Weathering the Punches

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 September 7, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the nation continues to debate the critical, constitutional question of who can be punched and who cannot be punched (I vote for permitting the punching of slow drivers in the left lane and anyone who drinks Riesling), it appears the “peaceful” Left has a much more expansive list of acceptable human-punching bags. Liberals encourage their mob to assault not only Nazis, white supremacists and conservative speakers on college campuses, they are now advocating violence against people who dare to challenge the reigning dogma on manmade climate change.

Two destructive hurricanes in the span of one week have emboldened the climate bullies. One of the most unhinged is actor Mark Ruffalo, best known for his role as Bruce Banner/the Hulk in Marvel’s multi-billion-dollar-earning Avengers movie series. Ruffalo must think that playing a scientist on the silver screen imbues him with some special scientific powers and moral authority, much like Martin Sheen started to think he was the president because he played one on The West Wing. Ruffalo is an outspoken—albeit ignorant and misinformed—climate activist who continues to cling to the thoroughly debunked idea that the country can be fully powered by renewable energy sources. He is also a Trump-hater and progressive rabble-rouser.

On Wednesday morning, as Hurricane Irma began pounding Caribbean islands on its alarming path towards Florida, Ruffalo was less Bruce Banner and more Hulk:

(Ruffalo was subtweeting another noted climate expert, Star Trek actor George Takei.)

One could write this off as just another emotional rant from an uneducated Hollywood celebrity. But Ruffalo has quite a following, including 3.4 million Twitter followers and the media’s admiration. So it is not without consequence when the actor invites his minions to attack a Trump Administration cabinet official and anyone deemed a climate change denier. Considering one of Ruffalo’s fellow Bernie Bros tried to assassinate several Republican congressmen earlier this summer, nearly killing one of them, it’s outrageous for a top celebrity activist to fan the flames in this kind of political environment.

It’s also a bit ironic, since he routinely tweets about love, compassion, and tolerance. But Ruffalo’s hypocrisies don’t stop there. Ruffalo claims to be a feminist champion except for conservative women (you can read about that here.) He regularly protests the use of fossil fuels, blasts corporations like Exxon, and demands states such as New York stop fracking, but he works in the entertainment business, one of the most energy-intensive industries. He is also an ardent foe of genetically engineered crops, which have numerous environmental benefits including retaining carbon in the soil and withstanding climate impacts.

His movie character isn’t the only thing about him with a split personality.

In a subsequent tweet, Ruffalo also blamed Republicans for future storms:

Now, it would be an utter waste of time to ask Ruffalo to explain the 12-year hurricane drought the United States has just experienced. Or to ask him why global temperatures have not risen anywhere close to what climate models projected over the past few decades. Or to ask him if he knows how ocean temperatures were measured in the past (by lifting buckets of seawater onto ships and sticking a thermometer in them. Sounds accurate, right?) Or to ask him to offer the data and evidence proving any anthropogenic influence in the frequency or severity of these storms.

Why bother with science when you can promote your progressive—and now, violent—agenda?

In a post Wednesday afternoon, Mark Hertsgaard, writer for the Nation, insisted climate deniers should be treated like murderers for “crimes against humanity.” He called for climate deniers to be punished, blaming them for the deaths of Hurricane Harvey victims and even exploiting the loss of a Texas toddler’s mother. Hertgaard wrote:

With Hurricane Irma churning toward Florida, the horrors and heartbreaks will only get worse until we change the game for their perpetrators. The first step toward justice is to call things by their true names. Murder is murder, whether the murderers admit it or not. Punish it as such, or we encourage more of the same.

It’s not just hurricanes that are making climate activists brutish; the election of Donald Trump and appointment of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA have brought out the pitchforks from the pointy-heads. In a July interview, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” said the climate tribe just needs a little help from the Grim Reaper to make more progress: “Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to ‘age out,’ as they say. ‘Age out’ is a euphemism for ‘die.’”

After the March for Science earlier this year, bullet holes were discovered near the office of Dr. John Christy, a leading climatologist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Christy refutes much of the government-generated data on global temperatures and is a target of climate activists.

Democrats are imposing a climate change litmus test for Trump appointees, including Sam Clovis, Trump’s pick for a top post in the Department of Agriculture. Senate leaders are demanding the president “withdraw the Clovis nomination immediately—not only because he is a proud ‘skeptic’ of climate change and wildly unqualified for the position of USDA chief scientist—but also as a gesture to the American people that this administration is serious about rooting out the most hateful voices in our society.” (Clovis has said disparaging things about former Attorney General Eric Holder, so of course that means he’s a racist.)

But it’s not just Trump appointees who should be judged. One activist wants all Americans to go on record with their position on climate change. Charles Wheelan, a writer and economist, recently suggested this:

I have a modest proposal: a climate change “registry.” This would be a simple petition, albeit with a twist: Each of us would be asked to sign our name to one of two statements:

  1. Yes, I believe that the risk of climate change is significant enough that we ought to take action now to reduce the possibility of future harm.
  2. No, I do not believe that we should take any action now to prevent climate change.

Why do I want to circulate this petition? Because I believe history is a powerful judge. Those who are standing in the way of sensible climate action ought to be held to account, if only in the eyes of their grandchildren who are at risk of paying the price for our inaction.

Wheelan then wondered “what some petitions might have looked like in the past,” including declarations on civil rights and the Vietnam War.

These are not the signs of a vigorous, science-based movement. They are the nervous spasms of a malevolent crusade that has less to do with ecology and more to do with ideology, beating into submission anyone who dissents. Now, it’s leading voices are aligned with the same folks who wear black masks and tell you it is OK to punch Nazis. Wonder who is next?

About the Author:

Julie Kelly
Julie Kelly is a freelance writer in Orland Park, Illinois, where she covers food, agriculture, science, and politics for several outlets including National Review Online and The Federalist. Her work has also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill and the Chicago Tribune.
  • Alberta Ed

    What a refreshing article. Thank you.

  • 2subtle

    With some irony, last year I published “Denier Pride”.
    Can be Googled.
    Bob Hoye

  • Doctor Bass Monkey

    Ruffalo is an example of someone who is far less intelligent than they think they are. Is the Dunning-Kruger effect due to schools propagandizing students with bolstering esteem over knowledge, or is it due to the internet becoming an echo chamber for narcissists?

    • CamiMHennessey

      on saturday I got a great Lancia from making $5957 recently and-even more than, $10 thousand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the best-work I have ever done . I started this eight months/ago and right away began to bring home more than $87 per-hour . try thishttp://www.RealGoogleJobsCompanyNet….

    • stephen duval

      Here is a strong scientific indictment of Globull Warning and Unreliables

      1) Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

      2) Greenland ice core data shows stable temperature for 10,000 years varying between 14-16C. The alarmist scare is based upon the thermometer temperature record that covers only 150 years or part of the current warm period that is unremarkable relative to the last 10,000 years.

      3) Water vapor accounts for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 for 19%. Man made CO2 emissions account for 1-2% of CO2 emissions.

      4) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is exponentially reducing. From 0 to 20 ppm it is 1.5C. From 380 to 400 ppm, it is less than .05C.

      5) From 1960 to today, CO2 ppm has increased steadily. From 1960 to 1980 temp decreased, from 1980 – 2000 temp increased, from 2000 – today temp has been stable.

      6) Temperature predictions made by the global climate models are wrong and getting worse with every passing year.

      7) Sea level increased 8 inches in the 19th and 20th century. It is likely to do the same in the 21st. Even if
      the Arctic melts, it is only 2% of the ice and it wont increase sea level because it is floating. Antarctica with 90% of the global ice is adding 8 inches of ice per year. During WW2 some airplanes crash landed in Greenland, recently they were found under 268 feet of ice.

      8) At 280 ppm CO2, we were dangerously close to a mass extinction (plants start to die at 180 ppm). The increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has led to increased food production and the greening of the planet.

      • Martin Forde

        Here’s over a millions scientific sources supporting co2 driven global warning… https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

        • Freddie Freeloader

          Wowzers over a millions, is that like a bunch or is it a”hole” lot?? Your spell check changed liars to sources as well;-)

        • stephen duval

          Here are 8 scientific points that somehow got removed from my post:

          1) Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are
          supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100
          years.

          2) Greenland ice core data shows stable temperature for 10,000 years varying between 14-16C. The alarmist scare is based upon the thermometer temperature record that covers only 150 years or part of the current warm period that is unremarkable relative to the last 10,000 years.

          3) Water vapor accounts for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 for 19%. Man made CO2 emissions account for 1-2% of CO2 emissions.

          4) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is exponentially reducing. From 0 to 20 ppm it is 1.5C. From 380 to 400 ppm, it is less than .05C.

          5) From 1960 to today, CO2 ppm has increased steadily. From 1960 to 1980 temp decreased, from 1980 – 2000 temp increased, from 2000 – today temp has been stable.

          6) Temperature predictions made by the global climate models are wrong and getting worse with every passing year.

          7) Sea level increased 8 inches in the 19th and 20th century. It is likely to do the same in the 21st. Even if the Arctic melts, it is only 2% of the ice and it wont increase sea level because it is floating. Antarctica with 90% of the global ice is adding 8 inches of ice per year. During WW2 some airplanes crash landed in Greenland, recently they were found under 268 feet of ice.

          8) At 280 ppm CO2, we were dangerously close to a mass extinction (plants start to die at 180 ppm). The increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has led to increased food production and the greening of the planet.

  • Immortal600

    Ruffalo is a moron.

    • adam_s_0625

      … of Hulkish proportion.

  • kevin mitchell

    Ruffalo is a moron.

  • Forbes

    Twitter is for twits. Social media is for social morons. It amazes me that so many people have so little to do, and therefore so much time to follow, and comment upon, the various rants on Twitter and other social media. Are lives today so insubstantial (and empty) that living virtually and vicariously serves the need for fulfillment, and living the good life?

    People, who otherwise wouldn’t deserve the time of day, receive attention unworthy of a slug. There was a time when narcissism was an unattractive trait–today, it seems all the rage. I wouldn’t know Mark Ruffalo, or the Kardashians, et al., if I bumped into them. I realize the full body contact sport of politics now requires push-back, but these folks should be laughed at and made fun of, rather than having their monologues read as serious arguments. Like other forms of unappealing entertainment, they should be ignored. YMMV.

    • Phil

      Doesn’t Trump use Twitter a lot?

      • Freddie Freeloader

        One must set the story straight as well as stir up the loons -)

  • Linus Winkler

    With some irony, last year I published “Denier Pride”.Can be Googled.Bob Hoye

  • rebel

    Ruffalo is a moron.

  • Vindaloo Bugaboo

    There is no moral authority that can be ascribed to a “Heads, I’m right, tails, you’re wrong” argument advocating violence against others, especially those who pretend to love and tolerate everyone (as long as they are like-minded as they are.)

  • Will Haas

    Let us take it a step further and classify anyone who holds a different opinion on any subject than you is a witch and should be burned at the stake because they must be a creation of Satan. Such would help to reduce excess population.

    I cannot help the fact that the AGW conjecture is full of holes. It is a matter of science.

    • mabele

      Can’t count the number of times by now I’ve been told by conservative posters that I should be killed, deported, or somehow conveniently die off because I hold different opinions.

      But of course it’s only the Left…

      • Freddie Freeloader

        We simply aren’t interested in spreading insanity;-)

    • mabele

      Here’s a nice example of a conservative poster expressing herself with regard to “reducing the excess population”:

      “Reunite us? Are you kidding? I would REJOICE if terrorist attacks got leftist filled cities like NY and San Fran. Leftists love DIEversity so the terrorists should give it to them good and hard. Maybe the terrorists could do the country a favor and kill all the leftists for us and then we can avoid civil war and we won’t have to do it ourselves. And no I didn’t rejoice on 9/11. I was horrified and cried for my country. But back then I didn’t realize what evil AMERICANS it was filled with. I will never ever unite with the left over anything ever again.”

      I should start copying all of them but would probably run out of storage space on my phone…

  • 4TimesAYear

    He missed out on grade school science. Location determines climate – not CO2

  • floydman

    I think we should retroactively have a registry of all the Democrats who opposed gay marriage so the left can judge them.

  • Literally Hitler

    The only good shitlib is a dead shitlib.
    Shoot’em, bomb’em, gas’em … whatever it takes to quickly kill tens of millions of them.
    Ruffalo’s LA is an excellent place to start. San [email protected] is a very close second.

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    The man-made contribution to the catastrophic results of some violent storms is the federal flood insurance program. Stop making it financially reasonable to recklessly build in flood plains and watch the cost in lives lost and property damage go down.

    On a different note, a favorite wet dream of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Leftists has come true! Harvey, then Irma, followed by Jose and Katia definitively prove America is a racist country! If you listen closely you can hear them congratulating one another.

    • Left Coaster

      Every day there is new proof of your failed logic.

      • DisgustedwithElitism

        When you interact with young people, consider sharing these words of wisdom: “When challenges arise and you are not certain of what to do, ask yourself ‘What would a community organizer do?’ and then do the opposite.”

        • Freddie Freeloader

          I had a boss like that once, making decisions while he was gone and incommunicado was extremely stressful until I figured out how I would do it, and then do just the opposite, made the boob happier than a clam, I had all I could do to keep from laughing hysterically most times!!

  • Left Coaster

    Of course climate change is occurring.

    Not even the GOP is stupid enough to disregard the obvious evidence.

    Yes, the GOP believes in climate change.
    They just want their grandchildren to pay for it.

    • Johannessen

      …you realize that if the left’s plan was implemented, our grandchildren will be paying for it, right? This is a 100+ year desire, may or may not do anything, but will certainly cost a whole lot of money.

      • Hominid

        That argument legitimizes the deceptive position of the warmers. If you argue the cost of correction, you ipso facto accept the false premiss.

        The only question that matters is whether or not human activity is causing Earth’s climatic temperature to increase to a dangerously high level. So far, there is NO compelling or consistent data set or model that would lead to such a conclusion.

    • Hominid

      More lies. The climate is dynamic, moron – but, it has shown nothing out of the normal range of variation – NOTHING!!!

  • CrazyHungarian

    Until I actually see activists living up to their mantra won’t believe a word they say: “Yes, I believe that the risk of climate change is significant enough that we ought to take action now to reduce the possibility of future harm.”. So far, they only want the rest of us to actually change our lives. Their extreme carbon footprints are still safe.

  • BBould

    Alarmist’s think with their heart rather than their head.

    • Paul52

      really?
      It’s the heart that tells you to believe over 97% of the scientific research and conclusions, and the head that tells you to ignore it?

      If that’s what you think, your head is not where it should be.

      • Hominid

        The same old lie.

      • Clifford McKeithan

        If you can show me that 97% of the scientific research and conclusions (doesn’t exist), and UNALTERED data that conclusively prove that man is the cause of climate change, I’ll agree with you. The data did not fit their models, so they altered the data to fit the models. That is the antithesis of science.

        • Paul52

          Look here for starters
          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          Now, you tell me why Exxon-Mobil saw fit to bury the reports of its own scientists on this subject.

          • Ragoftag

            Perhaps you can explain why the hoaxers refuse to publish their original data?

          • Paul52

            No one can explain the figments of your imagination.

      • JPZodeaux

        “It’s the heart that tells you to believe over 97% of the scientific research and conclusions, and the head that tells you to ignore it?”

        The head tells you to investigate. Those who have investigated the claims of 97% consensus – and make no mistakes they investigated because all you got science-wise is a consensus – have discovered that this number is derived from not just one survey but from several, including the Doran-Zimmerman survey, the Anderegg survey, the Oreskes survey, and the Cook survey. I won’t burden your heart with analysis since clearly your heart is drowning out the voice of reason in your head.

        We cultivate faith in faith in our heart.

      • JPZodeaux

        “It’s the heart that tells you to believe over 97% of the scientific research and conclusions, and the head that tells you to ignore it?”

        The head tells you to investigate the heart is where faith is cultivated. Your faith is strong. Your reasoning not so strong.

    • tax_payer58

      and they were probably insecure as children. ego issues for sure.

  • Nixon’s Back

    I just don’t get the point of denying and poisoning the well. 2/3+ of the greenhouse gas emissions come from 100 companies. This doesn’t have to do with individuals and their emissions. Also clean energy doesn’t cost jobs and the lithium or nickel or whatever the catalyst is can be recycled. Anybody see the 3% of papers that disagreed with climate change? Most of their experiments could not be replicated, there’s a big question mark there.

    • Hominid

      Lies.

      • Nixon’s Back

        Actually all true. Sorry that you disagree, but it doesn’t make them lies.

        Here’s the article which studied 38 papers and found them all to be cherry-picked data, moving the line of best fit or not able to be repeated.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

  • jk in durham

    Of course the antics of Mark Ruffalo are irrelevant; as the article points out, he is not a scientist.
    But that’s the last true statement this truth-denying article contains.

    And if you want to start comparing life threats, there have been far more acknowledged anti-global-warming threats to climate scientists than climate deniers: https://newrepublic.com/article/144056/its-never-harder-climate-scientist
    (No one has claimed responsibility for the bullet holes in Christy’s building, so blaming it on mythical “climate activists” is self-serving, a claim without evidence.)

    What really matters is that the research done by climate scientists points overwhelmingly to global warming. Furthermore, when anyone tries to replicate claims and ‘research’ from global-warming denialsts like Christy, these claims are found to be not reproducible. Instead, they are found to be a hodgepodge of data cherry-picking, bogus physics, and flawed research methodology:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

    Stop denying science. Flee the hurricane, just like lie-mongerer and hypocrite Rush Limbaugh.

    • Hominid

      Lies and nonsense.

    • Julie Kelly

      And what about the global warming pause that even the IPCC acknowledged?

      • jk in durham

        The IPCC NEVER used the word ‘pause’. to claim the IPCC said that is false. The “pause” was made up by climate deniers for their own dishonest purposes.

        The IPCC’s exact words were “The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012…” page 43 of
        http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
        In other words, the rate of warming was slower from 1998-2012 than the overall rate of 1951-2012. But, obviously, there were other periods in the latter interval where the rate of warming was higher than the overall rate.

        Furthermore, publications from this year tell us that
        (1) The rate of surface warming from 2012 – mid-2017 has been exceptionally high, with the result that the warming trend from 1998-2017 exceeds that overall or average warming trend since 1951:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html

        (2) The ocean warming during the 1998-2012 period was “significantly higher” than average, and the oceans hold far more heat content than the atmosphere — thereby making irrelevant the claim of a decreasing warming trend of the atmosphere during that period:
        http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545

        Can’t stop the march of science.

  • bscook111

    The difference between actors and the characters they portray is amusing. Perhaps appalling is a better word. Given the trashy product coming from this Caligulan emporium, it is a certainty that the casting couch and all other manner of immoral goings on pervade the lives of these poseurs.

    • mjlehde

      Do keep in mind that Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is not an actual scientist. He was a stand up comic, actually a failing stand up comic, who was given the role of the science guy based upon his nerdish appearance. Since then he has managed to parlay that role into one of the leading voices of the scientific community,,, all without actually being a scientist. This begs the question, at what point does the role become real? I would contend that the answer is,, never, else-wise Christopher Reeve would not only still be alive today he would have used his super breath to deflect Hurricane Harvey away from Texas. It appears that some, mostly actors like Ruffalo who aren’t smart enough to know better, believe otherwise. In other words its accepted on the left that if you say something often enough and work on your character long enough then what you say will become true, even if its not, and you shall actually become what you pretend to be, even if you aren’t. It’s a confusing world that liberals live in.

      • JPZodeaux

        “He was a stand up comic, actually a failing stand up comic, who was given the role of the science guy based upon his nerdish appearance. Since then he has managed to parlay that role into one of the leading voices of the scientific community…”

        Nye graduated from MIT. Some claim engineers are not scientists, but it was not as if he had no background besides stand up comedy when he became Bill Nye the Science guy. This is not a defense of that buffoonish clown, but he shouldn’t be the only one checked for misstating facts.

        • mjlehde

          and once again, he was a stand up comic, who yes graduated from MIT with a degree in mechanical engineering, and won the role of the “science guy” due to his nerdish appearance. He might as well have had a degree in agriculture or business,,, or no degree at all so far as the show’s producers were concerned. I concede that I probably should have mentioned his degree but otherwise stand by my original statement.

  • Paul52

    “These are not the signs of a vigorous, science-based movement. They are the nervous spasms of a malevolent crusade that has less to do with ecology and more to do with ideology, beating into submission anyone who dissents.”

    This describes both the outliers in the alarmist group, and the deniers.

    The difference is this:
    The outliers in the alarmist group — like Ruffalo, are neither scientists nor are they in responsible positions affecting policy.
    The deniers, while also not scientists, are in allegedly “responsible” positions that do affect policy. You know, Julie, like the presidency, and the Administrator of EPA.

    Let’s put it this way. Contrary to the claim of the deniers, NO ONE believes Al Gore.

    We, and Al Gore, believe the science.

    • George Turner

      If Al Gore believes the science, why does he emit more CO2 than a thousand normal Americans? One of his mansions even had an outdoor heated swimming pool. It was powered by fossil fuels.

  • Phil Ostrand

    Climate Change and Global Warming are not debatable. The facts are in. The climate is changing due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. You can deny it all you want. It will not change reality. The larger question is what to do, how to do it, and plan for the future our children are going to be living in.

    • olderwiser

      What are we to make of the continuing drip, drip, drip of revelations of ‘climate change’ advocates having ‘cooked the books’? Falsified data, selectively using only the data that supports their predetermined conclusions, etc., seems to be rampant among those ‘scientists’ making money by ringing the climate change alarm bells.

      • anne

        Yup, follow the money.

      • Phil Ostrand

        Oh dear God… STOP LISTENING TO ALEX JONES!!!!

    • rwisrael

      Or is CO2 increasing because of climate change ? It has warmed since the last ice age and warming does tend to release CO2. Correlation or causation? Unproved, only a hypothesis.

      • Phil Ostrand

        Yea… and Marlboros smoked for 30 years don’t cause cancer. The science is better for climate change than for smoking/cancer relationship. Think on that…

        • rwisrael

          Making stuff up is great. The science for Anthropological Catastrophic Climate Change isn’t strong at all, if that’s what you’re referring to. If you just mean that climate changes, well , no kidding. I smoked for over 30 years, stopped 20 years ago and my lungs are great, so smoking does not equal cancer, it increases the risk. There is clinical proof of that, not so with man made climate change.

    • G W

      BS

      • Phil Ostrand

        How long can you tread water?

    • George Turner

      And yet Antarctic ice cores show the Earth has dropped into glaciation periods with CO2 levels vastly higher than present, and rising, and come out of ice ages with plummeting CO2 levels.

      CO2 levels seem to respond to the derivative of ocean temperatures (warming oceans emit more CO2, and cooling oceans absorb it) and thus math says its impossible for CO2 to determine temperature because the equations would blow up.

      Temperatures are a function of insolation (orbital changes) and solar cycles, and those cycles have produced five major climate shifts in the Holocene. The last major shift was slightly after Egyptian records began, turning the Sahara into a desert and shifting the monsoon rains from the Stans down into India, and we’re do for another.

  • gmat

    Tribal epistemology.

  • olderwiser

    I suspect that Mark Ruffalo didn’t get the memo, and so is unaware that Hollywood elitist and terminally stupid actress Jennifer Lawrence has announced the real reason for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma: ‘This is America’s punishment for electing Donald Trump President.’ As to Mr Ruffalo and Mr. Takei, I can only quote Truman Capote’s famous line, “Well, he’s an actor, and you know, actors aren’t very bright.”

  • tax_payer58

    The Global Warmer hoaxers will never give up their religion. Facts don’t matter. The ends justify the means to them even if it means lying and deceiving the public.

    There is no definite scientific proof, through real-world observation that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming in the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.… The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory.

    • Nixon’s Back

      Dominant influence is an overstatement. There is without a doubt influence on climate by CO2 and water vapor. I don’t think facts mean anything to you either. There are plenty of facts denied to maintain your anti-scientific worldview. There are plenty of real-world observations that shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The degree to which it absorbs and emits energy and how that interacts with the other air in the atmosphere isn’t clear but it does absorb radiation and is therefore a greenhouse gas.

      • tax_payer58

        Do you realize that carbon dioxide is only .04% of the atmosphere?
        What tiny, tiny percentage do think is man-made?
        A big to do about nothing, just hysteria to promote a liberal/big-government agenda.

        • Nixon’s Back

          lol that’s what parts per million means thanks..?

          It doesn’t matter the percent man-made. Any more throws off the carbon cycle. Sorry you ignore facts and have trouble understanding how 97% of the research agrees on a unified principle; whereas, the other 2% can’t even come to a consensus. Hurts to be wrong, but it’s alright I won’t hold it against ya.

          • tax_payer58

            Its a hoax dude.
            Stuck on stupid.
            Sad.

          • Nixon’s Back

            Lol awwwww, you’re not a scientist, at least not a climate scientist. So your opinion on the matter is worth zero. No worries man, at lot of people don’t understand science. You’re just equivalent to the modern American in your knowledge of science. Watch out for hoax hurricanes and hoax fires spread by drought in the west. Also hoax fracking earthquakes.

          • tax_payer58

            Your 97% number has been proven another lie. Google it.
            Funny how hoaxers need to lie and deceive to try to make their point.
            Sad hoaxer, very sad.

            No warming in 19 years. All Global Warmer predictions have turned out false.
            Population explosion in the 60s? Global cooling in the 70s? Peak oil in the 80s? Ozone hole in the 90’s. Global warming in the 2000s. Pick your hoax. LOL.

          • Nixon’s Back

            It’s not I’ll actually go by an article last September in a peer-reviewed journal which found only 2% of articles dispute AGW, and they don’t even come to a common consensus. Also it shows that they’re the ones who use false data. You prove your scientific ignorance by usIng google to make scientific points. If you wish to dispute please find me another peer-reviewed article. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

            Global cooling is from an article that appeared in Newsweek. The hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs which were phased out by the Montreal protocol. Lol same old bad talking points. Next you’re gonna tell me people didn’t believe Galileo? In fact only the church disagreed with galileo. Or that the science isn’t settled and science is never settled? Another falsehood, gravity and genetics seem settled to me. No worries again man; I don’t find scientific ignorance funny so I won’t laugh at you. I just find it normal for righty Americans.

          • tax_payer58

            Does anybody read your long posts? I don’t. LOL
            Man-made Global warming has been proven a hoax.
            Don’t be a sheep.

          • Nixon’s Back

            No it has not. Sorry you can’t read anything longer than a sentence. Must feel good to be so willingly ignorant. No worries mate.

          • tax_payer58

            You confuse the word “can’t” with “won’t” .
            LOL

          • Nixon’s Back

            I did not confuse anything. You’re unable to there cannot.

          • tax_payer58

            Linguistically melting also. sad little snowflake.

          • Nixon’s Back

            Snowflake? That’s original! Not linguistically melting at all. I explained why it was the proper word. No worries, you can be unoriginal and foolish and believe what you want, but one day you will realize how wrong you were, and will realize what a fool and a moron you have been.

          • tax_payer58

            drip, drip, drip, goes the little snowflake.

          • Nixon’s Back

            Lol true..? Because of all the CO2 it’s too hot. The ice is melting. Glad you agree with me. It’s so simple, and you finally realized! Good for you!

          • tax_payer58

            your puddle is growing little melting snowflake.

          • Nixon’s Back

            Awwww that’s adorable! Pitchng your whittle insults. Man you peeps need new insults and new radio voices. Hannity is a hack like yourself….

          • tax_payer58

            Where you insecure as a child?
            Think about it…

          • Nixon’s Back

            Where I? I dunno where insecure is? It’s alright, one day you will get homophones correct.

          • tax_payer58

            You need more self-therapy to mitigate you childhood insecurity.
            I’d recommend seeing a shrink before you completely melt.

          • Nixon’s Back

            Lol you’re funny. Just doubling-down on the meaningless, hackneyed, and unoriginal comment. It shows not only a lack of intelligence, but that you are a political neophyte and novice, with no ability to dissect truth from fiction, emblematic the milieu of our culture.

          • tax_payer58

            drip, drip, drip,…continues. LOL

          • Nixon’s Back

            Man that’s funny. You’ve got nothing. Awwww cute.

          • tax_payer58

            drip, drip, drip, splash..

          • Nixon’s Back

            Lol ok man

          • tax_payer58

            Dripping wet

          • Nixon’s Back

            Your vagina?

          • tax_payer58

            Why bring your mom into the conversation?

          • Nixon’s Back

            My mom? lol sophomoric, no worries, your wet vagine is aching for d.

          • tax_payer58

            why are you so fixated on your mom’s private parts?
            are you sick?

  • bilahn

    YOu all need to wake up. Your denial is a threat to the safety of the world. American Greatness? American Stupidity is more like it. No wonder the reputation of the USA is in the gutter world wide.

    • Julie Kelly

      Oooh sick burn.

    • mizz tanya

      would that be a first world gutter or a 3rd world gutter, as i’m pretty sure i’ve not seen gutters in the less developed countries. so even if we are in the gutter, it’s still more advanced than whatever toilet that produced you.

    • George Turner

      How is denial a threat to anything? I didn’t know the climate was driven by beliefs. That’s magical religious thinking. Go do a rain dance.

      Alarmism is a religious phenomenon unconnected to science. The believers have merely rewritten Christian eschatology so that the Earth’s impending destruction, and the collective destruction of all mankind, is due to human greed and gluttony. But repentance will save the souls of those who see. They don’t actually have to change their behavior, though, just evangelize. They can party on their mega yachts like Leonardo Di Caprio, fly all over the world on their private jets, like Al Gore, and buy carbon offsets (indulgences) as long as they profess belief.

      The Earth has been cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum, when it was far warmer. They called it an optimum because warmer is better. Human’s are uniquely suited to hot African temperatures. That’s why we don’t have fur. That’s why people near the equator can live in a lean to wearing flip flops and a T-shirt while Norwegians and Canadians require a massive infrastructure to survive the winter.

      If a hotter planet was a threat, New Yorkers wouldn’t vacation in Florida or Cancun.

      • Pfc. Parts

        “I didn’t know the climate was driven by beliefs.”

        Sure you did. The depth of sarcasm proves that.

        It’s also why you can’t argue with a “believer” using scientific evidence; they have no intention of listening to anything presented by a heretic. Not happening. Ears are plugged and the recipient chant’s “Nya! Nya! Nya! I can’t HEAR you!” until the attempt at conversation ends.

        These aren’t rational people. The closest we can get in sociological history are the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific.

    • JPZodeaux

      Wow. Your science communication is really impressive. Ya gotta wonder why so few people are buying into the hysteria.

    • Pfc. Parts

      Your comment is just so expressive, so completely representative of the logic employed by “believers” that it can’t be missed.

      Nothing like calling your intellectual opponents simply “stupid”, as if that somehow proves your point.

      Well done. Keep up the good work.

      • bilahn

        Thanks! I appreciate it!

  • RonRonDoRon

    “Climate deniers” are murderers? This attributes to them far more power than they even remotely have. (It also uses a ridiculously indirect chain of “responsibility.”}

    It has not been “climate deniers” who have prevented the implementation of the radical measures called for by extreme climate alarmists.

    What has prevented it is the natural, and reasonable, considerations of economic well-being of nations around the world.

    Consider the “Paris accords” – countries around the world stated unenforceable aspirations that, even if fully implemented, would make almost no different in the rate of warming. (I’m setting aside questions of whether any credence at all can be placed in the claims of human responsibility for the bulk of warming.)

    Were “climate deniers” somehow responsible for the pointless charade that was the Paris accords?

  • mttiro67

    Read any book describing the environment of political intimidation and bullying, leading eventually up to murder, that was established in Germany during the lead-up to the Third Reich. In that case, people were literally beaten and even killed for disapproving of the party line. So tell me, what do we have today? Who are the “neo-Nazis” today? Which political side today is trying to use physical violence to advance its agenda? The answers to these questions are obvious. So why does the political left tolerate these outrages?

  • TheGipper

    Whoever coined the phrase “the triumph of the uncluttered mind” was thinking of someone exactly like Ruffalo or Jennifer Lawrence.

  • gmat

    The Ruffaloes and Limbaughs of the world are in the entertainment business. Just stick with the IPCC and you won’t be far off. Too bad they don’t do more frequent updates, but it’s a lot of work and funding is short.

  • Craig the Czech

    Next stop – antifa-style violence and sucker punching opponents.

  • Americans 1st

    Los Angeles has the dirtiest air in America yet Democrats won’t deport millions of illegals spewing CO2 in LA traffic.

    But the want me to go poor on expensive energy. Get back to me when they do thier part.

  • JamesCincy

    Does anyone know if the author of the above article is a scientist?

    • FreedomFan

      You don’t need to be a scientist to recognize violent threats from insane Democrats, comrade.

  • ItsPolitics101

    The left’s ultimate goal is to outlaw any opposition to their dictatorial rule. To that end, they already have many millennials believing freedom of speech is overrated along with socialist professors & others sellng the idea that debating AGW should be a crime.

  • FreedomFan

    Even more proof that leftism is a mental disease.

    Every day I thank the founding fathers for their wisdom in creating the first and second amendments as protection against this violent mob of Democrats.

  • Cjones1

    Given that the latest IPCC report admits that their models left out natural factors in many cases and that any predictions are second rate forecasts, the AGW proponents are prematurely ejaculating on the end of the world. Every new breeze, new rain drop, or new discovery in Climatology is met with end of civilization cries while a perspective on the historical observations of climate change and related causes are ignored.
    For the last 2.5 million years, glaciation is the norm and our current interglacial is but a brief interlude. Many scientists note that we may well be entering a Little Ice Age similar to the Dalton or Maunder Minimums as the Solar sunspot cycle continues a downward trend. Since the latter half of 2019 is predicted to definitely indicate if this is accurate, I am willing to avoid restrictive agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. Since we don’t have 500 or 1000 years of hurricane intensity records, it is foolish to proclaim that AGW is the cause of Castegory 4 or 5 hurricanes. Al Gore and his fellow AGW sneaker oil salesfolks were wrong about the last 10+ years of hurricane predictions. Why should we be live them now?

  • wheretonow

    Why do these people (Ruffalo et al) think they have the least understanding of what’s going on in the climate? Anyone incapable of looking into the actual underlying measurements and data with at least a glimmer of understanding is just a sheep following the shepherds and it’s infuriating to hear them expound from their position of ignorance.

  • FreedomFan

    One thing that Warmist nuts will never ever do, is to actually look at the data themselves.

    Satellite data shows only a tiny 0.13 degree of warming over the past 20 YEARS. At this rate, in a century, the planet will have warmed only 0.65 degree. Big whoop.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    • Freddie Freeloader

      I’m putting on more sunscreen just in case;-)

  • Michael Peterman

    It is truly remarkable that every weather event is now due to some aspect of climate change. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are so called proof. Well, what about the other 7 named storms that fizzled along the way? Katia is a category 1 that hit Mexico. Jose is a category 4.

    It’s all drivel. Climate change warriors want all citizens to be shamed if not agreed with. Sounds sort of Hitlerian, doesn’t it?

  • D. Ploribus Unum

    Does this “petition” sound familiar?

    Please check one:

    [ ] I am a Jew.

    [ ] I am not a Jew.

    Totalitarians: “Our ideas are so good, they’re mandatory!”

  • HWJoy

    This would be ridiculous if it weren’t so frightening. Remember the Russian biologist Lysenko? Scientisis like Sakharov were punished, insulted , and exiled or imprisoned for, among other things, disagreeing with Lysenko.

  • Nonyo Business

    When the weather gods are angry we feel compelled to ‘do something.’ I long for the good old days when only human sacrifice was called for. Now we are supposed to pay a carbon tax to governments and buy electricity from crony capitalists connected to government. I say we throw a virgin into a volcano and be done with it.

    • D. Ploribus Unum

      You’ve got yourself a deal, as long as the sacrificial virgin is an SJW.

      😉

    • Freddie Freeloader

      Should probably make it 2 just to make sure!!

    • James Newman

      Can we just toss in Big Al Gore and a couple million of his most devout followers instead?

  • Phil

    You might want to take a look at the NASA sight https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  • mistermcfrugal

    Don’t worry so much. Leftist rioting will resolve all issues.

  • Martin Forde

    Totes true… Global warning is a ploy propagated by 99.99% of PhD level scientists so that the Chinese and Al Gore can make billions off tax credits.

  • Martin Forde

    It is ok to punch nazis…

  • Martin Forde

    Julie Kelly is a fucking moron lololololol

  • 1TomLarkin9

    Once again, global warming is pure fraud from day one. Start with google: “Updated with Slides – Lord Christopher Monckton
    Speaking in St. Paul MNFMI” (that was in 2009) and then google: “Lord Monckton’s Presentation at the Heartland’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change.” Monckton is the best at summarizing; however, there are many top climate scientists from whom Monckton draws his information. The political left has used global warming to gain political control and loot the US Treasury. The internet has the total global warming fraud history available.

    • Paul52

      Not only is Monckon not a scientist, he’s not a Lord.
      But ok, let’s call him an expert. ’cause he agrees with us.

      Lies, but agrees.

  • Westviking

    if the entire liberal movement is to be tied to one person, can we tie the entire onservative community to one person as well? like, say, richard spencer?

  • Max Flasher

    Even if it’s true that there’s man made global warming there’s nothing that can be done about it. The same type of leftists who brought us Obamacare now want a blank check so they can stop global warming and “Save the Earth!!!”. Just imagine people like Hillary, Bill and Al Gore being in charge of a plan to stop global warming and “Save the Earth!!!”.
    Jonathan Gruber said the stupidity of the American voter helped get Obamacare passed. How could anyone trust people like this? They’re obviously hoping the public will be stupid enough to let them enact their latest social engineering scam.
    This one would be on a global scale. What they really want to do is transfer wealth from the West to third world countries, make themselves rich and also fund various leftist causes. I have not the tiniest bit of trust for leftists.

    • Zardoz1

      Yeah, the third world would get about as much of that money as the people in Haiti did when the Clintons were handling things for them. Haiti was a sad & sorrowful tale & a warning to all those people that are being manipulated by the global warming alarmists. While they’re sounding their alarms, they’re reaching for people’s wallets. It’s all about money!

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

      • Max Flasher

        A truly bizarre, truly awful situation. Why would anyone trust the left? Many of the people I work with are from places like Vietnam, Mexico, Iraq and India. I know these people quite well since I talk to them every work day and I just have vastly more in common with them than with white leftists who were born and raised here as I was.

        A common topic of conversation at work is the unraveling of our society in general and of Chicago in particular. I was talking to a Mexican friend at work last week about this and one of the Assyrians came over and joined the conversation. After a few minutes he said “What’s happening in Iraq is going to happen here”.

        I hope he’s wrong but I do know that these people from places like Vietnam and Iraq are not at all different from us so that means then that what happened in their countries can in fact happen here. I recently read that one of the features of modern life is living with a sense of impending doom. That sure is the truth.

  • TheGipper

    I think it is always important to lead by example. Just listen to the loudest “global warming” voices, then look at what they are doing to modify their behavior to match what they are saying. If they don’t practice what they preach, one can assume they don’t actually believe it themselves.

    • Zardoz1

      Al Gore deflects by saying that he doesn’t own a private jet. But he charters one to fly everywhere he wants to go.

      Lack of ideological diversity in the field skews research/opinion in favor of leftist claims

      Liberal political values shape and distort their research. That biased research turns questionable beliefs into ardent convictions. Then, liberals turn into unbending zealots in defense of those dubious claims.

      Liberal claims (based on shaky, unconfirmed evidence) receive mild examination and become fact in liberals’ minds, while contrary evidence doesn’t get published or faces far more rigorous scrutiny than the assertions they challenge.

      But the only one on the left brave enough to stand up to the liberal bigotry is Camille Paglia. The rest of the lemmings keep running apace with their groupthink (other directed) pack.

      • Pfc. Parts

        Everything here is pretty good, with the exception of “liberal”. Progressives aren’t liberal; not in any way shape or form. Nothing liberal about them.

        They’ve hijacked the term. Don’t let them do that.

  • Zardoz1

    The utterly unhinged left never disappoints. Instead of being embarrassed (like normal people would be) they cheer, tweet, & high-five their fellow believers & continue to denigrate & hate those that refuse to join their obsessive-compulsive band of oddfellows.

  • m davidson

    question for mark r. & jennifer l.:
    what is the difference between weather and climate?
    and one more, if you don’t mind:
    do you have any university-level training in scientific inquiry and/or quantitative analysis?
    any at all?
    just sayin’…
    suggestion = there is a documentary you can watch to help you understand. it is animated (about at your level) to help keep your attention. it’s called “Ice Age”.
    enjoy!

    • TNCBG

      Weather isn’t the same as climate unless the weather is really bad. The warmists have been so desperate for a weather catastrophe that they can’t hide their glee over Harvey and Irma. They have been so disappointed in the hurricane season for so long, but it’s all better now. Thousands of people displaced from their homes, billions in damage, death, despair and destruction everywhere you look….finally! Even the atheists are thanking God for these catastrophic storms they attribute totally to climate change. If only Trump hadn’t withdrawn from the brilliantly crafted Paris Accord, this could have been prevented. Nations of the world with countless agendas and corruption throughout their governments were coming together in unprecedented cooperation to control the planet’s climate. The ever generous U.S. was ready and willing to pay for this planetary love fest, and there would be no more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or heat waves. The millions who still use wood and animal dung for heat would be given solar panels and wind mills to power their palatial mud huts.Damn that Trump and his denier supporters….but thank God for Harvey and Irma!

  • tigersrock

    Sure let’s have that registry. Do we get to wear a star on a our clothes too? Guess who the nazis really are on climate change.

    • Pfc. Parts

      No, I really think another symbol needs to be used. Something equally simple, like a lower case “e” in a circle, struck through? It needs to convey the idea that the person wearing the armband hates the Earth and its inhabitants.

      You know, Pure, Unadulterated, Bigotry?

  • George Turner
    • Max Flasher

      Worth watching.

  • Sabrina Mendoza

    Liberal response when someone disagrees with them over climate change.

    https://towsonsam.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/run-away-screaming.gif

    • Max Flasher

      Very true. Very funny.

  • Itche-Meir

    pick on some clueless hollywooder to make your point is a cheap and ineffective tactic

    the suck-up of the R party to the oil-and-gas industry is the sole reason why luantics of the right have embraced science denial

    But even as the nat resources companies are now openly accepting the issue, the morons of the GOP can’t close the window on their past stupidity

    keep it up, and all that will be left in science deny world is fat rush limbaugh, fatter newt gingrich, and even fatter p-grabber trump

  • vargo

    It’s really simple to get most climate change alarmists to shut up. Democrats have done more for Big Oil than the Republicans ever even tried to do. Imagine if the Democrats had taken the same stance as the French left wing and supported nuclear power. Imagine if we had shut down all of our fossil fuel plants back in the 60’s and replaced with nuclear power which still produces zero greenhouse gasses. If climate change is such a huge issue, why do they still fight a known, workable solution in favor for technologies which are not yet ready. They might be in the near future, but we, as a society haven’t come to grips that solar power and energy storage systems, a.k.a. batteries capacitors, etc, produce a significant amount of toxic waste in the production process. Ask them why Obama specifically excluded nuclear energy as “green” with all his green energy initiatives even though nuclear power produces just under a fifth of this country’s energy without releasing a single gram of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. Then when they protest, just comment that it must not be as big of a problem if they aren’t willing to grab EVERY solution to fix it, just the solutions that they want

  • gmat

    Too much attention gets paid to RCP8.5, which has been incorrectly characterized as a “business as usual” baseline. And none of the other 3 RCPs fills the bill either, ie, a reasonable extrapolation of current trends, with no assumptions about technological breakthrough or policy shifts.
    The designers of the RCPs used a consistent logical methodology which got incorrectly described in the report. Another RCP is needed representing business as usual, and it won’t cost that much to produce.
    Meanwhile, a couple encouraging trends are more non-coal electricity generation coming on line and more electric cars.

  • UNExit

    The pro-global warming movement has evolved into a pseudo religious cult. Dogma, rather than science, comes from the self-appointed leaders like “Bill Nye the Science Guy” who is neither a climate change expert or a scientist.

  • People who deny global warming are, literally, dumber than almost life forms on the planet, and that includes plants, fish, animals insects, even bacteria. Those all have enough sense to notice that the climate is getting warmer, and to move to cooler areas, such as higher elevations, and towards the poles.
    http://dnusbaum.com/AGWdeniers.html

    For those who do deny global warming, please do not embarrass your self with a post containing some sarcasm about all the animals now (NOT) at the poles. I said moving, not moved. And like almost all ecological changes, this takes place over multiple life times, not the length of a TV show /your attention span.

    conservative: a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

    compare that to my working definition of stupid: Someone unwilling or unable to learn new stuff, except from a recognized and accepted authority figure, which is almost always another conservative.

    So — maybe this person: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/28/study-katharine-hayhoe-is-successfully-convincing-doubtful-evangelicals-about-climate-change

    • highseas

      Your definition of a conservative shows your narrow thinking and left biases. I support Israel and Jews; believe in climate change but question left claims of the extent carbon emissions impact it. Believe in abortion etc. Obama divisive, Terrible President But would NEVER say he was not my Pres. Conservatives respect the Constitution but realize some change and compromise is necessary.

      • And being a conservative you just assume that that what I wore was my definition, as opposed to he definition used by that notorious liberal publication the dictionary. Or maybe, as a conservative, you were just to ignorant and lazy to bother looking up the definition of the word.

  • Sofia’sDad✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

    Outrageous article. Riesling is the basis for some of the very best white wines in the world. Germany, Alsace, Australia make some outstanding wines. Shame on Julie!