|

Knoll: Global warming debate over?

The debate is over

Les Knoll crop

Les Knoll

That’s what liberals say about man causing global warming. They say there is scientific consensus our climate is warming the earth due to man emitting carbon (CO2) into the atmosphere.

I have written in the past that liberals live in a fantasy world. They do not function in the world of reality and their insistence on manmade GW, in spite of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, is proof positive to what I just said.

Yup, the debate is over and not that man causes global warming, but that liberals don’t care the least about facts. The global warming issue proves liberals live in a fantasy world. This writing is about GW, but there are a multitude of issues that causes one to question what planet these people live on. Obviously, not planet earth.

There is far more proof there is a God than the global warming claim of the religious fanatical environmental liberal alarmists. GW in America, unfortunately, is less about science then it is about politics.

If GW is such a big problem in today’s world how do you explain there was a period in the Middle Ages prior to the carbon emitting 18th and 19th century Industrial Revolution where the earth’s surface was warmer than it is now? How do you explain there has been no discernible warming for the past eighteen years?

There are no computer models that can be created to prove GW beyond any doubt. The earth, the atmosphere, the ocean, other planets, etc. are far too complicated for any scientist to create a computer model that takes in all aspects of our universe.

It has been 3,000 some days (over 8 years) since our last major hurricane. Hurricanes, according to liberals are caused by GW. Brisbane, Australia just experienced its coldest weather in 103 years. Polar ice caps are not melting, in fact just the opposite is taking place. There have been hundreds of record cold temps this past winter and to claim the cold temps are caused by GW proves my point about lack of reality. Meteorologists have difficulty predicting climate conditions two weeks out yet the alarmists think they can predict years into the future. Absurd.

If we are to believe liberals, why the lies, distortions, and corruption occurring in the scientific community regarding climate change? The hockey stick theory of Professor Mann turned out to be bogus as did far too many studies by other scientists.

Follow the money! Academics have sold out when it comes to ethics. Professors are paid to report man causes climate change. Any scientist in or out of the academic community that is a skeptic is ostracized by his colleagues and can forget about further grants from our liberal government. GW alarmist Barack Obama, the past five years, has wasted 120 billion on this agenda. That’s a huge story in itself inasmuch as it would get any white Republican president impeached.

GW is all about transforming America. It’s all about politics, not science. Worst of all, it’s all about big government taking away our freedoms as it controls more of our lives.

Whether there is GW or not, how does America, representing 5% of the world’s population, rein in China and India and many other countries when it comes to carbon emissions? The corrupt and liberal United Nations would love to have the U.S. bear 75% of the world’s cost to bring the “unproven GW theory” under control. And, our august pres would gladly pay for it even though we don’t have the money to do it. Obama would simply add it to our already unsustainable 17 trillion dollar debt.

Another myth is that Obama’s party is for the poor and the other political party is not. GW government mandates would hurt the poorest of the poor more than anybody else by escalating energy costs.

When are these liberals going to get real about anything? Probably never.

KSK CHRISTMAS
Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.
  • Leslie Graham

    What a pathetic Gish-gallop of re-hashed and thousand-times-falsified denialtist junk.
    Not even worth parsing.
    Shame on you.

    • Chris

      Contemplating dismantling his garbage point by point if I find time later today. I wonder how this mans brain works to say things that have no evidence. Just repeating what he hears from rush and hannity. No free thought for Les.

      • Reality Hits You Hard Bruh

        Trust me, you won’t “find time.” You liberals always have these conversations about “evidence” but can never come up with anything that doesn’t cite the same old proven lie documents originally produced by “liberal scholars.” Give it up already and stop acting like you know something.

        • Chris

          LMAO. Proven lie documents? Where’s your citation on that. Sounds like another Rush comment. I’ve posted the evidence on hays post a variety of times. In the thousands of climate science research papers that have been published in the last couple of decades over 97% have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening and humans are likely the cause of a majority of it.

          Climate change isn’t political ‘bruh.’ It’s science. It’s peer reviewed observational science.

          • Reality Hits You Hard Bruh

            Once again, no evidence. Liberals like to talk about “evidence” for everything, but they never actually show it.

      • 3GSimpleton

        What you think of Les doesn’t matter.

        It says more about you than it does about him.

    • 3GSimpleton

      Step 1 in the Eco-Nazi handbook…attack the speaker.

      • Chris

        Step 1 in the Climate Denier handbook: offer no real peer-reviewed citations.

        • 3GSimpleton

          Hi Chris…

          Read this:

          http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/lorenz1962.pdf

          The authors of this peer-reviewed paper say:

          “When our results concerning the instability of non-periodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly non-periodic, they indicate that the prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”

          That was in 1962. I have yet to see the points made in this paper refuted, and I would be pleased if you can refer me to a peer-reviewed paper that contradicts the claim cited above.

          Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of my comment.

          • Chris

            Easy one.

            “Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2″ (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
            http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

          • 3GSimpleton

            Thanks Chris.

            However, I see nothing which addresses the fundamental point I raised:

            ” In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”

            While the models may indeed have “evolved”, the models and their performance was not the point of my post.

            Observations, on which the models are based, remain inadequate to the task. Therefore, prediction with any degree of precision remains impossible.

            Cheers…

          • Chris Golledge

            You have confused predicting weather with predicting climate. It is a bit like saying we can’t predict individual dice rolls; therefore, we can’t be sure that the odds in Las Vegas are in favor of the house.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Your analogy is silly, as we do not know the bounds of the climate system, whereas we do know the bounds of any particular dice game.

            You should read the 1962 Lorentz paper dealing with non-periodic systems and their behavior. In the first instance, prediction at pretty much any temporal scale is an impossibility due to a lack of precision in measurements of current conditions. Secondly, the resolution of the “climate models” is insufficient even if the initial conditions were very well known. Third, the behavior of the system is non-periodic and subject to state changes when perturbed.

            These limitations cannot be overcome by wishful thinking.

          • Chris Golledge

            Laws regarding the conservation of matter and energy bound the equations, but that does not really matter. You could have an unbounded function, like a Gaussian distribution, and still be able to predict the behavior reasonably well. Your second point is wishful thinking and your third seems to argue against perturbing the climate beasty.

            Who has shown Arrenhius to be wrong?

          • 3GSimpleton

            The Earth is not a closed system.

            Arrenhius’ work is irrelevant.

            Address the points Lorenz made without resorting to a strawman argument.

  • Lefty54

    Why does the Hays Post publish such poorly written drivel? Every article by this guy is exactly the same. The Hays Post can do better.

    • stone_cold_steve_austin

      Because his comments always start a huge debate. That is exactly what he wants. I would keep publishing him as well. Sells advertising.

      • DERP20

        wur der evidence!?!?!? wer dit @?!?!?

    • Sierra guy

      Because Les rates right up there with Pat Lowry as a drivel writer. The Koch brothers love both of them.

  • wake up

    In the 70’s it was global cooling. In the 90’s it was a hole in the ozone. Now global warming. What will be the next crisis your government invents in order to separate you from your money. Warmers you need to pull your heads out of your rears

    • Chris

      Wrong! Global cooling had minuscule support from the scientific community. It was a myth the media latched onto. Holes in the ozone layers are easily observable and have nothing to do with warming and everything to do with increased cancer causing uv rays reaching the earth. Anthropogenic global warming has huge support and evidence from the science community. You my friend, need to pull your head out of the nether regions of your uneducated conservative talking heads.

      • Reality

        Where is your non government/liberal “think tank” purchased evidence? Liberals talk a lot about evidence but can never seem to produce it. I won’t be waiting, but I will check back to see nothing but rhetoric.

        • Free Thinker

          You don’t science much do you…

          • Derp1

            Exactly what I said. Rhetoric.

        • Chief59
          • Derp3

            Sites all government sponsored “news” and wikipedia #FAIL

            Where is the non predetermined studies by independent organizations at? Can’t get them? Those ones still say what you want them to, don’t they?

          • Chief59

            Ten years ago people laughed at Wikipedia references. Today, it is well policed and almost always completely accurate.

          • Derp4

            Wow, you are that dumb, aren’t you. You professors probably just passed you through to your degree with your 2.5 GPA to get you out of their offices.

            HERE HERE!!! CHIEF59 HAS PROCLAIMED THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOW A VALID REFERENCE SITE! IT MUST BE BECAUSE OBAMA’S CREW ARE THE ONES DOING THE FAVORABLE EDITING NOW!

          • Chief59
          • CHIEF59SURPRISEDMETODAY

            OMG YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO CLAIM WIKIPEDIA AS A VALID SOURCE! I ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE DUMB, BUT I DIDN’T THINK YOU WERE THIS DUMB.

          • Chief59

            Not being able to adapt to a world where things change is probably the reason you want to live with your head in the sand. It’s not actually happening if you can’t see it, right?

          • Derp10

            yup, not being able to prove your beliefs with actual facts probably makes it more of a faith than reality.

          • 3GSimpleton

            It’s not actually happening because there are no OBSERVATIONS of it actually happening.

            I use observations in the empirical sense.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Bullshit.

          • Free Thinker

            You mean Faux News?

          • Derp3

            SEE THAT IS ALL YOU GOT! BECAUSE YOU ARE A MSNBC HO LMAO I DON’T EVEN WATCH TELEVISION! U ACTUALLY READ MUCH BRUH? OBVIOUSLY NOT

            WHERE DA EVIDENCE? WHERE IT AT? IF IT IS SUCH A PROVEN FACT, THERE MUST BE LOADS OF IT FROM INDEPENDENT, NON GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH! WHERE IS IT AT?

          • Free Thinker

            Clearly you are highly educated. Your use of “DA” and “U” combined with all caps lock, and creative punctuation, have shown me that I am outclassed by you in the academic arena.

          • Derp9

            Wur iz dat resrch @? sowz iz alrdy!

          • 3GSimpleton

            But obviously you reign in the pointless sarcasm category.

          • Derp3

            Do you have reading issues? “Where is your non government/liberal “think tank” purchased evidence?”

          • Derp3

            Why is Florida still above water? Why are the polar bears still alive? Why is there still ice? Why aren’t there large inland seas in California? Why is everything your “enlightened ones” predict wrong?

          • Reality Check

            Because, just as it took time to get to this point, it will take time to get to those points. The ice is in the process of disappearing, You can google that and actually see the progress. The polar bears are having issues with their territory shrinking, the ocean is rising. Things don’t happen overnight. Just as our aquifer is shrinking here and it took decades of overuse to accomplish, these things will come to pass and if you actually open your eyes and look, you can see it happening..

          • 3GSimpleton

            The Guardian?

            Really?

        • Chris

          this contains EVERY single denial argument your ignoramuses have dreamt up. They include refutations based on peer reviewed science (also known as citations). http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      • 3GSimpleton

        And you would do well to understand how ozone is naturally created and destroyed in the stratosphere, and how this is a key component of what happens to the energy we receive from the sun.

    • Chief59

      Just what exactly is this grand scheme that is going to take us all to the cleaners? It’s got to be where they make us dependant on oil, right? Oh wait…

      • GotCha

        Oh so you are saying that “global warming” doesn’t really exist, but you have something against fossil fuels. Now we are getting at the truth in your heart (faith in liberalism)

        • Chief59

          If that’s what you got out of that comment, sure.

          Since you couldn’t grasp sarcasm before, I just wanted you to know the above sentence, in fact, is sarcasm.

          • ComeonChief59GiveMEdaEVIDENCE

            Oooo wow so you got that “evidence” that you always talk about yet?

          • Chief59

            You want me to provide evidence for a sarcastic remark? Okay.

          • derp999

            Wher da evidence of your faith in global warming? der

      • 3GSimpleton

        It’s called “making restitution payments to developing nations so they won’t develop using fossil fuels”.

  • Chief59

    Les Knoll, one of the great fantasy and humor writers of our time.

    • Yahooserious

      I put him right up their with arthur c. clarke. Difference is Clarke was a thinker.
      I love how the right preaches about the legacy we will leave our kids and grand kids in relation to the national debt; they are right, however, they refuse to even discus the “other” legacy we could leave them, a inhospitable planet.

      • Derp22

        I love how the left preaches caring and understanding until you ask them for evidence for any other their beliefs! Classic stuff!

        • Chris

          evidence on what in particular? I’ll provide citations for any climate question you have, buddy.

          • Derp13

            I’ve ask plenty of questions here, but all I get in reply is the typical liberal loser’s “I’ve got EVIDENCE” with nothing else. Get a life, dumbarse

      • stone_cold_steve_austin

        I believe the majority of the right (which includes me) believe we should do what is necessary to reduce pollution of our land and air. The “what is necessary” is where the problem lies. It is typical of both the right and left to want change but not really willing to give up what it would take. I really don’t want to give up my truck. I like having my home air conditioned for a reasonable price. I just believe we will have to find some middle ground in which we can both tolerate the pace of progress. I believe we are currently heading in the right direction with green energy. I don’t however believe the EPA is doing this progress any favors. Preventing the energy companies from producing a cost effective product is not the method to create a win for planet earth. Like I keep hearing from many liberals, the dedt has to get worse before it can start getting better. That is the same with the environment. It is going to get worse before it can start to get better.

        • Chief59

          I agree that a middle ground has to be found. However, that can’t happen until everyone agrees that there is actually a problem. When certain politicians on the right claim that climate change is a hoax, and there is zero evidence to support it, that creates a problem.

          The climate is changing. How much of that actually has to do with humans is up for debate still, but denying that nothing is happening is idiotic. Look at Brownback, for example. He’s now claiming that wind production has doubled under him, but is fighting to eliminate the renewable energy mandate.

          The truth is, we need to get past debating whether climate change is real, and start doing something about it. That can’t happen when people pretend it’s not real.

          I agree with a lot of what you said, with the exception of it having to get worse before it gets better. That is the likely outcome, but it doesn’t have to be. As long as groups like Americans for Prosperity push for eliminating alternative sources of fuel, our politicians that are bankrolled by them will continue to push their agenda. That shouldn’t be the way things work.

          • Derp99

            gotta have that faith without any facts, bruh! Tell China, Russia, Australia, about your faith! lmao

          • stone_cold_steve_austin

            My comment of it getting worse before it gets better basically means that no one is going to give up their vehicle. It is going to take time for a transition to occur. It will be painful but it will eventually happen. I am not a big fan of the early results from alternative fuels but I think with time it can only improve. I am not a big believer in what most call climate change. I do believe we need to do whatever we can as quickly as we can to improve our air. I do believe that we polute the air and land more today than we ever have. I just don’t think there is enough data that shows we are the sole blame for the temperature rising. A typical comment from both the right and left, “I am willing to take part of the blame just not all of it”. I think Mother Earth goes through her cycles and this is one of the warmer cycles. Bottom line is we are not making it any easier for her.

          • Chris

            The Earth does go through cycles, however this cycle is going at a pace faster than ever before. Last time there was major global warming–70% of the Earth’s land animals/plants and 90% of marine organisms went extinct. P-T extinction event.

          • Chris

            How much of it has to do with humans really isn’t up for debate anymore. We are the primary cause. There are obviously other factors, but we are the major driving force.

  • Libs (Chief59)’s reality

    Most liberals still have “faith” in “global warming.” That is what they need, because you have to have faith to believe in something that has no real world facts to prove it. Liberalism is a religion where the god is the state, and anything the state says should be taking with the up most faith. Those who don’t have the faith are considered heretics and should be burnt alive.

    • Chief59

      But you dummy! Every winter we see global cooling and every summer we see global warming! THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING YOU IDIOT! HOPE! CHANGE! BELIEVE! FORWAR!! OBAMA!

      • Chief59

        Now you’re replying to yourself? It warms my heart that you despise me so much that you only troll, without ever posting anything of significance.

        • Chief59

          GET OUT OF HERE YOU STUPID IMPOSTER! YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE ME LOOK BAD WITH YOUR NONSENSE! HOPE! CHANGE! BELIEVE! FORWAR! OBAMA!

    • Free Thinker

      You win the prize for the dumbest comment of the week.

      • Derp2

        Rehetoric only. You are the one that has to prove something, since you are making the claim. Keep going, smarty.

        • Chief59

          I don’t think you understand what the word “rhetoric” means.

          • Derp6

            oooo see no evidence! Wow, you liberals sure are smart with all of your faith!

        • Free Thinker

          So what are Les’s scientific credentials? Are you still waiting to see if gravity is real? Les has zero factual information in this article, and zero original thought, and I’m the one spouting “rhetoric”? Was “Rhetoric” on your word of the day calender?

          • Chief59

            If “rhetoric” was on his word of the day calendar, he might actually know what it meant.

          • Derp3

            I DON’T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IT, FHSU BA GRAD

          • Free Thinker

            You sad because you dropped out of NCKTC?

          • Derp5

            Ooooo liberals get upset when asked for non partial references! Tell me more about your “evidence” called “faith”

          • Free Thinker

            Faith is your bailiwick, not mine. I rely on observable, and repeatable evidence.

          • Derp7

            Where is the evidence then? It must be all over the place if it is a “fact” like your faith has you believe! Where is the evidence? There is evidence for gravity, moron! Where is the evidence for your faith in the THEORY of “global warming”? WHERE IS IT AT? WHERE IS IT AT?

            YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM THAT SOMETHING IS CHANGING AND IT IS BECAUSE OF HUMANS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE NON PARTIAL AND REPEATED EVIDENCE OF SAID CLAIM OR IT IS FALSE!

            “YOU GOTTA HAVE FAITH, BRUH”

          • Free Thinker

            Ohhh, so you’re one of those “the sun is the only cause” sheep. Or perhaps you’re in the “Jesus is coming back soon so it doesn’t matter” camp. You are demanding evidence, chief provided you with some high level stuff that you MIGHT grasp, but I don’t think you’re qualified to understand climate data.

            It’s the simpletons like you that are making progress difficult in this world. You SCREAM for evidence on issues that have a very real impact to humanity as a whole, but have no issue with blowing people up who read a different religious book than you do WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS. Seems like all the GW team wants is for you to clean up how you live a little, not sacrifice your firstborn son or something crazy like that…faith right?

          • Derp8

            You are of that camp. I am an atheist anarchist, so you are wrong again. What a surprise, huh? You have no evidence at all proving your faith in global warming and liberalism (the name of your religion) in general (which to you is just like those confused people’s belief in a religion) correct. You are just as bad as those religious folks you hate, except probably worse, since you are more forceful in making others “believe” in your religion. Make the world better for everyone else and drink some bleach.

          • Free Thinker

            Anarchists don’t usually live with their mom. I don’t hate religious people, I really don’t like you though.

          • derp11

            Yes, pray to your lord and savior obama while bating to your prophet al gore’s video, liberal loser. Have fun when your faith crashes down around you. But faith is pretty persistent. I mean, florida is suppose to be under water and cali suppose to be 50% seas now, but ya know wouldn’t want those wrong prophecies to get in the way of YOUR FAITH

          • derp12

            Why do you sound so much like a christians whose faith i am attacking? is this your religion? It sure sounds like it.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Still waiting for you first intelligent comment.

          • Free Thinker

            Ohhhh, now I get it, to you anarchist = trolling. Now I understand. You just want everything to be shiet for everyone!

          • Derp13

            Oh no! Did I attack your faith in liberalism! Poor baby! Go pray to your Al Gore DVDs! Michael Moore has 6 houses! He says “thanks, sucker!” lmao drink some bleach, loser. Your faith is dead.

          • Derp13

            OOOOO “I GOT OWNED SO IT MUST BE A TROLL! THAT COULDN’T HAPPEN TO ME! I HAVE LOTS OF EVIDENCE!” LOSERS.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Great, so do I.

            Why don’t you share some?

      • Derp2

        #Free Thinker yet only repeats what his liberal lords tell him to.

    • Scott Hodgins

      I love that, to try to discredit your opponents you have to trash your own philosophies. What do you think Jesus would think about you trashing the ideas of faith and religion?

      Here’s a secret. “Liberal” is a label, not a group of people. I’m very much a socialist but I also believe in the free market. I think people who work harder and innovate should be entitled to earn more than others. What does that make me? It makes me normal.

      And, by the way, it’s “utmost” not “up most”.

      • DERP9999999999999999999

        “Im very much a socialist but I also believe in the free maket” Wow, you are a special kind of stupid, aren’t you. I think the type of government you are referring to is FASCISM. Why don’t you come out and say it, or are you so ignorant that you do not know what FASCISM actually is?

  • BEATTHELIBSAGAIN

    SEE READ IT ALL LIBERALS HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND NEVER DID. THEY ARE JUST SILLY STUPID PARROTS FOR THE FASCIST STATE PROVE YOUR CLAIMS STATIST SCUM

  • Chief59

    GLOBAL WARMING IS LIKE TOTALLY TRUE I TOTTALLY JUST READ SOME HASH TAGS ON TWITTER ABOUT IT! IT IS SO RIGHT! HOPE! CHANGE! BELIEVE! FORWAR! OBAMA!

  • Chief59

    The trolls are really out in full force today. This site used to be a place where local people could actually discuss things in a (fairly) reasonable manner. Now, it’s just a big pissing contest overrun by people who make thirty posts attacking others. I miss the old Hays Post. Yadda, yadda, yadda, get off my lawn you darn kids, etc.

    • Chief59

      And by “(fairly) reasonable manner” I mean by agreeing with me or at least not requiring me to prove anything I say.

      • Chief59

        As opposed to your philosophy of simply attacking anyone who disagrees with you? I’ve backed up my positions multiple times across multiple articles. You? Not so much, unless that position is that you are a troll. If that’s the case, mission accomplished troll.

        • DerpsUnlimited

          You haven’t backed up anything. The only thing you even attempted to back up is your faith in “wiki being a good research site”

          • Chief59

            The speed at which you reply back to me only further proves that you are only here to inflame and attack. Keep up the hard work. I’m done with you for today. Troll.

          • derpsquadChiefCaptin

            Call the kettle black, pot

  • 3GSimpleton

    Les asks:

    “If GW is such a big problem in today’s world how do you explain there was a period in the Middle Ages prior to the carbon emitting 18th and 19th century Industrial Revolution where the earth’s surface was warmer than it is now? How do you explain there has been no discernible warming for the past eighteen years?”

    Damn good questions, Les.

    • Chief59

      Here’s another question. When you are trolling the internet for climate articles, do you just do a simple google search, or do you go around, site by site, until you find something to your liking? Almost all of your 800 comments repeat the same thing, spanning the stretch of the whole internet.

      • 3GSimpleton

        Awww. I’m so flattered you care enough to check up on what I have written elsewhere.

        Actually, I subscribe to left-wing propaganda sites. Then I listen for outrage. When I trace back to the source of the expressed outrage, I often find a reasonable person asking reasonable questions.

        Just like this time.

        • Chief59

          Ah, that will known “left-wing propaganda site”” Hays Post. Considering this article was posted about five hours ago on a small local wrbsite, I can’t imagine it has made it into the circles of crazy that you inhabit. You searched out what you wanted to complain about. Plain and simple. Go home, you’re drunk.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Thanks for your kind advice. All the same, I think I’ll keep doing what I please.

  • Scott Hodgins

    1) “There is far more proof there is a God than the global warming claim of the religious fanatical environmental liberal alarmists. GW in America, unfortunately, is less about science then it is about politics.”

    By definition, faith in God requires a total lack of proof, otherwise there’d be no faith requirement. And how is it in one sentence you can achieve such hypocracy? Invoking a religious comparison while calling your opponents religious fanatics? GW, as you like to call it, is a concern that was forced onto the laps of politicians by scientists and concerned citizens. Your statement is invalid.

    2) “how do you explain there was a period in the Middle Ages prior to the carbon emitting 18th and 19th century Industrial Revolution where the earth’s surface was warmer than it is now?”

    The warmer temperatures were local to Europe, which only makes up 2% of the surface of the Earth. The average global temperatures are higher than they were back then.

    3) “How do you explain there has been no discernible warming for the past eighteen years?”

    Most likely, a natural cycle of cooling has been counteracting the warming. As this natural cooling cycle fades the temperatures will continue to rise.

    4) “Follow the money!”

    As in the lobbying money spent by oil, gas, and coal industries to block action on climate change?

    5) “Whether there is GW or not, how does America, representing 5% of the world’s population, rein in China and India and many other countries when it comes to carbon emissions?”

    It’s called political integrity. By not taking action at home, how can America hope to influence action abroad? India and China are wrestling with significant domestic problems. The US is the nation that has the ability to lead through innovation. As these technologies are developed they can be adopted by India and China, and there’s a lot of profit to be made in this. So it’s not an economic sacrifice. It’s an economic opportunity.

    6) “When are these liberals going to get real about anything? Probably never.”
    Because everything about your argument against climate change is wrapped up in anti-liberal rhetoric, you should be asking yourself when are you going to get real about something.

    Les Knoll only gets a turn on the soap box because people can’t help but watch a train wreck. He belongs in the Creation Museum where his loose grasp on reality is in style.

    • DERP999999999999999999

      Once again, a liberal talks a lot but never references reliable sources. Nice try.

      • Chris

        where’s your sources, troll?

        • DerpUALL

          I am not making a claim and forcing everyone to follow my directions, you on the other hand are. So once again, where are you sources, liberal loser?

          • cg22165

            Where would you like to start? Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1859, Arrenhius 1896…?

          • Yup

            How about the Al Gore videos you bate to?

      • Scott Hodgins

        Why cite sources for someone who’s scientifically illiterate? You have the same access to Google as I do. Do your own intellectual work for yourself for once.

  • alexander

    And here I thought Les was finally gonna have something more to say about Benghazi.

    I think a cat DOES have his tongue!

    C’mon Les, hit us with some of them Benghazi scandal trooths! It’s been months, now, and we’re pretty sure you were calling to impeach the President over it. You can’t just suddenly decide to ignore it.

  • passin_threw

    Crazy les has a knack for getting the socialists wound tight. I bet he has a beer in hand giggling at his popularity

  • Reality Hits You Hard Bruh

    READ DOWN FOR LIBERALS TALKING ABOUT THEIR “EVIDENCE” BUT NEVER PROVIDING ANY.

  • Will Farrell

    I think we need more cowbell in this article.

  • Educated
  • cg22165

    Tell us Les, what exactly do you know that is not known by the vast majority of people who have studied the issue since Fourier, 1824?

    Who told you the misinformation you are repeating?

Big-Bowl-Challenge-300x50