moonbattery logo

Dec 27 2012

Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers

True believers in global warming are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for those who won’t drink the Kool-Aid voluntarily:

I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

He justifies murdering his ideological opponents with the authoritarian trick of utilitarianism. Any crime can be excused if pointy-headed elitists decide that it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. As Parncutt puts it:

If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

That is, even if there is only a 10% chance that global warming is not a complete crock, it is still the equivalent of murdering 1 million people if you do not impose global totalitarianism and Medieval living standards in an attempt to prevent it. Therefore, by shooting a few thousand people who insist on clinging to politically incorrect notions of individual liberty, our rulers would actually be saving many lives. If killing a few thousand doesn’t do the trick…

Being a moonbat, Parncutt believes that even mass murderers should not be subject to the death penalty. Those who point out that he is full of baloney, however, must be killed for the greater good.

Combine utilitarianism, progressives’ rejection of any meaningful system of morality, and the shrill hysteria that has eggheads looking for final solutions, and the lame joke that is global warming could end up killing more people than communism. All we need is for the wrong people to be in charge — and they are already in charge. If they are able to consolidate their power sufficiently, who knows what lengths they will go to to make the world safe from humanity?

Meanwhile, it still hasn’t gotten any warmer for the past 16 years. But maybe shooting anyone who repeats it will make that inconvenient truth go away.

Professor-Richard-Parncutt
Parncutt: A Heinrich Himmler for the Age of Moonbattery.

On a tip from Smorfia48.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • Ummah Gummah

    .

    I bet he’s best friends will Bill Ayers who wants to break between 25 and 30 million eggs to make their communist omelette.

    .

  • Rotohammer

    Notice how the warming kooks refer to the past 16 years as a “pause” in global warming? I can instead refer to the mild warming prior to that as a pause in global cooling, and I would probably be more correct.

  • St. Gilbert

    Where do you suppose he stands on gun control?

  • Mr Evilwrench

    Wait, aren’t these largely the same psychotics that want to reduce the world population by 90%? Maybe I’m too intelligent to keep up with this.

  • Son of Taz

    If he gets in my sights, I’ll have no problem with my gun control.

  • Buffalobob

    Parncutt, algore, John Kerry, the Minaj De Twa of the warmest.

  • Kevin R.

    Nothing like a reign of terror to make society safe. Things like that start you just never know where they end.

  • TED

    ONE MORE reason to be ARMED!

  • Bob Roberts

    I posted about this on the open thread. I think it’s best not to give the actual link to the list in question, but it’s here if you want it apparently:

    Earth First calls for assassinations, provides addresses, puts families at risk.

    They try to give themselves plausible deniability with this statement in case any moonbats actually take them up on it:

    Let us say clearly, this is not a call to undertake assassinations of the elite scum who are pillaging the planet and enslaving the populace — but not because we think that is a bad idea. And it’s also not because we think killing CEOs and lobbyists is negative PR either. In fact, most everyone hates these creeps, and many would applaud their demise. Some would even be so enthusiastic as to make a bid on the assassin’s old underwear if given the chance in a government auction, as we found out last year, when the State sold off Ted’s personal belongings to further enrich the family of Unabomber victim Thomas J. Mosser, executive of corporate marketing giants Burson Marsteller.

  • http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm Wilberforce

    I’ve said it before, these people are ZPGers through and through. Utter ghouls. Google that term, and here’s the first website to show up. In fact, they had to rename the site to the more benign sounding http://www.populationconnection.org

  • M.Wilson

    The “professor” there is obviously not a math major, because that’s not how probability works.

    For one thing, the calculations are very different when you’re looking at the probability of a single event happening at all than when you’re working with the lethality rate of an event in progress. In addition, there is no 100% certainty unless your projection includes every possible outcome, and that kind of “prediction” is worthless because it predicts nothing.

    When talking about the likelihood of a single event (say, AGW catastrophe happening or not) the expected result is no event and zero casualties (with 90% certainty).

    When talking about a lethality rate then the mean would be one million, but that means there’s a 50% chance of being less than that (down to zero) and a 50% chance of being more(up to the entire population in question, in this case 10 million). The odds of it being precisely one million are astronomically small, while a standard deviation of a few hundred thousand in either direction would be able to capture a certainty in the 90% range.

    Note however that you cannot take an event’s chance of happening, apply it to a number that was obtained by estimating its lethality rate, and then say that’s how many people it will kill whether it happens or not. That’s retarded, because if an event doesn’t happen it kills zero people.

  • Jester

    I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers

    There you have it folks; it’s just as simple as that.

    I DARE any progressive to argue that liberal Democrats are peaceful, loving, tolerant, caring, and compassionate towards their fellow man.

  • MrBlonde

    My theory is that there is a 100% chance that 100% of the population will die.
    100% of the lunatic press will blame it on GW or guns.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Why even try to roll this ball uphill anymore ?
    Let us calculate the death toll, shall we ?

    Start with carbon taxes.
    Carbon taxes will drive up the costs of energy.
    How many will perish with an increase in home heating fuel ?
    How many will be unable to drive to the doctor when needed ?
    Even if they can take the bus, fares will increase as well.
    The price of fuel is also directly tied to the price of fertilizer.
    How many will die of starvation because the farmer suffers poor yields due to reduced usage because of the high cost of fertilizer ?
    Print all the food stamps you want. When store shelves are empty, they are worthless.
    Electricity
    How about an estimated death toll caused by constant brownouts ?

    So how many moonbats are these future deaths worth ?

  • Pingback: Earth First! Moonbats Call for “Eco-Assassinations” | Right Wing News

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.ca Reaganite Republican

    They must have beat the living crap out of this one in high school

  • Pingback: Australian Professor (Graz University-Austria) writes "Death-penalty for Global Warming Sceptics Manifesto" - Stormfront

  • Pingback: Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers « The Occidental Traditionalist

  • Jimbo

    “You must agree with everything I believe, or I will kill you.”

    Signed, The Typical Liberal

    News for you sick, stinking liberals; if someone’s out to get me, I’m going to get them first.

  • http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm Wilberforce

    Bring it.

  • jc14

    Damn if the little twerp doesn’t look a hell of a lot like Herr Reichsfurher SS!
    Seig Heil, you piss-ant POS!

  • Herbii

    if its a scheme or a hoax – then how come no one can offer up some real evidence (Other than just some natural cycles) to disprove man made / manmade natural Global Warming? while all the evidence to the contrary says otherwise?

    Before you get all bent out of shape with what I just said.. Please read on.. I know its a bit long, I apologize as what I am saying is science that is not witchery or a hoax.. b/c I think the debate should continue as it will only lead to improvements energy use and consumption..

    Sooo, when it comes to man made global warming –
    its simple chemistry – carbon atoms attract heat. absorb heat. greenhouse effect is real..

    according to the ice record which goes back about 1 million years. co2 ebbs and flows from 20parts per million to 150ppm of co2 in the atmosphere…

    when it lowers, we see an ice age in the geo record. when it rises, it warms.. this change from around 20 to 150 takes approx. 7000 years – from 1945 to 2011 we saw an increase of 240 to an all time 1 million year high of 390!! so what took nature 7000 years to move up 130ppm took only 70 years to increase 240ppm.. and these are carbon12 atoms – plant, organic matter, ie fossil fuels… (as deniers like to say that volcanoes are the cause..well this is again refuted b/c volcanoes emit carbon13 atoms.. however, these same carbon13 atoms do absorb heat.. and is precicesly why its man and natural..)..

    this doesn’t mean, we need to enforce unfair treaties like Kyoto wher every other country gets to increase emissions while the US must reduce.. what it does mean, is that we need to change.. its better all around, for our economy, for society, for our environment.. so when you really think about it.. there’s no fuss to be made.. just live your life as you normally do.. no one is forcing you to change or do anything..

    Some comments are talking about how carbon taxes will increase energy costs, etc.. Well, a simple rebuttal – energy costs are going up WITH or WITHOUT carbon taxes!

    the debate, and study into Global Warming leads to the research into improving alternative, renewable and cheaper forms of energy – unless your ok with paying $5 a gallon of gas? which will only continue to rise.. as some predictions have that in the next 10 to 20 years, solar power technology will have improved enough to make it afforadable enough to have a panel on your roof to heat, cool, power your home and even charge your car –

    So I might ask – who’s controlling who? politicians allowing energy companies to continue on with their monopoly making billions in profits every week – or scientists studying and improving renewable energy technologies for ALL of us to use? So that we have a choice!

    ***the debate for science and GW must continue but its also a debate that we can’t sit around and wait for an outcome as its not worth the risk.. Yes, there are no certainties. No guarantees that its man made. But, the evidence is overwhelming. Yes, what this Professor is saying is a bit much too!!

    So, some say man is not signficant enough to change the climate -
    We put a hole in the ozone layer of all things, by using hairspray in just 30 years in what took millions of years for the Ozone layer to evolve. chlorine atoms(CFCs) when heated (in this case by the sun) eat away at o3, (ozone).. I’m mentioning these figures b/c there is now this fringe that denies this existed too.. yet, the hole formed when CFCs were used, and the hole just so happens to be healing itself after they are banned..

    We also changed the climate during the dust bowl. All from just farming! by improper farming techniques, we created a drier, more arid soil that did not evaporate any moisture. thus prolonged an existing drought conditions, intensifying the drought and increased temperatures for 2/3 of the country – all from farming!!

    And, we’ve learned from the mistakes of using CFC’s and over using soil during the dust bowl which lead to more efficient and cheaper gases that are used in hairspray or cooling appliances.. Just like we changed our methods of farming prolonging hundreds of thousands of square miles of fertile land to be used over and over years into the future…

    However, I agree with the sentiment of others that I will do everything in my power to protect this planet for myself and future generations..

    Which is just typical, human stupidity to not do anything and not protect for our future..

    the real debate about GW is not if its real, b/c it is.. what it is about is we do NOT know what will happen and its an unbelievable risk too many uneducated people are willing to take..

  • Bob Roberts

    Well at least we know why he’s so wrong about climate change and it’s causes:

    As Parncutt puts it:

    If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

    No, that’s not correct.

    Clearly he flunked statistics.

    Plus the first part of that statement is based on false logic anyway.

  • Herbii

    not gotten any warmer in the past 16 years? – the reason why this is partly incorrect is b/c the new “normal” temperatures are warmer.. So some people are attributing this to temperatures ‘not’ changing.. but they failed to realize that the ‘normal’ temperatures of today.. Lows and Highs, are warmer than they were 20+ years ago..

    Also…. yes, some ‘glaciers’ have increased in size but if the planet has warmed in the past 16 years – we wouldn’t have seen a 30%+ reduction in size to the ice sheets in the Artic.

    Not only that, the article this ‘author’ cited at the dailymail has been refuted many times over.

    Typical politics. Everyone still uses sloppy science. Worse, they cherry pick to fit their ‘views’. And BOTH sides of the debate do this!

  • M.Wilson

    So you expect us to believe that humans have produced 75%+ of all CO2 in the atmosphere? I call bullshit.

    Additionally, your grammar, specifically your lack thereof, is painful to read. If you cannot understand the basics of English, how am I supposed to believe that you understand the complexities of global climate? This is further compounded by the fact that you do not cite any sources at all, leaving you attempting an appeal to authority while said authority is mysteriously absent.

    I can tell you that your idea that volcanoes emit only carbon 13 atoms is worthless on its face. Carbon 13 is an isotope that can be found in any carbon source, from ashes to oils, though it only forms 1% of all the world’s carbon. It is formed by the decay of certain unstable Nitrogen and Boron isotopes. And if you think you might have meant Carbon 14, that is an unstable isotope formed when cosmic rays strike nitrogen molecules in the upper atmosphere.

    As for the rest of your long, wandering, and mind-numbingly idiotic post: I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Herbii
    For the most part I will leave the actual climate data to others more versed in the subject.
    However you have revealed your cards at the end of a long post trying to convince us dubious science should be good enough for the gander with this:
    _____
    what it is about is we do NOT know what will happen and its an unbelievable risk too many uneducated people are willing to take.
    ______
    So there is this “unbelievable risk” that something (which we do not know) will happen.
    At least Al Gore is willing to throw a big disaster scenario out there in which there is a 100 percent chance he will be dead and buried long before being called on it.
    Cmon, string together some accurate hurricane season predictions, droughts, floods, ect. At least start nailing next week’s weather forecasts.

    But what really interests me is that you suggest some actual economic benefit to reacting so absurdly over that which we are unsure of at best (without offering at least one tiny example)
    ______
    . what it does mean, is that we need to change.. its better all around, for our economy, for society, for our environment.. so when you really think about it.. there’s no fuss to be made.. just live your life as you normally do.. no one is forcing you to change or do anything.
    ____
    Tell that to the laid off employee of a small business who’s electricity costs just doubled thanks to renewable mandates.

    Or the thousands in new emission compliance costs tacked onto construction equipment.

    Or how about the competitive advantages lost from a carbon tax.

    Maybe you mean the fines oil refiners pay the EPA for not blending a product (cellulosic biofuel) that does not even exist into their fuel

    How about mandates for wasteful ethanol ?

    Or the regulation of cow farts (which unbelievably is still on)

    You may be able to pass this malarkey onto John Q Public because he will likely fail to realize how much this all costs him in the aggregate as they are passed onto him.

    So now let us indeed bring up that which we know.
    We know that generous loan guarantees plus subsidies cannot keep cronyist solar companies from going belly up.
    We know wind power is expensive, unreliable and must be backed up by peaker plants
    We know government cannot throw money to select car battery makers resulting in the battery of the future.

    We know that agriculture left to the government resulted in large scale ecological disasters and famine everywhere it has been tried
    We know Europe’s carbon tax scheme has been good……for the polluting countries of China and India.

  • Herbii

    @M.Wilson – anyone who falls to complaining about ones grammar is just grasping at straws.. I am a very fast typer. So, if I misspelled a few words, so be it. You always see people when they have nothing else to say, when they are sitting all by them lonesome selves, in front of a computer, beat red in the face with anger – their first reaction is to lash out at someone’s grammar. Apparently, you fall under this category. Any educated person can clearly and easily understand what I wrote.

    Ok,
    So you want sources – here goes: (I also ask instead of just throwing out insults, to provide data to back up your statements too..)
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2442.html
    http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
    http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/greenhouse_effect1.html
    http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/7282/james-hansens-new-analysis-a-huge-piece-of-evidence-for-manmade-global-warming
    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html

    when humans easily out put estimates of about 130 times the amount of co2 than Volcanoes or other earthly emissions – Yes, Man can be blamed for the huge spike we see in the co2 record. You may think my post is just some idiotic rant but you provide NO rebuttal.. no proof that man is not the cause. you just lash out insults to bolster your low self esteem bc you can’t stand to be proven wrong..

    It just so happened to be some huge coincidence that when man is increasing its population by 100,000,000 people per year, using more and more resources, burning more and more fossil fuels that this spike in the co2 record is some coincidence?? If it is, please provide your sources and your scientific data disproving that man is NOT to blame for the increase in co2.

    I’m open for discussion. When I do my researcch and reading into a topic, I try and focus on both opposing views. So when you do your rants filled with emotion and frustration, provide yourself with referenced material that both proves and disproves man made Global Warming. Because if you only search for your truth, you will only find your truth.

  • Herbii

    @Ghost of FA Hayek:

    Thanks for your response – And without the insults too.. Here’s another long, winded reply from me..lol

    it’s not dubious science. It’s science. From what I understand of it.. I don’t know how else to put it. Look, if I’m wrong – I’m wrong. But the science that I have found, or have come up with has not been refuted. or, I have NOT found the evidence to back up that its incorrect. Please do point out where I was wrong? Not being sarcastic – I’m genuinely asking as I like to get both sides of the debate….
    From what I know and have found – greenhosue effect is real. its chemistry. more carbon, it gets warmer, etc..

    I totally see where you are coming from though – It’s a valid argument. About unforseen events in the future. that we shouldn’t act with such haste..

    But, that’s also the point – they are unforseen. Yea, we maybe jumping to conclusions but so far, the evidence points in that direction to make abrupt changes. Because, we just do NOT know!

    In 2012, the US lost about 20-25% of its crop. during an unprecedented heat wave. Heat waves cover general areas of the country like the north east.. and last for at most a week.. over the summer it lasted nearly 2 months covering 2/3 of the country. I drove across country from NY over the summer – and never did we get a break from the heat. Yes, it was summer but it was unrelentingly hot! .. every state was 90 degrees, 95 degrees, 100degrees, etc.. Finally when I got to the southern coast of California in L.A it was 99 degrees, but when we got to the ocean near Hermosa Beach it was 70 degrees! LOL! (Southern California has always had wide temp variations from inland to the coast)..

    So is it natural? Or b/c of Man? I don’t want to take that risk.. As a new mathematical model, proves these heatwaves in the past decade are NOT some natural occurrence. It’s called “Hansen Analysis”. And, as I have degrees in Applied Mathematics, I can say his Math is valid, that he has enough data points and sets. However, the debate is “where” the data sets come from.. so it remains, well, debatable, LoL..
    For:
    http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/7282/james-hansens-new-analysis-a-huge-piece-of-evidence-for-manmade-global-warming

    Against:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/hansens-temperature-analysis-todays-normal-is-yesterdays-extreme-and-nobody-cares/

    By not doing anything, is a risk I and others are unwilling to take – whether or not its an overreaction. Until proven otherwise, b/c so far it global warming has ‘not’ been disproven its important we move to alternative energies.

    Fossil fuels have gotten us here. Fossil fuels is what paved the way for todays society. But, they can only get us so far. Its time to invest into alternative energies.

    And, if people have been laid off due to renewable mandates? Yes, that is awful but you can’t have it both ways to the people who can no longer drive to work b/c they are paying $5 a gallon of gas! As increasing energy prices are NOT due to renewable mandates to alternative energies… which inevitably leads to alternative fuels anyways as an option! point to make, much of our lives haven’t been greatly impacted due to ‘renewable mandates’ – 99% of us remain uneffected and the changes are already in place as we see more and more solar panels on homes, wind farms, electric ccars, etc.. (will they work? guess it remains to be seen?)

    However…..Mandates if you will, are not currently the cause of increasing energy prices! so far, all we see are people losing jobs to increasing energy prices, lack of competition, decreased productivity and manufacturing, etc..

    Electricity prices, operating from Coal or other fossil fuels such as Oil are also seeing an increase in cost from supply and demand – with an additional 100,000,000 people being born every year onto this planet, demand is forever increasing and will always increase.. So to, oil companies plush with enough oil, are also increasing prices based on demand – proven by the billions they are making every quarter.

    Like it or not, infinite growth of society can not be sustained with a finite amount of resources – so change is a must and change is inevitable.

    So, what’s with all this animosity towards renewable energies when Fossil Fuels are just as much, if not more to blame for both a downturn in the economy and negative impacts to our economy?

    Sources for and opposing views:
    http://warminster.patch.com/articles/green-energy-mandates-will-hit-pa-s-poorest-hardest-2094d269

    http://www.themainewire.com/2012/09/maines-renewable-energy-mandate-increases-electricity-rates-results-job-losses/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/michigan-clean-energy-mandate_n_2007350.html
    (Older article – may not be as relevant for today)
    http://www.michigangreen.org/article-print-249.html

    Article and site that refute my claims:
    http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth3.htm

    The point I had tried making, and did say was that we should not enforce Carbon Taxes if they are going to hurt the economy directly and immediately. Even with that though, it remains to be seen..

    I clearly do the research to both opposing views. And I am one, who understand that we may not enjoy life as we know it with a healthy economy but we surely will not enjoy life if we don’t have a healthy environment.

    There is a balance, there must always be a balance. From over fishing to pollution, we always tilt the balance to benefit man and not the planet or nature.

    YES – renewables are not yet effective. And may not be for some time. And, both wind and solar power have been around for decades but the technology has not improved at all. The difference is, we have reached our limit with fossil fuels.. Renewables such as wind and solar have a far way to go..

    Only proven that in Colorado alone – last year in 2012, there were days that the Wind Power alone provide enough electricity from 30 to 57% for the entire grid for one day!! Only proving that with time and improvements in technology that they will indeed be much more effective – Especially as we balance out the need for both fossil fuels and renewables..

    As for Ethanol? Not even worth discussing.. that came and went. until they find ways that do not destroy millions of acres of land they are not viable.

    To me, again, unforseen or seen, predictable or not.. we are playing with fire for something that we do not know the outcome to be! we know all other causes of pollution or destruction to the environment to be detrimantel to the species that live in it, and humans.. but for some reason, when it comes to the climate warming or cooling it becomes this political debate..

    I don’t see it as a scheme for one thing – I don’t see anyone getting rich off of “GW”. All I see is Oil execs making more and more money. Al Gore is probably the only one who made money off of it.. its not controlling anyone. the only people making money off of it, are the companies trying to introduce new “energy” sources – but that’s what capitalism is all bout.. competition. if the Oil companies can’t compete, then so be it.. ANd, vice versa.

  • bobdog

    Let’s see. Round up all the Global Warming disbelievers and execute them. Check. Now round up all the Jews and execute them, too, to satisfy the middle east. Check. Now round up all the white people to satisfy the black Muslims in America. Better get rid of the Christians, too, because they don’t believe in the Prophet. And the liberals aren’t too happy about conservatives, so better get them, too. And non-union scab workers. Get rid of that trash. And environmental criminals, raping the globe and all. Kill them, too.

    Would any of that make liberals happy? No, because they’d be dead, too. We’d see to that before they came for us.

    Say you got your wish and all your enemies, real and imagined, are rounded up and sent up the chimney. Add it up, and what have you got? A search for the next group to kill, and nobody left to fund government spending.

  • M.Wilson

    All alarmist and left-leaning sources with vested interest in pushing de-industrialization, I see.

    And you continue to rely on spamming massive, poorly written text walls in order to make it difficult to find what you are even arguing about. If you’re going to write an essay, take the time to proofread it so that you don’t waste my time deciphering it.

    My solution to carbon-free energy, if it really does become an issue (say, when the oil actually runs out) is nuclear power. Safe, reliable, efficient, proven. Though I suppose some people may object to my nuclear car proposal.

    Meanwhile, have a look at this source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    As you can see, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, and is almost entirely of natural origin. CO2 is a distant second, with methane, nitrous oxide, and misc. gases so far behind that CO2 looks huge if water vapor is removed.

    Furthermore, you can see that man is responsible for less than 3% of all global CO2 production. You see, the problem with your numbers is you are comparing net production after absorption on nature’s side against gross production on man’s side. This is incorrect, as man-made CO2 is absorbed as well. You can easily see how this methodology is flawed, because if we were in a downward swing it would make Humanity look like the sole source of all CO2 on Earth. As it stands, I’d be willing to bet that the planet can compensate for a 3% difference.

    Furthermore you can see that our contribution to Methane production and CFC/Misc. production is much higher. Perhaps those are the ones you should be worried about, but regulating those doesn’t have the same economy-destroying potential as a CO2 ban now does it?

    You are asking us to completely destroy our economies and send our countries back to the Dark Ages for a return that is negligible at best. As you can also see from my source, CO2 does not just come from electricity production. Vehicles around the world run on internal combustion engines, and many industrial processes produce CO2 as a byproduct. Modern farming methods, which have allowed us to eliminate starvation throughout the Western world, rely heavily on CO2-producing processes. Though arguably their crops counteract their own production.

    A look at long-term temperature trends further suggests that something older and more consistent than human industrial activity is responsible for what warming we have seen: http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleProof.pdf

    My guess is that whatever has been able to overwhelm all other factors like that for such a long period of time must be very big, at least the size of the sun. Further keep in mind that the entire range of the graph is less than +/-1 degree. Even if all your most dire predictions come to pass, I think we can handle an extra 1 degree. Drink water.

    Of course, if we hamstring our economies and cripple our electricity production in a misguided attempt to prevent this, it will be quite a bit harder for many people to handle even their normal temperature ranges when their AC doesn’t work and food is scarce. Don’t you see? Even if you’re right, your solution is wrong.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Yes, it was summer but it was unrelentingly hot! .. every state was 90 degrees, 95 degrees, 100degrees, etc.
    Herbii
    I find it curious that you would bring up anecdotal weather observations from your vacation that when combined with a week, two months, or even a year and more, does not not even amount to a pinprick of data in the great scheme of the earths climate.
    And then you back this with an article by James Hansen which basically argues that the ends justify the means. That extremes in temperatures today should be knee jerk jumped on to save us from ourselves, even though the entire basis of the GW argument in the past has been “it’s not the weather, it’s the climate stupid”
    That we cannot cope with any possible changes in climate, will rush to blame our own lifestyles, embrace command and control, and will again line up single file to reenter the cave

    After all, Dr James Hansen’s motives are purely altruistic. He means well.
    And he works for government to boot.

    But what does in fact motivate the great Dr James Hansen ?
    To answer this, we must start with those “solutions” to global warming. More importantly, what do these solutions all have in common ?
    Answer They all require a top down centralized structure of government.
    Oh sure, they couch these solutions in free market jargon, like if you produce electricity from wind or solar we won’t “necessarily bankrupt you”
    (They bankrupt themselves just fine, thank you)

    But you say these politicians were democratically elected by us, so they must be held be beyond reproach.

    Let’s examine their qualifications to know what’s best for you and me.
    First, they must raise more money than their opponent from those very same wind and solar outfits that want you to be forced to pay for their product
    Second, they must promise to deliver the most free sh**
    That’s it.
    The qualifications of those “angels” charged with centrally planning your life.
    So how does all this apply to the great Dr James Hansen ?
    Simple
    Hansen IS big government.
    Big Government pays his salary.
    Big government is his employer, the Muslim outreach program
    Big government erected his podium.
    And big government can pull him down.

    Big government is central to the worlds history of planned economies.
    We know for a fact that planned economies have resulted in misery and death everywhere they have been tried.
    More so than any theory of the “effects” from climate change
    Everyone yearns for the power to save the world.
    Leftists place this power in the hands of totalitarians
    But the only proven savior in world history has been free people, and free markets

  • whotothewhat

    It is so nice that Professor Richard Parncutt posed for such a great picture, thanks for letting us know what you look like. Hey Prof any chance any upcoming speaking engagements?

    I bet there is a events calendar on the university website.

  • Herbii

    @ghost of FA Hayeck.

    I appreciate you reading my post and atleast debating and responding back.. Thanks.

    Your comment:
    “I find it curious that you would bring up anecdotal weather observations from your vacation that when combined with a week, two months, or even a year and more, does not not even amount to a pinprick of data in the great scheme of the earths climate.
    And then you back this with an article by James Hansen which basically argues that the ends justify the means.”

    Well, no – there’s nothing curious about it. As someone with a background in Math I know very well that one small piece of anectodal evidence means NOTHING! I was merely pointing out that it was hot. And, hot across much of the country. (which, with temperatures like that across such a vast range just by my own memory seems unusual – but this doesn’t mean anything!).. Which, just really means nothing in itself. But, lets say that continues – summer after summer, where the entire country experiences similar heatwaves which become the new normal – then it means something – Yet again, I’m not someone who will sit around and wait.

    As for Hansen – I specifically said his evidence is debatle providing a source both FOR and AGAINST his claims. Its solid Math. There is no doubt about that. But, its his method of which data sets, temperature data are at question. So he does mean well but it does seem, he’s become to obscure. That he’s only fitting the facts where he sees fit. It’s actually a natural, human trait to do so..

    Yes, he is a major advocate FOR ‘man made’ global warming – but, this doesn’t mean his science is invalid or valid… But, he did get a 1 out of 300 chance of this being an unexplainable event.. For Math, this is a high enough statistic to prove, beyond doubt that something “unusual” is going on! (And I know I’m going back and forth – just trying to make a point, counter point – just b/c the math is correct doesn’t mean its proving anything! And, I’m very aware of this..)

    So, its important to note that even tho a 1/300 is a high enough statistic, meaning, he has used enough data sets of temperature variations, etc. to say “yes, something unusual, beyond natural occurences is happening”.. what he may “NOT” have used tho, is combining that data properly with other normal variations of temperature.

    Not sure if I’m saying that correctly, but basically, its fair to say that yes his math model proves these heat waves are beyond unusual. But, he still needs to fine tune it and some how combine it with other ‘data sets’. Like, adding an “x” variable. ugggh.. I’m having a difficult time explaining this.. Anyways, like with Hansen’s model that proves GW, we still can’t take it as verbtem! and, i’ve been saying this all along. we still need to study and debate this.

    As it seems one thing we do agree on – that man made GW has not been disproven yet! so, the study must continue.. and as I’ve already pointed out – to me, its risky business to just ‘wait and see’ b/c we have NO idea what may or may not even happen..

    “But you say these politicians were democratically elected by us, so they must be held be beyond reproach.”

    I never said that – Politicians are scum. they are in it for their own self interests. Both Republicans and Democrats. I’m very very independent. I created my own party – the “ILC” … “Indepdence from Liberals and Conservatives” (LoL)..

    Granted, these politicians are the only ones we can count on for policy changes at the state or federal level.. but they surely are NOT the ones we can or should rely on for making better technologies, improving the world, making us a better nation, etc..

    I equate the failures of today, in this country to both Democrats and Republicans! And its hard to dispute this. Both got us into this mess and both will NOT get us out.. Its going to take the ingenuitey and resolve from people like me or you or ‘M.Wilson’ to solve such economic or environmental woes.

    It will be about education and technology as it usually has to make us more competitive.. which brings me to alternative fuels.. Just imagine that next country, or next person who improves solar power technology(as just an example – or creates some new energy source) .. that makes it soo efficient, a small panel can be used atop our homes to heat, cool, power our homes.. and remove us from the Grid or even the use of gas stations… and even be used for all other power sources – the man, or woman who does this, will be an instant billionaire and immediately change the world. So, it will not come from Big Government or Small government.. It will come from someone’s garage! lol

    It’s kind of those “back yard” or “garage” inventions that may very well be the ones who get us out of this economic and environmental mess..

    But relating GW to only being about ‘Big government’ .. I just don’t see it.. as many deniers like to say its a way for “Liberals” to control us more.. I just disagree.. and i’m not even Liberal. Yes, do these policies and mandates affect some – yes. are scientists making money from grants to research GW? Yes, absolutely – but there are still scientists recieving grants to research why the sky is blue.. to research the holocaust.. to research stem cells and cancers and thousands of other diseases.. they are getting grants for military research.. recieving money to study the effects of recieving grant money.. its endless BS.. and somehow GW has become the focus of Government trying to ‘control’ you or me.. when its been going on since the Founding of this Country.. I just do not see it that way as GW being some way to ‘control’ the masses.. why? because, there is ‘nothing’ more important on this planet than our environemnt.. But this still doesn’t mean, even tho its important for a healty environment that the Government should control us.. I’m just saying, I dont’ believe the policies they are mandating are effecting us a great deal..(I will say that its atleast not yet or remains to be seen..)

    like that old adage says “our own health is always most important, than family”.. I gues that can be equated to the planet’s healthy as a number one priorty of those that inhabit it..

    Kind of going in circles now anyways. Both made our points. As I don’t believe in Big Government either.. as Reagan said “governmetn is the problem”. and its true.

    all our problems today can be solved if the community were to solve them, themselves.. if communities became soley reliant on themselves for education, health, and now maybe energy and environmental concerns we’d be in a much better place as a society. Each community can increase trade, commerce, travel and business with other communities – I guess this is similar to how life started here in this country, but its something that we lost..

    As for Big Government.. the only thing I like them for is some regulations. because self regulation by corporations does not work. it never has. it never will. Just look at Wall Street..any chance they get to create a new niche or investment vehicle that crosses all sorts of ethical boundaries, they do it.. And, I trade both currencies and stocks so I know all about free markets and the importance of such.. But, I also know that free markets, when totally free will totally scheme, manipulate and scam all those who are not in the “know”. As it usually hurts the small guy.

    Just like environmental regulations – like it or not, if it weren’t for the EPA, our Country would not be as Pristine as it is Today… we wouldn’t have clean drinking water, we’d still be breathing in asbestos at the office or our kids may still eat lead paint chips of the wall..(clearly, I had too many myself, LoL!)..

    But when it comes the government overstepping and becoming too regulatory, its a problem. I know I’m side stepping a bit here or flip flopping to some extent… So, I guess you can say there’s always a fine line, a balance between Government Interference and self regulation.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Just like environmental regulations – like it or not, if it weren’t for the EPA, our Country would not be as Pristine as it is Today
    I beg to differ.
    A wealthier country demands a cleaner environment.
    Why are the world’s worst environmental calamities found in poor countries or countries ruled from the top down ?
    China
    Russia
    Here we have a state pollution control agency.
    At least they are somewhat accountable to the citizens.
    The EPA is above accountability……by design
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR-gn28ewCs
    ______

    But, lets say that continues – summer after summer, where the entire country experiences similar heatwaves which become the new normal – then it means something

    Speaking as someone who’s livelihood relies on the weather, I can categorically state that I WISH it was this consistent.

    After over 25 seasons, trust me when I state there has never been two years exactly alike.
    But between drought, floods, hail, wind, heat, ect the one weather phenomenon which has wiped out more crops has been cold.
    A shortened season with an early killing frost.
    A late start to planting.
    A cold summer lacking enough growing degree units for crops to develop
    And one year a killing frost in July.
    _____
    . But, I also know that free markets, when totally free will totally scheme, manipulate and scam all those who are not in the “know”

    Actually, free markets self regulate just fine all on their own.
    Ask yourself,
    Why would Walmart actively work to rip you off ?
    Don’t they want you back ?
    Being a stock trader you must realize the government cannot be there to make your losses whole again
    Risk is part of the deal

    But just who does the scheming and manipulating ?
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
    _____
    So, I guess you can say there’s always a fine line, a balance between Government Interference and self regulation.

    It’s not a fine line, it’s men with guns.
    Any “balance” has long since tipped to tyranny

  • Herbii

    @M.Wilson ..

    Thanks for your sources – And I’ve read similar things in the past.. As I’ve heard these rebuttals before. I will try and make this a brief statement so I can make my point in a clearer fashion.

    Just b/c my sources are Gov’t sources does not make them leftist or being an Alarmist .. Altho other sources were. Same can be said for those who use sources that deny GW being from the right – (as basically that’s how it goes, the left believes, the right denies I suppose)

    Now in saying that – the source from Geocraft.. its very telling, but that’s also over up to our about 10 years old. It doesn’t make it invalid either.. See, I always try and make a point, counter point. Kinda pointing out the obvious.. whether it agrees with what I say or not..
    Here’s a good link that provides additional analysis into Water Vapor:
    http://thinkglobalgreen.org/WATERVAPOR.html

    And, this guys is like me – Flip FLopping going back and forth.. LoL
    http://stanuu.org/global_warming.html

    But, he makes some good points as to why we should change! because we do not know the causes, nothing in his eyes has been proven but doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change.

    This would lead me to my last few points for this post – so I dont’ make your eyes tear with boredom. As, I know I write long winded posts going nowhere .. they make sense to me, but I can see why they make no sense to you..

    Your comment:
    “You are asking us to completely destroy our economies and send our countries back to the Dark Ages for a return that is negligible at best. ”

    I’m not asking that we ‘destroy’ our economies. Nor would or will current policies or legislation about renewable mandates hurt the economy so much, that it will lead to a complete collapse. Is it possible? Well, yes, anything is – but I think you should worry more about what Wall Street is doing than what some scientists are doing to improve upon existing renewable energy technologies. It’s just not feasable, under an economic point of view that this will lead to the destruction of our economy. Just think instead, where it can lead – imagine, we no longer have to pay $5 a gallon of gas? (which will only go higher over time) and can charge our cars using solar panels or our homes. Not today, not tomorrow. Maybe not even in 20 years.. but it will come and it will not destroy our economy. the “Oil” industry knows this too, as you pointed out about oil resources running dry and we should move to Nuclear power.

    (which, I don’t dispute this.. it can be a worth option – but it also takes billions of barrels of oil just to create a New Nuclear Power Plant! From production, creating the materials, transporting them to the location, etc.. it will take alot of oil, just to make a new plant – Again, I dont disagree using nuclear power plants as energy but we have to be careful, b/c of the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant in Japan from the March 2011 Tsunami, every living creature on earth now has the ‘radio isotope’ from this plant after leaking! Same with Chernobyl. the more Nuclear Plants we have, the higher the risk of another radiation leak or worse..

    Comment:
    “Modern farming methods, which have allowed us to eliminate starvation throughout the Western world, rely heavily on CO2-producing processes. Though arguably their crops counteract their own production”

    Your right – it takes about 10 gallons of oil to make 1 calorie of food. From growing, producing, farming, transporting, packaging to the grocery store, to our homes.. when on average, Americans eat about at minimum 2,000 calories a day – you can equate that too Americans each using 20,000 gallons of oil per day just to eat! No, its not exact science.. but the estimations of it taking about a total of 10 gallons of oil for 1 calorie of food is pretty close..

    So this alone, shows how important “Fossil Fuel” use is. Imagine if it were just to disappear or we run out? Ironically, Saudi Arabia (And, well really OPEC) show the same estimates in Oil Reserves available today are the same from over 30 years ago! obviously it has changed. Some say they dont’ want to show the real figures b/c there may not be a whole lot left. either way current estimates show about 50 years of oil reserves remaining – even with this point, we still need to change to renewable resources!!! it is inevitable! so this talk about it collapsing our economy is wrong when in fact, if we don’t – it will surely devastate not just the economy but the world if we ran out of oil..

    with an additional 100,000,000 people being born every year.. using more resources, this infinite growth of society can not be sustained with a finite amount of resources.. it only leads to more destruction of our environment and increases our chances of a global collapse of the system! so, there are far more things at play that can lead to a destruction of our society than just “renewable mandates” or ‘carbon taxes’ to reduce emissions. because in no way, will there ever be a “Co2″ ban. it just won’t happen… co2, ie fossil fuels will always remain, and always be used until they run out.

    Fossil Fuels have reached their limits. they will continue to be used. they got us to the 21st century but its time to lead to ‘greener’ pastures..(no pun intended, lol). with a growing population that will not stop, we need other options for energy. and if it takes a few policy changes, where some people may initially lose their jobs, so be it.. its the way the markets operate anyways..

    If you can, provide some more sources – I’m sincerely asking as I did enjoy reading them. You may not understand my point of view as I’m not good at expressing my intentions or solutions but one thing is for certain, I do enjoy and will read both the science that proves and disproves man made GW.

  • Herbii

    @m. Wilson – I tried, I tried.. I even said I’d write a shorter statement.. and I look back at my post and I see how long it is… ugh. I do apologize. Hopefully, you’ll have some more time to read it..

    @ghost FA – I’ll respond later. as I only had a chance to read your links.. and you too made good points that I’d like to discuss or debate. Just don’t have the time to write another 20,000 character post at the moment.. LoL

    I do want to thank both of you for reading atleast most of what i wrote and responding with some good rebuttals and evidence..

    be back later..

  • Herbii

    @ghost of FA Hayek
    “Here we have a state pollution control agency.
    At least they are somewhat accountable to the citizens.
    The EPA is above accountability……by design”

    Yes, of course we demand it – that’s b/c in poorer countries the governments do not have the power to legislate, nor the desire to effect environmental controls.. Even if the EPA is above accountability, what government agency isn’t? Just can’t pick and choose.. All agencies fail, all agencies abuse and lose money.

    Atleast with the EPA, we have something to show for it. countries like Haiti with no government at all, if you look at Satellite images – you see the entire country baren with no trees.. but just next store in the Domincan Republic they still have forests.. this is b/c of NO legislation, people just did as they pleased ..

    the same thing would happen here if the US, did not have the EPA.. there would be no self regulation, no control, nothing.. it just will not work..

    If self regulation would work, then the “Ohio River” wouldn’t have caught on fire 3 times in the 1950s and 1960s.. This was after all the heavy industrial companies poured toxic waste into the river. they were asked to clean it up, and of course they did not – not until the River caught on Fire and Environmental Wackos like myself (tho I wasn’t born yet, lol) took a stand and demanded action. and later the EPA was born from envrironmental man made disasters like this one..

    So, if it weren’t for the EPA, I can make a reasonable bet that based on past history that our interests or the interests of the environment would take second to profits.

    As for your reference to seeing the changes, or similarites among 25 seasons – you have the experience and knowledge with this as your livelihood.. But, as much as ‘cold’ can destroy crops – I also know, heat can too.. Heat brings draught and famine as much as cold weather can destroy crops..

    As for Risk and the Free Market. Good traders trade managing risk. They dont just gamble. I guess you can say its a controlled risk. And, as for the markets .. I don’t know what else to say about regulating or deregulating the markets.. other than I’ve seen it with my own eyes, the moment new legislation is passed for reduced regulation in the markets or for certain investments (ie stocks, bonds, commodities, etc) .. Traders begin to salivate and think of every way imaginable to manipulate the system.. less regulation creates more loop holes.. (PLUS.. its human nature to cheat, steal and cut corners.. not to take the hard way when there’s an easy way..)

    The risk we are taking by playing with nature or the climate is uncontrolled. Look at the past 150 years of growth? An average 2 billioin people were on this planet for about the past 2,500 years. All of a sudden in just 100 years we go from 2bil to 7bil .. among all the other changes, technologies, using up resources, deforestation, over fishing.. we have tilted the balance of nature far too many times.. and when it comes to regulating or mandating environmental controls there is no question that it should be done..

    I understand the failures under the Obama administration. I don’t like that either.. the failure of that Solar company for instance. But, to be fair – what administration hasn’t had failures? this is why I think both Dems and Reps are just hypocritical b/c they always label the “other” parties failures and not their own. Further, Renewable energy has indeed been around a long time but its only recently that we see this push to improve the technology. so its not going to happen overnight, nor are we going to see successes right away either. It will take time and their will be failures – but in the end it will be worth it. with an expanding population and dwindling resources, we have NO choice in the matter! we need other energy solutions.

  • Herbii

    @M. Wilson

    You had mentioned something about my solutions.. if I have any.. Well, I don’t think any of us do. the most important thing we need to do now is compromise. I dont’ believe that renewable mandates and legislation to push to greener technologies is a bad thing, nor do i believe its bad for the economy – do I think jobs will be lost? Of course they will but in the end, it will balance out.

    You said it yourself, we need alternatives such as Nuclear power. which I dont totally disagree with either.

    As I said in my earlier posts, when it takes 10 gallons of oil just to produce 1 calorie of food..(that is the total of oil used from farming the land, to growing, picking, packaging, transporting, grocery store, to our homes..) and we eat at minimum 2,000 calories a day.. among all the other oil we use for our homes or cars.. the supplies will not last when populatoin grows an additional 100million people each year. this growth is just disturbing. And of course it was fossil fuels that got us here.. which is a great thing.. but now we need other sources of energy.

    You mentioned something about that nature can withstand an additional 3% of co2 into the atmosphere each year.. I disagree. nature is very fragile.. just like a human having a Fever when it only increases by a degree or two..

    And with the destruction of rainforests, that co2 just accumulates.. and for what its worth – lets say CO2 is NOT the cause of GW… well, surely all that excess co2 in the atmosphere is NOT exactly a good thing.. If improper farming during the dust bowl of the 1930s increased the severity of the drought and increased temperatures during that time too.. then why can’t man change the climate by other means?? it’s naive to think we can’t. (I also understand its naive to think we can when we do not have enough data..) but as I said a few times now, its a risk we shouldn’t take..

    Lets now say man is the cause..and is why hurricnes are increasing in size..(no, this isn’t official yet b/c there have not been enough hurricanes that exceed the normal of 300miles in diamter) .. but with Katrina and Irene both around 500 miles.. and now Hurricane Sandy was 1,000 miles in diamter.. if this is “mans” cause – then what else can happen? Again, i’m not saying man did do this – but what if? its things like this, as to why humans civilization have collapsed all thru out history b/c greed came first, and compromise came second.. Meaning, they just did not plan enough for the future..
    (kind of like how Government over the past 40 years have spent our way out of everything and now its biting us in the butt!).. and this was both a democrat and republican failure failing to forsee the problems of debt spending.. (I know this is a bit off course with what I’m saying.. so I’m just expressing a point of view of how civilizations always fail b/c of reacting too quickly without thinking things thru.. ***Exactly what Ghost SA said about GW. that we shouldn’t rush to judgement.. He’s right..So, in actuality.. the solution, for now.. is to continue to study the effects of Climate change and how man may or may not be to blame! .. Its basically the only thing we can do for now.. and of course continue to improve renewable energy technologies b/c we have NO choice in the matter for the very reason that fossil fuels will only be around a few more decades anyhow..)

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    All of a sudden in just 100 years we go from 2bil to 7bil .. among all the other changes, technologies, using up resources, deforestation, over fishing.. we have tilted the balance of nature far too many times
    _____

    Well Herbii
    I guess this is where we will part company.
    What I see in that population is the potential for bright minds, creating solutions to our future problems.
    Just as our ancestors allowed us the space to grow.
    You on the other hand will rely on today’s government to micro manage society from the top down in the hopes that they for once will get it right.
    They will not.
    This is because government has the propensity to pick winners and losers. We will likely instead need more population control measures, more abortion, euthanasia, ect to match the small output of today’s “renewables”
    advanced by the “small” minds of government.
    So while you reread the works of Paul Ehrlich, I will continue to fight against the destructive nature of top down economic growth stifling bureaucratic zombies, and in favor of more free markets, and more free minds.

  • Herbii

    @Ghost of FA Hayek

    “So while you reread the works of Paul Ehrlich, I will continue to fight against the destructive nature of top down economic growth stifling bureaucratic zombies, and in favor of more free markets, and more free minds.”

    Well, I guess you may have misinterpreted my posts.. which is understandable b/c I wrote so much. I do NOT think government micro managing will do anything. In fact, it will make things worse. It always has. I am a strong supporter of the community, local governments fixing their own problems and creating their own solutions for healthcare, education, energy, etc..

    I also believe in Free Markets and free enterprise. but, we still need some regulation. It’s a balance. And I’d like to stress my point of “some” regulation.. just enough to not allow crooks like Bernie Madoff steal billions or companies like Koch industries to pollute land, water or air in an effort to save money..(not that Koch Inc has done anything like that..but companies like theirs has and always will)

    As I said, I’m a very proud independent. Anyone who puts all their faith, dreams and hopes into any one party is setting themselves up for failure. Because its not just Republicans or Democrats who have screwed us. It’s both!

    “What I see in that population is the potential for bright minds, creating solutions to our future problems.”

    As for the population increasing.. I just do not agree. I do understand that with more people, the greater the likelihood of coming up with cures for disease, new technologies, etc. But with higher populations, we will also see the opposite, more disease, more viruses and bacteria resistant strains evolving. The more technology we use, the more damage done to the environment.

    The human population of 7 billion is just fine. there are plenty people on this planet! i dont think we need anymore! if 7 billion people can’t solve our problems and create more solutions, do you really think 10 billion will? or 20 billion?

    Further – how will these people be fed? what energy will they use if people out there feel that the study, research and investments into renewables is just another ploy to being controlled or damage to the economy? Because fossil fuels will run out. so we have no choice. and with a growing population, water resources and energy resources, even precious metals will disipate at a much quicker rate. As we are seeing that now.. many of the rare precious metals like tungsten, germanium, palladium, nickel, etc – the ones used mostly for cell phones and computers pretty much do not exist anymore already as they have been used up..(So, my point is – with more people on this planet, we will see a depletion of pretty much all natural resources.. just in 50 years alone, we have wiped out nearly 90% of the population of fish in the ocean!)

    A scary outcome of human behavior:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/

    A direct tie in with increased co2 – (Co2 is an acid and is the main culprit as to why the oceans are becoming more acidic)
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans-distress-foreshadow-mass-extinction-110621.html

    Good chatting with you – as you will defend free market enterprise and keeping Liberals at check. I will continue to defend this planet and keeping ALL people in check, LoL. Have a happy new Year!

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy