Do you believe in climate change?  Asking stupid questions; science or religion?

climate-change-denier

As the truth about liberal’s global warming end-of-the-world panic is being demystified, adherents who have more faith in government than science are becoming more shrill, threatening those who know the science of political deceivers, swindlers, and frauds.

Liberals ask Sen. Ted Cruz if he believes in climate change.  Like all conservatives, he believes as I believe – in climate change science, not in climate change politics.  The two have the same name, but where one is science fact, that Earth’s climate changes, the other is political science fiction, that climate change is caused by man and can be controlled by government.  The former requires knowledge, while the latter requires faith rather than reason, and ignorant liberals can’t tell the difference.

Climate change has been happening on planet Earth forever.  It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of scientific fact.  In liberal minds, those dreadfully ignorant of science who are susceptible to propaganda, which, like the Force, has a strong influence on the weak-minded, climate change is caused by corporations and can be fixed by government.  They believe the hokum that man’s CO2 pollution will cause climate change that will destroy the planet unless more taxes are paid to Democrats in government, and that money used to fund Democrat crony’s failing green energy initiatives will make the world a better place.  This isn’t science, it’s Communism.

“Making the world a better place is what evil people tell themselves when they do evil things.” – a victim of The Amerikans

NO ONE believes climate change doesn’t exist, is a fraud, or make believe.  The fraud is that man causes it and that government can fix it.  It is time that ignorant liberals be educated and liberal stupidity be put down for good!

Climate change alarmists get ripped by Sen. Ted Cruz’s good sense science

Related articles;

Refuting global warming science is elementary

You don’t need science to prove global warming is a scam

Climate change deniers vs. Chicken Littles

Climate change deniers and the idiocy of believing they exist

Other articles;

Morality in humanity

America is in severe decline under Democrat policies to deconstruct the nation.

Black Lives Matter – an analysis of America’s newest hate group

Islamists creating New Pakistans in Europe and America

Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad

(Please like and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.  To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)

(Debate: Honest people wishing to debate will post their remarks in the comments of the article.  Dishonest people wishing to dissuade people from reading the truth will post in the comments of a link.)

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Fundamentals and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Do you believe in climate change?  Asking stupid questions; science or religion?

  1. BT says:

    Ok, so let me get this straight. Twenty years or so ago, some scientists realized that CO2 is a green house gas and that putting a lot of it into our atmosphere where it will stay for decades might cause heat from the sun to be trapped and cause the earth’s temperature to rise. So they studied the phenomenon and predicted what would happen if we continued burning fossil fuels at the pace we do. It appears that the models they have built predict very accurately what the temperature rise would would be realized for a given increase in CO2. If anything, the rise is worse than they feared. So for the denier’s theory to be right that man has nothing to do with global warming to be correct, that means what was predicted 20 years ago was just an amazingly lucky guess and the fact that the temperature rise tracks very closely with CO2 output is just an amazing coincidence. Further, it means that a vast majorities of scientists studying this aspect of climate are all involved in a massive conspiracy for the sole purpose of giving the government more control over the population. Some scientists were skeptical in the beginning and because of their skepticism they were hired by companies like Exxon Mobile and paid big money to disprove the global warming theories. Those same brilliant scientists that worked for institutions like MIT and Stanford eventually came around to admit that global warming is real and the data is quite accurate. As a result, the CEO of Exxon, a company that has so much to lose if carbon dioxide gases are restricted, has made speeches admitting global warming is here and it is man made and caused by their main product. Yet so many politicians, who are funded by companies heavily invested in fossil fuels, throw up their hands and say they are not scientists. Therefore, they cannot understand the arguments and they do not have to consider them as they work to make policies that perpetuate the use of fossil fuels that are slowly going to kill millions of people on this planet. In the worst case scenarios, food gets much more expensive. Wars will be fought over land and resources. Trillions of dollars will be spent to relocate cities that will eventually otherwise be under water with sea level rises. Our behavior is putting all of these problems on the backs of our children and grand children. All because we are too selfish to assume responsibility for our actions.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      So you are saying that those “brilliant scientists” about whom Al Gore spoke in his movie in 2006 were absolutely accurate and all their predictions of the hockey-stick temperature graph have come true, the seas have risen over fifteen feet, and the North Pole melted completely away and will never have ice on it again? You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?

      Like

      • BT says:

        No one can be absolutely accurate when predicting the future and no credible scientist ever claims to be. There is always a probability associated with it and the predictions are only getting better with time as more research is done and as more data is input to the model. The scientists I referred to as brilliant were the ones hired by Exxon Mobile because they were brilliant and well respected and also highly skeptical about climate change. Through their review of the data, models, etc, they changed their minds and became believers even while being paid to prove that the theory of human caused climate change is wrong. Exxon has more to lose than anyone if carbon is taxed. Yet even they have come to admit the truth. What motivation do they have to join the majority of scientists that have been warming us of the problems that are already becoming real for millions of people around the world? The problems with drought, fires, floods, etc., are only beginning. Show me where anyone has said the North Pole would be completely melted by now. Or that sea levels would have risen by 15 feet by now. Or just keep making stuff up and calling names while God’s green earth and his people parish.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        “North Pole would be completed melted by 2013” – Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth. He also said that the seas would rise 25 feet by 2020. We who know better have been mocking him for years. (You should never make predictions of disaster that will come true in your own lifetime lest you be revealed as a fraud.) Speaking of making things up, you should perhaps investigate the “Exxon scientists” you claim have been converted. That sounds like another phony story designed to dupe people like yourself into believing things like;

        The great storms and disasters are just beginning? That’s what Al Gore said in 2005 when Katrina hit New Orleans – and lo! there hasn’t been a major hurricane to hit the States in the last ten years despite the hockey stick warming. Get a clue.

        Like

    • anne says:

      There is a scientific problem with your analysis. NASA has proven that CO2’s work as a coolant and protect the earth from the damage that could be done by solar flares. If we actually could succeed in lessening the amount of CO2’s in the stratosphere, there would be a global warming. This is science, with real, verifiable data.

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

      This was reason enough to start calling it climate change instead of global warming. Those who have politicized science just aren’t sure what to do about those pesky CO2’s.

      Like

      • Sarah M. says:

        just from reading the article you posted we can see that reducing the CO2 in the STRATOSPHERE would not increase global warming. CO2 only acts as a cooling agent in the THERMOSPHERE according to the article. The CO2 present in the thermosphere represents a fraction of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Although CO2 in the thermosphere does cool Earth’s atmosphere relating to solar radiation, the CO2 in the lower levels of our atmosphere trap far more heat given off by the Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is explained on NASA’s website http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ Read the part about SOLAR IRRADIANCE. The Author of the article you mentioned even refers to the phenomenon in the footnotes of the article.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        I don’t put a lot of faith in NASA reports for two reasons. One, they have become unreliable under the Obama regime for their veracity and two, the GMA’s have been changing their narrative as their scam is exposed.

        Like

  2. Torus says:

    Interesting thing…
    Liberal, actually means that you oppose a big government and believe in the freedom of the individual

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      That’s Classic Liberalism which, in the 21st century is now called Christian Conservatism, which is what I am today, but in the 19th century I would be a liberal like Wasington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. 21st century liberals practice Social Liberalism which is just Communism usurping a new name to hide who they really are. The whole “social justice” movement is repackaged Communism. So when I say liberal I am referring strictly to modern liberalism, not classical.

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMagt says:

        What does Classical Liberalism have to do with Christianity? Classical Liberalism entails a secular government, with no favoritism for one religion over another.

        Jefferson and Lincoln (the other two presidents you list actually served before or after the 19th century by the way) were actually extremely skeptical of the Christian religions, and were far from conservative. Just read what they wrote! Jefferson was a radical in his time, and Lincoln, like all the early Republicans, was a progressive.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Christianity has everything to do with it. These men were all believers guided by Christian morality. They were considered “radicals” because they were considered to be peasants against rule by totalitarian kings. They were only progressive in their ideas of government by the people. They believed in secular rule because religious rule demands moral obedience to s totalitarian leader, and they didn’t consider religions other than Christianity, just its many conflicting sects.

        What you interpret to be skepticism of the Christian religion was their skepticism of church organizations, especially the Catholic Church, that gathered wealth and power unto itself. Classic liberalism was about a society advancing technologically with the moral guidance of Christianity. Today’s liberals are atheist socialist who are not actually progressive but regressive, wanting the government to be totalitarian and in control of the economy and dictating national morality. Modern liberals want to install the very fascist governments that caused all the destruction of the 20th century and threaten the world today.

        Like

  3. Jordan says:

    This is simple science. You burn carbon…You get carbon dioxide. In turn, the carbon dioxide prevents heat from leaving the planet. What is political about science. Does anyone argue over other fundamental facts of science. E=MC^2? Speed of light? No. If you want to deny science thats fine. But when the people who lead this country deny it, we have a problem. The only reason they deny climate change is because they are receiving money from the Koch brothers and other billionaires who rely on burning carbon to keep their billion dollar companies alive, and then uneducated people (Mostly Conservatives) believe the B.S. that the paid off politicians tell them. The most brilliant people in the world are telling us that climate change is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed. 97% of these scientists are trying to spread scientific literacy. Such a beautiful thing. and conservatives want to say its a leftist scam. My friends….. YOU are whats wrong with the world today. Don’t be on the wrong side of history. Educated yourselves for Christ sake.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      It’s very simple political science. You tell someone who understands nothing of science that burning creates CO2 and it heats up the earth. You don’t tell them that plants breath CO2 so it doesn’t accumulate to more than a trace gas in the atmosphere and when man makes more then more plants grow. And that 97% of scientists is from a pool of 80 scientists being paid by the government to study the effects of global warming and has as much validity as 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident gum.

      Like

  4. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    “And that 97% of scientists is from a pool of 80 scientists being paid by the government to study the effects of global warming and has as much validity as 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident gum.” No, not 97% of 80 scientists, 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011. The evidence is all listed here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

    If that still is not good enough for you, James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s