The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Are the Democrats Bent on Suicide?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as “the longest suicide note in history.”

The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president.

The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression.

Only that story is more than a small myth.

The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent.

World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.

Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious.

To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar.

Will natural gas be permitted? Will nuclear power? There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Will they be shut down? Will the Greens agree to dam up more U.S. rivers to produce renewable hydroelectric power?

Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. What will replace it? Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos.

The GND calls for an overhaul of the “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector … through … clean, affordable and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

Gas-powered cars are out. How long will that train trip from DC to LA take? And if China continues its relentless rise in carbon emissions until 2030, as permitted by the Paris climate accord, while the U.S. spends itself into bankruptcy going green, where would that leave America and China at midcentury?

“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression.

Who are their oppressors? Guess.


Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” was an original co-sponsor.

Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club.

The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

In a presidential election, the “out” party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record.

Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this.

The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.

That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Global Warming 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    This is just another pie in the sky, free food, free housing, free money for all scam by the criminal party, aka Democrats, to trick the gullible public to vote for these scammers, while they destroy the country through the alien invasion, war on the family, war on whites, etc.

    Just Medicare costs $10,000 per person per year. Medicare for all will cost 3 trillion per year, more than all the taxes the IRS now collects.

    A bankrupt on a bicycle promising BMW’s for all his voters.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @anonymous
  2. It amuses me how military spending is always set apart from all other sorts of government spending, and how the military is never considered to be a form or manifestation of government.

    FDR wasn’t allowed by congress and the courts to achieve full employment through civilian New Deal programs like the CCC. He probably wanted to, but they frustrated him.

    His maneuvering us into WW II was probably motivated at least in part to this: He knew war would enable him to achieve full employment by repositioning all those rural and agricultural workers that the collapse of the rural farming economy had made economically obsolete. That’s what the Depression was, a re-calibration of the economy away from small farming toward industrialization, a forcible shift of the population (by way of foreclosure) of rural labor into urban/suburban work.

    The massive collapse in demand that that shift created short circuited the production cycle, and is called the Great Depression.

    WW II achieved FDR’s goal of using government power to employ everyone in spades. But it wasn’t socialist: it was achieved by massive government spending on oligarchic capitalism. That’s the dirty unbroadcast semi-secret about our government – it’s not socialist, it’s oligarchic. FDR wasn’t a socialist, but an oligarch.

    WW II took the national debt to 120% of GDP by 1945, and put all those dispossessed, unemployed farm boys back to work, reinflating the cycle of production and consumption, and dumped a whole lot of tax money into the hands of the capitalists. The subsequent massive expansion of the economy burned that debt away almost immediately, and proved that Keynes was in fact right. Welcome to the military industrial complex.

  3. anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    White “privilege” is no white countries, cities, neighborhoods.
    White “privilege” is open borders.
    White “privilege” is No-White-Anything-Anywhere.

    It’s Anti White
    It’s G

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  4. swamped says:

    Sadly, the path we’re on and the “business as usual” platforms of the Democrat & Republican Party establishments read like suicide notes for the earth as we know it. The Green New Deal is sketchy, naive, and overreaching – but it’s the way to go in general, if they can somehow get the details right (don’t bet on it but hope so). Besides, if nattering Nancy Pelosi is against it, it can’t be all bad.

  5. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Is the human race is bent on suicide?

    • LOL: wally
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  6. Realist says:

    Are the Democrats Bent on Suicide?

    Yes….same as Republicans.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  7. Hail says: • Website

    The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

    Ah, yes, the Achilles Heel of these types of proposals, at least in the recent USA:

    No matter the issue, the villain is always Darren Wilson.

    Who are their oppressors? Guess.

    The irony is the enormous and rising burden of the oppressed prevents the ‘oppressors’ from many of the kinds of projects in question.

  8. KenH says:

    Sorry Pat, but you said the neoconservative moment was over in 2005 and now they run the place and write the foreign policy of both parties. The Democrats just recaptured the House acting batshit crazy and offering no solutions other than raw hatred of Trump and his white base, confederate history and symbols and historic America so what makes you think they won’t win pitching Bolshevism under the guise of a “green new deal”.

    Reagan’s America is dying off and 40% of the white population are racial masochists and/or social justice warriors. Combined with the growing third world population who came “leaglee” and the left just might have enough of a coalition to pull it off.

  9. It was not a “Tory Wag” who coined the phrase “longest suicide note in history” it was a Labour Party MP Gerald Kaufman. He was talking about the Labour Party’s 1983 election manifesto.

  10. Stick says:

    I’ve thought for some time that the Dem Establishment has to find a way to burn their Obama/Maoist crazies to reassert control of the party while not being seen doing it. 2020 may be the ultimate sacrifice for the Party. To put it in terms they would understand, they have to destroy the village to save the village. Sometimes there’s no alternative to Napalm and Cluster Bombs. The horror. The horror.

  11. “The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.”

    AOC would not have gotten this far if she didn’t have a very powerful sponsor behind her … she is a sounding board to figure out the temperature of the next wave of voters. Of course they’re frightened.

  12. Let’s not kid ourselves. No matter what platform the Democrats run on in 2020, they’ll win. Trump’s opponents (not all of whom are Democrats by any stretch) hate him for everything he says, and his supporters are disappointed in him for what he hasn’t done.

    However, that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to get anything like the Green New Deal passed, especially if Republicans keep the Senate.

  13. Democrats have no chance against Trump in 2020.
    Accept they would nominate Tulsi Gabbard.

    But a huge trigger-happy Lobby will prevent her.
    Because Military and Israel would find themselves without fighting wars for Israel in the Middle East.

    Winner would be the US tax payer.

    But wars are about oil,money,economic reasons and power.
    Especially when you own the Dollar, the world Bank, Rating Agencies,SWIFT etc.
    Only stupid, average and non-political people believe in freedom Democracy and Western Values.

    But the deep state will keep the fire burning until the US has done its work as a tool for Israel.

    • Replies: @Paw
  14. @Anonymous

    There is a radical ecologist, a former tenured professor, by the name of Guy McPherson, who thinks that the SHORT TERM demise of humanity is imminent – within no more than a few decades. He claims that there are already too many “positive feedback loops” to stop it. This pie-in-the-sky Green New Deal is incapable of doing much of anything. Indeed, IF McPherson is correct, nothing can. The overpopulated human race is not about to give up on modernity and return to the life of hunter-gatherers.

    So, we might as well grab the popcorn, and laugh at the idiocy of the overall madness as long as we can. Is it possible that the youth of advanced countries understand this at an innate biological level, thus having no desire to reproduce? (BTW, I’m just throwing the thesis out there – not saying that I believe it).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. @Realist

    We’re going to Hell either way. Only it’s going to take a little while longer with the Republicans – that is, if they don’t start WWIII.

    • Replies: @Realist
  16. Just because the Democrats are suicidal does not mean that they won’t win the Presidency in 2020. Crazy and stupid as they have become, the mostly brain-dead electorate is just a stupid. How many of them will even entertain voting for the person they hate most on earth – Donald J. Trump?

    And, how many distressed and depressed Republicans, who proudly voted Trump in 2016, will just stay home and say – a Pox on both your Houses? The final straw for me was when he said, in his SOTU address, that he wanted the largest amount of immigration in the country’s history – as long as they come in legally. If that’s what he wants, then why even build the wall? The quickly vanishing white majority is screwed either way.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  17. @Rex Little

    Overall good comment, but you assume that Democrats will seek to implement the Green New Deal by legislation. They won’t. They’ll use a combination of: (1) administrative rulemakings; (2) executive orders; (3) enforcement discretion; and (4) statutory and regulatory interpretation to get their agenda in force. And they won’t hesitate to defy the courts if anyone seeks to block them. In the absence of a military coup, it’ll work.

  18. SafeNow says:


    The airline cockpit excepted. Of course, I use that metaphorically. The progressive’s conundrum.

  19. The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

    Demographics, my good fellow. Demographics. Either Florida or Texas will soon flip blue, along with Georgia and/or Arizona. Once this happens, the Dems could run Chavez, and they’d win.

    The democracy game is up for white Americans. We will not vote our way out of this. Time to face this reality.

  20. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve read him. McPherson’s Paradox is an interesting take on global dimming, the masking effect of aerosol pollution which keep the globe cooler; he states pollution is now necessary to preserve habitat for humans in the immediate short term. His short term extinction predictions are predicated on a catastrophic methane release from the Arctic, which may or may not happen as fast and extensive as feared.

    However, just the amount of warming predicted by the Trump Administration, 4°C by 2100, is enough to cause the extinction of most life on earth, which is very likely to include the co-extinction of the human species. Whether it’s McPherson’s 8 or Trump’s 80 years doesn’t make much difference; the Sixth Great Extinction is here.

  21. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    The Democrats are indeed scammers, but they’ve hitched their communist scam to the star of climate science, and when that climate science is indisputably and dramatically proven during a future September Blue Ocean Event in the Arctic—likely in 2020 to 2030 according to the PIOMAS trend lines below—the scam will be imbued with ironclad validity. Republicans had better start reading some science journals, with the intent to understand, not weasel their way out of reality. And create some political positions in line with reality.

  22. For older Democrats Nancy is a distinguished elder stateswoman. For the younger ones she is an old bag in the way of progress. The latter will choose the candidate for 2020. If Trump manages to finish his term of office and the economy is not seriously terrible Trump will win a second term.

    The New Left is nuts. But not in a way that will prevent them from winning votes in the Cities. They will continue to dominate the House. But being nuts will prove a liability regarding the Senate and the Oval Office.

    That’s my two cents regarding electoral politics. What matters is the economy. A crash that causes real hardship in real time will change everything if it happens.

  23. @fitzhamilton

    The New Deal and the subsequent baby boom were bubbles. They lasted a while do to US economic primacy but by 1973 US fertility dropped below replacement where it has been since.

    And you can’t blame ‘social change’ for all of it, most of the US did not have easy divorce , easy to get birth control pills, or easy to get abortion in that year. It was also almost entirely White and the numbers have stayed loosely the same.

    Long and short the urban transition had the same effect that cities always do, making it too expensive and less socially desirable to have a family

    Long term though if we can reduce and reverse immigration, this won’t matter.

    The population will decline enough that the TFR can rise to stable or it will shrink and the population will get less urban and therefore become stable

  24. @fitzhamilton

    But it wasn’t socialist: it was achieved by massive government spending on oligarchic capitalism.

    As people realize that the tax breaks they saw with reduced deductions from their weekly or monthly paycheck was, in fact, a scam that results in a reduced refund, they should:

    a. wise up: you are not “getting” money from the government when you get a refund; a big refund means you entrusted the Fed Gov with more of your money than you needed to;

    b. grab a bit of information: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. is the dude responsible for implementing withholding tax on paychecks from all levels of wage earners. Prior to Morgenthau, and Anglo-zionist compulsion to wage war in Europe, only the very wealthy were taxed, and those taxes were NOT pay-as-you-go but paid periodically.

    Wage earners of America UNITE: Say Thank You Jews, for taking our money to kill your enemies.

  25. lavoisier says: • Website

    Republicans had better start reading some science journals, with the intent to understand, not weasel their way out of reality. And create some political positions in line with reality.

    Since when has a serious attempt to understand reality been accomplished by either Republicans or Democrats?

    Both categories of voters deny any reality that is inconvenient for them to accept.

    For the Democrats, it is genetics and racial realism.

    For the Republicans, it is global warming and the dangers of massive overpopulation.

    Either way, reality has never been something that is particularly prized.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  26. A.-S. B. says:

    The Green New Deal is an ambitious project for the United States, given the ”old, dirty, creaky US electric grid and the 50 US nuclear power plants leaking”:

    The old, dirty, creaky US electric grid would cost $5 trillion to replace. Where should infrastructure spending go?:

    75% US Nuclear Plants Leaking Toxic Tritium Radiation Into Drinking Water Supply

  27. A.-S. B. says:

    Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II.

    On the contrary, most of those who refuse the agenda of the Green New Dealers are those whose fight can be compared to fighting Nazism during WWII.

    That’s because the agenda of the ”elites” and their ”climate change” hoax IS EUGENISM, which IS NAZISM.

    Carbon Eugenics: Genocide in the name of the environment is still genocide

    The Technocratic Agenda: Sustainable Development and Climate Eugenics

    On Patrick Woods’ website (, we even learned that these hypocrites used the pretext of climate change to create a ”cultural alliance” between Natives (in Nevada?) and Turkey. However the real purpose was to smuggle uranium extracted from the Natives’ lands to countries in the ME. Infuriating1

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. @lavoisier

    Both categories of voters deny any reality that is inconvenient for them to accept.

    For the Democrats, it is 1) genetics and 2) racial realism.

    For the Republicans, it is 3) global warming and 4) the dangers of massive overpopulation.

    Interesting post. I took the liberty of numbering the items above. The way I see it, Dems deny 1, 2, and 4. Overpopulation (and even environmental) concerns no longer exist for most Dems since they obsessively celebrate dark skin–and the more of it the better. They don’t even acknowledge the obvious link between 3 and 4. Global Warming principally serves as a cudgel for abusing GOPe types.

    For the Reps? They deny 2, 3, and 4. Just because some fringe alt-types on sites like this one acknowledge the realities of race doesn’t mean that rank-and-file Reps do. They’re always busy trying to prove to Dems that they’re not racist, to the extent that some even deny #1.

    In short, there’s more than enough denial to go around. It’s very popular.

    • Agree: lavoisier
    • Replies: @lavoisier
  29. Realist says:

    We’re going to Hell either way. Only it’s going to take a little while longer with the Republicans – that is, if they don’t start WWIII.

    The Deep State controls both….they are just right and left hands of the same greedy, power hungy group.

  30. @fitzhamilton

    You badly need to read Rothbard, AMERICA’S GREAT DEPRESSION.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  31. @Anonymous

    “Climate change” (aka, formerly, “global warming”) is a scam, nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. But suppose everything Al Gore whines about is correct. So what?

    Even if real, the costs of adapting to rising temperatures are far exceeded by those of attempting to stop it. Indeed, many “climate models” suggest that the so-called Global North might actually benefit from warmer temperatures, esp agriculturally.

    Moreover, even if the West spends itself into penury fighting “warming”, will China, India, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc do likewise? No, they won’t. They care more about development now than future temperature. So all of the West’s efforts will be both futile and massively auto-immiserating.

    Once most Americans have explained to them what the true costs of fighting climate change will be (eg, 50-70% marginal tax rates for EVERYBODY; collapsing Social Security and Medicare; defaulted public union pensions, for starters), vs. the real, minor harms, which will only be felt centuries from now, associated with doing nothing, the vast bulk of US voters will choose to do nothing.

    Republicans merely need to grow spines, and resist being intimidated. Of course, that’s all they’ve ever needed to do to defeat the lunatic Left, and yet they’ve repeatedly failed in that regard, so, yes, there is cause to worry.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @A.-S. B.

    What’s wrong with genocide? Cory Booker is a nigger in a biological race war, and doing what he can to win it against his enemies. Everybody seems to understand this, except the majority of whites who don’t read Unz or Dailystormer and/or believe niggers are welcome to live forever in the white man’s Jewheaven with them.

    “A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting genocide will suffer genocide.” — Philip Atkinson

    “Genocide is as human as art or prayer.” — John Gray

    “Donald Trump will be kept from the White House by a big, beautiful, brown wall.” — Clinton supporter Maria Cardona on CNN

  33. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry P. Heller

    Climate change is old, well-established science, predicted and understood since the mid-1800s. Your petulant denials of reality are considered and refuted at a great website called

    No matter your refusal to see reality, this is reality and this is what’s happening. First, CO2 in the atmosphere just set another record.

    Second, we haven’t seen levels of greenhouse gasses in millions of years. You don’t think that’s significant?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @KenH
  34. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Mr McKenna

    A minor quibble with your more comprehensive assessment.

    Democrats primary focus is on the equality of all people–except white people, who are bad.

    Republicans love to virtue signal about racial equality but do not seem as fundamentalist about this as is the typical Democrat. They just like to mouth a lot of platitudes on the subject but do not worship at the altar of egalitarianism like the typical Democrat.

    But I agree with you that the Democrats, who once were responsible on the environment, have lost that distinction with their embrace of the rainbow nation and open borders for all.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  35. @Rex Little

    “Let’s not kid ourselves. No matter what platform the Democrats run on in 2020, they’ll win.”

    So, pretty much the same as 2016, Cheeto Hitler has no chance whatsoever.

    I’ll take those odds.

    • Replies: @Rex Little
  36. @follyofwar

    “The quickly vanishing white majority is screwed either way.”

    Maybe you should just end it now?

  37. @Ozymandias

    I hope you’re right, Ozy; I take no pleasure in the prospect of a Dem win. But 2020 will be different from 2016 in two important ways:

    1. Trump Derangement Syndrome shows no signs of abating. The Left is still pissed at losing an election they thought was in the bag, and is highly motivated to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Every registered Democrat who stayed home last time because she thought Hilary had it won will be at the polls, and the operatives charged with getting out the illegal and cemetery votes will be working double shifts.

    2.Trump Disappointment Syndrome afflicts those who voted for him thinking he’d build the wall and bring the troops home. Many–perhaps most–will vote for him anyway considering the alternative, but quite a few will sit it out.

    Considering how close the election was last time, these should be more than enough to swing it.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  38. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry P. Heller

    Rothbard was rabidly open-borders and argued that workers are substitutable. But at least he admitted his economic system is a race to the turd-world bottom that destroys a prosperous nation for the sake of the globalists.

    “Immigration restrictions, therefore, may earn restrictionist wage rates for all people in the restricted area, although clearly the greatest relative gainers will be those who would have directly competed in the labor market with the potential immigrants. They gain at the expense of the excluded people, who are forced to accept lower-paying jobs at home.”

    Rothbard, M. Power and Market: Government and the Economy

  39. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    The US could have a public medical insurance program, but not in the present system. The government would need to break the back of big pharma, big insurance and big hospitals. The FDA would need to actually regulate for the benefit of the consumer and not be a job creation program for ex-medical industry CEO’s planning on going into politics or going back into the medical industry. The Democrats would never do it and the Republicans definitely would definitely never do it. Politics and the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industries have been tied at the hip for too long, (just like the government ties to the defence industry) nothing short of a total collapse of the system would change things.

    • Replies: @Bill H
  40. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Whoever set up a carbon dioxide monitoring station on top of an active volcano that still spews a great variety of gases including carbon dioxide, either was an imbecile or a Democrat wanting to skew the statistics in favour of global warming.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  41. @Rex Little

    “The Left is still pissed at losing an election they thought was in the bag, and is highly motivated to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

    The Left is more motivated than they were last election when they were willing to use the State Intelligence apparatus to undermine a legal election?

    Not buying it.

  42. @Anonymous

    I, too, “have a dream”, and it’s cool:
    Cruel Darwin on Steroids must rule.
    Weak-enabling Machine
    Gone with Weak from the scene.
    Hail, ye Stronglords of Ultima Thule!

  43. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    The only imbecile here is you, there are many more CO2 monitoring sites around the globe recording the same information.

    Today, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are monitored at about 100 sites around the globe through the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. Measurements at many other isolated sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, although no sites have as long a record as Mauna Loa. /wiki/Keeling_Curve

    And do share your hypothesis how the volcano CO2 output has been (1) cycling annually and (2) steadily rising in an exponential curve as shown in the chart below, if you really believe your imbecilic lie.

    • Replies: @fish
  44. Pat Buchanan should be focused on Trump’s abandonment and betrayal of his campaign promises.

    Trump has stabbed the American people in the back and Trump has stabbed the American nation in the back on immigration policy and Pat Buchanan is harping on some crazy non-White broads in the Democrat Party pushing their campaign platform.

    Trump has made it clear that he will push mass legal immigration.

    Trump has made it clear that he has no intentions of deporting the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Trump is nothing more than a nasty politician whore for Shelly Adelson and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction.

    Trump has put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

    Trump is pushing multiculturalism and globalization and financialization and endless overseas war on behalf of Israel.

    Trump is using the US military to fight wars and conduct operations on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    • Agree: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @wally
  45. Anonymous[928] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    I’m a one issue voter. As much as I may be disappointed in the NYC playboy, I’ll still vote for him, just to get more Second Amendment friendly judges on the Court.

  46. Bill H says: • Website

    As proof of what you say, notice that before Obama’s grand “health care reform” negotiations even began, Obama met secretly with pharma and hospital executives and made a deal that drug pricing and hospitalization policy and pricing would not be an issue in the reform process, in return for those two industry sectors not using their public relations machinery to oppose whatever reform emerged. Even Democrats and Obama idolaters do not deny that this happened, and the shape of the reform confirms it.

  47. @Anonymous

    I’m a one issue voter. As much as I may be disappointed in the NYC playboy, I’ll still vote for him, just to get more Second Amendment friendly judges on the Court.

    My long range counter-argument to short range 2020 2nd Amendment Supporting Trump voting would be this:

    Trump pushes mass legal immigration.

    The mass legal immigration interlopers are gun-grabbing bastards.

    The 1965 Immigration Act will kill the 2nd Amendment.

    Trump and the GOP are putting the 2nd Amendment in jeopardy by pushing mass legal immigration.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @Paw
  48. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    It’s not really about the Green New Deal but Green Bubble.

    Wall Street is really behind this. It just wants some excuse to create a new bubble. Wall Street insiders plan first in penny-stock green firms. And then, when the green bubble is inflated, their investments go from thousands to millions to billions overnight. And then… just before the whole thing crashes, they pull out before everyone else does.

  49. fish says:

    You’re going to die! Might as well have a nice meal and end it……TONIGHT!

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  50. Anon[988] • Disclaimer says:

    ”Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal hides a sinister plan—the creation of a global socialist government lorded over by a hereditary elite and its financial class.

    Green Trojan Horse: Socialism, Climate Change, and Depopulation

    By 2030, We Will Pass The Point Where We Can Stop Runaway Climate Change

    World Population by Year

    A brief history of climate change

    ‘Green New Deal’ details emerge, as Ocasio-Cortez preps big reveal of WWII-level mobilization

    The Greatest Redistribution of Wealth in History

    “Green” Socialism is Still Socialism

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

    None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. @lavoisier

    Democrats primary focus is on the equality of all people–except white people, who are bad.

    And except for Chosen People, who are incapable of wrongdoing.

    Another category upon which Ds & Rs are forever in lockstep.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  52. @fish

    Now you watch out, that nice little blonde girl just went to prison for that.

  53. KenH says:

    NEWS FLASH: Climate has been changing since planet earth came into being. Antartica used to be a tropical region with palm tree tens of millions of years ago but is a frozen wasteland today.

    I assume you forego air travel, ride your bike to work and take the train to see family members in other states to reduce your carbon footprint. Your car, if you have one, is a Toyota Prius with proggy bumper stickers all over it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  54. Anonymous[928] • Disclaimer says:

    Sure, climate has been changing, like, fore-evah! Problem is, humans have never survived in a Cretaceous Hothouse Earth environment, much less complex human civilization. And a Cretaceous Hothouse Earth is exactly what is coming. Humanity along with most of the biosphere upon which humanity leans has slight chance of adapting to such a radial rate of change in habitat that faces us. Hothouse is earth’s preferred climate. Neither you nor I will survive the transition, so get a bullet ready for yourself too, if you know what’s good for you, jackass.

    • Replies: @KenH
  55. @Anonymous

    I agree with everything that Charles Pewitt said, but I also agree with you. After the Kavanaugh fiasco, I can’t wait to see what happens when the truth of RBG’s (possible?) death comes out. I hope it happens this year before the “Biden Rule” comes back to bite McConnell in the ass. I’ll have the popcorn ready.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  56. Anonymous[928] • Disclaimer says:

    Nope, I’m rollin’ coal with my big diesel 3/4 dually on Prius drivers. Have you never heard of the McPherson Paradox that I mentioned in comment #20? Can you even read, brah? McPherson’s Paradox is the fact that global dimming, caused by pollution’s masking of solar irradiance, is keeping human habitat from being eliminated in a few short years, giving us another few less shorter years.

    P.S.: References, to get you up to speed with reality:
    Global dimming.
    McPherson’s Paradox.

    P.P.S. If you need help understanding reality, I’m available to help the worthy.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  57. Anonymous[928] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Jehovah, the Chosen’s deity, is quite capable of wrongdoing, according to the Chosen’s text that Whitey carries to church every Sun (solar deity) Day.

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

    Isaiah 45:7, 23rd book of The Tanakh

    Theodicy solved! LOL!

  58. Anonymous[928] • Disclaimer says:

    And when the “Blue Ocean Event” (i.e., the Arctic Ocean with less than 1M cu. km. of ice) happens, all the the bullshit politics associated with the reality of climate change will be validated in the public’s mind. Be ready for slap in the face by reality. Your communist enemies will win politically because you couldn’t face reality. All that making fun of Al Gore, who in 2012 repeated the US Navy’s valid prediction that a Blue Ocean Even could happen as early as 2016—which would affect Russian submarines and was a dire possibility to nuclear submarine naval operations and was a definite possibility when he repeated it—will haunt you. We’ve by chance had a few years reprieve that won’t likely last a decade or two.

  59. MarkinLA says:

    The GOP is under to requirement to follow the Biden rule. That was an attempt by some Democrat to delay a vote hoping the Presidency would go to the Democrats. The GOP used it and gambled and won this time but they do not have to follow it if they don’t want. It won’t be followed by the Dems the next time, you can bet on that.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  60. Paw says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Mr. Pewitt , congratulation , I understand it now.
    They want to save us from committing suicides , by taking all guns and shooting us by themselves.
    With pleasure on their side…

  61. Paw says:
    @Scripted Reality

    Do not trust anyone . Gabbard or Crowbard.
    All the same. It become the national Democrati-Republicans sport ..
    They cheat an lie the day after the democratic election.
    As they did it before..
    And have not you ever noticed ?

  62. wally says:

    The facts are that it’s always been about money & political power for the neo-Marxists.
    Real science doesn’t hide it’s data.
    Real science doesn’t need to alter data.
    Real science produces ‘models’ which generate real, observable results.
    Real scientists don’t get nailed in Climate Gate.
    Real science doesn’t try to silence differences of opinion.
    Real science doesn’t advocate the arrest of those that disagree with them.

    Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History:

    NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord:

    Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth:
    The fake ‘97% climate consensus’ crumbles further with 485 new papers in 2017 that debunk it:

    100% Of US ‘Warming’ Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering:

    NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud :

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  63. TTSSYF says:

    I’m not a single-issue voter, but putting what appear to be two solidly conservative justices on the Supreme Court has been worth it to me. My understanding is that most of his other judicial appointments likewise have been of solid conservatives.

    I’m willing to withhold judgment on his other actions (or non-actions) until the end of his four-year term. But, if nothing else, he’s started a conversation about a lot of things that were not being openly talked about. It may be that Trump is merely a catalyst for change and it’s the next one who actually accomplishes more of what he talks about / what got him elected.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  64. TTSSYF says:

    I think you should be focusing your efforts on the Chinese and other parts of the world who don’t give a rat’s rear about how much they pollute the air or water, rather than heaping so much scorn on your fellow citizens for not swallowing your every utterance or rushing to read every link you post and nodding in agreement. This country is doing a lot to be a good environmental steward and may amends for past bad practices. A person can support cutting back on pollution and cleaning up the environment while remaining agnostic about AGW.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  65. KenH says:

    Neither you nor I will survive the transition

    Even if your tin foil hattery is true it’s not going to happen in a few years so we’ll both survive but you might be in a mental institution.

    so get a bullet ready for yourself too, if you know what’s good for you, jackass.

    Aw, another global warming dervish who’s also a snowflake. While I don’t have a bullet for myself I have plenty for fanatics like you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  66. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re lying, and those lies have been refuted time and time again. One of the best sites is

    First, no data has been altered or hidden. You can go online and find GISS data and such, right now. I’ve done it myself after reading such lies as you post, which is why I quit believing such lies.

    Second, the climate models are accurate, so that’s another lie. Here’s how accurate they are:

    Third, how are your lies being silenced? They’re found everywhere around the internet and on youtube. No, your lies don’t get published in scientific journals, but neither do flat-earthers’ garbage.

    Fourth, nobody got nailed in climate gate. That smear campaign was just another lie. I’ve looked into it, because I once believed it myself. Nothing there but bluster from vindictive science-deniers.

    But you won’t be swayed any more than a creationist is swayed by science. You’ll get smacked in the face, hard, in the near future. Be sure your lies will find you out, when the “Blue Ocean Event” happens, which is likely in the 2020-2030 time range according to present trend lines. And people are going to be pissed at the liars, because nobody likes a liar.

  67. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Comrade Ken is going the Soviet psychiatry route of depicting his opponents as mental cases. Oh well, it doesn’t matter how you construe science, you’ll be shown the lying fool when the “Blue Ocean Event” happens some coming September in the Arctic. And then it’ll be to late to save your reputation – unless you lie. Which you’ll do.

    • Replies: @KenH
  68. MarkinLA says:

    The main complaint about Trump is not what he has or has not accomplished. It is that he projected a street fighting lion on the campaign trail. Now that he is in office he projects a pussy cat hoping he will be petted.

  69. @MarkinLA

    Of course, there is no Biden Rule. McConnell just made it up out of whole cloth, disregarding the rancor that ensued or what havoc it would create in future judicial nominations. It was pure gutter politics, characteristic of how things now run in the DC Swamp. Collegiality no longer exists, a symptom of a failing system. Scalia died on 2-13-16, so that seat was vacant for well over a year. Merrick Garland was entitled to a hearing.

    The larger issue is that SC Justices have WAY too much power and are accountable to no one. They should have never been granted lifetime tenure by our Founding Fathers. But that’s an issue for another day.

  70. MarkinLA says:

    Merrick Garland was entitled to a hearing

    He was entitled to a hearing but not a confirmation. So we have a hearing and he is voted down, then what?

  71. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Agnostic? You cannot know if the climate is changing or not? LOL Sorry, climate change is not an ethereal “spiritual” subject, and a position of agnosticism is a non-sequitur to a physical science that requires a simple thermometer. Yes, you can read a thermometer and know the temperature. Epistemologically sticking-your-head-up-your-ass isn’t going to keep your ass cool.

  72. TTSSYF says:

    If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I said “ agnostic” about it being anthropogenic (hence, the “AGW” reference).

    You sound as hysterical as the Baptists I was surrounded by when I was growing up, with all their warnings that anyone who did not “beleeeeive in Jesus as the son of God” was going to hell. Never mind what kind of person you were.

    My beliefs about global warming, man made or not, are none of your business. My entire career has been in the hard sciences and environmental cleanup, so take your own advice and stick it where the sun don’t shine (at least, for now. AOC says we have only 12 years, so you’d better hurry.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  73. Corvinus says:

    “The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.”

    First, it is other than likely Trump will be on the ticket as the R).
    Second, it is a false characterization to call it a “radical” scheme.
    Third, this is now a “young person’s” political game. Millennials and Generation Z are on board.

    Fourth, the New Deal had its hits and misses, which assuredly was necessary given how Republicans had responded to the 1929 Stock Market Crash. The people clearly had spoken about the direction their nation was to take…for 16 years.

    Fifth, here is what Germany is doing when it comes to renewables.

  74. @Anonymous

    Ah. I see. So you have never head of the Ice Age Cycle, then? You should check it out.

    Like: this is the ~twentieth such cycle of the past two million years.

    Like: 21,000 years ago almost all of Canada and much of the northern United States was covered with between 3,000 and 12,000 feet of rock solid ice – a compacted accumulation of between 50,000 and 200,000 feet of unmelted snow.

    ***** And, almost everywhere in North America, ALL that ice had melted long before the start of the industrial revolution. *****

    Please, check it out for yourself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  75. MarkinLA says:

    How much CO2 is created due to the alcohol related industries? Shouldn’t we all give up beer, wine, and distilled spirits if we want to save the planet?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  76. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    There is no doubt in any serious scientist’s mind that global warming is caused by mankind evaporating earth’s coalbeds and oilfields into the atmosphere. It’s two centuries of science that has been confirmed many times.

    If you don’t know about this long history of climate science stretching from the early 1800s, you just prove how uneducated and/or ideologically obtuse you are. Yours is fallacy #177 listed here.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  77. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re being obtuse to claim I’m not familiar with the ice ages when I posted a graph of the last 400,000 years of temperature changes during the ice ages in comment #34.

    Yes, I checked out your *****lie,***** and it isn’t true. Your lie is easily refutable. This graph shows how badly you lied.

    • Replies: @Rodney1111
    , @Rodney1111
  78. @fitzhamilton

    It amuses me how military spending is always set apart from all other sorts of government spending, and how the military is never considered to be a form or manifestation of government.

    It amuses me how military spending, as the original form of government spending that justified having a government in the first place, seems to be the bugbear of lazy morons who haven’t bothered to find out just how much is in fact spent on defense vs all other forms of government spending. Stateside, that’s 13% of all government spending, and shrinking, as government spending not only increases, but becomes out-of-control and all-pervasive in the form of regulations and unfunded mandates. Did you really think racial quotas imposed on the private sector cost nothing?

  79. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Without ice to chill it to the proper temperature, what’s the point?

  80. TTSSYF says:

    Ignored, along with Tiny Duck and one or two other hysterics and/or trolls.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  81. KenH says:

    As a CO2 chicken little then how do we survive the coming “blue oceans event”? Should we hide in the closet and chew our fingernails or should Trump declare a green national emergency and ground all aircraft except for gliders and ban automobiles for all except rich liberals?

    You have lots of charts with cooked data, but no solutions other than the usual boilerplate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  82. @Anonymous

    Ah. You have trouble with reading too? The following is what I SAID – Not what you had wished I might have said instead:

    “21,000 years ago almost all of Canada and much of the northern United States was covered with between 3,000 and 12,000 feet of rock solid ice – a compacted accumulation of between 50,000 and 200,000 feet of unmelted snow.

    ***** And, almost everywhere in North America, ALL that ice had melted long before the start of the industrial revolution. *****

    The above is irrefutably accurate. And it doesn’t lend any support at all to your position.

    Or are you perhaps confused, and believe Antarctica and Greenland are in North America?

  83. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Two centuries of physical science ignored? And I’m the fundie? You pulled a funny! And revealed you’re a fake scientist.

  84. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, I have lots of science. You have lots of empty bluster. Bluster doesn’t top science.

    • Replies: @KenH
  85. @Anonymous

    And in anticipation of your next disingenuous diatribe on the topic, another couple of things you need to know:

    I lived in Toronto for forty years and knew well the people in the Climatology Department at the University of Toronto. They, unsurprisingly, had studied the glaciation in the region in great detail. Here are a few of those details of which you need to make yourself aware:

    21,000 years ago, at the peak of the most recent ice age, the ice sheet extended 700 miles south of the canadian border. And at Toronto itself the ice was 5,000 feet thick.

    By 12,000 years ago the ice had already retreated all the way to Toronto. Yes, ALL that 5,000 feet of ice there had melted. To be uneqivocally clear, all that ice had already melted 11,800 years before the start of the industrial revolution. And over the past 12,000 years it has retreated all the way to the arctic islands. The only reason glaciers on the american continent have still existed since 1780 is because they are at altitude. The places where the ice had previously been its thickest, 12,000 feet thick, all that ice there has already melted. As you hopefully understand, temperatures are cooler at altitude because of adiabatic phenomena, so glaciers at altitude melt more slowly.

    The AVERAGE rate at which the glacier has retreated at Toronto’s longitude over the past 21,000 years is between 200 and 300 yards PER YEAR. So if you know of a glacier that is currently retreating faster than that, it is retreating faster than the 21,000 year average. If a glacier is retreating more slowly than 250 yards per year, it is retreating more slowly than the long term average.

    In addition, you need to take a look at a paper recently published by Nikolov and Zeller – US government climatologists at Boulder, Colorado. It is remarkably revealing. The data were first discussed more than five years ago and no one has yet found a way to discredit it. Perhaps you can? The paper shows that the surface temperatures of all the material rocky objects of the solar system can be predicted to within less than two degrees celsius, without reference to the CO2 content of their atmospheres. They used NASA data for Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Triton and the Moon and showed, for example, that the temperature of Venus is exactly what you would expect it to be despite the fact its atmosphere is 96% CO2, and Earth’s temperature is exactly what you would expect it to be – within less than two degrees – despite the fact its atmosphere is a mere 0.04% CO2. The CO2 content of their atmospheres, they show, has nothing to do with their surface temperatures.

    As well as much else, they showed what ought to be blindingly obvious, that solar irradience at the top of their atmospheres combined with the adiabatic effects of the DENSITY of their atmospheres (no matter their gaseous content) fully explains their surface temperatures.

    I have plenty more to add to this should the need arise. In the meantime, please read and absorb the significance of Nikolov and Zeller, and have a nice day. (And please in future accuse people of lying only when you have first read CAREFULLY what they had said.)

    I am not surprised you feel the necessity of remaining anonymous. You would be embarrassing yourself if you were to reveal who you are.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  86. Anonymous[262] • Disclaimer says:

    Yet another non-sequitur from you; climate scientists are well aware of glaciation, even though you pretend they aren’t. Regarding your lying: you’ve doubled down on your lies banging away about the shysters Nikolov and Zeller. You know they’re fake names, right? You know their fake research has been withdrawn, right? I’m starting to realize you’re not just a liar, you’re a moron.

    The pseudonyms further unraveled with a tweet from NASA researcher Gavin A. Schmidt, which alerted Retraction Watch to the withdrawal. “Top tip for climate contrarians: When you submit nonsense papers to journals,” Schmidt wrote, “spell your name backwards so no one knows who you are.”

    The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”

    He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”

    Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.
    Washington Post September 19, 2016

    Speaking of, ahem, “embarrassing yourself!”

    • Replies: @Rodney1111
    , @Rodney1111
  87. @Anonymous

    Thank you for your input on Nokolov and Zeller. I will check it out. But I see you made no effort to refute their analysis. Solar irradience and adiabatic temperature effects can hardly be disputed.

    Neither, I notice, did you make any attempt to refute any of the data in the first 21 lines of of my post. I take that as acknowledging it is true. And you can hardly do anything else, since it plainly is true. The melting glaciers and other phenomena we see are merely a continuation of a 21,000 year trend within a ~100,000 year cycle that has been going on for about two million years, which everyone acknowledges. Unless they are unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the ice age cycle.

  88. @Anonymous

    Hi Anonymous, You are too funny. Regarding your: “Yet another non-sequitur from you; climate scientists are well aware of glaciation, even though you pretend they aren’t. Regarding your lying: you’ve doubled down on your lies banging away about the shysters Nikolov and Zeller. You know they’re fake names, right? You know their fake research has been withdrawn, right? I’m starting to realize you’re not just a liar, you’re a moron. ”

    Thank you to the reference to the Washington Post. Very interesting:

    Where should I start? You obviously know little about this entire matter because you do not even realize that the names ‘Nikolov’ and ‘Zeller’ are ***NOT*** fake names. They are the real names of the paper’s authors. !!!!

    Had you bothered to read it (or perhaps you did read it but didn’t want to disclose information that contradicted what you wanted to communicate) the Washington Post article, and the discussion which followed it, revealed the following:

    The authors had submitted their paper to four journals that declined to publish it. They suspected – accurately as it has turned out – the reason was not the scientific content of the article, but rather because of who the authors were. So, as a last resort, they submitted the paper to a fifth journal with pseudonyms. The paper was examined, reviewed as being good science and duly published. But later someone pointed out who the authors really were, so the publishing journal retracted the paper ***NOT*** – they specifically stated – because of any fault in its scientific analysis, but because the journal had been deceived about who the authors were!

    It would be hilarious were it not such an important matter. In climate science if they do not like you or your findings, no matter their validity, they will do all they can to prevent you from being published.

    In your last post you had, of course, tried your best to leave the impression that Nikolov’s paper had been retracted for errors in the science. To repeat, the retracting journal specifically stated the retraction had nothing to do with the validity of the scientific content.

    The continued accusations of lying you level against anyone who disagrees with you is very immature, and you come over on this blog as being a teenager. Most people grow out of habits like that because they eventually learn it does not help their cause. Just a little advice, which you will of course reject, because of who you are.

    Go back and read to find out why it is Nikolov and Zeller are the real names of the authors. Read also, in particular, the FULL TEXT of the WAPO interview with Nikolov. Then you can see how they selected, and de-selected, what they felt supported the slant they had wanted to put on the topic in the first place.

    And while you are at it, I see you have ***conspicuously declined*** to answer my point that the overwhelming majority of the ice age ice had melted several thousand years before the start of the industrial revolution. Information which, of course, leaves your agenda in tatters. So I well understand why you would be reluctant to tackle it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. KenH says:

    Yes, I have lots of science. You have lots of empty bluster. Bluster doesn’t top science.

    Yes, you have lots of pseudo science but no solutions. I’ve asked you twice what your solutions are and you’ve offered none because you’d be laughed out of the room. You global warming dervishes just want to reverse all technological and industrial progress and take us back to 1850.

    Apparently you’ve never heard of water vapor but if you have you probably already have some prepackaged talking point to explain it away along with junk pseudo science “proving” that anthropogenic CO2 plays a much bigger role in the greenhouse effect.

    • Replies: @Rodney1111
    , @Anonymous
  90. @KenH

    Hi KenH:

    Greetings. Having fun? Personally I have wasted more than enough time discussing AGW with a troubled teenager venting his frustrations at anyone who disagrees with him. So I will leave him the parting shot if he wants it, and leave the field to you ……… if you feel you have the time to spare.

    See yer later. Maybe.


    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    , @KenH
  91. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Ken claims I’ve “never heard of water vapor” when”water vapor” is plainly in view in my post #79. You can stop lying any time.

  92. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    I haven’t declined to answer your nonsense claim that climate scientists aren’t aware of ice ages, especially since I posted a graph of the temperature changes during the ice ages. You’re just another liar, which is all science-deniers can do.

  93. TTSSYF says:

    Agreed. This commenter is no different than one of those clowns in the cage at the fair, with his lack of interest in any kind of rational discussion but instead only a desire to hurl insults. He’s not worth anyone’s time even reading, much less responding to.

  94. KenH says:

    It is a waste of time arguing with a dervish who thinks that the theory of AGW is unassailable, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.

    And he’s dishonest because as you pointed out the two scientists who published refutations of AGW theory under pseudonyms did so not because they didn’t believe in the science they were promoting but to avoid discrimination and retaliation from the AGW mafia that infests academia.

  95. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    And yet it melts.

    That’s a play on Galileo’s famous phrase, “and yet it moves.”

    For all your bluster, the fact is that anybody with a simple thermometer can tell that global warming is happening, as charted in my post #74. And anybody, with a little more observation of the consequences of global warming that are concentrated in the Arctic, can tell that Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral as depicted in my post #70.

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Deny, deny, deny.

    And yet it melts.

  96. anarchyst says:

    If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia University emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves-not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was given.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  97. anarchyst says:

    Far from being “fossil fuel”, hydrocarbons are not only plentiful but are being renewed by yet-unknown processes deep within the earth.
    The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when little was known about the processes by which oil is produced. Oil is “abiotic” in nature, as even depleted oil wells are “filling back up” from deep below the earth’s surface.
    Oil interests are drilling wells at 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 15,000 feet and coming up with oil deposits way below the layers where “fossils” were known to exist.
    “Peak oil” is a discredited concept that environmentalists and others are latching on to, in order to display their hatred of oil being a renewable resource as well as to push prices up.
    Follow the money.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  98. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    And yet it warms. Which anybody who goes outside and gardens can observe. (By your light, do only land-grabbing communist watermelons ever venture outside to garden?)

    P.S. Your “Mauder Minimum” silliness has been weighted in the balance and found wanting.

    • Troll: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Monotonous Languor
  99. Anonymous[570] • Disclaimer says:

    Follow the money, say you? An outstanding proposal!

    “Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
    A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

  100. @Anonymous

    The surface of Mars is warming too. Can we blame it on AGW? If so, then you’d better personally get out there and warn all its residents. Don’t worry, we’ll wait.

    Meanwhile, I wonder if there’s anything else in the Solar System that might have even the teeniest tiniest impact on poor ‘ol Mother Earth? Mmmmmmm…. Hey, I know, what about THE SUN !!!!!

  101. (comment re-posted from another Buchanan article)

    Dismissing leftists like Ocasio-Cortez as just another insane caricature is a horrendous mistake.

    Note how older “liberals” are now genuflecting to her every utterance, regardless of how fantastical and anti-reality it may sound. Do you know why they do this? It’s because leftist ideology has no inherent internal limits to its grasp, and every Democrat senses it in their gut. Ocasio-Cortez is simply the next progressive step. The final steps will be what they’ve always been historically: gulags, reeducation camps, and bullets to the brain for deplorables and enemies of the state.

    Older generations like Buchanan had better wake up out of their stupor, and denounce and resist those like Ocasio-Cortez with all their might. If it’s not done now, soon it will be too late.

  102. The Democrat Party is now the anti-white party. If you are white and a Democrat, then you believe in suicide; if you are not white and a Democrat, then you believe in genocide. Like it or not, believe it or not, the diversity wars are coming soon to a theater near you.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2