Guest Post: Reality Has Consequences

Tyler Durden's picture

Originally posted at Monty Pelerin's World blog,

The world no longer makes sense to most people over forty years of age. Much of what we thought was true is now denied. What to us is obviously false (or at least always was) is now accepted as being true. Here are examples from Frick at Bias Breakdown that show obvious contradictions between popular belief and what we hold as reality:

If every Arab in the Middle East laid down his weapon, there would be peace in the Middle East. If every Israeli laid down his (or her) weapon, Israel would be annihilated.


Likewise, if government stopped all spending, the deficit problem would be solved. If government confiscated the gross annual income of every individual in the country making over $66,193, the deficit would destroy our country.


In a sane world, politicians would cut every last dollar of government spending they could in order to bring financial order back to an entitlement-happy society. After government’s debilitating spending habits were slashed or restructured, only then would the conversation shift to taxes and revenue to make up the gap.


Of course, this isn’t a sane world. It’s the world in which it’s Israel’s fault for every ill in Palestine and Republicans are evil and stupid for wanting to cut spending.

Fantasies like these might are satisfying to many, but they are ultimately destructive. Truth cannot be changed by repeating falsehoods. Nor can it be altered by more people believing untruths. But, when these fantasizers overwhelm society with their false beliefs, society will no longer function. Society cannot invent its own truth based on convenience, prejudice or popularity. Truth, not manufactured myth, is key to survival. Societies which deviate from it, don’t survive.

As Ayn Rand stated:

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

The avoidance of reality has overtaken our society. The consequences of doing so have been building for decades and will soon overwhelm us. On our current path, much of what we knew and cared about will be destroyed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CDSMonkey's picture

I think it is the people over 40, and especially those over 60 that are keeping it the way it is at the expense of those under, who are the ones who don't understand what is going on.

Supernova Born's picture

No one knows what's going on. However, almost all know whatever it is cannot continue.

petolo's picture

I'm well over forty and this poster boy for the  schizophrenia society better take his meds and move to another website.

Whatta's picture

yeah, that post reminds me a lot.

zeneta's picture

On a side note.

TD Ameritrade to buy GFT.


It's in the works.


BTW, everything Ameritrade has bot, they have fucked up.





masaccio's picture

Reality includes a lot of stuff people don't want to look at, like massive damage from global warming. What does Ayn Rand think about that?

cossack55's picture

"Run away. Run away to Galt's Gulch now."'s picture

The right to strike should only be extended to Democrats.

funthea's picture

Umm, I thought we were calling it "climate change" now.

Like, didn't you get the memo?

LetThemEatRand's picture

They are calling it "climate change" because very small brained and ideologically blind people have a tendency to say "ha ha.  It's snowing out.  Global warming can't be true because it's cold outside my back door."  Most people apparently are unable to recognize the word "global" in "global warming."'s picture




'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change



  • British scientist admits he had 'extrapolated too far' in earlier book
  • Claims other environmental commentators such as Al Gore did the same




Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.



Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’


LetThemEatRand's picture

"Each of the last ten years features in the top 11 warmest years recorded in all datasets."  Just a coincidence, and obviously debunked by a single scientist as reflected in your post.  All the other thousands of scientists who accidentally guessed correctly that the world would be warmer are wrong (even though they were right).

P.S.  And 2011 was the ninth warmest on record.'s picture

It takes a brave man to insist that those who admit that they have lied to him in order to pursue a social agenda are actually telling the truth. Well, maybe brave isn't the word. For how many more decades are you going to fall for it?


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. -- Dr. Stephen Schneider, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)



"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
- Club of Rome 1993



"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment,

Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998




"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.

'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."-- James Lovelock, 2012

Flakmeister's picture

Back to posting your bullshit?

Only you would flock to such a deliberately cherry picked data point....

The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (blue) (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade, not shown).

  • The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec (green), and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec (red).
  • The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
  • The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.
  • The first point might suggest to someone that the tendency of planet to warm as a function of increases in greenhouse gases has been interrupted. The second point might suggest that warming since 1997 has actually accelerated, the third point suggests that trends are quite stable, and the last point is actually quite astonishing, though fortuitous. Since all of these things (and many others) are equally true (in that their derivation from the underlying dataset is simply a mechanical application of standard routines), it is clear that our expectation for the future shouldn’t be simply based on an extrapolation of any one or two of them – the situation is too complex for that.

    boogerbently's picture

    Why should you alarmists care.

    The world ends Dec. 21, right??

    Haole's picture

    It really is good for a laugh whenever anyone claims "global warming" is largely attributed to three or four hundredths of a percent of gaseous plant food in our atmosphere with virtually no IR retention dynamics. 

    It was actually a couple of degrees warmer than it is now when the Norse were farming Greenland as one example but I guess that doesn't count because Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet so word could spread to East Anglia, right?


    PiratePawpaw's picture

    The Vikings were run out of Greenland by ManBearPig. Al Gore told me so, Im totally serial. (or is it Cereal?)

    A Nanny Moose's picture

    Note the use of the term ON RECORD. How far back do said RECORDS go?'s picture


    Record keeping began during the Little Ice Age. Apparently anything warmer than the Year Without a Summer is just too danged hot.


    The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850.[1]




    blunderdog's picture

    You're always dragging out the same links, but what do YOU think?

    You've never shared.

    I know it can be very difficult for some folks to be honest and open, so I'll go first...

    I think it's pretty obvious that mankind has the capability to change the basic patterns of life on Earth--we've done it all over the place.  I think given that we have already destroyed huge swatches of vegetative cover of the planet, and given that we've been doing everything possible to burn every last drop of oil we can find, and given that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising measurably, it's for damn sure possible that burning fossil fuels and continuing to deforest continents is going to impact the global climate in extremely unpredictable ways.

    How about you?  Do YOU have an opinion on that subject?

    Or just links?'s picture

    During the 21st century CO2 levels have continued to rise but the temperature has not kept pace as the models had predicted. The models were wrong. As Dr. Curry said in one of those oh-so-inconvienient links, "Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2."

    What are your feelings on the AGW proponents who have publicly admitted that they have either purposely mislead the public or have been alarmist in their past confusion over models which they now admit are flawed?

    Flakmeister's picture

    That is why Curry a member of the BEST collaboration has published that the "temp is rising and it is us"....

    Watch what she publishes not what she says... And she knows better than to try and publish nonsense...

    blunderdog's picture

    You don't have any opinion yourself, then?

    I could go the extra mile and make an inference about your personal beliefs here--I could infer that you are ASSERTING that "changing atmospheric CO2 levels cannot be causing changes to the global climate," but that's not what you said. 

    Is that what you believe?

    (The unwillingness to answer the simplest questions suggests very strongly you're some kind of lobbyist or PR shill.  Most people who are having conversations aren't nearly so evasive.)

    Jack Burton's picture

    I am watching the reality adverse crowd grow ever more desperate as global warming caused by CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere traps ever more heat that otherwise would be radiated into space. A simple experiment that an 8th grade science class can run is capable of proving that the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the more radiant heat that is trapped. Taking fossil carbon out of the ground and burning it causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. These events are explainable through the laws of physics and atmospheric chemistry. There is no room for doubt as these laws of physics are demonstrable. To deny them is to waste one's time and is clearly being done as part of a propaganda campaign by a worried fossil fuel industry. Their worry is that a major shift to non-carbon burning energy sources will take place over time and their profits will fall.

    The fact that every denier on ZH, be he a misguided follower of FOX news or a professional denier on the pay role of the PR firms hired  at cost of millions of dollars a year by fossil fuel producers to post lies, is along for the ride does not seem to worry them.

    As they strive to deny global warming and strive to further increase the rate of warming, by preventing any action to address increased burning of fossil carbon in the form of coal, oil and gas, they are trapped on the same earth as all of us. Many deniers in NY and New Jersey just had their homes flooded or smashed by an unprecidentedly large storm with a record low pressure and record wind field size. Alomst certainly the path of the storm and it's size are directly related to record warm ocean waters and the blocking high pressure system off of Greenland caused by record ice melt in the arctic this summer. These are surely a direct result of global warming.

    The deniers were hammered along with regular folks. The lesson from this is "deniers are not immune, they suffer the results of global warming just like non FOX viewers. They can lie and deny, they can close their minds and accept the liars paid for by oil companies to spread lies, BUT they will not escape the proven forces of global warming. The latest data show beyond doubt that global climate warming and the extreme weather that it drives is now happening decades faster than climate scientists predicted. So YES, the models were wrong, they were far TOO conservative. The arctic and Greenland are already in run away melt down, this was supposed to happen no sooner than 50 years from now. The vast methane plumes rising from the arctic seas off of eastern Siberia are just one sign that the tipping point is here. From now on the global warming will increase at an unprecidented rate.

    Every lie and every paid for propaganda piece from the highly paid Public relations firms hired by fossil fuel industries to spread lies to people can not change the facts, the laws of physics, nor the endless tons of new CO2 spread into the atmosphere by the billions of people on earth taking fossil carbon out of the ground and returning it to the atmosphere. Today the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in 15 million years. This is a fact, deniers must lie because they have no data, no science and no facts to explain away the physics of global warming and the absolute known causes of it.

    Deniers may be nice folks, church goers and family people. Good neighbors and honest Americans. But they are going to pay the price, just like all the rest of us. I bet many a global warming denier is right now picking through the ruins of their New Jersey homes or standing in the Mid West looking over their drought destroyed farm crops. The message is clear, denial can't change reality. The weather is going to continue to slam and hammer the deniers, their denial is a meaningless exercise. A waste of their time. But hey, if denial is driven by a belief in their dominion over the earth like the bible tells them, then let them think that way. reality will not spare them, ask any denier who lost his house in New York. How is that denial working for you eh??

    Keep up the good work "letThemEatRand" I enjoy the courage of your posts when you know telling the truth will get you slammed by the usual suspects. In many cases "the usual suspects" are professional liars who are paid to troll the internet and faill the comments sections of any blog post related to climate change. They ahve talking points prepared for them by their employeers at the PR firms who work for big oil. They load the comments sections with these talkning points. When the talking points are destroyed by anyone familiar with the physics, data and science of global warming, they are then instructed to call the informed posters all sorst of names like I am sure to be called by these very same folks who will reply to my post".

    I can respect a denier that just can't get the facts and science clear in their minds, I do not respect the liars who earn money for being tools of the fossil fuel industry. They lie for money, which seems to be an American trait as of the last decade. Be it the illegal wars, the illegal spying on Americans or the bainless denial of scientific fact, Americans are becoming a people feed a steady diet in lies. Global waming is not a lie, because it is provable through the physics, the math and the measurements. Deniers have nothing to add, because they have no case that can survive scientific scrutiney. It is that clear. If they could prove their case, they would. Since they can not, they then must lie. It is that simple.

    vato poco's picture

    Helluva post there, "Jack". I see you've gone the tired old George Carlin route when speaking of those who don't think like you want 'em to: "If you don't think the way I do, then you're just stupid!!" You're even boring, pompous & sanctimonious, just like old George was.

    The only difference being of course that Carlin could manage to say it in just a few words, whereas you......not so much. Eat a shit sandwich, Jack. It is that simple.

    Jack Burton's picture

    You just proved every point in my long winded post. You even ended your comment with attacking me with "eat a shit sandwhich, Jack".

    Now that does make me reconsider the laws of physics and the proven data that show global warming to be a fact and a fact that is growing more undeniable everyday.

    I will not swear at you. If you read my post, I even said I could respect a denier who simply couldn't grasp the data and science behind global warming. It is the professional deniers who deny for pay that I can not respect.

    Too bad you feel swearing is your only case left.

    LetThemEatRand's picture

    My personal favorite is when they accuse me of ad hominen attacks for challenging the merits of their position, as they call me a fuck face.  The fact that they don't see the irony makes it even more pitiful.

    Jack Burton's picture

    I know Rand, it is all so predictable. I offer to listen to any case they can make to debunk the vast body of evidence that has been accumulated by the scientific method, the same method that has produced all the wonders of the modern world, in return, not one of them presents a rational case.

    They do tell me to "eat a shit sandwhich". That passes for cleverness in their world. I have said it repeatedly, "if they had a case to make that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, they would make it. The fact that they choose not to even attempt to do so is all the proof one needs."

    Let's be clear. If Exxon Mobil, with all their billions in profits, can not find a few climate scientists to pay millions of dollars to to provide the verifiable scientific case to debunk modern global warming evidence they WOULD HAVE DONE IT. The fact that they can not do so should make a person of even the meanest intelligence see that that case is not made because it can not be made.

    So obvious. Rather call me a "Twilight Zone idiot" as if that make their case.  The anger is obvious, anger instead of reason. This is what America is all about in the 21st century. To modern Americans who worship ideology, there is no reality, there is only ideology.

    This reminds one of the old Soviet Union. Where communits ideology was held to trump even scientific reality if it conflicted with the party line. Now AMerican conservatives, of some sorts, have adopted the same sort of thinking. The idea that their ideology trumps science and observable data.

    There really are climate science deniers who think the arctic is not melting, that Greenland is not in melt down, that most glacers in the wrold are not meltings, that land based ice in antarctica is not melting, that global temperatures are not rising, that sea levels are not on the rise, the extreme weather events are not driven by a warmer atmosphere and sea temperature.

    Despite all the observable evidence, they feel they make their best case by calling me a "fucking idiot". I actually welcome the childish threats and name calling. Anyone who honestly respects man intellect and the scientific method would rather be called a "fucking idiot" than to deny reality and our ability to determine via the scientific method what reality is as far as it is possible to.

    Better to be cursed than to deny your own human intelligence.

    Or do they think we will back down if we are cursed at? Not likely.

    FrankDrakman's picture

    I'm an engineer by training. So I deal with reality. When the observed facts don't fit your theory, you change your theory.

    Tuvalu isn't underwater, and average temperatures have moderated. Many of the scientists who signed the IPCC report had no formal training in climatology. Some of them have admitted to making up "their data", like the guy from India who falsely said the Himalayan glaciers were melting. Others fudged their data to make a more sensational case, like Mann's hockey stick. One of the main authors of the IPCC report - whose name escapes me at the moment - admitted that he suppressed any reservations and caveats in the report to make the threat appear more imminent and crucial. Not a single prediction made by the IPCC has come to pass. So, on that basis, I and many others dismiss climate change. We are not ignorant or unintelligent; we simply looked at the predictions, and then the facts, and since there was no match between them, we have no faith in the climate scare. You apparently believe that a theory that does not bear any relation to reality is valid.

    If that's your idea of the scientific method, I can tell you must have been an arts major. The 100+ petawatts we receive from the giant nuclear explosion 93 million miles away has a far greater impact on climate than any human activity.

    wee-weed up's picture

    Well said. Unfortunately, the AGW crowd does not adhere to the scientific method. That gets in the way of their agenda, which has little to do with climate, and everything to do with control. Thus, their prefered "scientific method" is science by concensus.

    Flakmeister's picture

    Do you simply make shit up? You clearly know nothing of science or how it is done...

    boogerbently's picture


    How does the Facts/Theory/Prediction/Scientific Method model work for evolution?

    malek's picture

    So cute, claiming scientific method to be your ally!

    Do you even understand what's behind that concept?
    One of the most important parts is that the model, its design concept including underlying assumptions and the input facts are made freely available, so everyone can go reproduce the model result and reflect on the validity of the assumptions.
    Everything falling short of that is just a belief system.

    FrankDrakman's picture

    One of the most important parts is that the model, its design concept including underlying assumptions and the input facts are made freely available, so everyone can go reproduce the model result and reflect on the validity of the assumptions.

    Spot on. One of my criticisms of Mann in particular is that he refused to release his code and his data. He claimed it would take up too much of his time. I write computer code for a living. Even the largest programs only take a few hours to upload. He could have done it an afternoon, placed it on the university server, and be done with it. The fact that he won't divulge his data or his method makes me highly suspicious.

    Flakmeister's picture

    Beg pardon... the data used is public, not his fault if you don't know what you are doing...'s picture

    The guy who said this:



    Vote up!

    7 Vote down!


    My personal favorite is when they accuse me of ad hominen attacks for challenging the merits of their position


    Entered into this thread with this post:


    Vote up!

    5 Vote down!


    They are calling it "climate change" because very small brained and ideologically blind people have a tendency to say "ha ha.  It's snowing out.  Global warming can't be true because it's cold outside my back door."  Most people apparently are unable to recognize the word "global" in "global warming




    A Nanny Moose's picture

    Fucking eh! That digital record is such a bitch. Pwnt by a bunch of 1s and 0s.'s picture

    It's like he doesn't realize that what he wrote a few posts up is still visible on the page.

    blunderdog's picture

    Mentioning stupid people doesn't make a post an ad-hominem attack, though, does it?'s picture

    Yes, it does. If you have no documentation of the intelligence of those whom you call stupid then that is an ad hominem attack by definition. Do you have such documentation?


    1ad ho·mi·nem

    adjective \(?)ad-?hä-m?-?nem, -n?m\   Definition of AD HOMINEM 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    blunderdog's picture

    Nah, the fact that there are stupid people who believe something in itself doesn't imply that there are not also INTELLIGENT people who believe the same thing, and as a result, it doesn't serve to attack or invalidate an argument at all.

    Word games just aren't worth the trouble, though.'s picture

    Who would have thought that the creator of the Gaia theory would become a denier in your opinion? Or might you admit that your eighth grade science experimants weren't quite as sophisticated as you thought they were at the time?


    Dr. Lames Lovelock: 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told   'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

    'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.

    '[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'

    Read more:
    And then there's Dr. Curry who authors papers for Berkley's BEST program. Real hotbed of denierism there in Berkley, eh?

    This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

    ‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

    Read more:
    Haole's picture

    "I can respect a denier that just can't get the facts and science clear in their minds..."

    Evidently you wouldn't know science if it cracked you across the face with a fucking 2x4. 

    CO2...CO2... All the CO2... Get me off of this ship of fools.




    Bay of Pigs's picture

    "In many cases "the usual suspects" are professional liars who are paid to troll the internet and faill the comments sections of any blog post related to climate change. They have talking points prepared for them by their employeers at the PR firms who work for big oil."

    Haole, I've seen some real idiots around here before, but this Jack Burton clown is in the fucking Twilight Zone. LOL.

    Jack Burton's picture

    Geee Bay of Pigs, I've been reading your posts for many years, especially when we were all part of Mish's comments section. I never pegged you for a person who would rather name call than make your case against the science and data that prove global warming. If there is a real case to be made, why not make it? I never considered you a "real idiot" or a "fucking clown." I found many of your posts interesting.

    Perhaps you could clear up for me where the facts are wrong in the body of scienctific data that support Co2 accumulation and it's properties of trapping the radiant heat that otherwise would escape to space?

    I offered everyone a chance to debunk this body of data and science when I made my original post. Why does nobody do that?

    I consider the insults to be childish. Do you maintain that the fossil fuel companies have not hired large PR firms to manage a campaign of tracking internet stories on global warming and hiring a body of employees to post a series of carefully crafted posts to try and divert discussion away from the data and science.

    I have read some interesting analysis of the denier movement and those who ascribe to it. The ability to discount facts and data no matter how undeniable and demonstable is interesting.

    Since you think a person who accepts the measurable data and observable results of a warming global temperature to be a Quote "Clown in the fucking Twilight Zone", I wonder is that a gut reaction or do you think, based on my posts of many years on many subjects, that I really am, the "real idiot" you claim me to be?

    I have taken knocks a lot harder than name calling on the internet. So I am afraid my feelings are intact. Did that name calling make any impact on the rising temperatures, the melting glaciers or increasing extreme weather events? A stock holder in the Insurance Companies could tell you that that branch of private enterprise is very much "in the loop" as regards rising sea levels, rising frequency of extreme weather events, growing power of hurricanes and tornado activity. They have their business model based on analysis of their risks. I guarantee you, that all major insurnce carriers are doing their business models based on global warming as real and getting worse. They are not going to bankrupt their companies and wreck their stockholders by refusing to acknowledge and make their business plan based on global warming as a reality. That is why they are bailing out of coverage in areas their climatologists deem to be at highest risk of the global warming induced extreme weather. Now the government is having to provide the coverage smart business men know is a bad risk based on the fact of global warming.

    vato poco's picture

    Actually, "Jack", having read more of your oddly mechanical and perfectly spelled & punctuated "thoughts", I'd have to guess you're not even a real person. I think you're a mere persona bot: just a sad little program ginned up by the thousands and employed by those who wish to advance their (invariably statist) agendas by simply outshouting/overwhelming the other side's commonsense arguments via sheer numbers on the web & social media sites. I think you're just the leading edge of a bot swarm, "Jack". I fully expect you & your fellow bots to just start chanting easy-to-remember slogans any second now. ("It's too fuckin' hot! But I'm not a bot!!") I'm frankly surprised you haven't done it already. Who knows? The programming gets more sophisticated every day, no? The real question, of course, is who's paying for you and your fellow 'comment programs'? The banks? The DNC? Another playa? Cui the hell bono?? *DO* enlighten us - if it's within your programmed parameters - won't you, old sport?

    Flakmeister's picture

    Jack is just trying to be a reasonable guy... He hasn't figured it out that the asshat deniers here do not warrrant a reasonable approach to the discussion as they themselves are incapable of it...

    Now, since Jack won't tell, I will, go fuck yourself.... 

    Bay of Pigs's picture


    Please read what I had in quotes (your words, not mine). You are talking crazy delusional stuff there. That's what I was referring to.



    Jack Burton's picture

    That is clearly a comment that makes a lot of sense. I can respect the obvious fact that your scientific analysis has made a fool out of me. I must retract all the foolish data and observations that science has produced as regards global warming. You have provided the real science that has cracked my across the face and made me realize that I am wrong. All these scientists are liars, their data is a lie, the extreme weather is a lie. Everything is normal. Fossil fuel burning can not produce CO2, and even if ti did, you have shown me that the CO2 can't trap heat, and even if it did trap heat, that heat is good for us.

    Thanks for showing me real science. And people wonder why the USA is becoming a world wide joke. If it wasn't for our ability to kill people in vast numbers, we would be just another worn out nation headed for it's own particular "dark age".

    RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

    Jack the "real science" is dead.

    Just like "real elections"