March for Science a Dud

Not a bang, but a whimper.

Anne Herdman Royal wears a brain hat during the March for Science on Saturday, April 22, 2017, in Chattanooga, Tenn. About a thousand demonstrators marched from the Main Terrain Art Park to Riverfront Parkway and back in support of science and education in solidarity with other marches nationwide.

By William M Briggs Published on April 22, 2017

I am pleased to report the asinine March “for” “Science” has been a dud.

Organizers lit the fuse of what they thought was going to be an enormous stick of dynamite. Wait until you hear the boom, honey! But what they got was tiny pop from a damp ladyfinger.

Pop. No exclamation mark.

The Independent quoted some guy called Peter Lipke, who said, “I’m a science professor.” This prepped the reader, signalling some solid science was on its way. Lipke continued, “The current administration has shown complete disregard for facts and the truth.”

Now, scientifically, this is a dumb statement, because, of course, it is false. It’s not only false, it’s petulant fantasy. President Trump has only been in office a short while, and it’s not like he’s taken to television and said, “My fellow Americans. E equals M C-squared is inefficient. I propose to Make America Great Again with C-cubed.”

Everybody had exactly the same thoughts on everything. It’s science!

The most the perpetually “outraged” have on him is that his administration removed the global warming propaganda from the White House website. Big deal. Yet it was that “momentous” event that triggered the easily triggered into staging the March.

The insufferable and ever-smug Vox began its “explanation” of the March with a picture of a kid, maybe eight or so, holding the sign, “Climate change is real.”

As (ahem) I explained before, there isn’t anybody outside the walls of any medical institution that doesn’t believe that. So this poor young man could just as well held up a sign which read, “Ice is colder than steam.”

I bet he would have received a special award for that.

That’s a real problem. The tasks and decisions ahead of us are far too important to be left to scientists.

In the same Vox picture, a plain-looking woman is holding the sign, “Your global warming can’t melt this Snowflake.”

She’s right, you know. Given global-warming-of-doom has failed to materialize as predicted (over and over and over again), very few snowflakes are being melted.

Vox never disappoints. They checked the “fatuous” box by quoting a sociologist who “studies protest movements”, and she said — are you ready for more science? — “Protest is also an opportunity to create what we call ‘collective identity.'”

Who knew? I mean, who knew scientists were so smart?

That’s a real problem. The tasks and decisions ahead of us are far too important to be left to scientists. A scientist will tell you on Tuesday that “David Hume teaches us that ought cannot be derived from is,” meaning the moral and ethical consequences of any decision do not follow from any fact, such as what the temperature outside is.

But then on Thursday, this selfsame scientist will screech in your ear that “Climate change is real!” as if it is obvious what moral and ethical decisions we must make because of that fact.

Whether the scientist is right about Hume, her statement proves the real problem we’re facing is not one of science, but of philosophy (and religion). Science is tiddlywinks next to the metaphysical dilemmas gripping the West. But never mind. That subject is too much for us today.

Time magazine kindly supplied a video of high-pitched, ear-grating woo-wooing protesters (I still say the DOD was wrong to reject my proposal to weaponize the progressive protester voice). One guy held the sign, “Climate change cannot be undone by tweeting.” But it can be by holding up an idiotic sign?

A white lady, with what looked like tape across her mouth (it could have been a pacifier), held up the science sign, “White supremacists have melanin envy.” Dude, loosen the tape and have something to eat. Your synapses are running low on glucose.

In one of the satellite marches in Los Angeles, a good handful of people showed up, one carrying the sign, “Make wind, not warming.” Flatulence jokes in a science march? Where’s the respect?

In London, another sign: “Wake Up World! *Can’t eat money *Can’t drink oil. SCIENCE for a sustainable society.” This is true and scientific. But you can use money to buy oil and use it to farm lots and lots of food. And there is nothing more sustainable than well-fed people.

Australia. “I create knowledge. What’s your superpower?” Sarcasm.

Slate has a page devoted to March signs. They do not disappoint. One read, “Knowing Stuff is good. Seriously why do I even have to march for this geez.” Should I tell him or will you?

One (perhaps prescient) lady tweeted “#TheFutureisFemale” and showed the sign, “Women and the Earth have to tolerate a lot.” I wept in pity when I read that bit of science.

The Chicago Tribune tweeted the headline, “‘There is no Planet B!’ cried a 6-year-old girl during March for Science Chicago.” I cried too (the March has made me especially lachrymose), because this poor 6-year-old girl is wrong. Not only is there a planet B, but there is a C, D, … Why, there are nearly 4,000 other planets we know about!

Pagans were out in force. One lady held the sign, “I [heart] Biomimicry, Mother [earth] knows best.” In a freak coincidence, right next to her was another lady with the sign, “Mother knows best. Listen to her. #Biomimicry.”

These were the truest signs of the day. Nothing but mimicry as far as the eye could see. Everybody had exactly the same thoughts on everything. It’s science!

Update

Nye angry. Nye no like people not love science. Arrugah!

tarzan

Will somebody get this man a cookie?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    Maybe the marchers “feel” as though they have accomplished something.

    • anne55

      We have.

      • Gary

        What exactly?

        • anne55

          The beginning of turning this government around. And we WILL do it.

          • Gary

            You mean you want to elect liberals. That won’t happen if I can prevent it.

          • anne55

            I want to elect people that share my values. I don’t care about labels. I care about what they believe and the actions they take.

          • Gary

            Me too. Labels are sometimes helpful in identifying who shares my values.

          • anne55

            It shouldn’t be that way. We should be asking people what they believe, what they value and why. We should be asking them about their vision for the future. Maybe if we started there we’d make progress. Instead, we have turned political parties into football teams that we root for instead of trying to understand one another better and reach a consensus / compromise. We’d stop labeling people.

          • Gary

            Labels can sometimes save time. I only wish they worked better. Many times they don’t accurately describe the person who wears them. But that is usually only true of people who wear a conservative label, but really are not conservative. They seem to work very well with liberals though. I don’t think I have ever seen someone who identifies as a liberal who wasn’t. At least that is helpful to determine who I don’t want to support.

          • anne55

            Labels may save you time, but they create barriers between people. They don’t work well. They are a means of discounting people.

          • Dean Bruckner

            So am I a “denier?”

          • James Newman

            You do realize that politicians are liars and will say whatever they think you want to hear just to get elected. Yes?

  • Timothy Horton

    BWAHAHAHA! The anti-science clowns whined for a solid week because they weren’t allowed to parade their woo next to real scientists. Now the by all accounts successful march was over, held in cities all over the globe and drawing well over 100,000 in the U.S.alone, comes the whiny sour grapes refrain. 😀 Poor poor butt hurt little babies.

    • Gary

      What did the marches accomplish?

      • Hannah

        Don’t bother – he’s just being childish. It’s honestly all that he’s got so let him keep that.

      • Patmos

        “What did the marches accomplish?”

        It got a bunch of self righteous people some fresh air and exercise, so maybe now they might be able to think a little bit more clearly. Probably not, but there’s always a chance.

      • anne55

        The marches are not only a show of support for science, but they are democracy in action. We are making our voices heard in Washington. This was my 5th march since January 21 and I will continue as long as it takes.

        • Gary

          As long as it takes for what? What are you after?

          • anne55

            A different government. One that supports policies of a clean environment for all.

          • Gary

            You mean you want liberals in control. I don’t want that. And I’m going to do what I can to prevent you from getting what you want. And I don’t mean that in a friendly, good will sort of way.

          • anne55

            I don’t care what you label people. I want a healthy environment, not a sick one. And, yes, if you don’t agree with that I will fight you every step of the way.

          • Gary

            Everyone wants to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Liberals tend to get carried away on making rules. And, of course, they always want to raise taxes and give the government more control over everything. I don’t think those are good ideas. I suggest you move to a more socialistic country. There are many to choose from.

          • anne55

            That is both insulting and not realistic.

            First, my husband’s family had to do just that once already. They fled Hitler’s Germany and they were lucky they could or they would have been gassed.

            Second, just as emigrating legally here is a long, expensive process, so it is with Americans leaving and going elsewhere. Most simply can’t afford it.

            Third, just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean I should have to be the one to leave. This country has traditionally been more socialistic than you think. Things like social security, public education, the postal service. They are all based on socialistic concepts. Do you not use and enjoy these very things?

            When you tell another American to leave because they don’t agree with your world view, that is insulting to the extreme. And, unfortunately, often standard conservative rhetoric. I have never once told another American to leave their country because they disagreed with me. Nor will I ever.

          • Gary

            I don’t care if you feel insulted. I don’t like you and don’t agree with your beliefs, and I don’t want the US to be what you want it to be. And I will try to prevent that from happening. If I succeed, it means you will be unhappy here. If you don’t mind that, its all right with me.

          • anne55

            Well, I don’t want to live in your view of the US either. So, I guess we will both be unhappy unless we agree to listen and work things out.

          • Gary

            I don’t think there is anything we would agree on.

          • Jim Walker

            Maybe the sky is blue ?

          • Jim Walker

            You can’t have a healthy environment when you support killing babies in the womb.

          • anne55

            How does that relate?

          • Jim Walker

            A healthy environment must consists of people with upright morality. By applying eugenics to create that “sustainable” environment is selfish. The goal of that One world govt that you so desire to subscribe to, wants to cut human population down so that they can enjoy their Utopia.
            God’s Earth is able to sustain life abundantly. It is the selfishness and greed of humans that want to horde wealth and pleasures that made many countries living under the poverty line.
            All the changes in weather, more natural disasters, wars and rumours of wars, lawlessness, declined morality, point to what the Bible warns us of : The End times. Many non-believers can never understand it because they are still blinded by the ways of the world.
            So do you want a healthy environment ? Choose to read the Bible more and pray, and you will find the Way, the Truth and the Life.

      • eldooDyMknaY

        Do you have to be hand-fed all of the time. Do these marches DIRECTLY affect policy? Usually not, but they help get a message out so that some uninformed people are aware of an issue. Education. It helps people realize that they aren’t alone in what they believe in. Solidarity. It allows the cohort to exercise that which conservatives are always throwing into everyone’s face – the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Constitution, Amendment I. Civic Duty. Thus endeth the lesson…if YOU do not agree with the people, please do not stand in their way – as guaranteed by the Constitution. Personally, I had a rather good time at my march yesterday.

    • Patmos

      100,000. Wow. That’s roughly the size of Davenport, Iowa.

      • anne55

        I am sure it was significantly more than that. I was in Boston where there were thousands and thousands of people – and I didn’t even see those numbers reported. There were many small towns that had marches as well.

        And, don’t forget, the People’s Climate March is next weekend all over the country. If you combine the numbers of these 2 related marches, it is likely to be highly significant.

      • Timothy Horton

        That was just the number of marchers – mostly scientists and/or people who work in science related jobs. There were lots more spectators. You’d be up the creek without the proverbial paddle in no time without their contributions to your health and safety.

        It never ceases to amaze the hypocrisy of the whining over scientists protesting Trump’s political meddling coming from the same people who reap the benefits of that science every day.

    • mikehaseler

      Global warming is pseudo science! The satellites, Met balloons and sea surface data all show a pause. The only data that does not is that of Northern land – NOT GLOBAL and an area where there’s been a massive reduction in rural (colder) stations not suffering from the well known scientific effect of “urban heating” (actually the result of changes in evaporative cooling that occurs with any reduction in vegetation).

      • eldooDyMknaY

        And once again, a nay-sayer demonstrates their ignorance of the issue. Polar ice caps melting. Ocean levels rising and ocean water getting warmer. Even IF you were correct in your assessment, what is the harm with fighting like hell to preserve what we have or even make it better than it is now? I don’t understand the mind set of the conservative mind. What drives you in life?

        • Jonathan Brooks

          I can tell you, lefty, it is survival. The Left has no problem choking human survival and losing 90% of the human population to save mother earth, which we cannot save if we went extinct. We are not God, and neither is government, and control over the environment is a fantasy of the left.

          • Timothy Horton

            The fight against climate change is being done to help HUMANS. Rising sea levels will flood millions of acres of productive farm land like has already happened in Thailand and Vietnam. Droughts will already produce famines like we see in sub-Sahara Africa. Rising temperatures / lack of water will kill many more like we’ve already seen in India.

            Just because you live in a place rich enough to get around most of the problems doesn’t mean the rest of the planet can.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Droughts will already produce famines like we see in sub-Sahara Africa.

            You are out of date. The Sahara is receding and the Sahel is advancing at the southern margin of the desert. Droughts are local; and famines are more often the result of poor preservation and distribution.

          • anne55

            You will condemn hundreds of thousands to misery and death. For being on the so-called pro-lifer side of things, I think this is more like pro-massive death. You can’t call yourselves pro-life and pro-creation care and stick your heads in the sand. You CAN”T ethically be a one issue person (anti-abortion and reproductive freedom) yet heap misery on people (and the planet) once they are actually here. THAT is hypocritical.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          what is the harm with fighting like hell to preserve what we have…?
          I don’t understand the mind set of the conservative mind.

          As I understand it, it involved fighting like hell to preserve what we have.

      • Timothy Horton

        (facepalm) An occasional short term pause is an expected fluctuation in the long term rising temperature trend. Look at the data for the last 4-5 years where the short term rise has been very steep. You have to look at the long term trend lines, not cherry-pick just the short term trends.

        • mikehaseler

          According to your hockeystick favoured by you alarmists – there was no climate change until CO2 was first measured increasing. And since then you’ve said that all the warming must be attributed to man-made CO2 – which means that there is no natural variation in your daft models to explain the lack of warming for the last 20 years.

          You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept natural climate variation – which is large enough to explain both the pause and the late 20th century warming – or you’re a climate change denier and you massively and falsely increase the scale of any CO2 effect to “explain” the 20th century warming – but you cannot explain the pause.

          Sorry – that’s how science works.

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, you have no idea what you’re talking about and are just parroting back the standard climate change denier talking points. Climate scientists have been looking at the natural causes for temperature variations for decades and they’ve all been ruled out. It’s really simple physics – you pump as much CO2 into the air as humans have done and the temperature is going to rapidly rise. Isotopic analysis shows virtually all the CO2 rise comes from burning fossil fuels.

            I see you’re also going to repeat the denier stupidity that expected short term fluctuations somehow negate the long term rising trend. That’s exactly the kind of scientific ignorance the fossil fuel propaganda sources are counting on.

      • anne55

        The so-called pause has apparently been disproven – ironically by scientists. Look it up. And, even if there had been a real pause, so what? It is STILL happening.

        • mikehaseler

          The pause is in the data – it cannot be “disproven”. All people have done is mixed the data correctly showing a pause with data such as Northern Land Data which is heavily influenced by the removal of rural stations and they manufacture warming (where none actually exists).

          • Timothy Horton

            Then show us the pause in the long term global temperature anomaly between 1950 to present. Post the URL of a graph with the global average like I did. Don’t just keep repeating the same lie.

          • mikehaseler

            The pause starts around 2000. I could explain why it occurs at this point – but it’s science and I’ve never found someone pushing global warming who has any interest in real science.

          • Timothy Horton

            I see you’re too afraid to provide URLs to any actual data sets. Easier to just keep repeating the lie and hope no one checks

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve done the research – and you – you’re too lazy to do the research yourself.

            And with Trump in office people like you no longer matter.

  • missy

    The climate change marches are just another Soros funded liberal leftist myth. The only benefits are to line the pockets of Al Gore, Dems and other interested parties to promote their globalist agendas. No matter what the media spouts on this topic, we see over and over again most people generally aren’t excited to stand up and support this cause because they know it’s a blatant globalist lie.

    • anne55

      Soros doesn’t have enough money to fund all of us….he’d be broke by now. I really think this is a very ignorant statement – just an excuse really – when one doesn’t have anything better to say.

      • Paul

        So what are you doing about your own carbon footprint?

        • anne55

          As much as I can and I am always looking for ways to improve. I don’t run my home on fossil fuels. One of my two cars is a hybrid and we are looking to replace our older car with another hybrid / electric.

          • James Newman

            That hybrid still uses fossil fuels and that electric car you want will only be as clean as the source of its electricity which means it is going to be ran primarily by fossil fuels.

          • anne55

            That hybrid was state of the art when we bought it in 2006. We had no all electric vehicles to choose from. And, it is still far better than conventional cars. It gets between 50-60 miles to the gallon and I can fill the tank for $15. Do you know of any conventional cars you can do that with? We are looking to replace our older Camry with an all electric which would be powered by our solar. Like most people, we have money constraints (I am retired and in my 60’s – my husband is in his 70’s). We do the best we can with the money we have.

          • James Newman

            wow you must have a huge solar array on your house to charge a car up for normal every day use.
            You’ll find most people can’t afford such a huge array of solar panels to keep a car charged for normal use.

      • missy

        Two words Annie — DREAM ON !!!! You and the other disillusioned will never convince me otherwise

        • anne55

          Well, you can choose to believe Breitbart, et. al, or you can open your mind. I can’t convince a closed mind.

          • James Newman

            Only a fool or a complete idiot believes what they read in any newspaper. The news industry is in the business of selling advertising. Not in telling the truth. I read news stories for entertainment purposes only as I have personally caught the “news media” lying so often I’ve lost count. News is nothing but gossip that might have a fact or two scattered in among the lies, half truths, rumors and innuendo.

      • GPS Daddy

        Have you been on Soro’s money train?

        • anne55

          What do you mean? Do you mean, has he paid me? Of course not. I’ve absolutely no contact with his organization and NO ONE I know has been paid to go to a march.

          • GPS Daddy

            So no Soro’s money has ever found its way into your bank account?

          • anne55

            Not one penny. And I swear it on the Bible.

          • GPS Daddy

            That doesen’t mean anything unless you accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

          • anne55

            My word is my honor.

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, that’s fine. I’ll accept your word. But there is another issue. You swore on the Bible. If you reject the Bible as the inspired word of God then the only rational position is that it’s a book of lies. You can fall at Jesus’ feet and call Him Lord; or you can accuse Him of being a liar; or you can relegate Him to the insane asylum. But Jesus did not leave open the option that He is only a good teacher.

      • hellenhighwater

        You act as if people who have money and/or are conservative can’t care about the environment and other people.

        Here’s my story about those “marches.” I volunteer 50-60 hours per month working with shelter dogs at a local animal rescue. I walk them almost 1,000 miles per year and give animal charities about 5% of my pre-tax income annually. I also have a full-time job. On January 21st there was an anti-Trump march in Los Angeles that attracted close to 100,000 people. That evening there were literally two volunteers (a conservative woman and myself) to work with 120 dogs. My point is that people complain about Trump and the horrible things to this country usually only have enough energy to put on a stupid pink hat and go for a walk. They really don’t have any interest in rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty. They don’t bring food to the elderly. They don’t teach underprivileged kids to read. They don’t clean up their own neighborhoods. They don’t do much of anything except march and brag about voting. In a sense they don’t want to actually do anything to make the world a better place. They want the government to force people to do things to make it a better place. It’s hard to take people like that seriously.

        • anne55

          I totally approve of your work on behalf of animals. But, I disagree with the rest of your statements. How do you know what people who don’t like Trump’s agenda do, or don’t do, in terms of their own jobs or volunteer work. I have worked all my life with and for children with special needs. My husband and I volunteer in Ecuador working with street children. My husband, in particular, has put together a presentation on the project and visited over 200 Rotaries fund-raising for them. In addition, he does a yearly fundraising concert for them. We have donated significant amounts of our own $$ over the years – nearly $50,000 total to the place (and we are not wealthy). I support any number of other organizations. The point of my telling you this is a) you can’t judge who is willing to “get their hands dirty” based on their personal moral beliefs / world view / party affiliation. My kids have all volunteered at various organizations as well. My parents (liberals as well by the definition on this site) worked for Meals-on-Wheels up until they needed it themselves. So, I think you are sadly mistaken. And, many of the people I march with support volunteer organizations, with both their time and their money.

          I don’t doubt you do what you say and I applaud that. But, don’t assume that others of differing views aren’t involved citizens. The ones I know very much are.

      • James Newman

        Oh he doesn’t have to afford “all of us” as you say. He has plenty of “useful idiots” lending a hand for free. Tons and tons of useful idiots it would seem.

  • Paul

    If they were honest the signs would read ‘don’t take away my taxpayer funded grant money’. I saw one interview where one guy was at least honest about being worried about losing his. No self interest there of course.

    • anne55

      Has anyone in your family benefited from science?

      Have your kids received vaccines to prevent dangerous illnesses that maim or kill?
      Has anyone in your family been treated for a serious disease such as cancer?
      Have you had polio? (of course not, but you can thank a scientist for that).
      Do you use a cell phone or the internet? I’d guess yes, since you posted here. Thank a scientist again.
      Do you ever ride in a plane?
      Do you marvel at things like landing on the moon or going to Mars?

      Where do you think we’d be without science? It touches each and every one of us. So, it is insulting to those scientists working very hard every day for the rest of us to say that all they care about it their grant funding. Try living without all the benefits we all get from science.

      • mikehaseler

        Has anyone in your family benefited from the industrial revolution powered by coal and oil?

        • eldooDyMknaY

          Has anyone in your family dies from black lung disease? Has anyone in your family died in a drilling rig accident? Has your home become polluted due to a crude oil spill? We try to improve how we “make energy” moving forward, not mire ourselves in horse-and-buggy technology. Personally, I once worked in a specialty steel mill in Western PA. They used coal from a local coal mine to power the open hearth furnaces. The mine is now a museum (I visited last summer). The mill uses electric furnaces and a BOF (basic oxygen furnace – electrically run) now. There is zero desire to return to open hearth furnaces today. My family remembers tales of Donora and Homestead in Pittsburgh. Good riddance!

          • anne55

            Thank heavens, no. But, many others have not been so fortunately.

            My point is that science benefits us. Research benefits us and we all use the results – whether it is medical research, technology, better living, etc. And, almost all science is grant funded.

          • James Newman

            You spout off about science yet you refuse to acknowledge that many prominent scientists disagree with the global warming crowd.

          • hellenhighwater

            Where does the electricity come from to power the mill? Coal? Nuclear? It sure as hell isn’t coming from wind and solar.

          • anne55

            My electricity comes from solar.

          • James Newman

            So you only have electricity on sunny cloudless days and without power at night and the rest of the time?

          • James Newman

            Also your solar panels were made using an enormous amount of fossil fuels.

        • anne55

          Of course, yes.

          But, now we know the high price of these fossil fuels and we must switch. Back when they started, there was no knowledge of this. But, I would point out to you that Exxon has known FOR YEARS via their own research that the use of fossil fuels was damaging the environment. AND they suppressed this information, just as the cigarette industry suppressed information about the damaging health effects of smoking. We must change.

          • GPS Daddy

            So anne55, I can’t find the post where I re-asked you a question.

            Is there objective truth?

          • anne55

            If there is, I don’t think anyone has the final say on what it is.

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, think about the negative. Can the statement “there is no objective truth” be true?

          • anne55

            I frankly am not concerned with your question. I don’t think their is one big over-riding objective truth. I think you are trying to push something on me and I wish you’d just be direct. Again, what do YOU see as objective truth?

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, I think your not thinking very deeply. I did not ask you if there is one overriding objective truth. I ask you if there is objective truth.

            Let me ask you this: do you exist? Is your answer to that question objectively true? Here is a very important question: what does it mean for that question to be objectively true?

          • hellenhighwater

            You seem to confuse environment and climate a lot.

          • anne55

            Climate is part of the environment. I am not confused.

          • James Newman

            Really? “Now we know the high price of these fossil fuels”. The weather satellites and weather balloons don’t show any unusual warming. Only the highly adjusted ground temps show any warming so two of the three data sets say nothing unusual is happening. So where is this “High Price” you speak of or are you just high on cool aid and other substances?

          • Timothy Horton

            The weather satellites and weather balloons don’t show any unusual warming.

            Not true. Both the UAH and RSS satellite sensor data sets and weather balloon data sets show tropospheric and ground warming with slight stratospheric cooling. Both of those phenomena are expected and consistent with an increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

          • James Newman

            Which part of “Unusual” didn’t you understand? Or don’t you speak English?

          • Timothy Horton

            The measured global warming in the last century is not usual. In fact it’s unprecedented for as far back as we can determine global temperatures with proxies. You obviously don’t speak science.

          • James Newman

            You obviously haven’t looked at our previous interglacials. Also the Holocene Maximum and medieval warm periods were much warmer than today and our previous interglacials were also much warmer. You obviously like quoting cherry picked science.

          • Timothy Horton

            As I keep pointing out to the knee-jerk deniers, in previous warming periods we didn’t have 7.5 billion people heavily dependent on a very stable climate for their food production and distribution.

          • James Newman

            Are you kidding me? We get ten times more food today from an acre of farm land than we did at the beginning of the 20th century. We grow so much food we turn part of it into useless ethanol. As for stable climate we’ve got it and we’ve had it for ten thousand years. Also warming isn’t a problem for agriculture cold is what kills crops not warmth. We are also getting more yield per acre because of the extra CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere. Quit being a Chicken Little.

          • anne55

            Well it is getting warmer down here where we have to live. I don’t live in the stratosphere.

          • James Newman

            Your statement is so ignorant it astounds me. The weather satellites measure the temperature in the Troposphere. That is the part of the atmosphere where you live and they don’t show any unusual warming is taking place and neither do the weather balloons. The only data set that shows any warming is the ground stations which are easily corrupted and contaminate by the infrastructure of human civilization. Things like your air-conditioner, concrete, pavement, roads, houses buildings and other man made infrastructure.

          • James Newman

            Switch to what? None of the “Green” energy sources like Wind and Solar can power a modern society and Ethanol can’t replace gasoline derived from petroleum. What power source that we can close the loop on will we switch too? Are we all going to ride unicorns for transportation and burn unicorn farts in place of fossil fuels? Where is this magical source of energy we are going to “Switch” too?

          • Timothy Horton

            Energy from wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, etc. doesn’t have to completely power society to be beneficial. Even a partial reduction in our fossil fuel burning would help.

          • James Newman

            Well if nuclear is so plausible why isn’t everyone in the world building nuclear power plants left and right. I know California and Germany are closing their nuclear power plants as fast as they can and switching to fossil fuel powered plants even though it costs more.
            You can’t close the energy loop with wind or solar so they will never be plausible as they are both extremely intermittent and unreliable and the wind mills reek havoc on bird and bat populations. They also don’t produce much power for their costs, they produce power when its least needed and the power they do produce is extremely expensive. Look at the cold hard numbers and you’ll see the only viable renewable is Geothermal and most places don’t have the Geothermal resources to power a modern society.

          • anne55

            I can buy wind energy here where I live for about the same amount as regularly produced electricity.

            You are right about birds and bats. I know they are trying to develop ways to scare them away from the blades.

            Nuclear, as we have all seen, can be pretty dangerous. Fukishima, Chernobyl. Unless they can come up with Nuclear fusion which I would certainly support based on what I know now.

          • James Newman

            Get your head out of the sand. That wind energy is heavily subsidies by the tax payer and its production is mandated by law. Electrical energy generated by windmills is extremely expensive and intermittent. It also has an enormous land foot print in comparison to normal generating facilities and it requires a lot of maintenance that thermal generators don’t need or require. Wind and Solar are impractical as you cannot close the energy loop with them and they could never be used to run a modern civilization.

          • James Newman

            Chernobyl was an uncontained reactor and was a disaster waiting to happen. Basically a reactor sitting in a warehouse without any containment in case of an accident. Fukishima was the result of two massive natural disasters and poor engineering of its back up generators.
            Nuclear power can be a safe effective and extremely economical source of electrical power when properly sited and built. You could run all of the state of California with twelve nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon or ten power plants if you used modern gen III+ Nuclear reactors. All with none of the CO2 you don’t like.

          • anne55

            Renewables.

            Energy conservation.
            Solar.
            Wind.
            Other biofuels as they are developed.

            The point is we need to be pouring money into developing safer energy forms and we would also be creating jobs.

          • James Newman

            You can only conserve your way out of so much energy need.
            Solar energy is limited because you can’t close the energy loop with it. The same is true for Wind energy. Solar and wind also consume enormous amounts of resources to produce and maintain for very little energy that is intermittent in nature.
            As for bio-fules you can’t close the energy loop with any bio-fuels and you have to use massive amounts of petroleum products to make them in the first place. You also don’t get an energy gain out of any man made bio-fuels and the manufacturing process used to create them produces several times more pollutants and CO2 than it would have if you just burned the petroleum used to create them. Plus they are extremely expensive and you get no net gain in energy. If anything you lose energy in the process all so some mindless environmentalist can feel good about themselves.
            You may as well talk about unicorn farts powering our civilization when you talk about Wind, Solar and Bio-fuels.

        • Timothy Horton

          We used to think cigarette smoking was not harmful. The government used to give cartons of cigarettes to soldiers in WW2. Then we did scientific studies and now we know better.

          It’s the same with burning fossil fuels. We did the science and now we know the dangers / problems caused are much worse than the short term benefits gained.

          People learn from their mistakes. At least most of us do.

          • anne55

            And, it is all because of scientific research. Both the cigarette companies and big oil companies suppressed the truth of their own findings for years. Ditto for lead poisoning from gas and paint.

          • GPS Daddy

            When true science was falsifiable.

          • anne55

            What do you mean? There are still times rogue people intentionally falsify data. It wasn’t just in the past.

          • GPS Daddy

            We have been moving more and more into a culture that experimental verification is not considered necessary. Rather, its authority and “stories” that “establish” science in some disciplines.

          • anne55

            What? I don’t understand what you are saying. I think we do consider experimental verification necessary. It is Trump that is throwing out years of data and saying to hell with it.

            Again, how do you condone Trump?

          • James Newman

            Really so you have video of him personally destroying this data?

          • Timothy Horton

            He doesn’t have to do it personally to be responsible for ordering decades of EPA climate data destroyed, which he did.

          • James Newman

            So you have a copy of his communications where he ordered people to destroy data? Or are you just making wild baseless accusations?

          • anne55

            He is likely too secretive for that.

            There is a communication from Trump that tells the EPA they must erase all mentions of climate change from their website and kill links to data.

            Basically silencing everyone. How moral is that?

          • James Newman

            And how many times was the Obama administration sued for refusing FOI requests? How moral was that?
            As for President Trump giving the EPA instructions on how he wants things run at the EPA he has every right to do so as they are part of the Executive Branch and work for him now. He most likely had them take it down because much of it was based on EPA “Secret Science”! Data the EPA under the Obama administration refused to release even when sent valid and lawful FOI request for their Secret Science. The Obama EPA even refused to comply with lawful Congressional subpoena’s for their Secret Science. How moral was that? You are projecting how the Obama administration carried on business onto the Trump administration. Remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan”. Lies and more lies but I’m sure you were busy blogging about the shortcomings of the Obama administration?
            I know for a fact he hasn’t silenced everyone as your mouth is still yapping.

          • James Newman

            Also I thought the EPA got all their climate data from NOAA.

          • anne55

            I don’t know how much is their own research and how much they get from NOAA. But Trump is cutting NOAA’s funding too.

          • James Newman

            Yes there appears to be a lot that you “don’t know”. It isn’t unusual for incoming administrations to re-task parts of the government that are under performing.
            Like Obama is famous for saying “elections have consequences”.

          • anne55

            From Reuters, a neutral, highly regarded, fact based publication:

            U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website, two agency employees told Reuters, the latest move by the newly minted leadership to erase ex-President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives.

            The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA’s communications team to remove the website’s climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions. The page could go down as early as Wednesday, the sources said.

            “If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear,” one of the EPA staffers told Reuters, who added some employees were scrambling to save some of the information housed on the website, or convince the Trump administration to preserve parts of it.

            The sources asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

            A Trump administration official did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

            The order comes as Trump’s administration has moved to curb the flow of information from several government agencies who oversee environmental issues since last week, in actions that appeared designed to tighten control and discourage dissenting views.

            The moves have reinforced concerns that Trump, a climate change doubter, could seek to sideline scientific research showing that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, as well as the career staffers at the agencies that conduct much of this research.

            Myron Ebell, who helped guide the EPA’s transition after Trump was elected in November until he was sworn in last week, said the move was not surprising.

            “My guess is the web pages will be taken down, but the links and information will be available,” he said.

            The page includes links to the EPA’s inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, which contains emissions data from individual industrial facilities as well as the multiagency Climate Change Indicators report, which describes trends related to the causes and effects of climate change.

            The Trump administration’s recently appointed team to guide the post-Obama transition has drawn heavily from the energy industry lobby and pro-drilling think tanks, according to a list of the newly introduced 10-member team.

            Trump appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a longtime foe of the EPA who has led 14 lawsuits against it, as the agency’s administrator. The Senate environment committee held a tense seven-hour confirmation hearing for Pruitt last week. No vote on his nomination has been scheduled yet.” END

            And from the Washington Post:
            “Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

            The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

            “Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis, who over the weekend began copying government climate data onto a nongovernment server, where it will remain available to the public. “Doing this can only be a good thing. Hopefully they leave everything in place. But if not, we’re planning for that.”

            [Trump taps Montana congressman Ryan Zinke, who frequently votes against environmentalists, as Interior secretary]

            In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a growing list of Cabinet members who have questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus around global warming. His transition team at the Department of Energy has asked agency officials for names of employees and contractors who have participated in international climate talks and worked on the scientific basis for Obama administration-era regulations of carbon emissions. One Trump adviser suggested that NASA no longer should conduct climate research and instead should focus on space exploration.”

            So if we are lucky it won’t be destroyed, but the links are not accessible to anyone. Scientists included.

          • James Newman

            You still haven’t proven your statement that data is being destroyed. All you’ve done is complain that you don’t like his cabinet picks.
            You’re making wild statements and nothing more.
            Do you go to rallies along with the other glassy eyed radicals and chant?

          • Timothy Horton

            You obviously haven’t been following the story.

            In January Trump announced plans to shutdown the EPA’s major data portal, its open source website. Thirty+ years of research and data on all aspects of the climate would be lost. There was a huge outcry from climate researchers all over the world at this potential loss. Both scientists and hackers have been scrambling the last two months to make backup copies of the data where Trump’s henchmen couldn’t delete it.

            Just yesterday the EPA announced it has reversed the decision and will now not shut down / delete the research portal. Looks like the Trumpies succumbed to public pressure (for now anyway) to not destroy such an invaluable and irreplaceable treasure trove of data.

            As reported by the L.A.Times:

            Did ‘people power’ save a trove of EPA data from a shutdown by Trump?

            www(DOT)latimes(DOT)com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-epa-opendata-20170424-story(DOT)html

          • James Newman

            You still haven’t proven your statement that data is being destroyed?

          • GPS Daddy

            Darwinian Evolution has no verifiable parts to it. There is no way to verify experimentally the claims of Darwinian Evolution.

            Trump is not throwing out data. That is a total mischaratetization. Rather, Trump is throwing out the PC spin on the data. Big difference.

          • Timothy Horton

            Darwinian Evolution has no verifiable parts to it. There is no way to verify experimentally the claims of Darwinian Evolution.

            LOL! Of course it can. The processes and mechanism of evolution can be empirically observed in near real time in the lab. The evidence of the processes working in the past can be empirically observed in both the fossil and genetic records.

            How do you verify experimentally the theory of plate tectonics?

          • GPS Daddy

            Hogwash, Timothy. What we see in the lab cannot be extrapolated to macro evolution. Therein is one of the biggest lies that is told about Darwinian Evolution. Just like we see in life: bugs stay bugs; dogs stay dogs; and humans have never been anything but human.

            You must first assume Darwinian Evolution in order to conclude that your seeing Darwinian Evolution.

          • GPS Daddy

            The fossil record gives you no such information. Again, you must assume Darwinian Evolution to conclude that the fossil record shows Darwinian Evolution. Plate tectonics is an entirely different beast from genetics. Even so, a paradigm must first be assumed with plate tectonics in order to interpret the data.

            As far as the history of life goes you must have an overall interpretation paradigm that guides the story you tell of the data, in this case, the fossils.

            Evolutionary stories presume an unguided, undesigned, blind process. That is the world view that Darwinian Evolution assumes to be true.

          • James Newman

            Wake up and smell the climate gate.

          • James Newman

            You never did any science. A lot of bad computer models predicted warming. Warming which never materialized which proved the computer models wrong thus proving your science wrong. The hot spot in the upper troposphere over the equatorial latitudes also never appeared as predicted which also proved your science wrong. And strangely enough the upper troposphere cooled slightly. There also wasn’t an increase in the number and power of hurricanes as predicted. Gee none of the predictions came true. Must be a bad theory. Eh?

        • hellenhighwater

          No. We’ve been holding out for increased clean energy, you know, like nuclear? Unfortunately, the lefties are against it, so we just burn wood in our cave to power our computers.

          • mikehaseler

            Science isn’t “left” or “right” – it’s politically neutral. And it doesn’t advocate any solutions instead it is just a tool to be used along with other considerations like cost, etc.

          • anne55

            I agree that it should be politically neutral. But, when you see your government trashing science, throwing data out, disrespecting researchers, it then becomes a political issue. You can blame Trump and his ilk.

          • mikehaseler

            Science is never political – it is the removal of observer bias – so as soon as anyone included politics it is not science.

            Putting it simply it’s a took – like a screwdriver – and “marching for science” is about as stupid as “marching for screwdrivers”.

          • anne55

            I think that your statement should be true.

            However, people are marching in protest against what the Trump administration is doing. They’ve never had to march and protest this before. They haven’t needed to. The Trump Administration is erasing years of data at the EPA so it can go back to using fossil fuels. They are getting rid of the Clean Power Plan and they are back to dumping in rivers near coal mines. The Trump Administration wants. He is slashing funding to the EPA, the National Institutes of Health (biomedical research), he is eliminating funding for the chemical safety board and their research, in agricultural research (crops / natural resources) … and many more, but you get the idea. The lack of funding WILL affect research. The erasing of data at the EPA should be considered a crime against humanity. That is just unspeakable. THIS is why scientists all over looked around and felt that their very livelihoods and all the fantastic ways we all benefit from good science was – quite simply – under attack. This is why we are marching. That, and the Trump Administration’s use of ‘alternative facts’ which aren’t facts at all, but lies. There is no such thing.

          • mikehaseler

            Trump is simply changing the EPA from an aggressive anti-democratic anti-science campaign organisation abusing the constitution to push through its own agenda … into a government agency doing what it’s supposed to do.

            And when Trump is through the US will still have the cleanest air and water quality it’s had for decades. The only difference is that the EPA will not be on some eco-nutter crusade but instead will be doing what the general public wants it to do in terms of a balance between cost to the US and benefits to the US.

          • anne55

            I disagree with how clean Trump will leave things. He is not on track to do that.

          • mikehaseler

            Whatever Trump does, he’s not going to dramatically change the massive improvement in air and water quality since the 1970 (where clean air acts started being implemented).

            And ironically much of the recent air pollution was caused by environmentalists when they pushed diesel technology – so even if you had an arch eco-zealot in the Whitehouse, there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t make things worse rather than better.

            But even with a total cock-up – it’ll still be better than the 1970s – so the cleanest in many decades will undoubtedly be valid.

          • historiavita

            You do realize that part of this “slashing of budgets” is because of the roughly 19 trillion dollars of debt the U.S. has, and the looming unfunded SS and related liabilities launch that number into even higher reaches? Budgets must be cut, and deeply, and in many areas. We simply can’t afford to spend what we spend.

          • James Newman

            Really so you can prove they are erasing data and not archiving it? Where’s the proof? And please don’t tell me “The news said”.
            Also you can’t spend money you don’t have and we are 20 trillion in debt and getting deeper in debt every day. As you say it is “unsustainable”. The days of rampant unsustainable spending are coming to an end and the government has to live within its means. That means government programs and agencies need to be cut and waste eliminated. Like it or not that means programs like the EPA which accomplished their mission decades ago are going to get their budgets cut and cut hard as all they need to do is maintain the status quo.

          • anne55

            I just answered this minutes ago in another post, so am not going to repeat myself.

            As for government debt, it is a matter of priorities. I don’t see the EPA’s mission as ever ending. And, why should I believe this when Trump wants a HUGE military build up and expenditure? Our military spending is already equal to that of 7 nations (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, India and Germany).

            I’d much rather spend my tax money on the EPA than the military. And, I don’t think EITHER political party has been particularly fiscally conservative. Why do you think Trump will do any better?

          • Timothy Horton

            “Marching to keep RW conservative stupidity out of science” was too long to fit on a sign.

          • mikehaseler

            I guess you don’t own a screwdriver? Too technical!

          • Timothy Horton

            Even my screwdriver isn’t stupid enough to think the Earth has one uniform climate.

          • James Newman

            Yes there is more than enough LW liberal stupidity in science as is we don’t need to add more to the equation. Perhaps we should just eliminate the stupidity and go back to the scientific method? Eh?

          • historiavita

            Speaking of which, The March for Screwdrivers (and other vodka cocktails) is this Saturday at 6 PM.

          • James Newman

            Wake up and smell the climate gate emails.

          • historiavita

            Do you mean “disrespecting researchers” like Bill Nye suggesting those who take issue with anthropogenic global warming perhaps be jailed? You know who would not be a fan of his talking that way? Galileo.

          • anne55

            I just listen to the segment on video from Bill Nye. First, he was asked by an interviewer if ‘criminal charges’ / jailing skeptics as you would war criminals’ should be leveled against climate denying CEO’s (such as Enron) and should be tried at the Hague. The actual suggestion of this came not from Bill Nye, but Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Bill responds to the interviewer with a shrug and says “We will see what happens.” Bill then asks the interviewer, “Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron…was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry because they insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?” He then shrugs again. His shrugging makes me think he a) isn’t certain and b) it is a thought worth considering. He also adds,”The introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is effecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So, I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigation as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

            I see nothing at all wrong with his thoughts on this. In the analogy to Enron’s bankruptcy, we hold CEO’s, et al. legally and criminally responsible for their poor decisions. In the case of cigarettes, they SAT on research data showing how addictive and harmful cigarettes were for years. Ditto Exxon on climate research. Ditto paint companies on lead and lead poisoning in children. These caused massive harm to people.

            If you believe the 97% of research saying climate change is real and happening now, then you have a duty to act. Climate change has been discussed and researched for a LONG TIME. Not acting is pure negligence and, yes, it is my opinion it will become a ‘crime against humanity’. People should face criminal charges.

            Your example of Galileo suggests that the 3% of scientists who continue to dispute climate change are being persecuted. NO ONE is threatening to burn them at the stake. The situations aren’t really parallel. Not only are they separated by over 400 years (in which time you’d hope we’d learned a few lessons), but the Catholic Church was not acting as the 97% of research scientists saying something different. They weren’t research at all, but a religious organization with a world view that was in contrast to Galileo (who was a scientist).

            When the vast majority of the evidence falls in one direction, it is imperative to use it to inform policies.

          • James Newman

            Anne the 97% number was made up and and has been repeatedly discredited. When you look at surveys of atmospheric scientist on the subject you’ll see much different numbers which are about 53/47. For every scientist you can name that is a beleiver in AGW I can name one that doesn’t.

          • anne55

            Show me your proof of that.

            From NASA (do you believe NASA?) a short paragraph from a much longer article entitled: Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming

            Quote: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.” End quote.

            The article includes states from 18 different scientific societies.

            “American Association for the Advancement of Science
            “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

            American Chemical Society
            “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

            American Geophysical Union
            “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

            American Medical Association
            “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

            American Meteorological Society
            “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

            American Physical Society
            “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

            The Geological Society of America
            “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9 End quote.

            It also includes science academies (and links) as well as a list of worldwide scientific organizations. These are all independent groups.

            Again, show me your proof of what you say.

          • James Newman

            Tell me Anne55 what sort of organization is NASA? Is it perhaps a Federal Government organization? One that was ran by government employees and government contractors that are headed by Political appointees of a then president that is a known and repeated liar aka B Obama? Remember the you can keep your doctor and your insurance lies he told? B Obama had an agenda and his political appointees carried out his agenda. Remember he said “Under my plan electrical prices will necessarily skyrocket”. He gave the orders and his minions at NASA and NOAA and EPA carried out those orders. The EPA administrator even admitted that Obama’s clean power plan would accomplish nothing appreciable but would cost trillions to implement. NASA and NOAA were told to produce the proof and they did the best they could. They adjusted the ground temp data and readjusted the ground temp data until they got the answer their boss B Obama wanted and they got to keep their jobs and pensions. None of it’s true but hey they get to keep their cushy government jobs and their generous government pensions.
            This whole “Global Warming” debate is based entirely on Computer Models and those computer models have proven themselves wrong as the temperatures globally haven’t gone up as they predicted and the Satellite and Weather balloon data prove nothing unusual is happening.
            As for the IPCC they are constantly being caught in lies and they are nothing more than yet another government organization with an agenda.

          • James Newman

            “When the vast majority of the evidence falls in one direction, it is imperative to use it to inform policies.”

            Really? What evidence are you talking about because the computer models have proven themselves wrong and the satellites and weather balloon data say nothing unusual is happening temperature wise?
            Where is this mythical evidence of which you speak?

          • anne55

            Sigh. I just posted a big article somewhere else on this blog that was from NASA. They listed 18 American agencies that support the evidence for climate change as well as science academies and international groups. Look around. You’ll find it.

          • historiavita

            You too? Good—thought I was the only one.

      • Paul

        You talk as if the govt must be the benefactor of all innovation or else we’d be in the middle ages. The point I’m making is that this is really about getting tax dollars and has little to do with science. Your attempt to brand people as anti science simply because they point out the fiscal reality is feeble at best.

        • anne55

          They are NOT dangerous injections. That is a total scam. That so-called research was proven false a long time ago and the British doctor lost his license to practice over it. Because 2 events often happen close to the same time, does not mean one causes the other. They are now able to detect autism very early in young babies through the use of old family videos that look at interactive eye gaze between infant and parent. This was a research study. And, it often (not always) shows up long before shots are given.

          • Paul

            Yea well when you personally see a kid drastically change following an injection it will change your perspective.

          • Timothy Horton

            Get ready for the anecdotal stories of one kid who had a reaction while ignoring the estimated 1000x that amount who had debilitating diseases prevented.

            It’s the same technique the deniers tried when seatbelt use in cars became mandatory. The statistics showing seatbelts saved thousands of lives every year were ignored. Instead we got an anecdotal story of a person who drowned after driving into a pond and the seatbelt wouldn’t unbuckle.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Actually, what statistics were those regarding seat belts? At the same time that seat belts were phasing in, cars were being built with crumple zones and collapsible steering columns (to dissipate collision energy and to eliminate what was then the #1 cause of fatalities: chests punctured by steering columns. Ever see a car from the 50s?) Further, there were improvements in EMT procedures and equipment. It is impossible to separate statistically the effect of any one of these on traffic fatalities from the others.

            Seat belts, being more visible and obvious, did lead to greater speeds and more reckless driving due to a phenomenon known in Risk Management as the “risk thermostat.” People regulate their behaviors to the level of perceived risk with which they feel comfortable. The seat belt made people feel more secure, so they drove a leetle bit faster. Bad luck for the guy they t-boned at the intersection. Fatalities fell — thanks to better EMT, et al. — but accidents increased. Crumple zones and collapsible steering columns had no similar effect because these were invisible to the driver.

          • hellenhighwater

            I like the cut of your jib!

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Danke. Too many people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination. I’m sorry to report that I have seen this even among physical scientists and chemists.

            A statistician at NYU under whom my late boss studied was a consultant for the tobacco industry, and was employed to find flaws in studies showing the hazards of smoking: poor methodology, inadequate samples, improper inferences, and so on. These were genuine flaws, btw. He was a chain smoker himself and smoked all through his lectures.

            Then one day his students noticed something odd. The professor was not smoking. The students asked him why. They finally gave me a study, he said, that I could not refute.

            That, my friend, was a Scientist. He changed his mind when the evidence warranted.

          • anne55

            Good for him that he quit smoking based on science.

            I would argue that what we are talking about here – climate change – has equally good data.

          • anne55

            Deaths have decreased significantly since seat belts, but they are not the only factor in car design.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            That is an excellent example of non-scientific ex post faxcto thinking. Did you know that women in the US entered the workforce in increasing numbers as automobile imports increased?

            Maybe only statisticians notice the abuse of correlation analysis conducted in the name of funding and publish-or-perish. At least, they only announce “an association” but somehow it is always reported and analyzed as if it were a causation.

          • GPS Daddy

            Excellent, Ye Olde Statistician!!!! That’s what I was trying to say but did not know how.

          • anne55

            My life’s career was working with children (and their families) with autism. So, don’t lecture me about this. That was ALL I did.

          • Paul

            Doesn’t change what I’ve seen.

          • Timothy Horton

            No one doubts you may have seen a child have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. You need to understand that doesn’t mean all or most children will, or that overall the vaccinations do a lot more harm than good to the overall population. There are people who are allergic to penicillin too but that doesn’t mean we should stop all penicillin shots.

          • Paul

            so you agree vaccines are harmful to some people, but want to force everyone to get the shots regardless…the greater good and all that, those that get sick or die is just collateral damage, toss them a few bucks and everyone else keep marching to your drum.

          • Timothy Horton

            If 1 in 10,000 children get very sick with the vaccine and 100 or more in 10,000 get very sick without it when an epidemic breaks out then yes, is is for the greater good.

          • Paul

            Those who you like to discredit as ‘anti vaxxers’ care about the first victim group more than you do and expect more than denial by those who claim nothing is wrong with vaccines.

          • anne55

            And, what about the second victim group? Those exposed when your child is not vaccinated and becomes ill.

          • anne55

            And, if you don’t vaccinate your children, they are much more likely to die.

          • Paul

            Should a parent have that choice?

          • anne55

            The problem is, if ALL parents made this choice out of fear, there would be a LOT of deaths.

          • Paul

            In another article about the state killing a kid in England, a comment was made regarding the state being co-parent of kids as opposed to the parents having rights. Basically you’re arguing here that parents should not have the right to choose what is injected into their kids but rather the state is the parent.

          • anne55

            Okay, so suppose you give parents that right. Many parents choose it. Then there is an epidemic due to lack of vaccination and many children are exposed. If your child is the one that gets “whatever’ illness and spreads it to others, are you then not infringing on the rights of other parents and other children? The right to health and life? Vaccines only work through ‘herd immunity’.

          • Paul

            “Vaccines only work through ‘herd immunity'”.

            Can’t have any of them sheeple think for themselves can we.

            If working correctly vaccines protect the vaccinated, so if I choose a different course for my kids what harm is it to the vaccinated for whom nothing is supposed to spread?

          • anne55

            You are right that nothing is likely to happen to those already vaccinated. It is the ones who aren’t. Like very young infants, too young for their first vaccination.

            How do you think polio spread? Or pertussis? Or whooping cough? Mumps and measles?

          • Paul

            As you know the question of how infectious diseases spread is a much broader topic than vaccines. Nor does it remotely touch on the concerns many have with vaccines. Every person I know who has concerns about vaccines isn’t opposed to the principle but rather the actual cocktails being used. My elderly parents had horrible reactions to the flu vaccine that’s always pushed on the elderly, but in spite of their dilemmas no one in ‘science’ cared to try to discover why. Just shrugs about some have adverse reactions, but absolutely no research into specifically why. Just keep pumping the same crap into veins everywhere., nobody with initials after their names gives a care, just keep parroting the same BS about how safe it is and laboring to discredit anyone who dares say anything negative. People know more about the ingredients in their breakfast cereal than the stuff the lab coats shoot into their arms.

          • anne55

            Sometimes people have a severe allergic reaction to the flu shot. It isn’t common, but it can happen and those people probably shouldn’t take it. However, the flu itself can be serious especially among the very young and the elderly. That is a decision each person needs to make with their doctor. Very rarely the flu vaccine can cause Guillian-Barre syndrome, but that is most likely in someone that has already had it. I don’t believe that ‘no one cares’, but it still goes that most people benefit from vaccines and we all benefit from ‘herd immunity’.

          • Paul

            It’s a little late to tell someone who has had a severe reaction that they probably shouldn’t have the shot. Maybe there should be a test to check if someone is alergic BEFORE they get the shot.

          • anne55

            I don’t know if that exists. You should ask. Maybe there are ways to test for it ahead of time. That is a reasonable idea.

          • Paul

            If the scientists involved cared no one should have to ask, but instead we have a system by which they have their calculus of what is their acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of forcing what they consider the greater good.

          • anne55

            I don’t know about the case in England, but again, I say, you potentially trample on the right to life and liberty of others when you do not vaccinate your own child. And, how would you feel if your child contracted some serious illness that could have been preventable? For instance, mumps can cause low or even infertility in boys. It can cause deafness. It can lead to encephalitis. While not overly common, these serious side effects are real.

          • Paul

            All that doesn’t change the condition of those harmed by vaccines.

          • anne55

            Nor does it change the conditions of those harmed when they catch diseases from others that are unvaccinated. If you choose to homeschool your child and keep them strictly away from others at the slightest sign of illness, well, then maybe…problem is too many children pass germs before they even know they are sick. I can see your point of view. Can you also see mine?

          • Paul

            I’ve always seen both sides of this issue, but whenever I raise my concerns the character attacks of anti-vaxxer start flowing.

            But as for home schooling most people don’t have the resources to fund it so at least here are forced to have their kids injected. Maybe when there is real education choice that becomes more viable but still the vaccine industry will seek how to impose their will

          • anne55

            Let me give you an example. Many years ago (before the MMR vaccine was available and kids just got measles, etc) I use to babysit for two little girls. Their mother was pregnant with a third child. That little baby, a boy, was exposed in utero to measles via one of his sister’s. He was born with terrible, terrible deformities, a life time of suffering and not living up to what should have been his potential. This kind of tragedy is what the vaccines now prevent.

          • anne55

            Nor what I have seen either.

          • GPS Daddy

            I thought you were all in on climate change and gender fluidity?

          • anne55

            Again, did this happen in your family?

          • GPS Daddy

            So if he did not see it in his family does that then negate that he saw it?

          • anne55

            My point is it is VERY rare and I would rather take that risk than run the risk of terrible diseases. Life is simply not without some risk. Science is trying to minimize that risk.

          • GPS Daddy

            Ok, but your not the parent but of your own kids.

          • anne55

            But your kids interact with other people and can spread illness to others not vaccinated (when parents refuse; to very young infants before they get vaccinated). How is that moral?

          • GPS Daddy

            The parents have the rights over their kids. That is the foundation we start from. The state has very, very little room or leeway. This keeps things in the proper balance. Otherwise we invite abuse of patents rights… which we already have.

            To your question: your question can only be answered in specific terms and circumstances. My general answer is no.

          • anne55

            You might well trod on the rights of other parents and THEIR children.

          • GPS Daddy

            Now your taking my comment too far. I will not discuss the caveats to my view until we are on the same page of parents rights. I highly suspect you take a low view of parents rights.

          • anne55

            I think it behooves all parents to know that their actions affect not only their own child, but others. Does it make it right to value one life over other lives? This is another one of those gray areas where there are no easy answers.

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, were not going to agree because our foundations are totally different. Your question is a totally loaded question. We must first address the foundation.

            Am I right that that you hold a low view of parents rights?

          • Paul

            I choose not to publicly discuss the details out of respect of privacy.

          • anne55

            That is your choice, but since no one knows who you are here, I don’t think you are being disrespectful of anyone’s privacy – unless you include names and a lot of personal details. I am just trying to understand why you feel the way you do.

          • Paul

            I feel the way I do because of the evidence I’ve personally seen in a child as well as my own parents, the experiences shared by many others, and also the fact that the govt itself set up a compensation fund to throw money at those folks impacted by the adverse effects of vaccines. In the case of the child I simply don’t discuss the details online, I’m committed to respecting the privacy of the child and the family.

          • anne55

            I respect that.

            I went to the CDC site and out of 4ooo+ reports of adverse reactions in a given year, about 2000+ were compensated. That is out of something over a billion vaccines given. I am going on my memory here, but I posted exact numbers somewhere around here.

          • Paul

            So for the sake of discussion, what do you consider an acceptable number of damaged human life for a medical procedure?

          • anne55

            No damaged human life should be taken lightly. But, the weight of the evidence would say that, without vaccines and without good medicine, there would be infinitely more damaged lives then the fairly rare one that occurs as a reaction to a vaccine. Any injury is one too many and I’m sure they are working to make vaccines even safer and to try to identify ahead of time who might be at risk for a terrible reaction. In the meantime, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of ‘the greater good’.

          • Paul

            Unfortunately that didn’t give me anything I could quantify

          • anne55

            I can’t quantify it directly. All you can look at is number of vaccines given to prevent illness and number of vaccines given that caused a problem. The CDC has that info.

        • Timothy Horton

          Figures a climate change denier would be an anti-vaxxer too. Science and the Fundy mindset just don’t get along.

          • Paul

            You forgot ‘deplorable’ in your name calling, try to keep up with the times

          • Timothy Horton

            Are you Flat Earther and a NASA moon landing hoax supporter too?

          • Paul

            I’m sure you’ve got lots of mud you want to fling in your effort to discredit your opponents, don’t forget I also like to feed baby seals to my pet yeti.

          • Timothy Horton

            People who are anti-vaxxers tend to almost always argue from emotion and never from the actual scientific data. So far you fit the pattern perfectly. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

          • Paul

            When your kid gets sick from a vaccine maybe then you will get emotional instead of trying to discredit peoples vaccine concerns as merely emotion without any evidence. All the while your sacred scientists and govt pay out millions in claims due to adverse vaccine reactions.

          • anne55

            Did you personally have this experience? The risk is very, very, very small, but not null. And, without vaccines, you might have to live life with polio or die of other highly treatable diseases. That doesn’t take away the pain of what might happen to a specific individual. But the overall pain of the world’s children is less with vaccines.

          • anne55

            I understand reacting emotionally when your child is injured or sick. The reasons for the injury / illness may or may not be caused by a vaccine. We have courts requiring evidence for that.

            “According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2015 over 2.8 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 4,426 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 2,884 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.

            Since 1988, over 18,072 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 27- year time period, 16,289
            petitions have been adjudicated, with 5,353 of those determined to be compensable, while 10,936 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.6 billion.”

            Data from the CDC

          • anne55

            From the WHO:
            Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine safety

            Online Q&A
            March 2017

            1. With adequate levels of hygiene, sanitation and clean water, is there still a need for vaccination?

            Vaccines are necessary — and good hygiene, sanitation, clean water, and nutrition are insufficient for stopping infectious diseases. If we don’t maintain optimum rates of immunization or “herd immunity”, the diseases prevented by vaccination will return. While better hygiene, sanitation and clean water help protect people from infectious diseases, many infections can spread regardless of how clean we are. If people are not vaccinated, diseases that have become uncommon such as pertussis (whooping cough), polio and measles, will quickly reappear.

            2. Are vaccines safe?

            Vaccines are safe. Any licensed vaccine is rigorously tested across multiple phases of trials before it is approved for use, and regularly reassessed once it is on the market. Scientists are also constantly monitoring information from several sources for any sign that a vaccine may cause an adverse event. Most vaccine reactions are usually minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. In the rare event a serious side effect is reported, it is immediately investigated.

            It is far more likely to be seriously injured by a vaccine-preventable disease than by a vaccine. For example, in the case of polio, the disease can cause paralysis, measles can cause encephalitis and blindness, and some vaccine-preventable diseases can even result in death. While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is one too many, the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the risks, and many more illness and deaths would occur without vaccines.

            3. Do vaccines provide better immunity than natural infections?

            Vaccines interact with the immune system to produce an immune response similar to that produced by the natural infection, but they do not cause the disease or put the immunized person at risk of its potential complications. In contrast, the price paid for getting immunity through natural infection might be cognitive impairments from Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), birth defects from rubella, liver cancer from hepatitis B virus, or death from complication due to measles.

            4. Do I need to be vaccinated against diseases that I do not see in my community or my country?

            Although vaccine-preventable diseases have become uncommon in many countries, the infectious agents that cause them continue to circulate in some parts of the world. In a highly inter-connected world, they can cross geographical borders and infect anyone who is not protected. In Western Europe, for example, measles outbreaks have occurred in unvaccinated populations in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and United Kingdom, and in the United States.

            Two key reasons to get vaccinated are to protect ourselves and to protect those around us. Successful vaccination programmes depend on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the wellbeing of all. We should not rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease; we, too, must do what we can.

            5. Can a child be given more than one vaccine at a time?

            Scientific evidence shows that giving several vaccines at the same time has no negative effect on a child’s immune system. Children are exposed to several hundred foreign substances that trigger an immune response every day. The simple act of eating food introduces new antigens into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose. A child is exposed to far more antigens from a common cold or sore throat than they are from vaccines.

            The key advantage of having several vaccines at once is fewer clinic visits, which saves time and money. Also, when a combined vaccination is possible (e.g. for measles, mumps and rubella), that will result in fewer injections and reduces discomfort for the child. A number of steps can also be taken to minimise the pain of the multiple injections.

            6. Do I need to be protected against influenza through vaccination?

            Influenza is a serious disease that kills between 300 000 to 500 000 people worldwide every year. Pregnant women, small children, elderly people with poor health and anyone with a chronic condition, like asthma or heart disease, are at higher risk for severe infection and death. Vaccinating pregnant women has the added benefit of protecting their newborns (there is currently no vaccine for babies under 6 months).

            Seasonal influenza vaccines offer immunity to the 3 most prevalent strains circulating in any given season. It is the best way to reduce your chances of severe flu and of spreading it to others. Avoiding the flu means avoiding extra medical care costs and lost income from missing days of work or school.

            7. What preservatives are used in vaccines?

            Thiomersal is an organic, mercury-containing compound added to some vaccines as a preservative. It is safe and the most widely-used preservative for vaccines that are provided in multi-dose vaccine vials. There is no evidence to suggest that the amount of thiomersal used in vaccines poses a health risk.

            8. What about vaccines and autism?

            The 1998 study which raised concerns about a possible link between measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism was later found to be seriously flawed and fraudulent. The paper was subsequently retracted by the journal that published it. Unfortunately, its publication set off a panic that led to dropping immunization rates, and subsequent outbreaks of these diseases. There is no evidence of a link between MMR vaccine and autism or autistic disorders.

          • Paul

            No one investigated the adverse reactions of my parents so this is just govt propaganda to me

          • anne55

            Did they report it?

            You can report an adverse advent by googling the site called Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. You can report online, by fax or by mail. You can be the doctor of the patient, or the patient’s parents or family members. Probably you can even be the patient. I’d ask, when reporting, what the follow up contacts will be.

          • Paul

            don’t blame the victim, multiple doctors were aware of the situation, why don’t they do their job?

          • anne55

            I am not blaming anyone. I am just asking if it was reported. Families can do that too.

          • anne55

            I, for one, am not calling anyone deplorable. I believe people CAN change. I believe the human mind is capable of independent investigation of truth. But, people have to be open and willing to explore and examine.

          • Paul

            some of the most closed minds I’ve encountered are those who refuse to entertain the possibility of intelligent design. Just have to see all the flat earther comments that float around these articles.

          • Timothy Horton

            I entertain the possibility just fine. What I don’t like is people like the DI’s professional liars trying to push the idea into public schools when there’s zero positive evidence for it.

          • Paul

            The evidence for me is all around, no different than thinking my computer was designed by someone inteligent, but regardless my tax dollars fund that school, I should have a say in what gets taught to my kids. But that throws a wrench in the whole secular humanist/atheist indoctrination scheme trying to dictate your version of truth on future generations.

          • anne55

            You can teach your kids intelligent design, but you can’t teach EVERYONE’s kids that intelligent design is ‘truth’.

            Remember long ago when the church use to think everything in the solar system revolved around the Earth? Galileo was considered a heretic because he believed otherwise. The Church in that day persecuted him terribly.

            I won’t copy but a bit of this lengthy article – just enough to make my point.

            “Galileo vs. the Pope

            A Copernican map of the universe published in 1660 features the sun at the center. Galileo’s advocacy of this theory incurred the wrath of Pope Urban VIII. (Image From the Granger Collection, New York)
            By Hal Hellman
            Special to The Washington Post
            Wednesday, September 9, 1998

            “On June 22, 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial at Inquisition headquarters in Rome. All of the magnificent power of the Roman Catholic Church seemed arrayed against the famous scientist. Under threat of torture, imprisonment and even burning at the stake, he was forced, on his knees, to “abjure, curse and detest” a lifetime of brilliant and dedicated thought and labor.

            By then an old man of 69 who in his defense referred to his “pitiable state of bodily indisposition,” Galileo was charged with “vehement suspicion of heresy.” He had to renounce “with sincere heart and unfeigned faith” his belief that the sun, not Earth, was the center of the universe and that Earth moved around the sun and not vice versa, as ecclesiastical teaching dictated.

            Because he was willing to do this, at least verbally, the more serious of the threats remained only that. As one of his punishments, for example, he was to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years. He also was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

            Finally, his book, Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican (1632), which lay at the heart of the trial, was added to the index of banned books, Index Librorum Prohibitorum, maintained by the Inquisition…..In fall 1980, Pope John Paul II ordered a new look at evidence in Galileo’s trial. In 1992 came acquittal. But the basic conflict between established religion and modern science is still being played out.”

          • Paul

            “You can teach your kids intelligent design, but you can’t teach EVERYONE’s kids that intelligent design is ‘truth’.”

            And yet all kids in public school are taught big bang is truth

          • anne55

            see my reply a couple of posts above

          • Paul

            with 570 comments and counting that isn’t going to happen

          • anne55

            Well, I recognize it is getting confusing to find things around here, but I really don’t want to repeat myself. That just makes it worse.

          • anne55

            You can’t test for God. You can’t even define God exactly. You can look at all creation and find ways to ‘test’ it. But, I think you might agree that creation is not God itself. How do you test for God, please tell me? Isn’t that why people always say you have to take some things on faith? Because they are untestable and unknowable. But, you can test for evidence of the Big Bang or whatever other theories are out there. You can ‘see’ and ‘measure’ certain things, i.e. background radiation. You then have a hypothesis about that radiation. Do we know if it is correct? Not for sure. We need more data. That doesn’t mean we won’t learn, at some point based on data, that it is correct. Or, then again, maybe incorrect. You can teach the theory and how it is being researched, but you must say it is a theory until enough evidence makes it pretty comfortable to say something is fact.

            But, tell me, how does one even go about testing for ‘intelligent design’? How do you set up an experiment for that? People can’t just go on the “I believe it on faith” argument and “because I want it to be so” or because “ancient sacred texts tell me it is true”. That may be your desire or personal belief, but it is not scientific. It should therefore not be taught as truth in a public school (only in your own home or church if you wish).

          • Paul

            Same double standard at work. TBH I don’t believe there is an intelligent designer of what we call the universe because of a book, it’s because I think it takes a whole lot more foolishness to think it all just happened on its own from nothing by a gazillion chances. I see the complexity in our natural world and I wonder who made it and how, not much different than I might wonder the same about my computer or the Egyptian pyramids. But don’t dare mention that in a classroom, don’t want to upset the secular humanist apple cart. ‘God’ can’t be proven after all, but then neither can big bang but don’t mention that either, just keep chanting it until everyone says it’s so.

          • anne55

            Okay. I have the same thoughts as you actually. I look at everything with great awe and I think, how could this all have happened by accident? I agree with you on that.

            But, the fact is, that is my THOUGHT and that does not equal scientific proof. Maybe it did all happen by accident and I just can’t fathom the eons of time that it took.

            All science can do is ask questions, come up with theories and design experiments to test those theories. In order to experiment we have to do so with what is observable and physical. The concept of intelligent design, or the universe and all that is in it, reflecting as a “mirror” to a hidden Creator, is a lovely one, but totally (as far as I know now) untestable. So we are forced to live with ambiguity and the possibility that the alternative theory – which is much more testable – is that random chance and evolution was at work here.

          • Paul

            In this context the only ones doing the forcing are those bent on refusing to allow any notion of inteligent design.

          • anne55

            We aren’t refusing the notion or denying that some people believe in it. We are simply saying:
            You can’t test for it
            You can’t observe a Creator directly
            You can teach in school what you can’t test for or make any direct or indirect observation on.

            As regards your big bang counterargument, they ARE trying to test for it.

          • anne55

            I am copying and pasting a portion of a compelling blog by a man named Nick Strobel. He is both a scientist and a Christian. He says “…This document was written in October 2005 when my local high school board was considering requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classes…” There is more to the document than I am pasting here, so you can go to the original entitled, “A passionate look at the controversy by Nick Strobel”

            I find what he has to say compelling.

            “As a Christian and as a scientist, I am against the requirement of teaching of Intelligent Design in our school science classes. Intelligent Design is actually the Bible-literalist creationism idea with slick scientific-looking packaging. If one is going to teach about Intelligent Design, then one must teach about the Designer. As a Christian I do not want my children being instructed on the Designer by biology teachers who will eventually have to meet the theological criteria of literalist beliefs held by a subset of Christians in our community. As a Christian who has studied the Bible all of his life and who has experienced the presence of God through that study of the Bible, I do not agree that I must read the scriptures as literal-fact. I do not believe that the truth of the scriptures is only valid if it can be proven or verified by physical means. I do not believe that the only valid truth is factual. A literalist view of scriptures is actually an outgrowth of the philosophy and time period from which modern science arose (called the “Enlightenment”) that identified truth with factuality and that truth must be verifiable as fact. The truth of the Bible is metaphorical and does not depend on historical factuality.

            The requirement of the teaching of Intelligent Design in our schools is the first step in forcing our children to believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It is the first step in indoctrinating our children in the God believed by the fundamentalist clergy on our school board. As a patriot who loves this country, I do not want a public representative in authority (a school teacher) giving my children the message that they should hold a particular religious viewpoint. As a Christian, I do not want that public authority teaching my children a religious belief I do not believe. This will happen if the Intelligent Design proponents and creationists have their way.

            As a scientist I am against the teaching of Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory because it is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not an “unproven assumption” as one columnist stated recently. A scientific theory is a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false. A scientific theory must make testable predictions. Intelligent Design, like creationism, holds a particular explanation about our physical world to be true no matter what—it cannot be proven false nor can it be modified when new evidence is discovered. Intelligent Design, like creationism, starts off with the assumption that God created everything and it believes that no facts or observation can prove otherwise. This is fine as a religious belief, but this belief is not scientific. That is OKAY—it is alright to hold a non-scientific belief as long one does not confuse a religious belief with a scientific explanation and vice versa. Intelligent Design proponents believe there are some physical things and processes that cannot be understood or explained without invoking a supernatural entity, the master Designer, and no facts or observation can contradict that belief. Again, this is fine as a religious belief, but this belief is not scientific. That is OKAY. This belief is along the lines of the “God of the gaps” understanding that I discuss more fully below.

            The realm of science is the physical, natural universe. As a Christian, I do not use the methods of science to prove God exists or to prove my faith is valid. Science was never meant to do that. Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, and scientists who try to prove the existence of God or to disprove God exists are mis-applying the methods of science to something outside the realm of science. That is NOT okay. As a scientist, I cannot say whether God exists or not; whether God does or does not act. As a Christian, I can say that.

            The fact that I cannot use science to prove God exists and acts does NOT make my faith weaker, less valid, or less real than those who believe in a literal-factual interpretation of the Bible. Literally tens of millions of Christians in the United States alone will agree with that statement. They are not as vocal as the literalist Christian group, nor do the journalists focus their attention on them because they are not as interesting. Newspapers, magazines, radio and television shows thrives on controversy because it attracts more viewers/listeners. The media magnifies controversy. The literalist Christians and the subset of scientists who are atheists welcome media attention and will oblige by shouting at each other. The two opposing extremist groups think that whoever shouts the loudest and longest will win the argument. This is what my elementary school children do, but mature adults do not do that.

            As a scientist I am against the teaching of Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory because it has not gone through the standard peer review and correction of the scientific process. Things like biological evolution, atomic theory, and gravity theory are taught in our high schools because they have been verified and refined by many people using the scientific method. Any scientist would love to prove those theories wrong or incomplete because they would get a lot of fame for making that breakthrough. Scientists spend years testing scientific theories in that pursuit of a radical break from what was previously thought. Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates seek to do an “end-run” around the tried-and-true process of science and curriculum development by legislating their beliefs into our schools.

            Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates argue from the position of authority rather than from the evidence of the physical universe. Because they have people with PhDs in the sciences working in their organizations, anything they say must be scientific. This is like my second-grader arguing she is right and her sister is not because she is in the second grade and her sister is just in kindergarten. Children argue this way, but mature adults do not. PhD scientists are not the judges of scientific truth; careful observations of nature are the sole judge. I cannot say I am correct just because I have a PhD in astrophysics from a prestigious institution. I have to give you the evidence.

            Many of criticisms of evolution, Big Bang theory, etc. by the creationists and Intelligent Design advocates center on gaps in our understanding. Unfortunately for them, people using the scientific method have filled in many of those gaps. (It would take many more pages to list answers to all of the critiques by the creationists/ID people.) No scientist will say that science knows everything. If there is a gap in our understanding, the person acting as a scientist will say we don’t know the reason for something yet and work to find the reason from physical, non-spiritual means. That is the power and the limit of science.” End quote.

          • Paul

            intelligent design isn’t necesarily supernatural.

          • anne55

            I never called it that. I just said it can’t be tested for scientifically. Neither can so-called supernatural phenomena.

          • anne55

            I am not closed to the idea of intelligent design. HOWEVER, how do you scientifically prove it? I am opposed to teaching children in school something that likely can’t be proven. That is for religion. If you can prove it, or if anyone can, then great. But, I doubt it is possible. I must go with what science is able to examine and, eventually, explain.

          • Paul

            “I am opposed to teaching children in school something that likely can’t be proven.”

            So then you oppose teaching big bang theories?

          • anne55

            They are trying to prove the big bang theory and they state that it is an unproven theory.

            I think it okay to tell older children that but also that there is much more we need in order to know to understand the beginnings of the universe. Right now, a lot is speculation – but they can empirically measure the ‘glow’ of cosmic microwave background radiation. This is found throughout the universe, and is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. This is actually something physical one can measure.

            Tell me how one tests for the existence of God in an intelligent design theory?

            And, if you read my entire paragraph, I said I think it is okay to teach older children this idea in a comparative religions class, but not state that it has been proven. It hasn’t.

          • Paul

            I gotta love the double standard, you have no problem teaching kids unproven theories about big bang while forbidding teaching intelligent design theories because it is unproven. How does a person reason with such hypocrisy?

      • James Newman

        Have you or anyone in your family ever benefited from fossil fuels. Do you have a heater that uses any fossil fuels? Do you drive a car powered by fossil fuels? Have you ever eaten any food that was grown using fossil fuels converted to fertilizer?Have you ever benefited from any industrial product that used fossil fuels to make it? Have you ever had surgery in a hospital that used fossil fuels? Unless you’ve lived in a cave all your life the answer to all those questions is yes.

        • Timothy Horton

          None of that changes the fact when you start burning too much fossil fuels your have a measurably negative effect on the climate.

          • James Newman

            No you don’t. CO2 is nothing more than plant food and the only effect that can be proven from burning fossil fuels is that the planet is getting greener.

          • anne55

            I can’t speak to India without doing some research, but China is starting to shift away from fossil fuels, including coal. Unfortunately, this is occurring just as Trump wants to ramp up our production.

            “Despite the massive layoffs, support is growing for the shift away from coal. In a public showing of the government’s commitment to reducing its emissions – and thereby its coal consumption — President Xi Jinping signed the Paris agreement last year.

            In the agreement, China has committed to cutting carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030, using emissions from 2005 as a baseline. In addition, it pledged that 20 percent of the country’s energy will come from renewable energies like wind, solar and hydropower.

            “I believe that the air pollution issue makes it much easier for the government to commit to major international climate change targets, since most measures and technologies help improve the air and mitigate greenhouse gases concurrently,” said Ranping Song, a senior associate with the World Resource Institute who is monitoring China’s emission targets.

            Although China relies on imports for less than 10 percent of its coal use, its shift away from fossil fuels is having an impact on the world economy, especially on exporting nations like Indonesia, which, at times, saw exports drop by almost 40 percent. “Significant cutbacks on imports are expected to increase,” research by Global Risk Insights found.”

          • James Newman

            Boy are you naive. China signed the Paris treaty because it is unenforceable and they are expecting to get a good deal of western money out of the deal. In the mean time China is opening new coal fired powered power plants on a regular basis. China also gets the vast majority of its electricity from coal fired power plants. I wouldn’t call getting three quarters of their electricity from coal fired power plants with more on the way “a shift away from fossil fuels”.

          • anne55

            China is choking in smog and they know it. They contribute 20% of the world’s emission. We are at 17.9%. But, when you consider the differences in our populations, WE become the greater transgressors. Their populations stand around 1.4 billion or so. We are at 322 million, or much, much less. They have over 4x as many people as we do. So, the per person use of energy is much less there. I can see why they have a problem supplying enough energy for everyone.

            And, they are trying to do something about it. We should tend our own home and “act locally”.

          • James Newman

            The people of China and India don’t seem to share your opinion as they are building coal fired power plants left and right. How many did China alone open last year?

      • James Newman

        Exactly when did we go to Mars?

        • anne55

          Not people. But the scientific technology that has powered our spacecraft and landed there.

      • historiavita

        No, no one in my family has ever benefited from science. We avoid it like the plague, which we’ve also never benefited from.

        • anne55

          Well, thank science that the plague is a thing of the past. You actually verified my point, thank you!

      • Beth Van

        No one has a problem with true science. It’s the agenda driven science that causes problems, particularly with the proven cases of fraud and errors and results that cannot be repeated by other scientists.

    • GPS Daddy

      Exactly

  • Joe Bastardi

    Briggs is the best. I would say spot on again, but it would be redundant

    • Timothy Horton

      The best lying hypocrite maybe.

      Briggs last week “It’s terrible they won’t let our alternate science claims into their march! Let us in!”

      Briggs today: “We didn’t want to be in their smelly old march anyway”

      😀

      • hellenhighwater

        I thought this march was about science?

        • Timothy Horton

          It was mostly about the Trump administration’s attempts to gut science for his own political and self-money-making purposes.

  • anne55

    The man who wrote this article is wrong big time.

    Climate change IS real and science has shown over and over again that WE HUMANS are the primary reason. To deny this does not change the facts. The earth WILL continue to warm unless we act and act soon. Why would any reasoning person deny this? I am going to site 2 sources, but you will have to do a google search for the links because I can’t post them here – otherwise my post is not printed.

    The first is a climate scientist who is also an evangelical Christian. If you don’t believe me, you might be persuaded by her. Her husband is an evangelical minister. SO, for the sake of the planet, your children and grandchildren, please read what she has to say. Her name is Katharine Hayhoe. You can look up her website simply by googling her name. Here is an article about her.

    Christians Who Believe in Climate Change

    WASHINGTON — Climate change is one of the most contentious issues of our time. Many conservative Christians don’t agree that humans help cause it or that people can affect the Earth’s warming or cooling.

    They might be surprised to find, however, that two of the more respected believers in climate change are evangelical Christians with conservative leanings.

    Pastor Andrew Farley leads Ecclesia: Church Without Religion in Lubbock, Texas, and heads up Network 220, a national association of counseling, discipleship, and training ministries.

    His wife, associate professor Katharine Hayhoe, is a climate scientist that in 2014 TIME magazine named one of the most influential people in the world.

    26,500 Points of Proof

    And that influence is growing with audiences both religious and secular because Hayhoe’s job adds weight to her contention there’s overwhelming evidence of climate change.

    “There are 26,500 indicators of a warming planet all around us, many in our own backyards,” Hayhoe, the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock told CBN News.

    “We see our plants and our flowers and our bushes flowering earlier in the year,” she continued. “We see birds and animals and insects much further north than they’ve ever been before. We see that sea level is rising. Glaciers are melting. Our weather patterns are changing.”

    When Farley married his climate scientist wife he thought global warming was just one more environmental fad.

    “Whether it’s ‘save the whales’ or ‘hug the trees’ or ‘eat granola,’ ‘wear hemp,’ ‘bathe in a stream,'” Farley said. “Along came this issue of climate change and I lumped it in with everything else.”

    Farley and his bride fought over climate science for about two years.

    ‘But, Honey, What About This?…’

    “I would even go to climate-denier websites and gather all the ammunition that I could find and come back to her and say, ‘But, honey, what about this and what about that?'” he recalled.

    The evidence Hayhoe and others had of a definite radical spike in temperature and carbon dioxide finally got to Farley.

    “Her determination to show me the facts and then, quite frankly, going to NASA’s website and looking at global temperature over the last 200 years and just saying, ‘Look what’s happened: here’s this spike; it’s undeniable.’ Either all of NASA is duped or maybe there’s some validity to this thing,” Farley stated.

    This July some 400 moms and their kids travelled to Capitol Hill for what they called a “play-in protest” against climate change and carbon pollution. It was a play-in because the mothers acknowledge most kids are too rambunctious to sit still for a sit-in protest.

    The moms believe reasonable energy restrictions could reduce about 150,000 asthma attacks a year among children and prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths.

    It’s concern for children like those and their own that has Hayhoe and Farley anxious to see the world do something.

    Not Just about Polar Bears

    “Often people think that we really only care about this climate change thing maybe because of the polar bear,” Hayhoe said.

    But she warned global warming is hurting, even killing, thousands of peope now – like causing stronger, longer heat waves.

    “In 2003, there was a heat wave in Europe that led to 70,000 premature deaths,” Hayhoe said. “Seventy thousand people died who would not have died otherwise because that heat wave was so extreme.”

    Stronger rainfalls hitting with more frequency are leading to more flooding.

    “If the air is warmer, more of the water evaporates out of the oceans and lakes and rivers,” she explained. “When a storm comes along, as it always does naturally, there’s more water vapor available for that storm to pick up and dump on us.”

    “We’re also seeing that hurricanes are getting not more frequent but stronger because they get all their energy from warm ocean water,” she noted.

    And in the future, Hayhoe sees trouble coming for hundreds of millions more people — for instance, those on coastlines.

    “There are nearly 300 million people who will lose their land as sea level rises this century. Most of those live in Southeast Asia, in Africa and places where if you lose your land, there’s nowhere to go,” she said.

    Intersection of Science and Faith

    Hayhoe’s frequent public appearances, reasonable-sounding arguments and down-to-earth style have led some to say she’s the best communicator about climate change in the world.

    “She is at the intersection of science and faith,” husband Farley said of her. “She’s bringing her expertise in the science field and she’s bringing her faith in Jesus Christ. And she’s saying, ‘Hey, Christians, this thing this time is actually real and we need to be doing something about it.'”

    When it comes to this recent spike in global temperatures and carbon dioxide, Hayhoe works to rule out natural suspects that could warm the Earth, like the sun has done in the past.

    “Well, for the last 40 or 50 years or so, the sun’s energy has been going down while the Earth’s temperature has been going up,” Hayhoe pointed out. “So it can’t be the sun because if it was, we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.”

    How about the natural cycles that take place over vast numbers of centuries?

    “The next thing that should be happening on that time scale is another ice age,” Hayhoe said. “But we’re getting warmer and warmer.”

    Overheating the Planet

    As she points to her number one suspect, you see the evangelical in this scientist and child of missionaries come alive.

    “When we burn coal and oil and natural gas, it releases that carbon trapped in those fuels into the atmosphere,” Hayhoe explained. “And in the atmosphere we already have this amazing natural blanket that God has designed for our planet that keeps us almost 60 degrees warmer than we would be otherwise.”

    “And putting all that extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we’re adding to that blanket,” she added. “We’re overheating. That’s what we’re doing to our planet.”

    Pastor Farley argued Christians are scripturally bound as God’s stewards of the Earth to take action if two things are true:

    “Is this happening and are we contributing to it? And those answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes,'” he stated. “What’s happening now is strange, it’s unusual, it’s out of the norm, it’s not a natural cycle, it’s above and beyond, and it’s because we’re contributing to the problem.”

    What You Can Do

    Hayhoe suggested fighting globally for practices and methods that reduce carbon emissions and then reducing one’s own carbon footprint. She said it’s easy and simple to start and gave one example.

    “If every home in the entire United States replaced just one light bulb with a new LED, that would be like taking a million cars off the road,” she said. “And we would each save $30 in electricity over the lifetime of the bulb, even taking into account the fact that the bulb costs more than a regular one.”

    There’s a long list of other actions one can take. For instance, when it comes to commuting to work, people can mix it up by occasionally carpooling, sometimes taking public transport, biking, and tele-commuting.

    In addition, people can buy things locally grown or made. They can eat less meat, recycle, insulate, compost, weatherize – the list goes on and on.

    Even if Hayhoe and Farley turn out to be wrong about global warming, those who take such actions will at least help make Earth a healthier, cleaner planet.

    End of article
    And, she ISN’T wrong. Go to her website.

    The second site I wish to have people read is called creation care (to get to it type it in all as one word followed by dot org). It is the Evangelical Environmental Network. If you all REALLY follow the teachings of the bible, you will care for this creation.

    • mikehaseler

      4billion years of climate change and what evolves out of the green ooze in the last 20 years when satellites, met balloon and sea surface all show a pause? Organisations claiming the climate is changing faster than ever before – and it’s all down to us.! Morons!

      • anne55

        The ice caps at the pole are visibly melting. Seasons are coming sooner. Heat waves are much worse and storms are becoming stronger. These are all verifiable facts. While you can’t contribute any single event to climate change, the totality points us strongly in that direction.

        • mikehaseler

          Regional warming is not global warming. As such regional warming is not due to any global temperature effect. And anyway Greenland surface ice is growing Antarctic has also been growing and Arctic sea ice is hardly any different now than it was in the earth 20th century.

          “Seasons are coming earlier” – well you’ve got to be a bit of a moron to say that – because it totally destroys your argument if winter comes early doesn’t it!

          There is no trend in storms – indeed if anything hurricane activity has decreased – so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

          And YES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE – but ironically the temperature for the last 20 years has been abnormally lacking in any change at all.

          • Timothy Horton

            And YES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE – but ironically the temperature for the last 20 years has been abnormally lacking in any change at all.

            Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? The average global temper has increased over 0.7 deg. C from 1996 – 2016.

            upload(dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.

          • mikehaseler

            The Northern land surface data – where colder rural stations have been removed does show warming (for obvious reasons) – and if like NASA you want to pretend there’s been warming you can falsely create a metric showing warming. But if you look at satellites OR balloon data OR sea surface (representing the vast majority of the earth’s surface) all of these show a pause.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re going to just keep repeating the standard climate change denier lie no matter how many times you’re shown the directly contradictory data, aren’t you?

            The global temperature anomaly data I just posted shows a slight slowing (not flat lining) between 2004-2010 along with the rapid rises before and after. You keep trying to cherry pick one small portion in the expected fluctuations while ignoring the long term rise. Rather dishonest wouldn’t you agree?

          • mikehaseler

            LOL. Why should anyone listen to pseudo-scientists like you.

            The pause is shown in all the datasets but one – yet you pseudo-scientists only quote the one dataset currently showing warming. Go find something where you’ll be taken more seriously like spotting aliens or something,

          • anne55

            No it has not. It has been debunked.

          • mikehaseler

            No it has not. The pause is there in the dataset for anyone who cares to look.

          • anne55

            Well, pause or no pause, it is happening.

          • mikehaseler

            Yes climate change has been happening for 4billion years and only a fruitcake would suggest it hasn’t.

          • Timothy Horton

            Only a liar would say all the data sets show an ongoing pause in the warming and not have the cajones to back it up.

          • mikehaseler

            That’s interesting logic – of course I’m being polite.

          • Timothy Horton

            A polite liar is still a liar. Show the data sets liar.

          • mikehaseler

            LOL – you’re not up to it are you!

          • anne55

            There is a difference this time ’round. It is happening very fast because of what we are doing. VERY fast.

          • mikehaseler

            No it has not. Statistically (based on appropriate statistics for this kind of signal and not mickey mouse stats that academics seem to use) there is nothing to suggest any change in the rate of change.

          • Timothy Horton

            I looked. Lots of scientists have looked. You’re lying.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then provide a URL to the data sets you say shows the continuing “pause”. You can’t do it because you’re lying about it.

          • mikehaseler

            No I will not – not unless you pay me when the datasets are easily available and if you were not gormless you could find them yourself.

          • Timothy Horton

            Haseler caught in his lie, makes excuses and heads for the door.

          • anne55

            From Live Science – you can google the entire article
            “Forget about the so-called climate change hiatus — a period beginning in 1998 when the increase in the planet’s temperature reportedly slowed — it doesn’t exist, according to a new study that found the planet’s ocean temperatures are warming faster than previously thought.

            The findings support similar results from a 2015 study published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the journal Science. However, doubters of climate change attacked that study, prompting the researchers of the new study to examine the data anew.

            “Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books,” study lead author Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group.”

          • mikehaseler

            The pause is in the datasets – it’s in the satellite dataset, its in the met balloon data and its in the sea surface dataset which cover most of the globe – yes there are pseudo-scientists in academia who create warming using the corrupted N.Hemisphere land – but you’ve got to think people are idiots to accept that crap.

          • Timothy Horton

            Show the data sets liar.

          • mikehaseler

            It’s in every dataset EXCEPT the northern hemisphere land record (heavily contaminated by the removal of urban stations).

          • Timothy Horton

            Show the data sets liar.

          • mikehaseler

            How much will you pay me to be your lackey?

          • Timothy Horton

            Show the data sets liar.

          • GPS Daddy

            You need to take to heart one of the posts that anne55 made.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then show it in the most recent data sets. Hearing you lie about it is way old.

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve spent my own time researching the datasets. Given you appalling manners – you can go do the research yourself. Because what do I care what an uneducated idiot like you thinks?

          • Timothy Horton

            Haseler gets caught in his lie, makes excuses and runs away.

          • mikehaseler

            Having done the research I’m very confident of my position. And yes I could get the evidence, but since it doesn’t matter what you think why should I bother with you?

          • Timothy Horton

            I posted a URL to the data supporting my claim. You can’t produce your claimed data at all because you lied about it.

          • mikehaseler

            Of course I have the data – I’ve done the research – but you’re not worth it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then post the data liar.

          • mikehaseler

            It’s fun getting you to go on and on and on.

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s fun pointing out you keep repeating the same lie about data you can’t produce.

          • mikehaseler

            Please do tell me more.

          • anne55

            That is an excuse, really. I’d like to see it as well.

          • mikehaseler

            I really have no time for pause deniers. You don’t need to look long at the data to know what’s been going on in terms of trying to hide the pause which shows in every dataset except those based on N.hemisphere land.

            There’s no question the pause exists – what is far more interesting is why the Northern Hemisphere land deviates – which is my real interest. (Not arguing black is white with pause deniers).

          • anne55

            Look, we have data that goes back farther, such as ice cores from the Poles. Or by examine tree rings. Those are just 2 examples.

          • mikehaseler

            And we have the Central England Temperature series which correlates very well with global temperatures and is not subject to the problems of tree rings or ice-cores.

            And guess what – it its 350 years CET shoes several examples of warming similar to the late 20th century – and that is why the biased academics don’t like it and would rather stick to twigs.

          • anne55

            This is based on your CET’s data:

            England set for ‘substantial increase’ in record-breaking warm years

            Date: April 30, 2015
            Source: Institute of Physics
            Summary: The likelihood of record-breaking warm years in England is set to substantially increase as a result of the human influence on the climate, new research suggests.

            In a study published today, 1 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, an international team of researchers has shown that the chances of England experiencing a record-breaking warm year, such as the one seen in 2014, is at least 13 times more likely as a result of anthropogenic climate change.

            This is according to climate model simulations and detailed analyses of the Central England Temperature (CET) record–the world’s longest instrumental temperature record dating back to 1659.

            The results of the study showed that human activities have a large influence on extreme warm years in England, which the researchers claim is remarkable given England is such a small region of the world.

            Lead author of the study Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne, said: “When you look at average annual temperatures over larger regions of the world, such as the whole of Europe, there is a lower variability in temperatures from year to year compared with smaller areas.

            “As a result of this low variability, it is easier to spot anomalies. This is why larger regions tend to produce stronger attribution statements, so it is remarkable that we get such a clear anthropogenic influence on temperatures in a relatively small area across central England.”

            To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence. The change in the likelihood of warm years due to human influences on the climate was then calculated.

            The researchers then observed the CET and picked out the warmest years from the record since 1900. The warmest years were then plotted onto a graph which the researchers used to calculate the likelihood of warm years happening now and warms years happening 100 years ago.

            The model-based method suggested at least a 13-fold increase (with 90% confidence) due to human influences on the climate, whilst the observation-based approach suggested at least a 22-fold increase in the probability of very warm years in the climate of today compared with the climate of a century ago (again with 90% confidence).

            “Both of our approaches showed that there is a significant and substantial increase in the likelihood of very warm years occurring in central England,” Dr King Continued.

            According to the CET, 2014 was the warmest year on record in central England. It has been reported that during the last 60 years there has been rapid warming in the CET in line with the anthropogenic influence on the climate, with the highest average annual temperature of 10.93 °C recorded in 2014.

            The Central England Temperature (CET) series, which is the longest instrumental time series of temperature in the world, has monthly recordings of average temperatures dating back to 1659 and recordings of average daily temperatures dating back to 1772.

            The CET is designed to represent the climate of the English Midlands, which is approximated by a triangular area enclosed by Lancashire in the north, Bristol in the south-west and London in the south-east. The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying long-term temperature trends across the region.

            As to whether these results can be seen to be representative of areas outside of central England, Dr King said: “I would expect that other areas near the UK would produce similar results.

            “For larger regions, stronger attribution statements can often be made. For example, we performed a similar attribution study for Europe as a whole and found a 35-fold increase in the likelihood of extremely warm years using model simulations.”

            This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government.

          • mikehaseler

            “The likelihood of record-breaking warm years in England is set to
            substantially increase as a result of the human influence on the
            climate, new research suggests.” like they know anything!

            I’m fed up with people whose only ability is to “predict” that the 1970-2000 warming will continue popping up and making the most outrageous claims that cannot in any way support.

            They are nuts.

            I have far more idea what is happening than they – and I still have only the vaguest idea whether the temperature in the next decade will go up or down (and I’ve radically changed my view on the most likely scenario).

            As I said: NUTS!

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! mikehaesler’s own source directly contradicts his denier lies. Gotta love these scientifically illiterate goobers whose “science” knowledge begins and ends with [Ctrl]C and [Ctrl]V. 😀

          • mikehaseler

            Did you have a difficult childhood?

          • Timothy Horton

            I have far more idea what is happening than they

            Classic Dunning-Kruger. Blithering climate change denier on the web knows more than the professional climatologists who have been studying and researching the topic for decades.

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve been studying the climate for a decade – but there is a very big difference, I correctly predicted the pause – and they didn’t.

            And your qualification is what? … an ability to copy and paste irrelevant quotes.

          • Timothy Horton

            You keep blithering and blithering but you still can’t produce your claimed data sets. What a pathetic little fibber.

          • mikehaseler

            You’re even useless at attacking people. At least get your story right – I thought I was supposed to be producing whopping great fibs – and now you’re accusing by of little ones.

            Is there anything you are good at?

          • Timothy Horton

            Is there anything you are good at?

            Pointing out the lies and ignorance of science denying goobers like you.

          • anne55

            Are you a professional, lifetime climate researcher?

          • mikehaseler

            I don’t fit any neat category. I know far too much for my own good in some areas – and am probably a world expert (which sounds impression – but if you specialise in very small niche areas anyone can become a world expert), but I’m also woefully ignorant in other areas.

          • Timothy Horton

            You fit the category of classic Dunning-Kruger blowhard like the position was made for you.

          • llew jones

            Don’t take young Timmy too seriously Mike. Not many of us do. You are no doubt familiar with the UAH data. Anyone who takes the surface collected data seriously given the way it is homogenised (aka rigged to accord with climate alarmism) are probably about as bright as young Timmy.

            Here’s what the satellite data shows:

            Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Mar. ’17: +0.19°C)

            Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

            January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

            Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998

            The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of +0.45 deg. C
            (Graph shown here at Roy Spencer site)

            The resulting 2016 annual average global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg. C, which is (a statistically insignificant) 0.02 deg. C warmer than 1998 at +0.48 deg. C. We estimate that 2016 would have had to be 0.10 C warmer than 1998 to be significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Both 2016 and 1998 were strong El Nino years. (which of course young Timmy didn’t know)

            The 38 years in the satellite record, ranked from warmest to coolest (and ignoring statistical uncertainty)

            are:

            RANK YEAR deg.C.

            01 2016 +0.50

            02 1998 +0.48

            03 2010 +0.34

            04 2015 +0.26

            05 2002 +0.22

            06 2005 +0.20

            07 2003 +0.19

            08 2014 +0.18

            09 2007 +0.16

            10 2013 +0.13

            11 2001 +0.12

            12 2006 +0.11

            13 2009 +0.10

            14 2004 +0.08

            15 1995 +0.07

            Just the top 15 years here. The full 38 can be viewed at the site. (The 0.02 difference in 22 years gives the lie to the alarmist’s pretensions about trends).

          • mikehaseler

            “be significantly different at the 95% confidence level” – and what is the assumed noise model?

            Let me give a simple example – you go to the beach and measure the water level 10 times. This gives you a confidence limits. You go back 6hours later, and the water level now massively exceeds the confidence limits.

            The problem is that you didn’t understand (or apply) the underlying noise model and as such you took a simplistic “Gaussian” noise model, fitted the deviations to that and came to a completely false conclusion.

            Put in simple language, in order to understand what is abnormal, you first have to understand what is normal. And put simply if we only have 100 years of data – then we cannot both know what is normal and what is abnormal from the same data.

            What we can say however, is that if the predictions of warming that were given in 2000 were correct, then the underlying natural variation must be as large as the predicted CO2 warming to have caused the pause. But if the natural variation is as large as CO2 warming over around 20 years, then it is quite possible that it caused all the warming from 1970-2000. So the null hypothesis of “natural variation” cannot be rejected.

            However … it all gets more interesting if we start comparing datasets and regional trends.

          • llew jones

            Thanks for that. I think Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH are generally reasonable in their approach, particularly in respect of the unknowns in climate science. It seems from an historical perspective not much has really been firmly established about many of the variables, apart from CO2, that affect the climate and hence weather. Roy Spencer suggests the small effect of recent
            historically large increases in atmospheric CO2 on global temperature could indicate the postulated positive feedback from water vapor evaporated by the action of extra atmospheric CO2 may not be occurring. Whether that is due to cloud effects such as precipitation remains to be discovered.

            I was born and bred in a suburb of Melbourne the capital city of Victoria Australia and have lived in Melbourne all my life. I have noticed comment has been made about manipulation of surface measured temperature data in the US. Here in Australia our Bureau of Meteorology is into the alarmist brand of climate science and in homogenising temperature data invariably lowers the
            older temperatures on seemingly specious grounds

            A few years ago one of our skeptical parliamentarians tried to get the Aussie Federal Senate to investigate our BOM to see if it was fudging the data but he was overruled. That is why I am suspicious of the surface temperature data (among other reasons such as biased location and ignoring the urban heat island effect) and thus have no faith in the temperature trends derived from surface measurement. At present I have more confidence in the satellite data.

          • mikehaseler

            “apart from CO2” … I was interested to read a paper by Hermann Harde suggesting that if you stop using an ancient version of Hitrans that the sensitivity to CO2 drops from Hansan’s 1.2C/doubling to closer to 0.6C. When I spoke to him, he said that the reason was because the later database had final spectral detail. And the fact I’ve not seen any figures based on more up to date spectral data strongly suggests to me that researchers used the later data, found it wasn’t scary enough and have intentionally and dishonestly continued to use knowingly false figures on CO2.

            Whether that is due to cloud effects such as precipitation remains to be discovered. … I’ve got a very good idea why.

            I have noticed comment has been made about manipulation of surface measured temperature data in the US….. there is evidence of a reduction in rural stations … and due to the loss of evaporative cooling with urbanisation, some of the perceived warming could be due to this change. However, it is also possible that the warming is real and from a specific regional cause (i.e. not CO2).

            if you want to get an idea of any change in global temperature, I would basically ignore any temperature based on N.Hemisphere land (unless like Satellite it bypasses the surface station problem). Once you remove N.Hemisphere land, you get a fairly consistent picture showing a small drop in temperature preceding the global cooling scare, then a more rapid (but still not unusual) warming from around 1970-2000 and then the pause. (Together with yearly effects like El Nino).

            Statistically the only period that approaches the threshold of “abnormality” is the 1970-2000 warming – but it is very difficult to explain not only why it started around 1970 – but also why it stopped in 2000. To put it simply: it does not fit CO2. It did warm, but it clearly was not CO2 and as a result I’m getting sick to death of idiots (like we see here) pointing to this short period of warming and saying “CO2”.

            Of course – unless we suddenly get new data that can pinpoint the cause – the only thing we can do is wait for more data. In simple terms: will the next change be toward cooling or warming.

            Warming I can cope with – because it’ll only be some nutcase green taxes to pacify the eco-crazies. (We give public money to keep artists from unemployment – the green money is just a similar scheme for those who otherwise could not get a job).

            Cooling on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish – because living in Scotland we could see a massive dramatic and life changing event – it is possible we could see cooling of several degrees over a relatively short period and then I would have to decide whether to move away from Scotland to somewhere less susceptible to sudden climate cooling like Australia

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Spencer’s own graph on the first page of that website shown no pause over the last 35 years. It shows the same thing all the other data sets show – expected fluctuations around a constantly rising mean.

            You science denying fools are something else. 🙂

          • llew jones

            Now now young Timmy be a good lad and keep taking your medication on time.

          • anne55

            Please treat people here with respect.

          • anne55

            From NASA (who are you going to believe, NASA or Breitbart and the Daily Caller)

            “Greenland’s ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice on Earth, containing enough water to raise ocean levels by about 20 feet. The ice sheet has been losing mass over the past two decades and warming temperatures will mean more losses for Greenland. Scientists are studying ice from different climate periods in the past to better understand how the ice sheet might respond in the future.”

          • mikehaseler

            The Danish research institute (Greenland is Danish) say the surface is growing ice – and that reflects current climate – whereas what NASA are talking about is a lacking indicator (reflecting climate decades ago).

          • Timothy Horton

            The surface AREA is slightly growing. The MASS has decreased by at least 20% over the last 15 years as measured by the two GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) satellites which measure mass by detecting the minute changes in the gravity field the mass produces.

          • mikehaseler

            And that is not relevant to the present climate as it’s a lagging indicator. The only indicator that reflects current climate is surface ice that is growing. (No one disputes the climate warmed after the little ice-age).

            And even if the Arctic were melting – as a regional effect it must be caused by a regional change in climate and not a global warming. So it is NOT a symptom of CO2 warming which is well dispersed.

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s completely relevant and it shows the denier lie you’ve been repeating for what it is.

          • mikehaseler

            Regional climate change CONTRADICTS CO2 warming which must be global because it acts the same over the whole planet.

            Instead regional change clearly supports the null hypothesis which is natural variation.

          • Timothy Horton

            The whole planet isn’t uniform. The land masses are not uniformly distributed. The ocean currents and atmospheric currents aren’t uniform. The overall average temperature of the planet warming as all the data shows can and does cause localized areas to get cooler.

            Seriously, are you capable of any rational thought at all?

          • mikehaseler

            The problem for you is that CO2 is well distributed and the greenhouse effect will be uniform at any given latitude and will not vary massively between the equator and poles (you have to understand how the greenhouse effect actually works to understand this).

            As such regional climate change is INCOMPATIBLE with CO2. However, you are right that it’s not as simple as that – but as you won’t understand why – and the simple statement above is true enough for this conversation – and I can’t be bothered wasting my time on a long discussion which you will neither understand nor ever accept – there’s something more interesting on TV.

          • Timothy Horton

            As such regional climate change is INCOMPATIBLE with CO2.
            LOL! So the entire planet has the identical climate all the time. Time for you to cut your losses on your ignorance and stupidity and flounce out.

          • mikehaseler

            You don’t understand the greenhouse effect – and there’s no point attempting to teach you.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re the moron claiming all parts of the planet must have the same climate all the time.

          • mikehaseler

            I’d try to explain – but you wouldn’t understand.

          • anne55

            From your Danish Institute via Time magazine:
            Year after year of record heat largely due to man-made global warming has hit hard across the globe. And nowhere have the impacts been more devastating than in the Arctic where temperatures are rising more than twice as fast as the global average and ice is quickly disappearing.
            Photos taken by a research team from Denmark capture how warming has hit glaciers in Greenland, where ice melt has been occurring at a faster rate than ever in recorded history. Researchers captured the images, published in the book The Greenland Ice Sheet, in the exact location their predecessor had taken photos eight decades prior as temperatures had just begun to warm. Side by side, the images offer a stark comparison showing vast areas once covered in ice now empty land.
            Take the Mittivakkat Glacier on the island’s southeast coast. A black-and-white image from 1933 shows the glacier occupying the entire a valley. In an image from 2010, the glacier has completely disappeared.
            “Climate change is particularly evident here and its consequences for people and nature are considerable,” said Ralf Hemmingsen, rector of the University of Copenhagen in the book’s foreword, “both for Greenland and the rest of the world.”
            Scientists have understood for sometime how climate change is causing ice melt in Greenland. Satellite measurements taken since 1979 have shown a 12% decline in sea ice per decade, according to a Nature report. But a lack of earlier record keeping and satellite measurements has presented a challenge for scientists who hope to understand how ice levels have changed over time in Greenland. Now, scientists who study glaciers are using the photo comparison to improve their understanding of how ice levels have changed over time, according to a news article in the journal Nature.
            Ice loss in Greenland presents challenges for the small communities located on the island, technically an autonomous part of Denmark, but ice melt also has profound effects across the globe, most significantly contributing to sea level rise that threatens cities along the coasts. Nearly 700,000 cubic miles of ice are located on Greenland’s ice sheet, covering three quarters of the island. Scientists say that 23 feet in global sea level rise would result if all that ice melted, drawing many cities across the globe.
            It’s still possible to avoid such a catastrophic scenario, but scientists say action is needed fast. Current warming results from greenhouse gas emissions emissions from years and decades ago. No matter what we do now, the globe will continue to warm of the foreseeable future—and Greenland’s ice will continue to melt.

          • mikehaseler

            The Greenland surface ice is growing – that does not indicate warming.

            Go find something more suited to your intellect like Chemtrails.

          • anne55

            You are in denial.

          • hellenhighwater

            You are in chimp.

          • anne55

            In chimp? No idea what you mean.

          • mikehaseler

            You don’t understand the science – so go away and learn the science before wasting my time further.

          • anne55

            Do you understand the science? I am not so sure.

          • mikehaseler

            The strictly correct answer to “Do I understand the science?” is no – otherwise there would be nothing left to research.

            But the answer to the question I think you intended to ask is Yes.

          • Timothy Horton

            The answer is no, mikehaseler doesn’t understand the science. All he knows is the political propaganda put out by fossil fuel funded talking heads like Anthony Watts. That’s also why he won’t back up any of the denier lies he keeps mindlessly repeating, because he can’t.

          • anne55

            You didn’t address my Danish article above.

          • mikehaseler

            The data shows what the data shows – and it shows growing surface ice. And unless someone starts by admitting that, their views are not worth reading.

          • Timothy Horton

            The data shows what the data shows

            Right now it shows you’re clearly wrong and have to resort to lying to try and save face.

          • Timothy Horton

            The Greenland surface ice is growing – that does not indicate warming.

            Mikehaseler caught telling another blatant falsehood.

            Here is a very recent (Feb 2017) article from Science detailing the tremendous ice and snow melt Greenland has been experiencing in the last decade.

            The Great Greenland Meltdown

            www(DOT)sciencemag(DOT)org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

            “In Greenland, the great melt is on. The decline of Greenland’s ice sheet is a familiar story, but until recently, massive calving glaciers that carry ice from the interior and crumble into the sea got most of the attention. Between 2000 and 2008, such “dynamic” changes accounted for about as much mass loss as surface melting and shifts in snowfall. But the balance tipped dramatically between 2011 and 2014, when satellite data and modeling suggested that 70% of the annual 269 billion tons of snow and ice shed by Greenland was lost through surface melt, not calving. The accelerating surface melt has doubled Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise since 1992–2011, to 0.74 mm per year. “Nobody expected the ice sheet to lose so much mass so quickly,” says geophysicist Isabella Velicogna of the University of California, Irvine. “Things are happening a lot faster than we expected.”

          • mikehaseler

            The growing surface ice is affected by what is happening now. Changes deeper down are affected temperature changes some time ago. That’s just simple physics – but usually I find things I think are “simple physics” go totally over the heads of people like you.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! I hold the data from 2 months ago right in your face and you still lie about it. Honesty goes totally over the heads of people like you.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            “Lagging indicator,: not “lacking.”

          • mikehaseler

            Thanks – Typo.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          And as the Greenland glaciers recede, they uncover the stumps of forests and the implements left by the Vikings. That is, a thousand years ago, those glaciers weren’t there. Then, with the onset of the Little Ice Age, they spread out and covered the Greenland colony. Now they are receding again — maybe the fourth time since the end of the interglacial 9000 years ago. The long-term trend, according to the ice-core data, is declining temperatures and the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern warm periods are temporary reversals.

          • anne55

            The difference this time is climate change is the cause. Yes, there have been natural variations over millennia, but this time we are the ones.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            That is the conclusion which is to be proven. It cannot simply be asserted. Some of the vaunted 97% are scientists who agree that there has been warming and that human activity may have had some effect, but do not agree on the magnitude of that effect. When the weather turned cold in the Late Middle Ages, humans had too much invested in places like Copenhagen and London, so they threw another log on the fire and toughed it out. Some folks think that this put enough CO2 in the air to stave off the ice age for another couple centuries — until we cleaned up the air.

            To say that “climate change” is the “cause” of anything is like saying that motion is caused by “location change.”

          • anne55

            The scientific evidence of human causation HAS been proven, but some people refuse to believe it for whatever reasons.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Excellent. What is this scientific evidence?

            Facts do not prove anything absent the context of a theory, due to the underdetermination of the scientific method. Any finite collection of facts can be accounted for by multiple theories. As Heisenberg wrote (Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science): What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. Or as Einstein commented in response to Heisenberg, “Theory determines what we can observe.” Which is to say that if you have a theory of hammers, all the facts look like nails.

          • anne55

            We start with a theory, then we try to prove that theory through questioning and scientific experiment. When enough peer-reviewed science starts ‘adding up’ in one direction, we then need to start acting on the evidence via good governmental policies. IF the evidence changes, then we change with it. It is consensus building and best practice based on evidence. This is true for all fields of endeavor, including climate science. You don’t simply erase all the data (as Trump is doing at the EPA) because you don’t like it and have a different agenda. When 97% of scientists are in agreement, that is good enough for me. I don’t cherry pick the 3% that disagree and decide I like their conclusions better. Do you think I WANT global warming to be happening? I certainly don’t. I’d much rather say “Oh, the 3% is right.”. But that position would come with huge risks I’m not willing to take. I’d rather face the evidence head on and act.

            FYI, Einstein supposedly said that, but it was reported second hand. He may be right. I’m sure many researchers have trouble suppressing their own views and may expect or want a certain outcome. But, if you have a theory, and your experiments don’t show evidence for it, then you have to start over.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            The classic scientific method of the positivists started with the data and induced to a theory, dealing with the problem of induction [multiple theories can always account for the same set of facts] by what Galileo called “the work of the intellect.” This was an intensive effort to identify all the possible explanations and eliminate the ones that could not stand. You were not supposed to simply start with a theory then try to prove it. That way lies confirmation bias.

            But as Feyerabend pointed out, the actual practices of actual scientists have seldom approached this abstract ideal. Especially after the Renaissance replaced dialectic with polemic and reasoned argument with the witty insult, science has followed many meandering methods. Ampere indeed measured and collected much data on the electrodynamics of conducting bodies to develop his theory; but Maxwell developed his electrodynamics of dielectric bodies in a great leap of intuition. This, despite the fact that permanent magnets falsified the theory. Devotees of Maxwell, like Boltzmann and Hertz invented the electron from whole cloth in order to save the theory from the falsification, and later investigators seem to have born out the intuition. However, Heisenberg regarded electrons and such as Aristotelian potencies rather than real material particles. Ontologically, the jury is still out.

            Likewise, the scientific consensus in the 17th century was that the earth was immobile, and there was no empirical evidence to the contrary. This consensus, which required the earth to be at the bottom of the world, had been settled science since Ptolemy’s Syntaxis in Old Alexandria. However, the equants were not justified by Aristotelian physics, so the mathematicians [astronomers] decided that their calculations were simply devices to “save the appearances.” That is, they gave the right answers, but did not have to be physically real entities.

            The theory that the earth was mobile, depending on whether one postulated a single or a double motion, might require the earth to move around the sun to save the appearances of stellar motions. But this had its own problems and was falsified by the lack of apparent stellar parallax and the apparent lack of what we now call Coriolis effects. Galileo suggested an experiment using optical doubles to detect parallax, but his notes show that he did not find any parallax. When his experiment did not show any evidence for the earth’s revolution, he did not start over. He simply kept mum about the results. [Irony alert: the two stars he had chosen turned out to be a genuine double star, not an optical double. They would not have shown parallax in any case.]

            Peer review is a good way of enforcing group-think. It developed out of the medieval panels that reviewed theological writings for possible heresy. [Durandus iirc was on the panel that identified errors in the writings of Wiliam of Ockham, for example. Durandus regarded it as routine, but Ockham was so offended that he actually dropped out of university and never completed his doctorate. (Which is why he was nicknamed “The Old Inceptor.”] For an example of scientific conclusions published without any peer review, see Einstein’s three seminal papers of his annus mirabilis or for that matter the breakthrough writings of Newton, Maxwell, and Darwin. And so we come to the present day, when most published research papers are wrong — known in scientific circles as the “reproducibility crisis.”

            There are enormous risks associated with acting on the outputs of computer models that run warmer than measured temperatures; viz., diverting enormous resources to half-baked impractical solutions that will not only condemn the poor half of the world to irremediable poverty and starvation, but will stifle the ability of the advanced societies to come to their aid. Statisticians know there are two kinds of risks in decision-making: the alpha and the beta, and sometimes Type II error is more serious than Type I.

          • anne55

            Look, I think you make some good points. I concede that and you are obviously an intelligent person. However, I say we must go with peer-reviewed, replicated science as the best possible way to gain knowledge and come to conclusions that help inform the way we should act – whether in medicine, technology or environmental sciences. Will we make mistakes at times? Sure. Is research sometimes bad or falsified? Yes, humans do that, sometimes deliberately and sometimes in error. But, I would contend, the best way to make progress is consensus and – when issues are of the utmost importance, such as climate change – I say we act even if we don’t know everything.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            A crisis in science these days is that a lot of peer-reviewed science cannot be replicated, not just sometimes: more than half. Some of the best science in history has not been peer-reviewed: Einstein’s breakthrough papers, Darwin, Newton, and so on. Scientists often roll their eyes at the way that Fans of science use “peer-review” as a kind of mantra, and wonder if any of them know how peer review is actually carried out. It’s not a rigorous, in depth evaluation of a paper. Most reviewers have little time to spare for that sort of thing and generally ask questions as it crosses their own lines of research. Replication is much more important; but the replication must be independent. In the age of super-expensive experiments, that becomes more difficult to accomplish.

            I can agree with most of what you say except when acting: sometimes the act ought to be to collect more data, or to deliberately fund counter-claims (gold-team/blue-team). But when the proposed action is to grind the faces of the poor into never-ending misery and to impoverish those with the means to help. I have to wonder if precipitous action is the wisest course. One recalls the French chivalry at Crecy.

    • LgVt

      “Only YOU can prevent global warming!”

      Except…you can’t. Ordinary people can’t, and neither can governments.

      That’s the real inconvenient truth: Prevention is a dead end. The same models and projections that warn of a sharp rise over the next century also warn that even unrealistic, draconian carbon reductions will only delay–not prevent, delay–a small fraction of the increase. (As I recall, one scenario had the US completely ceasing all use of carbon. This would push back one-tenth of a degree of warming, by about ten years.)

      And the realistic reductions? Nothing at all.

      What we SHOULD be looking at is adaptation, not “solutions” that would make life worse for everyone living now without having even the slightest effect on the problems to come.

      • Jonathan Brooks

        Well stated. The progressive are willing to reduce the population by 90% to save Mother Gaia, the trendy deity of the left, but they seem to forget that Earth is big, and has volcanoes, seismic events, and occasional meteor and asteroid impacts that make human civilization to be nothing in comparison.

        • anne55

          Not true. We neither want to reduce the population that much nor forget to analyze the effects of geology that you mention. Climate change is still happening. Please read my note on Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and an evangelical. It is above.

          • anne55

            And, I would add, population growth world wide has been a huge issue. It directly contributes to many aspects of the environmental crisis. To outlaw women’s rights to reproductive choice is tantamount to a form of slavery for women.

          • hellenhighwater

            Why can’t someone be for women’s rights and against abortion? Abortion isn’t birth control. Birth control is birth control and abortion is abortion. Using abortion as birth control is simply barbaric. Yes, sometimes it is necessary, but to not take other measures and to destroy a fetus for the sake of convenience (and money) is nothing short of disgusting.

          • anne55

            Well, right now, Republicans want to deny birth control coverage to many women. If you want few / no abortions, then people need to speak up and be pro-birth control. I don’t believe very early abortion is barbaric, not at the cellular stage.

        • Timothy Horton

          We can’t do much about megavolcanoes or asteroid strikes. We CAN do something about the recent problems we humans have caused ourselves in the last few hundred years. And we should

      • anne55

        You are wrong. We need to look at both. And we certainly should not be adding to the problem by bringing back coal, oil, fossil fuels.

        • hellenhighwater

          You should put a sail on your car and navigate the streets only on windy days.

          • anne55

            No, you need to go electric. Or walk. Or bike. Or use public transportation whenever possible.

      • Timothy Horton

        That’s the real inconvenient truth: Prevention is a dead end.

        We can’t undo the damage already done but taking action now can slow / prevent even worse damage in the future.

        A good analogy is like being in a car traveling downhill heading straight for a solid stone wall. It’s too late to prevent the car from hitting the wall but if we put on the brakes now we can slow the car, making the impact less severe and giving ourselves extra time to brace and prepare for the collision.

      • anne55

        Well, that is a bit of a pessimistic attitude. If you have given up before even trying, then – no – you have let yourself become powerless and bad things WILL happen.

      • hellenhighwater

        Do you really think the Chinese care about global warming?

        Remember when you were a kid and on Halloween you’d come to a house with a bowl of candy out front with a sign that read “Take One.” You, being a good kid would actually be considerate and take only one piece? Later, a less considerate kid would arrive and dump the whole bowl into his bag. That’s what the Chinese are like when it comes to global warming. They simply don’t care. Everyone else who follows the rules then is essentially a dupe who is saving more of that candy for the Chinese to dump into their bag.

        • anne55

          That is changing.

    • Gary

      What are YOU personally doing to combat climate change? If you aren’t doing anything, its hypocrisy to ask others to do something.

      • anne55

        See my answer above. In addition, I run my house on heat pumps, no fossil fuels. I am doing my best to live a green life and am always looking for additional ways to do that. I am not at all being a hypocrite.

        • Christian Cowboy

          May I ask what powers your heat pumps?

          • anne55

            Electricity from a solar garden.

          • GPS Daddy

            Solar? Generating electricity? Do you know how environmentally unfriendly the production and disposal of solar cells are?

          • anne55

            Solar does generate electricity, yes. Do you know how environmentally unfriendly the production, use and disposal of fossil fuels are?

            Solar Panel Recycling Numbers Don’t Add Up…

            A couple of years ago, National Geographic took a look at solar panel lifecycle issues from raw materials to manufacturing, and on into e-waste.

            The article described how and why very little solar panel recycling has been going on, and it identified the problem in a nutshell:

            There aren’t enough places to recycle old solar panels, and there aren’t enough defunct solar panels to make recycling them economically attractive.

            That’s about to change in a big way.

            …But They Will, Eventually

            A new solar panel recycling report from IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency, anticipates that a rapid increase in the number of decommissioned solar panels by 2050 will provide the recycling industry with a platform for growth.

            The whole thing is available for download under the title End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels, but for those of you on the go it can be summed up like this:

            If fully injected back into the economy, the value of the recovered material could exceed USD 15 billion by 2050. This potential material influx could produce 2 billion new panels or be sold into global commodity markets, thus increasing the security of future PV supply or other raw material-dependent products.

            IRENA bases its projection on the potential for the number of decommissioned solar panels to total 78 million tonnes (that’s about 86 million US tons) by 2050.

            The agency notes that global installed capacity has already topped 222 gigawatts, with a total of 4,500 expected by 2050. Taking into consideration a 30-year lifespan, that’s a lot of solar panels to recycle.

            The report urges laying the groundwork now for the solar panel recycling industry of tomorrow, by taking a few pages from the e-waste management book. That includes:

            …the adoption of effective, PV-specific waste regulation; the expansion of existing waste management infrastructure to include end-of-life treatment of PV panels, and; the promotion of ongoing innovation in panel waste management.

            Look Out, Recyclers: Many More Solar Panels On The Way

            IRENA is also seeking to push the market for solar panel recycling by getting more solar panels into use as quickly as possible.

            To that end, the agency has announced a new program called the The Solar Energy Standardisation Initiative. The program is a partnership with a nonprofit called the Terrawatt Initiative which launched at the COP21 Paris climate talks last fall (its website is still under construction as of this writing, so hurry it up guys).

            The mission is a little dry compared to IRENA’s “$46 million stab at diesel,” but it involves a key area of improvement, namely, the wording of contracts for solar development and investment.

            IRENA and the Terrawatt Initiative point out that COP21 participants have committed to a total of approximately $1.2 trillion in solar investment by 2030. The industry needs to attract more private investment to reach that goal, which means that governments need to streamline their regulations and pare down financing costs.

            Here’s IRENA’s Henning Wuester explaining the issue:

            High transaction costs for some solar projects are due, in large part, to the complexity of the contractual documents supporting the projects. Simplifying the negotiation of these contractual documents will help reduce transaction costs, and allow investment in solar PV to advance more rapidly in more markets worldwide…

            As for how all that is going to happen, IRENA has already set the ball rolling. This week during the Intersolar Europe conference in Munich, a group of high level stakeholders are meeting to hammer out an agreement on standardized documentation for solar projects.

            The list of players will give you an idea of what’s in store:

            …Agence Française de Développement, Chadbourne & Parks, CITI, the Climate Bonds Initiative, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Eversheds, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Global Solar Power, Herbert Smiths Freehills, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation, Norton Rose Fulbright, Simmons & Simmons, Trilegal, the United Nations Development Programme, and Watson Farley & Williams.

            They certainly aren’t letting any grass grow under their feet. IRENA expects to report significant progress by November, when the COP22 talks take place.

          • anne55

            Look, solar and wind are both new. Neither are perfect in a variety of ways including costs, availability, killing of birds (wind power), recycling of parts from solar. You are correct about all of that. They are also quite new technologies and people are striving to find solutions for these problems.

            The good part is a) they don’t contribute to greenhouse gasses, b) people are working on answers to the problems, c) they are providing many new jobs (isn’t that what Trump wants?) and d) they are becoming a better and better investment opportunity.

            In contrast, we KNOW fossil fuels are extremely damaging. This is beyond dispute….between the accidents they can cause (think the Gulf oil spill for one), the greenhouse gasses they emit, the increasing number of earthquakes from fracking or the blowing up of entire mountains that can never be rehabbed.

            Have you ever heard of a solar or wind spill? Neither have I.
            Have you ever heard of an earthquake caused by solar or wind? I haven’t.

            Why don’t we use those poor, already blown up Appalachian Mountain tops and put solar and wind on them now? Provide some jobs for former coal miners? Surely they will create at least as many temporary jobs (and some permanent ones) as building the Keystone pipeline?

          • GPS Daddy

            So your way overstating that fossil fuels is extremely damaging.

            I really hope that we do find a clean energy. That would be awesome. There is a possible battery technology that would not be coorsive, cheap to make and can hold huge amounts of electricity. Now we need to generate it… that takes us back to coal because it’s cheap.

            But the production and disposal of solar cells is so unfriendly to the environment that it overshadows any benefit we gain. The cost also outweighs the savings.

            I think wind is promising but as you pointed out… the birds get huge headaches from time to time. I doubt we can afford their healthcare premiums.

      • anne55

        Let me ask you the same question. What are YOU doing about it for the sake of YOUR family, YOUR children and / or grandchildren, assuming you have some?

        • Gary

          I don’t litter. I recycle some things. But I don’t do those things because I am trying to keep the weather from getting warmer.

          • anne55

            I am glad you don’t litter and you recycle. I think that is a good start.

        • GPS Daddy

          If Gary is not convinced why does he need to commit to it?

          • anne55

            He will have to decide that himself as I can’t, at least at this point, seem to convince him. I would urge him to use his own senses, read the best in research (and from all sides) and make a decision.

        • hellenhighwater

          I take showers with my children to conserve water.

          • anne55

            Cute. But inadequate.

    • GPS Daddy

      You right, anne55, climate change is real. I noticed climate change back in grade school before global warming was an issue or term. But catestrophic global warming? Nope, that science is very far from sure. But even if there is harmful global warming, knowing that its man made is still not in the science. Saying that science has shown both of these to be true (global warming due to man that will be harmful) over and over shows your political bias.

      But Gary is right. What in the world are YOU doing commenting on social media? If you think this is real and those fears are going to come to pass then you are morally obligated to completely commit your life to stop it. Spending time on social media will do nothing. If your not giving every last spare penny you have to stopping climate change then your nothing more than a talking mouth.

      • Jonathan Brooks

        I tend to get the giggles about man made global warming, because just one big volcano eruption can put out more Methane and CO2 than all human activity on earth since ever. It seems the fixation of the Left to think global government could operate like a God, and fix climate events that occur, since this planet is volcanically unstable, and does what it does.

        • anne55

          Not true. And it is temporary at best. I hope you are still giggling as the waters rise and the land bakes. You think we have refugee / immigrant problems now. Just you wait.

          • GPS Daddy

            But volcanic eruptions continue to happen.

          • Timothy Horton

            Lightning keeps starting fires too but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to prevent arson.

          • GPS Daddy

            Well, if you want to take step to prevent arson then power to you. But this thread is about volcano’s contribution to green house gases, and hence, global warming. Anne55 countered that the gases from volcanoes are temporary. I countered that irruptions are ongoing… just to give a recap.

          • Timothy Horton

            The OP doesn’t mention volcanoes. Just because volcanoes CAN contribute to the problem doesn’t mean we should ignore human inputs which definitely DO contribute to the problem.

          • anne55

            And, my understanding is that, when a volcano erupts, it generally results in a temporary cooling effect. That is because it ejects so much ash into the air that it helps reflect sunlight.

            “When volcanoes erupt, they emit a mixture of gases and particles into the air. Some of them, such as ash and sulphur dioxide, have a cooling effect, because they (or the substances they cause) reflect sunlight away from the earth. Others, such as CO2, cause warming by adding to the the greenhouse effect.”

      • anne55

        This is NOT political. It is scientific – and 97% of scientists agree on this. How much consensus do you need? Are you a scientist studying climate change? Are you willing to risk the DEVASTATING consequences of climate change if you are wrong? Are you a good steward of God’s creation? Climate change may be a scientific issue. However, it IS becoming a political issue because our current administration refuses to look at science. I can’t believe I am having to march to define scientifically verifiable facts. But, that is where we are. I have committed my life to helping stop it and one way is to speak up publicly about it, particular among groups of people that are either uncertainly or deniers. So, here I am. It is my #1 cause and concern above all else. All other issues pale in comparison. I attended my first climate change conference in the early 1990’s at Tufts. I went as a parent of 3 young children because I am not a scientist. I went to speak up about my concerns to scientists at the time (it was still quite controversial back then). I am still speaking up. I organized town wide clean ups 30 years ago, before it was ‘the thing to do’. I am actively politically engaged now – advocating for political policies that protect the environment and address climate change. ALL of my children are in environmentally related fields. They have been arrested for standing up peacefully to bad environmental practices. I am fine with being arrested myself. Where bet to write than on social media. Have you read Katharine Hayhoe’s website? Please consider doing so.

        • GPS Daddy

          Gee, I thought gender fluidity was you number one concern. But if you think this is that big of a deal then it should be your ONLY concern. You have no room for other political issues.

          But climate science is, in fact, political. We are living in a post-science society. There are atheistic physicists that are actually advocating that we drop the requirement that a “scientific theory” be verified by experimental data. They are advocating that the acceptance of a theory should be based on authority, those that have the right P’s, h’s, and D’s who are saying the right things and who publish in the right places have the say-so in if a theory is true or not… of course the areas than they are saying that this change should happen is in the existence of the multi-verse. If the atheistic scientists gets his infinite number of universes then he can dismiss the existence of God outright and shut down discussion.

          In climate science there will be winners and losers. The climate scientist is at the top of the winners. The process of publishing papers at universities is very political. The pressure to continue to publish is huge and this pressure is all about money… money from the government. If the government gives money to study climate science and the science says its not happening then they won’t continue to be funded. You loose your job. But the conclusions of the published science must agree with what the funding was given for. If we do what the climate alarmists are calling for we will ruin the world economy well before we solve global warming. The Paris climate treaty is a farce. ONLY the US will keep its end of the treaty. Other countries will just give lip service to it… thats political.

          We see this politics just like this in military spending. The Navy has received ships, BIG ships, it never asked for just to give jobs to people. The advancement of military technology is very must a beast of its own.

          So don’t try to pass off on me that there is not BIG politics involved in climate science…

          • Timothy Horton

            But climate science is, in fact, political.

            That the climate is changing in a damaging way and that humans are responsible is a scientific fact.

            What to do about it is political.

            You keep using the second to try and deny the first.

          • GPS Daddy

            The climate has been changing LONG before humans were around… The fact that there have been minor changes over that past 100 years does not mean that humans did it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Correct. It’s the large amount of scientific evidence which shows humans are responsible for the recent rapid rise which means humans did it.

          • GPS Daddy

            The part that humans are responsible is even less sure than there is climate change.

          • anne55

            not according to the best in current science.

          • GPS Daddy

            Here is a counter weight to “the best”:

            drroyspencer(dot)com

          • anne55

            Your first sentence is true. Your last is not based on the best in current scientific research.

          • GPS Daddy

            You mean the research cherry picked to show that?

          • anne55

            If you reread what I said, it is science is having to become political. It shouldn’t be, but it is. You know, there can be ‘bad research’ or research where the results are buried. Consider that autism study that had everyone up in arms about a link between autism and vaccines. The researcher deliberately distorted / made up data and it caused tremendous harm that still hasn’t been entirely undone. Then there was Exxon Mobil’s own research into climate change which actually showed climate change to be real – but they suppressed the data. Yes, research can be distorted or suppressed to further the aims of individuals or companies. Good research from honest people doesn’t do that. Your military example is one of policy driving research. And, yes, climate change is a passion of mine and I spend a lot of time on it. That doesn’t mean I can’t be concerned about more than one issue. Look at Trump. He has taken on multiple issues (pretty much all of which I disagree with him on). Why would you limit me to one thing? That’s ridiculous.

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, there is big money and political control in it for some of the climate folks. Combine money and power and you get corruption.

          • anne55

            Such as in Trump wiping out all the climate science data at the EPA? To the benefit of the fossil fuel industry? Now, THAT is big money.

          • GPS Daddy

            Or Al Gore making huge amounts of money.

          • anne55

            Al Gore is someone I respect a lot for the work he has done and didn’t have to do.

          • GPS Daddy

            You mean the Al Gore that made a killing in hedge funds related to his climate work?

            Read “Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype” on Forbes

          • anne55

            It would seem it is okay with evangelicals that Trump avoids paying taxes or refuses to even show his worth and investments via showing his tax returns, but it is not okay for Mr. Gore to invest his money in what he believes in.

            Fromt he NYTimes:
            Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor
            By JOHN M. BRODERNOV. 2, 2009

            WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

            The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

            Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

            The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

            Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

            Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

            Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

            Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

            “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

            In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

            “I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

            Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.

            He has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Royalties from his new book on climate change, “Our Choice,” printed on 100 percent recycled paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.

            Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

            As a private citizen, Mr. Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee.

            Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge.

            Former Vice President Al Gore, who has become a major voice around the world on the issue of climate change, spoke last month at a forum in Dubai.

            He is a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London and run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (the firm was quickly dubbed Blood and Gore). Mr. Gore earns a partner’s salary at Kleiner Perkins. He has substantial personal finances invested at both firms, officials of the companies said.

            He also serves as an adviser to high-profile technology companies including Apple and Google, relationships that have paid him handsome dividends over the last eight years.

            Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of eBay.

          • GPS Daddy

            Al Gore is in it for the money… that’s one of my BIG points on how this climate change is being done… there will be financial winners and loosers regardless of if the science is right or not. Bottom line, the elites that are pushing this are doing so for money.

          • anne55

            Trump is in it for the oil. He has a stake in the Keystone Pipeline. It is one of my BIG points about his conflicts of interest and how he supports oil and coal.

          • GPS Daddy

            That may well be true. I don’t know. However, liberals and democrates has no room to accuse. The Clinton foundation and the pay for play is way beyond this pipline thing. And don’t bother to try to deny it. The Clintons have been one of the most corrupt politians in modern times. That’s not to say there aren’t republican politians who are not corrupt. There are.

            Congressman Ken Buck has a new book out that details how corrupt Washington has become. Might be worth a read.

          • anne55

            And, what about Trump? His foundation? I got TERRIBLE reviews from Charity Navigator (unlike the Clintons). You can look it up on this well respected site — that is, IF it is still there. I think he may have shut it down under pressure. You can read this article from the Washington Post dated 12/24/16 and entitled “Donald Trump plans to shut down his charitable foundation, which has been under scrutiny for months”

            Trump used donated money for his own personal purposes. Why don’t we hear more about that? Why aren’t conservatives complaining about it?

            SO, there may have been issues with the Clinton Foundation, but there certainly are issues with Trump’s as well. And, look, Trump, who claims he never settles lawsuits, certainly did with Trump University to the tune of about 25 million (that figure is from my memory).

            How is he the less tainted one, pray tell me? Why did so many evangelicals elevate this man to president? Please answer this question for me!!

            From the BBC:
            October 4, 2016
            Anthony Zurcher

            “What is the Trump Foundation?
            The Donald J Trump Foundation is a private charitable organisation started by Donald Trump in 1987 with money he earned from his best-selling book, The Art of the Deal.
            Up until about 2005, the foundation was primarily funded by Mr Trump himself, including a million-dollar contribution in 1989. Since then, however, it has been bankrolled almost exclusively by donations from Mr Trump’s friends and associates.
            According to its 2014 filing with the Internal Revenue Service (the most recent on record) the foundation claimed assets totalling $1,273,895 and brought in $500,849 – almost entirely from a gift from New York ticket-reselling mogul Richard Ebers, a regular contributor. The foundation gave out $591,450.
            Other past prominent Foundation donors include Vince McMahon, the professional wrestling impresario and NBC Universal (which aired Mr Trump’s show, The Apprentice).
            Many of the contributions to Mr Trump’s foundation appear to be in lieu of payments to Mr Trump himself. People Magazine gave $150,000 after it received rights to publish photos of Mr Trump’s son, Barron. Comedy Central donated $400,000 after Mr Trump appeared on one of its celebrity roasts.
            Several dozen charitable groups received contributions in 2014 – about an average number for the foundation. They included the Alliance for Lupus Research, the American Skin Association, the Anti-Defamation League and a variety of veterans’ charities.
            In 2009 the foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

            Why is Clinton’s foundation so controversial?
            The Clinton Foundation? So is the Trump Foundation kind of the same deal?
            No! Well, they both have the word “foundation” in their names, but other than that there really aren’t many similarities.
            First of all, the billion-dollar Clinton Foundation is much, much bigger. It employs a staff of 486 and thousands of programme workers, while the Trump Foundation’s board is Mr Trump, his oldest children and a treasurer. It has no paid employees.
            The Clinton organisation is what’s called an “operating foundation” or “public charity” – which funds and manages its own on-the-ground programmes. The Trump Foundation, on the other hand, serves as a pass-through for donations to other groups, which then perform charitable functions. Per IRS regulations, it’s categorised as a “private non-operating foundation”.
            The nonprofit monitoring organisation Guidestar has given the Clinton Foundation a “platinum seal” of transparency for providing additional information on its operations. The Trump Foundation has declined to furnish requested details.
            “The Trump Foundation’s approach would certainly not meet the standard of focused, proactive grantmaking commonly called ‘strategic philanthropy,'” writes Guidestar president Jacob Harold.
            The two foundations do have a bit in common, however. They’re both associated with individuals seeking the presidency in 2016, and they’ve both been the target of allegations of impropriety.
            So why has the Trump Foundation become controversial?
            Compared to the Clinton Foundation, the Trump Foundation hasn’t received nearly as much media attention, but the stories that have come out have painted a sometimes-less-than-flattering picture. Here are some of the reasons why:
            Co-opted credit: Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed that he’s making a donation to a charity only to fund that donation with money from his foundation. Given that at this point the foundation’s funding comes from outside sources, he is in effect taking credit – and being lauded – for simply passing charitable donations along.
            The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, who has conducted extensive investigation into Mr Trump’s charitable involvement, cites the “Palm Tree Award” Mr Trump received for a $150,000 donation he made (from his foundation’s money) to the Palm Beach Police Foundation. That donation came only after the Trump Foundation had received a $150,000 contribution from the New Jersey based Charles Evans Foundation, however. When the Evans Foundation donations stopped, the money to the police charity from Mr Trump’s foundation ended as well.
            “Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own,” Fahrenthold notes.
            Mr Trump also benefited from the fact that the Police Foundation holds its annual charity dinner at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. In 2014, for instance, the charity paid the club $276,463 in rental fees. Mr Trump often gave foundation donations to groups that were paying top dollar to hold events on his properties.
            Personal purchases: Although much of the money in the Trump Foundation has been gifted to other charitable organisations, some of it has been spent on purchases from charity auctions, including $20,000 for a 6ft tall painting of Mr Trump in 2007 and $12,000 for a football helmet signed by NFL quarterback Tim Tebow in 2012.
            The whereabouts of those two items are currently unknown. If they stayed in Mr Trump’s possession, it would appear to be a violation of US tax law prohibiting “self-dealing” – where managers of charitable groups purchase gifts for themselves from foundation funds. If the IRS determines this was the case, Mr Trump would have to reimburse his foundation for the market value of the purchase and pay a penalty.
            Questionable donations: As Mr Trump began attempting to curry favour with Republicans in recent years, more of his donations have been directed to conservative causes. In 2014 he made a $10,000 donation to the American Spectator Foundation, the nonprofit group that publishes the arch-conservative magazine of the same name.
            The Trump Foundation also made a $100,000 donation – its largest gift of that year – to Citizens United, a conservative group best known for a lawsuit that ended with the US Supreme Court striking down limits on many of the kinds of political campaign donations Mr Trump has criticised during his candidacy.
            These kinds of donations, while representing a shift in the foundation’s charitable giving patterns, are perfectly legal. In 2013, however, the Trump Foundation made a $25,000 contribution to “And Justice for All”, a campaign committee supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Political donations of this kind from a charitable foundation are prohibited. When the contribution was discovered in 2016, Mr Trump moved $25,000 from his personal account to compensate his foundation and paid a $2,500 IRS fine. Trump Foundation representatives have said the contribution was made in error.
            As multiple news outlets have pointed out, the original donation arrived just days after Florida announced it was not joining a multi-state lawsuit against Trump University – a Trump-branded for-profit company that offered real-estate seminars and has been accused of fraud. A New York Times open-records request found no evidence that Ms Bondi was directly involved in that decision, however.
            OK, Trump paid a fine. Does the foundation have any other legal troubles?
            Yes. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman – the Democrat who is spearheading the investigation into Trump University – announced on 3 October that he has ordered the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising.
            The foundation had neglected to register under article 7A of New York’s Executive Law, which is required for any charity soliciting more than $25,000 (£19,440) a year, a letter from Schneiderman’s office said
            Trump officials have denounced the investigation as partisan.
            Democrats in Congress have requested that the US Department of Justice initiate a criminal investigation into the Bondi donation for possible violation of federal bribery laws. The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has made a similar request of a US attorney in Florida – although proving such quid-pro-quo cases is extremely difficult.
            In addition the group has filed a formal request that the IRS revoke the Trump Foundation’s nonprofit tax status – an action the IRS will likely only take if it finds egregious and repeated violations of its regulations.
            But Trump says he gives lots of money to charities. Is he lying?
            Who knows?
            Because Mr Trump hasn’t released his tax returns, there’s no way to tell exactly how much he gives to charities. The Post’s Fahrenthold has been doggedly trying to track down any and all of Mr Trump’s personal donations but has only identified one gift, of less than $10,000, between 2008 and May 2016.
            In May, four months after pledging to do so and after heightened media attention, Mr Trump donated $1m to a veterans’ charity. The Republican candidate has also recently donated $100,000 to a charity aiding relief efforts following devastating floods in Louisiana.
            Mike Pence, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said on 12 September that his running mate “has given away tens of millions of dollars to charitable causes throughout his business life”.
            The Trump campaign released a list of charitable donations it says the candidate has made totalling $102m over the past five years – but the items listed were either in-kind contributions such as free rounds of golf at Mr Trump’s courses offered at charity auctions and land-conservation agreements or money originating from the Trump Foundation.
            “The Foundation’s second-biggest donation described on the campaign’s list went to the charity of a man who had settled a lawsuit with one of Trump’s golf courses after being denied a hole-in-one prize,” Fahrenthold and the Post’s Rosalind Helderman write.”

          • anne55

            On an additional note. I just looked up both the Trump and Clinton Foundations on Charity Navigator. Here is what they are now saying:

            In Regards to the Trump Foundation:

            “On September 13, 2016, it came to the attention of Charity Navigator that Donald J. Trump Foundation is the subject of an investigation by The New York Attorney General’s Office, according to an article titled, “New York Attorney General to Investigate Donald Trump’s Nonprofit.” For this reason, we have issued a Moderate Concern CN Advisory. For more information, please see The New York Times article.
            On November 22, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, “Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS shows.” For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
            On December 24, 2016, The Trump-Pence Transition Team issued a press release titled, “President-Elect Donald J. Trump Intends to Dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation.” For more information, please see The Trump-Pence Transition Team press release.
            On December 24, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, “Donald Trump plans to shut down his charitable foundation, which has been under scrutiny for months.” For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
            The nature of these allegations of illegal activity, improper conduct, or organizational mismanagement are such that Charity Navigator has issued this CN Advisory to provide donors with content that they may find useful when making their giving decisions. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors of sources used for the reported information, and not those of Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator is not responsible for the nature or content of the information presented through such external sources and websites. For more information on how or when we decide to publish a CN Advisory, please review our methodology.”

            And in regard to the Clinton Foundation: I can’t quote a statement on this because it is mostly graphs and cells. However,
            #1) It is still up and running, unlike the Donald’s
            #2) It gets a 5 star rating, the highest possible.
            #3) They are apparently closing one branch of the charity, the Global Initiative. This from the Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2017 by Steve Eder, Sheri Fink and Amy Chozick. You can google the entire article.

            “In recent weeks, the foundation has completed a planned shutdown of the Clinton Global Initiative, which hosted a high-profile annual meeting, and laying off most of the initiative’s staff of about 100. Foundation officials confirmed on Thursday that two major programs, including one in Haiti, would transfer out of the foundation.”

          • GPS Daddy

            Anne55, can you stop posting entire articles? It’s really annoying.

            I still don’t think you get the importance of a world view. This is the key to Evangelicals and Trump vs Clinton.

            You need to get it in regards to world views, anne55.

          • anne55

            If the Stream would allow postings to links, I’d do it. But, it doesn’t. So, if you want to make a point or present data, the only way to do it is cut and paste the article.

          • GPS Daddy

            Try:

            Thewebsite (dot) com

          • anne55

            I wouldn’t call it hype.

          • anne55

            Al Gore has been writing books and donating a lot of money to causes he cares about as well. Do you begrudge Trump or the Koch brothers making a lot of money? Gore’s 35 million pales in comparison to their’s and I at least like how he is donating his time and money to a very worthy cause.

          • GPS Daddy

            Or that the pro-on my gosh-the world will end scientists get a lifelong appointment to study it.

          • anne55

            They don’t get life appointments. They must obtain grants. Only Mr. Gorsuch has a life appointment.

          • anne55

            Are you a one issue only person? Only anti-abortion?

          • GPS Daddy

            Why limit? It’s a matter of priority. If some boy isn’t allowed to shower with the girls because today he declares himself to be female is no big deal if tomarrow we are all going to melt.

          • anne55

            This is apples and oranges. Both issues are important and should be treated seriously.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          Heck, I remember when the big climate change concern was the on-coming ice age. That was when temperatures plummeted from the highs in the 1930s and 40s to the lows in the 70s. A world conference of scientists said it was man-made and was due to particulate pollution. It was summarized nicely in science writer John Gribbin’s book Forecasts, Famines, and Freezes. That was scary because cold kills, whereas warmth lengthens the growing season and extra CO2 stimulates plant growth. Then, just as the ball was getting rolling, temperatures reversed and from the 1970s to the 2000s, they increased. Once more, the fallacy of the Linear Projection took hold of peoples’ minds, although on seeing a Danish chart of sunspot frequency vs temperature, I predicted that temperatures would peak out in the 00s and begin to decline again into the 2030s. We shall see. The Multi-Decadal Oscillation is a fairly recent discovery.

          • anne55

            You know, everything does go in cycles and another ice age could eventually hit the earth. But it could be a one – two knock out punch to humanity (and a lot else) to first fry ourselves because of climate change over the next 100-200 years, then eventually have an ice age hit. Not impossible.

          • GPS Daddy

            So then let’s wreck the worlds economy to stop the cycle…

          • anne55

            I would use the word change, not wreck.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Not even the most alarming of the projections of the computer models result in “frying” humanity. Only a modest couple degrees are believed. And the models run hot. The empirical data comes in cooler than the model projections. (IOW, the science may be sound, but there is less confidence in the model building, Professional computer modelers and statisticians have expressed a low confidence in that aspect of the work.) Recall that the Arrhenius equation is logarithmic: successive doublings of CO2 will have successively smaller effects on temperature. The models achieve “runaway” temperatures only by postulating feedback mechanisms that are less-well established in science.

          • anne55

            A ‘modest couple of degrees’ is highly significant on this planet. Not modest at all.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Nah. There have been temperature swings far greater than 0.2 deg. What is meant by “significant” versus “frying humanity”? It was considerably warmer in Minoan times and Roman times, not to mention the interglacial. That is, if Science can be believed.

          • anne55

            Yes, and tests of core earth and ice samples show plenty of environmental changes because of it.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Sure ’nuff, although it’s often the environmental changes that cause the temperatures changes. Land patches a mile a part can show a full degree difference solely because of land usage. (This is maybe 5-10x the projected warming.) Big environmental change about 400 years ago when the Sun re-started after the Maunder Minimum; another during the . Another at the end of the Roman era. Knox brought the cannons of Ticonderoga down the frozen Hudson, and Hans Brincker sped across the frozen brackish waters of Holland. Earlier, at the close of the Medieval Warm, wolves had howled in the streets of Paris; though during the Medieval Optimum, peasants had brought in two harvests a year, farmed land later regarded as marginal, and grew wine grapes in Scotland and Newfoundland. Pollen samples in Swiss lakes tell us that the transition from warm to ice age took about 200 years.

            Europe was mostly tundra, across which “Clovis” style hunters chased the wily mammoth across the grasslands south of the glaciers; but now they are fertile clay soils broken by mouldboard plows and turned over for drainage. As the glaciers retreated, the northern reaches sprang upward as the weight relieved, and the southern reaches sank down. (This land subsidence is sometimes mistaken for sea level rise,)

          • Timothy Horton

            Not sure I get your point. We had a period of significant but natural climate change several hundred years back and a good portion of human population got clobbered. Now we’re seeing another instance of significant climate change but we shouldn’t worry because it’s humans causing it instead of solar activity?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            That it is human-caused is the point in contention. The entirety of the recent warming, 1975-2000, fell within the period of the Grand Solar Max. The sun was especially active in that period. In fact, comparing temperature proxies to beryllium-10 proxies for solar irradiation, it is apparent that the sun has been ramping up for the entire time since the end of the Maunder Minimum, save for a second dip during the Dalton Minimum.

            The Team did not take solar factors into account because there were no astrophysicists on the Team.

            However, the solar cycles have damped out and the past couple have been very anemic. Days or weeks go by without a single sun spot, which means no solar wind, which means cosmic rays, which means cloud cover, which means… Russian and Scandinavian scientists, who are perhaps more keenly attuned to such things, are pondering another Little Ice Age, either another Dalton or another Maunder.

            So how do we know humans have cause the 1975-2000 warming, but did not cause the 1910-1940 warming?

          • Timothy Horton

            That it is human-caused is the point in contention.

            Not among the vast majority of scientists who study the climate for a living. The human caused climate change denying seem to come almost exclusively from the RW conservative ranks and the fossil fuel company lobbies.

            There are any number of studies which rule out solar effects as the cause of the recent rapid warming. There’s also fact of the huge measured CO2 increase which through simple physics explains the increase.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Actual measured temperature has been increasing, but not nearly as sharply as the computer models. In science, when the data fail to match the theories there is generally something wrong with the theory. There is a term missing from the model or there is mulricollinearity among factors, serial correlation, red noise or the like. There is also the possibility that the data is wrong, mis-measured, improperly adjusted, and so on. Uncertainties in surrogate measures may not have been propagated through the transfer equations, and so on. Sometimes the same data that were used to develop the model were used to calibrate and proof it! Bummer.

            Those who do anything for a living are always at risk of cutting their cloth to fit their measure. Otherwise, they may not get a grant renewed, as Eisenhower once warned in his Farewell Address,

          • Timothy Horton

            If you have any evidence the rise is not human caused (i.e. all the data is wrong for whatever reason) write it up and submit it to the appropriate professional science journals. None of the other climate change deniers will. Merely chanting “coulda woulda shoulda” won’t cut it.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            The data do not say one way or the other. Only an interpretation of the data can say that. I am usually skeptical of any conclusion that ends “…therefore, give me all your money.” Especially, if the conclusion du jour is 180 degrees from that of a mere forty years ago. One begins to wonder if the political program is the objective and not the scientific conclusion. It remains that the actual measured temperatures are running considerably cooler than the computer models. To me this suggests a problem with the models.

            That’s models, plural. That way you can always point to one or another each time and say, “it’s within the error bars.” Of course, it might be a different model each time, who knows. And where do the error bars come from? (I know how they are calculated for parameters using random samples, bur these are for computer projections.)

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, you have no evidence to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus on human causes for climate change, just your personal incredulity. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Just the fact that the measured temperatures have fallen well short of the projections of the models. Or that the 1930s and 40s have cooled markedly compare to the 90’s in various reports NASA/GISS when one might think the past cannot be changed. Or that of a 2-degree rise in reported temperature, about 1.5 degrees comes from adjustments to the measured temperature. (These adjustments would seem to be the largest human factor contributing to the increase!)

            What evidence do you have to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus of 1600 that the earth is immobile at the bottom of the world? This consensus was even greater than the alleged 97%

            Appeals to consensus are argumenta ad populi, that is doxa rather than episteme. The consensus may be right or the consensus may be wrong. Heavy objects may fall because it is their nature, or because large bodies send out a ‘force’ called gravity that pulls them in, or because the presence of matter distorts the field of Ricci tensors and ‘bends’ spacetime in its vicinity, or because of human activity throwing cannon balls off towers. Who can say? Maybe stomach ulcers are caused by anxiety and stress, as was once the consensus; or that continents were immobile on the earth, also once the consensus. But from time to time, we discover that the consensus has been sucked in by confirmation bias and group-think and even by the promise of rewards by those holding the purse. In the end, as Einstein wrote, one is correct even if no one else agrees,

          • Timothy Horton

            Here’s the actual data.

            https://data(DOT)giss(DOT)nasa(DOT)gov/gistemp/graphs/

            Feel free to show me where it indicates cooling or a pause. Or show me where NASA GISS fudged the data or got it wrong. You type a lot of words without saying anything.

          • Timothy Horton

            There have been temperature swings far greater than 0.2 deg.

            But not changing this rapidly, and not when the human population was 7.5 billion and heavily dependent on a very stable climate for their food production and distribution.

            Those are thes point the deniers always forget when we hear the claims “CO2 PPM was higher in the past! Temperature was higher in the past!”

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Actually, it changed rather rapidly at the end of the medieval optimum. It rained for two solid years and the crops drowned in the fields. After centuries of stable climate, the weather began to swing wildly and after a milieu in which there had been no general famine in Europe, widespread hunger returned. All this within a generation at around the beginning of the 14th century. Granted, the population was not 7.5 billion: The wind and water power technology of the time could not sustain such a population. There have been many interludes of rapidly changing climate, even within historical times,

            What exactly is it that you suppose Freeman Dyson and others are “denynig”?

          • Timothy Horton

            The medieval warming was a local phenomenon, not a global one. Still when the climate changed it produced widespread famine, notably in Europe which had become dependent on large crop yields. Now we have solid evidence of humans producing rapid climate change over the whole globe. What makes you think it won’t cause reduced crop yields and famine in at least some areas this time?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Well, it has been studied in China, in South America, and in Africa, so it may depend on your definition of “local.”

            What produced the famines was not the benign medieval climate but the sudden change to the Little Ice Age. What may reduce crop yields and cause famine at the end of the Modern Ages might be the end of global warming. Cold kills.

          • Timothy Horton

            Cold kills.

            So does excess heat caused drought and salt infusion of farmlands caused by rising sea levels. That’s what we’re looking at in the next few decades.

          • anne55

            Well, I guess in a way you proved the point and that climate changes (for whatever reason) can be devastating to humans.

          • anne55

            Multiple news sources have reported on this temperature level increase. It is easy to find with a google search. I am picking just one of them.

            “Starting today, Earth Day, I’m planning to spend the rest of the year writing about one tiny little number — 2 degrees. It may be the most important number you’ve never heard of.
            Maybe that plan sounds excessive.
            (Eight months reporting on one number!?)
            But here’s why it matters: If we humans warm the world more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), we greatly up the odds of climate catastrophes.
            Think super droughts, rising seas, mass extinctions and acidifying oceans.
            We don’t want to cross that mark.
            Humans never have lived in post-2-degree world, said Carlo Jaeger, chair of the Global Climate Forum, based in Germany, and author of a paper on this history of 2 degrees.
            “If we start warming the planet way beyond what humans have ever experienced, God knows what will wait for us,” he told me.
            Good news, though. If we drastically cut carbon emissions, we can stay below the 2-degree threshold.”

            And, this article is from a couple years ago. We haven’t made progress and, with Trump’s policies, we are actually going in the wrong direction.

          • GeorgeTyrebyter

            Mammals evolved in a 2000ppm CO2 atmosphere, the world is doing fine in a 400ppm soup at the moment.

          • anne55

            Not according to those self-same scientists. We need to be at no more than 350ppm and we are already significantly past that.

        • GeorgeTyrebyter

          Madam, 97% of scientists haven’t been asked, and, given the unbridled hostility of the Warmista left, are unlikely to volunteer their opinions at the moment.

          • anne55

            From NASA:
            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”

            That is good enough for me.

          • GeorgeTyrebyter

            “That is good enough for me”

            Ah, the pull of that old tyme religion.

            The Doran & Zimmerman determination threw out the surveys of about 3300 invited earth scientists to find less than 80 of whom answered yes not to “is the world in danger from CO2 emissions” but “is it warmer now than a century ago?” and ‘does mankind have something to do with it?’. The Naomi Oreskes paper (her only claim to a science education is a bachelor’s in Mining Geology) relied on her “expertise” to classify papers as to whether they supported alarmism or skepticism, and the Cook (his only science degree is a BS physics from a less than top college in Australia) et al paper relied on unvetted volunteer “citizen-scientists” with no science training required to read and quickly decide if the author was supporting of the dominant paradigm or not, with some spectacular failures on their part, including a misclassification of Nir Shaviv, whose paper “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” with Jan Veizer (2003) was key in pushing me towards skepticism (later outright scoffing) of warmista dogma a decade ago.

            And the NASA climate group whose webpage told you want you wanted to hear is headed by an activist computer modeler (his training was applied mathematics) who spends most of his time at a shrinking website called “Real Science”

            97% is the presidential vote count for a petty tyrant, not an honest survey of real physical scientists who very possibly could not muster 97% answering “is water wet?” depending on how the question is posed and I write that as one with multiple degrees in the physical sciences, and the father of someone with multiple degrees in the physical sciences.

  • llew jones

    Its 4.45 pm Sunday 23 here in Victoria, Australia so the march for “science” was held here yesterday and heavily promoted by the left wing media. Been trying to get the numbers who turned up in Sydney (population about 5.5 million) and in Melbourne ,my state capital, (population about 4.8 million). The media lefties have gone strangely quiet and are talking about anything but the march. It seems that the “massive” crowds the left wing media predicted didn’t turn up and in the one or two references to the march in both capital cities I can’t find any mention of the number of the Sydney marchers. For the Melbourne march the organisers claimed it was 3,000. So that’s about .06 percent of the population. No figure on the numbers in Sydney yet but the only report I could find listed about 10 of the marchers, who were asked why they marched? There was a photo of each “responder” alongside their comment. Sometimes with their children or a friend in the photo.

    Half of those in a photo had one parent with 2 or 3 of their very young children. (which infants of course boosts the numbers) There were a few who were into the climate change scam but others were there because they’re critical of those parents who do not accept what science says about vaccination and therefore wouldn’t vaccinate their children. The law already excludes such parent from receiving Medicare and many primary schools will not allow unvaccinated children to attend. Others of those interviewed wanted more money from the government to build labs to cure things like MND and cancer. A female doctoral science graduate had to go overseas to get a job so she was marching to get the Aussie government to provide more money for her particular science so she could get a job here.

    In other shots of the marchers one could easily pick the nutters carrying the most scientifically idiotic posters, not only by the stupidity of what was on their placards but also by the wild look in their eyes. A bit like that strange, ancient looking character with his mouth gaping in the photo at the end of William Briggs amusing and very accurate article. Accurate in portraying the gross ignorance of some of the marchers and the supporters of their cause.

    • anne55

      It would be interesting to see how many people YOU can muster to come out to march AGAINST science and the environment.

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        There aren’t that many. It’s a false dichotomy.

        • anne55

          ?? I think you can’t do it, frankly.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Why do you “think” that? (Science requires empirical data on which to think, so I assume you must have some.) Perhaps, like most Late Moderns, you only “feel” that I can’t “do” it, a verbal substitution that Barzun noted already in the Adult Abdication of the 1950s.

            My formal training in the natural sciences encompassed two semesters of physics and a semester each of astrophysics and galactic structure. There was a semester of psychology as well, but I don’t regard that as a science that can suit up in the same game as physics. (I also took political science and military science, which used older definitions of science that the marchers would not likely recognize,) My major course of study was in mathematics, which is very different from natural science and my employment for many years was in applied statistics, which engaged me in data collection, experimental design, and analysis. You must be the judge whether that involved sufficient analytical reasoning from quia to propter quid.

          • anne55

            Then let’s see you try it and prove it. Put it to the scientific test, so to speak.

          • James Newman

            Have you ever seen the video where Pen and Teller get Environmentalist at an environmental rally to sign a petition to ban “Dihydrogen Oxide” also known as water? All the environmentalist signed the petition eagerly many not even asking what the petition was for.

          • anne55

            I watched the video.

            In the video it sounds like they are saying ” dihydrogen monoxide” . Monoxide is something people hear and – of course – that is scary stuff. They also list a series of ‘harmful sounding effects’.

            In addition, there is no mention of how many people signed this vs. how many people either refused or asked what it was.

            Obviously, people shouldn’t sign things without understanding what they are.

            But, when you try to ‘trick’ people by using a similar word that IS scary and using a very unfamiliar word for water, you are going to have them associating it with “bad things”.

            Many probably instantly thought of carbon monoxide.

            There are several chemical names for water, and, if they’d just use the common H2O, likely no one would have been fooled.

            I don’t think this is funny – or fair. It is just trickery at the expense of those who care about the environment. It is funny only to those who don’t take environmental concerns seriously.

          • James Newman

            The point of the video was that environmentalist are often eager to believe. None of those people should have signed that petition until they knew what the substance being talked about was.

          • anne55

            And, again, the video does not show how many people did ask what it was or declined to sign. It makes it look like everyone was a fool and signed. The people in the video that are shown signing the petition could have been 100% of people approached, or .5%. We don’t know and the video doesn’t say. What the video does do is make fun of people and take advantage of unfamiliar wording. We don’t know if the video was edited to make it ‘funnier’. There is a lot we don’t know that makes it look like environmentalists are “eager to believe” anything. And, the fact that they are at some sort of environmental event would probably have them feel even more that this was a legit petition. In other words, it was a set up.

            Look, in reverse, at all the people at Trump rallies who were eager to believe every word of his, every promise Trump made. If you look at the promises he made to be completed in “the first 100 days”, the only ones he has achieved are putting Gorsuch on the bench (via the nuclear option which the use of could come back to haunt Republicans in the future) and 3-4 other things (Nafta; leaving the TPP) that he accomplished via executive order. This is out of a list of 25-30 things promised for the first 100 days. And this, after complaining about the number of ‘unconstitutional executive orders’ done by Obama. My point is that ALL people, on both sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum, are vulnerable to being fooled.

          • anne55

            Maybe you could say the same thing about evangelicals? That they are ‘eager to believe’?

          • James Newman

            Monoxide simply means “one oxygen atom”. I don’t know about you but I’m not particularly scared of oxygen. As a matter of fact I’m sort of fond of oxygen as I breathe it.

          • anne55

            You may be a chemist, but for people walking by and quickly accosted, the first thing that would come to my mind is monoxide as in carbon monoxide.

      • llew jones

        Anne, if you are not a bloke that is, I was initially under the impression that you were a sincere Christian trying to convince we poor climate change deluded evangelical Christians of the error of our ways. To my
        horror I discovered that you’re the typically inconsistent atheistic/Gaia worshipping, denier of the significance of natural climate change. Young Timmy Horton is not your son by any chance?

        My academic background is in mathematics and metallurgy and until I came across the saying “those who can’t do, teach” had intended to be a teacher so I ended up starting an engineering business last century and which I still run. If we used the sort of “science” you have been promoting here our business would have gone broke long ago. If Katherine Hayhoe gave some of those “evidences” for anthropogenic climate change, you mentioned in an earlier post, she is a very second rate scientist. Correlation is not the same as causation we real science believers keep telling your ignorant mob.

        She and you seem out of touch with what is actually known, even today, that is, how very little any scientist knows about the effect, on the climate, of many of the countless number of variables that produce Earth’s climate . If either of you were in touch with the historic Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927) greenhouse gas theory you would know the following:

        1. Global temperature increases are logarithmically related to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

        2. Svante postulated a positive feedback from water vapor evaporated into the atmosphere from the heat caused by any extra CO2 in the atmosphere. It is that positive feedback from the relatively weak GHG effect of CO2 and its diminishing, think logarithmic relationship, effect.

        3. Svante did not study, nor is much known today of the effect of different cloud types on global warming. Climate scientists are still not sure which way, net positive or net negative, the cloud effect has on global
        warming.

        If the water vapor feedback is neutral or negative it is goodbye catastrophic global warming. The reality that about one third of the increase in atmospheric CO2, in about 200 years, occurred in the last 20 years (an increase of about 40 ppm) is part of the reason genuine scientists are interested to know why there
        was an extended pause in global warming during that time when such an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere should have given significant global warming. Some scientists have the temerity to suggest the CO2/water vapor feedback, including the cloud effect may, horror of horrors, be due to Arrhenius’s postulate that significant global warming can only occur if the CO2/water vapor feedback is positive. Could it possibly be negative?

      • James Newman

        Ah yes, yet another glassy eyed chanting environmentalist shouting “anti-science” at someone that disagrees with their bad theories. Why don’t you just point your finger and yell “Witch” “Heretic” or “Unbeliever” at those that disagree with you?

  • eldooDyMknaY

    Those who can…DO! Those who CAN’T (i.e., Briggs…whoever HE is…) write about and criticize those who CAN! If the author can’t help make this a better world, then stand aside and let us work here…

    • freddy fudd

      Dr. Briggs holds a Masters in Atmospheric Science and a PhD in Statistics. Had you bothered to research him you would know. Your statement that “Those who can…DO!” only applies to those who are allowed to do. With climate science embroiled in Lysenkoism, dissenters pay a heavy price with regards to their careers.

      • Timothy Horton

        Dr. Briggs holds a Masters in Atmospheric Science and a PhD in Statistics.

        Which is all the more reason his lying and fudging of data to pander to his right wing employers is so despicable.

        • freddy fudd

          Thank you for proving my point.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          Which employers were they?

          • anne55

            Well, he may indeed be all he says, but he is a recently let go summer adjunct only professor at Cornell.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Mr. Horton claimed that he was beholden to “his right wing employers.” But he did not/could not name them.

            Cornell apparently wanted someone local, i.e., no travel expenses, so they picked a non-statistician — a lawyer with expertise in gender — to teach the statistics class. This is bothersome independently of global warming.

      • anne55

        Whatever his degree, I will opt to go with the 97% of climate scientists that do NOT agree with him. The weight of the evidence is solidly on their side. And, the risk of his being wrong is catastrophic. Why don’t you ask Katharine Hayhoe what she thinks of his views? I can find little about him online except his own writings.

        • GPS Daddy

          So, anne55, what exactly is in agreement by the 97%.

          • Timothy Horton

            From NASA’s Climate Change web page:

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

            The 97% figure comes from a 2014 study of almost 12,000 papers on climate change published since 1991. The climate changed deniers squawked but other studies have confirmed the percentage. Even “rebuttal” studies funded by climate change denier organizations came up with numbers no lower than 91%. So yes, the overwhelming majority of scientists who actively study the issue agree humans are the main cause.

          • anne55

            Thanks, Tim. I can’t keep up with responding to everything.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Actually, many of those 97% included those you call “deniers” (hoping by name-magic to associate them with Holocaust-deniers). All that was required was that they had published a paper whose title could be construed as supporting a warming earth. Since the earth actually has been warming for the past 400 years, this is easy to do. Less easy is to blame evil Western technological civilization for it, especially for the first 350 years of it. No actual poll was conducted.

          • anne55

            Katharine Hayhoe has published 120 peer reviewed papers and was (in the recent past, not current) on Time’s list of the most 100 influential people. How many climate scientists do you know with that kind of solid credentialing?

      • anne55

        It would seem like something is going on with him as just yesterday he says he was fired from Cornell. He is so sarcastic that it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is true in his own article. But, he obviously had a falling out with Cornell.

        His post:
        I’m No Longer At Cornell
        APRIL 22, 2017 / BRIGGS / 23 COMMENTS
        I got fired about a month ago. This would ordinarily fall under the categories, “About time” or “So?”, and thus it is not worth mentioning. Except for this.

        I had a spate of radio shows lately about the March “for” “Science” and the public relations dossier on me still had that I taught at Cornell. Some of the radio hosts said things like “He’s a professor at Cornell” or “He teaches at Cornell.”

        I was mostly able to correct this on air, but since I’d hate for anybody to think I’m claiming a false credential, I wanted to set the record straight. (The dossier has at last been updated so there should not be new instances.)

        Through last summer (2016), I taught in a graduate program and was an Adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell. It’s unclear to me exactly when the Adjunct status expired, or even if it’s expired now. But if it did it might have been a couple of months back, since about then one of Jerry Coyne’s readers noticed I was not listed on the Department’s website. Up until about a month ago, I thought I’d be returning to do my usual summer duty—and was indeed informed by the program director that I would. So my claiming Adjunct status was in good faith. (I’ve put in a request to see if I’m still listed or not.)

        As far as I know, mine wasn’t a political firing. I was told by the director: “After our meeting last week, I had another meeting in the dean’s office about the…program. There was a strong opinion that if any resident faculty wanted to teach in the program, I should give them preference over non-affiliated faculty.

        “Unfortunately, someone from statistics has asked me to teach in the program, and I am in the position of needing to let them, which means that we will not be able to offer you a position teaching this summer in Ithaca.”

        The lady who is replacing me, God bless her, and who will now teach the Masters-level statistics course is a lawyer with a specialty in sexual harassment. She isn’t a professor, but she is local. (I don’t live in Ithaca. I’ve not met my replacement.)

        Now if that news was underwhelming, this next announcement will be even less interesting than discovering how much loose change was discovered in my couch.

        I will not be seeking any future university employment. It is obvious to friends and enemies alike that just about exactly none of my opinions are welcome in or around any American campus. I mention this only to stave off kindhearted emails saying “Did you see State U was hiring?”

        “Oh, Briggs, what have you to worry about? Didn’t I hear you were being funded by the oil companies?”

        I am. For my work in fooling the public about global-warming-of-doom, I have a lifetime coupon that lets me shave off that annoying nine-tenths of a cent added to the cost of every gallon of gasoline, up to ten gallons. Once per week (cash only). Big Oil knows how to take care of her own.

        “No, I have it wrong. You’re a paid shill for the Discovery Institute. At least, that’s what you were accused of in comments at Stream.”

        I am? Say! Terrific news. I’ve always wanted to be a shill; it’s been kind of a dream job for me. The DI is a bonus: everybody I’ve ever met from there has been a sweetheart.

        I first tried a government sinecure, but all the good ones were taken by Harvard and Yale graduates (Cornell is low on the list). That’s when I decided to become a shill. After all, I possessed in abundance the two most desirable traits for shills: laziness and blowhardedness.

        I haven’t been entirely successful landing shill positions. I do have that Big Oil deal, but what I didn’t tell you is that I don’t have a car (and haven’t for twenty years), so the payoff is not as exciting as it first sounded. And though it seems I am a “paid” shill for DI, somehow the pay hasn’t reached me yet. (Is this the fault of the Post Office or IRS?)

        Since shilling isn’t doing the trick, I suppose the next natural step for a fellow of my unique qualifications is inheritance. Now since none of my relatives are rich, if this is going to work I’m going to have to be adopted, Roman style, by some wealthy individual. All offers considered.

      • anne55

        If you’d look up Katharine Hayhoe, you’d see she has incredible credentials.

        “I am a professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, part of the Department of Interior’s South-Central Climate Science Center. My research currently focuses on establishing a scientific basis for assessing the regional to local-scale impacts of climate change on human systems and the natural environment. To this end, I analyze observations, compare future scenarios, evaluate global and regional climate models, build and assess statistical downscaling models, and constantly strive to develop better ways of translating climate projections into information relevant to agriculture, ecosystems, energy, infrastructure, public health, and water resources.

        I am also the founder and CEO of ATMOS Research, where we bridge the gap between scientists and stakeholders to provide relevant, state-of-the-art information on how climate change will affect our lives to a broad range of non-profit, industry and government clients. We work with a broad range of organizations, from Austin Water to Boston Logan Airport, to assess the potential impacts of climate change on their infrastructure and future planning.

        I began my career with a B.Sc. in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto. My first published papers were in the field of observational astronomy, on variable stars and galaxy clustering around quasars. I then completed an M.S. in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where my research focused on understanding human and natural sources of methane, and quantifying the contribution of methane and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases to emission reduction targets. After participating in a climate change assessment for the Great Lakes, I recognized the need for high-resolution climate projections to integrate into impact studies in areas ranging from ecosystems to energy. For my Ph.D., I refocused my research to survey and compare a broad range of the statistical downscaling methods often used to generate these projections: research that now feeds directly into my contribution to the World Meteorological Organization’s Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment for Empirical Statistical Downscaling, or WMO CORDEX-ESD. There’s no one like a scientist for generating long unpronounceable acronyms, is there?

        To date, my work has resulted in over 120 peer-reviewed papers, abstracts, and other publications and many key reports including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Second National Climate Assessment; the U.S. National Academy of Science report, Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia; and the 2014 Third National Climate Assessment. In addition to these reports, I have led climate impact assessments for a broad cross-section of cities and regions, from Chicago to California and the U.S. Northeast. The findings of these studies have been presented before Congress, highlighted in briefings to state and federal agencies, and used as input to future planning by communities, states, and regions across the country.

        Together with my husband Andrew Farley, a professor of applied linguistics and best-selling author of eight books including The Naked Gospel, I wrote A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, a book that untangles the complex science and tackles many long-held misconceptions about global warming.

        I frequently give public talks on climate science, impacts, communication, and faith. Many of my past talks are archived on the POSTS page, and I share future events on my Facebook and Twitter pages.”

        I CUT OUT A GOOD DEAL IN THE MIDDLE, BUT HERE IS HER ENDING:

        “In 2012, I was named one of Christianity Today’s 50 Women to Watch. In 2014, I was awarded the American Geophysical Union’s Climate Communication Prize, and named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People and the Foreign Policy’s 100 Leading Global Thinkers. In 2015, I was named one of the Huffington Post’s 20 Climate Champions, and honoured with the President’s Mid-Career Faculty Award at Texas Tech University and a Headliner Award from the Association for Women in Communication Lubbock Professional Chapter, while 2016 I received a Chancellor’s Council Distinguished Research Award from Texas Tech University and the National Center for Science Education’s Friend of the Planet award, and together with Bob Inglis from RepublicEn, was named to the POLITICO 50 list of thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics. And last but not least, most recently in 2017 I was named one of FORTUNE’s world’s greatest leaders (along with two other women in academia in Texas!).

        These are all tremendous honours, for which I’m enormously grateful (and constantly surprised). What means the most to me personally, though, is when just one person tells me sincerely that they had never cared about climate change before, or even thought it was real: but now, because of something they heard me say, they’ve changed their mind. That’s what makes it all worth while.”

  • GPS Daddy

    Where big money is so is corruption, decite, lies, and scams. That is the condition of the human heart. There is BIG money and power in the global warming/climate change.

    • anne55

      Yes, we will OWE big money if we do nothing about it.

      • GPS Daddy

        Nope. If catastrophic global warming really comes to pass money will not be useful.

        • Timothy Horton

          Global warming doesn’t have to be catastrophic to still be damaging to human lives and therefore worthy of taking action against. Catastrophic is only the worst case scenarios which have a small (but still non zero) probability of occurring. occur.

          • Paul

            Sounds like you’re trying to manage expectations. The sky is falling! Well maybe not but we must force everyone to change just in case.

          • anne55

            The sky will fall, the land will burn and the seas will rise. You’ve got that right. And, if you were in a leaky boat in the middle of the ocean wouldn’t you like to have a life raft or at least a life preserver, just in case?

          • Paul

            No, the sky isn’t falling, but the seas have been rising and falling for as long as there has been seas. Yet now all of a sudden it is a crisis and being used as the global common foe to usher in a one world govt and undermine national sovereignty. Afterwhich all the alarmists will discover things aren’t as bad as predicted but the one world govt will remain of course just in case. Anyone who points it out is a denier, conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxer, baby seal killing flat earther who must be discredited and silenced.

          • anne55

            You know what? I for one would like to eventually see a world government. I don’t believe in nationalism. I think it will happen, but not likely any time soon. Nationalism is stupid — a failing, gasping ideology. Look we went from being cave dwellers in small family units, to tribes, to fiefdoms, to small nation states, to large nations….next step? Global unity.

            If we are lucky.

          • Paul

            I appreciate your honesty, it’s probably eye opening for some to see you say nationalism is stupid, good to see what we’re actually dealing with. Kinda like the vid of retired Walter Cronkite getting his one world govt award being introduced by Hillary.

          • anne55

            I believe with all my heart in One World. Because that is what we are. Look at Earth from space. There are no boundaries there – just land and sea. Nationalism IS stupid.

          • Jim Walker

            One World, aka New World Order, is the Anti-Christ goal, I guess you don’t know that.

          • anne55

            That, in my mind, is a bunch of cult-like bunk.

          • Jim Walker

            If you truly understand the Bible, you wont dispute this.

          • anne55

            But, that is your version of reality. There are many Christian denominations that would not take this point of view on the Bible. Are you saying all those “other” Christians are wrong?

          • Dean Bruckner

            Yes, all those other Christians are wrong, if they deny the future reality of the Man of Sin.

            You don’t seem to understand: once you take the mark, your eternal destiny is sealed. And I’ve never interacted with anyone so ready and willing to do exactly that as you.

            You are in dreadful danger of losing your soul and being thrown alive into the eternal lake of fire called hell. Wake up! Repent! Call out to God for mercy!

          • anne55

            I don’t have a clue by what you mean by “taking the mark” or the “man of sin”. I guess I will have to just take my chances.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Just to check, I did Internet searches for “take the mark” and “man of sin” and the whole first page of links for each search were exactly the topics I expected. They are phrases from the Bible, BTW.

            Anne, this just demonstrates that you don’t WANT to know the truth. Until you humble yourself and seek God on his terms, with all your heart, and repent, you will never understand. You will remain spiritually deaf and blind until it is too late.

          • anne55

            I can’t believe you would condemn other Christians. And, this mark of the beast /man of sin is SO vaguely written as to be totally unintelligible.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne,

            I’m not condemning other Christians; the scripture does that, as it points out whether they are Christians or not in reality. God’s word is a “two edged sword” that penetrates into the innermost part of every person, and judges their thoughts and intents. That’s scripture too, by the way, speaking of itself. When you set yourself up to judge scripture, instead of humbly accepting its judgment of you, you rebel against God and blind yourself to its truth.

            But back to your comment: with your “unintelligible” remark, you are the one condemning yourself. Here is what the scriptures say about God’s truth. See where your reaction fits:

            ——————————————————————————————————————–

            “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

            ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
            and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.’

            “So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.

            “But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

            “Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

            “God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. Therefore, as the Scriptures say, ‘If you want to boast, boast only about the LORD.'”

            –Paul the Apostle, writing to the church at Corinth (which was much like the U.S. today), in his first letter, chapter 1, verses 18-31, New Living Translation (NLT)

          • anne55

            Well, I hope God likes a rebel then.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne,

            You’ve put your finger on the very problem. Sin is rebellion against God. Every human, including you and me, is born into a state of rebellion against God. Absent direct rescue by God, and participation in that rescue by each person, the end of that rebellion will be eternal death in hell. That one was a rebel will be no consolation then.

            How reasonable is it to rebel against God, to substitute one’s own will for God’s?

            I am praying for you.

            Dean

          • anne55

            Nationalism has been an evolutionary step in the development of mankind, but we have to progress beyond it. It is a little like being perpetually stuck in the adolescent stage and never growing up.

          • Paul

            Oh please, spare me the classic elite speak, all you’re trying to do is belittle and discredit those you disagree with as being children. If only everyone would grow up and agree with you right? Condescention won’t work here.

          • anne55

            I stick by what I said. I don’t think it is elitist (my finances would hardly qualify me as such) but I do think we all must progress.

          • Paul

            Elitism isn’t about bank accounts, it’s the arrogance and condescention of liberals who think they know best and are happy to force the unwashed to bow to their will.

          • anne55

            Why do you think I think that? I don’t agree. It is interesting because (from MY perspective) I feel pretty much the same as you. Only in reverse. It seems like evangelicals all banded together over a few issues (abortion / Supreme Court justice choice come to mind) and voted these issues en masse in order to FORCE the rest of us unwashed agnostics to go along with their agenda and beliefs. Can you see this from my perspective? Then there are other side issues such as education and what it does / doesn’t teach in our public schools. Or climate science skepticism / denial by some or hating health care for all for some reason I can’t quite understand. From my perspective, if you don’t believe in abortion, then never have one. But to dictate to everyone that viewpoint and make abortion illegal seems – well – dictatorial and wrong. On the flip side, we on the pro-choice side aren’t FORCING anyone to have abortions. It is up to personal choice.

            So, if I flipped your sentence: “…it’s the arrogance and condescention of evangelicals who think they know best and are happy to force the unwashed to bow to their will.” That would pretty much sum up my perspective too.

          • Paul

            Why do I think you think that? Because that is what you actually say.

          • anne55

            Where?? Where did I say it? Maybe evangelicals are the elite ones because they, as a group could be seen to fit this description too

            “Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.” You might not fit some of this (e.g. wealth, although I don’t actually know that)…but it would seem the part about influence and authority being greater, whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously, etc etc. By this definition of elitism, you might fit!

          • Paul

            I gotta say, nice try.

          • anne55

            Thank you. Glad you see my point of view. That is some progress.

          • Paul

            I think you missed the sarcasm

          • anne55

            I try to take people at their word.

          • anne55

            Where? Please quote me.

            And, can you see this from my point of view?

            I think Trump (and the many of the people who elected him) want to force issues like abortion, religion in schools, what is taught (or not taught) in schools, use of fossil fuels, a huge military and on and on.

          • anne55

            I am saying we all, everyone, is stuck in the ‘nation state’ and that I think, eventually, that will fall away. I am not calling anyone a child. I think the overall institution is immature.

          • Paul

            I don’t feel stuck in the USA, I want it to remain true to its core principles found in its Constitution that limit govt in pursuit of greater liberty. You know, that document that is largely ignored these days as the govt spreads like a fungus into just about every aspect of my life.

          • anne55

            Where does it say it limits government? I am not ignoring the Constitution. You know, Thomas Jefferson said from time to time we should feel free to amend it ‘as situations change’. Sometimes I feel like the Constitution is also viewed as a sacred text rather than written by men.

          • Paul

            Even your hero Obama spoke about the Constitution being about what govt can’t do to you and was saddened that there hasn’t been a change where it says what govt must do to people. IIRC he called it negative liberties…negative in his mind being negative to big govt. Have you actually read the Constitution? If so it is difficult to even comprehend that you would ask the question where does it limit govt. perhaps take a look at the Bill of Rights.

          • anne55

            Yes, I have read it at various times. However, I think tiny government often = less freedom. Government is there to make all our lives better. Think infrastructure. Think clean environment. Think better health. And on and on.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You are SO ready to worship the antichrist and take his mark on your forehead or hand!

          • anne55

            Meh. I don’t believe in an anti-Christ.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You will.

          • anne55

            Guess we will have to wait and see.

            You sure it isn’t Trump?

          • Dean Bruckner

            No I’m not sure. Satan is a master of deceit. You don’t seem to be aware of that.

          • anne55

            Well, I’m glad to know you entertain the possibility Trump could be evil.

          • Dean Bruckner

            We can all embrace evil.

          • anne55

            That is likely true. Or, at least, bad choices.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne, I served in the U.S. Coast Guard 24 years. I have helped rescue people from leaky boats in the ocean. The Eco-Marxist’s global warming scenario is not the one you describe. Here it is:

            If you were in a boat in the middle of the ocean, and sharks all around you kept telling your boat was leaky, and that you should jump into the water to avoid the possibility that your weight might sink the boat, and that they would fix the boat, if you just jump in the water, and all would be well, what would you do? If they told you you would need the life raft and personal flotation devices (Type I, approved for open ocean use by the aforementioned U.S. Coast Guard) for later, and not to bother with them, what would they do. If you overheard them talking about how tasty you look and that there are too many of you in the boat, but then they smiled their shark-tooth smile and told you that you should jump into the water “just in case,” what would you do?

            I know what I would do. I would pull out my shotgun and let the closest shark know exactly what I thought of his suggestion.

            Or, if we had you aboard, you would probably want to jump in, so we could save the shotgun ammunition for later.

          • anne55

            Look, I was trying to use an analogy, but this is getting a little far afield.

          • Dean Bruckner

            The analogy was not the problem; it’s the false assumptions and false knowledge you are carting and peddling around here that is the problem.

            And you’re welcome for my updating your misapplication of the cautionary principle.

          • anne55

            I am wondering who, exactly, is pedaling false assumptions on the Stream.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You are peddling false teaching including false assumptions. And you will be judged by God for doing so unless you repent. Please repent!

          • anne55

            I am sorry to cause you such personal distress over my point of view. You are not responsible for my point of view or whatever my fate is. Please do not do that to yourself because it just creates extra stress for you. I am at peace with myself and that is all you need to know.

          • Dean Bruckner

            I don’t believe you.

          • anne55

            Why? I am telling you the truth – “my” truth.

          • Jim Walker

            But you support the storm of killing innocent babies in the female’s womb.

          • anne55

            You can’t have it both ways, Jim.
            You can’t be against abortion and for the death penalty.
            You can’t be anti-abortion and for the destruction of the planet by ignoring science.
            You can’t be anti-abortion and pro-throwing people out of the country.
            You can’t be anti-abortion and pro eliminating programs that help the poor or provide a basic right to health care.

            That is hypocritical in my mind.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Your assumptions are badly flawed. Until you repent, Anne, you will never find the truth.

          • anne55

            I am using the intellect God gave me and trying to remain open to information and ideas. I don’t adhere to rigid idealogy.

          • Jim Walker

            I don’t subscribe to abortion, but the death penalty is for those who knew the consequences but did the crime, but these people have a choice, babies in the womb doesn’t and did nothing wrong. I don’t support death penalty, I support life imprisonment.

            I don’t subscribe to abortion but I do believe in conservation. I believe in using the earth’s energy sources efficiently, be it coal, fuel, wind, solar, hydro.
            Don’t put words in my mouth anne55.

          • anne55

            I am glad to hear you don’t support the death penalty. Good for you. I also am not one to want to sit in judgement about why people end of the way they do. There are often many good reasons for that – heartbreaking ones. Some are able to rise above it and some seemingly can’t.

            I also do not like anything but early abortion. I have never had one, but I was confronted with an unexpected pregnancy and I did not choose abortion. However, having said that, I believe in the right of each woman to decide for themselves based on their own unique situations. I would never want that right taken away.

          • Jim Walker

            anne55, there is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It like you drink alcohol and you get an unexpectedly drunk.

            If you don’t want to be pregnant, use contraception.
            If you are a Christian woman, you will abide by verse and not support abortion.

            Psalms 139:14 ~ 16
            I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
            your works are wonderful,
            I know that full well.
            My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth
            Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be

          • anne55

            I WAS using contraceptives. Each and every time. And they failed. They aren’t perfect.

            As a man, you have NO IDEA what women go through. I find your post insulting.

          • Jim Walker

            Apologies for the alcohol effect. I was trying to bring the message across.
            As a woman, you also have no idea what the baby in the womb goes through, and it meant dying the most horrific death.

          • anne55

            I don’t drink.

            I’ve said in other posts I don’t agree with later abortion, but at a very early stage, I’m not opposed (e.g., morning after pill, first few weeks when it is at a cellular level). There is no awareness and no pain at that point.

            I also would not want to make this decision for another woman. I don’t think most women think “la-de-da” about abortions. They don’t use it as a regular form of birth control.

            No man in history has ever had to make this ‘final’ decision. No man in history is ultimately responsible for this decision. It is always the woman. So, it is relatively easy to be an arm chair preacher. And, still, it is not only the woman that bears all that goes with pregnancy, labor and delivery. The woman is often the one that bears the primary responsibility of raising the child on a day to day basis for 18+ years. Although, that is not always true nowadays.

            So, this decision, short of no sex ever, is not an easy one. And, an unexpected pregnancy is NOT always something one can control / prevent.

          • Jim Walker

            anne55
            You cannot say that there is no pain experienced by the small fetus when aborted. Does the tiny mosquito feel pain when we swat it, sure it does.

          • anne55

            A tiny mosquito is it’s fully formed, small self. A human at the cellular level of development has NO functioning nervous system with which to feel pain. It has no brain. It is like the seed of a flower, but not a flower.

          • Timothy Horton

            Feeling pain doesn’t depend on body size. It depends on the development of the nerves and brain neural activity to sense the nerves’ firing. In a human fetus that doesn’t happen until around the 27th week, well into the 3rd trimester.

          • Jim Walker

            Its not about the pain, but the life living inside a woman. Anyway I agree to disagree.

          • anne55

            I understand you don’t like even the idea of ending the potential of a human life, at any stage. I hear that. And that is okay. However, not everyone feels the same way and there are a myriad of reasons and situations each pregnant woman faces. I, for one, am not willing to make the decision for others – or make it a crime.

          • Amanda Pal

            Totally off topic. At least try to pay attention to what’s actually being discussed.

          • Jim Walker

            That’s between Tim and me, MYOB.

          • Timothy Horton

            Your off topic blithering has nothing do do with me, leave me out of it.

          • anne55

            Others are allowed an opinion here last I knew.

          • anne55

            Thank you.

        • anne55

          Well, that is one thing I agree with you on.

    • anne55

      Well, guess what! There is HUGE money right now in Washington, under Trump’s administration. And, he is benefitting greatly from it. There has also historically been HUGE money in the fossil fuel industry.

      The Global Warming / climate change research is small peanuts by comparison and it is being cut as we write.

      • James Newman

        There is a huge amount of money in the fossil fuel industry because fossil fuels have enormous amounts of compact transportable useful energy in them that we use to power our modern civilization.

        Climate research used to get funding to the tune of hundreds of millions every year. A reasonable amount of money the climate researchers say. Now it gets tens of billions every year and is vastly over funded. There has also been a great deal of dishonesty and corruption uncovered in the climate change research field over the years ie; Climate Gate one and two. Then we get to the climate models which have repeatedly proven themselves to be useless at predicting the future of climate. The funding is being reduced because the vast amounts of money needlessly poured into the field have attracted opportunists that are more than willing to keep telling you scary science fiction stories of climatic doom as long as it keeps the money pouring in. As soon as the money goes back to normal levels you’ll see the opportunists and their scary science fiction stories disappear.

        • anne55

          Yes, and we know the downsides to fossil fuels as convenient as they may be. We will pay the price we save using them now – in the future.

          I think it is human nature that sometimes research turns out to be purposefully bogus for varying reasons. Think the autism vaccine link research. Totally falsified. No area of research is immune. But, does that mean you take all the vast amounts of GOOD research and just throw them away?

          No.

          I would say the fossil fuel industry has had an EXTREMELY lucrative run of it. Think Saudi Arabia or our own Texas. Think Exxon sitting on their own research that actually shows climate change is real. It doesn’t surprise me people aren’t willing to give it up. But, give it up we must.

  • anne55

    I issue a challenge to you all. Read Katharine Hayhoe’s site – communicate with her if you wish. She is an atmospheric scientist AND an evangelical. Her husband is an evangelical minister. I can’t seem to convince anyone to easily, try as I might. But, she grew up with (and still apparently has) an understanding of your world view. As far as I know, she still considers herself evangelical. So, please, please, read her site. You will all have to google her yourselves as I can’t post links here. Believe me, I have a personal understanding of evangelicalism because I grew up surrounded by it. Please, read her site.

    • GPS Daddy

      Have you read Andrew Farley’s book, “The Naked Gospel”? Andrew Farley is Katharine Hayhoe’s husband. He believes that every man since Adam is NOT created in the image of God. That to be created in the image of God you must be born again. So if you have not accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior then you kinda a sub-human. He is not mainstream Evangelicalism. They are definitely on the liberal side of biblical interpretation.

      • anne55

        Well, then perhaps I will never change your minds. I concede that. I just think it is sad.

        • GPS Daddy

          Well, anne55, we have had numerous discussions. Your still not willing to admit that the physical world really exists. You’ve play numerous games with me on issues like this. Just like claiming that climate science is not political…

          How about this question: Is there objective truth?

          You have not answered that question.

          • anne55

            I have never said science wasn’t political. I think the STUDY of science should not be political. But, I think scientists may well need to BECOME more political because government can’t and won’t function well unless we used good, sound science to base our policies on.

            And, I am not playing games with you. I believe our concept of the nature of reality changes the more we study the universe. That is all based on science too. Religion without science is just superstition. Science without morals (one might say religion) can go badly wrong. But the religion must be based on a reasonable set of ethics. Not superstitious cult-like beliefs.

          • GPS Daddy

            Is there objective truth?

          • anne55

            Objective truth is not just based on evangelical Christianity.

          • GPS Daddy

            That’s a silly statement. Do you know what objective truth is, anne55?

          • anne55

            Do you yourself think you know? What is your objective truth? Why are you hounding me to give a one sentence summary of my objective truth? I am open to change, to possibilities, to learning. In that sense, for me, there is no one objective truth. Tell me what your’s is.

          • anne55

            And you haven’t answered this for me yourself. Nor my question about why so many evangelicals voted for Trump, a man certainly not Christian in word OR deed. How so?

          • anne55

            You haven’t answered this for me either. I have answered you as much as I can.

          • GPS Daddy

            So anne55, your dance around my questions leaves you in a bad place philosophically. If you do not know that there is objective truth then your only operating from subjective truth. There is no justice if the only subjective truth exists. If objective truth does exist but is completely unknowable then there is no way for us to know if there is Justice. But objective truth is not hard. Its really easy to know if there is objective truth. The statement, “there is no objective truth” is an objective truth claim that cannot be true. Therefore, there is objective truth.

            This is really important for if subjective truth is all that exists then justice is defined by the “truth” that prevails. So if someone thinks that a person should be locked up in jail for wearing black socks and they have the power to make that happen then justice is served. Their subjective truth wins.

            But if we recognize that objective truth does exist then we can search for and work to understand it. True justice can only be served if there is objective truth. So for you to dance around the issue of objective truth means that your really willing to sacrifice justice..

            You claim that your big objective truth is not my big objective truth. But if out two “big objective truths” logically counter-dict each other then one of there possibilities exist: either mine is wrong, or yours is wrong, or they are both wrong. But both can’t be true.

          • anne55

            Wow. I have to say I had some difficult following all that, but I thank you for your attempt to explain it to me.

          • GPS Daddy

            Sorry, didn’t mean to put it over your head.

          • anne55

            I would just say I am open to experience and possibilities. I have no desire or need to know “one objective truth”. I am fine with ambiguity. I can live with uncertainty. That is about as much of an answer as you will get from me! But, I do think we can come to agree on certain ethics and morals – what is right and what is wrong for us as a society.

          • GPS Daddy

            You need to think more deeply than that, anne55. You very capable of doing so.

          • anne55

            Well, thank you for your faith in my intellect.

          • Gary

            Who has the authority to determine what a “reasonable set of ethics”, that objectively applies to everyone, is?

          • anne55

            Humanity does, collectively.

          • Gary

            Wrong answer. Human beings have no such authority, only God does. Only God has the authority to both make moral laws, and enforce them on everyone. That’s the only way moral laws can be objective. If humans define morality it must be subjective and can vary from person to person.

          • anne55

            And how do you think we “listen” to your God? You may feel that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, but HUMANS WROTE IT. God did not descend from the clouds, sit down with a pen and write it all out. Humans wrote the laws you find in their over many millennium, collectively. And, there are many worthy traditions – not just Christian – that have their own, often very similar, set of moral values. I have faith in us to figure it out.

          • Gary

            God directly dictated many of the moral rules he has for people. You probably don’t believe that, but you don’t have to believe it in order for it to be true. God is not going to allow YOU, or other people to “figure it out”. God has his rules and He holds everyone accountable for breaking those rules. In order to obey YOUR moral rules, I would likely have to disobey God’s moral rules, and that wouldn’t be wise on my part. So, I’m going to try to live by what God has said rather than by what you and other people say.

          • anne55

            I also believe God gave each and every one of us an intellect so we could independently inquire and explore as the the essence – the nature – of things.

          • Gary

            Does that mean you think you are free to define morality and to ignore God’s laws?

          • anne55

            It means I am free to read the writings of great literature, great thinkers world wide (Bible included), use my intellect and take the best of all. And, there is plenty of good. Look, there is much in the Bible that is good. There is much in other writings as well. I don’t believe a loving ‘intelligent design’ would present ‘truth’ to one group of people and not others. That would not be a loving, just or fair God. So, guess you would call me eclectic.

          • anne55

            Did he phone up the writers? Come spend the weekend to dictate it?

      • Timothy Horton

        What does that have to do with the science of human caused climate change?

        • GPS Daddy

          Anne55, used the they are Christians card.

          • Timothy Horton

            That was to show the science was not anti-Christian, not offered as evidence the science is correct.

          • GPS Daddy

            There are Christian scientists with PhD’s in Evolution that support Darwinian Evolution. My point in my response is that Dr. Farley’s view of the Bible is not an Evangelical view. His views come from not wanting to feel guilty on sin. He then makes up his own theology to promote this. If he feels free to make things up maybe his wife does too?

          • Timothy Horton

            If he feels free to make things up maybe his wife does too?

            (facepalm) If some Christian priests molest altar boys do you think that means all Christians do?

          • anne55

            I am glad to hear that there are some sensible Christian scientists with PHD’s that support evolution. You didn’t say if they were evangelical or not.

            I will tell you that Religion without sound science is just superstition. Period.

          • GPS Daddy

            I pointed out that there are Christians who accept evolution to show that people can accept truth in one area and falsehood in another. Darwinian Evolution is a world view not science.

          • anne55

            Darwinian Evolution is science.

            “Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.”

            How would you personally explain the existence of fossils? Of carbon dating very old artifacts? This is what I mean by religion without science is only superstition.

          • anne55

            And, how is evolution any less beautiful or sacred? I think it is very much so.

          • GPS Daddy

            Hmmm, a scientific theory is not sacred. Only “religious” text are sacred… But thanks for admitting your bias. Darwinian Evolution is your religion.

          • anne55

            Okay. By traditional definitions, I guess I would agree with you on that. However, in my mind, I stand in awe of evolution – and I, personally, consider it both beautiful and sacred.

          • GPS Daddy

            Don’t worship the creation anne55.

          • anne55

            How is my saying it is both beautiful and sacred anything but the truth? I am not worshipping anything – just in awe, inspired and – yes – I feel it is sacred in a sense.

          • GPS Daddy

            If you think that Darwinian Evolution is beautiful and sacred then that is your first amendment right… the free exercise of religion.

          • Dean Bruckner

            This right here is called idolatry. In Romans chapter 1, the Apostle Paul indicts those who have turned away from God to worship the creation, not the Creator.

            Is there occult involvement in your history? This level of spiritual blindness that you exhibit seldom, if ever, occurs without that.

          • anne55

            Oh, for goodness sakes. I have nothing more to say.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You have nothing more to hear as well.

          • llew jones

            “I will tell you that Religion without sound science is just superstition. Period.”

            I recently heard the Christian apologist,John Lennox emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford UK, say that when the big bang hypothesis was gaining traction in the early 1960s an article came out in a British science journal saying, in effect, “we must not allow this hypothesis to be accepted because it gives too much credibility to the bible”. No doubt those Steady State Universe scientists were also trying to protect their “false science” (false given the Big Bang theory also doesn’t get rolled). Of course the Big Bang. which tells us that the universe is not eternal, unlike the Steady State hypothesis, also has implications for all other “science” including Neo Darwinism. The process of evolution is irrelevant if we can’t answer a primary question “how did nothing create something”? The BB theory postulates that time and matter began in that singularity.

            Lennox commented, “3,500 years ago the bible said the universe had a beginning and if only scientists had accepted that they would have saved themselves a lot of time”.

            When a great physicist like Stephen Hawking pronounces “because there is a law of gravity nothing can create something”. The mathematician in Lennox said of that statement, ” Nonsense is still nonsense even when spoken by a scientist”

            What was that you were saying about science and religion? Seems a bit of reliable info from the mouth of the Creator could save a fair bit of time wasting by scientists.

          • anne55

            “The process of evolution is irrelevant if we can’t answer a primary question “how did nothing create something?”

            Just because we don’t know the answer (yet), doesn’t mean there isn’t a logical one.

          • llew jones

            Think you have missed the point Anne. Science, your science that is, was wrong so it seems on the idea of an uncreated universe. Guess where they got that from? No not the bible:

            Aristotelian Universe – The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in the 4th Century B.C. established a geocentric universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the centre, surrounded by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars. Although he believed the universe to be finite in size, he stressed that it exists unchanged and static throughout eternity.

            Have you ever wondered where the consensus science came from that got poor old Galileo into such strife, over asking “hey Ari could we please change that to helio?” So not only did Aristotle and all those consensus scientists who took his science as gospel get the solar system wrong but also, until the Big Bang hypothesis got going, imagined, thanks to Aristotle, that it was scientific to
            believe the universe existed eternally.

            My suggestion is that much of science comes either from speculative philosophy as shown above or as in the case of climate alarmism essentially from a polytheistic view of the Earth, evidenced by the talk of Gaia or mother Earth from so many of its supporters who do have training in science and yet still have a Pagan Earth view.

            Sort of no need for a transcendent creator or as your scientists put it in their classic bit of magic “nothing can create something”. And please believe us, they say, it did. God or stupidity?

            You see the problem with atheism is that it is essentially an illogical world view.

            Importantly the great scientists such as Galileo, Kepler and Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist in history, believed the universe could be rationally understood because the uncreated God who designed and created it is a rational all knowing being. In short they accepted that if there are laws of nature then logically there must be a lawgiver. Thus nature can be investigated by rational
            beings.

            Here’s a relevant quote from each one:

            1. Galileo Galilei: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.

            2.Johannes Kepler: The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.

            3. Isaac Newton: Don’t doubt the Creator because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe.

            In his reference to accidents Newton had come across the beginning of evolutionary theory probably from the Greek Ionian School which began with Anaximander (6th and 5th century BC) and in that context Newton addresses the mathematical improbability of life happening by chance in his work Optica.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Particles to people evolution through natural selection acting on random mutation not only did not happen; it could not have happened. You are spectacularly uninformed, deceived and deceiving.

            Since you seem to like to post lengthy quotations (but without marking and attribution), I offer this from a letter from Paul the Apostle, in which he describes your world view’s destination and fellow travelers (“people”) with clarity and courage:

            “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

            “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

            –Paul’s second letter to Timothy, chapter 3, English Standard Version of the Bible.

            Repent of your sin and pride while there is still time!

          • Timothy Horton

            Particles to people evolution through natural selection acting on random mutation not only did not happen; it could not have happened. You are spectacularly uninformed, deceived and deceiving.

            LOL! I think you just set a new Stream record for ignorance based projection. 😀

          • anne55

            I have tried, in each copy and pasted article, to have the source and author listed. I’d only paste links if I could, but this site doesn’t allow it. If I missed naming a source somewhere in something I’ve copied, please tell me which article and I’ll correct it. I also try to use quotations and usually put end quote or end article when I am once again speaking personally. If I again miss something point out the exact post and I’ll fix it.

            In response to the rest of the above:

            a) This is Paul speaking, not Jesus. How do you know he has the final word?
            b) How do you know which of us are ‘the godly ones’ and which are not? I am not putting any judgement on you personally. I am simply here urging people to care for the earth, look at the evidence on climate change and take action. That does not seem to be something any loving God would be against. For you to ‘condemn’ me, and others, seems very unChristian to me. I am not doing that to you.

            Loving creation does not seem either prideful or sinful to me. What does seem that way, is ignoring evidence and doing nothing.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Paul’s letters have the same authority as those of Jesus, because Jesus sent Paul, in the same way that the Father sent Jesus.

            Anne, I am not the one condemning you; scripture itself condemns you, as it does every sinner. Only through repentance and faith can we be delivered from God’s wrath.

            You are spiritually blind and deaf. You have made idols of autonomy, sex, and the earth. You worship them and seek to compel others, with the threat of prison, to do the same.

            Repent while there is still time, before your character can no longer be changed and you find yourself in hell. Please!

          • anne55

            What?? Sex?? How so?

            I love the earth. I don’t idolize it. I respect it.

            I respect the brain I was given and my freedom to investigate independent truths.

            What gives you the right to say I am spiritually blind and deaf? That seems to be very judgmental and based on YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

            I can’t threaten anyone with prison, especially based on autonomy and sex. That is just ridiculous. Trump is the one saying women and doctors should be ‘punish’ for sex (or the results of it). I’ve never said that nor would I.

            I said I believe ‘criminal charges’ were appropriate for those that destroy the earth because we ALL depend on it. In a sense, I’d consider that a crime against all humanity.

            Please do not worry about my character or what you think will happen to me. I have enough faith and trust in the basic goodness of things and that ‘things will work out’.

            I feel sorry that your beliefs are so scary as that must surely be a prison of it’s own kind.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne, your ‘criminal charges’ mean prison, or worse. You are a totalitarian in waiting, waiting only for time and opportunity to turn you into a murderous despot.

            Jesus pointed out the spiritual blindness of the intelligentsia of his day, and they had the same response as you. Jesus showed them the awful implications of their denial of their spiritual blindness: that they would be judged more severely for their continued rebellion against God:

            ————————————————————————————————

            “When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’

            “The man answered, ‘Who is he, sir? I want to believe in him.’

            “’You have seen him,” Jesus said, ‘and he is speaking to you!’

            “’Yes, Lord, I believe!’ the man said. And he worshiped Jesus.

            “Then Jesus told him, ‘I entered this world to render judgment—to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.’

            “Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard him and asked, ‘Are you saying we’re blind?’

            ‘If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,’ Jesus replied. ‘But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.'”

            –John’s gospel, Chapter 9, verses 35-41, New Living Translation (NLT)

          • anne55

            I hardly think I am a murderer in waiting.

          • Dean Bruckner

            There are no prisons like sin and hell, and you are trapped in one and on your way to the other. So would all of us be, and indeed were, but God’s mercy was poured out on us and he brought us close to himself by melting our hearts and enlightening our minds, so that we were able to repent of our sins. We all were, and are, utterly unworthy of his kindness, but we must each respond in repentance and faith. And you have not yet done that. Please do it before it is too late!

            I risk being accused of judging you when I merely tell you the truth and hope and pray you understand and receive it. So be it.

          • anne55

            I simply don’t believe this stuff.

          • anne55

            I am trying to point you in the direction of people that share your background and many of your core beliefs. I have not read his book, but I am talking about his wife’s work, not his. Look, you can use one person’s work (that has nothing to do with climate change) and discount everything else about them because of it. That isn’t sensible. And, it is his wife’s work, not his. So what if they are on the liberal evangelical side of Christianity? I am surprised to learn that there even IS a liberal / conservative side to evangelicals.

            Look, you all elected Trump and he is not Christian – and most certainly not evangelical. How does that relate to or promote your beliefs? How does that represent you living out Jesus’s teachings on Earth? If you can believe someone like Trump, who is so radically different than you, why can’t you give people of your own faith a chance? I think when you say ‘the Christian card’, it is an attempt to divert from my logic because you haven’t anything more rational to say.

          • GPS Daddy

            Being married to a man who promotes a demonstratably trwisted gospel is a big deal. He has significant moral and world view influence on her.

            The logic your using is “she is a Christian so you should listen to her” is playing the Christian card.

          • anne55

            You are blaming her for what you perceive as short-comings in him. That is blatantly unfair and a way to just dismiss what she has to say without even looking at it. It is one technique used by those that simply have no desire to change or expand their thinking. If you first read what she has to say, considered it and then said “I don’t agree” – well, at least that would be giving something a chance. If you shut it out with no chance, then there is nothing more I can do or say. Despite your personal feelings, Mr. Farley appears to be a widely read, widely respected minister.

            I simply gave you Katharine Hayhoe’s information because she grew up in your religious tradition. I thought that might be helpful to you. Please check out the Creation Care website. That may be more to your liking.

            It would appear if you aren’t willing to consider the work of other evangelicals, then how would you possibly listen to those that aren’t? I cannot move a stone wall.

          • GPS Daddy

            Your making a false equivocation with the Bible’s call to steward the earth. The ways in which I see man falling short on this is in dealing with the large volume of trash is being produced. It’s also not dealing with the disposal of things like plastics and carosive materials in a safe way.

            While getting these things under control they will have little effect on the claim warming.

            But here is another issue I see with you anne55: you don’t seem to see the character problems that Al Gore, the Clintons, and like bring to the table. You gloss over Hillaries many, many scandals. Things that would put anyone else behind bars. Your completely OK with the huge debt Obama added. Your blind to the moral issue of forcing biological females being forced to shower with biological males.

            What do these things have to do with climate change? If you blind to these things then you can be blind to someone like Dr. Hayhoe if she is pedaling false claims.

            Just because someone has a nice demenor does not mean I turn off my critical thinking.

          • anne55

            A) You didn’t address why so many evangelicals elected Trump, a non-Christian and a sexual predator by his own words and actions.
            B) I wholeheartedly agree with you on the problems of trash.
            C) I understand why many are suspicious of the Clintons, et. al. However, I still feel Hillary was held to a higher standard than men would have been. Look at the Russian scandal with Trump. If this had been Hillary, or any other woman, the right wing side of the party would have been all over them. But, Trump – the smooth talking con man – seems to sail right through because people like some of what he is doing politically. Trump’s own supposed charity foundation was a mess…but how much do we hear about that? And, after dissing Syrians and refusing to provide safe harbor, he suddenly gets all concerned about chemical weapons and bombs them big time. This after saying in previous years (Obama era) we should not react with such weapons. Flip-flopper in chief.
            D) Hillary was cleared of wrong doing more than once, by the FBI / CIA.
            E) Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama’s terms, there was less federal income than usual. That is because the recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase.

            What’s the best way to determine how much each president contributed to the $19.9 trillion U.S. debt? The most popular method is to compare the debt level from when a president enters office to the debt level when he leaves. A good visual representation is a graph showing the percent of the debt accumulated under each president. You can also compare the debt as a percent of economic output.

            But these aren’t accurate ways to measure the debt created by each president.

            Why? The president doesn’t have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. That’s because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous president.

            For example, President Bush took office in January 2001. He submitted his first budget in February. But that was for FY 2002, which didn’t begin until October 1. For the first nine months of his new term, Bush had to live with President Clinton’s last budget. That was FY 2001, which continued until September 30, 2001. This is why no new president is accountable for the budget deficit in his first year in office.

            Yes, it’s confusing. But the federal fiscal year is set up that way to give the new president time to put together his budget during his first month in office.

            The Best Way to Measure Debt by President
            One way to measure the debt by president is to sum his budget deficits. That’s because the president is responsible for his budget priorities.

            Each year’s deficit takes into account budgeted spending and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes. For details, see Deficit by President and Deficit by Year.

            But there’s a difference between the deficit and the debt by president. That’s because all presidents can employ sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit.

            They can borrow from federal retirement funds. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987. That’s because there were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes. The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasuries.

            Barack Obama – The national debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama’s two terms. He added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase, in seven years. This was the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise. Obama’s budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years.

            Obama’s budget increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over ten years. But these savings didn’t show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

            George W. Bush – President Bush added the second-greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. But this was the fourth-largest percentage increase out of all the presidents. Bush increased the debt 101 percent from where it started on September 30, 2001, at $5.8 trillion. That’s the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton’s last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion.

            President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA. The Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare.

            For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

            Franklin D. Roosevelt – President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover. Of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. The New Deal cost billions. But FDR’s major contribution to the debt was World War II spending. He added $209 billion to the debt between 1942 and 1945. For more, see FDR Economic Policies.

            Woodrow Wilson – President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 727 percent increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. During his presidency, the Second Liberty Bond Act gave Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.

            Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960 (I didn’t copy the entire article):
            Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

            FY 2016 – $1.423 trillion.
            FY 2015 – $327 billion.
            FY 2014 – $1.086 trillion.
            FY 2013 – $672 billion.
            FY 2012 – $1.276 trillion.
            FY 2011 – $1.229 trillion.
            FY 2010 – $1.652 trillion.
            FY 2009 – $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama’s contribution to the debt.)
            George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001.

            FY 2009 – $1.632 trillion. (Bush’s deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
            FY 2008 – $1.017 trillion.
            FY 2007 – $501 billion.
            FY 2006 – $574 billion.
            FY 2005 – $554 billion.
            FY 2004 – $596 billion.
            FY 2003 – $555 billion.
            FY 2002 – $421 billion.
            Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

            FY 2001 – $133 billion.
            FY 2000 – $18 billion.
            FY 1999 – $130 billion.
            FY 1998 – $113 billion.
            FY 1997 – $188 billion.
            FY 1996 – $251 billion.
            FY 1995 – $281 billion.
            FY 1994 – $281 billion.
            George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54 percent increase from the $2.8 trillion debt at the end of Reagan’s last budget, FY 1989.

            FY 1993 – $347 billion.
            FY 1992 – $399 billion.
            FY 1991 – $432 billion.
            FY 1990 – $376 billion.
            Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

            FY 1989 – $255 billion.
            FY 1988 – $252 billion.
            FY 1987 – $225 billion.
            FY 1986 – $297 billion.
            FY 1985 – $256 billion.
            FY 1984 – $195 billion.
            FY 1983 – $235 billion.
            FY 1982 – $144 billion.
            Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43 percent increase from the $699 billion debt at the end of Ford’s last budget, FY 1977.

            FY 1981 – $90 billion.
            FY 1980 – $81 billion.
            FY 1979 – $55 billion.
            FY 1978 – $73 billion.

            F) What will the projected debt be under Trump? It is impossible to tell so early in his presidency. However, there are predictions from Forbes magazine:

            Living in the academic world, I have taken up peer therapy with anguished colleagues over the election of Donald Trump. My standard refrain is to wait and see what he actually does because his words have run in too many different directions. Build a wall? We’re not really sure. Kill Obamacare dead in its tracks? Maybe, maybe not. We just have to see.

            But one thing seems fairly certain: a Donald Trump presidency is likely to have little regard for decreasing the national debt (the cumulative amount owed by the federal government) or the annual budget deficit. Some of us are shocked that the national debt has nearly doubled (from roughly $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion) on President Obama’s watch, but that number will likely grow under President Trump, perhaps even on a similar scale.

            Why do I say this? First, consider what Trump himself had to say on the subject during the campaign: “I’m the king of debt; I understand debt probably better than anybody. I know how to deal with debt very well. I love debt.” I guess that’s one approach to a growing federal debt: hire the self-proclaimed “king of debt” to oversee it. His other campaign comment was that if we started to get into real trouble because of our debt, he would go to other countries and renegotiate our debt, persuading them to take less than we owe. Good luck with that.

            Beyond Trump’s rhetoric, two of his key economic programs are also likely to grow the budget deficit, not shrink it. He seems bound and determined to cut taxes, and the Republicans in Congress largely agree with him. And everyone—Republicans and Democrats alike—are ready to jump on the infrastructure bandwagon, spending upwards of $1 trillion in the coming decade to, as he said in his victory speech, “fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals” so that our infrastructure “will become second to none.” Reduce revenue by cutting taxes and increase spending on infrastructure—even I can do the math on that.

            But under Trump the supply-siders are coming back, arguing that all this will grow our way out of economic difficulty. But let’s be realistic: if we’re at 1-2% growth today, even doubling the rate of economic growth only takes us to 3% or maybe at the outside 4%. The numbers don’t add up. Moody’s Analytics estimates his infrastructure plan would add just 0.4% in growth. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated that his tax cuts will raise the federal debt by $7.2 trillion over the next decade and the Congressional Budget Office sees the annual tab for interest on the debt doubling between now and 2020.

            G) Stewarding the Earth means more than picking up trash, as important as that is. It means protecting it from climate change. Trash won’t matter if we all have to live in an inhospitable world. This is a statement from the Creation Care website. It is a site by evangelicals.

            EVANGELICAL DECLARATION ON THE CARE OF CREATION

            The Earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof- Psalm 24:1

            As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.

            Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation.

            Because we have sinned, we have failed in our stewardship of creation. Therefore we repent of the way we have polluted, distorted, or destroyed so much of the Creator’s work.

            Because in Christ God has healed our alienation from God and extended to us the first fruits of the reconciliation of all things, we commit ourselves to working in the power of the Holy Spirit to share the Good News of Christ in word and deed, to work for the reconciliation of all people in Christ, and to extend Christ’s healing to suffering creation.

            Because we await the time when even the groaning creation will be restored to wholeness, we commit ourselves to work vigorously to protect and heal that creation for the honor and glory of the Creator—whom we know dimly through creation, but meet fully through Scripture and in Christ. We and our children face a growing crisis in the health of the creation in which we are embedded, and through which, by God’s grace, we are sustained. Yet we continue to degrade that creation.

            These degradations of creation can be summed up as 1) land degradation; 2) deforestation; 3) species extinction; 4) water degradation; 5) global toxification; 6) the alteration of atmosphere; 7) human and cultural degradation.

            Many of these degradations are signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth, these degradations will become more severe. Our responsibility is not only to bear and nurture children, but to nurture their home on earth. We respect the institution of marriage as the way God has given to insure thoughtful procreation of children and their nurture to the glory of God.

            We recognize that human poverty is both a cause and a consequence of environmental degradation.

            Many concerned people, convinced that environmental problems are more spiritual than technological, are exploring the world’s ideologies and religions in search of non-Christian spiritual resources for the healing of the earth. As followers of Jesus Christ, we believe that the Bible calls us to respond in four ways:

            First, God calls us to confess and repent of attitudes which devalue creation, and which twist or ignore biblical revelation to support our misuse of it. Forgetting that “the earth is the Lord’s,” we have often simply used creation and forgotten our responsibility to care for it.

            Second, our actions and attitudes toward the earth need to proceed from the center of our faith, and be rooted in the fullness of God’s revelation in Christ and the Scriptures. We resist both ideologies which would presume the Gospel has nothing to do with the care of non-human creation and also ideologies which would reduce the Gospel to nothing more than the care of that creation.

            Third, we seek carefully to learn all that the Bible tells us about the Creator, creation, and the human task. In our life and words we declare that full good news for all creation which is still waiting “with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God,” (Rom. 8:19).

            Fourth, we seek to understand what creation reveals about God’s divinity, sustaining presence, and everlasting power, and what creation teaches us of its God-given order and the principles by which it works.

            Thus we call on all those who are committed to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to affirm the following principles of biblical faith, and to seek ways of living out these principles in our personal lives, our churches, and society.

            The cosmos, in all its beauty, wildness, and life-giving bounty, is the work of our personal and loving Creator.

            Our creating God is prior to and other than creation, yet intimately involved with it, upholding each thing in its freedom, and all things in relationships of intricate complexity. God is transcendent, while lovingly sustaining each creature; and immanent, while wholly other than creation and not to be confused with it.

            God the Creator is relational in very nature, revealed as three persons in One. Likewise, the creation which God intended is a symphony of individual creatures in harmonious relationship.

            The Creator’s concern is for all creatures. God declares all creation “good” (Gen. 1:31); promises care in a covenant with all creatures (Gen. 9:9-17); delights in creatures which have no human apparent usefulness (Job 39-41); and wills, in Christ, “to reconcile all things to himself” (Col.1:20).

            Men, women, and children, have a unique responsibility to the Creator; at the same time we are creatures, shaped by the same processes and embedded in the same systems of physical, chemical, and biological interconnections which sustain other creatures.

            Men, women, and children, created in God’s image, also have a unique responsibility for creation. Our actions should both sustain creation’s fruitfulness and preserve creation’s powerful testimony to its Creator.

            Our God-given , stewardly talents have often been warped from their intended purpose: that we know, name, keep and delight in God’s creatures; that we nourish civilization in love, creativity and obedience to God; and that we offer creation and civilization back in praise to the Creator. We have ignored our creaturely limits and have used the earth with greed, rather than care.

            The earthly result of human sin has been a perverted stewardship, a patchwork of garden and wasteland in which the waste is increasing. “There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land…Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away” (Hosea 4:1,3). Thus, one consequence of our misuse of the earth is an unjust denial of God’s created bounty to other human beings, both now and in the future.

            God’s purpose in Christ is to heal and bring to wholeness not only persons but the entire created order. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross” (Col. 1:19-20).

            In Jesus Christ, believers are forgiven, transformed and brought into God’s kingdom. “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation” (II Cor. 5:17). The presence of the kingdom of God is marked not only by renewed fellowship with God, but also by renewed harmony and justice between people, and by renewed harmony and justice between people and the rest of the created world. “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Isa. 55:12).

            We believe that in Christ there is hope, not only for men, women and children, but also for the rest of creation which is suffering from the consequences of human sin.

            Therefore we call upon all Christians to reaffirm that all creation is God’s; that God created it good; and that God is renewing it in Christ.

            We encourage deeper reflection on the substantial biblical and theological teaching which speaks of God’s work of redemption in terms of the renewal and completion of God’s purpose in creation.

            We seek a deeper reflection on the wonders of God’s creation and the principles by which creation works. We also urge a careful consideration of how our corporate and individual actions respect and comply with God’s ordinances for creation.

            We encourage Christians to incorporate the extravagant creativity of God into their lives by increasing the nurturing role of beauty and the arts in their personal, ecclesiastical, and social patterns.

            We urge individual Christians and churches to be centers of creation’s care and renewal, both delighting in creation as God’s gift, and enjoying it as God’s provision, in ways which sustain and heal the damaged fabric of the creation which God has entrusted to us.

            We recall Jesus’ words that our lives do not consist in the abundance of our possessions, and therefore we urge followers of Jesus to resist the allure of wastefulness and overconsumption by making personal lifestyle choices that express humility, forbearance, self restraint and frugality.

            We call on all Christians to work for godly, just, and sustainable economies which reflect God’s sovereign economy and enable men, women and children to flourish along with all the diversity of creation. We recognize that poverty forces people to degrade creation in order to survive; therefore we support the development of just, free economies which empower the poor and create abundance without diminishing creation’s bounty.

            We commit ourselves to work for responsible public policies which embody the principles of biblical stewardship of creation.

            We invite Christians–individuals, congregations and organizations–to join with us in this evangelical declaration on the environment, becoming a covenant people in an ever-widening circle of biblical care for creation.

            We call upon Christians to listen to and work with all those who are concerned about the healing of creation, with an eagerness both to learn from them and also to share with them our conviction that the God whom all people sense in creation (Acts 17:27) is known fully only in the Word made flesh in Christ the living God who made and sustains all things.

            We make this declaration knowing that until Christ returns to reconcile all things, we are called to be faithful stewards of God’s good garden, our earthly home.

            My writing now. While the exact words “climate change” are not used, I read them into this statement: These degradations of creation can be summed up as 1) land degradation; 2) deforestation; 3) species extinction; 4) water degradation; 5) global toxification; 6) the alteration of atmosphere; 7) human and cultural degradation.

            Global toxification and alteration of the atmosphere. That sums it up. Maybe they don’t want to use the apparently highly charged words climate change, but alteration of the atmosphere is exactly what it is.

    • llew jones

      What the alarmist sect of climate science forgets is that every person has varying degrees of work experience in the laboratory known as Earth’s climate. Therefore it is not hard, if one has spent enough time in the lab, so to speak, to get a pretty accurate idea of what natural climate change looks like and thus one is not fooled by the claim that certain contemporary signs in the “lab” have never happened before.

      I live in a suburb of Melbourne where I was born and bred and in which I have lived all my fairly long life and have had lots of interaction with the “lab”. Such as in my spare time, when still running an engineering business, buying 80 acres of undeveloped farmland about 70 miles north of Melbourne as a bit of fun and as an interest for our 2 sons and daughter (early teens for the boys and preteen for the girl at the time) which we developed into an Angus stud cattle breeding operation. That experience out in the countryside in the 1970s through to the early 2000s taught me more about the signs of natural climate change that all those “experts” who sit in concrete offices and labs, trying to discern the times, could ever learn.

      I was able to see the large seasonal variation in such things as rainfall and also in the variation of the beginnings of growing reasons, and other factors which the alarmists claim is evidence of human caused climate change. Our winter is starts in June but back in the early 1980s I vividly remember a series of days where, though the days were shorter, one could well imagine summer had started. In the next few years the weather reverted to the usual pretty cold “normal” winters.

      That is where those of us who have personally experienced natural varying weather over a fair period of time are not sucked in by alarmists like Hayhoe who seem to be clutching at straws to promote an unscientific hypothesis that real untampered evidence, namely satellite temperature data tells us is highly likely to be wrong.

      • llew jones

        The reality is that the very little genuine theoretical science that exists has not as yet had its hypothesis for significant global warming to occur confirmed. If instead of playing around with irrelevancies or rigging the temperature data in an effort to make it appear that that hypothesis is confirmed, surely it would be a far more intelligent exercise to examine the basis for the feedback hypothesis to see if in fact it is valid in the real Earth climate situation. The science back to Arrhenius tells us that the effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas, CO2, alone, cannot produce significant global warming. It is only when there is a positive feedback from the very powerful greenhouse gas, water vapor, that significant global warming can occur.

        The evidential science from Arrhenius until now has not yet shown that that feed back is positive. The feedback may turn out to be neutral or negative when a better understanding of our climate system is scientifically established. The area most likely to provide that answer is the effect of clouds. For example what happens to the atmospheric concentration of water vapor that was up there after it rains? Or what is the albedo effect of clouds on the incoming ultraviolet radiation? Will that shortwave radiation get a chance to produce some infrared radiation for the greenhouse gases to absorb? All as yet unanswered questions so forget the kiddy stuff and rather encourage real scientific investigation.

  • anne55

    A member of Katharine Hayhoe’s church asked her a question after services a couple of weeks ago: “Do you feel our weather is getting more extreme?”

    Time was, the question might have been the start of an argument with Dr. Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University here. Instead, it led to a friendly discussion of the kinds of things they had both seen: Because of climate change, the always shifting weather in West Texas was showing greater extremes, including more severe drought and fiercer inundations when storms came.

    When she started her work spreading the word about climate change in Texas, very few people in the Lone Star State believed it was happening, and even fewer believed that people were causing it. Since then, acceptance has grown: A 2013 poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that seven in 10 Texans agree that climate change is real, though fewer than half said humans were the major cause.

    The evidence of changing weather patterns is not just in the news, but all around them: More than half of those in the Texas survey said they had personally experienced the effects of global warming.

    Dr. Hayhoe is not a climate pioneer like Al Gore or a street-marching activist like Bill McKibben or a geek icon like Bill Nye. But she has emerged as one of the nation’s most effective communicators on the threat of climate change and the need for action.

    She lives and works out here in West Texas, but lately seems to be everywhere, kicking off a series of “Global Weirding” videos, posting on Twitter and Facebook, and speaking anywhere from local churches to international conferences. Last week, she appeared at the White House to discuss climate change with President Obama and the actor Leonardo DiCaprio at the first South by South Lawn ideas festival.

    Dr. Hayhoe has come to prominence in part because she is just so darned nice. It would be too easy to chalk that up to her Canadian background — she says it does help explain her commitment to finding consensus — and she has found that she gets her science across more effectively if she can connect with people personally. In a nation seemingly addicted to argument as a blood sport, she conciliates. On a topic so contentious that most participants snarl, she smiles. She is an evangelical Christian, and she does not flinch from using the language of faith and stewardship to discuss the fate of the planet.

    “Katharine Hayhoe is a national treasure,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. He said that she combined powerful communications skills, world-class scientific credentials and an ability to relate to conservative religious communities that can be skeptical about the risks of a changing climate.

    Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist, said in an email that Dr. Hayhoe’s faith is an important factor, because “people can accept unwelcome truths much more readily if they come from within, rather than from outside, their community/family/group.”

    While some climate warriors treat those who are not inclined to believe them as dupes or fools, she wants to talk. “If you begin a conversation with, ‘You’re an idiot,’ that’s the end of the conversation, too,” she said.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Have you been in a coma? Barack Obama isn’t President anymore.

      • anne55

        What are you referring to? I don’t recall mentioning Obama.

        • Dean Bruckner

          Perhaps you should read more closely what you post.

          From your post above, “Last week, she appeared at the White House to discuss climate change with President Obama and the actor Leonardo DiCaprio at the first South by South Lawn ideas festival.”

          • anne55

            When she posted it, I’m sure it was “last week”. Anyway, I am not talking about Obama.

          • Dean Bruckner

            This is the uncredited source I was talking about. The post that said Obama was President just last week. It comes across as if it is your own writing, because there are no quotation marks, no delineation between your words and the ones that aren’t, and no reference. I know the Stream won’t let it post links, but I’ve found if you put “Do an internet search for ‘[put title or key terms here]'” it’s nearly as helpful and it isn’t the same with respect to The Stream’s liability, I guess, as a live link.

          • anne55

            I took this article you are referring to right off Katharine Hayhoe’s website, I believe it was under her bio. Because I’d credited the source previously in another post, I didn’t feel it was necessary to do it again. If you didn’t read that posting, then I can see why you might. Just google Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist.

          • anne55

            Actually, I credited her site in the posting below. I posted both articles one after the other consecutively. See below:

            I issue a challenge to you all. Read Katharine Hayhoe’s site – communicate with her if you wish. She is an atmospheric scientist AND an evangelical. (me writing)

            Then:

            Quotes from her bio: “In 2012, I was named one of Christianity Today’s 50 Women to Watch.”

            “Katharine Hayhoe is a Texan, an evangelical Christian, and a climate scientist. She’s on a mission to convince skeptics, many of whom share her faith, that climate change is not a liberal hoax. “Global Weirding,” a PBS-produced web series that Hayhoe hosts, addresses everything from climate science to the Bible, arguing among other things that Christians should take a stand on climate change. That, in part, explains the death threats.” Etc., Etc.

            Because I posted the second post right afterwards, I thought people would ‘get it’.

          • Dean Bruckner

            I didn’t read the other posts, so I didn’t see the attribution. Your explanation is fair; honest mistake if it was a mistake. Thank you for clarifying it!

          • anne55

            No problem.

  • anne55

    I thank all for the discussion below in which I’m probably 50% of it. I hope I have given someone, somewhere, something to think about. I enjoy having back and forth’s with you all. We may not agree, but maybe some of us will and maybe it will change my thinking too.

  • Beth Van

    This was just the silliest thing. Who is against true science? The fools who participated in these marches were actually protesting the confrontation of their “beliefs” with facts. They don’t like that because, unlike under Obama, it could cost their fave organizations to lose funding.

    • anne55

      I am copying and pasting this article from Smithsonian as I can’t just post a link:

      How the Insurance Industry Is Dealing With Climate Change

      The rising chance of extreme weather is forcing insurance companies to adjust their models as they take on more risk

      When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.

      “Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”

      This pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat waves and wind storms. The underlying reason, he says, is climate change, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. Muir-Wood’s company is responsible for figuring out just how much more risk the world’s insurance companies face as a result of climate change when homeowners buy policies to protect their property.

      First, a brief primer on the concept of insurance: Essentially, it’s a tool for spreading risk—say, the chance your house will be washed away by a hurricane—among a larger group of people, so that the cost of rebuilding the destroyed house is shared by everyone who pays insurance. To accomplish this, insurance companies sell flood policies to thousands of homeowners and collect enough in payments from all of them so that they have enough to pay for the inevitable disaster, plus keep some extra revenue as profit afterward. To protect themselves, these insurance companies even buy their own policies from reinsurance companies, who make the same sorts of calculations, just on another level upward.

      The tricky part, though, is determining just how much these companies need to charge to make sure they have enough to pay for disasters and to stay in business—and that’s where Muir-Wood’s work comes in. “If you think about it, it’s actually quite a difficult problem,” he says. “You’ve got to think about all the bad things that can happen, and then figure out how likely all those bad things are, and then work out ‘How much do I need to set aside per year to pay for all the catastrophic losses that can happen?’”

      With natural disasters like floods, he notes, you can have many years in a row with no damage in one particular area, then have tens of thousands of houses destroyed at once. The fact that the frequency of some catastrophic weather events may be changing due to climate change makes the problem even more complex.

      The best strategy for solving it is the use of computer models, which simulate thousands of the most extreme weather disasters—say, a record-setting hurricane slamming into the East Coast just when the power grid is overloaded due to a heat wave—to tell insurance companies the worst-case scenario, so they know just how much risk they’re taking on, and how likely it is they’ll have to pay out.

      “Catastrophes are complex, and the kinds of things that happen during them are complex, so we are constantly trying to improve our modeling to capture the full range of extreme events,” Muir-Wood says, noting that RMS employs more than 100 scientists and mathematicians towards this goal. “When Hurricane Sandy happened, for instance, we already had events like Sandy in our models—we had anticipated the complexity of having a really big storm driving an enormous storm surge, even with wind speeds that were relatively modest.”

      These models are not unlike those used by scientists to estimate the long-term changes our climate will undergo as it warms over the next century, but there’s one important difference: Insurance companies care mainly about the next year, not the next 100 years, because they mostly sell policies one year at a time.

      But even in the short term, Muir-Wood’s team has determined, the risk of a variety of disasters seems to have already shifted. “The first model in which we changed our perspective is on U.S. Atlantic hurricanes. Basically, after the 2004 and 2005 seasons, we determined that it was unsafe to simply assume that historical averages still applied,” he says. “We’ve since seen that today’s activity has changed in other particular areas as well—with extreme rainfall events, such as the recent flooding in Boulder, Colorado, and with heat waves in certain parts of the world.”

      RMS isn’t alone. In June, the Geneva Association, an insurance industry research group, released a report (PDF) outlining evidence of climate change and describing the new challenges insurance companies will face as it progresses. “In the non-stationary environment caused by ocean warming, traditional approaches, which are solely based on analyzing historical data, increasingly fail to estimate today’s hazard probabilities,” it stated. “A paradigm shift from historic to predictive risk assessment methods is necessary.”

      Moving forward, Muir-Wood’s group will attempt to keep gauging the shifting likelihood of a range of extreme weather events, so that insurers can figure out how much to charge so that they can compete with others, but not be wiped out when disaster strikes. In particular, they’ll be closely looking at changing the model for flooding rates in higher latitudes, such as Canada and Russia—where climate is shifting more quickly—as well as wildfires around the planet.

      On the whole, it seems likely that insurance premiums for houses and buildings in flood-prone coastal regions will go up to account for the shifts Muir-Wood is seeing. On the other hand, because of the complex impacts of climate change, we might see risks—and premiums—go down in other areas. There’s evidence, for example, that snowmelt-driven springtime floods in Britain will become less frequent in the future.

      For his own part, Muir-Wood puts his money where his mouth is. “I personally wouldn’t invest in beachfront property anymore,” he says, noting the steady increase in sea level we’re expecting to see worldwide in the coming century, on top of more extreme storms. “And if you’re thinking about it, I’d calculate quite carefully how far back you’d have to be in the event of a hurricane.”

      END ARTICLE

      You can find more articles like this via a google search if you don’t trust just one. IF you only read the Stream, you are not going to get this information from them. You need to read multiple sites, see how well reviewed those sites are and, hopefully, take some personal actions via the way you personally live your life, who you vote for at the ballot box, etc.

      I am posting insurance information because it seems like maybe this information, this logic, will have the impact I can’t seem to be able to make otherwise. And, rising insurance costs will impact us all.

    • anne55

      The article below refers to another article by the Geneva Association. The name of that article is “Warming of the Oceans and Implications for the (Re)insurance Industry” (2013)

      It is too long to cut and paste here, but you can google search it.

      • Beth Van

        And I’ll see you with this:

        The 97 Percent Solution
        By Ian Tuttle — October 8, 2015

        Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

        The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):

        The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

        “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

        There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

        In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.

        RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging

        The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

        A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

        Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

        RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’

        Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

        A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

        And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

        Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

        – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

        • anne55

          Well, your National Review Institute and Ian Tuttle present a few problems for me because they aren’t unbiased and they aren’t a ‘research institute’

          First, Ian Tuttle is not a scientist, but a journalist. Second, the National Review Institute is biased toward very conservative point of view.

          “The National Review Institute is affiliated with the National Review, part of a Koch-funded media network that consistently provides a platform for climate change deniers.

          The National Review Online is host to the “Planet Gore,” blog space dedicated to climate science misinformation, spin, and slander. Contributors from Koch-funded institutions include but are not limited to: Chris Horner and Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Patrick Michaels and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute
          Jim Manzi of the Manhattan Institute. Jonathan Adler of the Federalist Society, with ties to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Property and Environment Research Center
          Deroy Murdock, who has ties to the Cato and Manhattan Institutes, the Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies
          Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute, Pacific Research Foundation,Institute for Energy Research, with ties to the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine, Tim Phillips and Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity National Review Senior Editor Romesh Ponnuru attended the Koch Brothers’ 2011 political strategy and fundraising meeting in Rancho Mirage, California. Ponnuru is on the National Review Institute’s board of directors and his wife April is NRI’s executive director.

          The National Review Institute hosts influential pundits and reporters who also have attended the Koch Brother’s secretive political strategy meetings alongside Ramesh Ponnuru, such as Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Moore.”

          Ian Tuttle sites (in your article above) a number of scientists. I can’t easily respond to all of them, because there are quite a number, so I will just pick a few.

          Naomi Oreskes: First, this is getting old because it covers the period 1993-2003. We’ve made lots of progress in interpreting data since then. Ian Tuttle states that Oreskes reported that, “…of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

          First, 75% AGREE, which is pretty good for work going back that far. The rest, according to Tuttle “took no position” which I would consider neither a yea nor nea. In my mind, this neither affirms nor supports Tuttle’s position. If anything it leans in the direction of supporting climate change. It just leaves much unanswered.

          Kendall Zimmerman and adviser, Peter Doran: First, this sounds like a student, not a seasoned researcher. Second, they used a 2 item questionnaire. Give me a break. A questionnaire is NOT research. And 2 questions is insufficient. Furthermore, the study says, “…only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists”. That TOTALLY skews the results. You aren’t even talking scientists here. The research I posted earlier FROM NASA used seasoned researchers, actual research and peer-reviewed papers from multiple sources. Of those surveyed, 79 were self-reported to be climate scientists (I question the use of self-reporting without proof of credentials) AND reportedly they “agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” So, that actually supports my point about climate change. But, I must say, this isn’t research, just an opinion poll and a bad one at that.

          William R. Love Anderegg, a STUDENT at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists. So, his sample was small (surely there are more than 200 peer-reviewed climate scientists in the world, so how can he claim that the 97-98% is wrong?).

          Secondly, Google Scholar has some ‘cons’ to it. Quote: “It rarely finds all of the reliable material that “scholarly” databases do, and it sometimes misses really important articles: studies comparing Google Scholar with PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and more found that Google Scholar was unable to produce all of the articles listed in the scholarly databases. This means you can’t rely on Google Scholar alone. (Also)…Computer errors are more common with Google Scholar because it isn’t maintained by people: broken links, repetitive results, and other issues are more likely with this database than others.” So, student, poor numbers in his journal review (he did not ask real scientists, just reviewed journals) using a not terribly reliable data base. Given all this, his conclusion is not justified.

          Australian scientist John Cook: “In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position”

          If you look up the research itself, this is what it says: “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

          I see no crazy dividing 33 by 34…google search and read the original article.

          Additionally, I think there are inherent problems when you only read a one paragraph summary abstract. It doesn’t give you the full details of a research paper. And, I might add – not expressing an opinion may not support climate change but NEITHER DOES IT DENY IT. It just doesn’t say.

          Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch also used a survey (not research) and MOST “…did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.” Interestingly, Tuttle doesn’t say WHAT percent did. It is almost as if he purposely left that information out. Their survey was conducted online. Another problem. How many researchers actually saw the survey? Was it in an email? Who responded and why? Who didn’t respond, and why? This isn’t research as people are self-selecting to respond and that skews your results. If you look up the study, it says “…A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%.” This isn’t a great response rate. Maybe it skewed the results one way or the other significantly.

          The questions on climate change resulted in the following information:

          “In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, “How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?” Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[27]

          If you add together the ‘very much convinced’ with the ‘to some large extent’, it equals 93.8% of self-selected respondents fall on the climate change is real side of the fence. When you look at the ‘future’ question and do the same thing, it comes to 83.5%. So, frankly, I don’t even see how Tuttle comes to the conclusion he does.

          I’m not going to look up more because it takes too long. However, I am not at all impressed by Mr. Tuttle’s credentials or conclusions. He won a journalism award from a very conservative magazine that actively denies climate change. AND he did a lousy job interpreting the data he presents.

          • Beth Van

            So once again, science is being based on politics.

          • anne55

            No, the other way round. Politics is being used to push it’s own agenda by citing (or misinterpreting) poor science.

          • Beth Van

            The same can be said for your arguments.

      • Beth Van

        I’ll see you with this:

        The 97 Percent Solution
        By Ian Tuttle — October 8, 2015

        Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

        The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):

        The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

        “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

        There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

        In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.

        RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging

        The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

        A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

        Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

        RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’

        Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

        A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

        And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

        Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

        – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

  • anne55

    If you don’t believe me, or Katharine Hayhoe, about global warming, I’d suggest you talk to insurance companies. They study this big time. Insurance costs have been going up for homes in areas likely to flood. They are in it for the money you know.

    “How Climate Change Will Impact Homeowners Insurance

    Geoff Williams
    U.S.News & World ReportApril 14, 2017

    Tornadoes have been striking the country at a record rate this year so far, according to numbers released from the U.S. Storm Prediction Center (536 tornadoes in 2017, based on preliminary data at the time of this writing). Meanwhile, in many parts of the country, severe storms have been passing through almost with the regularity of an assembly line, blamed by record temperatures at the water’s surface in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, 2016 was the warmest year for the planet on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
    All of this undoubtedly would make any homeowner wonder: As heat, tornadoes and storms continue to break records, will the extreme weather eventually break my home insurance policy?
    Probably not. But as the years go on, when it comes to your homeowners insurance coverage, there will be changes.

    You may end up factoring in climate change before you buy a home. It depends where you’re looking for a house, of course, and this is already happening. Real estate agents and companies have been furnishing data that suggests home sales in flood-prone areas have been growing at a slower rate than in counties that don’t have a reputation for flooding. For instance, last year, ATTOM Data Solutions, a source for comprehensive housing data, released its annual U.S. Natural Hazard Housing Risk Index, which found that home sales had fallen below the national average in counties with the highest risk of earthquakes, hurricane storm surge, wildfires and floods, while counties with the lowest risk for those natural hazards have seen home sales volumes increase faster than the national average.
    People are going to be thinking about natural disasters and their homes more frequently than they used to, says Donna Childs, who owns Prisere LLC, a Warwick, Rhode Island-based company that consults businesses on disaster prevention and specializes in helping companies come up with solutions for reducing their risk to the negative consequences of climate change.
    According to Childs, in the past your pre-purchase due diligence “involved a home inspection and consideration of the neighborhood with regard to such issues as the quality of the local school system,” she says. “Now … you must consider the extent to which the community is at risk from rising water levels and other threats.”
    She adds that you’ll also want to consider if the community has done anything to reduce or prevent climate change-related disasters.
    Lenders are likely to factor in climate change, as well. About a year ago, Sean Becketti, the chief economist for Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage company, wrote on their website that climate change could be even worse for the housing industry than the Great Recession was:
    “In the housing crisis, a significant share of borrowers continued to make their mortgage payments even though the values of their homes were less than the balances of their mortgages. It is less likely that borrowers will continue to make mortgage payments if their homes are literally underwater.”

    As weather records rise, so will your premiums. Costs eventually go up for everything, of course, and so premiums for coverage would climb in the future, anyway. But by how much?
    Coverage cost increases could be significant, suggests Richard Lewis, the digital marketing manager for Elephant Auto Insurance, which also sells property insurance.
    Lewis says that if the planet continues to heat up, increases in hurricane wind speeds will lead to increased home insurance losses.
    “Increases in damages result in an increase in claims, which, for insurance companies, means higher losses and, for homeowners, may mean higher insurance rates,” Lewis says.
    And it seems a safe bet that flood insurance premiums will likely shoot up in the near future. The National Flood Insurance Program has been struggling for years and is currently $23 billion in debt.
    Creative discounts may offset some of those higher premiums. Lewis thinks home insurance companies may, at some point, offer coverage discounts to homeowners who are doing their part to make the planet more eco-friendly.
    “For example, ‘green’ homes could potentially receive discounted rates because these homeowners’ roles in reducing climate change would help lower claims and thus lower rates,” Lewis says.”

  • anne55

    And, from the Bible itself on how humans must care for the earth:

    A. Command to Care for Creation

    “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” (Genesis 2:15)

    “You must keep my decrees and my laws…. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” (Leviticus 18:26, 28)

    “The land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and garner their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the Lord…. The land is to have a year of rest.” (Leviticus 25:2-5; cf. Exodus 23:10-11)

    “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land.” (Leviticus 25:23-24)

    “If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully, I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.” (Leviticus 26:3-4)

    “You shall not pollute the land in which you live…. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.” (Numbers 35:33-34)

    “If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under siege from you?” (Deuteronomy 20:19)

    B. Humans Have Defiled the Land

    “I brought you into a plentiful land to eat its fruits and its good things. But when you entered you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.” (Jeremiah 2:7)

    “How long will the land lie parched and the grass in every field be withered? Because those who live in it are wicked, the animals and birds have perished.” (Jeremiah 12:4)

    “It will be made a wasteland, parched and desolate before me; the whole land will be laid waste because there is no one who cares.” (Jeremiah 12:11)

    “Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?” (Ezekiel 34:17-18)

    “There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying.” (Hosea 4:1-3)

    “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” (Romans 8:22)

    C. Consequences of Defiling the Land

    “He turned rivers into a desert, flowing springs into thirsty ground, and fruitful land into a saltwaste, because of the wickedness of those who lived there.” (Psalm 107:33-34)

    “Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land. The LORD almighty has declared in my hearing: ‘Surely the great houses will become desolate, the fine mansions left without occupants. A ten-acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine, a homer of seed only an ephah of grain.'” (Isaiah 5:8-10)

    “The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish together with the earth. The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth; its inhabitants suffer for their guilt.” (Isaiah 24:4-6)

    “You have polluted the land with your whoring and wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come.” (Jeremiah 3:2-3)

    “The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” (Revelation 11:18)

  • anne55

    I have to say I find the Stream very biased in general. That is why I write here in an effort to present a differing point of view.

    • James Newman

      Translation of Biased = News Anne55 doesn’t like. lol

      • anne55

        Translation of Bias=Only presenting one side of an issue.

    • James Newman

      But Anne55 I didn’t think you liked differing opinions and points of view. Didn’t I see somewhere below where you expressed the opinion that the Deniers should be jailed?

      • anne55

        I DO like differing opinions. I just don’t see them much in the authors of the articles at the Stream. In other words, the Stream does not present a balance view to its readership.

      • anne55

        I did not say they should be jailed. But, criminal charges against ‘the people in charge’ who deliberately deny climate change and actively do things that contribute to it is not unreasonable. I’m thinking of Trump. I am thinking of CEO’s of companies that pollute and add greenhouse gasses to the air. I’d certainly favor that.

        • Dean Bruckner

          “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” –David Horowitz

          Not only will Anne worship the antichrist; she will advocate beheadings and death camps for those who do not.

          • anne55

            Where did I say beheadings and death camps? Nowhere. You know that is something that has really bothered me about ‘the right’, e.g., Sarah Palin’s suggestion Obama would have death panels. Ridiculous. It is taking something and making it into what it is not to scare people for political reasons.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne, all Progressives become totalitarians sooner or later. It’s what that utopian idolatry (and every idolatry) does to you, and to others. Your devotion to the Big Lie corrodes any consciousness and fear of God out of you. The result is that with time, you become totalitarian, and will stop at nothing to prop up the Big Lie, even murder. You are already supporting genocide in the abortion regime. It is a worship of demons, of Molech, and you can’t and won’t see it.

            People who justify the murder of abortion will justify anything. That includes you.

          • anne55

            Oh, for heavens sakes. I have no comment because this is so ridiculous.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Your world view and anything done “for heaven’s sake” are far, far, far apart.

    • Dean Bruckner

      False teachers all say that.

  • James Newman

    I will be very glad when planetary temperatures take another dip as then the whole climate change religion will die. I’m pretty sure that is why the climate change zealotry is in such a tizzy because temps have flat-lined for the past two decades and they are scared that they will start to dip into a cooling period before they have finished their environmental crusade.

    • anne55

      Well, I hope you’re right, but – given the facts (not alternative ones) – I kinda doubt it.

    • Timothy Horton

      The average global temperature hasn’t flat lined for the last two decades. It’s risen almost 0.4 deg C in that times.

      I don’t understand why the deniers keep lying about this when the data is so easy to check.

      https://data(DOT)giss(DOT)nasa(DOT)gov/gistemp/graphs/

  • anne55

    As Paul just pointed out to me, the number of comments on this post has gotten overwhelming, so this really is goodbye from me.

    I hope Mr. Briggs takes some time to read through all this~

  • Timothy Horton

    almost there

  • Timothy Horton

    There! Had to get the post number to 666. 🙂

Inspiration
Hold the Feelings — Just the Facts
Jennifer Hartline
More from The Stream
Connect with Us