,700 ft in Hawaii…..there are no plants, the atmosphere is plant free. At that level, it acts only as a greenhouse gas, trapping more heat than it lets thru. As a hortiulturalist, I can tell you that too much CO2 can also kill plants. Current warming is radically disturbing the balance, with reefs dying out from too much heat, huge releases of methane, glaciers melted and gone that people depended on for water, etc.

            Take a class, please. Short forays into the internet wilderness does not compensate for epic ignorance.

          • THATS FUNNY – HORTICULTURALIST’s ARE USING CO2 TO GROW BIGGER VEGETABLES .
            No evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – it lets light and heat go back and forth – WHY on earth would it not.

            THERE IS NO CURRENT WARMING SO IT CANNOT BE DISTURBING ANYTHING
            Most of the world surface is sedimentary – laid down by water . Lava is only a small portion .
            Cold killed the larger creatures like dinos due to lack of CO2 ?? or you say too much CO2 did it – but surely lots of CO2 would keep dinos nice and warm and cosy – you are so mixed up .

            Your fertile imagination runs riot – darkened skies ???? Too many comics .
            How did the komodo dragon survive – its a dino

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 4:36 pm |

            Technically, carbon dioxide levels follow global temperature increases and decreases. CO2 levels are mostly an EFFECT, and not a cause.

            In the real world, which is not to say Dale Ruff’s world, effects do not precede causes.

          • Yes – The sun clouds and dust are the inputs – the CO2 levels react to these inputs with the oceans holding the CO2 .

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 7:51 pm |

            Yep.

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:27 am |

            Those who actually study climate science disagree.

          • Those whose PAY depend on GW will certainly disagree but filthy lucre will not affect truth .

          • My information comes from climate scientists…..where does yours come from?

          • You have excessive confidence in the word “scientist” – con men would be a more appropriate label for many of them .
            “CLIMATE” should set of alarm bells – even in a 5 year old – since their whole raison
            d’etre depends on climate and climate change at that – so this is the equivalent of asking a double glazing salesman if you need a new set of windows.

            A most dangerously naive fellow you are .

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:26 am |

            Human industry increased CO2 by 40% since the Industrial Revoluition. This was not caused by rising temperatures but by burning coal and other fossil fuels.

          • NO THE ICE CORE FIGURES WERE POCKLED BY THE EAST ANGLIA GW ZEALOTS .
            Anyway the whole ice core dating method is a shambles due to the 4 WW2 planes found 250 ft down in only 45 years
            So instead of 100,000 years of “layers” we only have 2000 years of layers .

            You see these layers were thought to be annual layers but they are caused by snowfalls and temp changes and you could get several layers in one day .

            eg 2000 years of ice cores divided by 45 years x 250 feet = 11 100 feet of ice layers . The highest level of ice is 10500 feet meaning there is only 2000 years of snowfall layers .
            Ice core measurements are therefore pure BULLSHINE .

            It was proven the planes had not sunk and were level on the original runway.

            This is too deep for you Dale .

          • As did I, but too much can kill plants.

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 10:24 am |

            The incident about which you are hysterically screaming involved two guys (of 10,000 climate scientists in 180 nations) and thorough investigations found there was no fraud…

            The earth is warming, that is an empirical fact. You can’t fix stupid.

          • They – THE VIKINGS – grew crops on Greenland over 1000 years ago – now its ICE
            So it was much warmer in the past – lol you have a problem man

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 4:33 pm |
          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:25 am |

            In the upper atmosphere? How much bigger and greener are the plants in drought stricken areas from Syria to California?

          • Duh ?

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:56 pm |

            When the volcanic activity that produced it died down, it was slowly sequestered.

            “An MIT-led team of researchers announced earlier this month (November 18, 2011) that massive die-outs both in the oceans and on land 252 million years ago – a period known to geologists as the “Great Dying” (the Permian-Triassic boundary) – took place in less than 20,000 years. That’s a blink of an eye geologically speaking. What’s more, the researchers also found that this time period coincides with a massive buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, a greenhouse gas. They published their results in the journal Science in November, 2011.”

            You forgot to add that 250 million years ago, the rapid buildup of CO2 led to the Great Dying.

          • SO WHO “SEQUESTERED” THE CO2 ???

            NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT CO2 KILLED ANYTHING – IT LED TO GREAT VEGETATION GROWTH .

          • “The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr or P–T) extinction event, colloquially known as the Great Dying,[2] the End-Permian Extinction or the Great Permian Extinction,[3][4] occurred about 252 Ma (million years) ago,[5] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth’s most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[9][10] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[6] possibly up to 10 million years” Wikipedia

          • YOUR EXTINCTION EVENT WAS NOT CAUSED BY CO2 – THE BOFFINS SAY IT WAS caused by various things such as freezing weather , volcanic dust , dust from a massive collision from a large meteor , sun cycle etc etc but not CO2 .

            The evidence for the ” extinction ” are trillions of fossils killed quickly by water borne sediments – the only major way a fossil can form – so it was a global flood not CO2

            “Recovery of life” happens in a few years as evidenced by new volcanic islands filled with adapted species and looking “ancient” in no time at all.

            BUT ALL YOUR IMAGININGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2 – which is your obsession that has not made you rich like Al Gore the high priest of CO2 .

          • dale ruff | April 7, 2017 at 8:04 am |

            “Dan Rothman of the department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) at MIT said:

            The rate of injection of CO2 into the late Permian system is probably similar to the anthropogenic rate of injection of CO2 now. It’s just that it went on for 10,000 years.

            The researchers suggest that – over tens of thousands of years – increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Permian period likely triggered severe global warming, accelerating species extinctions. The cause of this increased CO2 is unknown.

            The researchers also discovered evidence of simultaneous and widespread wildfires that may have added to end-Permian global warming, triggering what they deem “catastrophic” soil erosion and making environments extremely arid and inhospitable.” earthsky.org

            Everything I have cited is research by respected scientists. Lifescience reports:
            “Whatever ultimately wiped more than 90 percent of life off the planet some 250 million years ago dealt quite a blow, with new research suggesting “living, breathing organisms” didn’t truly come back from the grave until 10 million years later.

            The researchers think that this recovery took so long because even as species tried to regain their footing, they were hit with further setbacks as the environment continued to change.

            “Life seemed to be getting back to normal when another crisis hit and set it back again,” study researcher Michael Benton, from the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. “The carbon crises were repeated many times, and then finally conditions became normal again after five million years or so.”

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:30 am |

            Argumentum yellum?

            “The Permian–Triassic extinction event, colloquially known as the Great Dying,occurred about 252 Ma (million years) ago,[5] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth’s most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[9][10] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[6] possibly up to 10 million years,[
            There is evidence for one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[8][13][14][15] Suggested mechanisms for the latter include one or more large meteor impact events, massive volcanism such as that of the Siberian Traps, and the ensuing coal or gas fires and explosions,[16] and a runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor due to methane clathrate dissociation or methane-producing microbes known as methanogens;[17] possible contributing gradual changes include sea-level change, increasing anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.” wikipedia

            runaway greenhouse gas effect……………….

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:25 am |

            Which killed them off……

          • WHY WOULD CO2 KILL DINOSAURS ???? They are still around today – the crocodile – the komodo dragon etc And if you read Marco Polo he said the Chinese had tamed dragons (the old name for dino) to pull carts so there was probbably some still alive .
            CO2 would generate the large growth of vegetation to feed these enormous animals
            Crazy man .

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 11:27 am |

            Most were killed. That’s a fact. gizmodo: “Among paleontologists, it’s sometimes called the “Great Dying.” Roughly a quarter of a billion years ago, 90-95 percent of all life on Earth died out. It took 30 million years for the planet to recover. What happened?”

            The high C02 concentrations 250 million years ago led to the Great Dying.

            “”We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth,” van der Meer added. “We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural.”

            Earthsky..org reports on recent research into that era:
            ” MIT researchers suggest the Great Dying lasted only 20,000 years and coincided with increased CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, comparable to today’s levels.
            An MIT-led team of researchers announced earlier this month (November 18, 2011) that massive die-outs both in the oceans and on land 252 million years ago – a period known to geologists as the “Great Dying” (the Permian-Triassic boundary) – took place in less than 20,000 years. That’s a blink of an eye geologically speaking. What’s more, the researchers also found that this time period coincides with a massive buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, a greenhouse gas. They published their results in the journal Science in November, 2011.

            In contrast to today, the group found that the average rate at which carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during this time period – which was at the end of the Permian period – was slightly below the rate of carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning.”

            Once again I ask you to cite your sources for the fake science you repeat. And once more I ask, if you have had zero classes in climate science, by what logic are you able to refute the findings of those who devote their lives to studying the climate?

          • THE GREAT DYING WAS CAUSED BY FLOODWATER – A FOSSIL CANNOT BE CREATED WITHOUT WATER AND CEMENT SEDIMENTATION .
            IT was not CO2 LOL . Anyone can study the fossils in the sedimentary layers which nearly all the earth’s surface is covered in – so this was a WATER death .

            Plus dinos (dragons) were still around in Marco Polo’s time

            If it was CO2 the crocs and lizards would have died as well .

            Continue with your CO2 phobias and your Godless evolutionary viewpoint.

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 12:35 pm |

            Global warming means more moisture in the atmosphere which leads to more rain and flooding. ““We found a strong relationship between global warming and an increase in rainfall, particularly in areas outside of the tropics,” Donat said in a statement.

            “The concern with an increased frequency and in particular intensity of extreme precipitation events in areas that are normally dry is that there may not be infrastructure in place to cope with extreme flooding events,” Donat added. “Importantly, this research suggests we will see these extreme rainfall events increase at regional levels in dry areas, not just as an average across the globe.”

            Peter Stott, a senior climate scientist at Met Office, told Climate Central that the study’s findings are important, because more intense rainfall and flooding will “challenge our capability to be resilient to a rapidly changing climate.”

            “Global Warming Will Drive ‘Extreme Rain’ And Flooding, Study Finds
            Scientists say that even the world’s driest places are in for a drenching.”

            “Heavy Flooding and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?

            Climate change increases the probability of some types of weather. Recent heavy rains and flooding in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains are consistent with a warming planet, and such events are expected to become more common over time.

            As average temperatures in regions across the country have gone up, more rain has fallen during the heaviest downpours. Very heavy precipitation events, defined as the heaviest one percent, now drop 67 percent more precipitation in the Northeast, 31 percent more in the Midwest and 15 percent more in the Great Plains, including the Dakotas, than they did 50 years ago.

            This happens because warmer air holds more moisture. This fact is apparent when you see water vapor hanging in the air after turning off a hot shower. When warm air holding moisture meets cooler air, the moisture condenses into tiny droplets that float in the air. If the drops get bigger and become heavy enough, they fall as precipitation.

            If the emissions that cause global warming continue unabated, scientists expect the amount of rainfall during the heaviest precipitation events across country to increase more than 40 percent by the end of the century.”
            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/heavy-flooding-and-global-warming.html#.WQzELYjyvIU

            “Scientists have new evidence placing blame solidly on the Siberian eruptions. They triggered deadly conditions on both land and in the seas. And new analyses of them could offer important lessons about how to interpret changes occurring on Earth today.

            Life interrupted

            During the Permian, nearly all of Earth’s landmasses had clumped into one mega-continent. It’s name: Pangaea (Pan-JEE-uh). Earth had one main ocean and one smaller sea. Pangaea’s enormous size altered the planet’s climate. Most places became warm and dry.

            An artist’s vision of Pangaea, a supercontinent that formed about 300 million years ago. It was the result of tectonic plates bringing most of the Earth’s land surface together. It eventually broke up again, leading to the formation of today’s continents.
            GARY HINCKS / SCIENCE SOURCE
            This Permian world teemed with life. On land, insects buzzed and crawled, including primitive dragonflies and cockroaches. Big, plant-eating reptiles and amphibians grazed its forests. The oceans were ruled by fish. Coral reefs thrived. Trilobites scuttled along the seafloor.

            Then, at the end of this lush period, volcanoes began to erupt. And erupt. And then erupt even more — spewing what would seem a never-ending cascade of lava over a period of 60,000 years. The most massive in Earth’s history, the eruptions poured out enough lava to cover the entire continental United States to a depth of nearly 1.6 kilometers (a mile)!

            Very big volcanic eruptions can mess with life in several ways. First, they shoot clouds of ash high into the atmosphere. That can block out a lot of sunlight. The eruptions also may add heat to the oceans and atmosphere. This would warm surface temperatures across the globe, along the way altering weather patterns. Eruptions pump out gases, especially carbon dioxide. As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping away into space. This too warms the climate. The oceans, too, will absorb plenty of carbon, leaving the water ever more acidic.

            The huge eruption of the Siberian volcanoes and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction occurred at just about the same time……
            . The first 50,000 years of eruptions in Siberia would have released enough carbon dioxide to have substantially warmed the planet’s surface. Many land animals might not have been able to easily adapt to the evolving conditions. In addition, species losses would have stressed ecosystems far and wide, concludes Clarkson, now at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. And reduced oxygen from those 50,000 years of eruptions might have further weakened many species, he says.

            The last phase of the millennia-long Siberian eruptions seems to have added far more carbon to the atmosphere.
            ÓLI JÓN/ FLICKR (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
            From his data and Burgess’s, it appears that a second and devastating phase of eruptions happened in the last 10,000 years. The final phase of those eruptions, says Burgess, delivered more carbon dioxide than would normal ones.

            “Something added more carbon dioxide,” he says. One possibility: The Siberian volcanoes began erupting through a layer of limestone. That eruption likely would have been so hot that the limestone melted. This would have released the carbon it contained, adding to the gases being spewed directly by the eruptions.

            The extra boost of carbon dioxide seems to have provided the final, knock-out punch for ocean creatures, Clarkson suspects.” sciencenewsfostudents.org.

            Unless you have a degree in climate science, I suggest you take those spend their lives doing research seriously. Where did you study climate science?

          • At your age you would be better to leave the trillion x trillion variable inputs of the weather to God .
            I actually saw more extreme weather when I was a boy .
            1 degree in 100 years allegedly how stable is that – you would expect much more variability .
            I love CO2 and want more , much more .

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 1:44 pm |

            You have provided not one source or piece of evidence and now you are stooping to commenting on my age. You are to conclude our adventure an illiterate buffoon. I have cited 50 scientific sources and you have yelled and screamed and repeated lies you learned from the polluters themselves.

            No wonder you flunked out of school.

          • You can cite a million “paid” “scientific” sources but that wont make the temp rise or make the trace gas of CO2 a greenhouse gas.
            I am actually professionally qualified but I dont see being unqualified as an obstacle to common sense which at your age should be abundant but sadly it is not .

            When I was a kid there seemed to be lots of severe gales but now there are hardly any – if at all – just normal WEATHER PATTERNS IE CLIMATE .

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 11:19 am |

            The Dinos along with most living creatures died out in the Great Dying as a result of high CO2 in that period.

          • THE SEDIMENTARY LAYERS AND ENCASED FOSSILS CAN ONLY HAPPEN
            WITH GIGANTIC FLOODWATERS eg a world wide flood !.
            CO2 did not kill the dinos which are found in these sedimentary flood water layers but WATER did .

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 3:45 pm |

            OH MY GOD!!! The last time the Earth had carbon dioxide this high, the world was….

            THE WORLD WAS LIKE HAWAII IS TODAY!!!

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:52 pm |

            Most of Hawaii was under water.

          • William Burke | April 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm |

            What part of “like Hawaii is today” caused you confusion?

            My god… you are an utter imbecile.

          • Common Sense | April 7, 2017 at 6:00 am |

            Bingo !
            With CO2 levels at their highest at the time you stated, vegetation was abundant causing high levels of O2 as well. Life, in that lush green garden, was at it’s highest and thrived for millions of years.
            Another major factor dale is overlooking is that the SUN is the major factor in our heating and cooling driving climate change. (which was taking place long before man was here and will continue long after we are gone)

            Obviously dale has made up his mind and cannot be bothered with these facts.
            They don’t fit the narrative.

            Dale would like to tells us that a tree falling in the forest doesn’t make any noise if scientists are not there to record it.

          • William Burke | April 7, 2017 at 11:05 am |

            Dale doesn’t know jack.

            And if I’m not in the forest, I don’t know if the tree makes a noise or not. Nor do I care!

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 5:10 pm |

            “Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater. More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef’s most visited areas of color and life.

            “We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.”

            The damage to the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s largest living structures, is part of a global calamity that has been unfolding intermittently for nearly two decades and seems to be intensifying. In the paper, dozens of scientists described the recent disaster as the third worldwide mass bleaching of coral reefs since 1998, but by far the most widespread and damaging.

            The state of coral reefs is a telling sign of the health of the seas. Their distress and death are yet another marker of the ravages of global climate change.”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/science/great-barrier-reef-coral-climate-change-dieoff.html

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 5:25 pm |

            “Recent U.S. droughts have been the most expansive in decades. At the peak of the 2012 drought, an astounding 81 percent of the contiguous United States was under at least abnormally dry conditions, resulting in an estimated $30 billion in damages. Climate change increases the odds of worsening drought in many regions of the U.S. and the world in the decades ahead.
            Global warming will increase the risk of drought in some regions, particularly in the Southwest United States. Even in regions that may not see changes in precipitation, warmer temperatures can increase water demands and evaporation, putting greater stress on water supplies.” https://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/extreme-weather/drought

            “. It is well known, and each of us knows this by experience, warm air can hold more water than cold air (although technically air doesn’t “hold” water). As the Earth heats, there is the tendency for a more moist atmosphere – consequently, heavier downpours. All of this has been predicted and observed.

            But, this added moisture has to come from somewhere and in regions where there is ample water (such as over oceans), a nearly unlimited supply means rising temperatures lead to increasing moisture. But, in dry regions where there is very little water to evaporate, this “moistening” effect doesn’t exist. Here, increasing temperatures just dry things out. The fancy term for this moisture transfer is evapotranspiration (ET).” theguardian.com

            “While some regions are likely to get wetter as the world warms, other regions that are already on the dry side are likely to get drier.

            Sydney, Australia’s iconic Opera house engulfed in dust
            See how global warming is expected to worsen drought it Australia—and find other hot spots threatened by extremely dry conditions on the Climate Hot Map.
            Take action on global warming now!
            Global warming affects evapotranspiration—the movement of water into the atmosphere from land and water surfaces and plants due to evaporation and transpiration— which is expected to lead to:

            Increased drought in dry areas. In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas. Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier. Even areas that remain relatively wet can experience long, dry conditions between extreme precipitation events.
            Expansion of dry areas. Scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to grow by mid-century—and water resources in affected areas to decline as much as 30 percent. ” climatehotmap.org

            So, global warming means more floods in wet areas and more drought in dry.

            ” the atmosphere is getting warmer, meaning it can hold more moisture. The intensity of downpours (and therefore the risk of floods) depends in part on how much water the air can hold at a given time.
            So far, it sounds like the world is getting wetter, right? Well hang on — we’re not done yet.
            Contrary to what you might expect, more intense rain doesn’t necessarily mean wetter soils. Rain that falls as a violent downpour doesn’t do much to help crops or other plants. Instead of gently soaking into the soil, heavy rain can cause flooding, but then quickly run off into rivers to be carried back to the sea. Furthermore, even though evaporation is increasing, it’s not increasing as quickly as the water holding capacity of the atmosphere. This means it takes longer for water to recharge in the air after a downpour, and there is little to no rain between downpours. Finally, the rate of evaporation over land is limited by the amount of moisture in the soil. Early evidence suggests that globally, the rate of water loss from soil and plants (called “evapotranspiration”) has declined, a finding reinforced by a global slowdown in plant growth.” climaterealityproject.org

            And here’s the shocker:: more plant growth from more CO2 actually releases more CO2 as a greenhouse gas: “he authors note that many experiments have shown the increased CO2 usually helps stimulate photosynthesis and plant growth. Some of this extra CO2 ends up in the soils where it is unable to participate as a greenhouse gas…..
            The current authors went a step further though. They asked what happens to the carbon after it is in the soils. We know that microbes decompose soil matter and thereby release the carbon back to the air. Will this process increase, decrease, or stay the same as the climate warms and climate change progresses? It is important because soil stocks (the amount of carbon contained in soil) is determined by a balance between the influx and outflux of carbon.

            The authors found that increased CO2 in the atmosphere actually increased the outflux of carbon dioxide from the soils. That is, it increased the rate of decomposition. In the long run, the increases in influx and outflux will essentially balance out. This suggests that there will be little help from the biosphere for us humans – plants will not take up our emissions.”

            So as wet areas have more intense flooding, areas that get their water from glaciers run out of water, and dry areas have more drought, the earth will continue to warm until we end saturating the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. There is no Get out of Jail Free card. And the solution is at hand: free solar energy which is clean and pays for its installment in 5 years, giving 20 more years of free, clean energy which will never run out. No oil wars, no smog, no disruptive climate change……..who would be against that?

            Well, the oil companies since the sun cannot be metered and sold. And where’s the profit in free energy? And as for all that pollution, hell, it creates jobs for doctors, undertakers, hazmat workers, etc.

          • BUT THE “DROUGHTS” if there are any more than in the past – CANNOT be caused by global warming since there is no temperature rise- other than the faked 1 degree
            in since 1880.
            How would you measure the temp of the earth sea and sky in 1880 ????
            How many thermometers would you need at the bottom of the pacific to measure the temp accurately to 1 degree ???
            You have an obsession – you actually believe it whereas Al Gore just wanted his
            cash .

          • Psst, it’s why the islands are so green and lush.

          • Dale wants deserts

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:24 am |

            Global warming creates deserts; I want a clean environment with a stable climate. You want deserts.

          • THE GOBI DESERT HAS A STABLE CLIMATE – Whereas weather waters the land .

            GW – if it happened would probably create lush vegetation and this is what is demonstrated if we look back at the lush vegetation of the dino era .
            Wow ! Imagine a T REX steak and chips

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 8:24 am |

            Psst….greenhouse gases like CO2 in the upper atmosphere….which is why the upper atmosphere is so lush and green.

          • CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial – it will circulate and make plants grow .
            The upper atmosphere contains lots of gases much more numerous than CO2 but does Dale want to do away with the upper atmosphere ??

            Could you not hire a psychiatrist to see if you have an illogical phobia regarding CO2 since when it comes to CO2 you throw logic and evidence out the window .

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 11:18 am |

            How many plants thrive in the upper atmosphere were CO2 (and methane) act to trap heat?

        • Global warming is a net effect. I am in Arizona: Phoenix hit 96 at the end of February, 20 degrees above normal. Climate is the net effect. The net effet is the last decade is the hottest on record. In April, Phoenix hit 100, still over 20 degrees above normal. On all continents, it was the warmest summer on record.

          The artic has hit record highs melting unprecedented amounts of ice:”Arctic ‘heatwave’ hits the North Pole: Storm Frank causes temperatures to soar by 60°F taking the icy region close to melting point

          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3379988/Arctic-heatwave-hits-North-Pole-Temperatures-soar-60-F-bringing-icy-region-close-melting-point.html#ixzz4fvey79N0

          • William Burke | May 2, 2017 at 12:43 pm |

            He who places the thermometers controls the global temperature narrative:

            https://phys.org/news/2016-01-earth-temperature-thermometer.html

          • We know where Dale has his thermometer

          • William Burke | May 2, 2017 at 4:11 pm |

            Winner!

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 5:04 pm |

            Brilliant rebuttal of science, anonymous.
            Thanks for showing your true genius: obscene insults.

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 5:03 pm |

            The Berkeley Earth Project, funded by the world’s leading climate sciene deniers, he Koch brothers found that the official temperatures were totally accurate and not skewed or distorted in any way. Look it up and read Dr. Mullers NYTimes oped: Conversion of a Climate Science Skeptic.

          • William Burke | May 3, 2017 at 5:17 pm |

            Of course. I read the New York Times (‘the only news fit to print”) EVERY MINUTE, you clueless drone.

            In fifteen years no one will be able to find you, because you will be hiding in shame because of your utter insouciance.

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 5:36 pm |

            I see you have been reading Paul Craig Roberts, but unlike you, he knows what the word means. By the way PCR writes about global warming and useful idiots like you.
            He writes: “The United States is a strange country. The population accepts the destruction of privacy and civil liberty out of fear of essentially non-existent terrorists created by propaganda, but ignores the threat of climate change presented by independent scientists, a threat amplified by the ongoing multi-year drought in California and the western US.

            It seems very strange to me that with Lake Mead drying up and California left with only one year’s water supply that the US government is focused on gratuitous but expensive wars and in turning over environmental decisions to polluting corporations via TTIP.”

            Look up the meaning of insouciance, Robert’s favorite word which he, at least, uses correctly.

            I have no shame for being very concerned (the opposite of insouciance, which actually defines your attitude) about the threats of pollution and climate change. Those who have no arguments often predict the future will punish those who tried to educate them. Sad.

            Here is a recent article he wrote about idiots like you: “Global Warming Wrapup

            The mental convolutions in which some will engage in order to ignore the evidence that the polar ice caps are melting—and if not from warming from what?—is as astounding as the convolutions and denial of basic facts that characterize those who believe the government’s official 9/11 fairy tale.

            If all science is rigged, as a few of you say, by the Bilderbergs, Rockefeller, or the Rothchilds, then where does your science, your information come from? If there is no reliable scientific information about climate change, what is the basis for your argument? Why are only carbon industry spokespersons honest? How come the Rothchilds didn’t rig them also?

            Yes, the carbon tax is another way of following the money, but it obviously leads in the opposite direction of where a few want to take it. The carbon tax is not a solution offered by climate scientists. It is the industry solution backed by the industry’s free market libertarian allies and Wall St, which sees it as another profitable trading vehicle. The industry sees it as a replacement for regulation and emphasis on alternative green energy sources.

            The readers who assured me that the polar ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter did not know that more melts than refreezes and that the polar ice cap is shrinking dramatically.

            The readers who said that there is no global warming now say that it is natural and not man-made, that it has happened before, and so on, which means next to nothing. The biosphere evolved in a way that supports life. When the delicate balance is altered, life dies out. With 150 years of deforestation while 1,500 gigatons of CO2 are dumped into the atmosphere, why is anyone surprised that the biosphere alters? If warming, whatever the cause, can result in the sudden release of methane equal to 1,000 gigatons of CO2, why would this have no effect?

            Some readers do not understand that the measured rising temperatures are not products of a global warming model, but are actual measurements. The models can be as wrong as you like, and they have underpredicted the melting of the polar ice caps, but the actual measurements show warming. Are the Rothchilds paying or ordering all the measuring stations to report higher temperatures?

            What is the point of telling me that you disagree with climate scientists? What does that mean? Are you more knowledgeable than climate scientists?

            What is most amazing is those few who believe carbon industry climate science, but not other climate scientists…..It is also amazing that a few readers are so desperate to convert me to carbon industry propaganda.”

            So abandon your insouciance about global warming and educate yourself.

          • CALIFORNIA ALWAYS HAD SEVERE DROUGHTS – plus they ran the the water saved for these droughts into the sea.
            You cannot measure the temp of earth , sea , deep sea and sky accurately – so the 1 degree rise over 100 years is faked.
            IT WAS MUCH WARMER IN THE PAST and there was more CO2 – nothing happened – just weather does what weather does.

            Leave CO2 alone and concentrate on pollution and deforestation for vegetable diesel.
            CO2 is good – very very good !

          • dale ruff | May 4, 2017 at 1:32 am |

            Do you expect me or any intelligent person to believe that you, with not even one class in climate science, knows more than the world’s 10,000 cliimate scientists in 180 nations? Your total ignorance is beyond belief. Please don’ bore us anymore with your claims to expertise in a subject you have not had one class in and still know more than all those who devote their lives to studying climate.
            BTW, CO2 in excess in the atmosphere is, by scientific definition a pollutant, and deforestation increases CO2 by reducing plants and causing thriving termite growth, which produces more methane. All this is tied together:

            I urge you to take a class and educate yourself Only your handful of fellow illiteraes take you seriously. C02 is not good when it acts as a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere (where here are no plants) and traps heat.

            I am totally bored with your arrogant stupidity. Please contact me after you have taken a class to educate yourself on climate science.

          • YOU ARE HOPELESSLY NAIVE – 10,000 scientist have no way of knowing the accurate temp of the seas , land and sky and certainly not in 1880 !
            Expertise ? Common sense will tell you the whole thing is a con.

            Since CO2 was much greater in the past – who are you to decide what is “excess”
            Is Nitrogen in excess ??? lol

            We need MORE CO2 to replace the forests that the green diesel has destroyed by the GW nutjobs.
            CO2 is not a greenhouse gas – it is so minimal at 1 molecule to 2500 of air it has no effect at all on temp .
            Clouds dust and the sun is all you have to worry about.

            The evidence is not about numbers of paid scientists whose careers rest on the
            GW fantasy – it is about truth which is a lonely Warrior . Follow the money

            You are full of arrogant stupidity and have drank Al Gore’s Kool aid .

          • dale ruff | May 4, 2017 at 1:36 am |

            I have lived in California for 76 years; this is the worst drought in over 1200 years. California drought worst in at least 1,200 years | Science News
            https://www.sciencenews.org/article/california-drought-worst-least-1200-years

          • ITS actually HAARP that did it – to get the land prices to drop then the 1% will buy the farms . The stored water was flushed exacerbate this . PLus since there is no temp increase the drought would not be caused by GW or CO2 – your obsession .

          • BUT THE DATA HAS TO BE FAKED – Since no one can measure the temp of the earth sea deep sea and sky accurately – and you cant stop the sun or clouds .
            There are zillions of variables and they cant be modelled on simple software.

            1 degree rise in 100 years from 1880 – ? Are you kidding – who took the temp of the earth seas and sky in 1880 ????
            The SUN is the only input with clouds and dust modifying the suns rays

            But there is a 20 year hiatus – but is it not more likely that their faked measurements have fallen and the could only say – no rise.

            Dale I want to sell you an iceberg in Antarctica .

      • Common Sense | April 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm | Reply

        Dale, you fail to see the forest for the trees. I know you have your own website now and are driven by this subject, but the scientist you hold in high regard are beholden to the people who give them grant money. If they report anything other than what the financial backers want, they wither and die without funds. The system has been compromised by corruption and the data you are relying on has been tailored by the so called experts for the moneyed interests.

        • Dale is the “Paul Offit ” of climate change . Its about money . Strict security of tenure is the answer for researchers with guaranteed salary – then maybe we will have truth . But Dale is paid for his ” research” .

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm |

            My reward is spreading the truth. The money it is about is the profits from shifting costs of damage from pollution, global warming, etc to the public by the energy oligarchs.

            Now that you resort to smears, your real nature is exposed. Having no rational response, you invent lies. Sad.

          • BUT THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING – Thats why they now call it climate change .

            CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT BUT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL LIFE !

          • dale ruff | May 13, 2017 at 10:39 am |

            that of course is an evil lie. The people with the money are the oil companies. You will burn in hell for lying.

        • I have no website. I write for Quora and opednews.com. Like all informed people, I am concerned that 90% of the world’s glaciers are melting, islanders are forced to move due to rising seas, and floods, droughts, and water shortages (as in Syria) are causing great suffering and resource wars.

          The corruption in the system is a result of corporate money to block legislation which would clean up the environment but shift the cost of damage to the corporations. The solution is the end of oligarchy and corporate fascism and the ascendency of democracy.

          The data I rely on was tested by the Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project and found to be absolutely sound

          I listen to the climate scientists because I am not an expert. I urge you to do likewise.

          • GLACIERS ARE ALWAYS MELTING – its what they do . The islands sometimes sink
            but the water has not risen at all because THERE IS NO TEMP RISE !
            There are always floods and droughts – which planet do you live on ?

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:33 pm |

            That’;s not true, friend. In ice ages, they covered North America. Many glaciers have melted away…90% are in the process….unprecendented for millions of years.

            The islands are not sinking…the sea is rising. Miami is experiencing more and more flooding as a result and insurance is going up.

            The current climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes but only by human activity.

          • BUT WE ARE NOT IN AN ICE AGE AND WE ARE ALL HERE ?

            MIAMI HAS ALWAYS HAD THE SAME FLOODING LIKE HOLLAND AND OTHER LOW LYING RECOVERED LAND

            Dale you just make up unproven gibberish

            ICE AGE NOW :-

            A new NASA study, released on Friday, admits that ice is accumulating in Antarctica.Satellite measurements show an 82-112 gigaton-a-year net ice gain. That’s 82-112 billion tons per year! Nine zeroes! 112,000,000,000 tons. Per year.

            It’s hard to comprehend how much ice that really is, so let’s put it in perspective.Let’s assume that they’re talking short tons (2,000 lbs).

            That’s about the weight of an old VW Beetle.Those old Beetles measured 14 feet long. Multiply 112 billion by 14 feet and you get 1,560 billion feet. Divide that by the distance from the earth to the moon (239,000 miles), and you’d have a string of VW Beetles stretching all the way to the moon.Not once, not twice, but 45 times.

            All the way to the moon.That’s a helluva lot of new ice. Every single year. And we’re worried about global warming?Not only is the Antarctic Ice Sheet growing, NASA admits that the growth is actually reducing sea-level rise. This also confirms what I’ve been saying all along.Antarctica contains 90 percent of the earth’s ice.

            If the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, wouldn’t that mean that more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing?

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 7:17 am |

            Now I am citing actual scientists. There are some ice gains but 90% of glaciers ad other than what you cited other ice caps are rapidly melting. Theris net melting.

            I listen to experts who spend their llives studying these issues; you are believing the polluters who don’t want their profits regulated by having to clean up the mess they produce with pollution and emissions.

          • CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT – it has only beneficial effects .

            POLLUTION is a separate issue – eg mercury cadmium pesticides herbicides arsenic
            fluoride are the problem NOT CO2 – you are confusing the issues in your mussed
            up logic .

          • dale ruff | May 3, 2017 at 4:30 pm |

            If you drink too much water which is needed for life, you will die.

            “While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.”

            Anything that has negative effects on the environment including too much greenhouse gas is a pollutant.

          • CO2 IS A 100% necessary gas and NOT a pollutant – the oceans are not acidified
            There was MORE warming in the past than there is now and MORE CO2 and nothing happened so you have a phobia over CO2 which makes plants grow .
            It is a GOOD LITTLE TRACE GAS. You need help pal – and quick .
            .

          • If you look at solid science, the sea level is rising at a rate of 20 centimetres per 100 years. I am not going to worry about 20 cms. Earth is shifting and changing constantly. You cannot stop her. It is natural for land masses to shift. Water seeks the path of least resistance.

          • Yes but even the 20 cm rise is a con – someone has done a study of hundred plus year old paintings in various harbours and this includes tidal measuring rulers in the harbours and its just the same levels – Dale will be sad .

            Plus the raised beaches all round the world show that the water level was much higher in the past – until it retreated into the earth and also formed into ice .

            Dale should realise that God knows what He is doing and doesn’t need his advice .

          • Cool

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 7:19 am |

            Dale believes the scientists Yes, the sea level was once higher but hundreds of millons are effected by current rising sea levels, due to melting ice.

            God has nothing to do with it unless he is on the side of the polluters.

            Or unless the Koch brothers are the God you worship.

          • SEA LEVELS are the same – there is the usual flooding caused by high pressure and storms . I see less flooding now than when I was a boy .

            The climate is always changing so since since CO2 is such a trace gas and the temp is not rising other things like the sun , clouds and dust from eg volcanoes would normally change the climate ITS CALLED WEATHER .and has existed since God made the world . All the planets have got weather – lol

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 7:02 am |

            Glaciers do not always melt; they are formed by freezing, not melting.

            Islands rarely sink; they are formed by rising land and the sea levels are rising No temperature rise: that is absurd

            Floods and droughts are increasing….as is the temperature I live on a planet studied by scientists, You live on a planet lied about by the polluters.

          • 100% of Glaciers must melt sometime
            Glaciers are formed by freezing – duh ! who would have know that – Dale’s a genius

            Some islands sink – some rise – there you have it .

            No temp rise for 20 years but the GW boffins have no way of measuring it.

            There has always been floods and droughts but even if they were on the increase it is nothing to do with GW which is not taking place or can even be measured.

            The three things you should study Dale is the SUN , the CLOUDS and DUST.
            These are 99% of inputs

          • “The data I rely on was tested by the Koch funded …”

            Human beings inclusive of scientists are subjective and often corrupted by money. Gee, the Koch’s seem to have plenty money, would seem logical they could buy any ‘scientific’ data they desired irregardless of its validity.

          • Michael Pece | April 8, 2017 at 10:47 am |

            Ben, This is true of all “studies”. I am a retired Doctor and I can assure you that what you say is correct. Researchers always conclude the outcome of their studies in favor of who is paying for the study. It used to be researchers would put their names on the papers until people caught on to the pay-offs to the researchers (with money, trips to exotic places, etc). Now the “researcher” hide behind special groups and Universities to try to hide their agenda. It sounds better if it “appears” the study came from a respected group or a School/University. You have to look at where the school benefits. Usually by money donated to the school or some “chair” the corporation set up at the school. I used to teach research at a Medical School and one thing I always taught my students was look at who is funding the study. You will then understand the result. Dale, you believe in Koch brothers?

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 7:00 am |

            They tried: they funded the Berkeley Project led by a climate skeptic but the evidence proved that the offical date on temperature rising was not skewed or fraudulent and the only logical cause was human activity. As a result, the Kochs now fund climate denial propaganda with dark money. Most climate scientists make a good living and value their reputation more than anything.

          • THEY HAD NO WAY OF MEASURING ACCURATELY THE TEMP OF EARTH SEA AND SKY IN 1880 and cant even do it now .

            How many thermometers would you need at the bottom of the Pacific ocean in 1880

            Give us a number Dale .

          • Common Sense | April 7, 2017 at 6:12 am |

            How many scientific expeditions were stuck in ice while attempting to study “the melting glaciers” and had to be rescued.

            When the glaciers are NOT melting let me know, THEN we will have something to worry about.

            The ebb and flow of glacier ice is a natural process.

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 6:58 am |

            During cooling periods, glaciers are NOT melting. Today, with global warming, 90% are melting, causing both floods and droughts (as glaciers have been a source of water) and sea level rising.

          • ALL GLACIERS MUST MELT – 100% SEA LEVELS are only rising in your fertile imagination.
            So Dale actually believes in “cooling periods” – good cover dale .
            CO2 allows cooling periods WOW ! I love CO2 – lets double it to TWO molecules
            per 1250 molecules of air !

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 9:17 am |

            The earth has natural cooling and warming cycles, which take place very gradually over hundreds of thousands of years. Here is the science of it:

            Natural global warming, and cooling, is considered to be initiated by Milankovitch cycles. These orbital and axial variations influence the initiation of climate change in long-term natural cycles of ‘ice ages’ and ‘warm periods’ known as ‘glacial’ and ‘interglacial’ periods. Our current climate forcing shows we are outside of that natural cycle forcing range.

            Where are we currently in the natural Milankovitch cycle?
            Pre-industrial forcing estimated around 0.0 to -0.1W/m2

            The natural cycle that people refer to regarding large scale climate change is the time between ice ages and warm periods. The long cycle time is about 100,000 years. We can spend around 20% of the cycle in an interglacial and around 80% in an ice age, depending on where we are in these cycle influences.

            As the Earth’s orbit changes, so too does the amount of sunlight that falls on different latitudes and in seasons. The amount of sunlight received in the summer at high northern latitudes appears to be especially important to determining whether the Earth is in an ice age or not. When the northern summer sun is strong, the Earth tends to be in a warm period. When it is weak we tend to be in an ice age. As we come out of an ice age, the sea level rises about 400 feet, and we enjoy a warm period ‘like’ the one we are in now. That is the natural cycle, brief warm periods followed by an ice age about every 100 thousand years…..

            The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle……

            This departure is so dramatic that it has instigated a new era. According to some studies, there is enough evidence to state that we have departed the Holocene and entered the Anthropocene. Simply put, based on the evidence, mankind has forced the Earth climate system to depart from it’s natural cycle forcing.”

            If not for human activity such as fossil fuel burning, meat production (methane), and clearing forests for more meat production (pasture or feedstock), which increases termite methane production, the earth would not be warming per the natural cycles, but 1 billion vehicles and a rise of 40% in the CO2 level in the upper atmosphere, plus increased methane from meat production, has overcome the natural cycle to produce a warming period with catastrophic consequences, since small changes create huge changes. Raising the temperature by just a degree or two leads to ice caps and glaciers melting instead of growing.

            Melting ice caps (white ice caps reflect heat) creates a darker surface which not only absorbs heat but releases huge quantities of methane.

            Slight rises in temperature creates more moisture in the atmosphere, and water vapor is a major green house gas: this spiraling effect means that what appear as small changes create huge disruptions in the natural cycle, which takes place not over centuries but hundreds of thousands of years.

          • I could not read your diatribe against CO2 . The weather has billions of variables and no one can predict it short or long term and no one this side of heaven can model it .
            Your view is totally Godless – as if you think you can sequester the CO2 in the world-
            you have a KING CANUTE syndrome about CO2 – you have swallowed Gore’s con trick without question .

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 10:39 am |

            My diatribe is citing climate science. I am not against CO2 but rather greenhouse gases causiing worldwide disruption.

            My view is scientific. If God existed, he would be a scientist.

            Gore had no con trick. You are blind.

          • If you want more forests, feed the plants with carbon dioxide.

          • I don’t know when you last researched all of this but it seems to me that you are at least 10 years behind the times.

          • dale ruff | May 6, 2017 at 11:54 am |

            I research every day. If you read my sources, you will realize they are peer-reviewed studies, either current or never refuted. Why don’t you provide peer-reviewed sources to refute the sources I use instead of trolling?

      • Johnny Jones | April 14, 2017 at 9:34 pm | Reply

        what a bunch of BS. you drank the koolaid

        • Not to mention the agricultural land they hog or the birds they kill.

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 7:42 am |

            Buildings kills thousands of time more birds than wind turbines, and most solar is not on agricultureal land but in sunny desert areas. Look up solar energy in the desert: “There are several solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which supply power to the electricity grid. Insolation (solar radiation) in the Mojave Desert is among the best available in the United States

            bbc reports: “”Fifteen minutes after I learned about the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, I made an assessment of how much energy comes from the sun to the earth. It was about 15,000 times as much as humanity was using, so it was not a question of the source, it was a question of the technology.
            “When the climate change issue became more prominent, I said we have to pull forward this solution, because it solves the industrial vulnerability problem of our civilisation, and at the same time, the climate vulnerability.”
            source: Dr Gerhard Knies co-founded TREC, a network of experts on sustainable energy that gave rise to the Desertec initiative, which aimed to provide Europe with clean energy by harnessing sustainable power from sun-rich deserts.

            gizmodo.com reports: “Construction for the first phase of Morocco’s Noor 1 power plant is nearing completion. Once complete in 2020, the solar farm will be the largest of its kind in the world. But even now, the plant’s half-million solar mirrors are already visible from space.

            There’s no question that solar power is the future, an energy trend that’s fueling the development of massive solar farms in such places as California, China, and elsewhere. And where better to put these plants than in the desert—areas that feature plenty of sunshine and vast expanses of land that are otherwise useless and inhospitable.”

          • Some good ideas but still nothing to do with GW or CO2 which we need for all life .

          • dale ruff | May 2, 2017 at 10:01 am |

            GW, beyond the natural cycle based on the earth’s orbit, is today caused by human activity, the emission of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere, where no life exists. The problem is not down here, where pollution from the same people who emit greenhouse gases kills millions, but in the atmosphere where it traps heat. We need to sequester CO2, not shoot it into the atmosphere. We cut down forests which balance the atmosphere with oxygen and allow termites to emit even more methane.

            We have the solution: free solar energy, plants in the desert: it pays for itself in 5 yrs and then gives decades of free clean energy. The other solution is switching to a plant-based diet, to reduce methane and the use of fossil fuels to grow feedstock on cut down forests.

            Life needs CO2 but there is no life in the upper atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas. GW is caused by greenhouse gases up where no life exists

          • If what you say about everything melting were true, maybe the deserts won’t be deserts much monger. !!

          • dale ruff | May 13, 2017 at 8:56 am |

            Dry areas get dryer thru more evaporation; wet areas have more rain and flooding due to more moisture in the air.

        • If science is the koolaid, I drank it. If the lies of the polluters is the koolaid, you have drunk it. Carbon taxes in many nations are revenue neutral and have not raised taxes or profited anyone Look up carbon taxes in Ireland, British Columbia, Germany and Sweden and learn the truth. The wealth distribution today, according to a study by the World Bank is that the public subsidizes fossil fuel corporations a year, transferring wealth from taxpayers like you and me to the richest men on earth. The Koch brothers who inherited a fortune their father earned working first for Stalin, then Hitler, is 100 billion based on externalizing costs to the public. This IS wealth distribution from you and me to Exxon, Shell, etc. Look it up.

          • I AM AGAINST POLLUTION but its nothing to do with CO2 which is a financial and political scam.
            No tax is neutral and food prices for the poor are up due to the vegetable diesel which has the same effect as oil well diesel.

          • dale ruff | May 4, 2017 at 1:31 pm |

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has risen by 40% since 1800 and is causing extreme climate change: melting icecaps and glaciers causing floods, ising sea levels, and water scarcity, droughts destroying crops an forcing millions off their land, and extreme hot, storms, hurricadenes, according to scientific experts in the field. The money scam is the polluters who shift 5 trillion a year (World Bank estimate) onto the public and profit from dirty fuel and the damage done is paid by us.

            In most carbon tax plans, the taxes collected (which motivates the polluters to stop polluting) is returned to the consumers,, and thus is tax neutral for the consumers.
            There are many causes for the 2.6% yearly increase in food prices. One of the causes is using subsidized corn, instead of much better and cheaper crops like hemp or switch grass. But a major factor is global warming induced drought, such as the 1200 year record drought in California, which supplies
            ” If California were to disappear, what would the American diet be like?

            Expensive and grainy. California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots (and the list goes on and on). Some of this is due to climate and soil. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre. Lemon yields in California, for example, are more than 50 percent higher than in Arizona. California spinach yield per acre is 60 percent higher than the national average. Without California, supply of all these products in the United States and abroad would dip, and in the first few years, a few might be nearly impossible to find. Orchard-based products in particular, such as nuts and some fruits, would take many years to spring back.” Thus prices would skyrocket.

            “Drought costs California agriculture $1.84B and 10,100 jobs in 2015”

            The result: higher food prices California is the world’s richest food-producing region.

            The problem is worldwide and driving farmers off their land and prices upward. “Researchers from NASA and the University of Arizona studied tree rings — a reliable proxy for measuring precipitation — going back several centuries and found that the recent Syrian drought was likely the worst in at least the past 900 years and almost definitely the worst in 500 years.

            “We wanted to know how the current drought compared to past droughts,” said Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the lead author of the study. The current drought, which has lasted about 15 years “really is the worst, far outside of natural climate cycles.”

            Cook and his colleagues found that mega-droughts — those that last thirty years or longer — were absent from the tree ring record. The last major drought began in 1807 and lasted fourteen years.” vice.com:”

            :”Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.

            The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability.Dr. Kelley, who did the research while at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and is now at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said there was no apparent natural cause for the warming and drying trend, which developed over the last 100 years, when humans’ effect on climate has been greatest.” nytimes Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change

            The drought forced hundreds of thousands off their land into the city where unemployed, they increased the stress and civil conflict which led to the present terrorist attacks on Syria.

            See: “The Ominous Story of Syria’s Climate Refugees – Scientific American
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/
            Dec 17, 2015 – Farmers who have escaped the battle-torn nation explain how drought and government abuse have driven social violence…”

          • CO2 is no more a greenhouse gas than any other gas – completely transparent but the point is – it was MUCH GREATER in the past and is NECESSARY for plant growth AND is only 1 molecule in 2500 molecules of air

            CLOUD , WATER VAPOUR AND DUST IS 99.9% of any greenhouse effect due to the gigantic amount compared to trace CO2 .

            ALL volcanoes pour out CO2 continuously for 100’s of miles even when dormant on land and in the sea dwarfing industrial CO2 output as do mere insects and marshes – you should get your CO2 phobia treated .

            CO2 is NOT pollution – you are confused – it is non toxic gas upon which ALL life depends.
            The drought in California was manufactured by HAARP but even then California is renowned for long term drought – thats why there is massive water storage facilities which were run off into the sea and are still being run off for the agenda 21 scam..

            BUT since there is admittedly NO global warming then that could not be the cause – you are confused by cause and effect . A temp rise of 1 degree in 100 years is not global warming – even if it COULD be measured – which is impossible.

            BUT if there has been NO temp rise then how can climate change be caused by GW – this is what you are missing every time . Climate change is natural and normal and has been there since the earth’s creation.
            Its called weather by the majority of rational people who are not paid to find global warming data in every drought , snowfall , tree ring , ice core rings etc etc

            GREENLAND was great for crops a 1000 years ago but now has 10000 feet of ICE in 1000 years since the vikings grew the crops . Your data is always faked and your mind is so fossilised and you cannot accept any changes to your paradigm

          • dale ruff | May 5, 2017 at 10:36 am |

            From scientificamerica “Claim: CO2 is Nature’s colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential for all life on Earth. It’s not toxic. It doesn’t make land, water or air dirty or unsafe to use. It does not cause disease.
            Claim: CO2 comprises less than 0.04 percent of the air.
            Assessment: True but irrelevant in the global warming debate.

            Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming “short-wave” radiation from the sun and outgoing “long-wave” radiation from the Earth’s surface. They play no role in regulating the planet’s atmospheric temperature.
            But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.
            So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn’t have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe’s average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.
            Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won’t impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.
            The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans’ chemistry and heat capacity.”

          • CO2 is a rare trace gas so it will have a minute effect on anything compared with clouds and dust . 99.9 % will be clouds and dust and dale can do nothing about these .
            Its the air that spreads the suns heat and the clouds and dust have a greenhouse effect – CO2 is trace and has no effect .
            Blanket cloud cover keeps us warm at night and stops overheating not a few molecules of a transparent gas that cannot hold calories .
            Higher CO2 DOES improve crop yields as the farmers know and use it in their greenhouses.
            Dale get treatment for your CO2 phobia .

          • dale ruff | May 13, 2017 at 8:58 am |

            Apparently 100% of climate scientists are wrong and you, having taken zero classes in climate science and having flunked 8th grade science, are right. You need treatment for your fear of knowledge.

          • I have no fear of CO2 – and I want much more to grow big cheap vegetables
            I know that God controls every atom in the universe
            I do not listen to profit driven fake science nor political scams by the CIA to rip off other countries .

            Since the temp is remarkably stable proving God’s oxygen/CO2 system works perfectly with the inputs being the sun , the clouds and water vapour and dust all self balancing – amazing .
            It is impossible to take the temp of the oceans , deep oceans , air and land to any degree of accuracy and especially not in 1880 .
            How many thermometers would you need in 1880 at the bottom of the pacific to get
            the base starting temp – lol

          • dale ruff | May 13, 2017 at 10:15 am |

            My friend, you cant grow vegetables in the upper atmosphere where greenhouse gases act to trap heat.

            To say you know God controls is to deny free will; that may explain why you are so stubbornly ignorant. If God’s plan works so well, why did Hitler kill 80 million in WWII? Why did he allow my parents to smoke and die of lung cancer/

            You do not know God;…..that is the height of arrogance. God gives free will and a rational brain to sort out truth from lies. You are imputing lies to God…that is blasphemy.

            God wants us to take good care of the earth and not destroy it with pollution and extreme weather, wars, etc. God didn’t pump all that pollutio into the atmosphere; greedy men did. Stop blaming God for all the ugly shit and mass murders….we have free will for a purpose.

            Stop acting like you are God. You are just a stubborn idiot churning out lies. God doesn’t like that, nworder….and why do you hide behind a fake name?

            The temperatures have been checked by a climate skeptic in the Berkeley Earth Project; they are accurate. Why do you think you know more than people who spend their lives studying the earth? You are committing the great sin of pride.
            God doesn’t like that. Pride cometh before the all.

            It looks like it’s too late for you. I will leave it to God to judge you for your hubris and blaming him for bad shit.

          • God gave us coal oil wood to heat us – you did not have solar power or wind farms 6000 years ago.
            You should be able to sort out the lies about global warming and CO2.

            God gave CO2 for plant life .

            Wars etc come as punishment for sins . Lighting a fire to heat and cook was never a sin.

          • dale ruff | May 13, 2017 at 7:46 am |

            If you are taxed for gasoline and then the money is used to build and maintain roads that makes sense right? When carbon is taxed, the usual plan provides that other taxes are reduced, making it revenue neutral. Where it is not, the revenue is used to subsidize green energy which is both cheaper and does not cause environmental and health damage, which we pay for through higher taxes and health insurance premiums.

          • Other taxes will not be reduced I can assure you . Taxing CO2 has no logic since it is a necessary harmless trace gas . It would be as logical as the window tax we had in
            old Britain . Houses were built with no windows or they were bricked up – it was crazy.
            What we need is clean burn . There is not enough green energy to suddenly let go of oil and coal – it will take years to get water power like hydro and wave power and solar to be sufficient maybe never 100% .
            A wind turbine’s construction and delivery and servicing energy is never recovered .

          • Johnny Jones | May 12, 2017 at 4:07 pm |

            you make no sense. Carbon tax already subsidizes oil companies. Exxon mobile and Shell executives have been trying to force a carbon tax on their consumers for decades. Cap and trade means trading offsets on wall street that allows oil companies to expand at the cost of the consumer. Its a scam.

  7. NJguy - Proudly Deplorable | April 6, 2017 at 7:52 am | Reply

    It meets their needs for ‘perpetual war’.

  8. dhartley231 . | April 6, 2017 at 10:30 am | Reply

    Global Warming= NWO scam ,OUR president is on to it. We are actually in a cool down period!!!

  9. Climate change is a product of global warming, accepted as empirical fact by over 99% of all actual climate scientists. The leading opponents of regulating greenhouse gas emissions (along with curbing all fossil fuel polluition) have been Exxon, whose scientists first discovered AWG, and the Koch brothers, certainly a member of the ruling elite with huge influence with the current regime.

    Either the Koch brothers are not members of the ruling class or this article is another piece of propaganda in support of the world’s polluters.

  10. You’d have more credibility if you got dressed instead of addressing an audience in your long underwear.

    I agree with what you say, but I’m already in the choir.

  11. Global warming caused by human activity was discovered by Exxon scientists in the 70’s. Exxon buried the evidence and funded the attack on science. Why? Profits created by shifting the 6 trillion a year in costs off to the public instead of paying for it themselves or switching to renewable energy? Thatcher, a scientist by training, sounded the alarm in 1988, 10 years after Exxon climate scientists concluded that fossil fuels were warming the earth. Respect in science is earned by solid research, which goes back to the 70’s. You either accept the work of actual climate scientists or the polluters who profit from lack of regulation and innovation.

    Gore spoke out long before Thatcher did. “Gore has been involved with the environment for a number of decades. In 1976, after joining the United States House of Representatives, Gore held the “first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming.”[2][3] He continued to speak on the topic throughout the 1980s[”

    1976 was the same time Exxon scientists found that fossil fuel emissions were causing global warming. Thatcher spoke out in 1988, 12 years later.

    Get a grip on the facts, friend.

    • BUT YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING – THATS WHY THEY CHANGED IT TO CLIMATE CHANGE – which as everyone knows always changes and is easy for the scientific pocklers to fake evidence on ..

      1 DEGREE CENT IN 100 YEARS ?????? – How did they measure the temp over all the planet in the year 1900 – to compare with a completely different set of instruments .
      POINT yes .01 degree per year ??

      IT IS FAKE PRETENDED ACCURACY !

      • I have presented the facts and sources….all climate scientists accept global warming as a fact, and the result is climate change. Since you will not listen to the facts, I will tell you your problem: you are an ignorant but arrogant fool. If you would read a scientific book or article on climate science, you would know that a 1% increase is unprecedented and through positive feedback, has huge consequences: a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, creating more floods, etc. Melting ice caps exposes darker material which does not reflect the solar energy and releases huge amounts of methane….

        wunderground.com reports: “Arctic climate change: the past 100 years
        By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:56 AM GMT on February 12, 2007

        The Arctic is a region particularly sensitive to climate change, since temperatures are, on average, near the freezing point of water. Slight shifts in the average temperature can greatly change the amount of ice and snow cover in the region, due to feedback processes. For example, as sea ice melts in response to rising temperatures, more of the dark ocean is exposed, allowing it to absorb more of the sun’s energy. This further increases air temperatures, ocean temperatures, and ice melt in a process know as the “ice-albedo feedback” (albedo means how much sunlight a surface reflects). The 20% loss in Arctic sea ice in summer since 1979 has given rise to concerns that this “ice-albedo feedback” has taken hold and will amplify until the Arctic Ocean is entirely ice-free later this century.”

        90% of the world’s glaciers are melting, causing not only flooding but water shortages and rising sea levels. I urge you to take a class in climate science to clear your brainwashed mind of the propaganda funded by the fossil fuel polluters.

        The last ten years have been the hottest, globally, on record. As the ice melts, human lives by the hundreds of millions are effected. Look it up, friend.

    • I didn’t say that Thatcher invented the idea.
      I didn’t say that Gore only spoke after Thatcher.
      I said that hardly anyone outside the US paid any attention to Gore until Thatcher spoke out. Gore was just another American politician. Hardly anyone outside the US (where most of the world is) cared about him or the congressional hearings, just as most of the world does not care about the minor politicians and committee meeting in Spain or New Zealand.

      But Thatcher had an international reputation. World leaders and world media paid attention to her.

  12. If you are not a climate scientist and have had not even one basic class in climate science, by what logic do you dismiss the agreement of 100% of the world’s climate scientists, working for corporations, public and private universities, etc that global warming is an empirical fact and the unrefuted studies which show 97% agree human activity is the cause, with 3% wanting more evidence to be proved. Have these figures been refuted? Not by an peer-reviewed research. 12,000 peer-reviewed studies were examined dealing with climate research, and 97% were found to accept AWG. Claims this has been debunked are outright lies. Cite the refutation of the Cook and other studies! Demand evidence.

    • LOGIC = FOLLOW THE MONEY – Termites give out more CO2 than the human race as do marshes .
      ITS about evidence not how many scientists are on the gravy train

      • Yes, Exxon makes up to 10 billion a quarter and the Koch brothers are worth 100 billion, both fossil fuel oligarhs who have poured millions into brainwashing you.

        BC has a carbon tax which is refunded to consumers, and the Irish carbon tax has allowed them to pay down debt and avert hikes in income taxes.

        FOLLOW THE MONEY

        • TAX does not create wealth – never has – tax just transfers from one to another and this in itself uses resources that produce nothing . Without oil and coal we would all have died. Lets all tax each other and become carbon millionaires – lol

          Put a methane tax on farts – then even the poorest will be rolling in cash – yes
          “Ruff” economics

          • dale ruff | April 6, 2017 at 3:18 pm |

            This very internet you are using to deny taxes creates wealth was created by taxpayer money. It has created trillions in new wealth and tens of millions of new jobs. The taxes on carbon have been used to support clean energy (lowering healthcare and environmental cleanup costs) and to avert tax hikes as in Ireland.

            Taxes were used by Eisenhower for the Interstate Highway System, which boosted produtivity, created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billiions in new wealth.

            GPS was invented and controlled by the government with tax money; it too has created billions in wealth and thousands of new jobs.

            Taxes on tobacco have cut tobacco use and save trillions in healthcare costs.

            Taxes fund Medicare, which returns 98 cents of every dollar to private medical treatment; private insurers return 85 cents, pocketing the rest for salaries up to 106 million a year.

            Taxes, wisely assigned and used, have created tens of trillions in wealth and tens of millions of jobs. Taxes fund primary research, which is then used by drug companies to develop highly profitable drugs for the market.

            Taxes not only transfer money; they are often used as wise investments with huge returns….as welll as sometimes misused for criminal wars, subsidies for giant corporations, and other follies.

            Methane is about 20% of the greenhouse gases causing global warming, mostly from huge factory farms. Reducing meat production is part of the solution to slowing global warming.

            Methane in waste dumps is tapped to produce energy.

            Educate yourself and lay off the fart jokes, friend.

          • I have studied economics and taxes do not create wealth just transfer it.

            We have to make goods and services to create wealth – the internet is a service – dont confuse it with taxes .

            Your understanding of economics is as poor as your science

  13. Darryl R Taylor | April 6, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Reply

    This guy is an idiot.

    Pizza analogy falls down by being backwards, you are actually doing everything the same as when you got the runs PLUS eating the jalapenos that you KNOW tend to cause the runs.

    The beer carbonation analogy is just irrelevant to the greenhouse effect.

    I’ve heard of this guy, just a couple of minutes into the first video of his that I have watched, he has shown himself to be a well spoken moron.

  14. Valério da Cunha Oliveira | April 7, 2017 at 3:14 pm | Reply

    While human activity produces millions of tons of CO2, nature produces trillions. In addition, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (troposphere) is less than 1%. In fact, the scientific community is not unanimous about this childish explanation. I believe there are more obvious causes than this. The
    modifications that we are producing on the earth’s surface, exemplified
    in the substitution of forests and green areas for buildings and
    plantations, in addition to the drying up of wetlands, are the cause of
    this phenomenon. In fact, we can not say in global warming, but, yes, in a climate crisis, behold, some areas of the planet are getting cold. To
    account for the use of fossil fuels, the origin of the problem
    conceals, in fact, an international war for its control, and, worse, it
    prevents us from acting effectively in mitigating the problem.

    • Yes – the ” I love CO2 ” website shows how much CO2 is produced by termites and other natural events – it dwarfs the human inputs . But not only that it is a great little trace gas which does not even cause warming and gives us big veggies.

      They should open up CO2 phobia psychiatric wards with Dale as their first patient and a special secure room for Al Gore so that he cannot enjoy his ill gotten gains .

  15. Michael Pece | April 8, 2017 at 10:29 am | Reply

    There is no “Global warming”. Climate is and always has been cyclical . The earth has gone through Ice Ages and warming phases. We are now in a warming period and will at some point cool down again. It is cyclical.This “Global Warming” is simply a way to keep everyone afraid (like the “War on Terror”) and to increase the taxes on the sheep. England is already contemplating taxing their citizens per mile driven in their vehicles as they claim it increases carbon emissions and adds to “Global Warming”. The powers that be also want to tax “carbon emissions”. Your “Carbon Footprint!” “It’s absurd.

  16. “everyone admits the temp has not risen in 20 years ”

    Scientists Report The Planet Was Hotter Than Ever In The First Half Of …
    http://www.npr.org/…/scientists-report-the-planet-was-hotter-than-ever-in-the-first-half-of-201...
    Jul 19, 2016 – If you think it’s been hot this year, you’re right. The latest temperature numbers from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric …
    Earth is hotter than ever — prosecute inaction on climate change …
    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/…/Record-global-heat-persists-Next-president-8399670.php
    Jul 21, 2016 – Humans can’t wait another four years before we start dealing with climate change and the economic opportunity that goes along with it.
    How Hot Was It in July? Hotter Than Ever. – The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/…/how-hot-was-it-in-july-hotter-than-ever.html
    Aug 22, 2016 – A version of this article appears in print on August 23, 2016, on Page D2 of the New York edition with the headline: Climate Change: Another …
    What’s the hottest Earth’s ever been? | NOAA Climate.gov
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
    by M Scott – ‎Related articles
    Aug 12, 2014 – Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has … however, the planet has sometimes been much warmer than it is now.
    I
    2016 will be even hotter than 2015 – the hottest year ever | New Scientist
    https://www.newscientist.com/…/2074055-2016-will-be-even-hotter-than-2015-the-h…
    Jan 20, 2016 – 2016 will be even hotter than 2015 – the hottest year ever … In 2015 the global average surface temperature was 0.75 °C higher than the 1960 …
    Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal …
    https://www.newscientist.com/…/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-p…
    May 16, 2007 – The Earth has indeed been much warmer than it is today and these periods were … Temperature and CO2 over the past 500 million years.
    Every month this year has been, on average, hotter than any … – Quartz
    qz.com/…/every-month-this-year-has-been-on-average-hotter-than-any-other-in-recor…
    Aug 18, 2016 – Every month this year has been, on average, hotter than any other in … to get a quick breakdown of how humans are causing climate change, …
    NASA report indicates Earth is hotter than ever – KRCR
    http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/nasa-report…earth…hotter-than-ever/42125359
    Aug 2, 2016 – The NASA report shows an increase in climate for 2016 thus far. Eureka is in its seventh hottest year since 1887.
    Climate Reanalyzer data shows North Pole is 36 degrees HOTTER …
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/North-Pole-36-degrees-HOTTER-normal-figures-reveal-Earth-t...
    Nov 17, 2016 – The North Pole is 36 degrees HOTTER than normal as figures reveal … October temperatures equaled the third-warmest for the month ever.

    ec.

    • NO ONE CAN MEASURE THE TEMP OF THE EARTH , SEA ,DEEP SEAS , AND SKY ACCURATELY – so its all fake science – there are so many variable that no software could handle – then there is the SUN – which has cycle upon cycle and is the ONLY input modified by clouds water vapour and dust . CO2 at one molecule in 2500 of air is irrelevant and is also a TRANSPARENT gas unlike clouds and dust .

      Why dont you fight a war on clouds and dust – lol

      CROPS were grown in Greenland a 1000 years ago now its 10000 ft of ice – which
      must represent ONLY 1000 years of snowfall layers – if we use the WW2 planes as a guide at 250 ft down and date from viking times.

      ALL your faith beliefs is just paganism dressed up as science . God controls the weather and knows the temp of every molecule in the Universe. You think everything is by accident but God is in total control – and its amazing that the fluctuations are not more than 10% . But it is a self balancing system .

      The 1 degree rise in 100 years – lol – is so small we know it is faked.

      PS – Dale how many thermometers would you need at the bottom of the Pacific in 1880 – hah hah

  17. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming “short-wave” radiation from the sun and outgoing “long-wave” radiation from the Earth’s surface. They play no role in regulating the planet’s atmospheric temperature.
    But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.
    So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn’t have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe’s average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.
    Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won’t impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.
    The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans’ chemistry and heat capacity.” Scientificamerica.

    Where did you study climate science, friend?

    • THE SUN , CLOUDS AND DUST ARE REALLY 99.9% OF THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH . Look up at the clouds and realise they will have a gigantic effect
      on global temp. compared with 1 molecule of CO2 per 2500 of air . Why were you not gifted with common sense.

      • Yes and more greenhouse gases produces heat which brings more moisture into the atmosphere therefore more clouds, and the droughts that more heat brings to hot dry areas produces more dust, and the sun’s activity is no stronger than when the earth was cooler, so it cannot explain the rise in heat.

        Where did you study climate science. You are afraid to answer because in fact you have never studied the climate but rely on fake science funded by the polluters who profit from dirty fuels and pass on the costs to you and me.
        That makes you a useful idiot, for promoting issues that harm you and for which you then are forced to pay in higher insurance premiums and taxes for environmental clean up, etc.

        Where did you get your information, anonymous? I always give my sources, always solid scientific journals and researchers. You think that by using caps you can overpower science. Sad.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*