WEATHER »

Do you think global warming is caused by:

Acid rain 4% 9 votes
Aerosol spray cans 0% 1 vote
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 81% 159 votes
Nuclear power plants 2% 5 votes
Space program 3% 6 votes
Toxic waste 1% 3 votes
Volcanic eruptions 6% 13 votes
196 total votes

Vote in this poll »

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Cow Farts!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 4:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last Sunday's episode of Neil Degrasse Tyson's rebooted Cosmos series had a good overview of global warming.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

Illustration:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conten...

Article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/9...

"The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months"

Illustration:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...

Article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04...

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It looks like I messed up one of my links above, THIS is the illustration for "Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months"

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

plant more trees.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, plant more trees, back in the 1300s the CO2 concentrations were higher than today, the temperatures were a bit warmer than today and many regions had outstanding crop harvests since there was more arable land and plants turn CO2 into energy. The ocean levels were not higher, either, so we can erase that stupid line they drew that shows where the ocean levels will rise if climate change continues.

Then in the late 1700s we had a 'mini-ice age' and in the late 1800s and 1900s we have been coming out of that ice age and that is why the temperatures have been rising - it is all part of the natural cycles.

We need to focus on reducing toxic pollution and stop focusing so much on CO2 in and of itself.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 5, 2014 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt, if you have an open mind, you should read this blog debunking whatsupwiththat, which is junk science

http://wottsupwiththat.com/

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Global warming persists by Republicans.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anthony Watt ... I have little interest in the ramblings of a TV weatherman who clearly has a hidden agenda.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wheres the choice "don't believe in global warming" ? ( I believe in it, but its not a fair poll

skaterspoint (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

skaterspoint - it's not supposed to be a fair poll.

loonpt: Warning! PIC Comment!
We didn't have a "mini-ice age" in the late 1700's according to "hide the decline" Michael Mann. If Mann hadn't eliminated the historical temperature record that shows the mini-ice age and also used UK Met scientist Keith Briffa's cherry-picked tree-cores, we wouldn't have Mann's hockey-stick graph. The hockey stick is based on 1 Yamal tree core.
If we didn't have Mann's hockey stick graph, Obama and Gore wouldn't have founded the Chicago Carbon Exchange, CCX, and if they hadn't done that, Blood and Gore (David Blood, Goldman Sachs) wouldn't have founded Generation Investment Management, GIM, and raised $218 million between 2008 and 2011. If GIM hadn't been founded, Gore wouldn't have been able to invest $35 million in hedge funds, and we wouldn't be paying for carbon regulations that the Small Business Administration estimates costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending. Who knows? - Gore may not have sold current TV, now Al Jazeera US, to the Sultan of Qatar, and bought 20 oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico and an $8 million mansion in Montecito. And Gore wouldn't have been able to offset the electricity used in his Montecito mansion (some green), equivalent to around 20 households, by buying carbon credits through GIM.
What mini-ice age?

Tabatha: No one slimy enough to create a website solely to misdirect searchers from Anthony Watts' Whats Up With That or any other website has any credibility.

EastBeach: Watts was a certified meteorologist (now retired) for 25 years, now operates a weather technology business. AMS certification requires a minimum BS in meteorology, a physical science. IPCC's cherry-picked World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Environmental Defense Fund activist graduate students with degrees in econ, political science and biology might be more convincing, particularly if you ignore their complaints about IPCCC "science".
Cosmos is ridiculous propaganda, but it obviously fools some people. Since the last 17 ½ years with no warming has shown that CO2 isn’t the cause of temperature increase on earth, why not pretend it’s the cause of high temperatures on Venus?
Actually, the surface temperature of Venus is exactly what’s it’s predicted to be based on the facts that the intensity of solar radiation varies as 1/r squared, and black-body radiation temperature is dependent on the fourth root of the incident radiation. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. This link shows calculations – they’re too long to post here. You don’t even need to include the effect of earth’s magnetosphere in deflecting solar radiation.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/g...
CO2 doesn’t affect the surface temperature of Venus.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is examining the IPCC process. It is receiving written and oral testimony from four prominent IPCC experts, each of whom has had played some role in the IPCC process:

• economist Richard Tol [written submission]
• astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer [written submission]
• biologist Daniel Botkin [verbal testimony]
• meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. [written submission]

Was this mentioned in Santa Barbara or UCSB news?

UCSB professor emeritus Daniel Botkin, who was invited to testify, has this reference posted on his website: “a 2003 paper in the journal Science, showed that for the past 800,000 years, temperature change preceded carbon dioxide changes in the Antarctic ice cores by an average of 800 years. (For those who are interested, one of the key scientific papers is Caillon, et al, “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination Ill.” Science, 2003. 299: 1728–1731.)

UCSB Professor and Nobel laureate Hal Lewis quit the American Physical Society in 2010 due to its endorsement of AGW, describing global warming as a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud".

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who heads Russia’s prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg predicts that: “after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11 years” (the 19th to occur in the past 7,500 years).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/0...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/envi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is examining the IPCC process. It is receiving written and oral testimony from four prominent IPCC experts, each of whom has had played some role in the IPCC process:"

Republicans were allowed to choose 3 "experts", the Democrats just 1. Right out of the box, bias.

Yet one of the Republican choices stated this:

Richard Tol
"Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role."
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress...

And Daniel Botkin has not published many papers on Climate science.

Probably not much press, because it was mostly clutching at straws.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"At a May 29 House Science Committee hearing on the IPCC’s “process”, climate science assessment was collateral damage in the Republican war on greenhouse gas regulatory policy. The scientists on the witness panel seemed like they had been summoned mainly to serve as supporting actors in a bad piece of political theater – one clearly aimed by the majority at attacking EPA’s new proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions, due to be announced on June 2.

The Science Committee Republicans brought in three witnesses known as climate change ‘skeptics’ or contrarians of one stripe or another, and also as critics of the IPCC: Richard Tol, economist at the University of Sussex; Daniel Botkin, ecologist at the University of California – Santa Barbara; and Roger Pielke Sr., atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado."

"Michael Oppenheimer calls this “total spin.” When they asked if the science is settled, both Oppenheimer and Tol said there were some key questions which could be considered settled -- are GHGs building up, are they warming Earth, is the warming due to human activity -- because almost all scientists agreed, and others where uncertainty remains.

The press release said: “The President and others often claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is primarily driven by human activity. However, the study they cite has been debunked.” Well, no, that’s not true either. And there are multiple studies, all pointing to the same conclusion."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/20...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Beans and chocolate. When UR ganna consume these things, they cause you to expel flatuses from the back door, which causes methane to absorbe into the antmoshpere.

Breaking wind, (especially and SBD--which means "Silent But Deadly") is what is killing us.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What mini-ice age?"

The one documented by the American Revolution, among other things.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams ... Not true. There is no evidence Anthony Watts has ever held a college degree or been a certified AMS meteorologist. What's really damning is when asked, Watts won't comment (big clue!). Even the Heartland Institute, that nurturer of global warming skeptics, does not list Watts' educational background in his bio.

Watts is a weather announcer, nothing more.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?titl...
http://heartland.org/anthony-watts
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt your source for no global warming is www.remss.com

A bogus website that is currently unknown. This source is meant to deceive.

e_male (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The latest IPCC report has been culled from over 12,000 successfully peer reviewed studies, over many years, from all over the world. Its predictions are not good as regards Humanity's future.

One of the big problems we face - especially here in the US - is the fact that we regard "free market capitalism" as a sacred cow; a religion, untouchable and immune to criticism and accountability. To offer any modification or alternative to this fundamentalist viewpoint is regarded by many as heresy, to be pounced on from a great height.

Climate change and the pollution that causes it is a result of the the high priests of this neo-religion - global multinational corporations - being able to do whatever they like - just because they can, regardless of the often appalling consequences, with zero accountability and responsibility, while their precepts (in neoclasscal economics) are ossified like those of the Taliban. Furthermore, on account of their transnational reach and power, nobody has the power or will to bring these dinosaurs to order. If anything, their lack of accountability is expanding exponentially.

According to the Koch brothers and their vocal minions, the climate change scenario is a vast left wing conspiracy by thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists - etc. etc. who are all anti-business commie-pinko potsmoking tree-hugging hippies with an agenda. And they hate America. (!!!!!)

I kid you not.

bloggulator (anonymous profile)
June 11, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EastBeach: Not true. Try the ABOUT tab on WUWT.

AMA Certification webpage
https://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/

"About
About Anthony:

I’m a former AMS certified (Seal 676 retired) television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt: I figured the sarcasm was obvious.
Michael Mann eliminated the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age in IPCC reports (although they were graphed in the first IPCC report) and used only one tree core data point to create the hockey stick graph (Bishophill.net). Then he filed a $10 million libel suit against Tim Ball after Ball published this scam in Forbes. Mann's lawsuit has since died, since Mann has refused to release any data that supports the hockey stick. Tim Ball (PhD Geography) has countersued for $10 million, but legal fees have allegedly put Mann close to bankruptcy.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another claim alleges that Dr. Mann lost a lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball in Canada. This case is still ongoing, and Mann's side says any claims of its conclusion, let alone outcome, are spurious. The following statement by Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie, was issued in response to what he refers to as "preposterous statements" and "nonsense" about the status of the case:

“The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief.

"Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true.

"Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.”

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/20...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watt about another Maunder Minimum?

There’s a recent post on Watts Up With That (WUWT) which seems to simply be a copy of a BBC blog post by Paul Hudson. The blog post is titled Real risk of a Mauder Minimum “Little Ice Age” says leading scientist. The BBC blog post refers to the work of Mike Lockwood from the University of Reading. A few years ago, Mike Lockwood suggested there was about an 8% chance that the Sun was returning to Maunder Minimum-like conditions. He’s now, apparently, upped that to between 20-30%.

......

This seems to be fairly clear. The Sun returning to Maunder Minimum conditions will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. This is actually a fairly obvious conclusion. The anthropogenic forcings by the end of the 21st century will likely be about 4 Wm-2 relative to the mid 1800s, and 2Wm-2 relative to today. The Sun returning to Maunder Minimum conditions means that solar forcing will likely be a few tenths of a Wm-2 less than today. Anthropogenic forcings will therefore be about an order of magnitude greater than solar forcings and will therefore almost certainly dominate.

https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bloggulator: Not true. IPCC doesn't do research; it cites research. IPCC scientists have refused to provide data in the past. There is no acknowledged number of references cited.

IPCCAR4 used magazine articles, press releases, up to 30% "grey sources" (including these and non-peer-reviewed) in some chapters, also papers reviewed and published by the author in the author's journal. Reviews that didn't support CAGW have been "rejected" with no reason by IPCC members.

IPCC statement:

"Restricted data and confidentiality
21 Data providers might restrict access to information because it is confidential, unpublished, or no yet finalised.
22 Typically, this is a mechanism to prevent inappropriate use of the data, unauthorised commercial exploitation, or
23 sensitivity to possible imperfections in the data. Sometimes, however, the organisation simply does not have the
24 resources required to compile and check the data. It is advisable, where possible, to cooperate with data
25 providers to find solutions to overcome their concerns by:
26 • explaining the intended use of the data,
27 • agreeing, in writing, to the level at which it will be made public,
28 • identifying the increased accuracy that can be gained through its use in inventories,
29 • offering cooperation to derive a mutually acceptable data sets,
30 • and/or giving credit/acknowledgement in the inventory to the data provided"
(sic)
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session25...

It's not science; it's Tavistock propaganda/social engineering, and always has been. It's a Club of Rome NWO global government creation, unrelated to the environment.

It's also an anti-environmental justice corporate agenda that provides funding for NGO's at the expense of developing nations, and their complaints about corporations destroying the environment of indigenous people, depleting their resources, displacing populations and polluting their countries are censored from the Illuminati-controlled media along with science.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams

"The latest IPCC report has been culled from".... that means it does cite
"over 12,000 successfully peer reviewed studies"... peer-reviewed, means others have access to the data
"over many years, from all over the world"...a wide-variety of input

What you are quoting from that report is specific circumstances where some data providers may have problems with the security and sensitivity of data. For instance, data of species that may be endangered and the location of these species is sensitive information. Since these bullet points are just a small part of several pages of information on data collection, it is highly misleading and dishonest to imply that it is representative of the whole.

"It's not science; it's Tavistock propaganda/social engineering, and always has been. It's a Club of Rome NWO global government creation, unrelated to the environment........"

That has to be the biggest mound of BS I have ever read from a conspiracy-minded individual - probably not very scientifically literate or experienced, and susceptible to the misinformation from WhatsUpWithThat.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2014 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha -what's your reference for over 12,000 peer-reviewed staudeis used in any IPCC report?

tabatha - isn't creating a straw man argument that the IPCC wanted to keep "previously published peer-reviewed studies related to endangered species (already public information, since they've been published) in a section of an IPCC report that deals with each nation's carbon inventory an indication of mental illness?

IPCC lead authors who have quit the IPCC due to its political nature, which you support in previous comments, frequently post articles on Whatsupwiththat.com. It's the primary website for science. Only scientists involved in well-publicized scams, Michael Mann, John Cook James Hansen, disinformation trolls and ignorant people have ap problem with facts.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha - maybe you're also referring to lies about Whatsupwiththat that John Cook has posted on Skepticalscience, such as the ones referred to on Brandon Shollenberger's website, Izuru: JOHN COOK IS A FILTHY LIAR

Skepticalscience censors all comments not favorable to AGW-BS, so comments on skepticalscience's fabrications were censored by skepticalscience.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact is 14noscams that the climate is changing and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the chief cause. Friends of mine in the oil industry lament this as muchas they lament wasted oil and indiscriminate fracking. So calling people names who go by science whilst you regularly post screwball conspiracy theories is just plain hypocrisy at best!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, my friends are SCIENTISTS, not cranks in bathrobes drooling on their keyboards with each little piece of paranoia they post.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact is the big oil and energy companies WANT people to believe that man is causing global warming so that the government can regulate it, make it expensive to get so only the biggest energy companies are able to remain profitable within the industry and they will be able to sell the energy for much higher prices.

MSNBC is owned by GE, GE wants you to believe in man made global warming, it's good for their business. This isn't conspiracy theory drooling, this is how the world actually works. Companies work in their best interest, I know it might be hard to imagine but it's true.

Fortunately even after all of the continues propaganda from the media and elite funded scientific institutions that "most scientists agree" about man made global warming, only about 20% of the population actually believes the science on global warming is settled. That is good to hear that those posting propaganda for the big energy corporations are not getting their message across.

I just brought up many valid points about how the earth had warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations back in the 1300s before industrialization, the ocean level was about the same and nobody has refuted that or provided a valid explanation of how that is compatible with man made global warming theory.

I just brought up how the last mini-ice age that occurred in the late 1700s is why we had cooler temperatures and why they are rising, on average. According to these "climate scientists" models, we should be experiencing ACCELERATED global warming at the moment, yet temperatures have been stagnant for about 18 years. That alone proves that these scientists have very little credibility and their conclusions should be questioned, but no, I'm just some sort of "crank" for even considering that CO2 caused man made global warming might not be a valid theory.

I can also talk about how other planets in our solar system have been experiencing global warming, so perhaps a better explanation for temperature trends lies within solar activity. This subject will not be addressed by those who continue to propagate establishment lies about climate change.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, that's just nuts. Do you even really believe what you've written?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You will have to be more specific, I just wrote a lot. I've seen plenty of evidence that our climate has gone through the cycles that I just discussed, from ice core studies to actual historical research that all corroborate shifts in climate pre-industrial age. Do you actually believe the climate never changed before the 1800s? What kind of shifts do you believe occurred pre-industrial age? What proof do you have for that?

It seems to me like if the big energy corporations were really against man made global warming theory they would be putting more effort into it, don't you think? Wouldn't there be more debate on the topic within the establishment? Instead we get this image of this monolithic, corporate pro-mmgw stronghold throughout the media with just little hints and leaks here and there, almost like they put them there just so they can say, "hey lookie at the evil Koch brothers, THEY'RE the ones behind global warming skepticism!!"

But don't you realize there are people much more wealthy that own a lot more shares of energy and oil companies who have nothing to do with the Koch brothers and yet who were backing our country into going to war in the Middle East after 9/11? You mean to tell me the oil companies can start a propaganda campaign to get us to go to war, but global warming skepticism hardly even reaches the mainstream media?

It's just all very inconsistent, I'm sorry if you can't see that.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an article from Forbes about how "Dark Money" from energy corporations is being disproportionately used to fund climate change alarmism and that very little actually goes to global warming skepticism just as I stated above.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestayl...

"'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research

...

Shell is a longtime supporter of carbon dioxide restrictions and has a history of funding global warming activist groups."

PLEASE read more at the link provided...

There you have it. Go ahead and focus on the evil fabricated boogie men 'Koch Brothers' while ignoring the fact that GE and Shell oil promote Climate Change alarmism.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can also talk about how other planets in our solar system have been experiencing global warming, so perhaps a better explanation for temperature trends lies within solar activity. This subject will not be addressed by those who continue to propagate establishment lies about climate change.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, that's just nuts. Do you even really believe what you've written?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest

Ken, Loon is not of this world, he actually is a Martian. You see, we were told that Martians were imaginary green folks with funny features, but Loon is a handsome, personable, and articulate person who has been sent here to take advantage of the racial/ethnic/religious divisions so that when this big blue marble in which we lives goes down the drain, he and his ilk will take over.

Loon is evil, pure evil, of course he wants you to think that there is no global warming, that way, when we are all warmed out of existence, or at least to the point of economic ruin, he and his fellow Martians, backed by the Venusians, will come in, take over our planet, and run us out of here, forcing us to take refuge on some lousy methane filled gas giant such as Jupiter, Saturn, or the other outer planets.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The world is very complicated right now, nothing is straightforward.

Let me give you an example that is similar to oil and energy companies supporting man made global warming hysteria.

I support Palestine in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because Israel has stolen their land, water, resources, bulldozed their houses, occupies their country militarily, fenced them into essentially a giant concentration camp with Israeli military checkpoints everywhere and Israel controls everything that comes in and goes out of that country.

However I also support the 'Stand With Israel Act' introduced by Senator Rand Paul which removes U.S. Financial Aid to Palestine. Why do I support that bill? Just like why big oil and energy companies support man made global warming hysteria, it doesn't make any sense on it's face why I would support putting this bill forward unless you have more context.

The reason the bill is being put forward is not to pass it, the reason the bill is being put forward by Senator Paul is to troll congress (ya, like an internet troll).

It turns out, the "Stand With Israel Act" is not as popular in congress as one would expect.

Even though as Senator Paul claims, some US foreign aid money that goes to Palestine may be helping to fund Hamas which puts Israeli lives in danger, both Democrats and Republicans are in heavy opposition to the "Stand With Israel Act". In fact, AIPAC opposes the "Stand With Israel Act".

http://www.mikeonline.com/taxpayer-mo...

Why does AIPAC oppose the Stand With Israel Act? AIPAC represents the Israeli government. They want US foreign aid to flow to Palestine, so it can flow to Hamas, so Hamas can use the money to attack Israel, so the Israeli military-industrial complex can continue to commit genocide against the Palestinians and will have an "enemy" to fight. They can't justify their attacks on Palestine to the world community without Hamas attacking them. In fact, Israel originally funded and created Hamas although originally as an opposition force to Hezbollah.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"mikeonline" is your source? really? and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously in these forums?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Will you just read my post and my thoughts and ideas for crying out loud and forget about the "source"??

I didn't really "source" anything, all I did was link to an interview with Rand Paul where he discusses the bill that I discussed that he himself introduced to congress.

Get a grip.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The world is very complicated right now, nothing is straightforward.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 7:31 p.m.

Which world? Earth, or Mars?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2014 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dolphinpod - If you're talking about the Cosmos TV show on Venus, it's BS. Venus has exactly the black-body temperature it should have based on its distance from the sun. The argument that CO2 has caused warming, making the planet lose H2O, is also BS. The earth has circulating magma that creates a magnetic field that deflects cosmic rays. Venus doesn't; it has much greater solar heating than the earth because of this. This is another diversion - hey, since we've bombed at predicting the earth's climate, why not change the subject; another trick to fool the scientifically illiterate.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/g...

. Ken_Volok - Do you have any references to research that supports CO2 causing warming?
This link is to one of many articles on US government agency's alteration of climate data to make measurements in the past cooler so that recent temperatures appear to show warming.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/03...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a link to George W Hunt's 1992 video describing the history of the environmental movement since 1972, including information from his attendance with Edmund Baron de Rothschild, David Rockefeller and David Lang at the 1987 Earth Summit. It also includes Maurice Strong's statement about the formation of a secret society to destroy industrial civilization, cause the crash of the stock market and hold leaders of the civilized world hostage at their annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIybC...

Club of Rome's report The First Global Revolution, describes the use of the straw man argument for global warming to divert attention from the illuminati's plan to institute a global fascist government and murder of the majority of the world's population. Depopulation is described in Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which is based on computer modeling which doesn't predict real population growth.

Also, there's no mention in the mainstream media of soot and mercury from China polluting the atmosphere and increasing the temperature of arctic ice, because AGW is a political issue, not an environmental issue.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: