sucks for you…

were the words that came up on the spell check.
What you see is what happens when you post before turning off the spell check.

His state is bankrupt and he is worried about global warming?
I got news for you Henry, you better worry about your job before
jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

Agree with MeIZ. We humans cannot control climate and should respect all in nature and be good stewards of the earth. The liberals have used global warming as a control issue. One way to control is taxes. Another is lifestyle.

Was told by a professor that this cold spell is a part of global warming and therefore proof that global warming exists?????? Must mention that he did not explain how, exactly, that worked

then we need Global Warming. We need to pump more
CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to unleash our
economy and not worry about cap & trade.
China, India, Russia & most of the 3rd world
don’t buy into global warming. If America does then
it will be lights out and grab your blankets.
And don’t expect to eat 3 meals a day.

this is hard for me to get a grasp on…I have my heater set to come on at 62 above………I am not being a smart axx…..62…

at -33 does your heater just stay on all the time?…..Is your house insulated to the Max?……can you feel your fingers right now?

and it “feels like” -23. Guess it’s a heat wave or something.

The Global Warming gang will be hung out to dry in 50 years.
Most of them will be dead and glaciers will cover their graves.
What’s left of the worlds population will curse them as they
struggle to survive as growing crops outdoors is not
possible any longer.

I can’t keep up with the adjustments to the “theory” to keep matching the observations.

If a stopped clock is right twice a day, just think about one that runs infinitely fast: it would be right an infinite number of times per day!

Computer models are useful and if you can get one to model at least the highest order of an effect it can help with further study. The mistake is in the belief system that jumps to the conclusion that the model is true when in fact it has not ever been correct. The models continue to show thermal growth as they continue to show CO2 growth but the thermal growth is really a decrease.

The earth climate is very complex, our abiity to model complex things is still in its infancy. This is why I never take a model for the truth. Of course scientists who run models want financial support and they are getting it from the world socialist movement who understand that something does not have to be true to become a political movement. Note that both candidates in the last election were forced to admit that global warming is occurring when in fact neither has the slightest understanding of the math and physics involved. They do know how to listen to a political advisor.

because you have a lot to learn. When the “consensus” has to finally admit that there is no AGW to speak of, then there will be another created scare. Another false panic, just like the many which came before and never panned out.

Maybe you will realize this as you get older. You see, panics are good money, they are great to get your papers published and to get federal funding.

Simply telling the truth, well, that doesn’t sell as well.

Spare me your concern over the conservative movement. I doubt that all the scientists I listed above listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Not particularly on anybody’s side, probably not a provocateur, has skin in the game when it comes to Iraq, sound on Blackadder.

So you can assume good faith.

1. the diary you’re commenting on is user-created, so it’s not “Redstate” that is doing anything…however…
2. even if it WAS an official contributor, my guess is they’d have the same opinion
3. few around here consider John McCain to be the poster child for conservatism, so using his name does nothing for your case. And most of us have written off Newt on that particular position. His other conservative creds do nothing to convince me. You can be a good fiscal, defense, and even social conservative and be dead wrong on one issue.
4. You’re wasting your breath. Out of the hundreds who do or have post(ed) here, you can count the number who agree with you on one hand.

Oh, and “disinformation” is a matter of opinion. Most of us find the global warmist pseudo-science to be disinformation of the worst kind.

So, to your accusations of “denier”, “hysteria,” and “delusion”, I say to you: kiss off.

On the contrary, RedState is one of the few places that is the voice of reason on this insane topic. Ice is the enemy of man. The greatest human achievements have ocurred during times of warming. This is a natural sun cycle and hysterical global warming fanatics cannot control the world. If this hysteria is left to run rampant it will destroy the America economy while the rest of the world goes forward. I would not want to live in a cold world controlled by China & India.

A great many scientists — actual scientists, working in related fields, even — are walking away from the Global Warming myth in droves. And, considering that you are clearly no more (and most likely less) an authority on these matters than those quoted above, your patronizing tone just makes you look like an idiot.

Does not make sense. Is it a Scientific fact? NO. This is a strange term manufactured by the fear-mongers. Global Warming Mafia is coming up with different excuses.

Since your user name implies that you are a student, let’s conduct an elementary exercise in mathematics.

UN Scientists (52)
Dissenting Scientists (650)
92.5% of the scientists reject the conclusions of the UN’s IPCC report.

Even though there were very few actual “climate experts” contributing to the UN’s IPCC report, let’s use the UN ’s number of scientists for the sake of this exercise.

UN Scientists (52)
Dissenting Climate Experts Who Signed the Manhattan Declaration (197)
79% of climate experts reject the conclusions of the UN’s IPCC report (The actual percentage of dissenting climate experts is much higher).

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

Climate Experts Who Signed The Manhattan Declaration

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In light of the overwhelming evidence and growing consensus that directly refutes the UN’s conclusion on climate change, you really should consider revising your position.

ROFL. You couldn’t get 97% of any group of anybodies to agree that breathing in and out is a good idea.

“thoughtful conservatives are in a minority nowadays ”

Yes we are and I regret to inform you that your membership application can not be processed at this time.

It cheapens the memory of the Holocaust.

Moe

PS: Learn how to use Reply To This.

Make your point. But cease the insults, or I predict your tenure here will be brief. Using the term “denier” is particularly odorous, due to the implication that those of us who disagree with you are akin to Holocaust deniers.

And the evidence to support the AGW Hoax is cooked up, and the high-talking theories are unsound, unstudied, and utterly unsupported.

It is left-wing political theater, that is all.

other epochs in pre-human history where the climate fluctuated to extremes? Multiple ice ages, mulitple warming periods, no fossil fuel burning humans in sight anywhere. So what’s the answer?
Dinosaur flatulence?

Among scientists, the Anthropogenic Global Warming “consensus” never existed.

The links I provided up-thread will take you many more places than I expect you’re willing to go. A quick perusal of the list of dissenting climate experts clearly indicates the international component and readily lays waste to your premise that it’s “a long American tradition of ideology-driven nut-jobbery.”

Clearly, I know you really didn’t mean to, but that certainly is an accurate description of a typical global warming acolyte.

And now, as the facts begin to overwhelm the hype, the purveyors of the Man-Made Global Warming Hoax are losing the battle of public opinion as well.

Lucky for us, the “movement” started about a decade too late.