Congress the butt of Obama's climate science jokes

Comments (47)

Unfortunately Obama is no Al Gore. Nor was Bill Clinton and his wishful wife, old what-is-her-name.

Jun 25, 2014 11:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

“are either blind to science or cowed by extremists.”

are these words of an individual who is trying to bring folks together and reach consensus or the words of an individual who is trying or doesn’t care to divide this country?

Jun 26, 2014 7:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

And he wonders why people are suing him. Arrogant and pompous gets you nowhere. Well educated but not in people skills and leadership.

Jun 26, 2014 7:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ExDemocrat wrote:

The U.S.’s glib President Obama talks so much, about so many things, and has been found to be shallow, misleading, or wrong in his knowledge claims, so many times, that it is hard to take him seriously. His refusal to acknowledge that there are capable scientists who question and/or dispute many of the claims of the global warming alarmists also makes him seem less than credible. See Cal Thomas’ current article “On Climate Change, Who Are The Real ‘Deniers’?” to gain a sense of some of the opposing views to what Mr. Obama is trying to sell.

Jun 26, 2014 8:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tatman wrote:

republicans are living in a flat earth, anti-science bubble, blinded by greed and beholden to only two things: koch industries and unbridled capitalism. america is the ONLY western country in the world that is still screaming that climate change is a myth — and the same extremism can be found in the evangelical faith, also an american phenomenon. republicans and the tea party fringe are playing in a minefield and will burn this country down and take all of us with them if they can’t have their way. 97% of scientists around the world have come to the same, unavoidable conclusion: climate change is REAL. and it’s happening NOW.

the evangelicals running the republican/tp machine believe that earth is only 6,000 years old. this is the frightening group that is controlling congress! we have reason to be terrified when one looks into the eyes of these people. they are even anti-science to such a point that they don’t even take into account the laws of physics and the speed of light. how can they claim the universe and earth is only 6,000 years old, and that man walked beside the dinosaurs, when the light reaching our planet from the stars in the sky takes billions of years to reach us? to be blinded to even the most simple form of scientific fact highlights how truly unbelievably ignorant republicans are.

we are in the beginnings of the 6th global species extinction. this is not conjecture. this is FACT. by the end of this century, earth will have lost over 50% of it’s animal life. the oceans are on the verge of a complete collapse. glaciers and the polar ice caps are melting. temperatures are changing, and climate is adjusting around the planet. AND HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE.

but alas, try getting a republican to believe in what they can see happening right in front of them if it doesn’t bring them profit or $$. THOUSANDS of scientists are warning us as we speak that humans are taking the earth on a path that will be irreversible, and will make our world an inhospitable one to sustain us within the next hundred years.

what are republicans doing? NOTHING. and why? they ARE cowed to an extreme, ignorant, bible thumping, capitalist, anti-government, flat-earth religious minority. the sad thing, is that they are leaving nothing for their children, and their children’s children.

all for greed and temporary gain. republicans/tea party are a shame and a stain upon all that is decent and right. they are fools on a fools errand, and are causing harm to each and every one of us through their philosophy of hard-line extremism. if we don’t stop them, we will pay a price more dear than anything — OUR FUTURE.

Jun 26, 2014 8:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Hey, screw the environment. Economic growth trumps all!

Jun 26, 2014 9:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Obama’s sole gift, oratory, is used to try and convince us that there is no science in opposition to his assertion that currently fashionable global warming theory justifies his warping of the U.S. power generation industry.

The assertion is false:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Jun 26, 2014 9:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
watcher8 wrote:

Of course we believe all those scientists…like the ones that just exposed themselves to anthrax…why should be trust them to protect us when they can’t even protect themselves? And just how long did it take doctors to get anti-tobacco laws passed? Maybe we should wait just as long before implementing climate change laws. Climate is the single most complex unintelligent system on earth. We don’t understand it…can’t even predict weather with monster computers. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are major factors effecting climate that haven’t even been discovered much less understood. It is really impossible to do a proper cost/benefit analysis for climate change. Stop acting like it is a done deal.

Jun 26, 2014 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
watcher8 wrote:

Anybody know what the carbon footprint of earth’s volcanic activity? Forget carbon. Do you know what the internal temperature of the earth’s core is?

Jun 26, 2014 9:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

unionvw:

Hahahah, thanks for the laugh. That waste of web space has been utterly debunked as BS (Bad Science)…

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/10/31/nipcc-and-climate-change-denialism/

Jun 26, 2014 9:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
watcher8 wrote:

Any scientist will tell you that believing any science at 100% probability is unscientific.

Jun 26, 2014 10:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

What is the problem? Everybody laughs at the science-denying anti-AGW nuts. They deserve it. What do they expect when they are pushing a faith-based argument that is contradicted by all the available real, evidence-based science? If you insist on adhering to an ideology that has nothing at all supporting it, you are a crank and deserve to be mocked,

@ready2013 and 4825:
You have no entitlement to be taken seriously. Nobody, including Obama, is under any obligation to take your crank-science seriously or to treat you with any respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is something you earn.

@unionwv
Obamas assertion is not false. A handful of cranks, who failed as scientists and are now employed by the radically right-wing Hearland Institute, is *not* scientific opposition.

Jun 26, 2014 10:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

The problem is scientists and doctors are often wrong. All scientists believe the earth was flat. We were told to drink a toxic ammount of water less than 20 years ago. NASA has found that the atmosphere releases heat much quicker than they estimated a few years ago, hence all of their models on climate change have been wrong.

Reducing pollution is good. Doing so in a way that makes people choose between food or heat is not good. The energy sector is going to be profiteering off of these programs, the cost of everything that requires heating/cooling/energy is going to go up (that is everything), and the middle class is going to have less money to spend on other things causing another recession.

Jun 26, 2014 10:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@TheNewWorld- Well said.

Jun 26, 2014 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gitmojo wrote:

Why does the Prevaricator in Chief and his “settled science” EPA cronies refuse to release the data that they base their claims/edicts on?
The king of opacity expects lock step obedience and belief without providing the evidence and justification for his dogma.
His history requires massive info dumps to sell the billions of expense his policies will provide.
I am inclined to think the opposite of whatever he’s pushing until proved otherwise.

Jun 26, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Bakhtin- There are a lot of people where I do not respect their position, but I still can work with them. Whether you respect the people you work around, or not, should not matter when you are trying to get a job done. A good leader is able to garner the respect he needs. He does so by discussing the difference of opinions and leading, not berating, not belittling, not being pompous or arrogant. A good leader respects others whether they deserve the respect or not. A good leader does not act childishly by claiming he has a pen and phone to use in order to go around both houses of legislature. A good leader works to keep the people’s trust and is honest with those that he leads. Sadly, we do not have a good leader right now.

Jun 26, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BaiJiuUSA wrote:

@new world:
after i put solar panels on my house i won’t need any of your heat/energy programs. My costs will go down. and with all that extra cash i have…hmmm…maybe i’ll buy an electric car that will also be powered by the sun. next thing you know…I don’t have any electricity bills!! NONE!!

Jun 26, 2014 12:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Yeah… climate scientists… what do they know about the climate? Just ignore them because they know nothing.

Far better to follow the GOP party line. The GOP never get anything wrong. The GOP are the worlds leading experts on every topic, including climate.

Jun 26, 2014 12:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

From the global warming side of the equation I would like to hear the opinion from the climate scientists who are not being paid by the gov’t or a university (paid by the gov’t).

Humans just from breathing place about 3500 million tons of CO2 per year into the air. Do the math yourself 0.5 tons per year per person times 7,000,000,000 persons.

It is a problem of trying to do too many things with too many people. Nations with high population density really need to get a handle on their population growth.

Jun 26, 2014 12:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

The right-wing entitlement mentality: “You *must* respect my opinion no matter how stupid it is”.

A good leader knows which opinions are worth listening to, and which are faith-based nonsense that can be laughed at.

Jun 26, 2014 12:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chuck2 wrote:

How true about right and their corp owned legislators, AKA “Wealth by legislation” at all levels. Since 90% or more lawyers AKA products of “challenging” BA’s like, pol sci, lib arts English lit, basket weaving 101 and history majors to get good GPA for “law school, they consider “proven science” watching a match strike and burn. Most have about 4thy grade science understanding, but can count lobby bribe money quickly. Their supporters not much brighter, if at all

Jun 26, 2014 12:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@BaiJiuUSA

I think that is the best way to go. I belive going off grid is the best thing you can do if you are in a position to do so. I live in a townhome and it isn’t viable for me, but I plan on down sizing and going off grid when I retire. Not for some prepper reasoning, but it is much more for eliminating costs and ensuring I can keep up with energy bills.

Jun 26, 2014 12:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Bakhtin

If the US Democrats really belived that global warming was a major issue due to man made climate change, they would be pushing for millions of more immigrants to come into the country. The biggest way to fight man made global warming is population control. The left wants the opposite of population control because they need more and more people to pay for their programs and pyramid schemes of social security and health care.

Jun 26, 2014 12:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

rlm328,

The best way to control population growth is to help spread prosperity around the globe. There is a direct correlation between prosperity and lower birth rates. Unfortunately, the radical environmentalists want to do just the opposite.

Jun 26, 2014 12:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

The truth is we still live in a nation where religious and political leaders want to deny the realities uncovered by science because what is said does not agree with the explanations these leaders have and continue to use to manipulate a flock of followers. We have not separated science and religion and the specifics of the science disagree with the specifics of religions if you take there literal meanings. Philisophically of course they are not even in the same category. The existence of one does not eliminate the other. However, it is not religion that is under threat, it is religious leaders who fear losing their control of people and the very lucrative business/lifestyle that provides them. It is the greed of the religious leaders that prevents them from telling the truth.

Jun 26, 2014 1:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

- Isaac Asimov

—————

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Jun 26, 2014 1:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

ready2013, 4825, gitmojo, ridiculing fools is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. We should not allow any false rhetoric to pass without pointing out the fallacy. We would be shirking our duty as citizens if we don’t speak the truth. The truth is that denial of global warming is largely driven by the economic interests of a few corporations who have too much power in our government. They also have many weak followers who depend on their charity because these weaklings cannot compete in a merit based society. There are many psychobabble morons on the left and there are many weakling followers on the right, and we should never let any of them talk loud enough for common sense to be drowned out. You guys are the weak followers on the right. Get a real job and produce something useful you users.

Jun 26, 2014 1:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

We will be in a much better position if the raging partisans that call this country home start accepting some basic truths that should be common sense to anyone with a functioning adult brain: none of you, conservatives AND liberals, are right ALL THE TIME.

Liberals – you need to accept that throwing money at a problem is not an effective solution. You also need to accept that a foreign policy of “playing nice” will not make our enemies like us any more.

Conservatives – you need to accept that, when it comes to scientific matters, you are not experts and you need to stop injecting your beliefs as though you are. Your preachers are not scientists, your CEO’s are not scientists, and your “Joe the Plumbers” are not scientists.

Listen to the scientists, because they ARE scientists (and I’m talking about actual scientists; not environmental activists, and not fossil fuel industry lobbying groups).

Jun 26, 2014 2:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“…A handful of cranks, who failed as scientists… (Bakhtin’s opinion of the NIPPC scientists)

Go to …
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/nipcc-scientists/
…and look at their roster. Decide for yourself.

In general, Bathkin’s opinions tend to be ad hominem and his underlying convictions need to be sceptically examined on the merits.

Jun 26, 2014 2:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

As conservatives have been saying, the president is breaking the law with a lot of what he has been doing. The Supreme Court agreed today. From another Reuters story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/us-usa-court-appointments-idUSKBN0F11LF20140626

“In a ruling that will constrain future presidents, the court held on a 9-0 vote that the three appointments Obama made to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 were unlawful.”

Not the word “unlawful”.

Jun 26, 2014 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Obama sees himself as dictator..protected by his lackey in Justice, holder…if we are to get our country back, congress should ..IMPEACH HOLDER AND OBAMA…then start a new..almost anybody is better than these two probably dishonest , self serving hucksters..

Jun 26, 2014 3:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

Reminds me of little kids arguing on the playground…

You’re dumb.

Really… Why am I dumb?

Because you don’t know how planes work.

So how do they work then?

You’re dumb, because you don’t know how planes work.

Yeah, I know… So tell me how they work.

You’re dumb.

That’s pretty much the attitude of all the hysterical C02 people. Don’t ever expect anything resembling a legitimate discussion, because you won’t get it… You’ll just get the same old tired insults. Which everybody learned by the time that they were 10 years old, usually means that the person doing the insulting, is basically clueless.

There’s thousands of scientists that see huge flaws in the theory of man-made C02 warming. But of course, those scientists don’t count. Only the ones that agree with the current government count.

Jun 26, 2014 3:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

Too many of these left leaning posts want to bring faith into the argument. While some fringe will in some way try to do that, most will not. As a person of strong faith myself, I do not need to pit my faith to the false doctrine of climate change. That is not to say I deny climate change, but that the alarmist attitude of the opportunistic left is more cultish than Jim Jones or David Koresh(sp). The denial of the the significance of humaninduced climate change and its perceived catastrophic consequences comes from repeatedly finding out that those pushing have manipulated data, lied, etc. Most of the supporters immediately dismiss some very highly regarded and award winning scientists from around the globe in very prestigious positions, simply because they “dare” provide credible and significant opposing evidence. The attacks against these “denier” scientists are rarely if ever based on arguments against their findings, but rather are childish and mentally small ad hominem attacks against the person and character of the man/woman. Just another glaring example of leftist hypocrisy of tolerance when they refuse to tolerate anything that they disagree with. I is not just a matter of intolerance, but aggressive and often violent opposition to these ideas.

Jun 26, 2014 3:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gilliardc wrote:

The POTUS is right to mock the ignorant science deniers. Climate change is real. We have to invest in cleaner energy sources if we want to have clean air to breath, unpolluted water to drink, and unpolluted land to live on.It’s really a shame that the repugs are making us look like fools on the world stage by embracing ignorance over science.

Jun 26, 2014 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

To gilliardc:

No one is denying that the climate changes. What the majority of the unwashed question is the degree of impact humans actually have on climate change. One volcanic eruption will place more CO2 in the air than man will in decades. Fauna in general places significant amounts of CO2 into play.

The time frame over which the true believers are gathering their data from is equal to a single point in the geological time framework they are trying to extraploate their data to. You can draw any line going any direction you want through a single point.

The models being used to draw their extrapolations failed in their prediction of the last 10 years, it was supposed to be a significant warming trend and it was not. We have just had one of our cooler winters in recent memory, again not predicted by their modeling.

This about gov’t control of your life, and a significant portion of the worlds economy. We would be significantly better off trying to limit the overall size of the world’s population to something that is esily sustainable.

Jun 26, 2014 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

I had three different doctors misdiagnose me and tell me I had something I didn’t have. When I questioned them and expressed doubt, they arrogantly dismissed me. I suffered for years because of this, until I actually took the time to study and learn… and then I figured out what was wrong with me on my own. I then fixed the problem. So much for the doctor analogy. Learn on your own… Come up with your own conclusions… Anybody who goes around making fun of people, when they themselves clearly have zero understanding of something… Just proves that they are the ones who are ignorant.

Jun 26, 2014 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

rlm328 wrote:
“No one is denying that the climate changes. What the majority of the unwashed question is the degree of impact humans actually have on climate change.”

Actually, people USED to deny that as well. As recently as 10 years ago, in fact. I’m old enough to recall when this debate was “Is the climate changing or isn’t it?” with the same two sides: Republicans vs. Everyone else in the world.

But the change has been so rapid in the past decade, there is now no longer any shadow of a doubt that it IS changing. But republicans are still beholden to corporate interests of the fossil fuel industry. So now with the FACT of climate change, the debate has become “Are humans causing this change or is it natural?” With the same two sides: Republicans vs. Everyone else in the world.

Give it another 10 and republicans will have finally accepted that humans are the reason for the accelerate climate change. But they will STILL be bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. And so the debate will become “Can we do anything to mitigate the damage we have caused, or is it too late?” And it will be the same two sides: Republicans vs. Everyone else in the world.

Jun 26, 2014 5:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

BeRealistic wrote:
“they “dare” provide credible and significant opposing evidence.”

They don’t do anything of the sort, which is exactly why they are not taken seriously. They provide junk science because they are paid by the likes of the Heartland Institute. I understand that you are ideologically driven to puff up a handful of cranks into credible debate, but it doesn’t work. A handful of cranks is a handful of cranks and always will be, and Republican praise of those cranks is an embarrassment for the USA.

BeRealistic wrote:
“The attacks against these “denier” scientists are rarely if ever based on arguments against their findings, but rather are childish and mentally small ad hominem attacks against the person and character of the man/woman.”

Rubbish. Every single bit of junk science dreamt up by the deniers has been taken apart multiple times and proven to be junk. When deniers keep repeating the same disproven junk over and over, parading it as ‘credible and significant opposing evidence’ – then we laugh at them.

Jun 26, 2014 9:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Miner49er wrote:

That’s what you get when you elect a utopian dilettante. Tens of trillions of dollar of wasteful spending and a self-imposed energy crisis.

Jun 26, 2014 10:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

rim328 wrote:
“One volcanic eruption will place more CO2 in the air than man will in decades”

This is exactly why Obama and the rest of us laugh at climate change deniers.

Fact: the worlds volcanoes combined, in one year, produce around 135 million tonnes of CO2 -> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Fact: humans, in one year, are responsible for around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 -> http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm#environment

So, the climate change deniers are factually wrong – volcanic CO2 production is not ‘one volcano = a decade of humans’ at all. One volcano barely registers. All volcanos together are a tiny fraction of human CO2.

This nonsense has been proven wrong a thousand times… but climate change deniers keep repeating it – just as I described above.

Two things to notice here. First is that the figures are common knowledge, easily found for those who want to check. But our climate change denier didn’t do that. Why should that approach be treated with respect instead of laughing at it?

Second, that 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause global warming. Logic says that all the CO2 *must* cause warming – but climate change deniers say it isn’t.

I keep asking for a sensible explanation of why that 30 billion tonnes per year of CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas as required by their denial, but I never get one.

Jun 26, 2014 10:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin
It is obvious you take the initiative to produce data to support your opinions. However, it is important that the source of data is accurate, the data is represented correctly (i.e., grouped accurately and meaningful/useful – terminology in representation is important) and statistical presentations are not slanted for a specific purpose (to support the source groups initiatives). It is also important to “prove” that the data has a direct correlation such that confusion does not exist as whether two or more activities are coincidental or related (cause and effect). Concerning research, one notable scientist stated:
“Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing.”

To address the data you provide, although may be accurate, it actually only provides coincidental activities at this time, not tested but evaluated with conclusions – and the conclusions are the results of Models. Models are essentially detailed programs developed by humans (who are influenced by source of income) which greatly influence which factors are significant and also the impact of these factors.

However, I am not saying that environmental initiatives are not necessary. Remember I have stated before, my income over the last several years has been the result of environmental initiatives. Also, I have worked for the Department of the Interior. It is “clear”, no pun intended, that the skies over Pittsburgh and Birmingham are much clearer now than in the peak of the steel industry.

One point to remember, there is big business (economic incentives) in pollution control equipment and alternate forms of energy, just as there is in energy production from existing technologies – And the lobbyists are strong.

The real issue at this time is whether the human influence is significant or whether it is coincidental. No real data or research proves the link.

One fact to keep in mind…there was no human influence on the ending of the previous ice ages and the temperature/climate has made significant changes without humans influence. Although, I do not have my reports available at this time, deforestation is one of the most significant factors (unless that is, the areas are reforested correctly) in the control of CO2.

I have camped and backpacked before and greatly believe in leaving no human trace behind but have seen much greater changes to the terrain by storm and infecting insects (and by the way, I watched an environmentalist program blame the damage to the trees in one of National Parks on power plant emissions (specifically SOx) when the it is well known that the tree damage was due to infestation by Woolly Adelgid.

With that being said, your values are important, just as those are of those you criticize. Both sides need to exist and both sides need to debate. Why, so we can reach an intermediate solution which will be more practical.

There are many other factors that need to be addressed (e.g., other countries’ influence, population levels and whether human influence can even be reduced/eliminated at all, relative influence, Darwinistic influence, natural (earth/solar) influence, etc.)

Jun 27, 2014 10:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013 wrote:
“To address the data you provide, although may be accurate, it actually only provides coincidental activities at this time, not tested but evaluated with conclusions – and the conclusions are the results of Models.”

What on earth are you taking about??

The data I provided simply shows that human CO2 is way larger that volcanic CO2. It is a straightforward comparison. There are no coincidences, no evaluations, no conclusions (unless seeing which is the larger figure is a problem), and no models. Are you drunk or something?

ready2013 wrote:
“One fact to keep in mind…there was no human influence on the ending of the previous ice ages and the temperature/climate has made significant changes without humans influence.”

This is another example of why we laugh at climate deniers. This straw-man argument too has been proven to be nonsense a thousand times, but you you deniers just keep on repeating it.

Yes, the climate changes. We all know that and nobody is saying it doesn’t, which is why it is a straw-man argument. But never before in known history has it changed at the rate at which it is changing now. This is common knowledge, easily found by anyone except, it seems, US Republicans.

Jun 28, 2014 7:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin, MODELS – the tool used to say that Human sources of CO2 is the primary cause of Climate change
The coincidental data is human presence and climate change (nothing to do with volcanoes and humans)

I had hoped you fully understood these concepts, and thus did not go into further detail…apparently you don’t really understand the information you present. A typical response by the libbies and demos
(and of course many on both sides).

Straw man … really… great argument. I trust you can do better than this.

again, rate of change comparison to human presence is at best at this time coincidental data.

but lastly, I am not in favor of no environmental regulations, it’s just the outrageous arguments the left pursues…maybe saying the sky is falling often enough will get those oblivious to the world around them to look up.

Jun 28, 2014 8:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013

Okay… as you seem to be having trouble understanding a simple comparison:

Where is the data you say I presented showing humans are the primary source of CO2 causing climate change?

Where is the data you say I presented about human presence and climate change?

As far as I knew I was presenting data showing that humans produce more CO2 than volcanoes and nothing more – I can’t wait to see where you are getting all this pretentious nonsense about models and coincidental human presence from. This should be funny!

Jun 28, 2014 11:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin,
I was not addressing only your comments but the implied content of the liberal left that attempts to correlate the relation of human CO2 with climate changes. otherwise, your comments are just presenting data with no conclusion.

FUNNY…always trying to demean others. I have grown to expect this from the left. I truly hope you have a nice weekend.

Jun 28, 2014 1:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin,
I see you have not got caught up in the communication on the article…Obama mocks Republican lawsuit, pushes for immigration reform
I guess you may be a somewhat reasonable person!!! I just don’t concur with all your ideas.

Jun 28, 2014 10:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013 wrote:
“Bakhtin,
I was not addressing only your comments…”

Remember what you said?

“To address the data you provide”

That is only my comments.

ready2013 wrote:
“…but the implied content of the liberal left”

AKA stuff you just made up. That is fine if you want to argue with stuff you made up yourself, but don’t lie by saying I said it.

ready2013 wrote:
“your comments are just presenting data with no conclusion.”

I thought that 30 billion tonnes being more than 135 million tonnes was so obvious that even a climate change denier would understand it without me needing me to ‘present a conclusion’. Clearly, I was wrong so here is the conclusion just for you:

“The 30 billion tonnes of CO2 from human sources is a lot more CO2 that the 135 million tonnes produced by the combined volcanoes of the world”

Happy now?

Jun 28, 2014 12:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.