Lisa Benson for February 10, 2015

And again the parade begins.

Seeing as how many of Founding Fathers weren’t actually Christians and how Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible, I think they’d disagree with you.

I can’t wait until the next Republican President and watch most of the left turn to blind partisan hatred and justify it. Maybe it will even be called Bush Derangement Syndrome again (oh wait Democrats would love that Bush).

Franky, my man, you gotta come up with some new stuff. Copying and pasting is unpersuasive. I think I’ll go pray for a miracle, how about that? Let’s see, how about I pray for less use of military force for those who never attacked us. That should be popular among the peace loving, church-going right-wing christians. Wait. Maybe praying for peace will make me look weak. Ya think?

GLOBAL WARMING! AAAAaaaaaaaaa! It burrrrrrns!

Links please.

Hi Harley! I just love your insight, wit, and outrage about Gorebull warming. See, how much I’ve learned from you! I liked that so much that I need to say it again. Gorebull, Gorebull, ahhh, that felt good.

Something to consider…*http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change“the Pentagon details its strategic blueprint to address climate change, calling it a “threat multiplier” that has the power to “exacerbate” many of the challenges the U.S. faces today, including “infectious diseases and terrorism.” *From the Center of Naval Analyses… https://www.cna.org/reports/accelerating-risks*http://amestrib.com/opinion/larry-koehrsen-climate-security*This next site lists reports by the Military concerns and planning regarding climate change since 2003 http://climateandsecurity.org/resources/u-s-government/defense/*My son replied to my concerns by saying, “I don’t know if this is real or not, or what is causing it if it is real, but it doesn’t seem to be a bad idea to pretend it is real and start doing something about it in case it is.” Anyone who reads the above reports and insists that climate change is not a concern is like the frog in the pot of water who doesn’t act to protect it self from danger until it is too late.Respectfully, C,

I wonder if those 9/11 victims were worried about global warming as they jumped to their deaths?

Good Grief man! Logic alone (and yes, I meant it as a pun) would dictate that it IS the pollution of burning up these fossil fuels into the atmosphere that IS causing the very problem of the pollution of our precious atmosphere, which results in Rapid Global Climate Change!

So, thank you for your contribution to the climate change position of some 99+% of the world’s scientists!

logicalone said, about 2 hours ago“We need to build smarter, pollute less, adapt.”welcome to the ranks of the liberal progressives.

Please, SFCGaTor, forgive me for using the analogy of doctors if it makes my point argumentative, however, I do agree that pharmaceutical companies, like oil and coal companies, work very hard and spend a great deal of money to encourage politicians to think their way. I also do not argue the number of PhDs who refute climate change, but do wonder why those who believe in it would do so. What is their profit motive as opposed to some of the refuters who have been found to be paid by less than objective sources. I am also curious on what you thought about the list of military reports since 2003 expressing our military’s concern about Climate change. There are plenty of petitions to the United Nations, various gov’ts and NGOs with identifiable names expressing concern, and while I do not have a number, it is a large number in comparison to those who do not believe.Of those who do disbelieve, it isn’t CC they disbelieve, but the cause.And I double checked, the figure is actually over 90% as recently as last year.Respectfully,C.

Christopher Booker is an absolute loon.

This guys refutes the dangers of passive-smoking, calls the danger of asbestos a scam, reckons evolution isn’t a spot on intelligent design and challenges the notion of climate change. Yeahhh.

The superhuman cock-ups of Christopher Booker

@SoaPAs I stated: “and justify it”. EVERYTHING the next Republican president does will be trashed no matter what facts are. That is the Political arena all the politicians play and make money in.

For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents (that would be worth two cents, I guess). A lot of science is more like a sweater than like a chain. A mathematical proof or a strictly logical argument is like a chain — if one link breaks, then the proof or the argument fails. But science is made up of lots of interconnected evidence, and like a good old sweater it can still be good even if there seem to holes here and there. (Some of these holes can be filled in over time.) The theory of human caused climate change is based on a wide variety of difference kinds of evidence. Some of that evidence consists of temperature measurements, and these measurement themselves are various: some are direct readings of thermometers, some are indirect. Some of the evidence consists of the measurement of sea levels, or the extent of ice in various places; some of the evidence consists of the chemistry of the oceans; some of the evidence consists of the changes in the biosphere, such as the changing ranges of various plants and animals. A lot of these various kinds of evidence are independent of each other, and these various independent kinds of evidence support each other. There is also a theoretical explanation that links all of these various kinds of evidence — that is, the increase in greenhouse gases. Of course all of this needs to be critiqued, and it has been, but so far the theory seems to be holding up. If there is another theory that can put all of the various kinds of evidence together with a theory that explains what’s going on, I haven’t come across it. If someone has a better theory, then please tell us.

It is biologists and paleo-botanists who can go to pollen cores as one example, who’ve identified climate change like drought, temperature etc., based on life needs of plants and “critters”. They then turn to chemists and physicists, among others, to look into further causative agents. Climate change by man was WELL KNOWN and describedin Northern Europe (cooling and wet) and the Mediterannean (hotter and drier) on regional basis in the 1950’s, mechanical changes like bad forestry and overgrazing, then coal burning for atmospheric porblems, werre clearly defined, laws changed, and the climate models there changed. On a global scale, change has not gone in the total toward the postive, and thus global warming is occurring, making negative the overall trend for sustainability, and survival.

The moment I see “gorbul warming” I instantly know the person has no clue what they’re talking about, and their counter “documentaion” is indeed bull, but from Limbaugh et al, not science. As to “hundreds of lies by science”? Prove twenty sources. As to lies by deniers, just check who’s paid by oil or “energy” companies.

After over 50 years of observing, and in some case collecting the evidence of Anthropgenic Climate Change, and reading hundreds of reports, and colaborating on some, my vote goes with the science, not idiocy from Inhofe and other total idiots.

If the telegraph is all you got, may I remind you that is one of Rupert Murdock’s publications so it’s as valid as FOX News.

“I never said there was no global warming or climate change. I say it has been going on since the beginning. We need to adapt and set up societies that can survive the changes. Trying to clean the sky by washing your windows will not work. We need to build smarter, pollute less, adapt.”

You know, that was a truly excellent post! If you would come out with such posts right from the beginning, and then stick to it, I, as well as other more moderate posters here would have no trouble supporting your position at all!

As I have stated many times before, there are many other good reasons for seeking a cutailment of the burning of fossil fuels that have nothing to do with CO2 or other greenhouse gases. There are many other pollutants in organic fuels that cause human beings (and other breathing creatures) to end up with truly terrible disease. I myself, have Chronic Bronchitus, and I have a very loved brother-in-law with heavy duty Asthma. Heck, the cost advantages to such a curtailment in improving health costs would go a long way towards developing alternate sources of energy for both general energy use and transportaion.

By the way, I am also in total agreement with your emphasis on other pollutants as well, regardless of just where they come from.

Heck, I even support the safe use of nuclear power as one means of curtailing the unbridled pollution of fossil fuel burning. The problems of such a power source are solvable by the use of better nuclear technology. And eventually getting rid of the long term radioactive contaminants will eventually become more and more possible as the cost of placing such into LEO, and eventually shooting them into the sun is going to be available in the not too distant future.

Besides which, eventually, nuclear fussion will be taking the place of the far more radioactive nuclear fission, and even microwaving power down from power stations in orbit will become possible. So, once again, we are not really that far apart in our opinions! So, Have A Very Good Day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4jtDSfMUsE

You still haven’t explained to me how the Iraqi military officers that I’ve spoken with got fooled by Bush’s lies about their own military..You won’t, because you can’t.

Wow, now it’s “the data of 10,000 scientists” is it? Exactly how many scientists do you think there are doing climate research? You’re 10,000 number, even BEFORE it was debunked was mostly people from unrelated fields. But please, do go on exaggerating, it’s the modus operandi of the climate alarmists, after all.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Chimpy McBushhitler much?

@ DagNabbit and SFCGaTor –* First, thank you for the tone of your replies to me. Despite our disagreements, you chose a dialectic manner for our debate.In addition to the organizations you cite as having not properly presented the case for climate change, other sources to which I personally turn are National Geographic, the Smithsonian, NOAA, NASA, and Scientific American. In 2012, a group of corporate CEOs expressed their united concern that climate change might soon become an unacceptable risk to businesses world wide. The articles presented in my first post, articles of research and reports gathered by the US Military since 2003 are just the latest thoughts on this issue to which I’ve been exposed. On a point of personal observation, in a 2008 trip to Germany, a country where energy alternatives were used to save the Black Forest from acid rain and other pollutants, we saw a cleaner sky, landscape, and rivers than anywhere we’ve seen in the USA except for when we were in states with very low populations and little or no industry.There has been an effort in my state of Virginia, and in the US Congress, to cut funding to organizations investigating climate change. One Virginia delegate, despite increased incidents of flooding on Virginia’s coastline, has worked hard to stop the Virginia Institute of Marine Studies from using ANY resources to study the existence and/or possible effects of climate change. While both sides of this debate are pumping money into the debate, it is the anti climate change groups spending the most to influence politicians instead of public opinion. Despite the increased success of solar and wind power, oil, nuke, and coal companies have sought to punish those who convert to alternative energy by charging fees because, “the power grid is not prepared with the fluctuations of power being pushed back into the system.” In Hawaii where solar usage is the highest in the nation, people have begun disconnecting solar panels because the cost of using it is higher than not using it. There was a time when power companies had to pay those who put power back in the system, but legislators, bowing to the desires of the power companies, changed that rule. Rather than upgrade the grid infrastructure, something that needs to be done anyway according to National Security Analysts, power companies are punishing solar and wind users thereby making the companies trying to profit in those industries struggle as fewer and fewer people find it useful to turn in that direction.The leaders of island nations, such as Samoa, the Philippines, and Indonesia are concerned some of their islands may soon need to be evacuated if the ocean continues to encroach as it has over recent years.The evidence is in books, pictures, news stories, and science based sources trusted for decades. I liked Lonecat’s analogy of the sweater. There may be some holes in the climate change sweater, but based on my readings and observations over the last 20 years, including in how my own garden is effected, I believe climate change is real, man made, and a threat to the future of our children, our communities, and our nation. If you believe otherwise, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. I will hope you end up being right, but I am curious… at what point might you begin to doubt your own certainty? I believe the stove is on, the water is heating up, but the frog is just sitting there. I wish I knew how to make him take an action to save himself.Again, thank you for the quality of you comments and tone. It is an honor to debate with people who are thoughtful and courteous, even if at the end of the conversation, no agreement is found. We will learn in time if I’m just worrying over nothing, or if perhaps we should have begun worrying sooner.Respectfully,C.

In the long term climate change IS more important than National security.

What surprises me about you Harleyquinn is that your ignorance is not flat, it grows exponentially with every fool statement you make. But equally so I will defend to my death your right to speak, write, and so proclaim your POV…besides your POV’s make my hair stand on end and when it does I know I’m still alive…not ready to join FDR yet.

Right on script, dismiss, redirect. You can believe me or not, I was there. I know what was said to me by the Iraqis in question. How many Iraqis have YOU spoken with?