He Believes In Science? Forget Him

Sunday, August 28, 2011

"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." In a sane world, this sort of pronouncement wouldn't be necessary. In a sane political party, it wouldn't be an item of controversy.

But we don't live in a sane world, and Jon Huntsman, who expressed those sentiments a couple of weeks ago via Twitter, doesn't belong to a sane political party. He's running for the GOP presidential nomination, a race in which being a member of the reality-based community is an actual handicap.

You know, if he had a chance of getting the nomination, Barack Obama might have something to worry about in Jon Huntsman. He's smart, articulate and fiscally conservative, and he's got some serious credentials, as well as good hair. Not as good as Romney's, but still very presidential hair.

He's also worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China, which would certainly cut the legs out from under any attempt by the president to attack Huntsman's judgment and/or character. ("Well, Mr. President, if he's that much of a boob, why'd you hire him?")

Fortunately for the president, however, Huntsman is far too rational for the Teahadist fanatics who can be counted upon to swarm the early primaries. They don't want to hear anything about no fancy science stuff or any of that "bipartisanship." They'd rather chow down on the sort of red meat served up all fresh and bloody by demagogues like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

In an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, Huntsman stated that he didn't think that calling Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke "traitorous" made Perry sound "serious" on the issues. In the same interview, Huntsman also criticized Bachmann and other wingnuts for their willingness to allow this country to default on its debts.

Huntsman was, on both counts, completely correct. He is, therefore, completely doomed.

I mean, really. Trust scientists? Why should we, as good Americans, give any credibility at all to people who actually make a career out of studying an issue, like the 98 percent of the scientists actually working in the field of climate science who believe in man-made climate change?

Why believe in the clear empirical evidence, including striking photo after striking photo of glaciers and icecaps retreating? In the words of the guy who got caught in bed with another woman by his wife: "Who you gonna believe, honey, me or your lyin' eyes?"

Trying to reverse or even slow down the clear damage being done to the environment would be hard. It might be expensive. It might even, horror of horrors, cut into the profits of the oil companies, reducing said profits from "totally inconceivable by the brain of man" to merely "mind-boggling."

Why go through all that when you can just wave a hand, say a few magic words ("Al Gore owns a big house!" or "It snowed last winter!"), and make all those uncomfortable facts disappear from the minds of your loyal followers so they'll pose no threat to your corporate donors?

Or, if you're a Texas-size con man like Rick Perry, you can just make stuff up, like his claim that a "substantial number of scientists" were found to have been "manipulating their data." The truth is, a half-dozen scientists were accused, based on eight emails hacked and stolen from their computers. There were five separate investigations. All found no evidence of wrongdoing or data manipulation.

You can look it up. But why would any Republican candidate bother to do that? The truth doesn't set you free in the GOP, unless what you want to be free from is any chance of surviving Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Mitt Romney certainly saw the writing on the wall. After saying back in June when he announced his candidacy that he favored reduction of "greenhouse gases that might be significant contributors" to climate change, Mitt saw Rick Perry take the lead and did one of those deft backflips for which he is so justly famed. He now says he's an agnostic on the matter:

"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that, but I think that it is," he said. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans. What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to."

Jon Huntsman is a sane, reasonable moderate who believes in science. Which is why he's a dead man walking in the GOP. And that's why President Obama, for all his faults, is going to win a second term.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage.

More like this story

nothingspecial 1 year, 9 months ago

No need to use your brains about global warming or evolution folks. Judge Rhoades has in fact made the pronouncement that you're crazy and not based in reality if you question these two as yet unproven theories. Don't go reading these blogs or studying the issues further. Be a nice lemming and just do as he says, and trust him when he says the majority of the really smart people are behind him. Or you will be called names.

http://junkscience.com/climate-features/

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

http://www.lifesorigin.com/

http://www.miraclesormagic.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution.html

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Once again, you'll note that NS never, EVER objects to name-calling when it's directed at people with whom he disagrees. For instance, he has no problem with calling you a "nice lemming" if you don't believe what HE says.

And as for his "sources' examine them by all means. And return to the fact that evolution and climate change are accepted as valid theories that fit the available data by the vast majority of scientists, and I mean vast. Examine the credentials of his sources and especially examine who funds them. Be sure to look into the subjects, such as the debunked (but often repeated) theory that climate change is caused by "cosmic rays."

I'm sure NS has done this with all the links from all the sites he's posted. So maybe he can explain to us why the 2000 paper highlighting the connection between cosmic rays and low-level clouds completely avoids clouds at other altitudes. Or enlighten us as to how Rory Roybal, a software engineer and marketing person, is more qualified on the issue of evolution than the thousands of biologists, anthropologists, etc when he wrote his book and website "Miracles or Magic" cited by NS.

I'm waiting.

JER 1 year, 9 months ago

Rather than searching the web for sources that will back up your beliefs while ignoring sources that disprove your beliefs, why not sit down in your back yard and actually use YOUR brain. Contemplate how life got here without being biased by the bible. Then visit a city (try Charlotte) and contemplate how the pollution being pumped into the atmosphere effects the climate and see if you can honestly conclude that it has NO effect. Don't rely on others brains, who may have motives for their opinions. Use your own brain...think it out. Start with a very simple premise: If I started smoking cigars, would my wife let me smoke them in the house? If the answer is "no", think of the reasons she might give you. Then carry that thought process out to include your car, your office, any public places, the world. Of course, if she says yes, then we can conclude she is a Republican.

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

"it's your party who are trying to destroy the country so that you can profit from the chaos. Traitors, every one of you."----from Mr Rhoades yesterday. Interesting point above, such rhetoric really does not make you "sound 'serious' on the issues"

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

But it's okay when Rick Perry does it, right?

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

For somebody so quick to label others' hypocrisy, you gave a beauty of an example.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Answer my question. Is it okay when Rick Perry uses the word traitorous or not? Yes or no?

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

I personally thought it was over the top. So, no I do not approve. Yet, I do not criticize him in one breath and use that same tactic I just deplored with my next.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

So Huntsman was right, correct?

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

Huntsman was correct that labeling Bernanke a traitor was inappropriate. Though I agree with Perry that actions of the Fed are wrong and dangerous. I think he could have chosen his words better. There is an argument to be made but his style was wrong. You yourself have stated Huntsman was correct---it was wrong. Likewise, you are inappropriate and wrong using the term traitors. I am not sure why you want to draw this out. I am not really expecting an apology, I suspect that is not in you. Maybe, just maybe however, next time you might choose your words with more thought.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Okay, I'll agree that I was over the top to use the term traitors, but you do agree Huntsman was right that Perry didn't sound serious on the issues when he said it. So in agreeing with Huntsman, you'll agree I was right today.

Glad we could find some common ground here.

molonlabe 1 year, 8 months ago

nanny nanny boo boo!

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

IOKIYAR----its ok if you are Rhoades

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Is it okay for Rick Perry, a Presidential candidate, to use the word traitorous? Yes or no.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

You've now answered that you thought it was over the top. Thank you. So Huntsman was correct, right?

sgmartin 1 year, 8 months ago

Traitors?? Really?? You don't think that is a bit of a stretch ?

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

Viper, Yeah, thanks for the advice but please read it again. I simply quoted Dusty there. He is the fellow you should be lecturing.

blake 1 year, 8 months ago

Dusty, I thought you knew. Wow, this is embarrassing. Those shots of glaciers melting in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" actually came from the move "The Day After Tomorrow". You see, they were computer generated. I understant your confusion, that Jake Gyllenhaal is a good actor.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

There are many, many others. Look it up.

DaveyNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Evolution? Proven.

Anthropogenic global warming? Not so much. Here is just the latest bit of science to refute it: http://goo.gl/dmks6

From the article: "When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays 'will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century.'"

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

This theory has been frequently debunked since 1998:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/

*On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster.

Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now – no amount evidence will ever be enough.

"There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus," remarked Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA researcher and contributor to Realclimate.org.*

DaveyNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Your article from Wired is from 2007. My referenced article is from this year. Things change, new data is gathered, new proofs are developed, old ones are refuted. Go to the article and click through to the CERN website and watch the video.

DaveyNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh, and the propagating phenomenon is nucleation, not radiation. I know the root of the word looks like "nucular" (thanks to W!), but instead you should think "nucleus". Think "cloud seeding", not "cloud nuking".

ztech 1 year, 8 months ago

Spewing vitriol and misstatements as usual, when will your personal volcano run out of steam?The doctoring of records by the climate control group was one of the most serious violations of scientific method in many years and Gore will never recover from it. Your admiring quote from Dr. Schmidt is an obvious non-sequitur. Try this version: "...no connection between volcanic eruptions like Mt Krakatoa and global warming ... because there's no trend in volcanos, Its completely bogus.". Of course, volcanos are absolutely the largest source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Wonder if he still has a job.

honesty2 1 year, 8 months ago

http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/historical.php

OldPilot 1 year, 8 months ago

Flat earthers who argue the falsity of evolutionary and climate change serve as a holdover from the dark ages reminding the rest of us how far we have come. Excellent column, particularly the last sentence!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Thanks!

DaveyNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Not a flat earther and fully convinced that the earth is warming, or as you put, the climate is changing. Not so convinced that such warming is anthropogenic nor that we can stop it. Climate changes, always has. Life adapts, always has.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

I proposed restoring Clinton era tax rates, since we had a booming economy and a surplus. Nice try, though.

Edit: BTW,, the actual exchange:

"Big D: Dusty states "How about the same tax rates we had during the Clinton years..." This raises taxes on the poorest people by 50%. The lowest tax rate today is 10% under Clinton it was 15%

Me: Well, you say they're not paying enough. so that should make you happy.

Toytime: Let's agree to raise the taxes to the level in the Clinton era, and lower the spending to that level as well. Remember Clinton said the era of big goverment is over.

Me: So you agree that a balanced approach...spending cuts AND revenue increases...would work?

Toytime: yes I agree that more revenue needs to be paid into the federal government from all spectrums not just those making over $100000/yr. Do you agree in real spending cuts and not just decreases in the rate of growth?"

From that, jpb gets "dusty wants to raise taxes on the poor by 50%!!!" That's because jpb is dishonest.

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

Good try at the lawyerly twisting of comments about examining things for yourself to that I name call, like you. Also for the other tactic of demanding more proof about one point or dismissing everything. Unfortunately it still worked out to more dismissing of the person who disagrees with you, which works out to name calling. Point being that name calling may be popular but is a strategy that is often used to avoid examination of all sides of an argument.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Good try at the lawyerly twisting of comments about examining things for yourself to that I name call, like you.

Did you or did you not use the words "be a nice lemming"?

That's not "lawyerly twisting." Those are your actual words.

And it's clear you haven't even read your own links. Not name calling.Fact.

You people fall back on this whining about 'name calling" whenever you get called on your specious nonsense. Note well, readers: when they can't meet the argument, they whine about the tone.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Whoops. Got jpb mixed up with nothingspecial. So hard to tell you apart sometimes. Sorry.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Anyway let me clarify something from your clumsy attempt at rebuttal: are you admitting that the Teahadists "held the country hostage"? If so, then you're admitting that they are, indeed, terrorists. If not, you should. Because that's exactly what they did.

That's not defamation, that's definition.

Oh, and let me ask you the same question I asked Blake and that he has yet to answer: was John Huntsman right about Rick Perry or not?

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh, and a little nuggest about justpassing by for the readership. Here's a direct quote from a thread yesterday:

I don't consider 'non-thinking socialist' as name calling dusty

http://www.thepilot.com/marketplace/users/justpassingby/comments/#c50450

So you can judge this person's credibility on "name-calling" by that.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

are you admitting that the Teahadists "held the country hostage"?

was John Huntsman right about Rick Perry or not?

Your failure to answer either of those questions is duly noted.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

IF obama HAD DONE EVEN A LITTLE OF WHAT HE PROMISED THE TEAPOTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My my, we're getting angry, aren't we?

So what exactly has President Obama done so far? http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=38

Everything I wanted? No. But more than McCain would have done and certainly more than the Teahadists would ever accomplish.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

No, I asked Blake if he thought it was okay when Perry used the word traitor and not okay when I did it. There's a difference that an intelligent person would be able to see.

After being pressed to answer on the issue (i.e.cornered like a rat in a trap), Blake eventually fessed up that no, it wasn't okay and that Huntsman was right about Perry. So I was wrong to use the word "traitor" but right about Huntsman. I'll take that. Any day when people on the right can admit what a dangerous, unserious, and demagogic fool Rick Perry is is a good day.

See, the difference is: I'M NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

Dusty, you're in full lawyer mode and I can understand it after that attack letter put out this week and jumped upon by folks.

But you keep missing the point in your zeal to win every case that name calling, word twisting, obvious intolerance for the other side, "I know you are but what am I's", and the tearing up of people rather than their arguments might feel good but hurts civil discourse and consideration of both sides of the issues. It may sell papers, but it is obvious from your replies here that it wears on you, as it would on anyone.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Did you or did you not use the term "nice lemming" for people who might agree with me?

Yes. Or no?

You want civil discourse, practice it. If someone asks me a civil question or makes a civil comment, I respond in kind. You start by name-calling, you get it back.

honesty2 1 year, 8 months ago

Your articles which do not focus on politics can be entertaining and witty. Perhaps you should stick to that as in continuing the name calling, you simply reveal either your lack of character, your lack of journalism, or your bigotry. In continuing to play to your base, you reveal yours and further alienate the majority of readers (probably not so wise when newspaper readership and circulation are down).

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

See, here's the thing. I haven't given any credence to this right wing pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over name calling since 2003. Back then, I made some rather polite, mild, and non-confrontational criticisms of the run-up to the Iraq War--for which I was called, in the pages of this newspaper and in threatening e-mails, a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, and one of the people responsible for 9/11. And not a single conservative said a word about that. Ever. They still don't. They pretend to abhor "name calling" but only when it's done by a liberal.

So you can save your piety and your fake concern, honesty2. I don't buy it for a second, especially from cowardly trolls like you, nothingspecial and justpassingby who don't have the guts to insult me under their real names.

honesty2 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't think I was posting here in 2003, and though I'm not perfect by any means, nor above insults, I do try not to name call. You can go ahead with the name calling, but I don't believe you'll win any converts that way. If you truly wanted to "win friends and influence people" you'd have more of a chance without the nasties. That's basically the gist of what I was trying to say. btw, I did give you a compliment. I "don't buy for a second...(that you) haven't given any credence to this right wing pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over name calling" or you wouldn't continue to reply rudely to those posts. Seems you just have a difficult time with constructive criticism.

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

Now he's got PTSD from 9/11 and the mean conservatives - we evil trolls...

CC85 1 year, 8 months ago

Great article Dusty! Truly love reading these every week.

I also enjoy reading the wingnut hysteria that follows!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 8 months ago

Thanks! And they are rather amusing.

OldPilot 1 year, 8 months ago

Columns written by Dusty consistently draw more responses than all other columns, letters to the editor and editorials combined. Alienating the majority of readers? More like helping to keep our beloved local fishwrapper solvent!

skylinefirepest 1 year, 8 months ago

Dusty--with all the bullhockey about the Tea Party holding the country hostage, I think you have again totally missed the point! If the House and Senate and Obama had spent as much time trying to honestly lower the spending as they spent on the debt ceiling there would have been no lowering of our rating and the debt ceiling argument would have been a moot point. After all, the raising of the debt ceiling was not about paying our bills...it was about giving this administration the right to spend even more!!

On your other point...I know you and will call you one of these first days and tell you who I am. I won't do it in a blog because, to put it bluntly, I don't trust some of the people that post in here. Believe it or not, in person you are not nearly as obnoxious as you are playing the extreme Liberal Lefty in your posts.

skylinefirepest 1 year, 8 months ago

I forgot to mention...I'm an ex U.S. Air Force weather weenie and I absolutely do NOT believe in man made global warming! The is more evidence to the contrary than there is supporting. And the supporters have made some really terrible decisions relating to Gore, the movie, and the false "facts" that have been released supposedly proving global warming as a fault of mankind.

leftfield 1 year, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

Awesome debate there, leftfield.

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

That's good and proper of you to acknowledge such effective dialogue....Mike

Courseaire 1 year, 8 months ago

I would comment about this all, but can't since the World ended on May 21, 2011. Therefore, we don't exist - No Teapots, No Lefties, No Wingnuts, nothing but nothing.

SH59 1 year, 8 months ago

I can't believe I live in a world where people don't believe in science. Isn't that just choosing to be ignorant? What's even more shocking is that people are willing to stand up to the public and make such a statement and be proud of it. But like everyone else it must be selective science to fit into their current social agenda.

molonlabe 1 year, 8 months ago

Myrmidon

SH59 1 year, 8 months ago

Ants?

molonlabe 1 year, 8 months ago

unquestioning followers

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

All this flap over Rick Perry's choice of a single word. How many times have we been down this road over the past couple of years about words and phrases? OK...was it right for president Obama to state that although he did not know the facts; the Cambridge Police acted stupidly? That rebounded and ricocheted negatively around every police department and LEO across America. How about when President Obama bowled about a 37 pin game and stated that he looked like some sort of Special Olympic tape? People in the lime light with reporters all around sometimes say a word or phrase that they might call back. It's only to be expected. Next week or maybe tonight someone else will say something that can be stretched into something it's not. Look at all the hateful words the entire democratic leadership OPENLY and disrespectfully called President Bush for years on end and still do. Did you scold Obama for the above or the democratic party? Oh yea, my bad...he and they are teamies of yours; so that is different.

On all your Jon Huntsman tripe, science, global warming and this thing begettting this and it culminating with Obama winning a second term...talk about junk science...there she be....Mike

AnimalLover 1 year, 8 months ago

And he just made it so darn easy too! Stupid is as stupid does...

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Such Hatred for a United States President. Things must have turned around in the Army. Normally Soldiers or any active duty component members would not openly state such vile words against a president...standing or retired. I'd like to see the web site where you get such statistics. Do you share such feelings with your troops. Do you have any troops? ...Mike

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

If you had taken a poll back then I am confident you would have learned that the majority of us in the armed forces had great respect for President Bush.

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

That is exactly the truth...Mike

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Your a 'funny' little Stf...Mike

JER 1 year, 8 months ago

This coming from a guy who spews nothing but hate for the current president. The "preacher" needs some practice.

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

Absolutely false JER. I respect his position and wished to God he would have taken this country in a direction that worked or at least had a chance of working. I'd be a staunch supporter of his if that had happened. I have not said hateful things about our president and will not. I do not like his policies that are devastating on America. I do not like his strict party allegiance and ideoIogy. I do not like the people he chose for a cabinet as they are just as unaware on what to do as he is. Obama's limited experience made him unprepared for what he was elected to do. I had hoped he would choose a 'smart' bunch of folks to advise him & things would have turned out with more positive results; that did not happen.....and here we are in quagmire city....Mike

Courseaire 1 year, 8 months ago

Sounds more like a self-appointed member in a backwoods militia.

honesty2 1 year, 8 months ago

SSV, you're a little new here, so perhaps you don't realize that Courseaire frequently uses sarcasm. Check out his other posts. Easy on the gas, ok?

Courseaire 1 year, 8 months ago

I use sarcasm, I'm nothing but sweet & caring about the happenings in small town NC - now I'm insulted.

teufelhunden 1 year, 8 months ago

"And that's why President Obama, for all his faults, is going to win a second term."-DR

What "faults" are you talking about?

JER 1 year, 8 months ago

Relax there Mikey, your guy will get his chance to save us all. In his first 2 years as president, he can repeal all that the previous administration did. Then he can work on his plan for this country for the next two years. All the while, his opposition will be calling him names and doing everything they can to prevent him from making any headway on solving problems. They will say he was born in Venezuela, worships the devil and is Fidel Castro's second cousin. In 2016, he will be defeated by a candidate from the opposition who has better hair, went to school in a log cabin, fought in all the 27 wars we started, was an altar boy and is a recovering ice cream addict. And so it will go every 4 years until we get repossessed by the UK, are forced to speak real English and are given free medical treatment until we regain our senses.

teufelhunden 1 year, 8 months ago

That was pretty good JER!

TOYTIME 1 year, 8 months ago

"And so it will go every 4 years until we get repossessed by the UK, are forced to speak real English and are given free medical treatment until we regain our senses."

Funny stuff!

moonchild7 1 year, 8 months ago

Since Rick Perry is Mr. Bible Master Explainer, I wonder what his "OPINION" is of the horrible HEAT&DROUGHT that Texas has been experiencing these past few months? Not Global Warming Rick? My Aunt has lived in Texas for 65 yrs, her husband(my uncle) was born and raised there. They both say it's the worst they've ever seen. The foundation on their house is cracking...something it's never done thru all previous droughts/heat. What's GOD trying to tell you Rick? M. Bachmann said that Hurricane Irene was GOD'S anger. What could the Texas HEAT be, Rick? GOD'S warm well wishes for so-called Texas TeaPot Boil-overs? These are seriously disturbed people and that's putting it nicely.

TOYTIME 1 year, 8 months ago

Used to be a lot hotter than it is now. In fact this used to be beach front property here in the Sandhills long before the gasoline engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhills_(Carolina)

moonchild7 1 year, 8 months ago

The Houston Chronicle had an article(8/19/11) concerning the drought. They looked at statistics going back to 1885 and while NOT ALL of Texas has drought conditions at the same time, this article shows that 55% of the state is having the worst 6-12 month drought in their recorded history. Now, while it is possible that 10,000 yrs ago or so it might have been HOTTER the world's average temperature has done nothing but increase lately. Who knows? Mother Nature has lots of ways to turn things around and maybe by next year we'll be in another ICE AGE. I'm sure Ranger Rick will let us know how ANGRY Father Time is with us Socialists and how we are somehow being "PUNISHED". Bunk.

TOYTIME 1 year, 8 months ago

Do you even realize that with your post just now you're saying that mother nature has more to do with global temperature than we do? Well Moonie, we agree.

moonchild7 1 year, 8 months ago

No. No, No. Mother Nature has a bunch of very spoiled, wasteful, dirty, and just out and out nasty children on this EARTH, that she does her best to DEAL with. Sometimes she wins and sometimes she doesn't. An awful lot of her "kids" have really been turning up the smoke exhaust these past 100 yrs or so and I think she's having trouble CLEANING up after them anymore. Like I say, I still have HOPE and in this case, my HOPE is for man and womankind to heed the warnings of Mother Nature and help her out a bit. This is a partnership, a family, a household. The "kids" have been running things into the ground it seems and her patience has almost run out. But without a change of attitude Mother Nature can also be a loser. She holds some of the POWER but NOT all of the POWER.

Courseaire 1 year, 8 months ago

Actually, Mother Nature is just a high priced Call Girl, selling herself to the Rich & Wealthy dirty Teapots

molonlabe 1 year, 8 months ago

Keep it up Moonchild, I need a good laugh after a crappy day at work!

Tatoosh 1 year, 8 months ago

Grab a handful of soil and you will find sand. Dig deeper and you will fine seashells. The ocean extended hundreds of miles inland. The warm temperatures expanded the water volume worldwide. The Sandhills was once underwater. As the temperature increased, glaciers retreated and formed the Great Lakes. This warming occurred throughout the planet. Oceans retreated. Where were the coal burning electrical plants? Where were the SUV's?
Global warming without human activity? One must always remember in science that association is not always causality.

JER 1 year, 8 months ago

You may not have gotten to the chapter covering the oceans retreating. That was caused when the waters ran off the edge of the earth.

Courseaire 1 year, 8 months ago

No, no - it was when Jonah fell off the ark & was swallowed by the whale with Pinocchio after the 40 days & 40 nights of Hurricane Eve.

Tatoosh 1 year, 8 months ago

Nice sidetracks but no response to global warming without human activity?

MikeNC 1 year, 8 months ago

That's what the left is good at Tatoosh...side tracks, spinning the question, spinning the answers...but seldom or never answering a direct legitamate question. They only want you to answer their questions. Kind of like Gore never wanting to have an actual scientific debate on his money making GW...Mike

Hembloche 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't think anyone is debating that the earth warms and cools regardless of human interaction. The argument today is that man is accelerating the process.

Tatoosh 1 year, 8 months ago

The recent observations from the space program demonstrated that rather than the increased heat being reflected back to earth, it was dissipated increasingly outward into space. This is a direct contradiction to global warming theory. Should we simply ignore it?

Hembloche 1 year, 8 months ago

You shouldn't have to ask a question such as that. Sad sign of the times i suppose. Of course we should never ignore any scientific evidence. Have they been able to determine a cause as to why this is happening or is this a common occurrence throughout the years? Is it because the ozone layer has been depleted or are there other factors to take into account? If you have a link to an article or study on this I'd love to read it.

lindac 1 year, 8 months ago

Oy vay, so many responses Dusty. Seems like they have a paid peanut gallery to dispute every inconvenient truth!

Tatoosh 1 year, 8 months ago

Well now, you played the religion card. Now you attack character by calling us paid peanut gallery. I will stick to the facts like the new NASA Data which Blows Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism based upon NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011. Data demonstrates that far more heat is being released into space than predicted by the alarmist models confirming NOAA data. Forbes Magazine July 27, 2011.

nothingspecial 1 year, 8 months ago

A must read commentary related to this topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275903/re-anti-science-smear-jonah-goldberg#

Comments No Longer Accepted

He Believes In Science? Forget Him

More like this story

Comments

May events