344 thoughts on “Is Global Warming A Lie To Help Usher In An Oppressive World Government?”

1. Co2 it’s what plants crave.

   1. It’s got electrolytes!

2. the real goal of causing hysteria over the climate is to enable a global body to tax the entire world. A body that has the ability to tax the entire world is a de-facto world government.
   Embrace Nationalism, then acquire many bitches. Neo-masculinity and Nationalism makes you a goddamn irresistible sex god to the womens.
   Only manginas worry about global warming…er go: Al Gore and Obama.

   1. The fire will rise, and will not raise the planet’s temperature in the process.

      1. For maximum entertainment value, read my comments out-loud using your best Bane impersonation.

         1. Only read the last sentence in the Bane voice….that was humorous enough in and of itself.

3. Al Gore was hoping to be the first billionare by selling intangible assets called “carbon credits.” What global warming is a giant weatlh redistribution scheme cooked up under a false pretense and curtailing national laws. Poor countries “sell” their carbon credits to industial nations who produce more supposed “green house gases.” It’s a load of bullox. It’s the same globalist crew trying to shove Agenda 21 through the UN.

   1. Wasn’t Enron planning on doing the same thing before they went to shit?

      1. I have no idea. I do know Enron imploding through fraudulent directors was the catalyst to shove Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) down everyones throat. That has cost business over $1 trillion to be compliant which is nothing more than another added layer of beaucracy. Funny thing is SOX compliance would have never picked up the fraud at Enron as it was all off balance sheet movements.

      2. Enron was behind the fraud, they saw the big business potential. The background was the acid rain and its solution: a quota of pollution.

4. Denying science does nothing to educate, empower, or enlighten men or anyone that prefers facts over propaganda for the gullible and conspiracy-minded. Glaciers are objectively shrinking; 2015 was the warmest year in recorded history beating out 2014; temperatures have risen 1 degree Celsius since late 1800’s; coral reefs are bleaching globally due to excess heat; CO levels are the highest in 800,000 years (elementary school science explains this causes the greenhouse effect); while the arctic ice cap may stubbornly still exist, the January Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record; the 3% of climate scientists in the denial camp are contradictory and all over the map while the 97% that believe in man-made climate change all point to the same cause. The facts aren’t close. Monkton is not a scientist and simple google seach reveals his many dubious claims. Is this just click-bait? All of these denial memes are easily refuted.
   The oil and gas industry has admitted that climate change is real:
   http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change
   Every legitimate science organization in the world agrees that climate change is happening and is caused by human activities:
   http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
   Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
   “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”
   This quote above is taken from the NASA website. Is NASA in on the cabal to lie to create a World Government? Why promote anti-science drivel on this site?

   1. Even though Climate Change is happening, the Climate Change cult is alarming. The founder of Greenpeace has little nice to say about the global warming crowd, on the basis that it operates like a cult, similar to Eugenics of the early 20th century.
      If you want to challenge the assertions in this article, challenge them directly. In particular, challenge the point about the “consensus” being bunk, the “97%” including non-scientist government officials and activists.
      I support the idea that global warming is happening, and that it is man-made. However, I am against any sort of globalist agenda or one-world government (aside from a recreation of the British Empire) or the cult-like operation of global warming activists (like yourself).

      1. Hey. let’s not get TOO crazy here, I’ll admit Eugenics got a pretty rocky start, but there are some sound principles there. The problem is in the application of them. Its been suggested that given enough time (if humanity lasts that long) the wealth divide could lead to the development of the ubermensch and untermensch subspecies of humanity anyway, why not get in on the groundfloor now and start pumping out refined humans while we still have decent specimens to work with?

   2. Rather than spew green religion talking points, tell us exactly how CO2, and particularly, man-made CO2 is causing this. What is your proposed solution? You offer none. I did: Cutting back on the materialism economic waste machine that is 80% driven by women and moving away from wind farms which already chop 300,000 birds a year out of the sky. Your solution seems to be, “Well I’ll just sit back and let a tyrannical government take care of the problem for me.”
      You say Monckton isn’t a scientist. I already covered this in the article. Neither is Al Gore, the global warming poster boy. Yet, his credentials are never questioned.
      Some of your claims were already covered in the article. 800,000 years is 0.0017% of the earth’s history. Why are you cherry picking such a short interval of time when the article discusses the history of CO2 since the Cambrian Explosion 500,000,000 years ago?
      You are wrong with your claim CO2 causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2, causing over 95% of the greenhouse effect. As stated in the article, CO2 is one of the weakest of the greenhouse gases. (CO2 causes around 3% of the total greenhouse effect.) It shows very little correlation with temperature through geological time.
      Roy Spencer and John Christy (who received the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement from NASA…heh) both say the current warming is nothing to be concerned about, and even in their admittedly short satellite temperature record going back only 36 years, 2015 was only the 3rd warmest on record. Surface temperature records are contaminated because of placement of instruments and the urban heat island effect. (Spencer and Christy’s graph below.)
      The Antarctic ice cap is at record HIGH levels. What’s more, since satellite records began a mere 36 years ago, global sea ice levels are remarkably consistent.
      NASA is a government body that can lose funding if it does not go along with what the government wants it to say. Again, I covered this in the political consensus section of the article and the tragedies it has presented in the past when science is done by consensus.
      And, again, I will ask, why do you think a trace gas that has increased from 0.03% to 0.039% of the volume of the atmosphere in a century has more to do with the climate than the sun, and particularly the interaction between solar wind, cosmic rays and cloud cover? Cloud cover has far more to do with raising and lowering temperature than just about anything else. During periods of increased cosmic rays there are more clouds on earth, and during periods of increased solar wind there are fewer clouds on earth. (More clouds=less insolation=cooler, fewer clouds=more insolation=warmer.) But then you would have had to study atmospheric physics to understand that.
      And exactly how is CO2 causing Armageddon when humans contribute a tiny percentage of annual CO2 gases – the biggest CO2 sources are ocean-atmosphere exchange, plant and animal respiration, soil respiration and decomposition, and volcanic eruptions. Humans make up 0.03% of the annual contribution to CO2.
      P.S. How has the earth NATURALLY (before the invention of the “infernal” combustion engine) gone into and come out of 18 ice ages and had just as many warm interglacials in the last couple million years if natural climate cycles don’t eclipse the fart in the wind humans are producing with CO2? To even propose humans control a system as complex and as gigantic as the earth’s climate with a trace gas is laughable.

      1. I’d also point out that more CO2 comes from volcanic eruptions (outside the control of humans) than from any other single source.

      2. As Phil Valentine says whenever this climate change nonsense comes up:
         “It’s the sun, stupid!”

      3. You’ve gone above and beyond to address this comment, but there is really only one point that needs to be made – anyone who uses the term “denier” is the one who is actually anti-science. Science, fundamentally, is about trying to falsify a hypothesis. That’s how science advances. It only takes one man to invalidate an entire scientific theory, which is why “consensus” is meaningless. If being a “denier” places me in the company of Gallileo, Copernicus, Keppler, Newton, Einstein, and countless others who have bucked “consensus,” I’ll happily take that.

   3. You are a part of a Jim Jones cult. You can start with Steyn’s “Climate Change: The Facts”
      Plenty of scientist Point out how faulty the data is and the receive death threats. This is a pure political objective based on junk pseudo “science.”
      http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

   4. The moment anyone starts to rely on argumentum ad populum — appeal to popularity — as the basis for their assertion is when you know they’re bullshitting. In this case, it’s the assertion of “18 scientific associations” as though that lends credence to the argument of itself.
      Einstein was once presented with a paper signed by 100 physicists challenging his theory of relativity. His reply was simple: “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

   5. Even if all of what you’ve said is true, you have not explained why it should compel us to do anything.

   6. CO2 is essential for life on earth especially trees and plants. If you look at the photosynthesis formula, you’ll see that CO2 is needed in order for photosynthesis to happen.

      1. No one said it wasn’t essential for life. But if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect takes place and the earth gets hotter, just like we are seeing today.

         1. So how much is too much CO2? Even if we doubled it, it would still be lower than it has been throughout well over 95% of the last 500 million years. You have presented a number of logical fallacies, including the Argumentum Ad Populum, which is not scientifically valid.
            Also, you did not respond to my earlier post about Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy (who received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for pioneering satellite temperature measurement of the globe) both saying we have nothing to worry about.
            Further, how did the earth go into 18 ice ages and have 18 warm interglacials (when the ICE MELTED as it is doing today – YIKES!) in the last million years if natural climate cycles do not eclipse the tiny change to this trace gas man is making?
            Finally, do you deny the sun has more to do with climate cycles than a gas that makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere?

         2. You criticize the fact that I have every scientific organization in the world on my side, the National Academies of Science, and 97% of climate scientists and claim that this is irrelevant because of Argumentum Ad Populum”? But you reference 2 outliers as some rebuttal against every country in the world that signed onto the Paris Accords, all the science organizations in the world, and easy objective measurments that the world is getting hotter. Your logical fallacy is “Arugumentum By only 2” versus Everyone Else-um. Somehow chasing your tail by pointing out some outliers if more relevant than the conclusions of every legitimate scientific organizatioin in the world, the Dept of Defense, NASA, insurance companies, oil and gas companies, and basically everyone that can read and can determine when their ideology has blocked their reason, It is a shame that the Heartland Institute has been so effective in promoting denial BS that internet warriors use arguments like doubling CO2 in the atmosphere in 100 years is not big deal! So, silly. I can’t even argue with it. All your denialist memes are easily refuted. But you go on believing the hucksters, liars, oil companies and others that are blind to overwhelming evidence.
            The Guardian article dismantles Christy’s claims. It is not a coincidence that Christy testified before Cruz and Smith. He is one of the few skeptics/deniers left. They can’t trot out Willie Soon anymore since he was proven to take $ from Exxon and Southern Co to say whatever they wanted him to say. Christy is in the extreme minority. He may have received a medal from NASA, but NASA itself, and all its thousands of scientists know and have stated that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. Christy and Cruz love using 1998, a huge El Nino and the first time corals bleached globally as the baseline and then claim there has been no warming. Well 2015 and 2016 El Nino will blow 1998 record heat away and Cruz and Christy will have to dream up more subterfuge to avoid the obvious.
            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
            You quote one nebulous award from an agency, but I have the entire agency and all its scientists. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems

5. I thought that methane was the culprit gas of the day and the primary producer of it is cowshit. There are a lot of cows

   1. I thought politicians were the primary source of bull shit.

6. Global Warming, Ice Age, Robots, Nukes, Meteors, Black Holes, Ebola, Depression, Aliens and God are all coming to get us.
   In other words, have a nice day.

   1. Forgot terists.

      1. And flying cars. Where are my flying cars? I was promised flying cars.

7. Even assuming that the Earth is warming, how do we KNOW that humans are the cause?
   Even assuming that we KNEW humans were the cause, why should we assume a warmer Earth would be bad?
   Even assuming we KNEW a warmer Earth would be bad, why should we believe that humans won’t just adapt as they always have?
   I’ve never heard anyone satisfactorily answer those three basic questions, which is why I don’t give any attention to their doomsday prophecies.

8. Here is the new scam: teaching climate change in the public schools in order to indoctrinate huge swaths of the American populous towards a predisposition to support government management of the natural resources used by businesses and firms. This is nothing but using government run education to train children on the K-12 level to support the conversion of America into a command economy.

9. Is Global Warming A Lie To Help Usher In An Oppressive World Government?

   Yes.

10. Am I the only one who thinks that after losing the election Al Gore retreated to the mountains of Tennessee where he built a machine that can control the weather.
    Everyone blames El Nino, but al gore is in his lair with his weather machine just fucking with people.
    I think it is part of his bid to join the Legion of Doom. I mean, the let Gorilla Grodd to stuff….why not Gore?

    1. It’s so crazy…it must be true!

    2. So Al Gore is really Destro? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vAe9cxru10

       1. He wants to think he’s Captain Planet.

       2. Sounds perfectly plausible to me

11. I had a course on this in college and actually wrote a anti global warming as strictly as man made. I think the strain were putting on the earth excerbates the temperature change but I also think it’s part of the earth’s natural cycle . I’m going to die before shit really hits the fan so at the end of the day I don’t worry to much .

12. >> “After seeing these statistics, perhaps a better environmental solution is promoting a minimalistic lifestyle that isn’t driven by materialism and consumerism”
    That would be useless. One generation, and demographic growth will engulf any minimalistic lifestyle saving.
    Only solution is to be less people. We’re too many. But with SJW saying that whether Africa gives born to millions of people they can’t maintain, we have to open our doors, host them and feed them, demographic growth is not gonna stop any time soon.

    1. Take care with the overpopulation argument as like environmentalism it too has been co-opted by globalists to serve their interests. Fertility is below replacement in every first world nation, with the notable exception of Israel, which for many reasons is nothing like other first world nations. The West and Westernised East do not need depopulation. Africa, India, China and large swathes of the middle east could certainly diminish their population, if for no other reason than the overflow would cease spilling into the West and forced diversity would be less of an issue *cough cough, Europe*

       1. Western countries do need depopulation.
          To be exact, they need to send back to Africa and Middle East all the people that came from there. That would make a 10%-20% of depopulation. And then, we can grow from there.

13. It’s really a shame that environmentalism has been so co-opted by these slimy special interests. The environment is an important thing for people and their homes/country, and really should be cherished. The environment truly is suffering from man-made problems, notably buildup of plastic in the oceans, pollution in the oceans that fuck with marine life (e.g. mercury in fish), buildup of estrogens and chemicals that fuck with your hormones in our water supply and consumer products, smog and air pollutants in some areas (look at all of China for example), etc etc etc.
    Unfortunately, as long as the politicians and (((special interest groups)))) keep the environmentalism debate focused on non-issues like “global warming”, they can keep exploiting the system and profiting from our collective suffering, ensuring that the real problems are never solved.

    1. As an avid outdoorsman, the real issue is pollution and the proper care of our natural resources.
       Conservation, not environmentalism.

       1. Agreed. I was an outdoorsman in my younger days and it’s sad when you are in the middle of the woods in the middle of nowhere but yet you can still find coke cans, old fishing line, and a car hood.

          1. Many years ago, I was hunting with my father, and he showed me an old rusted automobile from the 40s. Everything was rust except the Fisher Body brass tag. On our last time there, we brought a hacksaw and cut around the tag and brought it home. It was back in the back of beyond, and we figure it got stuck back there during some moonshine operation during Prohibition.
             Most junk will degrade over time, but it is nice to clean it up. I wholly endorse Adopt A Highway for this purpose.

          2. If I adopted a HIghway…I wouldn’t want anyone driving on it. I adopted it and it’s mine.

          3. I was kinda hoping the ending of your story was about how your dog died and red flowers sprang up from where he died.

       2. I’m not sure conservation would work either. Can you imagine if you tried conserving the food in your house instead of going out to get more?

          1. The food in my house doesn’t reproduce and create more food.
             I think you may be mistaken on the concept of conservation.

          2. So you are saying that oil does reproduce and create more oil? In that case, you don’t need to conserve it.
             Actually the food in your house, if treated correctly, will reproduce and create more food. Where do you think food comes from?

          3. I have a hard time understanding your method of thought Bob…its like you have half an argument in your head and the other half is spewed in this forum. Learn to make concise comments that envelope your entire concept.
             Conservation can work with natural resources extraction. One more time…learn the meaning of conservation because it includes the concept of wise use. An example is the fact that we truck too much of our goods across the interstates using gas guzzling tractor trailers. When we could be using a more efficient railroad system. It would decrease our consumption of fuel annually…..however it does mean a lot of people lose jobs in the trucking industry…but that’s another argument that dovetails into economics and rate of return. There are plenty of ways of conserving our use of fossil fuels…we just don’t do it.
             Also, the frozen quail and trout in my freezer won’t be reproducing new sources of protein, I need to go hunt more. As much as I would love to; I don’t own a farm.

          4. Get a good wife who will buy raw meat and veg and cook for you.
             .
             There is a mistaken understanding that pizza, tacos and hamburgers are unhealthy. Fresh meat, fresh veg, fresh bread, and it is training food.

          5. Raw meat. That will separate the men from the boys.

          6. Fine, and while I’m at it, can you learn not to be a condescending arsehole? Don’t assume that your argument is ironclad and righteous simply because you use politically correct terms like “conservation”.
             You are essentially a socialist and conservation is a socialist concept. Why? Because only a closed society needs to conserve because it consumes everything including capital (especially). Ultimately conservationism fails and so the regime goes to war to get more resources for a starving nation.
             Your final paragraph (as I already suggested) contradicts the notion of conservationism. Why? Because instead of conserving the food in your house you go and get/produce more. The answer to running low on energy? Produce more or find new sources. That moves mankind forward. Conservationism merely holds off the day until you have to go and find a new source. It is thus merely a waste of time.
             I hope my “method of thinking” is now understood.

          7. You’re a fucking idiot.

          8. I am not into steak tartare and such.

          9. A typical socialist response when confronted with a cool rational response to their fantasies. Or as I like to say, “toys out of the pram”.

          10. I’m as far from a socialist as you can imagine. Your insults smack of Alinsky tactics. Maybe you should be spending less time on ROK and more time defending your nation from Muslim invaders. Or maybe you’ll convert to Islam since you can’t be bothered? It may be the only chance you’ll get to chase 13 year white girls around.

          11. Mate… you don’t do yourself any credit.

       3. A weird thing I that a lot of who I am is a matter of happenstance as being ex-military. I don’t like camping but military exercises are basically camping. . .with guns. . .and explosives. I am not some sort of outdoorsman.
          .
          I would like to live off the grid; I would be willing to invest in solar and water reclamation; I pick up after myself, I don’t fucking litter. Apparently, this attitude is not good enough for the leftist SJW fucking eco-Nazis. They are an evil bunch who want to exert global control.

    2. You are so right here. It is funny that this article is so close on the heels of an article about Teddy Roosevelt who was a fierce environmentalist and, if I am not mistaken, actually created the national park system…..That was an “environmentalism” that was more about care and less about politicizing our world.
       Teddy would not have driven a Prius.

       1. Teddy woulda put a saddle on a condor.

          1. Don’t be absurd.
             Teddy rides condors bareback.
             There is a reason he was called a rough rider.

          2. oh snap!

       2. Aren’t national parks a bit of a disaster though?

          1. Some are and some aren’t. A lot depends on how well they are cared for and what their purpose was (some of them are just fed land grabs) but as a city dweller I am pleased to know that there are some really spectacular places I can go to that are in the middle of nowhere that no one can build a factory on so I can see what nature actually looks like.
             In the meantime, my larger point was that Roosevelt was a real environmentalist in the sense that he love nature and wanted to protect at least some of it from the upcoming boom of infrastructure he saw coming.

          2. You should check out who lives on the edge of many national parks. It a number of cases, it was a nice system that allowed the rich to offload land next to their estates so that in exchange for allowing riffraff (us) to visit here and there, we can’t ever move and be their neighbors and we pay for the land with our taxes while they keep a nice backyard.
             Even then, I still like that we have parks and zoning laws. I don’t trust people enough to not develop every single damn inch of the planet.

          3. I hear ya.
             I only mean to point out that being an environmentalist went from a tough guy position about caring about the land to a rainbow faggot position about taking it in the ass or whatever they do

    3. Man the click bait on here is getting laughable. Global warming a lie? so I guess a million scientists in the world are idiots. Maybe some special interests are using it for their personal gain but I think the readers on ROK are a little smarter than to even waste time questioning the real science.

       1. “A million scientists”?
          They arent idiots, but they do know who butters their bread for them…

          1. Whats easier to buy a million scientists and Nobel prize winners reviewing facts and coming up with the same conclusion or a secret conspiracy to make up a global warming fear to keep special interests signing checks? Occam’s razor.

          2. We’ve seen it before. The author lists two examples. I can suggest another: Quasicrystals. Daniel Schechtman, a Nobel Prize Winner, nearly sunk his career researching them. Quasicrystals are crystalline structure and were said to be a fairytale until recently. The majority shit all over Schetchman, labeling him unscientific, ect. His superior asked him to leave for ‘bringing disgrace’ upon his research group.
             Here’s another. A popular French weatherman, Mr. Meteo, recently lost his job for writing a book critical of the way climate change was presented by mainstream media.

          3. It is not a conspiracy, it is a myth which a lot of people have bought into because it has been pushed by powerful interests for 30 years. Some of these people may genuinely believe the myth, as I am sure the people who locked Semmelweis up and beat him to death believed handwashing was lunacy, or those who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for suggesting stars were distant suns, or those 1,000 scientists who signed a letter telling Einstein how crazy he was for his theory of relativity.
             This is why science is never done by popular consensus. Argumentum ad populum is one of the biggest logical fallacies there is.
             Also, either researchers go along with the polemic and get funded, or go against it and go to the unemployment line.
             No conspiracy is implied here…just a lot of people with financial interests in keeping the big lie going, interests in keeping their jobs in government because without problems there is no profit to be had, and a lot of dupes who believe anything an official or the media tell them.

          4. Who is more likely to be “bought” for producing science. Objective researchers who get scientific grants, or Willie Soon, Idso and the few denialist “scientists” who take money from oil and gas. Amazing that denialists pretend that the massive funding for science buys science while the poor, unbiased oil and gas companies are pristine and their bought research to fund a few denialist quacks is the only real truth. Hilarious. You have to be small-minded and conspiratorial to believe that the entire science community is just on the take to make money. Every scientist at every university, every government official, every government in Paris are all just out for a handout. Bizarre that you believe this.

          5. Another false claim. The oil and gas industry doesn’t pay for my global warming rebuttals to alarmists such as yourself. Monckton, who I mentioned in this article, laughs when people make these claims as his trips are usually paid for by organizations like Pennies for the Poor.
             The fact people are in science or any other field for personal gain is does not equal a conspiracy, it equals human nature. When there is a financial incentive and a political incentive to find a problem, people will find it. What if tomorrow the government announced there was $12 billion in grants available to those who could successfully refute the global warming claims. (Current figure from the GAO.) Do you think there would be a line forming to claim that money?
             You also just made the claim there is an oil and gas conspiracy behind anyone who denies the alarm. That sounds rather “bizarre.” You see, anyone can throw around a conspiracy claim. It would be nice if you would directly answer all the rebuttals I have made rather than jumping from false claim to false claim.
             Oh, and read this 48 page document detailing hundreds of new bureaucracies that will be created and the details of a global carbon tax then get back to me before claiming there is no plan for global government coming out of all of this. https://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/draft_paris_agreement_5dec15.pdf
             Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have to go cash my check from Exxon-Mobil.

       2. There are plenty of idiot professionals in many areas of life. It looks like Real Estate agents don’t justify their fee, the Sand P 500 indexed handily beats the majority of managed funds, even hedge funds. Doctors have a shorter lifespan than the average person. The stats on Psychologists strongly suggest they don’t help the average person going to them…etc. The author makes a strong case for why its politically driven, not scientifically. And yes all those scientists can be wrong.

          1. I think I rather trust Stephen Hawking and a slew of Nobel prize winners opinion over random writer on the internet with no credentials except getting as many clicks as possible.

          2. Which Nobel prize winners? Do you mean the IPCC? That was a peace prize, not a science prize.
             Obama won one too. Rajendra Pachuri is a railway engineer, and novelist, not a scientist.

          3. Hawking is a smart and trustworthy however Nobel prize winners actually have a long history of immediately after winning their prize going on to champion some other theory that turned out to be totally bogus. It seems to win the nobel prize you often have to swing for the fences, and you also have to strike out alot.

       3. The climate change club is relatively few people who are paid very well by governments. Beyond the core group if you want a career you better put a climate change spin on your work. Al Gore purged the funding from anyone who wouldn’t go along over 20 years ago.
          Play ball and use your PhD or go drive a taxi, that’s the choice.
          The critical work today is being done by people with the necessary degrees and experience to understand how to handle data but are in other fields (engineering for instance) and thus won’t starve. What shows up looking at what is being done data wise is damning.

       4. Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!
          – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.5bNMv1CG.7vfLlMJV.dpuf

       5. Unfortunately RoK is nothing but a far-wing echo chamber. I don’t really read the site but every now and then will click on a link if it pops up in a twitter link. It’s only with the American far right that climate change is even controversial. Why? Because they view environmental activism as “a thing of the left”. And if people on the left support well dammit it must automatically be wrong. I guess if everyone on the left believed in the big bang, they’d be claiming the big bang must be a hoax by communists as well.

       6. Tell us some more about how areas will be under water, how ice will disappear, how our children will not know snow, and how there will be millions of climate refugees…so we can then see as we already have, none of those things happening.

       7. There are maybe 1500 qualified climatologists on the planet. What happened is that a bunch of politicians got their hands on the IPPC report and spinned it. The million or thousand or whatever so called “scientist” who agree with this nonsense are some know-nothing BSc graduates with a degree in chemistry who have leftist leanings and support the imposition of a global government.
          .
          I have degrees in business and law and am far more qualified to comment on what these fascist fucks are up to.

    4. The fact that they call it an Intergovernmental Panel tells you everything you need to know. Government panel, not Scientist panel.
       I find interesting as well, that the many of the same people who wail about the environment (which they cannot personally affect) continuously pollute their own environment (i.e. their homes and bodies) with chemicals and toxic “food”.

       1. They completely ignore the science and go straight for the politics.

          1. Good to have you back Scorpio.

    5. Cowspiracy is a good little doc, highly recommended.

    6. Climate change is not a “non-issue”. See level rise threatens the existence of south florida. Powerful storms are increasing. Bleaching and erosion of coral reefs make tropical coasts vulnerable and reduce fish habitat and nurseries. Those other problems you mention are real, but you are wrong about the impact of climate change.

       1. So that must be why tornadoes are down to record low numbers for the past 3 years in a row and the U.S. has not been hit by a major hurricane landfall since 2005, the longest such period since the Civil War?

    7. I agree entirely! I love hunting, fishing, gardening, and even going to college, I plan on participating in logging sports. Hell, many medicines and who knows what else is unfound deep in the rainforest.
       However, I don’t believe in things like global warming; if it does exist, it’s a non-issue.

14. If these people actually gave a shit they would be staunchly anti globalist. Notice you don’t hear a peep about how China and these third world shitholes where factories are moving to control pollution. These places rapidly become quagmires and they focus on things like light bulbs and auto emissions. My favorite is how many of the most extreme climate change groups turn a blind eye to dumping mercury in the great lakes. Fucking idiots and hypocrites

    1. and manufacturing jobs is decreasing in the U.S

15. The planet doesn’t give a damn.
    One super volcano going off – like we know they have in the past – will pretty much ruin everybody’s day…and lives. A rather large rock falling on the Earth from space – like we know has happened in the past – will also kill off most of the human population. Less energy being thrown off the Sun and reaching Earth will quite likely cause another major glaciation period making most of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, with dire consequences for humans. And what will the Earth do? Nothing. And, in 10 million years, it will still be here merrily going about its way, but I doubt that humans will be.

    1. We need another 1000 years and technology will be able to beat it all, except black holes. 1000 years without major natural disasters is realistic.

       1. I don’t even think we’ll need 1000. 100 years ago, the automobile had barely been invented. Today we have probes leaving the solar system and have already had humans walk on the moon with serious planning for missions to Mars. I have been told that we could send humans to Mars today if we wanted, we just could not bring them back. Things are progressing fast. It will be very soon.

16. When I was in school in geography class it was all about the next ice age, then there was CFC’s. Hands up who remembers CFC’s, the main constituent of aerosols and cooling gasses in fridges? The huge hole over the Antarctic? Haven’t heard about them in while. The climate has changed, but it’s always changing.

    1. Back in the day, it was acid rain.

       1. Oh yea, forgot about that one..

    2. According to this logic, it wasn’t cars or coal that cause global warming. It was Mexican chola chicks and their damn CFC laced Aquanet spray.
       https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ab/21/48/ab214823fe88c8e20f9421b94944f576.jpg
       http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2741/4308154402_67492c9a00.jpg

       1. yes, also Miami chongas are partially responsible.

          1. Chimi chongas?
             https://kitchenoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ko_deadpool-header.jpg

          2. indeed.
             Miami Chonga culture is a very difficult one to explain. I only know about it tangentially through having dated a girl from Miami who told me about it years ago. For a better understanding, maybe someone here from Miami can explain.

          3. Cheech n chongas?
             http://www.moviefanfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/up-in-smoke-giant-joint-cheech-chong.jpg

          4. worse…this
             

          5. Wanna know the world I live in? I have never, not once, ever heard the term “chonga” until this thread. WTF is that thing in the video? Whose bitch this is?

          6. Dude, the correct nomenclature is “who bitch dis is?”

          7. Damnit. I also call Asian Americans “Chinamen”. Heh.

          8. In all fairness, I had never heard of this until I was into my 30’s and dated a Cuban girl from florida. I haven’t heard anything of it since. Just popped into my mind.
             As for what it is….I really can’t help you there.
             It is basically impoverished latin community meets valley girl meets ghetto girl in some horrible serpentor like mixing

          9. At least you’re not some shitlord that calls them “orientals.”

          10. I call all Asians chinamen…
              In fact, I have a very small world view.
              For instance, if you speak Spanish and are not from spain you are Mexican. Sorry, I don’t have time for your fucking soccer teams.
              If you speak Spanish and are from spain then you are French….only one romance language speaking country necessary.
              Also, all the former soviet block countries are “Russia”
              I don’t need all those stans.
              Then there is Manhattan.
              Everything else is just game of thrones.

          11. My first girlfriend in high school was a chola. Petite little thing with hazel eyes, thin lips and tiny waist. Too bad I never saw for certain how nice her hips were. For one, she never wore anything other than FUBU or JNCO brand baggy jeans or shorts. And she made made hang out with her girls too much. Plus, I already had a fling on the side. So the whole thing flamed out after two weeks. And yes, she kept two cans of Aquanet in her locker. Now, in all fairness, maybe CFCs weren’t as harmful to the ozone layer as scientists may claim, but in small quarters, that shit has the ability to suck the oxygen out of the air. I frankly don’t know how those girls put up with it. Maybe they have lungs lined with adamantium.
              And for those wandering what the hell is a chonga, here’s a sample.
              http://img2-ak.lst.fm/i/u/arO/9943055572de436ca328311d4a2b8aaf

          12. I think we’re parked man

          13. I should have said “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Ghost of Jefferson”

          14. “Whose bitch this is?” Oh almost forgot about that one 🙂

          15. Don’t tell that to Puerto Ricans though. They get mad. And to me, all Asians are Chinitos, and all white Anglo Saxons are gringos or Yankees. Even you Canucks.

          16. I don’t care who gets mad.
              I’ve lumped all Anglo Saxons as well as non NYC Americans, Canadians and whatever else is out there into one category called Game of Thrones. England, Iceland, Kansas, Montreal, Germany: game of thrones. Just makes it easier for me.

          17. I don’t care either. I just mentioned it because of the whole race thing. For all this whole “Hispanism” nonsense, whenever you confuse one group with the other, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence. Same with Asians. While they did make a fuzz about Sarah Silverman and her love/hate Chinks joke, it’s surprising that even in America, there’s a dislike between, say, Koreans and Japanese, that they conveniently don’t mention.
              But yes. It’s just way more convenient to lump everyone in a category and go from there. Btw, your Game of Thrones method, brilliant.

          18. This is why I fled Florida for the midwest, or at least part of the reason.

    3. I always bring up the ozone layer hole when alarmists starting preaching gloom and doom. Growing up this was what global warming was then. I remember teachers telling us we’d have to live in space suits to go outside. All the same alarmism we are hearing today. Now it’s just…gone. Never talked about anymore.
       There’s always alarmists screaming about how the world is going to end. Sure, climate will change and it may cause some issues, but it’s pretty insane to believe Waterworld is coming.

       1. Grew up in the same time, let’s not forget acid rain.

    4. Through life experience I have learned to put little focus on what is being said than what is actually done, when evaluating intentions. Talk is cheap, especially if the one doing the talking is a politician, demagogue or SJW. It has served me well and continues to do so. Next they will focus on the weather. If the weather changes it must be due to climate change. Rain today? Climate change. Sunny and no cloud cover? Climate change…

    5. Lol, we don’t hear about CFC’s and acid rain anymore because we solved those problems.

       1. We did? I must have missed that headline…….

17. Follow the money, if you are a scientist that says Global Warming is not a crisis, you don’t get fame or money to continue your research. Even if it were happening, there may actually be more benefits(like growing food in Greenland) than problems.
    If it were a real crisis and not a tool for leftists to reduce freedom and increase taxes, we’d be pumping tons of money into a space program to building an orbiting solar energy reflector. Also there would be mandatory birth control and an end to welfare to reduce population and consumption.
    Since we don’t see this happening, we know global warming is a hoax.

18. Our leaders have been brainwashed (or maybe frog-marched) into believing that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect to make us warmer. Scientists have been falling over themselves to get hand-outs to prove it. After 30 years of research and an estimated $10billion spent world-wide on this research, there is still no evidence. Want to know why? The greenhouse effect (GHE) does not exist! Even Fourier himself came to that conclusion. Yet the “official” skeptic community regards people who state that there is no GHE as “absurd”. Read this paper by Joe Postma and come to realize that a GHE in an open to space atmosphere is impossible – A Note on Fourier and the Greenhouse Effect –
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf
    For further science on the GHE, read Alan Siddons at
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html

19. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded
    Friedrich August von Hayek
    BTW,
    the best thing you could do to reduce emissions would be to curb excess (female) consumerism, and the best way to achieve that would involve reducing Governments ability to print and borrow money.
    In other words Austrian economic principles.

    1. dude….is your avatar bald bull from mike Tyson punch out?

       1. It’s actually Soda Popinski from Punch Out. Drunk Russian whose drinking “soda” between every round.

          1. I caught myself…look at second post but thank you….

    2. No! Not Bald Bull! Soda Popinski. Brilliant dude.

    3. Libertarians can’t seem to get their story straight. Do they celebrate consumerism as a triumph of modern capitalism, or don’t they? Because fiat money has a lot to do with keeping the economy producing near its full capacity. The gold standard would put an arbitrary Malthusian constraint on man’s ability to produce and trade and leave us all poorer in the long run.
       Seriously, you can’t believe both in the gold standard (or in “commodity money” in general), and in the cornucopianism of natural resources, because these ideas make contradictory assumptions.

       1. Celebrate consumerism? No. Celebrate free markets, which is more than the term “consumerism” (invented in the 1950’s I believe, by people who were fond of Keynes if I’m not mistaken)? Sure.
          Commodity currency puts a base of support under trade. Unfettered fiat money is created by debt, as debt. Keeping “the economy chugging full force” as you term it has plunged us into a national debt that is not only un-payable at this point, but rapidly approaching imaginary numbers.

20. The climate changes that’s its nature. Leftists seek control over all things that’s their nature, and they will construct whatever lie necessary to gain that control.

21. Been saying this for quite a while. Excellent article.
    The fact of the matter is the Earth IS warming, but it has nothing to do with mankind and it’s actually a good thing. Most of the “studies” that claim the Earth is warming are basing it off of data from the 1800’s when the Earth was coming off of a mini-ice age. Our “warming” is in reality, us normalizing.
    That being said, why would warming be a bad thing? Farmers would have longer growing periods. Us trying to cool the planet back down would just exacerbate the situation in starving countries.
    As for the whole rising sea levels argument…If you can’t outrun a rise of a few inches every few decades or centuries, perhaps survival wasn’t meant for you.

    1. Not just coming out of a mini ice age- which is true – we’re still coming out of the last major ice age, period. Scientists think that for most of its history outside of the ice ages, Earth was actually ice free. What a surprise that we’re warming!

       1. I’m not entirely certain we’re coming out of anything, I believe we’re still considered in an inter-glacial period, meaning, that shit’s coming back eventually.

          1. Oh yes, the shit’s coming back, and that would be the real catastrophe for humanity – we’re talking mass starvation, disease and warfare over limited resources.
             Where we are on the time spectrum is, of course, debatable, but remember that “inter-glacial” encompasses a period that conceptually resembles the trough of a wave. Are we on the leading edge, or the following edge? Hard to say. But in the past, Earth has been ice free after the ice ages, and so it is plausible to assume that we are still on the leading edge and heading into another period of an ice-free Earth following the last major ice age.

          2. It’s a shame we humans don’t live longer. I would love to see some of these big changes.

          3. I hope you don’t mean the bad ones! Though, I’ll confess that I would love to see some of these blue-haired land whales brought to heel.

          4. I like to think of myself as pretty resilient. If I knew I would live 4-5x as long, I would create a little hidden retreat deep in the woods and live there during the bad times all while watching everything unfold.

          5. , I would create a little hidden retreat deep in the woods and live there during the bad times
             With your woman and your kids and your dog and you? Do you have a shotgun, a rifle and a 4 wheel drive? Is it possible that you can’t be knocked down, and you can’t be made to run? Are you a good ol’ boy raised on shotguns?

          6. Not all those things at this very moment. 4 wheel drive? Check. Got a shotgun in my closet along with a black powder musket. Don’t know what you’re getting at with the can’t be knocked down bit.

          7. Not a Bocephus fan I see. Heh. Video below.
             

          8. Apparently not. I was thinking, “Yeesh, what got GOJ’s knickers in a knot? Did I trigger him with one of my spider pics?” Heh.

          9. Well at least you didn’t take it too seriously then go off and spit some Beechnut in my eye and shoot me with your ol’ .45.

          10. I was driving down the interstate and there was one of those new electronic billboards, and it flashed up a missing girl with her photo, age 16, eye color brown and hair color blue. I laughed hard for a good 20 seconds!
              I wonder if you can put that on a drivers license now?

          11. It would be hard not to mistake that for an advertisement about the circus coming to town.

          12. You’re lucky it takes me a minute or two to get my black powder musket ready…

          13. I’ve fired Holy Black rifles before, but don’t own one. I do own a replica Remington Model 1858 black powder revolver however. Good fun. Don’t think it will be my go to firearm in the event of…entering into politics…however, should that ever become a necessity.

          14. Definitely not. I’ve used it for deer hunting in the past…about all it’s good for.

          15. They would never admit any wrongdoing. They would just blame it all on the patriarchy and rape culture.

       2. There’s been little to no warming in the surface temperature record over all. Ups and downs. But first you must use the raw data. The data that is published in the media is what they call ‘final’. It is a product of analysis. It has all sorts of adjustments and estimations. Both of which change over time. Compare the same source from 1995 to 2015. You’ll find the common years changed. You’ll also often find that the changes are outside what they claimed for error bars back in 1995 (or any time sufficiently long ago). Now based on that alone it means either their data set is complete garbage or their analysis, their adjustments and estimates are complete garbage, or both.
          That said there are tests that the raw data can be put to. Especially the US surface temperature record because it is so large. So far the raw data appears robust and sound. It shows nothing of concern with regard to warming. The big concern for the record is that stations are being closed down. This allows for estimates to replace them. It will get more and more difficult to prove what is actually happening as data is replaced with numbers created by experts. This does help making each year the record hottest year though.

          1. Oh yes, I know about the general lack of observed warming. Simply pointing out that even if observed, warming shouldn’t really be surprising given that the last ice age is still ending.
             Regarding the raw data, I think that it is both problems you point to. I don’t follow this subject as closely as I used to, but there was a site that really scrutinized all of the temperature stations in the US:
             http://www.surfacestations.org/
             These guys found all kinds of ridiculous shit with these things – horrible inaccuracies, horrible data collection procedures, horrible citing of the stations (they used to post pictures of them positioned next to the hot air out-venting of A/C units, or in the middle of asphalt parking lots).
             People speak of the temperature record, which is as good as it can be with the data we have. But people don’t really understand at all what data goes into it, and how completely shit a lot of it is. Even if it didn’t have tons of problems, there is still the fundamental problem that temperature records have only been kept for a little over a century or so, and this isn’t even a fart in the wind on the geological time-scale.

    2. “Why would warming be a bad thing?”..if the poles melt it would be pretty bad. The rise would be more than a few inches..and the weather might become extreme, typhoons, droughts, flooding etc.

       1. But that’s not entirely accurate. Sure the ice at the north pole is melting some, but the ice at the south pole is growing.
          Plus, the ice at the north pole is already in the water so if/when it melts, the water levels wouldn’t rise anyways (think an ice cube melting in a glass of water).

          1. Just saying, no one knows the speed at which it would happen.
             As far as I know water has less volume when frozen, and thus would expand when unfrozen. But that might be wrong. Why else would scientist claim that the waterlevel would rise ?

          2. Water actually takes up more volume when frozen (hence why you don’t freeze a full bottle of water). Really though, the volume is irrelevant as the amount it displaces while floating is equal whether it is in frozen or liquid form. The only concern for rising sea levels would be if the Antarctic ice were melting, which it is not.
             EDIT: In response to your question at the end, it’s the same reason feminists claim that rape culture exists. It’s easier to control an ignorant population that lives in fear.

       2. Why would it be bad if the poles melt and the water rises? This is going to happen over hundreds of years. People are not set in stone, they can migrate, and those warming polar regions are now going to have vast tracts of unused arable land that will be exponentially more productive with more available water and CO2.

22. We all know that fear impairs judgment. People who want to impose radical social changes that the population would resist under normal circumstances need to prepare the sheeple first with fear-promoting propaganda to lower their resistance. We see this on the fringes of the right as well, with these moronic end-times preachers, hustlers of survivalist supplies and equipment, and libertarians with their propaganda about the evils of central banking, fractional reserve lending and hyperinflation. (Fiat money = carbon dioxide.)

    1. Agreed. I’m a Christian and I roll my eyes when a preacher gets up and starts saying we’re living in the end of times; not that I don’t believe it couldn’t possibly be the case, but the Bible clearly states no man will know when the end of days is coming. Bada-bing-bada-boom.
       Survivalists…eh, I agree each person/family needs a level of preparedness, but not necessarily to the extreme a lot of these guys preach.

    2. Agreed with almost everything except your thesis about banking. If you haven’t paid attentiom the dollar has lost well above 90% of its value since the creation of the fed. Let alone the failed attempts of your friends in the central banks to pump trillions into the economy and to make matters worse now they are going full NIRP in order to punish anyone not spending.
       Libertarians have their issues but Keynesianism and fractional banking as it is practiced today are sheer madness and sooner rather than later it will be obvious for everyone else.

23. If you read a science fiction story about an advanced civilization that could control its planet’s climate by regulating the composition of its atmosphere’s gases, that would sound like something good for an advanced civilization to know how to do.
    Well, according to the global warming obsessives, we’ve stumbled across that ability in the real world. Why haven’t we recognized this fact as an important new tool for exerting man’s dominion over nature?

24. Global warming is a consequence of the precession of the equinox,it means that the earth is inclining its poles

25. I in fact am disappointed that Al Gore’s prediction didn’t materialized as fast as he lied. I’d rather live in a climate which leans towards warming than the opposite.

    1. Indeed. I was hoping for oceanfront property in TN.

       1. I preferred lex luthor’s plan- buy up land in Nevada, nuke the san andreas fault line, watch Cali sink, Nev is the new coastline

    2. Aye, that’s what gets me. Warming is generally a *good* thing, within reason.

26. Global warming is being caused by ingestion of Kratom. Fortunately, the effect is reversible since when one farts Kratom gas, the planet’s temperature is reduced. Therefore, consume more Kratom and fight global warming.

    1. All hail the power of Kratom, our true Lord and Savior!

27. http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/26905674eiceg_sm.jpg

28. You know what could heat up the earth rapidly? Methane. I was listening to some scientist on the radio, he was worried about the methane trapped under the ice in Russia. He said if it was released into the atmosphere, the earth could turn in a planet resembling Venus…bye bye humans

    1. Well, it’s certainly one reason to say global warming is full of shit.

       1. well played

    2. Would that methane have to be released in quick succession or would even a slow dissipation cause devastation? I would think if it is a slow release, then the Earth would, for lack of a better word, metabolize the methane before it could cause any issues.

       1. No clue. Wish I had a link to the transcript to give ya.

    3. I’ve heard every doomsday prediction ever conceived from the 19th through 21st centuries, and as of yet haven’t seen a one of them come true. Global doom has, well, failed to materialize.
       But still, I do keep a look out for asteroids on occasion. Can’t trust those buggers.

       1. Are you immortal? I know youre Scots, are you Conor MacLeod?

          1. Well…he IS a ghost.

          2. I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnen on the shores of Lock Shiel, and I am Immortal.

          3. I knew it.

          4. Why do you think I’m here? After all; here we are, born to be kings, princes of the universe, really.

          5. HAPPY HALLOWEEN, LADIES!

          6. Nuns. No sense of humor.

          7. NEW YORRRRK, NEEEEW YOOOORRRRRKKK…come on, sing it with me!

          8. I am Michel de Bourgogne !
             

          9. Actually, the Kurgan was an authority on global warming. HE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY! IT’S BETTER TO BURN OUT THAN TO FADE AWAY!

       2. You’re right, the predictions are, minimum, to 20 years when everyone’s forgotten and you have a new hysteria.

          1. It’s an industry unto itself, and as you note, you never have to be right. Just generate the fear and profit. AGW is such a scam, to the point that it’s acknowledged that the data is made up, and what “pictures” we see are generally either doctored OR the result of bad software/hardware or just outright made up.

          2. Industry call Climagate:
             

29. Spiders the size of house plants you say? That makes me want to buy a Hummer and cruise around town just for fun.

    1. ..

       1. Yep, that would be me.

    2. Fear the Clock Spider. That takes arachnophobia to a whole new level.
       http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/U7Vnsho6Sr4/hqdefault.jpg

       1. Don’t buy clocks made in China!

          1. Yeah, but it’s not my picture. This was taken in Australia. Spiders that can cover your face when you sleep scare the living bajeezus out of me.

          2. What? That spider is real? O.

          3. Oh, yes. Yes it is. Be scared. Be very, very scared.
             http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/resize/550×600/http://www.blogcdn.com/www.mandatory.com/media/2012/12/spider-clock.jpg

       2. I’ll do you one better:

30. I took an elective class in meterology back in 94′ and was forunate enough to have a great Professor who actually did some work on the Kyoto Accords. He told the class that after a 10 year study, the conclusion they came up with was that there isn’t enough evidience either way to say that mankind has an Impact on climate. That was thrown aside as the sponsors of those accords wanted a different outcome. He warned us then that we will see political motivations at work in the future demanding actions that have nothing to do with science or the climate. It was wierd to hear this as a student in 94′, but here we are. Exactly as he foresaw.
    Climate change is a con. Follow the money and the power that is given to groups to wield over others. That is what this is all about.

31. Here’s how to know if you’re dealing with fake science.
    1. There’s a huge amount of money and political power arrayed behind it that allows no opposition.
    2. You hear “The science is settled” – because that statement alone repudiates the entire scientific method and process. Somebody says it, they’re telling you to shut up, sit down and do NOT investigate with science. A major red flag.

    1. Yea and if SJWs loves it.

    2. Another method is examination of the person pushing it. It is very easy to see if someone is intelligent and self driven, or bought and just regurgitating stuff they were told.

    3. You mean like the political power and money arrayed behind the fossil fuel lobby who has billions of dollars to protect by making us think that global warming isn’t a “thing.”

       1. Haha! You mean the evil oil companies that are telling us that Global warming is serious while trying to drive government funding to subsidize their own development of alternative energy sources?
          http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
          Yeah, it really looks like there is an opposing, moneyed, political power in play here….

       2. Weird because every commercial I see from “fossil fuel lobbiests” all seem to be singing the same song as the government.
          NemesisEnforcer covered this in his response to you.

    4. Science can be gamed, the pharmaceutical industry has mastered this art. Don’t publish, or merely publish very late negative findings, publish immediately positive findings. Always have close to the minimum necessary number of people in the study, to maximize the chance of an outsized result. To discredit another drug or treatment, test the drug with another drug known to have problems, then site the study, without mentioning the inclusion of the problematic drug. And of course just out and out lying is always on the table.

    5. Erm, actually how you know is by researching science. Like how scientists do.

    6. Look, I hate the hippies and the alarmists too. If you disagree with global warming for political reasons, just say so. We might not disagree. But don’t pretend that you know more science than the scientists who actually study this stuff.
       1. What’s the “money and political power” that supports global warming science? I can name a huge number of institutions that oppose any research in global warming. The real power and politics are againt global warming research.
       2. What both you and the article are getting wrong is this. While it’s true that scientific consensus is not the main way science is done (science is done via challenging common knowledge and conducting experiments), it’s not true that scientific consensus is meaningless. The scientific consensus of a large number of scientists carries huge evidential weight by itself. Evidence to the contrary of consensus trumps consensus, but all evidence points to global warming.
       Source: I’m a politically conservative scientist.

32. This is unrelated but figured a little splattering of real news goes a long way. Let this one sink in. Even if there is a possibility the story is false, why publish it?
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/us-marshals-forcibly-collecting-student-debt.html?mid=facebook_nymag

    1. In 2003, U.S. marshals were arresting people in the Twin Cities who had not paid their student loans as part of the so-called “Operation Anaconda Squeeze.”
       “Operation Anaconda Squeeze.”- the US Marshalls are Nacho Libre fans?

       1. Glad I got mine paid off.

33. I agree with the article’s conclusion that the focus should be more on reducing pollutants in our air and water and living a minimalist lifestyle, but disagree with the fearmongering that there is some hidden agenda to create a world government police state through environmental lies.
    First of all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    Yes, plants need it. Yes, it’s naturally occurring in the environment. But it does have an effect on weather, because it emits heat using the same scientific principle a greenhouse in your backyard uses.
    As for wind power, I don’t want to see hundreds of thousands of dead birds (would want to verify that number) but even assuming it’s true, I think most species of animals, including birds, would be better off as a group if there are less coal burning power plants and internal combustion engines on the road and more wind, solar, nuclear, and other renewable energy sources (nuclear isn’t renewable, but it uses so little fuel that’s not much of an issue). The future is in wind, solar, and whatever else we develop and invent. Let’s not look like luddites here.
    I don’t know what crackpot claimed the ice caps would be gone by 2016, but just because they are still here doesn’t mean we have no environmental problem. The fact is ice caps are shrinking. Aerial photographs will show this. Pretending that this isn’t really happening only makes the rest of the article less believable. Even my hard core right wing daily Fox news watching 60 year old mentor who travels the world will freely admit that climate conditions are changing for the worse, including ice caps, African water holes, etc. He’s a professional photographer and has the photographic evidence over many decades in the field.
    New Jersey and New Orleans were both hit with devastating storms, not to mention the Tsunami in Indonesia, the one in Japan that caused Fukushima (an environmental and health disaster that is being covered up, as nuclear particles are at alarming levels along the California coast). And weather conditions are more extreme than I have ever witnessed. Hell, for the first time in my entire life this year I wore shorts on Christmas. I’m anticipating an extra warm summer (and with that comes the possibility of strong hurricanes).
    Finally, the globalist conspiracy. I just don’t buy this because there are FAR more effective ways of creating a globalist police state than consolidating our concerns about our environment. A much more militaristic reason would be far more effective, and would allow justification for violent police actions. How can hot weather justify the government tapping all our phone calls and ordering armored vehicles for the local police forces? It can’t, but terrism sure can. That will be the tool they use to scare us into a global police state.
    What can any of us do about any of this? Stop the identity politics of “No, it’s this one thing and this one thing only!” The path to a clean environment with healthy air and water and a happy long life isn’t about reducing CO2. It’s not about EPA regulating power plants. It isn’t about living a minimalist lifestyle. It isn’t about using technology to move to more efficient energy sources with less negative side effects. It’s about ALL these things.

    1. There was a shitton more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and temperatures were nearly frigid.
       Ice caps are not “shrinking”, in fact ice caps have been measured as growing in the Antarctic, and not melting in the Arctic. Don’t take my word for it, check out National Geographic, they’ve reported on it.

       1. Kind of unrelated, but not entirely so. Have you seen the new, clear solar panels that have been invented? They could be used for windows on skyscrapers. They’re not as efficient as standard solar panels, but think of skyscrapers with these instead of regular windows. Exciting advancement.

          1. That’s pretty cool. I support alt-energy technology in the private market, for certain. As a government financed thing though, it needs to die.

          2. Agreed. I am trying to convince my wife into us building a house out on 4-5 acres and something like this would be great, especially with the plan I’m looking into with all the windows and skylights:

          3. Dude, that looks pretty dope.

          4. Not going to lie…I’m pretty enamored with this house. Only problem is it’s only 520 sq ft which is a bit too cramped for a family of 5. I’m currently mocking up some plans to increase the size a bit.

          5. You can always go the gentrification route and evict some Ewoks.

          6. Hmm…I DO like me some cultural appropriation…

          7. Just get yourself some skinny jeans, thick glasses, an ironic shirt, and a disgusting beard, and tell everyone you are improving the neighborhood. No one will notice.

          8. Hmm…
             Skinny jeans: Nope, crushes the balls
             Ironic shirt: What qualifies as ironic? I have a Scottish guy in a kilt throwing a shot put that says “real men don’t wear pants.” Does that count?
             Thick glasses: I got perfect 20/20
             Disgusting beard: Well…I got a beard but I’m pretty OCD on its hygiene and grooming
             I’m afraid I’d make a pretty bad hipster….

          9. So do I. I share your aversion of skinny jeans. I still aspire to have kids and don’t want to literally crush that dream.
             Ironic shirt? Don’t get that either. Or at least they claim those to be ironic. The only irony I see here is, they think they look cool.
             Thick glasses: Talk about cultural misappropriation. I feel bad for nerds. Years toiling away to make their own piece of culture, now that’s gone.
             Beards: I have one too. In fact, I’ve been able to grow one since I was 16, before beards were considered hip. So it sucks that they have taken that from us too. And I still stand on how messy their beards look.
             Don’t worry about making a bad hipster. Hipsterism in itself is bad. But the benefits of hipsterism are clear to see. Namely, you get to displace populations so you get your “authentic, bohemian” yet overpriced neighborhood, you get educational curriculums set how you like it. You get dibs in the media.

       2. That’s interesting. I had never heard this, because the headline goes against the media’s agenda.
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151103-antarctic-ice-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/
          However, the article indicates that although there is some growth on the eastern ice cap, the ongoing collapse of the western ice sheet will more than offset this. The growth in the ice cap is estimated to cause a 1/4 millimeter per year rise in sea levels, while the collapsing western ice sheet, if it continues to slide off into the ocean, could raise sea levels by up to 3m.
          Also, one can look at aerial photos of most any snow or ice covered area, and they are far smaller today than they were in the past. Calling that “better” or “worse” is a subjective opinion, but the scientific facts are irrefutable.
          http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Global-Greenlands-Melting-Ice-Caps-Comparison-650×524.jpg

          1. Antarctica is the opposite:
             http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
             http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-rather-than-losing-it/

    2. Why are any of the things you point to bad, even if true?
       Why is it bad for the ice caps to go away? Is it undesirable to have a lot more arable land with resources to exploit?

       1. The general consensus is the majority of the population which leaves on or near the coastline would be displaced and have their homes destroyed by rising sea levels. The benefit that they could now put a house on a north pole is not that appealing to the old rich Jewish guy living on the Miami coast right now.

          1. They wouldn’t live long enough to see their house washed away anyways. It’s rising in fractions of inches per decade.

          2. You forget the most relevant point – this displacement will take place over the next several hundred years. Over the past hundred years, sea levels rose as much as they are projected to over the next hundred. There was no catastrophe.
             The majority of the population has always lived near the water, and the water has always been rising or falling. This has never caused an emergency in the past.
             Your feet are not planted in cement, and you are not facing a tsunami of water. Most of the people will be long dead, and the buildings they inhabited long demolished as part of the continuing cycle of human existence and development that has always occurred, long before the sea will significantly change anything.

          3. The truth is you don’t know when it will happen until it’s too late. Already, the island nation of Kiribati has been partially evacuated, and it will likely cease to exist soon:
             http://www.businessinsider.com/pacific-island-nation-kiribati-sinking-2014-5?op=1

          4. The sea level rise is stupid, most of polar ice are maritime, if you have ice in a glass and melts does not increase the level of liquid. The sea level measurements show no changes, the detected variations are actually variations in terrain height.

          5. Yeah, um, no:
             http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
             80% of the islands are actually getting larger, which does not fit with the idea of sea levels in that area rising.
             Not to mention that the Kiribatians don’t seem too worried about it either: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34674374
             New Zealand has 75 spaces per year allotted to climate “refugees” from Kiribati specifically, and it can’t fill them.

          6. That’s a reasonable answer I suppose. The problem I have is the debate always breaks down into the well intentioned environmentalists not willing to give an inch and insisting they have all the answers and the other side mostly appealing to ignorant anti-science arguments. If both sides would just accept the factual evidence and then work from there… ah but now I’m talking reason, that’s not gonna happen in dumbed down dystopian 2016 USA!

          7. To piggyback – even if Kiribati was disappearing, who gives a fuck? Unless this was part of the climate alarm news, most people wouldn’t even know this place existed. And its citizens would immigrate somewhere, and the world would continue.

          8. and the other side mostly appealing to ignorant anti-science arguments.
             Sure, I’d love to, but when I hear “the science is settled!” and “90% consensus” I realize quite quickly that I’m dealing with fraud. No science is settled, ever. Even gravity is still up for debate.

          9. “If both sides would just accept the factual evidence and then work from there.”
             BUT, this is the really tricky part. What is a “fact” in science? I’m not trying to be coy, this is serious.
             It was a “fact” that temperatures weren’t warming, until the climate scientists recently adjusted the temperatures to fit their predictions. http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/ (note, I’m intentionally taking this from a pro-warming site). What science often accepts as “fact” must be revised once new science comes along to change the picture.
             So asking for an acceptance of facts asks too much – if the warming proponents have science on their side, they will be able to demonstrate it, and so too with the anti-warming side. Science will eventually show something one way or the other.
             What you’re asking for is that both sides reach a compromise by first accepting some fundamental assumptions. That’s politics. That’s why this debate gets nasty – why should I pay out of my ass and hamstring my own children so that some third world toilet is allowed to continue polluting and developing if we don;t even really know what the “facts” are?

          10. To be fair, if the ice was on the table, and then ran into the cup as it melted, the water levels would rise, but I agree that much of the disappearing ice is floating and will have no effect whatsoever on sea levels.

          11. I guess of all the things my government is doing, and all the money they are wasting, worrying about stopping them from a few environmental regulations is the least of my worries. Hell, in the time we spent reading this article, the gummit probably spent more money dropping bombs in the Mideast on some brown strangers than it will spend all year on carbon dioxide matters. And the outcome of their meddling in the Mideast = more pissed off brown dudes that will eventually do something in retribution. The outcome of their meddling with CO2 is pretty benign. I pick my battles.

          12. But you see, they are doing things that will worry you very much, very quickly. Obama has been shutting down more coal plants in the last few years than can be sustained. One deep winter like the one two years ago across the nation, and we go brown out. Two years ago during that deep freeze winter we were collectively 1 or 2 power plants from full capacity. Now we have less plants, and no new ones being built, and no alternative sources supplying where they cut out.
              You’ll feel it, you’re just fortunate that generally speaking this has been a rather mild winter.

          13. In Antarctica the ice in the oceans which as you say will not raise the ocean level were it to melt is holding back all the ice that will raise the levels. As those sheets on the water melt the glaciers not presently on the water flow to the water and will raise the levels. See: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/a-full-catalog-of-the-antarctic-ice-shelves-that-should-terrify-us/

          14. My first wife’s family had purchased a house on a barrier island off the coast fo Charleston, South Carolina, a couple of generations ago. When the family bought the house it was 4 blocks from the beach. When I was there it was about 1.5 to 2 blocks from the beach. The joke in family was that when it became beach front property they would sell. This was more due to erosion and constant shifting of the islands that were basically sand bars, than rising ocean levels. Nature is not a fixed thing. Humans want it to be the same forever, but it cares not what humans want.

          15. “Nature is not a fixed thing. Humans want it to be the same forever, but it cares not what humans want.”
              So many people ignore this. Nothing is permanent. 100 years from now, if that island has been rendered uninhabitable due to nature, future generations will argue about why it should be designated a wildlife preserve. This is just the natural cycle of things.

          16. Ice shrinks? http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

          17. You can’t do anything but shake your head sometimes, eh?

          18. Shit, I guess I’d better pray for more global warming!

34. It’s a modern religion. We no longer believe in god, but people need something to believe in so we latch on to global warming, political correctness and other bullshit ideas. Fucking depressing.

    1. “We no longer believe in god” Speak for yourself.
       But I get your point.
       “Nature abhors a vacuum” or something.

       1. Doesn’t matter if you do. The majority has to or it becomes a hindrance.

    2. thank god i am a Christian

35. Carbon is not just diamonds and soot.
    Indeed C02 is literally the biggest anabolical compound ever. Chemistry has two major branches, one of them is for all elements in the chart and the other to Carbon. From dna to proteins and fatty acids all is fucking carbon.
    Without C02 Calvin Cycle is impossible and then all organic molecules and trees that this people love so much.
    And the most carbon is the most carbon will use photosynthetic organisms.
    The aim of that is the same, fuck western civilization economy and then western civilization will fall, this is the true worldwide change. And get our time, work and labor in the way of money. Suicidal serfdom seems our fate.

36. This scam is not intended to transfer money from the first world to the third world, seeks to prevent development. It is a speculative bubble, intended speculate these bonuses as debt. With today’s huge speculation in crisis (see Deutsche Bank) that bonus can only mean slavery to bankers.
    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    

    1. A great film. I would only say the plan is intended to both keep the third world from developing and make the first world as poor as the third world already is through wealth transfer…i.e. socialism.

    2. i saw this documentary and it is outstanding. Also notice that the people who support this bullshit are mostly liberals, socialist, and marxist? hmmm…

37. I have written about this topic previously on ROK…
    The “Owners of Capital Class” are betting on the Singularity, Cell
    Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI to provide their creature comforts in the future. “Global Warming Hysteria” and “Smartphone Dependence” are just a small pieces of the overall strategy that will eventually give them total control over the masses, through the mandatory use of evasive tech. Most tech being developed today is bad for regular people whom are not part of the true “Owners of Capital Class” and its really unfortunate that regular people do not see the scientists that are creating this tech and the financiers supporting their R&D efforts, as TRUE economic adversaries.
    Tech can be used VERY effectively, to further the indentured servitude of the remaining middle and lower classes.
    But, how is that possible, a regular person may ask?
    Remember when cell phones were actually fun?
    I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after what was considered typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought at midnight.
    Here is another older example, when my parents were in school in the 1950’s and 60’s they were told: no one would have to work in the future, that everything would be done by robots and they would, in turn, have increased free time used for creating, making art, learning and helping others…
    We all know how that turned out, mass layoffs, outsourcing due to cheaper communication tech and increased workload for those domestic laborers that remained gainfully employed within USA based corporations.
    The Singularity, Cell regeneration, Mind-Clones Cyborg Implants and Artificial Intelligence are essentially the same lie, that was told to our parents, just rehashed for a 21st century audience.
    I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech like the Singularity, AI, Robotics, etc. Do people really think when these things finally become real, functioning, working designs, applicable to industry, that we the “peons”, will somehow ALL get a Data from Start Trek or a C-3PO from Star Wars, to help us at home, at the job site or in the office, etc?
    In reality, we are going to get a David 8 as depicted in the Prometheus/Aliens films or the Robot Probation officer seen in the Elysium movie. These automatons are going to take away jobs and make unethical policing and policy enforcement, both easier and cheaper, for the true “Owners of Capital Class”. Since they won’t be paying a salary to the robot worker, the savings will instead be pumped into legal fees and political lobbying, resulting in good overall ROI for the corporations/governments and a full blown, loss of liberty, for everyone else.
    Whom goes to jail when an AI Robot or Mind Clone pulls your arm out of the socket? Will it be considered “negligence by the human that lost the arm”, a “matter for a civil suit” only, perhaps “not a criminal act”, to be adjudicated in a arbitration setting?
    I personally at this point are willing to live with 1980’s +/- era tech, IF, it means, I am more free and can continue to earn money to live off.
    Elysium Probation Officer photo:
    http://fourthdimensionalrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/probation-officer1.jpg
    Introducing David 8 webpage:
    https://www.weylandindustries.com/david
    https://www.weylandindustries.com/img/david/david_003.jpg
    In the words of David 8: “I can do almost anything that could possibly be asked of me, including things that my human counterparts might find distressing or unethical”
    We are also approaching an era where the “Owners of Capital Class” will not need laborers of any kind to live a life of comfort. But, our civilization is not quite ready yet, technology-wise, so the “Owners of Capital Class” need to “keep people calm and unsuspecting” until the trigger, of the grand plan, can be pulled decisively, without consequence.
    So, what are the possible scenarios that regular folks will experience, during this “interim period”, while the technology needed to create the Singularity, Cell Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI, is maturing?
    The “Owners of Capital Class” will simply extract the little remaining unspent labor wages from the lower classes, by decree, through the implementation of a cashless system. Consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory in some way. Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL, how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implement future legislated purchases on a large scale. “Click-Wrap Agreements” coupled with a “cashless society” will make that transition easier for the “Owners of Capital Class” to force on the general populace.
    What do I mean exactly?
    Many forget that we now live in what “could” be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the “Owners of Capital Class”, can and will “legislate” mandatory purchases in the future, if, revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).
    So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a “penalty” at tax time or some scheme involving a “negative interest rate”. The “owners of capital” have, at this point, run out of consumer goods that they can “strongly coerce” people to buy, in order to go to work, such as: gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc. We are approaching a day when they will simply make it law that you have to buy goods, in certain quantities before tax season (again, just like the current Obamacare that can be coupled a Flexible Spending Account), except one day we will have an FSA to be used for ALL goods and services, and you can bet those accounts will be “use-it or lose-it”. Also, since you won’t be able to own things that are currently being developed, like the new “digital cars” and the current “digital media” being rented on Hulu, Netflix, etc., means that likely, in the future, you could be billed for “damage to the vehicle or product” from the “real owners” of that vehicle or product, at any time.
    Regular People will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the”Owners of Capital Class” can choose, AT ANY TIME, to take close to the same amount of lost revenue back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of “tax penalties” or other method (cashless, digital currency, negative interest rate, instant credit to cover shortfalls and deductions from bank accounts, ALL DONE whenever the “Owners of Capital Class” see fit). A cashless society, dominated by “click-wrap agreements” is the easiest way to structure “forced purchases” into the larger economy. Another scenario that regular people will face in the future, is when someone chooses “not to buy” and then doesn’t have the proper “proof of purchase” coupon, etc, to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due. I can guarantee that the IRS or some other agency will have some way to calculate the amount “you should have purchased” (kinda sounds like college FASFA aid forms, in reverse, doesn’t it?). People will also have to pay a monthly fee to keep their digital money in the bank and there won’t be any alternative way to store it, without paying the monthly fee. This process will result in an instant, predictable, revenue generator for public companies, that the stock market will then feed off.
    Note, bartering used as a circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering, by an estimate, the same way they do for restaurant servers receiving tips. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have “bartered” some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity (likely a Felony). I don’t recall “bartering” being a named constitutional right anywhere.
    Look at solar roof panels, as another example, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn, drives down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired to run the utilities.
    Young people don’t understand that this tech, that they are addicted to, can be used VERY effectively, to further their indentured servitude. Millennial’s and the generation after them, falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by “corporate committee” to do just the opposite. The only way to prevent that shift, is for Millennial’s to immediately STOP buying such tech, opposing the development of said tech and discouraging others from buying and using it, even if it means using physical force. But, they will NEVER do this because they have “drank the Kool-aid” and are to a certain extent addicted to technology. Think about it, I’m seeing commercials for ordering pizza on a smartphone app, but whats the point, really? To appease Millennial’s? Perhaps. But, did this consuming cohort of fools take the time to think about whether it is really more convenient to type an order in on an app, as opposed to calling the order in on a phone? No they didn’t AND by using the smartphone app to place a FOOD ORDER instead of a phone, the pizza seller can then become a data broker making money by selling customer info, instead of making money by providing a quality food product.
    Then there is the issue of behavioral “data simulations” being conducted on citizens by corporations and government, eventually, to be used for revenue projections. I can guarantee that some people will not be able to be “simulated”, due to high levels of inaccuracy in the data that exists on file and is collected on them regularly. Some simple examples would be homeless people, old people that don’t use credit or the internet, and low wage earners functioning solely on cash, whom use cell phones or have utility bill etc on a relatives account, which their name is not on (I have a relative that does all of the above and couch surfs, there’s no way a simulation would know anything about him because he has virtually no digital footprint).
    Th rub is when these “behavioral simulations” becomes a real part of business revenue projections, directly influencing tax revenue projections and collection methods. These people that “cannot be simulated” will be labeled criminals and put on some kind of supervised probation and forced to adapt habits that can be tracked digitally. I can GUARANTEE this will happen. As I stated above, Millennial’s are likely the easiest to simulate already because they have already given away the keys to the castle and have no intention of taking those keys back.
    Right now most Americans are expected to and are coerced by employment requirements to buy/finance a car, buy/finance education, buy/finance healthcare, buy/finance insurance and eventually buy/finance a home of some kind.
    What do you think the “Owners of Capital Class” will do when “life-extension tech”, “self-driving cars”, “robot AI home workers”, “AI networked appliances” or “cyborg implants” become viable commercial products?
    They will simply coerce people to buy it, even if the recipient doesn’t want to have the procedure done and the methods used to coerce the general populace in the United States, will not require any additional lobbying or law changes on the behalf of the “Owners of Capital”.
    Imagine a world where life-extension tech is sold and financed to regular people, over long repayment periods, to people that don’t have the ability to pay for it, in cash, up front, similar to a cars, higher education or home mortgages.
    Want to opt-out? Sure you have the “choice” to do anything you want, we are a “free country” after all.
    Imagine the unfolding of the following fictional scenarios, resulting from a person “choosing” to NOT have the life-extension procedure:
    Do you want health insurance? Sorry, but we don’t insure people whom have not had the “life-extension” procedure. However, there is another provider which we can refer you to that will, but that company has both a high deductible and high premium, so as to reduce the coverage risk of your shorter life span, to the provider.
    Want to get a job? Sorry, but we don’t hire people whom do not have “cyborg-implants”, they cost more to insure and are un-insurable in some cases. We don’t consider this discrimination, however, because its no different than requiring you to have a car or a driver license for employment with our firm. Especially with the Supreme Court declaring that those refusing the “cyborg-implants” procedure are not considered disabled, nor are a protected class.
    Do you need a credit card or a business loan? Sorry, but we have to charge you a higher interest rate because our actuaries have found that people whom have not had the “life-extension” procedure are a higher risk, have higher unemployment rates and have lower profit margins, due to a shorter life expectancy.
    Do you need a bank account or cell/internet/communication service plan? Sorry, but we don’t open accounts to people whom have not had the “cyborg-implant” procedure, they cost significantly more to service, due to not being plugged directly into the system.
    Again, as I said above, this mandatory purchase strategy will not be limited to ” life-extension tech”. Just replace the word “life-extension procedure”, in my above example, with the word “self-driving car”, “robot AI home worker”, “AI networked appliances”, “Cell Regeneration” or “cyborg implant” and the result is the same for the regular person.
    Last, “Private Cities” owned by corporations, will be exempt from labor and civil laws. The rally to create these cities will be done in order to lower human labor costs before the Singularity, Mind-clone and AI tech fully take over, rendering regular people back to the old indenture servant system that used to exist in the USA.
    Want to get a job in a “Private City”? Sorry, but we don’t hire people whom have not financed the life-extension procedure and/or do not have an AI car or Robot home worker”.
    In a “Private City” the “Owners of Capital Class” can make ANY RULES THEY WANT, without “due process” or pesky “labor laws” getting in the way.
    All of the above also does not include fact that employers will require people working for them to hold bank accounts with negative interest rates and it won’t matter if the person is paid by on 1099 or has a W-2.
    Do you want to get paid in a cashless society? If so, you will need to have an open and active “negative interest” bank account.
    In the USA the government has the power to simply make certain actions illegal on a whim because unlike Europe, we have no real consumer, civil or labor protections. This also doesn’t account for the private banks just outright refusing to give you your money, on bank run day, requiring you to attempt to press charges against them or suing, in hopes of successfully gaining access to your funds in the far future.
    If, bank runs become a possible reality, the private banks will know well in advance and will have taken all the physical cash out of the local bank locations, before the public becomes aware. The government will also make carrying cash over a certain amount illegal, say something like, no more than $100 physical cash on your person, inside residences, private storage, vehicles or business locations.
    In summary, I suspect that the “Owners of Capital Class” in the USA will “legislate purchases”, little by little, then do a surprise unloading of the negative interest polices on existing accounts. Regular people won’t see it coming and this situation will hit them like a ton of bricks, with no alternatives to fall back on.
    All sounds swell, don’t it!
    First, AI is going to make regular people jobless
    Second, it is going to steal what few liberties and freedoms they have left
    Third, it will make human life valueless to the true “Owners of Capital”, many of whom are Closeted Fascists

    1. heckuva post!

    2. You forgot one more important aspect for the latter part of the Interim phase between now and singularity…Mass Culling (designed plagues, hunger, wars, etc.). After all 8 o 9 billion jobless people is no laughing matter…

38. Will there a RoK article about how evolution is fiction and the reason for Blacks acting up is the Curse of Ham?

    1. No, because those would be false. On the other hand the corruption and outright lies coming from the AGW camp are well documented not just by “right wing” types, but even in the normal media now.

       1. What logical fallacy did he just use ? I know it’s one but I can’t remember the name.

          1. Possibly an implied ad hominem? I’m not very good at distinguishing the logical fallacies either. GOJ, you should do an article on logical fallacies; how to identify them and real life examples!

          2. It looks like some kind of “slippery rope”. Which is funny since I think slippery rope arguments are not necessarely fallacious and were just classified as a fallacy by leftists to counter opponent to gay marriages.

          3. I think it’s an implied argumentum ad lapidem (appeal to the stone). He’s dismissing the article as absurd, by association, without demonstrating why it’s absurd. Off the top of my head, I’m probably wrong and there might be a more relevant fallacy to use here.

          4. Still want that article from GOJ

          5. I really do have to write something. The problem is every time I post “I really do have to write something” I get sidetracked in real life.

          6. Just cover one logical fallacy per day and in about a week, you’re done!

          7. False equivalence.

          8. Yeah, that’s probably better.

          9. You could trick yourself into writing something on why you have to write something.

          10. No fallacy. Deniers are like Creationists – they hide on the fringes on science looking for some supposed inconsistencies in the data as opposed to actually learning and doing any science themselves.

          11. Oooh! Oooh! I think I got this one!
              argumentum ad hominem, correct?
              an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly

          12. Crafty, very clever!

          13. Were Gallileo, Copernicus, Keppler, Newton, and Einstein “deniers?” They all rejected consensus too.
              And, “inconsistencies” in data invalidate hypotheses. It’s an unfortunate fact, but that’s how science works – one man can turn the whole thing upside down.

          14. I thought it was a false analogy.

          15. Oh look. Name calling and an assumed superiority based not on any facts presented, but on the tacit assumption that the opposing side is wrong right out of the gate. How quaint.

          16. Ohh…you could be right. There’s definitely some ad hominem flare in his attacks (ignoring the actual argument), but I think for this specific comment, you are correct.

          17. Slippery slope is a fallacy because it is not necessarily true. Technically all fallacies could be true, it is just not that they necessarily are. If A dies, B probably killed him. A dies. B probably killed him. That’s a fallacy because C could also have killed A. BUT it is also possible that B could have killed A. The reasoning is faulty because it has not been proven, but it does not mean that it could not be. So a slippery slope where Because A, then B, then C, then D is fallacious because D is not necessary and should not be assumed, but it is still possible.

          18. You know…as great as the article itself was, I’m more entertained by this discussion. This has been something I’ve been meaning to get a grasp of so this this conversation is definitely enlightening.

          19. That’s it…I’m making some logical fallacy flash cards.

          20. Yeah, I make my living as a lawyer, so I have to spot this type of shit all day long, and try to guard myself against falling into the same traps.

          21. If GOJ doesn’t do the logical fallacy article, perhaps you should.

          22. For what it’s worth, knowing the fallacies (as in being able to quickly name the) is not as important as being able to recognize that someone is engaged in them. Its not as important to be able to quickly say that this guy is engaged in false equivalence as it is to know that what he’s saying is bullshit, and to be able to explain why.

          23. Not a bad idea, though I once wrote a comment and GOJ informed me that I stole his thunder on an article he had been drafting on that very point, so I’ll let him have first dibs. Though I’m happy to copy edit!

          24. Really? You can’t find the NASA or the IPCC website? That’s like a Creationist wanting a full course on Biology.

          25. True. For my purposes, it would be just for learning and identifying them.

          26. Wow, a combination appeal to authority/Texas sharpshooter fallacy! You are a true master!

          27. Exactly.

          28. Appeal…to…authority….
              Texas….sharpshooter…
              Ok, got those added to my list.

          29. No, by all means sir, have at it.

          30. Yours is good, but it’s also a false equivalence fallacy. He’s arguing that there is some equivalence between ridiculous propositions. And here is another opportunity to learn about logical fallacies for those who are following, you can make many simultaneously.

          31. Ok what’s the difference between using a quote to back up your point and an appeal to authority ?
              For example : if I say, I think that A is A. Plato also thought that A is A. (so I’m implying that you’re not only against me, but against me and a very respected philosopher) Is that fallacious ?

          32. Yes. Plato could be wrong. But, remember, it is not necessarily true that Plato is wrong. The logic is fallacious, but the conclusion is not necessarily incorrect. The better support would not be to point to Plato,but to the reasoning Plato used to prove his point. That Plato used it is only icing on the cake, in and of itself, it proves nothing.

          33. And, as I’m engaged in this discussion – I say above that technically all fallacies could be true. Arguing as if they are not is also a fallacy – it’s called the argumentum ad logicam – you infer that an argument is fallacious just because it contains a fallacy.

          34. Rather you & co. appeal to supposed secret knowledge or appeal to anti-authority.

          35. Argumentum ad hominem. You should teach a course!

          36. If anyone is interested:
              http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

          37. At some point are you going to actually post something substantive to discuss, or do you work solely in the realm of logical fallacies?

          38. Deniers, like Creationists, only have the Internet to give them a sense of superiority.

          39. The deniers arguments are been long hear and discounted. Like Creationists they look for data that doesn’t seem to add as opposed to doing any actual science.
              http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          40. Ok thank you. When I argue I have a slight tendancy to bury the opponent under a feu d’enfer of pedantic quotes. Now I know how to use them better.

          41. And…Association Fallacy!
              Seriously, you’ve not contributed one actual fact to discuss, you are working purely in the realm of fallacies. That has to be exhausting.

          42. Climate change is an industry. The scientists at NASA and the IPCC will forever promote climate change because without it they would be out of a job. They will say whatever is necessary to keep their jobs. They are like everyone else, they need a steady paycheck.
              I know this because I work for a large government contractor. Believe me when I tell you, when it comes to your job, you will say and do anything to keep it.

          43. Look at his history of posts on ROK and you’d know the answer.

          44. Fallacies are easy, not exhausting. I’m sure he has plenty more in the tank.

          45. Even Fox New won’t give any credence to AGW Deniers. Some here think Fox News would have the scoop of the century but even they know when to stay away from faux science.

          46. I’ve always considered evading truth to this extent to be hard work, relatively speaking. Easier to just be plain and blunt.

          47. Argumentum ad logicam and argument ad hominem at the same time! I’m in awe while witnessing sheer genius.

          48. Appeal to authority. Again. You’re starting to repeat yourself.

          49. I dunno….providing mountains of logical arguments and facts to someone who provides lazy logical fallacies in return is pretty draining.

          50. Pedantic quotes are quite useful because, especially if people are familiar with the source, they find them persuasive. But you should take care to not rest the argument on the author/speaker and instead his reasoning. Do that, and you;re golden (assuming of course that the author isn’t committing a fallacy himself).

          51. With your “brilliant” logic you can’t prove anything around you is real or being imagined.

          52. It’s appealing to the fact that Deniers are like all conspiracy theorists – they think they are privy to incredible information that needs to be told when in reality everyone’s heard of it and rejected it.

          53. The trick to that is to realize that they don’t give a fetid dingo’s kidney about facts to begin with, and work only to appeal to you at an emotional level, for good or evil depending on how they perceive you. Once you realize that, you understand that treating them as anything other than unbalanced two year olds in need of guidance and care is unnecessary.

          54. Nah, it’s just another logical fallacy dude. Coming in and spraying insults and appeals to authority and other fallacies doesn’t mean anything of significance to me or most here. If you wish to discuss, then do so as a man – straight up, fact based, logic and reason; not as some passive aggressive snarky teenaged girl.
              I understand of course that this is not in your interest, nor will you actually follow my advice, so I’m basically at the point where I’m through using you for entertainment and will in short order bid you a fond adieu.

          55. I don’t claim logic is “brilliant” (straw man fallacy on your part), logic is what it is.
              As to what can be proven – the reason that falsifiability theory exists is precisely because it is so difficult to prove anything.
              Your desk exists. But how do you prove it? How do you know that you’re not a brain sitting in a jar plugged into a virtual matrix? I realize this gets away from science and into philosophy, but that’s why both disciplines exist and inform each other.
              I’ll concede that we should discuss what can be proven by the data, but so far you have not done anything except point to NASA and the IPCC websites without offering your view as to what anything in that vast collection of political-speak “proves.” Nor have you addressed any of the substantive points made here except to imply that he’s cherry picking. You’re correct that cherry picked data doesn’t, by itself, invalidate AGW, but contrary data certainly doesn’t prove AGW either, and that’s the point.

          56. Ah hell, I figured you for a Denier, who is like a Creationist.

          57. By said reasoning all conspiracy theories are true because authorities can’t be trusted.

          58. This is the real nugget that shows why you are full of shit. First, the very fact that many here disagree, and the AGW advocates themselves have to admit that 3% of scientists (set aside for the moment the validity of that number) disagree with the consensus, shows that “everyone” has not rejected it.
              More importantly, it only takes ONE person in science to disprove something. So what everyone else believes is completely irrelevant if they are wrong, which they very well may be.
              All of this demonstrates that you are both intellectually dishonest, and don’t know the first thing about science.

          59. The simple fact is all conspiracy theorists have information that if true would be instant worldwide news. In reality conspiracy theorists simply rely on the Internet to exist.

          60. No it doesn’t. If a scientistscould show irrefutable data that AGW is false and have no scientific merit then it would be hard-hitting worldwide news.

          61. Burden of proof.
              False choice.
              Argumentum ad populum (implied)
              Ignorato ilenchi.
              Non sequitur.
              This has to be your masterpiece!

          62. False choice. Some authorities may be untrustworthy. Some may be trustworthy. Some conspiracy theories may be true in whole or in part. Some may be complete bullshit.

          63. Denying the antecedent. Just because it’s not worldwide news to a biased media that earns its money by scaremongering, doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

          64. Depends on what I’m expected to deny or believe in. I tend to turn my bullshit meter on full power most of the time. On AGW, I prefer to think of myself not as a “denier” but as someone who doesn’t yet see the necessary steps to demonstrate proof. But even if they ever come about, which I suppose they could, I still don’t see any reason to give a shit because warming can be very good, and humans can adapt.

          65. I’m of the belief that warming is good. Longer growing periods for crops.

          66. I actually agree that warming is good. I have yet to hear a real explanation as to why I should assume otherwise.

          67. But…but…but….the polar bears!

          68. On a more serious note, this could be a good thing to turn on them. I see the counter to global warming as such:
              “So what if the Earth is warming? If it is, that means more areas of the Earth could grow crops that couldn’t do so before and the growing seasons would be longer. What’s your deal? Are you against feeding the children in Africa, you racist genocidal maniac?!”

          69. Yeah, like the polar bears won’t figure out how to kill the seals when the seals move to land.
              And if they can’t, well, that’s kind of evolution in action, survival of the fittest and all. You’d think people who profess to be “pro-science” would understand this.

          70. Yeah, elsewhere on this thread I posted a comment about three basic questions I ask when I talk to these people that none of them can answer. One is “why should we assume warming is bad?” There are so many data points here to validate a warm-is-good outlook, most of which are backed up by their own personal experiences, that it quickly overwhelms them.
              For example, how many people die in warm weather versus cold weather? Drink plenty of fluids and you can survive in Death Valley indefinitely. Cold can kill you in a fuck ton of ways.
              Where is biodiversity greatest on this planet – warm climates, or cold climates?
              Etc…

          71. As long as you have adequate rainfall or have drought resistant crops, I don’t see why not.

          72. Be careful not to assume too much. Plenty of very hot places on this earth get lots of rain, and plenty of the very cold places are technically deserts. Rainfall doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with temperature, and so there is no reason to presume that hotter temperatures will automatically increase droughts. Remember, the water cycle starts when heat causes surface water to evaporate. A hotter planet may actually evaporate more water and produce more rainfall.

          73. You can only claim the mantle of Galileo if you are in fact correct.

          74. That’s where human ingenuity comes in. There are indeed deserts that do have their monsoon periods, so it is up to the locals to attempt to catch every past drop of it.

          75. Actually polar bear populations are currently on the increase. So, meh.

          76. Why won’t they just die so we can have an excuse to save the planet to protect them!!!!

          77. Order placed.

          78. You too commit the ignoratio elenchi fallacy – also known as missing the point. The point is that “deniers” are often vindicated, which is why it is foolish to brandish the term as an insult.
              I don’t need to claim anyone’s mantle. I am not a climate scientist. I am just a dude who can think critically and observe that a great many climate scientists disagree on this issue, and that disagreement doesn’t make them wrong just because more of them are in one camp than the other. One man’s disagreement can defeat an otherwise unanimous scientific consensus. The only “deniers” are those that do not recognize this fundamental element of science.

          79. With your brilliance there’s no proof of a round Earth versus a flat one, no proof of evolution or special creation, no proof of safe vaccines or autistic-causing poisons, etc..

          80. Wrong. I can travel around the earth. I can observe evidence that demonstrates evolution. I can read the studies of vaccines and look at the historical record of their elimination of diseases that used to be commonplace.
              What I cannot do is connect the dots from humans existing to humans being the primary cause of global warming to global warming being automatically bad to the belief that we are better off trying to stop global warming rather than adapting to a warmer earth. There is, in the most generous light to you, some evidence that the earth is warming and that human emissions may be a small component of the contribution to it – though this last bit is not based on any demonstrated evidence and is instead primarily correlation and a logical leap that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and human activities emit CO2, then we must be causing part of the warming. This too is simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
              So again, you have demonstrated your adeptness at fallacious reasoning (with bonus points for inclusion of more ad hominnem, and false equivalence), but not much else. Stick to selling Colecos.

    2. I wonder what your response was to this:
       http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
       Science, if true, shouldn’t require fraud and deceit, should it?

       1. Apparently, he’s opted to not respond. Funny, that.

39. Most of environmentalism is a lie that was promoted to forward the liberal agenda.
    Back when I was in school (the 80’s) professors were warning we were going to run out of oil in 25-30 years. Well that never happened and now we appear to have more the enough to go around.
    For you younger people go ahead and Google “population bomb”. It was basically a prediction that the Earth could not support a population that, when predicted, was actually smaller then what we have today. It was nothing but a front to forward the birth control agenda.
    Do you think it is an accident that every “remedy” to global warming (or whatever you want to call it now) is part of the global liberal agenda? There isn’t one free market solution in there at all (although if global warming were real there are plenty of viable ones out there). If we were faced with some Earth ending armageddon wouldn’t you want to consider all the option on the table and not just what so plutocrats in the UN give you?
    Obviously it is a lie. If you don’t believe that I have a nice igloo in FL to sell you.

    1. The whole population argument is relative. Comparing the density of the U.S. is not the same as, say, Bangladesh, which, according to Wikipedia is, 2676.8 per square mile, which is a 12th worldwide. And I’m trying to visualize that many people in that small space.
       There is plenty of oil to go around. That countries considered shady, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, control the easier to extract oil, well, that is another argument entirely.

40. Definitely makes you think. Consumerism is a huge problem that no one is talking about.

41. Great post, it’s because of stuff like this I read RoK.

42. LIES
    ALL LIES

43. The whole global warming thing is to instate a carbon tax on people and businesses. Could you imagine the amount of money coming in from a mandatory 1% carbon tax?

    1. And no matter how “green” you are, you will always be paying money simply for breathing, literally.

       1. Yup. I just love how all these hippies are all for “green” tech. But they fail to know how batteries are disposed of.

          1. Or created for that matter. It isn’t pretty for the environment.

          2. Exactly. Plus most Lithium Ion battery components are slightly radioactive and must be treated as such after depleted. Something these Japanese hybrid manufacturers don’t tell you.

          3. Oh I know. I used to work at a plant for one of them Japanese car companies.

          4. WHOAAA SIR! That’s racist and you can’t say things like that. Just think of the babies that get around in these hybrids! It’s for the greater good.

          5. Aw crap…not again….
             Welp, let the self-flagellation begin…bad me! Bad me!

44. So basically, what it comes down to is women ruin everything

45. I have an article on this topic upcoming if Social Matter decides to put it out. Look up something called ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. They are indeed trying to institute a global progressive totalitarianism, but they have been largely unsuccessful thus far. Other countries don’t like the US government and won’t scale back their economies because of spurious ideas about anthropogenic global warming.
    For more info if you are curious about the topic of ‘climate change’, you should check out William M Briggs, Corndell statistician. He often discusses it, among other things.
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
    Remember, science will be faulty if their mathematics are wrong. A lot of the criticism of contemporary meteorologists comes from guys in statistics.

46. There is such a thing as global warming. It is caused by douches like Al Gore and their private jets.
    I do like the plant/CO2 pic. As long as there are plants en masse like, say, the Amazon forest ready to absorb it, I don’t see how CO2 will be a problem.

47. I don’t know if it’s a lie but still it would not hurt to watch out for nature…with billions of people polluting like crazy, somethings not good is bound to happen sooner or later.
    I dont see any harm in investing in clean energy sources like solar energy, wind energy and fusion power. Esp the latter, when mastered, will solve the problem once and for all.
    As a bonus, we don’t have to start wars in the middle east over oil anymore, and they can go back to become the unimportant camel jockeys they were destined to be.

    1. I’m not really opposed to alternative energy sources, but I AM opposed to the government investing billions of our dollars in it. Let the free market do its thing.

48. You had to know it was all bullshit when carbon credits were available to buy and sell. Money money money. It also gave a bunch of corrupt leftist scientists an opening to the taxpayer feeding trough.

    1. It’s the modern day snake oil routine:
       “We have the cure to what ails you! Just come on over and buy our thinga-ma-bob and it’ll solve all your woes!”

       1. “When all around you seems like Hell
          Just one sip will make you well, oh, oh
          Multipurpose in a jar
          If you ain’t ill it’ll fix your car”
          Read more: Big Audio Dynamite – Medicine Show Lyrics | MetroLyrics

49. The whole global warming thing might be a business scheme, but so is anything made by rich people, like hysteria over gun bans or paranoia over vaccines.

50. I knew it was BS a couple decades ago. When they have to steal money from you via taxation and give it the ‘government’ to solve alleged problem and no one ask why, you know its nonsense. Remember that ozone hole over the southern pole? It is still there even after the billions spent phasing out old refrigerant to the new one.
    There has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes, rising sea levels, decrease in food production, lack of snow in the usual areas, climate refugees or any other nonsense. If one bothers to read the IPCC report, even they admit to limitations in some aspects of the modeling.

51. Want to know what it really is?
    These people have teams of psychiatrists and pschologists who plot out a lot of things that they do in public, for public consumption. No big secret there, it’s been in the open since at least the Nixon Kennedy debate. What they figured out is that human beings are, at our core, more or less still the same tribal, animistic beings we were back in the year 5,000 B.C. So, what did they do?
    They set up a series of priests cum shamans, who warn us that if we don’t sacrifice to the proper gods (their masters), then bad weather will happen and destroy all of our crops. They promise that if we just cede them our individual sovereignty and the choice of bread off of our table, that this will appease the gods and the weather and all will be well. We are presented with the choice of appeasing the gods, or the crops will fail.
    This schtick was old in 5,000 B.C., it’s doubleplus old today. The shitter is, so many people have basically proven the psychiatrists right.

    1. Science god is vindictive if he is not appeased. What is more amusing is that these same “pro-science” people will often be vehemently anti-religion….while defending their religion.

52. Global Warming looks like a leftist conspiracy because it is a real reason to do what “The Left” already wants to do. You are incorrect that there isn’t actual science to back it up.
    Your stumbling point is that as a smart person who thinks about how to solve problems you went, “Let’s say they’re right. What do we need to do…” and didn’t like where that train of thought led. It is easier for you to deny the problem exists at all than entertain the idea that the hated liberals and tree-huggers might be right. Frankly it suggests that you are in fact in less denial about what it will take to stop this than some of those on the left.
    See: http://www.alternet.org/story/153230/to_conservatives,_climate_change_is_trojan_horse_to_abolish_capitalism

53. Agenda 21 anyone?

54. Great article Relampago! My compliments to your researching prowess.
    I was just recently engaged with a numbskull who was swearing to me up and down that global warming climate change is real and he repeated -much to my disgust- the idiotic canard that climate change lead to ISIS becoming an issue on the world stage. I couldn’t believe anyone was this stupid but lo and behold, this self professed liberal managed to remind me once more of why i consider liberalism a mental disorder.
    HIs name is simply “Josh” and the science in this article once again confirms the strength of my argument and the utter futility and criminal ignorance inherent in his. Although i managed to destroy him at every turn, it was nice to see this perfectly timed article come out as a means of fate rewarding me for my intelligence and tenacity 🙂
    Once again, you have my thanks!

    1. “Climate change lead to ISIS becoming an issue on the world stage.”
       So he decided to forego the logical leap in favor of the logical rocket launch to Jupiter?
       Or to put it another way – he went full retard at the cyclic rate.

       1. More like the logical rocket launch to Uranus…as in, his ISIS comment only make sense when you put yourself in the anal-yzing position of the sciolist asshole that originated it: Bernie Sanders.
          http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260210-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-causes-terrorism

       2. Oh and if you were curious to see more of Josh’s lobotomized grandeur feel free to read a snippet of it. I guarantee he will make you scratch your head and question if he’s simply here to troll with information he knows is fraudulent or if he’s impressively stupid enough to believe it.
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/returnofkings/did_the_force_awakens_lose_4200000_because_of_rok_reports_identifying_it_as_sjw_propaganda/#comment-2505095813

       3. Almost forgot…he also believes Al Gore created the internet.
          BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

          1. Nice handling. For some reason as I read the exchange I couldn’t help but picture your troll “Josh,” alone at the computer pumping out this song:
             

          2. Yes, I’m sure he rubs the open wound that exists in place of the penis he should have been born with often.
             Guys like him are the reason why the work we do is so important. He might be too far gone but someone on the fence who can still be saved might be reading the exchange and wondering if there’s something to the ROK phenomenon after all.

    2. Why would you argue with a parrot?
       (squa!) because bernie said so(squa!) because bernie said so (squa!)

       1. Lol. For the virtual passersby. The ones that are undecided.

55. I swear the article writer must have been following my exchange with Josh; many of the points presented therein were referenced by me in my recent exchange with that particularly turd-ish intellectual eunuch, Josh.
    I’m not accusing the author of plagiarism of course, simply marveling at the fact 🙂

56. Environmentalism has always been a conservative value. Leftists stole it after the fall of the Berlin wall. How can you be environmentalist at the same time you promote massive immigration, increasing the footprint of the receiving territories?

    1. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

57. Global warming alarmists have called several cycles of this since the 1800s. They’ve claimed death by cooling/warming alternately since then.
    It is a lie with aspects of it becoming a political religion. It has special knowlwdge, priests, tenets, punishment for sins, indulgences to buy away sins. Like any fanatical religion it seeks to silence deniers. It has hybridized itself to far leftism so it has become a form of communism/socialism.
    Sorry lefties, that bitch is all yours.

58. Global warming must be cyclical and naturally occuring since Lake Michigan used to be quite a bit larger 2 million years ago? Dig into the dirt about 6 to 8 miles west of the shoreline and you’ll find lots of tiny sea shells. How do you explain that if there were no automobiles or factories? http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/PARKS/I&M/CORRIDOR/GEO/includes/contentGeo.htm

59. Giant insects are cool. Except when they burrow inside you
    Interesting article. The truth is that anything that requires urgent internationally coordinated action helps the globalist agenda if it means transnational legislating or the equivalent, however as an area of concern it does fit nicely with the idea that we’re killing the earth and should get off the planet.

60. This kind of reminds me of how studies are regularly done on couples violence, now finding that women are initiating more of it than men..and those studies are never accepted into journals because it doesn’t fit the politics. So much for impartial Science.

    1. Impartial science? Whatever gave you that idea? Science is done that can generate grant money and backers, hence the topic of this article. Global warming scientists all agree because they are being paid to do so or can lose the chance to do any scientific experimentation whatsoever.
       As a computer scientist, I find there is very little being done these days with the idea of improving man’s lot, but rather “What is going to sell?”

       1. The truth is that EVEN IF global warming was real the ‘consensus’ should be that it is false.
          Why? Because big oil/gas etc. stands to lose too much and they have the money at their disposal to make such a negative consensus happen.
          (And as for leftoid claims of big oil spending money on anti-warming propaganda the amounts pointed to are extremely modest relative to what big oil could afford to spend!)
          So why is the ‘consensus’ that warming is real instead?
          a: The majority of scientists are THAT uncorruptible
          or
          b: They are controlled by something even bigger than big oil!

          1. Governments are more powerful than any industry. They can wage wars, collect tax, etc. big oil is nothing compared to the power of a government. Most of this sort of science, published is peer reviewed journals, is government funded. I used to do it.

       2. Thats kind of the problem, so many businesses not trying to fix problems, rather creating false solutions(so that people keep coming back) or actually creating a problem to be fixed. People don’t realize how many professionals are out there trying to screw with their minds and bodies, all to filtch a little more dirty money.–doing things to you that they wouldnt do to their own children.

          1. I couldn’t agree more and when you’re the sort that is wired up to try to solve meaningful problems it gets frustrating to say the least. At least the govt is bribing women to get into STEM fields as they won’t have that issue of abhoring meaningless science.

61. What is funny to me is this: We had an Ice Age, the world got warm, no humans around……….
    Climate Change is part of the worlds history
    The Earth will be here long after we are gone.

62. It’s another way to control and tax.
    Control and tax: Carbon taxes will make it harder for you to travel. It will add limits on the free movement of individuals. It will add more taxes and penalties that will benefit those above our own government.
    Can you honestly say that the environment is being abused like it was over 100 years ago?
    It’s total poop!

63. How were many ancient societies ruled?
    There was a ruling class that employed an intellectual class. That intellectual class would understand celestial movements, weather patterns, and so on. This knowledge would then be used to control the population through fear of a bad harvest or cataclysm. Because the population would be told if they obeyed and sacrificed then the horrors would be adverted. The gods would smile upon them or some other nonsense.
    Now consider that the vast majority of the public is entirely ignorant of how to do science. That they are easily tricked with graphs, with cherry picking, and other tools. Now look at the mainstream media cherry picking stories. The government paid scientists producing plots that lop off what doesn’t fit what they want show. The various techniques of adjusting temperature data which cool the past and warm the present while eliminating the extremes from the record.
    Now consider humans are little different now than they were thousands of years of ago and the same tricks still work so long as they get updated a little to make them look different.

64. I’m opened minded enough to believe in climate change, but, there is a lot of fishy shit going on here. For one thing, climate change is apart of the liberal progressive boilerplate. Believe in climate change and you also are expected to believe in homosexualism, feminism, gun control etc. If it really was such a global threat it would have transcended party lines long ago. That alone has me suspicious enough to dismiss it and if al gore gets pissy then he has himself to blame. Because, al, you made this a liberal progressive cause. I am not liberal progressive and after watching “an inconvenient truth” I see no connection to your thesis on climate change and gun control, gay marriage, black lives matters or political correctness. Also, observe the cult like attitude…climate change deniers are heretics and treated as such. We’re suppose to die? What the fuck is that all about? Its all too obvious this is just another liberal cult.

65. nice article. Good stuff. I think that Al Gore and his mates are making a f*cking killing from selling their environmentally friendly bs products. I read that those wind turbines kill birds left right and center, just like I would expect. Thanks Al, good one!

66. I never bought into Gore’s shit ten years ago and I won’t now. The earth, being billions of years old, has gone through substantial climatic change–what is now Antarctica used to be tropical, and 1,000 years ago, England was temperate–not to mention that scare in the 1970s saying that the future would be colder then than it is now.

    1. I never watched his stupid movie. I had all these friends at the time with arts degrees and the like went to see it, believing it as fact. I was doing a PhD in science at the time and I didn’t go.

67. When politicians, shady public figures and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs are set to reap trillions from commissions on carbon trading schemes you would be a fool to ignore the conflicts of interest.

68. Global warming is a lie, but environmental pollution is real due to increasing population density, primarily in underdeveloped nations.

69. Great climate website: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

70. Excellent article showing the farce that the Global Warming con really is.
    That is why the elite hate men organizing their free time and energy along positive venues. When men start delving into matters that interest them, then they come up with more things that the real elite are doing. That is why they created modern sports, entertainment and porn to waste their time so they can watch how adult men get paid millions for playing games for children.
    It is interesting that in the manosphere men first learn about Game, seducing women, feminism, but then also delve into proper diet, nutrition, lifting weights, alternative health, alternative view on history, economy and science. Those are proper and positive pursuits, but the boys above would rather prefer you all to remain dumb and ignorant maybe banging a few girls. It is good however that Return of Kings is not embarking on that ‘safe for the establishment’ path. Ultimately men in their prime are the only danger to the ruling elite and this site is another proof of that.

71. Another courageous mathematician had his birthday yesterday. Giordano Bruno was outspoken about his correct theories of the universe in the 16th century in Europe. He was burned at the stake. Mathematicians can cause so much trouble sometimes. Because they have a brain. And mathematics is one of the few academic disciplines that is universal and unbiased. You can’t give extra marks to someone for being politically correct in math the way you can in English or history or even science (see above). Mathematics has also remained extremely stubborn to feminist attempts to boost the girls up so they do just a well as the boys…

72. The modern environmental movement was started by a woman named Rachel Carlson who wrote the book Silent Spring. She became a goddess for budding liberal environmental weenies. She proposed that DDT was damaging the environment. Her work was built on shoddy science that has been totally debunked. DDT never harmed the environment. Many people in poor countries could have been saved from Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases. It could be used right now to control the Zika virus.

73. LOL! You should see all the junk in my Dad’s house!

74. It’s important to be responsible and conscientious when it comes to the environment, we have to live here, after all, but you have to wonder just how much of the global warming fear is simply propaganda. I’m unsure if I would agree with everything said here, but it certainly makes me question the intentions of those who claim to have humanity’s best interests at heart.
    Over the last year, I have found myself increasingly wary of and at odds with what passes for liberalism now. It seems an alien shift from what it used to stand for only a decade ago. Freedom of speech has been swapped for embracing censorship, and equality for narrative-driven fascism in favour of ‘minorities’. People I once considered friends started to become unrecognisable and poisonous whenever I disagreed with them on any of these kinds of topics. So many are ready to alienate their peers and loved ones simply because opinions being spread are labelled ‘left-wing’.

75. You managed to link anthropogenic climate change with NWO conspiracies and rolled it all into one misogynistic package.
    Bravo <_<

    1. Much like Gargamel trolled the noble smurfs so too have you chosen to troll the noble ROKkers with your ignorant banality.
       Tsk.

    2. Read this and tell me it is not a plan for world government, then we can talk. https://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/draft_paris_agreement_5dec15.pdf

76. Because of this bullshit, car companies especially Ferrari, Porsche, and BMW are forced to downsize their engines. Put turbos in them. Hey i don’t mind car companies producing turbo engines, if that their decision. My whole beef is that the EU is forcing car companies to downsize or else. I;m sick and tired of this bullshit of climate change.
    Also because of this, we have lost manufacturing jobs. However, how weird that manufacturing jobs have been going overseas and yet we swallow the lie of climate change. People are so dumb this days, it not even funny,

77. This article is stupid. Pollution is bad whether or not there is a NWO trying to rule the world. Pollution in the oceans is bad for fish and thus bad for people that eat fish. Is the air pollution in Beijing a lie? People walk around with face masks because their communist government makes them? So what if companies have to make the production more environmentally friendly. If they are good at what they do they’ll turn a profit in the long run because of it. Telling that pollution is a lie and isn’t bad is the only lie being told.

    1. Pollution is undeniably bad, CO2 is undeniably good.

    2. This tree seems to like the “pollution” a lot. CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.

78. One point of argument. Galileo keeps coming up as part of the debate whenever climate change is mentioned, but when you compare historical events he is in fact closer to the alarmists in behavior and mindset. He was placed under house arrest not for refuting the church, but for teaching his unproven theory as fact, verbally attacking anyone who disagreed with him, and committing libel against the pope. And he was only “imprisoned” when he was already old and sick, in a lovely cottage in Florence that seems to have vastly improved his health.
    I highly suggest this article: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/the-myth-of-galileo-a-story-with-a-mostly-valuable-lesson-for-today
    If we are going to prove our case, we have to have the facts behind us. And nothing like throwing one of the know-it-all alarmists heroes back in their face.

79. It’s kind of depressing, really, when you realise how long the rot has festered in our governments, and how deep it goes. The blue-pillers you talk to have this naïve idea that governments don’t lie; bare-faced and constantly, when they are no different to any other gang – they simply legitimise themselves by being the biggest one on the block, and using taxes and police to racketeer and enforce. To expect altruism and integrity from any government, ~especially~ a democracy, is a total joke. Democracy isn’t a actually form of government; it’s a front for transglobal interests like the Federal Reserve succeeding in legitimising its influence as politics.
    I wouldn’t mind if all this covert manoeuvring was actually to usher humanity into a newer, better age, or a way to help us to survive the onrushing technological singularity. I’m sure they have a plan, and we’re all stuck in the same boat, but I simply don’t believe that it has anything to do with making our lives better.
    Something big is going to happen in the next century. We are all along for the ride whether we like it or not, but I like to think we in the manosphere are aware enough to survive it intact.

80. “Is Global Warming A Lie To Help Usher In An Oppressive World Government?”
    Now thats a rhetorical question!

81. Eliminate feminism, and you will greatly reduce excessive consumption.
    Its a well known fact that women, on average, spend more money buying useless shit then men. Under the mantel of female empowerment ,its only gotten worse.

82. Most of the “overconsumption” we see today is a direct result of the “boom-bust” cycles in our economy. Cycles driven by that satanic institution known as the Federal Reserve Bank. Take away the Fed’s stranglehold on the monetary supply and you would see a lot more people and business living within their means. In turn you would see a lot less money being squandered on useless endeavors and products. You would also see a lot less economic disparity and a lot more economic freedom.
    The watermelon marxists love to blame the carnage around us on the free market. But truth be told we really haven’t had a free market in this country since before the Civil War. Thanks to Andrew Jackson killing the first attempt at the creation of a Federal Bank, it bought this country a few more decades of free markets and prosperity. Had he not done this the free market experiment here in the States would have died around 1820 . However, after the Civil War, Federal Control was firmly established and within a few decades the industrialists and robber barons got the Federal Reserve Bank they always lusted after. We, as common folk, have suffered ever after. Thanks to Nixon removing us entirely from the gold standard – ultimately killing what tiny vestige of sound money existed- the destruction of our economy has accelerated at warp speed.
    Now that the destruction is nearly complete, we have Communists like Bernie Sanders arguing that the root of the problem is the free market and capitalism. The people believe him and can’t trip over themselves fast enough to embrace wholesale government control of all facets of the economy. They just might get it. But it wont last. No centralized command/control economy has ever worked. It can’t . It can only survive through lack of choices maintained via brute force. Yet even under those circumstances a black market will flourish.Eventually circumstances become so dire that the people agitate for a popular uprising and the “leaders” are overthrown setting the stage for a true free market to rise like a phoenix from the ashes. And then the cycle repeats itself. The older I get the more I realize that collectively speaking , man really doesn’t love true freedom enough to maintain it.

83. All you have to do is take the term White Privilege and turn it around and add a “d” and “s” Privileged Whites… The lefty elitists in California have been paying off Obama to turn all the land surrounding their gated mansions into National Monuments so they save cash and prevent people from blocking the view AND act like they are heros.

84. There is a certain airtight logic: humans produce more CO2 and CO2 is a green house gas. However, my take on this is that it is de minimus. We don’t make enough CO2 in comparison to the various natural processes to make a real difference.
    .
    I think it is rather obvious that leftist forces have latched on to AGW as an excuse to impose a global government. That is why any right thinking people should oppose it.

85. Just a addendum to this history:
    Here, in Brasil (Brazil, did you know, the giant socialist bullshit below equator line?) the socialist government (closeted communists) invented the ‘zika virus’, which served as an excuse for the government to implementing more taxes and, of course, as a big excuse for abortion.
    This history about ‘global warming’ is not new.

86. Of course it is. If the climate stays the same or improved they’ve “saved” us and if it worsens the Republicans and nationalists successfully resisted for their own evil purposes.
    Aside from trying to scare everybody, do these people really believe they can maintain a steady state climate? Do they think we believe it?
    What caused tropical climates as far north as Scandinavia during the last interglacial? Monkeys driving SUVs and smoking cigars?

Comments are closed.