Guest Post: Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

As far back as I can remember, the overarching message of the American social atmosphere has been one of idolization.  Oh to one day join the ranks of the “professional class”; that 5% to 10% of our culture which enjoys unparalleled respect and an assumed position of knowledge, so much so that they are rarely even required to qualify themselves to anyone besides their own compatriots.  The goal of every person I knew during my formative years with a desire to succeed was to one day hold in their hands an official looking embossed document announcing their ascension to the ranks of the intellectually anointed.  I was never so keen on the idea…        

The dangers of academic deification are numerous.  Those who dominate the educational language of the times determine the moral compass (or lack of compass) of the curriculum.  They control who is accepted and who is rejected, not by measure of intelligence or skill, but by their willingness to conform to the establishment ideal.  They construct a kind of automaton class, which has been taught not to learn independently, but to parrot propaganda without question.  Simultaneously, those of us who do not “make the grade” are relegated to the role of obliged worshippers; accepting the claims of the professional class as gospel regardless of how incorrect they happen to be.  To put it simply; the whole thing is disgustingly inbred. 

Elitism has always lent itself to morbid forms of educational molestation.  This is nothing new, especially within their own limited circles.  However, to have such perversions of logic and reason gutting the minds of entire generations across endless stretches of our country without any counterbalance is a far more heinous state of affairs in the long run.  Ultimately, this highway can only lead to a deterioration of our future, and the death of reason itself.

Recently, I attended a discussion panel on Constitutionalism at a university in Helena, the capital of Montana, and admittedly, was not expecting much insight.  (At the moment of arrival I noticed the buildings had been plastered with Kony 2012 posters.  The campus seemed to be completely unaware that the YouTube film is a George Soros funded ‘Wag the Dog’ farce.)  Even in a fiercely independent region such as the Northern Rockies, the collectivist hardline reigns supreme on most college campuses.  Sadly, very few actual students attended the discussion, and the audience was predominantly made up of local political players, retired legislators, and faculty.  Surprisingly, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers was invited to participate in the discussion, obviously to add at least some semblance of balance or “debate” to an otherwise one-sided affair.  The mix was like oil and water.

The overall tone was weighted with legal drudgery.  Many of the speakers were focused intently on secondary details and banal explorations into individual Constitutional cases without any regard for the bigger picture.  When confronted with questions on the indefinite detainment provisions of the NDAA, government surveillance, or executive ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, the panelists responded with lukewarm apathy.  The solutions we discuss regularly within the Liberty Movement, such as state nullification based on the 10th Amendment, assertions of local political control through Constitutional Sheriffs, and even civil disobedience, were treated with indignant responses and general confusion.

A consistent theme arose from the academics present, trying to run damage control on Rhodes’ points on federal encroachment and ultimate tyranny.  Their position?  Defiance is unacceptable (or at least, not politically correct…).  Americans have NO recourse against a centralized government.  Not through their state and local representatives, and not through concerted confrontation.  In fact, to even suggest that states act on their own accord without permission is an outlandish idea.  In the end, the only outlet for the public is….to vote.

No one seemed to be able to address the fact that both major parties supported the exact same unconstitutional policies, thus making national level elections an act of pure futility. The point was brushed aside…

Sickly shades of socialism hung heavy in the room.  One speaker even suggested that the states could not possibly survive financially without centralized aid.  He was apparently too ignorant to understand that the federal government itself is bankrupt, incapable of producing true savings, and printing fiat Ad Nauseum just to stay afloat.  Every 30 seconds I heard a statement that made me cringe.                    

Universities are today’s centers of connection.  They are one of the last vestiges of American tribalism and community in an age of self isolation and artificial technological cultism.  Adults do not meet face to face much anymore to share knowledge, or discuss the troubles of the day.  The academic world provides such opportunity, but at a terrible price.  To connect with the world, students must comply.  To be taken seriously, they must adopt, consciously or unconsciously, the robes of the state.  They must abandon the passions of rebellion and become indifferent to the truth.  All actions and ideas must be embraced by the group, or cast aside.  They must live a life of dependency, breeding a culture of fear, for that which others to keep for us, they can easily take away.   

How could anyone possibly sustain themselves on a diet of congealing fantasy, and personal inadequacy?  The intellectual life bears other fruits as well.  Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for in ego, proving that being educated is not necessarily the same as being intelligent.  The following is a list of common character traits visible in the average intellectual idiot, a breed that poisons the American well, and is quickly eroding away any chance of Constitutional revival…

1)  An Obsession With The Appearance Of Objectivity

I say “appearance” of objectivity because the intellectual idiot does indeed take sides on a regular basis, and the side he takes invariably benefits the establishment.  He would never admit to this, though, because he believes it gives him more credibility to at least be thought of as standing outside an issue looking in.  It is not uncommon to find Intellectual Idiots being contrary regardless of your view, even if they would normally agree.  They often try to approach debate with the façade of detachment, as if they do not care one way or the other.  The costume soon wears away, however, when they are faced with an opponent that is not impressed with their educational status.  I have seen lawyers, doctors, engineers, and even politicians devolve into sniveling toddlers when they are derailed by an argument beyond their ability to tap-dance around.  Their middle of the road persona evaporates, and the real person erupts like an ugly pustule… 

2)  Clings To Labels And Status

Like anyone else, Intellectual Idiots cradle a philosophy they believe in, or are told to believe in.  But unlike most of us, they see themselves above the scrutiny of those who do not pursue a similar academic path (i.e. only a lawyer should be allowed to debate another lawyer).  The reality is, anyone is privy to the information a proponent of the professional class knows.  With the advent of the internet, it is easier than ever to educate one’s self on multiple subjects without aid if that person has the determination to do so.  Reputation is not earned by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for university approval.  A Masters Degree or Ph.D is not a get out of logic free card.  In fact, because the Intellectual Idiot often uses his position to avoid true opposition, he tends to become lazy and even more incapable of defending his methodologies when the time comes. 

3)  Predominantly Collectivist

The curriculum of the average college is partly to blame for this, and because the Intellectual Idiot is so desperate for acceptance and accolades, they can’t help but fall into the trap.  Collectivism is marked by a distinct attachment to the state as the source of life.  All social and all individual crises thus become a matter of government purview.  Individual self reliance is a terrifying notion to them.  In fact, many Intellectual Idiots have lived on the dole since they were born, moving from their family’s money, to state money through grants and loans.  It is not unheard of for these people to become career students, avoiding work for years, and then moving on to a bureaucratic job when the free money runs out.  They cannot fathom why anyone would rebel against the system, because they are a part of a select group which has always benefited from it.  How could the federal government be bad when it has paid their way for half of their existence?

4)  Disconnection From Reality

The Intellectual Idiot is not necessarily afraid to acknowledge that the system is troubled.  For them, the federal government is not infallible, even if their favorite party is in office, but, it IS unapproachable.  Academics revel in the disastrous nature of government.  They see political and social catastrophe as a sort of mental gameplay.  An exercise in theoretical structures.  For them, America is not a country built on an enduring set of principles, but a petri dish; an ongoing anthropological experiment that they can watch through a microscope at their leisure.  The idea that the disasters they view from the safety of their sub-cultural bubble might one day come to haunt them is a distant one. 

5)  Abhors Those Who Step Out Of Bounds

Have you ever entertained a view that went against the grain of the mainstream only to be met with accusations of extremism and sneers befitting a leper?  You were probably talking to an intellectual idiot.  The rules, no matter how distasteful or meaningless, hold special power for these people.  They make the system what it is, and when the system is your great provider, you might lean towards defending it, even in the wake of oligarchy and abuse.   This penchant for overt structure for the sake of centralization is especially damaging to our Constitutional rights, because alternative solutions are never treated as viable.  During the panel discussion in Helena, pro-collectivists consistently tried to redirect the conversation away from the 10th Amendment as a method to counter federal overreach.  They did this by bringing up abuses of the states, including slavery and segregation, as if that somehow negated the nightmare of the NDAA. 

Ironically, they saw the use of violence by the federal government to push states to recognize civil liberties as perfectly practical.  But, the use of force by states to protect the same civil liberties from Washington D.C.?  That would be lunacy…

6)  Believes Academia To Be Free From Bias

The Intellectual Idiot assimilates every bit of information he is given at the university level without a second look.  He simply assumes it is all true, and if something appears mismatched, it is only because he does not yet fully grasp it.  Very rarely will he go beyond designated source materials to get a different opinion.  This habit is the root of his idiocy.  Being that most universities draw from the same exact materials, and peer reviewed papers are usually tested by those with the exact same underlying educational backgrounds, I can’t see how it is possible for much variety of thought to form.  Whether intentional or not, severe bias cannot be avoided in this kind of environment without considerable strength of heart.

The shock that these people express when faced with Liberty Movement philosophies is quite real.  They have spent the very focus of their future life within the confines of a miniscule spectrum of truth; like seeing technicolor for the first time after a long limited existence in black and white.   

It’s hard to say when it all really began, but for decades, Americans have been progressively tuned like pliable radio antenna to the song of the elitist intellectual.  Many of us want to be him.  Others want to follow him, straight to oblivion if need be, as long as they don’t have to blaze their own trail.  This is not to say all professionals are a danger to the Republic.  Some are fantastic proponents of freedom.  But, without a drastic reversal in current educational trends, I see little hope of Constitutional guardians becoming a mainstay of U.S. campuses in the near term.

With mashed potato minds fresh from the psychological Cuisinart of public schools, the next generation in line to inherit the most fantastically schizophrenic nation in history will be like candy for social engineers; utterly unequipped for the mission.  Strangely, the drastic financial slide the elites have also triggered might hold the key to our salvation.  The next batch of would be statist citizens may find themselves so poor that higher educational brainwashing will be impossible to afford, giving them precious time to think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.   As they say, in all things, there is a silver lining…

Comment viewing options

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

Fear monger. You will need to explain why you guilted your children into becoming fearful subserviants to a tyrany of elites who promise that they will be able to reduce the temp by .008 degrees once your children sacrifice their finite life to the greater good(in this case a specualated temp change which may or may not ever come about<pure speculation)

. You are the one selling death and desruction(see evey other time in history when the "greater good" was the goal and you will see nothing but death) .

I am selling life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 


Flakmeister's picture

No, you  are selling narcissim and selfishness...

You are of the same mindset as the those that cut down the last trees on Easter Island....

The fact that you cannot debate the science beyond right-wing soundbites only reinforces the conclusion that selfishness drives your denial of AGW.... Go look in the mirror....

riphowardkatz's picture

Do you denounce people who have children? Have you started advocating to kull the root of the problem yet? Its people right. Hopng you dont have any kids because holy smokes talk about hypocrisy almost like Gore flying to another summit while he heats his home at 4k plus a month. 

There are some more right wing talking points for you.

BTW looked in the mirror and liked what I saw. A person who probably has a carbon foot print half the size of yours, conserves because it is moral and productive (serves my life) not because I was guilted into it by intelectual hubris, pseudo science concocted by self agrandizing know it alls who have never been wrong and who think they  are telling me something new by claiming the earth is warming while at the same time telling me Washington was covered by a sheet of ice only 10,000 years ago that was 1 MILE THICK. Really you think it has gotten warmer since then? Genius.


Flakmeister's picture

Every post that you contribute only reinforces the veracity of my observations...

Why don't you take you issue up with Al? Seems your problem is with him...


tarsubil's picture

"I just hope that you can explain why you felt the way you do to your grandchildren...."


................... :'(

DonutBoy's picture

Your premise is wrong.  You set a standard for cogent argument on why the AGW hypothesis is wrong.  We have no proof it is right.  The 'science' presented to date is not science, it is consensus.  Science is not a consensus business, it is a proof business.  The 'proof' presented to date has been faked.  The entire medieval warming period erased from the IPCC report on the basis of ONE tree-ring.  A science that cannot predict the order of magnitude of the number of hurricances next year predicting average temperatures 50 years from now is ludicrous.  AGW is a political agenda of men with letters after their names who would like to feel a whole lot more important than they actually are.

Flakmeister's picture

Nice try.... it is clear that you have very little backgound in the sciences given your use of the word proof and concensus...

And conflating the number of Hurricanes with the the future global temperature is a strawman fallacy...

Out of curiosity, when was AGW first predicted?

I'll will give you a hint, it was not this paper (discussed here) from 1975 that did a very good job of predicting global temperatures 35 years later.... Imagine that!

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

And conflating the number of Hurricanes with the the future global temperature is a strawman fallacy...

Go ahead -- make that argument...

The logicians around are REALLY eager to see how you do with their primary discipline.

Flakmeister's picture

You do know the difference between weather and climate?

TBT or not TBT's picture

Weather happens because of differences in temperature, for example between earth and space, and happens to dissipate extra heat.    A tiny little bit more heat causes a tiny little bit more heat dissipation, then you are back where you are started.   Feedback.   of the "Negative" feedback type, not the fantastical runaway positive feedback type the fear mongers are going on about, to get their grants and make themselves seem important.

DrSandman's picture

Don't have to... you are making the extraordinary claim that AGW is real.  We have yet to see either a) data that is unmolested and "adjusted" to land on the side expected by pro-AGW zealots, b) climate models that don't skew to pro-AGW postions when fed with historical climate data or even random numbers, or c) ANY realization of the catastrophic predictions from 10 years ago.


If you make the claim, you have to prove it.  That's the way science works.  


Everything pro-AGW "scientist-activists" have shown is easily refuted as soon as the source-code or real data has been made available.  Let me repeat: NOT ONE SINGLE claim of CAGW advocate-scientists has withstood scrutiny by objective observers.


And yes, I am a FSKING climate scientist!  Or at least I used to be, until the grant money dried up when I refusted to tow the company line and change my results to conform to the agency's agenda.


I trust in science, but not the scientists.

The Alarmist's picture

"And yes, I am a FSKING climate scientist!  Or at least I used to be, until the grant money dried up when I refusted to tow the company line and change my results to conform to the agency's agenda."

Take this from a former rocket scientist who went into finance ... you must not have been much of a scientist if you could not keep grant money flowing with serious, profit-oriented research that could lead to a viable solution to the "problem" at hand, assuming there is one.

You asshats annoy the rest of us because you tell us something obvious [the climate has been changing for eons before man walked the earth ... want to go back to a molten surface???], hypothesize that man is the cause for this based on a relatively miniscule number of observations that at best are tenuously linked to human activity [co-existent conditions that are perhaps correlated do not equal a causitive relationship], and then throw yourselves blindly into feeding a political agenda designed to enslave and impoverish the vast majority of humanity.

And it is delicious irony that a wlling accomplice to this evil cabal can't even figure out how to get some of the precious golden AGW crumbs to fall his way.

BTW, it is "toe the company line," dipstick.

DrSandman's picture

BTW, it is "toe the company line," dipstick.


The line was so full of BS, you had to "tow" it.  ;-)  

Flakmeister's picture

Unmolested data??? So you think the all the data is fudged? That is a very strong claim that should be verifiable....

Everything pro-AGW "scientist-activists" have shown is easily refuted as soon as the source-code or real data has been made available.  Let me repeat: NOT ONE SINGLE claim of CAGW advocate-scientists has withstood scrutiny by objective observers.

Please provide evidence and reputable links that back this extraordinary claim..

tarsubil's picture

Means, motive, and opportunity. Impossibly complex models magically matching up with crude data.

Oh yeah, verify it! Go in and take all these people's harddrives and spend about 40 years uncovering the smoking gun where someone read a reading of 33.5 and recorded 35.6. This argument is again totally disengenuous. What? Should I congratulate you on your incredible abilities with deception?

DrSandman's picture

Here is the source code from the CRU leak that proves your side is just making it up.  In my years of research, I never once had to name a variable, "fudge factor".


Game.  Set.  Match.





; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!



valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor








Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Subversion of the educational system (both K-12 and higher education) is a critical strategy of the Cultural Marxists. It is not the quickest way to demoralize and destabilize a culture as it takes several generations to take effect, but in the long run, it is the most powerful strategy available. The Cultural Marxists have been at work since the 1930s but their efforts didn't start to get real traction until the 1960s. That's almost 50 years ago, and the effects are really starting to become apparent.


Cathartes Aura's picture

@ GetZeeGold:

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

lol NASA.

re-search their "history" timeline, then re-read the OP with an eye to preserving the status-quo-money-flow.

then look at the "financial" state of the world.

Flakmeister's picture

And ignorance will be at the root of his downfall....

ClassicalLib17's picture

Why don't you shut the fuck up already.  You use a lot of words without saying anything, Flakmeister.  Just an observation from one who possesses a high school diploma in common sense.  And debt free,  bitchezz

Flakmeister's picture

Hey, you don't have to read what I type...

I'm curious, was that a home-schooled HS diploma?

EatersOfTheFed's picture

How about killing yourself to save the planet?

francis_sawyer's picture

Local weathermen can't even predict what the weather is going to be like tomorrow...

Calmyourself's picture

We are coming out of the Little Ice Age.  there is no use arguing about this anymore.  if you force people to live a life carbon free or even neutral, peonage to our higher ups, bad things will happen to you.  Get it?  I will not allow my family to live under your thumb if you wish to live like that feel free, force it on me, you will not like the backlash.

krispkritter's picture

Then they graduate to CNBC or CNNFN...?

smb12321's picture

Since all forms of energy creation (except photosynthesis) create heat, it's probably that humankind is adding higher temps to the globe. As we move away from carbon based fuels that will diminish (but not the save-the-world laws and mandates).  Talking about prediction, after Katrina loads of "experts" predicted increasing numbers of hurricanes including many Category 5.  Naturally, the period since then has been the calmest since records were taken (but don't bring this up - it's not polite).

TBT or not TBT's picture

Photosynthesis does not, and cannot, "create energy."  

Reality doesn't seem to work like that, empirically, and no respected theory in science holds that it does.   I mean unless you have a different idea about physics that you can prove out.   It could win you a Nobel Prize.  

quartshort's picture

I completey agree with your premise. In the words of my favorite comic, Bill Hicks, "Save the world! Kill yourself!" You go first and I will follow... I promise.

Thomas's picture

I think I can see both the strengths and weaknesses of the educational system, being deeply embedded. That, however, was garbage--ad hominem attacks mounted with sophistry-laced grenades. (How'd I do?) Truly content free. Indeed, there are lots of kids wasting their time studying dumb stuff, but that has always been true. (In fact, in the olden days, they studied even less pragmatic things because of an even greater emphasis on liberal arts education.) So many kids in college are studying engineering, physics, chemistry, business, agriculture, get the point. I sat with 5,000 college kids in our hockey arena listening (and cheering) to Ron Paul discuss a liberty-rich path to the future. One could argue that the ones not there maybe were diligently studying to lay the foundations of a career. Again, colleges and universities are worthy of some scorn, but that wasn't it.

You don't like my view? Send me an email ( 

gmrpeabody's picture

You, obviously, are not imbedded with UCLA. ;-)

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

I thought the article was excellent and highly-quoteable.

Diogenes's picture

I know you won't listen to me but will you listen to James Lovelock who invented the Gaia hypothesis and was one of the pioneers of Global Warming?

He now admits that he was wrong, that Global Warming has not occurred as he and others predicted, even though carbon levels continue to increase.

He is 92 years old and does not depend on government grants for his income. So he can afford to tell the truth. I can't see why anyone would dismiss his views, but I'm sure the warmists will find a way.

memyselfiu's picture

Actually he doesn't admit anything of the sort, but thanks for playing!

Flakmeister's picture

Lovelock made some over the top statements and predictions, his call for ~8 degrees of warming in ~30 years was just crazy... And that is what is he referring to....

Edit: Oh, and Lovelocks predictions were pulled out of his ass having no scientific basis... not unlike many of the denier predictions, e.g. or

Karl von Bahnhof's picture

Happy to see you back MDB whoever you are ... we need some intellectual challenge

GlenD's picture

Looks like you hedging both ways now "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming".   Thats certainly a winner given that climates only constant is change.

I have a suggestion, instead of gouging everyones pockets to line Al Gores with gold, why not step on some ants instead....

Biomass of people=420 million tonnes

Biomass of ants is estimated up to 9000 million tonnes


donsluck's picture

How many ants drive cars and watch TV?

Calmyourself's picture termites and methane production.  Methane a much, much stronger greenhouse gas than co2, but then of course water vapor is much more at fault if fault were actually worth assigning.  However it's tough to use wator vapor to regulate my behaviour to your advantage. 

Give it up watermelons (green outside, red inside) before someone steps on you..

Flakmeister's picture

Can you explain to us the difference between forcing and feedback vis a vis water vapor? Be sure to mention the Clausius-Clapeyron relations... 

Can you elaborate the long term effect of net methane emission based on the comparing the average CH4/C02 residencies? Or compare the relative contributions of the 2 gases?


Calmyourself's picture

No, I cannot and will not I wil ltell you this:

Watermelon's beware..  Live how you want to live, I am about done having your ilk tell me how to live.  You worship your psuedoscience and comfort yourself with fairy tales, try to control me or mine and you will not like the effects.

Flakmeister's picture

I admire your honesty in saying that you cannot...

Now since you cannot, you really should STFU about anything to do with Climate Science here at the Hedge....

Calmyourself's picture

I appreciate argument from authority you asshat, let me give you an authoritative answer.  Back off watermelon live your life and stay out of mine.   Ohh, also try to explain the horrific inconsistencies in your arguments prior to argument from authority until you do that no thinking man will ever take you or you psuedo science seriously.  I only warn a biting dog so many times.  You people really think  we are all playing the same game don't you that the rules have not changed, will not change.  I can assure you they have and they will.  If you had any balls at all you would be in India or China telling them how to live but of course you would disappear there quite quickly.  In fact you need to hide here and that is the long and short of it.

Flakmeister's picture

Hilarious... do you even know what "Argument from Authority" is?

Calmyourself's picture

Do you know what the "rules have changed" means and I am done moving backwards.  It would behoove you to understand what happens when someone is pushed into a corner.

 Follow the money asshat...  You know like on CNBC...

Flakmeister's picture

You really need to chill... aka your moniker...

And if you do not like the heat, stay out of the kitchen...

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I wonder if all the same people who say global warming is fake are also the same people who only buy paper gold? Or treasuries? It takes a certain level of retardation...

Dr. Acula's picture

"Can you explain to us the difference between forcing and feedback vis a vis water vapor?... Can you elaborate the long term effect of net methane emission based on the comparing the average CH4/C02 residencies? Or compare the relative contributions of the 2 gases?"

NASA lists a ton of uncertantiies about the climate, can you resolve these?

"Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes."

Note that the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, so they're probably kind of important.

Can you also tell us:

-Why sunspots have been rather active the last couple of centuries

-When do coronal mass ejections occur and how do the Forbush decreases (drops in cosmic rays) and decreases in oceanic atmospheric liquid water (up to 7% drops - peer reviewed) affect the climate

-What is the magnitude of heating from radioactive U and Th and natural nuclear reactors in the interior of the Earth and does it vary with time and how does it affect the climate

-Why was the Earth's temperature stable and similar to today's temperature when there was 20x as much CO2 than there is now

-Why has the temperature been stable for the last 15 years or so

-When will Betelgeuse/Antares explode and how much CO2 should we be producing to counteract the ensuing drop in temperature? " the giant star has shrunk by more than 15 per cent since 1993" -

It isn't our job to do climatologist's homework for them or chase their moving goalposts.

It's their job to wow us with outstandingly accurate, quantitative, falsifiable predictions that are borne out in reality. It's their job to prove that they've untangled the complex intertwinement of causes and effects.


Flakmeister's picture


1) Sunspots and temperature have correlated well up to ~1980, not so much since then

2) Non sequiter... not related to AGW unless you are claiming that this is currently relevant, sorry it aint.

3) Why would radio-decay of the actinides only show up now? Why don't you write a paper and compute the effect?

4) Past 15 years has seen a solar minimum and La Nina Conditions contrasted with an intense El Nino in 98... Correcting for the variation from these effects reveals steady temp. increase 

Link to paper thereing

5) You have got to be kidding...(re Betelguese)


memyselfiu's picture

So, what you're saying is that we can continue to pump co2 int5o the atmosphere, if we just get rid of those pesky termites?

Equilibrium's a bitch when you're the only one forcing the increase. Instead of acknowledging that, you purport strawmen.