If we don’t regulate what we do to the climate, we’ll commit suicide,

Eric Zuesse

and kill everyone else, too. The vast majority of planets have no life on them. Climate changes. Right now, ours is changing with accelerating speed, from livable toward unlivable. There is only one scientific theory as to why it’s happening (human-caused atmospheric carbon-buildup and its greenhouse effect) — no other hypothesis comes even close to fitting all the data. But the fossil-fuels industries pay billions to get politicians not to stop it, because if they regulate to stop it, those companies’ sales and stock-values will plunge, and because personal corruption is normal, not exceptional: the average person cares more about himself than about future generations (billions of people). Inconveniencing oneself for others who don’t yet even exist is something that psychopaths (and this includes all conservatives, so they don’t want any regulations at all) refuse to do. So: we’re committing species-suicide, and even planetary suicide, because of a few billionaires, and billions of conservatives. The miseries that people today are creating for people yet to be born, and for trillions of other creatures, dwarf the miseries that Hitler and Stalin produced.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • tropicgirl

    Humans come and go, on earth… they migrate if its a matter of climate change…

    Much worse things have happened, such as the Dark Ages, plague, starvation because of plague, and the invasions of barbarians and mass murder, evil globalist governments, all of which has decimated groups of the human species, while other parts of the world thrived.

    Global warming started the human race replenishing itself after those times…

    Thinking you have some control over the sun seems ridiculous… Better to concentrate on the things that we can control.

    • cettel

      We have no control over the sun. We have control over the Earth, because we’re on it, and what we do affects it.

      • mary_ferreira

        I was paid 104000 dollars past year by doing a web-based task while I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours every day. I utilized job opportunity I came across on the net and so I am delighted that I was capable to make such good money. It is actually newbie-friendly and I’m so blessed that I found out about it. Read through exactly what I do… http://www.cat.org.uk/snip/78276

        • cettel

          Go to hell, spammer!

    • Thinking you know what you’re talking about seems ridiculous, given that
      “the sun is doing it” while a flat earther fav, has been debunked for a very long time now. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/ Maybe you should stick to commenting on subjects you have at least some basic knowledge about, no?

  • Charlie Primero

    Zueusse is still stuck on the AGW nonsense.

    It’s 2017. If he still hasn’t figured out that scam, he is just a mindless regurgitator of Globalist propaganda, and thus not a Journalist.

    W.B. is better than this.

    • iseeitfx

      It’s sad that someone in Eric’s position is so delusional on such an important topic.

      • Eric Zuesse

        I therefore make the same request of you that I just did of Charlie Primero, to respond to this evidence:

        • iseeitfx

          With all due respect Eric, you are an investigative journalist..
          I would suggest spending some time researching material posted at the Fabius Maximus site and the Judith Curry blog.
          I do believe that you are a person of integrity and that were you to do sufficient research, it would become abundantly clear that climate hysteria is simply not well grounded in reality.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Please respond to this evidence,
      with the careful thought and reasoned consideration that it requires, and then tell me whether it changes your mind; and, if not, then what your reason is for rejecting it.

      • Charlie Primero

        This is exactly what I’m talking about.

        You, as a purported “Journalist”, are completely negligent for not knowing the study you linked to is fraudulent.


        Stop unquestioningly swallowing the propaganda fed to you and start doing some damn critical analysis before publishing. I would be fired from my job for your level of negligence.

        • Eric Zuesse

          THANK YOU!! Your link changed my mind about this entire matter, and I am now a skeptic about the — I now call it no longer ‘theory’ but instead — hypothesis that humans’ contribution to atmospheric carbon-load is the main cause of the statistically highly reliable scientific evidence that our atmosphere is warming and that this heating-up of the atmosphere is even accelerating. You have supplied me with powerful evidence that I had not previously been aware of. And I am going to state this in a revised version of this article. I’ll want the revised version to attract as readers, people like myself who have not previously been aware of the powerful evidence that you’ve been so kind as to present me with. (It won’t be directed at people who like yourself already are skeptical of that hypothesis.) How shall I refer to you — your name — when I credit and thank you, in it, for having supplied this blockbuster crucial evidence to me?

          • Charlie Primero

            You are very welcome.

          • Eric Zuesse

            So, what name shall I use to refer to you?

          • I was paid 104000 bucks previous year by doing an internet based job and I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours regularly. I applied work opportunity I found online and I am thrilled that I was in a position to earn such great money. It’s genuinely newbie-friendly and therefore I’m so pleased that I discovered out about it. Go and visit exactly what I do… http://gochiurl.com/15cf1

          • kimyo

            if trump were savvy, he’d demand that all climate data, code, adjustments and emails be released to the public. we paid for it. we own it.

            this would easily counter the attacks claiming that he wants to delete/hide the data.

            if he took this action, we’d see right away which guys have something to hide.

      • Virginiadsoper

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj599d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash599HomeCloudGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj599d:….,……

    • NoOneYouKnow

      Fuck off back to the Heartland Institute. Nobody, but nobody, except shills and loons claims AGW isn’t happening.

      • collette.robert@yahoo.com

        Convictions are a greater enemy of truth than lies

    • and yet you can’t demonstrate that it’s a scam, it appears as if you’re largely confined to just making the hollow declaration that it is so, which is really only evidence of figurative condition of your cranial cavity. The BS attacks on the consensus — like it really matters if it’s 90% https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjriu_pxOjSAhXk5IMKHeJCDLcQFggxMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fconsensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654&usg=AFQjCNEA-qMPrHyoe7A8k-tBgN4aPvqMfg or 97% https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjriu_pxOjSAhXk5IMKHeJCDLcQFggrMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fscientists-just-confirmed-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-429da0095378&usg=AFQjCNFN_fX6UbyQ6p9CMX3z2BXhkE8rsg in terms of satisfying the definition, http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?consensus don’t do it either.

      try again eh flat earther? Gee what’s next, the scientists are corrupt but not the energy industry shills? https://youtu.be/b_WLArrksB4 Those shills/pundits are either the dumbest or most dishonest and dangerous dumbasses on the planet.

  • kimyo

    as it is the epa which will be doing the ‘regulating’, i believe it is worth examining their track record. some will dismiss such an examination as immaterial ‘because we have less than 18 months to avoid climate catastrophe’.

    but it does matter, we’ve seen these emergencies before, and the success of the wars on drugs/terror/poverty/gun violence speaks for itself.

    back to the epa. it is possible that their efforts could make things better. it is also possible that they could make things worse. as they prosecute the war on carbon, sending the troops into battle, we need to know if these are the type of generals who won ww2 or if they’re more akin to the morons who got us mired down in iraq and afghanistan, with insufficient troops and non-existent battle plans.

    any sober analysis of the corn ethanol program would have to deem it to be an utter and complete failure. the epa caused an INCREASE in carbon emissions. an INCREASE in polluted land. they spent billions upon billions, caused food crises around the world, ruined millions of boat/small engines (but, that’s great for the gdp, yeah?) and we have absolutely nothing to show for it. archer daniels midland, however, has profited handsomely.

    EPA Plan To Reduce Corn Ethanol Mandate Would Cut Carbon Emissions

    “The Obama administration has a real opportunity to scale back the corn ethanol mandate and make a significant contribution in the fight against climate change,” said Emily Cassidy, EWG research analyst and co-author of EWG’s new report, Ethanol’s Broken Promise. “As our research shows, corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than regular gasoline.”

    Blending corn ethanol into gasoline has significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions because higher demand for ethanol for fuel has encouraged farmers to plow up wetlands and grasslands to grow corn. This increased agricultural activity releases more soil carbon into the atmosphere. Corn requires intensive fertilizer, which breaks down to emit nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas, according to EWG’s study.

    It’s Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

    OK, can we please stop pretending biofuel made from corn is helping the planet and the environment? The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released two of its Working Group reports at the end of last month (WGI and WGIII), and their short discussion of biofuels has ignited a fierce debate as to whether they’re of any environmental benefit at all.

    The IPCC was quite diplomatic in its discussion, saying “Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis”

    The International Institute for Sustainable Development was not so diplomatic, and estimates that the CO2 and climate benefits from replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels like ethanol are basically zero (IISD). They claim that it would be almost 100 times more effective, and much less costly, to significantly reduce vehicle emissions through more stringent standards, and to increase CAFE standards on all cars and light trucks to over 40 miles per gallon as was done in Japan just a few years ago.

  • David S

    The overseas US empire and the domestic US empire are the GREATEST consumers of fossil fuel on the planet. They are the greatest source of pollution of all kinds on the planet (Depleted Uranium, white phosphorus, Agent Orange, etc. along with the massive pollution on military bases around the world). “Regulation” implies putting this issue in the hands of the criminals in our government. As THEY have been colluding with industry (rather than treating pollution as the trespass and property crime that it truly is), there is NO reason why ANYONE should be gullible enough to think that ANY solution to ANY environmental issues will happen via the criminal US government. Even the ridiculous carbon credits scam was nothing more than a way to turn Al Gore and Elon Musk into billionaires while making lots of snowflakes feel good about themselves. GOVERNMENT is at the root of the problem. Pollution is a serious crime that government ALLOWS. Whether global climate changes can be blamed on humans or on natural solar/global cycles, one thing is for certain….ONLY a society FREE of government protectionism and collusion with polluters will EVER have a chance on fixing the pollution problem or any other criminal actions by big business that are contributing to the environmental issues we face.

  • ICFubar

    I beg to differ. Climate science and the preposterous modelling coming out of it based more often on fudged data sets has failed miserably in its predictions. Too many top scientists, many recanting their former positions, are skeptical on the findings of the corporate backed agents of the alarmist anthropogenic global climate hysteria. What we need is real science without Goldman Sachs et al and their entourage of corporations and lick spittle politicians sticking their fingers onto the scales for fun, profit and social engineering. In their own favor of course!

    • You flat earther types peddle nothing but garbage and never “show your work”. By all means, give us a list of all these former “hoaxers” who’ve recanted, and the evidence for “fudged data” that hasn’t already been debunked to high heaven, or concede you’re lying. And what “geo-engineering” is occurring, the HAARP and chemtrail bs? Even your claims about “predictions” is bs https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#6ea0cccb6614, insomuch as they’ve failed more on the conservative end of things than anywhere else.

      Climate modeling may be hard, but these guys are good. The skeptic
      may not believe in their models, but as Niels Bohr once replied when he
      was asked by a visitor to his home in Tisvilde if he really believed a
      horseshoe above his door would bring him good luck, “Of course not… but I
      am told it works even if you don’t believe in it.”

      Probably in part because the projected consequences of climate
      disruption are so scary, skeptics seem to find welcome ears for their
      claims that climate models exaggerate the threats posed by our
      greenhouse-gas emissions. It sure would be nice if that were true. Let’s
      take a look at some model projections and see how they’ve panned out.

      The IPCC’s first assessment report was released in 1990. One of the
      landmark predictions from that report involved sea-level rise. As we’ve
      discussed in Chapters 3 and 8, heating of the oceans and melting of ice
      sheets and glaciers results in the sea level climbing progressively
      higher. Pulling from a variety of climate models, in 1990 the IPCC
      predicted a range of possible rises in sea level, with the most probable
      value being 1.9 millimeters per year. Today, researchers have a great
      set of data from tide gauges and satellite observations, and they not
      only agree with each other extremely well, but they also show a trend of
      rising sea level from the early 1990s through the present time. What do
      these data show regarding the pace of that rise? Did the IPCC embellish
      the potential effect? It turns out that the actual rate of sea-level
      rise during this period was 3.4 millimeters per year. Interestingly,
      this value aligns with the worst-case scenario from the IPCC report in
      1990. In other words, the IPCC didn’t exaggerate the situation at all.
      Quite the opposite. It appears that the IPCC underestimated the scale of
      the change. http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

      • ICFubar

        Two of the biggest former darlings of the alarmist camp WERE James Lovelock of Gaia theory fame with three books on the subject and Dr. Judith Curry, both of who recanted their previous positions quite a few years ago. There are many others like Patrick Moore one of the founding members of Greenpeace or PHD climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. I could go on but I’ll stop here naming names. Now you provide me names of persons who have gone from skeptics, or better deniers, to alarmists and follow you own standards you set out for me if you can’t provide any.

        As for data fudging by cherry picking input they are numerous so take your pick. From the original hockey stick CO2 graph, to ‘climate gate’ at East Anglia University and guilty verdicts in a court of law only unenforceable by the British statute of limitations, to data collected recently on ocean temperatures where even instrument bias was not taken into account in gathering the data let alone data selection being questionable, to the recent scandal said to be on an equal scale as ‘climate gate” surrounding NOAA data revealed by a fellow climate and satellite scientist Dr. John Bates.

        I’ve been through these debates before and neither side, me the skeptical or you the alarmist ever convince the other, while a lot of time and effort, digging up supporting evidence, is seriously wasted. Suffice to say that as we debate here so does science when it comes to climatology while most ignore the trillions of dollars to be made off of the average person and by you know who. That is the real backbone of this walking non conclusive subject that is championing alarm, and if it wasn’t climate something else would be found to serve the same purpose.


        • SO you’re a liar then.. Well done. LOvelock was never a darling or a practicing climatologist, and Curry https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry has never been a “darling” of the movement, nor has her skepticism extended much beyond the degree to which man v natural variation plays in the warming, as opposed to idiots claiming no warming has or is occurring. And I’m not making fallacious/erroneous claimis liar, but just for the readers I’ll give you one. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihuKDXlevSAhWi0YMKHbtNC_YQFghFMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F07%2F30%2Fopinion%2Fthe-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html&usg=AFQjCNE0q3U8usiNgjhdXvCgbYphxGWJeA&bvm=bv.150475504,d.amc SInce when does two equal “many” eh? Is that what the flat earther thesaurus says?

          ANd your Bates bs
          https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYmMWvlOvSAhUm9YMKHY-DBDkQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-consensus-97-per-cent%2F2017%2Ffeb%2F09%2Fwhistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science&usg=AFQjCNGl0ST3XCG274bK1zwBspKSb9wvKw&bvm=bv.150475504,d.amc hockey stick graph https://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+vindicated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and climategate https://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+vindicated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=climategate+debunked&* bs have ALL been debunked to high heaven ignorant/dishonest one. None of it undermines the science, they are just lies your kind repeat like they haven’t already been debunked. That’s what liars do, no?

          I’m not trying to convince your ignorant an/or dishonest ass, I’m merely presenting the facts for the consumption and evaluation of those not as intelligence/integrity challenged as you obviously are. Of course you’re not gonna provide evidence you don’t have, or present a case you can only build with bs in this court of public opinioin. In a fact finding forum like a couirt of law you would of course have little to nothing to say, eh, because it would all have been undermined and you humiliated as the turd polisher you are — at best.

          • ICFubar

            You’re a troll and obviously haven’t read any of Lovelocks books giving ‘the final warning’. Lovelock worked on Maritian climate, so obviously has earth bound knowledge, chemistry and the environmental sciences,, for the Jet propulsion Lab in Calif. Curry published many papers supporting the alarmist cause before she started questioning the validity of the science being conducted and became a skeptic so up your ass creep. Like I said you’re a troll and a damned poor researcher and a nothing at rebuttal other than being a flamer. I’ve dealt with you zealots before and can match you debunking for debunking but really I have much better things to do with my time than deal with people who are so wound up in their ‘religion’, as opposed to science, breaking through is impossible and certainly not worth the effort. Go pound your keyboard at someone else who will keep you entertained perhaps for days and make your feeble life worth living. F**KING LOSER.

          • says the deflecting flat earther troll. Lovelock was never a “darling” of the climatotology community, which is why you didn’t falsely claim that he was published along those lines as Curry was/has been. And again, she’s long been a member of the “it won’t be that bad” camp as just about any and all of the “skeptic” climatologist — whether they’re taking money from the energy industry or not — are. I don’t give a rat’s ass about any of that garbage anyway because absolutely NONE of it undermines the AGW science in any way, shape or form. You apparently lack the integrity or mental acuity to separate/resolve the “it won’t be that bad” camp from the “there is no global warming” camp into the two separate and distinct camps that they are. Furthermore, as noted to your fellow flat earther above, it doesn’t matter if the “consensus” is 90% or 97%, the fact of the matter is that your list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming will always suck hind tit.

            These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;[8] the consensus has strengthened over time[9][10] and is now virtually unanimous.[11] The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[12]

            And obviously you can’t match me with debunkings because all of your garbage was just debunked in regards to climategate, Batesgate, and the hockey stick graph, and there’s nothing you can offer in rebuttal to it but the functional equivalent of a grade schoolyard “NUH UH!!!!” THey’ve all been examined and survived the scrutiny as shown, and all the denials from a impotent liar isn’t gonna change that.

            And only idiots claim that agreement with and support for the evidence for AGW is a “religion”. Gee, what’s next peabrain, the jury result is a religion-based one? Examination of evidence and arriving at the same conclusion is nothing like “believing” in something for which no evidence exists. But hey, you seem really determined to be stupid, so be my guest.

            And thanks for showing the readers how impotent a liar can be.

  • Army of Addicts

    I’m thinking that greed fueled by unfettered capitalism, driven by empire, will bring about climate devastation eventually. This should be something we all can agree on. But since the developed world, for the most part, still thinks with a tribal mindset, we have a difficult time considering, or caring, about the long lasting effects our actions have upon the rest of humanity. Our primary problem is that we undervalue our existence to a considerable degree.

    If you don’t maintain your vehicle, you will eventually wind up stranded somewhere. The same goes for the planet.

    Only when bigotry, in all its many forms, gets under control within the collective identity will progress be possible. Consider any other proposed solution as merely smoke, mirrors or bandaids.

    We’re all in this together. The elites, as a group, tease you into thinking they are acting globally when in fact they are acting tribally, selfishly, forced into serving their own class. The efforts of the few well intentioned get lost in the quagmire, and wind up serving only as the carrot on the stick for those who still want to believe.

  • Jason

    Hi Eric.. Im not your average climate denier schill, in fact my walk on this earth is very intentionally lite, because it is my understanding the human relationship with the earth is sacred as with all things, all are my relatives. I can appreciate your concern. I have many concerns with a society based on blind consumption, an act of an empty soul. Humans pollute the air, pollute the water, pollute the soil, and eat chemical laden food allowing for longer sicker lives. And i believe that this should be the basis for conversation, not co2 as the main driver for climate change as its not grounded in truth, but rather sophisticated algorithms that lack many natural phenomonom that contribute to warming and cooling of earth. I believe there is localized warming, roads and absorbant colored buildings attract an retain heat, less forrests mean less ground shade, erosion,ect. But when it comes to.climate change there are much greater forces at work from a natural law perspective. Humans are puny compared to the power of the “force.” the flaws in the IPCC model in time will drastically miss the boat on what is to come, my belief in the next 5 years, at the expense of hundreds of millions of lives, if not billions of lives. Yes, climate change is very real. Historically, going back 1000s.of years the great powers of the world and populations thrived or died based on climate. The dynasties of china correlate perfectly with the warming and cooling cycles of the last 2000 years. Dynasties thrive when climate is warm…lots of caloric intake, stronger immune system, happy people…cold …starvation, weakend immune systems, disease, pitch forks, and new dynasty. This has played out all over the globe for 1000s of years….if not millions…. There are 1000s of witness testimony written on tablets, schrolls, steps, walls, manuscripts, and oral tradition…that prove climate is the mitigating factor for success. We have lived in a relatively peaceful climate for the last 90 years allowing for the fueling of population growth and large seditary beings. Im typing on a phone and is annoying so in brief…if you want to have a serious conversation about this let me know…but before we do you would need to understand a few things about the relationship between the universe, galaxy, the sun andd the planetary system. Additionally you’ll have to learn to use some tools and how to observe the data.. You can.find some here..to cut your teeth on..there are tutorials.on the source of the data, what it is and how to use it. http://spaceweathernews.com. also check out the cloud mystery.documentary by henrick svensmark.. You can youtube it. Its around an hour long, very well done journey into the relationship of cosmic rays and cloud formation. Peace.

  • Southern

    If politicians cannot be expected to have the best interest of the people they’re meant to represent…. then there’s not much hope for the environment either.

  • Jason Cromer
  • Jason Cromer
  • Tyler

    I’m not surprised that rightists didn’t like this article. Rightists aren’t big fans of science and reality. That’s why they voted for Trump.

    • Joel W

      Science? What science. Consensus is not science. And pardon me for correcting your ignorant assumption, but I did not vote for Trump, nor do I get hoodwinked by the phony left/right paradigm. I operate on hard facts and logic. Something that is virtually impossible to come by today. And congrats on one of the most un-thought out comments ever. Cooper Anderson tell you to say that?

  • Marko

    Trump’s team already has a plan to fix global warming , and it’ll fix it fast and fix it good. Really fast and really good , believe me.

    It’s called : Nuclear Winter.

    • Army of Addicts

      That was Barry and Hillary’s plan. So, you’re saying both parties are no different than one another.

      • Marko

        No , I honestly thought the odds of a major war would have been higher with Hillary. I had high hopes that Trump would govern as the non-interventionist he campaigned as , but those hopes are fading fast. He’s surrounded by Iran hawks , and it looks like Israel still has us on a leash. His moves in Syria don’t strike me as one-offs , but rather more like the old Obama / Hillary.regime-change routine. Israel could easily set off a major conflict by bombing Syria’s air defenses as they just threatened to do , and that would automatically draw us into it.

        In short , I don’t think too much has changed – war is still our business plan , based on blatant lies , just like during the last two admins.

    • Joel W

      That statement is patently absurd. When has he EVER mentioned anything of the sort? Recall that Hillary & Obama wanted nothing but war with Russia, while Trump has stated repeated that he is willing to sit down and talk with Putin. I guess facts, and people’s actual words mean nothing to you. All that matters is what the paid liars on CNN matter, huh?

  • Joel W

    “dwarf the miseries that Hitler and Stalin produced.”

    Are you frigging serious? You are an absolute DISGUSTING, PATHETIC excuse for a human being to even remotely imply that, let alone say it point blank. Tell that to their viciously murdered victims. Oh that’s right, you can’t. They were viciously murdered. That sentence is easily the most disturbing thing I have ever read. It makes the Pizzagate/Pedogate evil seem like child’s play (absolutely no pun intended).

    • Army of Addicts

      And the hundreds of millions who would die from such a climate catastrophe fueled by greed would more resemble an accident?

      • Joel W

        Hundreds of millions?? Really? And you know this for a fact? Or like all other climate changes lies, did you just make it up? Please present me with facts and actual evidence to back up that completely absurd claim. Because I don’t operate on unproven theory. I operate on hard evidence, which there is exactly ZERO to back you up, as well as exactly ZERO to back up the co2 (plant food) claims. You know what is causing climate change, and nobody is talking about? Cell towers, wi-fi, GMOs, rampant pesticide use, geo-engineering (SRM aeroslos aka chemtrails), HAARP transmitters to name a few. And even if your illogical and factually lacking statement was true, to compare it to Stalin & Hilter? Really. Its outright disgusting, and for you to even stick up for such a purely evil statement, tells me that you too, are purely evil.

        • Army of Addicts

          Well, you go right ahead, sit back and wait for your hard evidence. You won’t act without it. – That’s the terrifying fact.

          • Joel W

            Well convenient you ignore everything I wrote that is absolutely verifiable causes of climate change (notice I ACCEPT that there is climate change, never once did I say it is not happening), while you spout imaginary numbers that have ZERO basis in reality. I gave issues that there is hard evidence, but I guess that is too inconvenient you and your GloBULL warming cult. And how do you presume incorrectly that I don’t want to do anything about it. Hate to repeat myself, but I just listed true causes that I truly feel need to be addressed if we are going to have an HONEST discussion about the causes. Oh yea can’t forget the absoute largest factor in it all: The Sun, which is currently more active than it has EVER been in our life times. FACT. Dispute even one shred of what I listed. Please.

  • collette.robert@yahoo.com

    As the Maunder Minimum begins we are entering an anomalous situation where the numbers will not follow recent averages. I look for cooler weather but do believe that we should limit emissions and plant more trees.