Truth's Flashlight

EPA Takes a Giant Leap Into Tyranny

by Cassandra Anderson, BLN

Yesterday, the EPA won a victory over the American people and took a giant leap toward tyranny, in a Senate vote 47- 53 against blocking action by the corrupt EPA. When the federal ‘Cap and Trade” bill (one version already passed in the House) stalled in the Senate after the CO2 lies unravelled due to Climategate and numerous other scandals, the EPA created the ‘Endangerment Finding’in December 2009, in an end run around Congress, as there will be no vote; the EPA is made up of unelected bureaucrats.

The ‘Endangerment Finding’ states that 6 greenhouse gases, with harmless CO2 at the top of the list, threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Truthfully, it is tyranny that is the biggest threat, as the EPA compiled an 18,000 page document with new regulations on transportation, that includes airplanes, cars, tractors, farm equipment, trains, buses, etc. It’s obvious that there is a desire to control every aspect of our lives.

By the way, ‘Cap and Trade’ schemes will cost taxpayers $300 to $400 BILLION dollars a year! Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is quoted, when speaking about failed federal bills and international accords:

“Let us keep in mind that they all have one thing in common and that is it’s cap and trade. No matter who we use whether it’s the Wharton School, MIT, CRA, any of them who have analyzed cap and trade, the cost is always about the same. It ranges between $300 and $400 billion dollars a year. Now as bad as the $700 billion bailout was, at least that was a one-shot deal. This is every year.”

Predictably, the Gulf oil spill is also being used as a tool to promote not only the EPA regulations, based on fraudulent science, but also the new federal ‘Cap and Trade’ bill, the American Power Act. Never mind that CO2 gas is at its lowest levels in 14 years! This bolsters the argument that CO2 is not a result of human activity because CO2 was higher in 1996, and our population has increased by 38 million people, the US produced 38% more output and traffic volume increased 22% since that time. The author of the article opines whether the reduction of gases is due to fuel efficiency and the like, but can then only account for a 5% reduction based on that theory.

While I have not read the EPA’s 18,000 page regulatory guide, the EPA does embraceCap and Trade schemes. In fact the Acid Rain Cap and Trade scheme generates billions of dollars a year based on phony science. Gene Liken and Frederick Borman, the creators of the Acid Rain theory, have worked extensively with the government to implement updates to the Clean Air Act of 1970. Specifically, their theory that Acid Rain was caused by coal power plants was thoroughly dis-proven in 1990 in a 10 year study funded by the government. Scientist Dr. Ed Krug found that the acid lakes of the Adirondack resulted from acid soil and vegetation. In fact, when the area was logged prior to 1915, the lakes were able to host a variety of fish. But why should the truth, our health and safety, or the economy get in the way of politics and the globalist agenda?

The Clean Air Act is the tool for implementing the EPA’s ‘Endangerment Finding’. Since the establishment of the Acid Rain Cap and Trade scheme has been so successful, naturally, the EPA wants to expand its powers. And Gene Likens, Acid Rain instigator, has worked diligently toward that end. This is not the only case he has been involved in using BAD (Best Available Data, or easy to manipulate theoretical data) science.

In fact, the United Nations, under the depopulation and total control blueprint of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and its companion document, the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report (1995), on page 773, a study from 1975 by Gene Likens is used to set the limits for population control. While we could not find the actual study, we know it is based on theoretical models and easy-to-manipulate data because the population was only 4 billion people when the study was performed in 1975, so it could not be based on real data. It is interesting to note that the UN had to use a study that was 20 years old to justify its recommendations.

Likens’ study sets “sustainable” population limit at 1 billion people, if fully industrialized, like North America. In a more frugal world, like Europe, 2-3 billion people are sustainable, and in a peasant society, 5-7 billion people are sustainable. This Malthusian nonsense recommends that the population be reduced by up to 85%. Obviously, world history since 1975 disproves this theory. But depopulation enthusiasts keep spreading lies about scarcity of resources and creating alarmism over fraudulent environmental disasters (like acid rain and global warming).

Gene Likens holds many “honors” like the National Medal of Science, the Blue Planet Prize and is the recipient of the Tyler Prize. Other Tyler Prize “winners” preoccupied with depopulation include John Holdren, Maurice Strong and Paul and Ann Ehrlich. Gene Likens is also a respected member of the National Academy of Sciences (a Who’s Who of eugenicists), as is John Holdren, who has recommended sterilization by way of tainting food and water supplies and forced abortion. The National Academy of Sciencesmembers list is a great place to find the scientists behind fraudulent policy making science.

Jay Rockefeller (whose family has been the driving force behind the UN), is the Democrat Senator of West Virginia, one of the nation’s leading coal producers. On June 8, he switched sides, from being opposed to Lisa Murkowski’s resolution to block action detailed in the EPA’s 18,000 page regulatory guide, to supporting Mukowski’s ban on EPA action. Because the Rockefellers play both sides of the fence, in an illusion similar to the Right/ Left paradigm, this was an interesting piece of theatre.

The Rockefeller family has a history of extensive energy monopolies and interests (Standard Oil, Exxon, coal, etc) so it would seem that that’s where their loyalties are. According to one article, it wasn’t so long ago that Jay took ExxonMobil to task for the company’s efforts to make Americans reject global warming. Hey wait a minute- don’t the Rockefellers still have a large interest in Exxon?

Meanwhile, some family members, like Jay the Democrat, are also known to be liberals and concerned with the environment. Jay was criticized by the NRDC environmental group for switching sides and then opposing the unpopular EPA regulations. Laurence Rockefeller is listed on the NRDC Board of Directors which receives substantial donations from the Ford Foundation. The point is that Rockefeller, following the UN Agenda 21 model, PRETENDS to be taking action to save the environment, but those actions onlly result in more control for the collectivist elite. After all, global warming is a hoax, and CO2 is harmless, even beneficial, so the EPA guide is designed to expand control and rake in huge profits.

There is a simple solution. Simple, but not easy. The Tenth Amendment (States’ rights) provides for State sovereignty. The States are free to reject federal directives and programs. Local governments also have a lot of power. The problem is to awaken the masses, educate them and organize action. This can be accomplished most directly with your local government. Your state and local governments have been targeted with implementing Agenda 21 Sustainable Development global warming programs (like the “Cool Mayors” project). Michael Shaw has said that the global elites’ battle is to take their programs from global to local, because this is where they are implemented. Find out how to secure your local governments (then work upward toward the State level) at his website:


Militant Libertarian

Site owner, philosopher, certified genius, and general pain in the establishment's ass.



Global warming is not a hoax. Global warming is a verifiable fact. NOAA release of data last week show that globally, May 2010 was the warmest May on record. April 2010 was also the warmest April on record. The spring months of March, April and May 2010 made for the warmest Spring on record. The months of December, January and February 2009-2010 made for the warmest Winter on record. And last week, the Arctic sea ice not only sat at a record low extent, but crossed below a level that is four standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean. This is an event that is 99.997% unlikely to occur if there really has been no climate shift.


Weather is not climate. Besides, their temperature recording is questionable at best:

Arctic sea ice is ON THE RISE, not decline:

Again, it’s not the time of year that matters, it’s the trend over time. NOAA’s numbers reflect the time of year, but their same data shows that Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2008.


1. You’re right. Weather is not climate. NOAA data shows that these current record highs are part of a climate trend. These record highs are part of an undeniable climate pattern.

2. Pajamas Media doesn’t understand fixed effects modeling, which is the subject of the NOAA quote. Apparently, neither do you. Read a text on fixed effects modeling and then read their post again, and then post something on it.

3. Wattsupwiththat does NOT say that “Arctic sea ice is on the rise” in the article you cite. Rather, Wattsupwiththat specifically notes that “extent is currently lowest in the record.” This is also climate, not weather, given not only that the Arctic sea ice extent is four standard deviations below the mean, but also that it has failed to reach the 1979-2000 mean for years and years and years.

4. Nice pick of “increasing since 2008.” If you pick one point on one day in 2008, then you pick one point on another day in 2010, and very selectively pick those days, and then and only then can you say that “Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2008.” THAT’s weather you’re talking about. There is a clear decrease in Arctic ice extent from year to year when you move out beyond the scope of one day in 2008 and one other day in 2010. That’s CLIMATE.

You have just demonstrated the techniques of:

A) incorrectly claiming that your links say what they don’t say
B) picking out outliers in the data rather than looking at trends

The use of these techniques is intellectually disingenuous, and I’m not stupid enough to swallow them.

Militant Libertarian

I now realize my first mistake: I should have attacked your premises for what they are. They are nonsense that has nothing to do with this original post anyway. The post isn’t about global warming, it’s about the EPA’s bureaucratic institution of cap and trade.

That’s an economics and political issue, not a scientific one. Which makes your original point, well, pointless and out of context.

Regardless, I posted those links in haste, as I am short on time because I have actual work to do that doesn’t involve wasting my time attempting to change your preconceived notions.

So here’s more information.

First, NOAA acknowledges only a slight upward trend in recent years and even then that it is only in certain parts of the world, not planet-wide:

Most of your proofs hinge on NOAA being accurate. Let’s explore that. The US weather data is mostly collected by NOAA and NASA, who generally work together in this endeavor. Both have also been shown to be a little less than honest about their numbers.

That’s not a well-written article, but it links to a couple of informative stories to begin tearing down the “government is God” myth that is so common. It’s been my experience that if something has a governmental name after it, it’s should be taken skeptically.

Next, the data itself (whether “massaged” or not) is based on temperature recording stations. Those are also suspect. To start with, look how few there are now:

Then we have to ask why the surface station and satellite data were near-mirrors of one another until just about mid-2006…

Then there’s the question of the Medieval Warm Period, which NOAA has wrong ( , their data was from the IPCC’s 2007 report). Somehow, after 2001, the MWP disappeared from IPCC data:

Which makes NOAA’s statement that we are now warmer than we have been in 1,200 years patently false.

So much for NOAA.

Now for those pesky ice packs. Arctic ice packs have indeed been slimming, though looking at March or May is too narrow and looking at a decade is not very informative either. We have data from both poles starting in about 1980, so we should look at the trends for that whole period.

This shows that while one might shrink, the other gains so the overall total in sea ice is relatively constant. This probably explains why there haven’t been sinking islands and coastal flooding due to all that ice turning into water…


1. Honeybuns, the article says “global warming is a hoax,” which is a truth statement that is up for assessment.

2. Thank you for acknowledging that your previous statement, declaring “Arctic Ice is On The Rise,” is false.

3. The melting of sea ice does not significantly affect sea level.

4. The WattsUpWithThat post that you link to does not establish the existence of a global Medieval Warming Period, globally warmer than today. Yet another example of a link you provide not showing what you say it does. A Mann et al paper in the journal Science last year, on the other hand — — concludes that “The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This is consistent with declarations by NOAA that the current period is the warmest in 1200 years. BUT at any rate, you wouldn’t need to demonstrate that. You’re trying yet another trick, which is to try to set a standard in which if NOAA makes a mistake on any matter, you throw up your hands, declare “So much for NOAA!” and declare, without proof, a hoax. But really, to demonstrate global warming climate change, all you’d need to show is warming over a more recent period, and the NOAA temperature data do that.

5. When you say “Then we have to ask why the surface station and satellite data were near-mirrors of one another until just about mid-2006…” it’s not at all clear WHY we have to ask that at all. Besides, in the article you link to, there’s a graphic that doesn’t show mirrored data, but data that roughly correlate both before and after 2006. Yet again, the link you provide doesn’t demonstrate what you say here it demonstrates.

6. You are aware, of course, that the research group joannenova refers to in her article on the number of NOAA weather stations is led by people who get slush funds from Exxon Mobil. That would be ad hominem on its own, but let’s just say that you ought to verify the data that’s being proclaimed there to make sure it isn’t spin. At the very least, the article you link to is secondary, providing no link to a primary data for verification. That is, again, suspicious.

7. But let’s not just stop at ad hominem concerns; let’s consider the facts at hand regarding the number of stations. NOAA explicitly acknowledges the decline in the number of stations from 6000 to 1500 here: . It provides reasons for this: its dataset now aims to update in real time and the older stations weren’t able to do that. And lo and behold, in response to questions like yours — — NOAA has engaged in publicly-released studies that demonstrate their stations’ locations don’t introduce bias into temperature data, except in U.S. data where locations of stations have introduced a bias toward slightly colder temperature readings (see ).

This seems entirely reasonable. Do you have actual evidence of actual nefarious activities? If so, post it. Where’s the conspiracy? Where’s the documentation of a conspiracy?

8. To demonstrate a hoax, you can’t just find a couple of things that seem fishy to you and throw up your hands. You have to prove the claim to be baseless. Have you? Do you have alternative data gathering surface temperatures from around the globe that show global cooling from 1880-2010? If so, post a direct link to that data here. If you don’t, that will speak for itself.

9. The Examiner article you refer to not only is poorly written, as you say, but does not “find” at all that NOAA data has been “deceptively manipulated.” It simply does not show that at all.

10. Yet another link that does not say what you say it says. You write: “NOAA acknowledges only a slight upward trend in recent years and even then that it is only in certain parts of the world, not planet-wide.” But the article you link to explicitly states that at the planet-wide scale, the Earth IS indeed warming. The article only states that in a few areas of the world, the temperature record shows a slight decline (the only use of the word “slight”). These areas are overwhelmed by the huge areas in the world experiencing warming, so that at the global level the climate is warming. You’re playing word games here and hoping people won’t notice. Why play such word games? They aren’t intellectually honest.

11. Finally, my notions aren’t preconceived. They’re based on scientific data that is publicly available for review, based on methodology that is publicly available for review, based on multiple methods that confirm one another. If the data show global cooling trends in climate for the next 50 years I’m alive, then I’ll be surprised but will note and acknowledge that development. This article’s proclamation that “global warming is a hoax”, on the other hand, is based on nothing but very thin air and a whole LOT of hand-waving.

You’ll have to do better than this.

Militant Libertarian

1 – Well, SWEETCAKES, it’s one tiny phrase in a 1,000+ word article that deals with economics and bureaucracy, and not global warming. Again, there are thousands of articles out there at places lik and that you could have bothered your little spam campaign against skeptical arguments, but instead you decided to come to a political site and do it. Afraid that some real specialists in refuting AGW might best you? Be that as it may, you commit the same crimes you attempt to accuse me of in your response.

2. You’re welcome.

3. Really? Then why does every press release from the “scientific community” about sea ice melt include the headline “GLOBAL FLOODING IMMINENT” or similar? Just Google the phrase and you’ll see hundreds of reports with just that sort of headline, citing some study put out by some scientist or group of them.

4. I’m sorry, what? You didn’t bother reading the article, apparently, because right smack in the center of it is this little graph: If that graph isn’t showing the IPCC’s ignorance of the MWP, then I’m not sure what it’s for. To look pretty? Seems kind of the focal point of the whole damn article.

5. Again, I’m not sure you’re looking at the same graph or even the same article. The two lines on the graph are nearly identical with few deviations and then, suddenly, around 2006, they begin small deviations and by 2009, they’re going in completely opposite directions. Just in case you were somehow looking at the wrong graph:

What you’ll also see, overall, is that the graph itself demonstrates that the temperature in 1995 is about the same as it was at the end of the graph in 2009. There are highs and lows, but the overall trend is obviously not UP.

6. Oh, I’m aware that several years ago they took a few dollars to do some research for Exxon-Mobil and that your ilk will use that against them for life. Exxon-Mobil is also one of the largest contributors to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. So what? Let’s look at where funding comes from for a bit here… Since it’s been my experience that funding can (and will) manipulate the outcome of the science. It happens in pharmaceuticals and bio-engineering all the time. So why not climate?

Who stands to gain by continuing the trumpet call of “the sky is falling, it’s climate change”? Besides the obvious, like Al Gore and all of the exchange cap-and-trade types, that is.

Well, let’s see… So far, it’s almost all government doing the funding. To the tune of hundreds of times what “evil Big Oil” has put into the game. You’ll hate this source, of course, because it’s again Joanne Nova, but you’ll also note that she includes full disclosure on her data as well, which in this case is mostly the world’s governments themselves:

If you have problems with that source, I suggest you take them directly to Miss Nova.

As for the article I linked to not having primary source data, I beg to differ. She links directly to this ( which is the source for the data. Once again, you fail to actually read what I give you.

7. Of course NOAA gives a reason. I’m amazed they have the audacity to claim that they’ll show “cooler” temperatures. Anyone familiar with the urban heat island effect can see that this has to be questioned. Here’s a 12-year-old who did that and compiled some data. I replicated it when I first saw this video several months ago. He’s using GISS data:

Again, remove the stations located in or near urban centers and you get no average increase in temperature for over 100 years. Replicating this is fairly easy to do and most of the work can be done via spreadsheet once you’ve made your data source choices.

So rather than trusting in some formula to (hopefully) adjust for the UHI effect, you can instead use sensors that are probably not effected by UHI.

I’ll also refer you back to Joanne Nova’s website where she has several articles and exposes (photographs) of temperature stations with obvious reasons for heat bias: concrete walls, metal structures, being nestled on top of or in between large buildings, etc. NOAA, to ad more ad hominem to your list, has a vested interest in appearing to be doing their job.

8. Of course I don’t, but I also don’t have access to everything that some scientists say they do. Any raw data out of Hadley yet? Nope, just the massaged stuff. That’s public information. How about NASA/NOAA? Any raw data, or just that which they’ve massaged? I’m afraid that your calls for me to “prove” my “conspiracy” are bullshit, to say the least. I’m not claiming a conspiracy, I’m saying that there is no consensus on AGW, there is no proof that AGW is in fact happening, and there is not even sustainable proof that global warming even exists on anything more than a micro-scale.

The very basis of the AGW claim is that CO2 is somehow causing warming. So far, that has not been demonstrated. It’s correlates, but often with a lengthy space between temperature rise and a rise in CO2. The underlying physical formula for this says that explicitly. CO2 has a maximum absorption rate and ability to create the greenhouse effect. Here;
That guy has “PhD” after his name, so you’ll probably like him.

Finally, since we are currently on the upswing from an ice age, it would be expected that we are slowly trending upwards over time. Sure, there will be spikes and valleys, but overall, it will be upwards. Eventually, we’ll hit whatever point nature intends and then begin a descent. We might be on that now and not even know it, since it takes centuries to be sure. Our current problem is that our most reliable source of data is modern temp recording equipment which hasn’t been around very long. Before that, we have to rely on extrapolations from various sources like your buddy Mann and his tree rings.

9. The Examiner article was found hastily, on the first page of a Google search. Again, I don’t have a lot of time to devote to this as it’s not my job. It may be yours – that’s the impression I’m getting. If so, I again must wonder why you chose to pick on this site (a site about POLITICS) instead of one of the thousands devoted to AGW skepticism. I also highly doubt you’re swaying anyone’s minds as few of the comments ever get read here and most of the site’s visitors aren’t exactly the voting type. Militant Libertarian’s underlying principle is that the system is fucked and we need to reboot it – which won’t happen at the polls.

At any rate, the links within the article are two: one to the UK courts declaring Al Gore to be a liar (more or less) and the other, more interesting one being to this:

That guy is the founder of the Weather Channel and one of the most respected meteorologists in the world. He says that NOAA lies and he says that global warming is a hoax. Spent some time there, get to know his site. It’s fascinating.

10. You play with words and accuse me to doing so? Here, I’ll just fucking quote it for you:
“Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century.”

Word game that all you want, it says that temperatures have risen less than a degree C, that most of that has happened in the past 50 years (which means NOTHING to climate, which, like geology, measures change over hundreds of years), and that it’s not uniform. Pretty much what I said it says.

11. You obviously come from preconceived notions. I’ve visited your site. Where you instruct others on how to refute claims against global warming.

I also have a preconceived notion about AGW: it’s being used to manipulate us into more slavery and loss of our rights. What would a national or global carbon market do to our society as a whole? Which was the underlying point of this whole article, which you apparently missed because you saw your hated phrase “global warming hoax” and based your entire reponse thread on that one three-word group, ignoring the hundreds of other words in the article.

Last, but not least, since you were so quick to include Mann in your response, let’s do some ad hominem on him as well. Shall we?


Looks like Mr. Mann is under investigation on two fronts. Since he’s also refused to release his raw data (as did the Hadley boys), I say he deserves scrutiny.

I’m sure they’ll whitewash this investigation just as they are the Hadley Institute’s.


This isn’t a “spam campaign.” This is me arguing with the declaration of your article that “global warming is a hoax.” The article declares all sorts of other interesting things; I think the bit about CO2 is really cute. But just to come out and say “global warming is a hoax” is something that you should expect to get a response on. If you don’t want responses to what’s written on this website, then turn the comments off. If you don’t want people to negatively evaluate the truth of what this website writes, then stop making outlandish claims.

You’re claiming a conspiracy all right when you say “global warming is a hoax.” You’re telling me that NOAA and NASA and the other multiple involved scientific institutions are engaged in a coordinated scam to fix the measurement of temperature across the globe. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of a conspiracy.

And as you note, no, you don’t have global temperature data showing global cooling. So no, you don’t proof of a hoax. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I should acknowledge your point on #6. I didn’t see that particular link and I apologize on that point.

The first link on Mann notes the soundness of his work. Specifically, it states “The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel ( concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.” The second link on Mann is a hack piece commissioned by a couple of House Republicans, and I encourage everyone to read it; it’s very, very interesting, but not in the way that the authors intended. Mann is not under any kind of serious “investigation.”

I don’t instruct others on “how to refute claims against global warming.” I link to pieces of information that refute claims that global warming is a hoax.

I’ve never seen a headline reading anything like “GLOBAL FLOODING IMMINENT” used to describe sea ice rise in a mainstream newspaper.

NOAA has a discussion of the urban heat island idea here:

You have a Youtube video of a 12 year old kid. I have a peer-reviewed journal article in Geophysical Research Letters 26:329-332. Here’s the link:

And here’s the abstract: “Using rural/urban land surface classifications derived from maps and satellite observed nighttime surface lights, global mean land surface air temperature time series were created using data from all weather observing stations in a global temperature data base and from rural stations only. The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well?known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming.”

I encourage you to read the article. It assesses the NOAA GHCN data set, in case you were wondering. Or, what, is the institution of academia now part of the conspiracy too?

Militant Libertarian

It’s not a spam campaign? Then why are you advocating others to do exactly what you’ve done and to go around posting, word-for-word, the exact thing you posted here as your first response (and then back-linked to in your call for action on Irregular Times)?

You’re also under the mistaken impression that this article is mine, when it’s clearly listed as being written by Cassandra Anderson, with a link to the original. Few of the articles on this site were written by msyelf. Most are re-posts.

Once again, you make as if the whole article’s point is “global warming is a hoax.” Once again I will point out that it’s a handful of words in a 1,000+ word article. I will also point out that you haven’t made your commentary on Black Listed News where this story originates (linked at the top of the damn thing, which you apparently also didn’t bother reading) nor did you see that there it links to her cross-posting of the story on her own blog here:

Where I note you haven’t take your little campaign to the source. Something you should be doing and should probably tell the other minions you’re recruiting to make these campaigns around the Web to refute the “global warming hoax.” Always look for the source.

For instance, your IP address tells me you’re in Maine while the owner of Irregular Times is a prolific Democratic campaign contributor located in a small town in New York. Informative, but pointless data.. unless you’re looking for the source.

Once again: if the science can’t be replicated, it’s not science. Your link to field data assumes access to the original data. Which NASA will not give out. Go ahead and ask, I have. The only data you can get is a subset of the GISS data, which is publicly-available (as shown in the video).

Here’s the articles you failed to see in the mainstream, recently. Most are in credible, real publications too.

National Geographic:

The Telegraph:

And for good measure, some guy’s book on the subject:

Here’s one from Greenpeace about how the Pentagon sees this as a threat (you know, the Pentagon, world’s #1 user and abuser of petroleum fuels):

Obviously, you don’t have the ability to use I literally cut and pasted “GLOBAL FLOODING IMMINENT” and added warming and got all of those links on the first two pages of results.

So much for research.

Militant Libertarian

Do a fucking search, you pig headed idiot. I’m tired of dealing with you and your little spam campaign. The article uses the phrase GLOBAL WARMING one fucking time. ONCE.

I never said anything about you writing anything in the Portland Examiner. All I said was that your IP address points you to being in Maine. THAT IS ALL I FUCKING SAID, but you’re so busy reading between the lines that aren’t there that you can’t fathom that.

So comment all you want, but I won’t be responding any longer. I don’t have time and don’t get paid (like you apparently do) to post commentary on global warming. I’ll hit up Exxon and see if they’ll pay me to do proper research and fully rebut your bullshit. Until then, I have better things to do with my time than waste them on someone who won’t fucking pay attention to what I have to say.


You said that it was your impression I wrote the Examiner article.

Militant Libertarian

Show me the quote where I said that. I never said or intimated that you wrote anything for the Examiner. Once more you prove that you can’t read.


“The Examiner article was found hastily, on the first page of a Google search. Again, I don’t have a lot of time to devote to this as it’s not my job. It may be yours – that’s the impression I’m getting. If so…”


You deleted my comment which was placed here. It was under moderation and then you deleted it. Don’t lie.

Militant Libertarian

I deleted no comments and your empty claims that I have are bullshit.

That quote you give doesn’t show me telling you that you work for the Examiner. It shows me telling you that you are (apparently) paid to troll blogs and post commentary about AGW. Again, you prove that you are incapable of reading without first insinuating your own preconceptions.

If it weren’t against my own self-imposed policy to do so, I would have blocked you long ago. It’s a testament to my own integrity that I haven’t blocked, filtered, or even edited your commentary.

So fuck you and your baseless accusations.


Swearing. You seem to be upset that someone would challenge your blog’s — yes, your blog’s — claim that “global warming is a hoax.” Tetchy, now. And it’s funny how you’re letting so many of the items just pass you by.

NOW you’re accusing me of being paid by someone to write these comments. Do you have a single shred of proof? Or, like your blog’s “global warming is a hoax,” is all you need to assert such a thing your own personal assertion?

Go ahead and try to find evidence that I’m being paid to write comments about global warming. Come on, I’m waiting for it! Go right ahead! I invite you to do it. You won’t find a shred of evidence for that claim, because it is untrue.

This is a VERY big conspiracy theory you’ve got in your mind. Let me get it straight: the academics, the government and now the bloggers are all in cahoots with the aim of making YOU look stupid? How interesting. When do the illuminati and Area 51 come in?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Aaron, and as you’ve admitted, you have no evidence of global cooling. All the available evidence shows global warming. And still you cling to the “global warming is a hoax” claim. That’s super-interesting.


You’re lying.

Militant Libertarian

I’m upset that you insist on calling me a liar while YOU have ZERO proof of it.

I questioned how you had so much time to post commentary on blogs like this. I said that you probably get paid to do so. Note the phraseology. Something else you are incapable of doing, as you’ve demonstrated several times, is reading coherent English without inserting your own preconceptions.

I’ve already made it clear that I’m not responding to AGW claims on this thread. Again, you fail to read.

My so-called conspiracy theory is no larger than your own regarding everyone being paid by Big Oil to refute AGW claims.

This post was NOT about global warming. Global warming (specifically ANTHROPOGENIC global warming) is mentioned, but the bulk of the post is about the EPA’s circumvention of our elected Congress to impose a cap-and-trade scheme.

“Global warming” is commonly meant to refer to man-made global warming (AGW). You, on the other hand, seem to see it only as whether the temperature has gone up. If that’s all you’re after, then yes, you’re right. Happy?

But that proves ZILCH. It only proves that the temperature has risen. It doesn’t prove anything about the CAUSE of that rise.

Now feel free to go to the proper post and debate AGW all you want. Like I said, you’ll get no more responses here from me. You also won’t get any more wasted effort in your self-created Mexican standoff regarding whether or not I’ve deleted something.


You deleted a comment of mine here responding to each of these points, and particularly showing that NONE of the articles you link to here claim a causal connection between melting sea ice and flooding.

Since you may delete such a comment again, I have no interest in reconstructing it. I simply invite people reading here to follow the links to those articles. Do ANY of them claim a causal connection between melting sea ice and flooding? You’ll find the answer is NO.

Militant Libertarian

And I still say you’re full of shit. I’ve checked through both the comment’s Trash and the Spam folders and see nothing with your name on it.


The Global Warming Hoax is a Hoax! The National Academy of Sciences just got done with a thorough, post-Climategate review of the science behind assertions of human-caused climate change including global warming, and found that the scientific basis is broad, thick, deep and solid.

Can you find any refutations of the National Academy of Sciences review here? No. Just the same old industry-spawned assertions without facts.

Global warming is real. It’s measured with thermometers. Climate change is real, too. It’s the hoax that’s a hoax.

Militant Libertarian

Fuck you too. You’re only here because I mentioned that this other jackass is wasting time on my blog spouting global warming propaganda.

Once again:

If you had a brain, you’d realize that “climate change” and “global warming” are two separate things. But you’re too busy watching Al Gore make millions from his little movies and books and presentations.


My, you’re getting upset. Don’t like it when people challenge your notions?

If this article is “not about motherfucking global warming,” then why does it mention “global warming” in four distinct paragraphs?

Militant Libertarian

No, I don’t like it when people promote their propaganda without bothering to read or respond to those who’re refuting them. I don’t like it when people can’t comprehend even the source of an article, let alone what it’s about or who’s involved. I especially hate cowards who’re afraid to go to the source or to experts to debate their science. Instead, they have to find someone who has neither the time nor the expertise to argue them.

AGAIN: why aren’t you attempting to refute Anthony Watts (, Joanne Nova (, Steve McIntyre (, or any of the other experts?

You never did respond to that question, which I’ve posed several times.


Why do you assume I haven’t? (I have.)
Why are you speaking of cowardice when you’ve been deleting comments here?
And why, if you admit you don’t have expertise, would you ever publish an article about global warming policy that declares “global warming is a hoax?”


And, by the way, since you’re going to demand answers to questions:

If this article is “not about motherfucking global warming,” then why does it mention “global warming” in four distinct paragraphs?

Militant Libertarian

Answer mine first, pal. You still refuse to do so.


Let me spell it out for you in tiny words.

I have answered the question, “Why aren’t you attempting to refute Anthony Watts (, Joanne Nova (, Steve McIntyre (, or any of the other experts?”

With the answer

“I have”

Militant Libertarian

Where? When? You haven’t shown me and this is the first time you’ve answered that question on this blog. I don’t bother going to your site anymore. I only have so much time in the day and don’t see why I should add to your hit counter any more than I already have.


“Global warming is a hoax” says the article, but the article is not about global warming. Right. Sure.

You going to go ahead and delete my comments too?

You haven’t been able to refute the National Academy of Sciences, have you? Your Cold Earther approach can’t deal with the facts.

Global warming is part of climate change, ML, and is backed up by a generation of solid research. Why are you so eager to defend your militancy, that you’ll pretend that the facts aren’t the facts? It’s not a mentally healthy approach.

Militant Libertarian

I haven’t deleted anyone’s comments and Jim’s outright lie on that point is further evidence of you all’s disingenuous bullshit flinging. I’m no longer responding to comments about global warming on this thread. I’ve created a challenge for you warmists to take. I’m sure you’ll both ignore it and continue with the off-topic crap fest. Especially once you find out that I’ve invited a real expert on AGW to come participate.


I’ve been banned! How cute.

Militant Libertarian

No, Askimet has decided that you’re a spammer. Fitting.

Militant Libertarian

I note that neither of you has bothered saying anything on the actual AGW thread I created. You instead insist on telling me that I’m filtering your brilliant remarks here on this thread.

That’s scientific integrity for you, I guess.

Either accept my challenge and respond accordingly (on the proper thread) or leave this site alone and go somewhere else.


Le Sigh. It’s called Control-F. Use it.

Well, I for one won’t be posting any more comments here, since you’ve deleted one of them and not admitted it. I can’t be sure you won’t do so again. Instead, I’ll be typing up a point-by-point annotated and hyperlinked account on Irregular Times. It’s very interesting to see how your tactics have evolved, and I’d like to share that with others.

By the way, just in case you were thinking of deleting this entire thread, don’t worry — I’ve learned my lesson and saved a local copy on my computer for purposes of documentation.

Militant Libertarian

I’m afraid that claiming Ms. Nova is in the employ of Big Oil is not a “response” to her expertise. So Control-F yourself.

Go ahead and post away on your own blog. I won’t be visiting your site any longer either.

Have fun with that. Make sure to forward a copy to your buddy Al Gore too. I’m sure he’ll use it in his next Power Point.


“whether the temperature has gone up. If that’s all you’re after, then yes, you’re right. Happy?”

Thank you for noting that NO, global warming is not a hoax.

Comments are closed.