Breitbart's Big Gov't Publishes Pathetically Bad Global Warming Article

Breitbart’s Big Gov’t Publishes Pathetically Bad Global Warming Article

Riddled with errors and outright lies

WingnutsSeptember 2011 • Views: 29,477

Sometimes it’s amazing to see the horrendous writing, bad logic, and outright falsehoods that pass for “news” in the strange, closed universe of the right wing, and here’s a perfect example by Chriss W. Street at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website: Nature Journal of Science Discredits Man-made Global Warming - Big Government.

Complete with a Pavlovian photo of Al Gore, even though he has nothing to do with the article.

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

That’s just the first paragraph, and if you can make it through the mangled grammar, the amount of disinformation it contains is impressive.

Nature Journal of Science…

The name of this scientific journal is “Nature.” One word. Not “Nature Journal of Science.” Mr. Street apparently saw the subheading on Nature’s website and just assumed it was the full name of the publication. I guess it’s an understandable mistake if you loathe science and have no experience with reading scientific journals.

…the definitive study on Global Warming…

Now we’re getting into the realm of pure idiocy. The paper’s title is “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.” Catchy, I know, but notice — it doesn’t mention global warming. And if you actually read the paper, you’ll discover that it has nothing to say about global warming at all. Rather, it’s a report on an experiment that showed cosmic rays can cause “nucleation,” in tiny amounts. More on this later.

…proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man.

And now we’ve reached the Land of Outright Lies, because the study proves absolutely nothing of the sort. In fact, it comes to no conclusion at all about “the dominant controller of temperature.” Mr. Street has pulled this statement fully formed out of his own nether orifice. It’s 100% false.

The CERN experiment showed that it’s possible for cosmic rays to cause nucleation of particles in the atmosphere, which could potentially influence cloud formation. But the paper also states very clearly that the amount of nucleation their experiment produced was very small, and that they do not know how much nucleation would be required to actually seed clouds.

In short, this study comes to no conclusions about atmospheric temperature or man’s effect on global warming. It doesn’t even mention these subjects. Street’s claim is simply wrong.

Remember, this is just the first paragraph. Street ends his ridiculous introduction by inventing an imaginary author for the CERN paper:

One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen…

Here’s a screenshot of the complete list of authors of the CERN study:

You will not find “Jyrki Kauppinen” in that list.

The rest of the article is just as horrible. One of the very worst examples of right wing anti-science propaganda I’ve ever seen.

Will Andrew Breitbart correct some of these errors and falsehoods? I hope you don’t plan on holding your breath.

Also see

Breitbart Silent About Big Error on His Big Government Site

Jump to bottom

138 comments

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:37:48am

If you say it long enough and loud enough, it might become truth.

/gah

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:40:23am

whoops!…Andy needs another mulligan

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:43:53am

Al Gore!

Big Steve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:46:11am

Regardless of what you think of the article, that is one heck of a long author list…..what did each one of them get to write one sentence?

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:46:50am

wonder how Jyrki likes being misrepresented?

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:47:51am

What does his brother, Biff Jyrki, have to say about it?

Kronocide Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:50:10am

Cue ‘jazzy pony tail’ insults in 3…2…1…

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:50:11am

re: #6 ralphieboy

What does his brother, Biff Jyrki, have to say about it?

teehee

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:51:25am

For those who may not be familiar the world of scientific publishing, some facts:

1. Nature is considered to be one of the absolute top flight journals in the scientific world. It is very hard to get a paper into Nature. Science and Physical Review are two others on that level.

2. The vast bulk of papers published in Nature about AGW support AGW, and since the 90’s almost all papers in Nature, Science and Phys Rev etc… support AGW.

3. It is partially because of such overwhelming support by the evidence which was peer reviewed, and disseminated through top flight journals like Nature, that major scientific organizations like the APS, AGU, etc… have made unequivocal position statements about the realities of man caused climate change. It is also because many of the legitimate scientists in those organizations are the very ones who so painstakingly collected that data.

4. If you go through my many, many links to actual science papers that explain the terrible nature and consequences of AGW, you will find that many are from Nature, Science, Phys Rev I also post a lot from PNAS and The Royal Society. This is because people who understand the first point will realize just how established and well reviewed the science is.

5. Breitbart lies. That is what he does. Here he is manufacturing lies out of whole cloth about the very hard work of people who would not give a cretin him the time of day.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:52:41am

re: #1 ggt

If you say it long enough and loud enough, it might become truth.

/gah

That is the entire operating principle of scum and sham institutes like Heartland and Cato. Those are the places where the big lies are dreamt up to be disseminated though Fox and other lackeys like Breitbart.

Kronocide Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:57:10am

The most important thing to learn from that BigFail ‘article:’

Feel Free to Forward and Follow our Research at [Link: www.chrissstreetandcompany.com…]

Read: ECHOCHAMBER THIS STUFF MINIONS!

Gus Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:58:29am

re: #11 BigPapa

The most important thing to learn from that BigFail ‘article:’

Feel Free to Forward and Follow our Research at [Link: www.chrissstreetandcompany.com…]

Read: ECHOCHAMBER THIS STUFF MINIONS!

Research! That’s hilarious.

I like the way he capitalized that line.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:59:13am

This is such a weird thing to give deniers traction. If you actually accepted the work of the authors of the study, you’d accept global warming. The paper obviously uses the actual measurements of cosmic and solar radiation— which have not increased during the past hundred years, and so are obviously not the cause of global warming. If cloud nucleation from cosmic rays were the forcer of the current phase of warming, then you’d need, obviously cosmic rays to have increased.

But they don’t. They accept just this misinterpration of the paper.

Coracle Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:01:07pm

If you’ve ever been involved in a publication submission for Science or Nature, all the claims of scientific cronyism or peer review collusion become immediately apparent as shrill meaningless carping. Those journals are goddamn fetishistic about integrity of data and writing.

The same can’t be said for everyone who reads what gets published there.

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:03:10pm

If God presented a signed long-form Certificate of Global Warming, these people would insist it was a forgery….

Gus Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:04:13pm

OT…

@thinkprogress ThinkProgress
BREAKING: Justice Dept. says Texas redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act (via @mySA_Politics)

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:06:03pm

re: #16 Gus 802

Oh man, it’s on. This is going to be another states right dust-up.

Gus Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:10:05pm

re: #17 Obdicut

Oh man, it’s on. This is going to be another states right dust-up.

Glad that Justice finally spoke up. But yeah, this will be more fodder for the far-right. Watch the heads explode.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:11:10pm

re: #17 Obdicut

Oh man, it’s on. This is going to be another states right dust-up.

I’m kinda pissed that the importance of state’s rights in separation of powers of our great experiment has been obfuscated by racists.

It is an important factor in keeping powers diversified to prevent tyranny. Assholes what to use it to create local State tyrannies.

not kinda, really does piss me off.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:13:12pm

re: #12 Gus 802

Yes and Mr. Lakely of Heartland Institute was kind enough to let slip that Heartland Institute does pay for its “research.” He became very reticent about how much however.

Ivar Giaever’s links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc…

For the record. If you are doing science on the up and up, you get grant money to do whatever research with the understanding that the science will be what the science will be and the results will be what the results will be.

You then do the research and present it for peer review by publishing it and presenting it to scientific colleagues. You are not paid to go to conferences. The conference invites you to present your work.

You are not paid to do the work by the conference. You present the work that was already done and how it turned out at the conference.

Part of your grant money is set aside to get you to conferences.

It is done that way to keep the science honest and to distinguish actual science conferences and papers from sham conferences and papers from con artist groups like Heartland and Cato.

People in the science world know that Heartland and Cato lie as part of their job. Just like Breitbart and Heartland lied about the current CERN results, they lie all the time.

For example.. even Ivar Gieaver lied and it is not surprising that these lies come from him after he started being an expert at Heartland.

Consider this:

Gieaver commented that the earth’s temperature is “remarkably stable” because of only a 0.7 C change over 150 years is an astonishingly careless remark. It’s more like 100 years for one thing but more importantly, he knows, he has to know, that vastly smaller changes in temperature can radically alter certain systems, while other systems remain stable over vastly larger temperature changes. His statement is meaningless. 0.7 C above zero is water, below by 0.7 C is ice.

Every scientist knows that talking about the effects of temperature change without talking about the specific system involved is simply ridiculous. He knows this. A graduate student would not be permitted to make such an error.

In the world of science saying things that you know are a bunch of garbage on the basis that you purposefully misused scientific principles itself is called a lie.

It turns out that this seemingly small change in temperature is already producing changed weather patterns, droughts and floods around the world.

There is nothing more dangerous than the effect of unmitigated climate change. There is no bigger problem, because this issue negatively and dangerously effects every person on the entire planet. Yet, professional liars at Heartland and Cato and their lackeys perpetuate and manufacture these dangerous lies at the expense of you, your children, your nation and civilization as we know it.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:13:13pm

Who needs facts when you can just make shit up and your base believes you anyways?

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:13:41pm

re: #14 Coracle

If you’ve ever been involved in a publication submission for Science or Nature, all the claims of scientific cronyism or peer review collusion become immediately apparent as shrill meaningless carping. Those journals are goddamn fetishistic about integrity of data and writing.

The same can’t be said for everyone who reads what gets published there.

It has been too long! How have you been?

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:15:08pm

re: #15 ralphieboy

If God presented a signed long-form Certificate of Global Warming, these people would insist it was a forgery…

He did… It is called all that data in the real word that He created. If you believe in G-d then you must believe that the final arbiter of Science is
G-d Himself.

dragonfire1981 Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:17:44pm

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Who needs facts when you can just make shit up and your base believes you anyways?

Not only do they believe it, they accept it immediately as bona fide truth and don’t question it in the slightest.

Do we need to start teaching critical thinking in school?

Interesting Times Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:18:21pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes and Mr. Lakely of Heartland Institute was kind enough to let slip that Heartland Institute does pay for its “research.” He became very reticent about how much however.

On that note, here’s another item about Ivar I came across when you first paged about him - I didn’t post it at the time because it was still “circumstantial”, but, in light of what we know now, could it be indicative of something else?

[Link: www.ntnu.edu…]

In 1956, Giæver emigrated to the US…It was here that he had an epiphany that would change the course of his career. “I made what I called the biggest discovery of my life,” he said in an interview recorded for the Nobel Foundation in 2004. “I discovered that people could get paid for doing research. I was completely flabbergasted – I never heard of that — These people went around, wrote on the blackboard, looked like they had a good time. I said ‘That’s what I want to do.’”

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:19:06pm

re: #24 dragonfire1981

Not only do they believe it, they accept it immediately as bona fide truth and don’t question it in the slightest.

Do we need to start teaching critical thinking in school?

I doubt 100 republicans nationwide read this post….you give them too much credit

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:19:13pm

re: #23 LudwigVanQuixote

He did… It is called all that data in the real word that He created. If you believe in G-d then you must believe that the final arbiter of Science is
G-d Himself.

Except these people don’t believe in a God who operates via scientifically observable methods. Its all rivers of blood and incendiary shrubs spouting prophecy to them.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:20:01pm

re: #24 dragonfire1981

Do we need to start teaching critical thinking in school?

They’d just push for more home schooling.

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:21:03pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

There is an argument presented by the anti-AGW people that scientists are greedy for grant money and will publish AGW just for the money and chicks…

Granted, there are millions at stake here, but there are also reputations at stake in the scientific community.

As opposed to the shills for the energy industry, for which there are billions at stake where repuattion is based solely on how much of that money they are taking in…

Gus Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:21:30pm

re: #27 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Except these people don’t believe in a God who operates via scientifically observable methods. Its all rivers of blood and incendiary shrubs spouting prophecy to them.

Sounds like “Life of Brian.”

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:22:01pm

Yes, I’m screwed.

Think outside the box —Box? What Box? There is box?

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:22:31pm

re: #24 dragonfire1981

Not only do they believe it, they accept it immediately as bona fide truth and don’t question it in the slightest.

Do we need to start teaching critical thinking in school?

We need to teach thinking.

And science, as in how science works. A lot of people do not understand what science is or how it functions, which makes it all to easy for vested interests to twist it to fit their ends and sell those results as real science.

Ming Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:22:49pm

I have a friend who is a well-respected young scientist. She’s pursuing her Ph.D., in biology, at a top-level, prestigious American university. Last week, she sent me an email. She was excited that one of her scientific papers will soon be published. She mentioned that she had hoped the paper would have been published sooner, but “the reviews”, as she put it, took 7 years.

When the religious right goes on the warpath against science in America, they have no idea of the grandeur of what they seek to destroy. Like savages ripping apart the Mona Lisa.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:23:49pm

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Who needs facts when you can just make shit up and your base believes you anyways?

According to Lucretius it is only a lie if we all agree it is a lie.

Such is politics … .

Coracle Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:24:08pm

re: #22 LudwigVanQuixote

I’ve been good. Just busy. Keeping a hand in every now and then.

Frankly, I hope that the 2012 election becomes a stark test of science vs. fiction. If the country is to lose its shit and vote for denial of reality, I think the world needs to see it and take it into account.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:24:30pm

re: #25 publicityStunted

On that note, here’s another item about Ivar I came across when you first paged about him - I didn’t post it at the time because it was still “circumstantial”, but, in light of what we know now, could it be indicative of something else?

[Link: www.ntnu.edu…]

That is huge. This is becoming more and more an anatomy of a sell out.

He has his own page as an expert at the Heartland home site.

Heartland Experts Ivar Giaever

Are we really to believe that they do not pay him anything? Are we really to believe that a scientist known for a career of good science would make such stupid mistakes as thee 0.7 C comment, and destroy his once sterling reputation for no reason at all?

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out in a pond with other ducks…

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:26:59pm

re: #24 dragonfire1981

Not only do they believe it, they accept it immediately as bona fide truth and don’t question it in the slightest.

Do we need to start teaching critical thinking in school?

Frankly, they need to start emphasizing the 10 commandments in church as well.

Some good, old fashioned hard-core right is right and wrong is wrong might help some to understand —there are those that won’t get it in school regardless of how hard we try to teach it.

I went to RC school, I KNOW a lie when I say it.

so sad.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:28:12pm

re: #29 ralphieboy

There is an argument presented by the anti-AGW people that scientists are greedy for grant money and will publish AGW just for the money and chicks…

Granted, there are millions at stake here, but there are also reputations at stake in the scientific community.

As opposed to the shills for the energy industry, for which there are billions at stake where repuattion is based solely on how much of that money they are taking in…

It is funny that you mention this. One of the biggest lies to be trumpeted by these people is that honest scientists are on the take for grant money from the government. The nature of right wing smears is to accuse the other side of their own misdeeds. Heartland pays shills for fake science. So do Cato and all the rest. Of course they, Heartland, Cato etc.. then scream the lies they manufacture.

The only ones paying for sham science are the fossil fuel interests and their pets through sham organizations like Heartland and Cato. They then have the chutzpah to accuse honest scientists of doing the same thing.

Iwouldprefernotto Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:28:39pm

If Jesus came down from heaven and told these people that global warming was real, they would just scream that Jesus was a liberal agitator. (Of course, he was, but that’s not the point).

Kronocide Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:29:05pm

re: #29 ralphieboy

There is an argument presented by the anti-AGW people that scientists are greedy for grant money and will publish AGW just for the money and chicks…

This is the classic rhetorical they do it too gambit about Fox News.

Fox is biased

But the mainstream media is biased

It’s an equivocation to ‘equalize’ the point and discontinue it, which is the best possible outcome that can happen. It’s also a pretty major acknowledgement that there is bias, with a cute little projection cherry on top.

The quickest demolition of this gambit I’ve found is that the $ being given to scientists is spent on science: the $ given to ‘deniers’ is to attack existing science, and not alternate science is created.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:30:46pm

re: #26 albusteve

I doubt 100 republicans nationwide read this post…you give them too much credit

Ohh not true, we have a rabid band of stalkers. Apparently, Breitbart and his former employee and lackey, Lakely read this place for example.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:31:25pm

re: #39 Iwouldprefernotto

If Jesus came down from heaven and told these people that global warming was real, they would just scream that Jesus was a liberal agitator. (Of course, he was, but that’s not the point).

They would be really pissed at his message of being kind to the poor as well…

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:32:56pm

re: #40 BigPapa

This is the classic rhetorical they do it too gambit about Fox News.

Fox is biased

But the mainstream media is biased

It’s an equivocation to ‘equalize’ the point and discontinue it, which is the best possible outcome that can happen. It’s also a pretty major acknowledgement that there is bias, with a cute little projection cherry on top.

The quickest demolition of this gambit I’ve found is that the $ being given to scientists is spent on science: the $ given to ‘deniers’ is to attack existing science, and not alternate science is created.

And of course, the reality is that we scientists do not get huge amounts of money for our work - not even close. I suppose that is why some are so sadly tempted by the money that places like Heartland pay out.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:33:39pm

re: #42 LudwigVanQuixote

They would be really pissed at his message of being kind to the poor as well…

If they really loved Jesus, they wouldn’t be poor.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:34:57pm

Capitalists (me) have a very, very difficult time conceiving that there are people who aren’t in it for the money.

So, a scientist who can get money for pursuing a political agenda makes sense. The idea the money doesn’t motivate puts my brain into a loop of disbelief.

Luckily I am also creative enough to try to understand. There are things I would do and not do for money and I have a certain affinity for certain shades of blue that most people think is crazy.

In reality, career scientists are more like artists —so way out there in their field of thought that they can’t balance their checkbooks or cross the street without help.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:36:13pm

re: #45 ggt

My wife is choosing to become a research scientist. In doing so, she’s choosing to spend an extra four years in school. If she just got her MD, instead of the MDPhD, she would make a lot more money, and a lot sooner.

But she cares about science.

And she is the kind of person the GOP vilifies.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:37:32pm

re: #46 Obdicut

My wife is choosing to become a research scientist. In doing so, she’s choosing to spend an extra four years in school. If she just got her MD, instead of the MDPhD, she would make a lot more money, and a lot sooner.

But she cares about science.

And she is the kind of person the GOP vilifies.

Shouldn’t she be studying the bible and having children instead?
///

erik_t Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:37:44pm

re: #45 ggt

In reality, career scientists are more like artists —so way out there in their field of thought that they can’t balance their checkbooks or cross the street without help.

I’m legitimately wondering if this text was intended to be in purple comic sans.

Do you actually think this?

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:39:53pm

re: #46 Obdicut

My wife is choosing to become a research scientist. In doing so, she’s choosing to spend an extra four years in school. If she just got her MD, instead of the MDPhD, she would make a lot more money, and a lot sooner.

But she cares about science.

And she is the kind of person the GOP vilifies.

Unless she chose to get a Divinity Degree —that would be ok.

Kronocide Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:40:02pm

re: #43 LudwigVanQuixote

And of course, the reality is that we scientists do not get huge amounts of money for our work - not even close. I suppose that is why some are so sadly tempted by the money that places like Heartland pay out.

And Tenure! Don’t forget that evil WedgeWord.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:41:24pm

re: #45 ggt

And by the way, she does just fine on crossing the street, yeah. There’s no reason common sense and great scientific insight can’t be in the same person.

She just doesn’t care so much about money. Not as much as she does science.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:41:45pm

re: #48 erik_t

I’m legitimately wondering if this text was intended to be in purple comic sans.

Do you actually think this?

I can only speak from experience. There are people I know who are so smart and so into what they do they can’t function in the world without help. They are not motivated by money, food, anything but their work.

Yes, I know some of these people. And the idea that they would compromise their work or their integrity for grant money is beyond ridiculous.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:42:50pm

re: #51 Obdicut

And by the way, she does just fine on crossing the street, yeah. There’s no reason common sense and great scientific insight can’t be in the same person.

She just doesn’t care so much about money. Not as much as she does science.

Yes, most can cross the street, but some can only do it in the city where there is a cross-walk light telling them when it is safe …

:) LOL

erik_t Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:43:32pm

re: #52 ggt

I can only speak from experience. There are people I know who are so smart and so into what they do they can’t function in the world without help. They are not motivated by money, food, anything but their work.

Yes, I know some of these people. And the idea that they would compromise their work or their integrity for grant money is beyond ridiculous.

People whose driving motivation is to better understand the world have trouble functioning in the world because they don’t understand how it works… I’m sure there are some examples of this, but it doesn’t seem slightly contradictory to you?

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:44:35pm

re: #53 ggt

Well, most of the world-class scientists I’ve met have also been perfectly competent in ordinary life.

The cliche of a scientist who can’t do anything else really is just noticeable because otherwise, those kind of people would be unremarkable.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:44:46pm

re: #54 erik_t

People whose driving motivation is to better understand the world have trouble functioning in the world because they don’t understand how it works… I’m sure there are some examples of this, but it doesn’t seem slightly contradictory to you?

human beings are often contradictory.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:45:15pm

re: #50 BigPapa

And Tenure! Don’t forget that evil WedgeWord.

Yeah… Tenure is what allows for two things that are very important:

1. It allows for a scientist to be able to speak scientific truth without fear of losing his or her job. It is there precisely to prevent political groups from having pressure on the scientific community.

Of course that pisses off anti-science political types like the current GOP to no end. They have no leverage over scientists who keep telling the truth and have all that damnable data to back themselves up with.

2. It allows a senior scientist to go off for as long as it takes to pursue an important line of research that may or may not yield results in the near future.

By mitigating the effects of publish or perish - truly ground breaking avenues can be explored without fear.

OF course, such a thing is not even on the radar of anti-science types.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:45:37pm

re: #55 Obdicut

Well, most of the world-class scientists I’ve met have also been perfectly competent in ordinary life.

The cliche of a scientist who can’t do anything else really is just noticeable because otherwise, those kind of people would be unremarkable.

It could also be that as a creative person, I attract those people into my life.
I’m often the most function person in the group and the least intelligent or accomplished.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:45:49pm

re: #56 ggt

human beings are often contradictory.

I don’t think so.

Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:49:04pm

By the way, this is a very interesting site:

[Link: www.deepdyve.com…]

A lot of scientific papers are published in subscription-only journals that are very expensive. It’s expensive to buy individual papers too.

Deepdyve lets you rent papers like this one for $3.99, which seems like a reasonable investment if you’re planning on writing an article about the paper and what it says.

Unless you’re a wingnut, of course. Then you don’t care.

lostlakehiker Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:49:43pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

That is the entire operating principle of scum and sham institutes like Heartland and Cato. Those are the places where the big lies are dreamt up to be disseminated though Fox and other lackeys like Breitbart.

The more subtle style of the Wall Street Journal is more dangerous for its subtlety. They don’t lie, nakedly and forthrightly, about simple checkable things such as who the authors are, or what the name of the journal is.

They insinuate. Today’s WSJ carries an editorial casting Giaever as the hero, and asking us who we’d rather believe about physics: Giaever or Gore? I’ll have to get to where I have the full text of the WSJ editorial to get a start on fisking it, but it’s full of misdirections and non-sequiturs.

Misdirections and non-sequiturs are the mother’s milk of political discourse. Nobody wants to hear a message of doom or even of difficulty. It takes a Winston Churchill to get people to listen to a speech about an Iron Curtain. And even he was NOT heeded the first time he raised an equally well founded alarm about another tyrant on the march.

WSJ is formidable.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:50:01pm

re: #58 ggt

Could be. But in general, it’s best to stay away from cliches like that; if it were true, science would look very different. Many scientists invent their own equipment, do their own programming, and otherwise display a pan-competence.

allegro Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:50:07pm

re: #45 ggt

In reality, career scientists are more like artists —so way out there in their field of thought that they can’t balance their checkbooks or cross the street without help.

Nonsensical propaganda.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:51:04pm

re: #62 Obdicut

Could be. But in general, it’s best to stay away from cliches like that; if it were true, science would look very different. Many scientists invent their own equipment, do their own programming, and otherwise display a pan-competence.

Well, I apologize If I offended anyone.

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:51:04pm

From Chrisss Ssstreet’s bio on his own site:

Chriss Street is a Graduate of the Stanford Business School, University of California, Harvard Law School Advanced Trustee’s Studies, and the BPM Institute.

Here’s “The BPM Institute”. Here’s that “Harvard Law School” Advanced Trustee’s Studies. Neither of them seem to have “graduates”, just participants and people who have attended. Nice way to imply you went to Harvard.

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:53:46pm

re: #62 Obdicut

Could be. But in general, it’s best to stay away from cliches like that; if it were true, science would look very different. Many scientists invent their own equipment, do their own programming, and otherwise display a pan-competence.

Einstein played the fiddle…and did his own hair

Talking Point Detective Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:54:33pm

Perhaps we should put this in the ironical ironies department?
From Breitbart’s article:

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web,

Ah, CERN? Al Gore? Early days of the Internet?

I seem to remember something mention about them together in the past…..

…Phillip Hallam-Baker, a former member of the CERN Web development team that created the basic structure of the World Wide Web. Hallam-Baker calls the campaign to tar Gore as a delusional Internet inventor “a calculated piece of political propaganda to deny Gore credit for what is probably his biggest achievement.”

“In the early days of the Web,” says Hallam-Baker, who was there, “he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established — he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the link to their agency site. If it returned ‘Not Found’ the said director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before he next saw the veep.”

[Link: www.salon.com…]

And

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

[…]

But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

[…]

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid
growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political
support for its privatization and continued support for research in
advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

Vint Cerf
WorldCom

Alan M. Gaines
National Science Foundation

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:54:43pm

Yemeni Protestors storm and seize military base

engineer cat Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:54:54pm

what the study actually shows is that people like breitbart are causing a 2.26937 millirem increase in global stupidity particulation per sq quatloo per second per second

adjusted for inflation and velocity, of course

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:55:43pm

re: #64 ggt

I’m not offended. I just think it is a bit of a dangerous stereotype, because it paints scientists as disconnected from common sense, and practical value.

I know you didn’t mean any harm by it.

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 12:58:47pm

Chrisss lists the Drudge Report among his publication credits. I think “Written on the Subway Walls and Tenement Halls” would have more cachet.

jaunte Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:01:05pm

Don’t Trust the Experts!

HoosierHoops Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:02:28pm

re: #70 Obdicut

I’m not offended. I just think it is a bit of a dangerous stereotype, because it paints scientists as disconnected from common sense, and practical value.

I know you didn’t mean any harm by it.

I think most scientists are just normal people that practice a discipline..
Although there are exceptions of course..
We had a guy at MINSY years ago that was supposed to be one of the smartest Nuclear Scientist in the world.. Could hardly tie his own shoes..
One day he went missing..Couldn’t find him for like a week.. The Government really thought he was kidnapped by the KGB.. We were on high alert.. Turns out he tried to swim by himself and drowned..
At least..That is the Theory..

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:02:32pm

re: #71 wrenchwench

Chrisss lists the Drudge Report among his publication credits. I think “Written on the Subway Walls and Tenement Halls” would have more cachet.

man, are you old

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:03:26pm

re: #58 ggt

It could also be that as a creative person, I attract those people into my life.
I’m often the most function person in the group and the least intelligent or accomplished.

I have two actual scientists among my 6 siblings, and they happen to be the most capable in terms of having a house and a family and stuff. One of them is married to another actual scientist, so you can’t credit the spouses….

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:03:35pm

re: #72 jaunte

Don’t Trust the Experts!

Reality is biased against Biblical literalists.

Political Atheist Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:04:48pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

That is the entire operating principle of scum and sham institutes like Heartland and Cato. Those are the places where the big lies are dreamt up to be disseminated though Fox and other lackeys like Breitbart.

Whatever they are claiming about this, it seems they kinda forget {shocka I know ;-)} how humans generate clouds in the atmosphere big time. Two and four engine airliners at 30,000 feet and up. I will just hazard a guess this is a much bigger factor.

jaunte Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:05:16pm

re: #76 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Anti-expertise seems to be a popular theme lately.

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:05:36pm

re: #74 albusteve

man, are you old

True, but not as old as you.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:05:47pm

re: #61 lostlakehiker

Absolutely and a fantastic point.

Giaever or Gore… as if this were the only choices in a two state system. How about: thousands of other scientists, almost the entire scientific community that actually come equipped with hard data on the topic, or Giaever, who has questionable ties to a known source of biased anti-science propaganda, and no, absolutely no hard data or calculations of his own to back up numerous childish errors and out and out deceptions in his language is another issue

Someone who was a scientist would say, I believe that data and the mathematics - people don’t even come into the equation. The vetting process of journals and legitimate conferences through peer review acts as one filter to determine whether or not I want to spend the mental energy of reading something further. The other filter is usually determined by interest in the subject latter. Something that comes from a clearly biased source like Heartland isn’t even on the radar.

Then there is actually looking at what is being said. This is the single most basic skill of any scientist. Professionals learn from the literature. They stay current because of the literature. They back up their own work by referencing the literature. Again and again, the propagandists misquote or fabricate the science. The recent CERN work is one of many examples. It is clear that the rightwing didn’t even bother to read the paper involved. It is clear that they don’t care what the science actually is or to think through any of the implications of it.

This is not a new phenomena. This is a bunch of utter hacks who couldn’t do algebra if their lives depended on it, let alone partial differential equations, deciding smugly that they are such “experts” that they need not even look at the data or the arguments that are the very foundation of science itself. That we let them get away with it as a culture is horrifying. Where is the question of well prove it? OR how do you make that claim? Or how about Did you even read what was said? That we, as a nation, are so intellectually lazy that we let the unthinking and dishonest do our thinking for us, is the epitome of everything that science is against by its very nature.

It is equally clear that since the Murdoch takeover of WSJ, it has become yet another organ of propaganda for that media empire.

FemNaziBitch Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:05:59pm

Gotta go pay attention to Monster Puppy.

Have a great afternoon all!

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:07:24pm

re: #60 Charles

By the way, this is a very interesting site:

[Link: www.deepdyve.com…]

A lot of scientific papers are published in subscription-only journals that are very expensive. It’s expensive to buy individual papers too.

Deepdyve lets you rent papers like this one for $3.99, which seems like a reasonable investment if you’re planning on writing an article about the paper and what it says.

Unless you’re a wingnut, of course. Then you don’t care.

That is a great site that I was not aware of. There have been literally hundreds of papers that I would have loved to quote here in pages that I only see because of my university subscription.

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:07:30pm

re: #79 wrenchwench

True, but not as old as you.

I’m old and one legged…if I were a horse the republicans would shoot me

Eventual Carrion Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:07:42pm

re: #61 lostlakehiker

*snip*

They insinuate. Today’s WSJ carries an editorial casting Giaever as the hero, and asking us who we’d rather believe about physics: Giaever or Gore? I’ll have to get to where I have the full text of the WSJ editorial to get a start on fisking it, but it’s full of misdirections and non-sequiturs.

*snip*

What is Gore talking about physics? I hear him talking about climate change, you know, climatology and atmospheric sciences (like what atmospheric scientists have reported). How long a person weighing 100 kg has to live once jumping out of a plane traveling 2 km high in the air at a speed of 120 km/hr really doesn’t come into the picture.

(I loved my senior high school physics teacher. That was a question on a test. I think he even wanted to know how far forward he would travel forward (geographically) from where he jumped out to where he landed).

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:10:04pm

re: #83 albusteve

I’m old and one legged…if I were a horse the republicans would shoot me

Watch out for who might be listening when you say “nay”. And vote Democratic.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:16:15pm

I often find that the easiest way to disprove a wingnut citing a scientific paper is to read that paper. They don’t really understand what it says and they don’t care, it’s just a cherry tree to them.

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:16:59pm

More about this topic from Mother Jones. The last bit:

But Breitbart seems to have been yearning for credibility lately. A friendly profile of him in the New York Times suggested that he stands out among conservative media personalities because of his accessibility. “He gives out his cellphone number in speeches and passes along his personal e-mail address to almost anyone who asks,” the Times piece gushed. “If you write him, chances are you will hear back.”

On this one, we’re still waiting.

freetoken Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:18:43pm

re: #84 RayFerd

Climatology is a broadly based science, but more than anything else it is part of what used to be called “Earth Sciences” which is now more rightly called “Planetary science”, and the professional body in the US of the scientists who study these related disciplines is the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which is a participating unit of the American Institute of Physics.

Anyway, the bigger point is that the latest rants by the professional obfuscation industry (I don’t believe even the label “denier” does justice to what is occurring) is straight out of the old logical fallacy book - specifically their claim is this:
☑ we’ve found this person with a (science) degree who thinks AGW is (wrong|not incontrovertible|now a myth because he wrote a paper on a related topic that can be misconstrued to say anything we wish) so there!

It’s just an appeal to a crowd (sometimes of one!), without any understanding or coherent analysis of what anybody or any paper actually says.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:22:38pm

re: #84 RayFerd

This is a very narrow view of physics. We do a lot more than what was covered in high school.

Climate science is by its nature interdisciplinary, but its core is physics.

If you want to talk about energy budgets, spectroscopy, thermodynamics, the effect of cosmic rays on a mixed fluid the greenhouse effect, black body radiation, tipping points, chaos theory and fluid mechanics (my fields along with optical experiments into them) you are talking physics.

Physics is at the core of climate in much the same way that medicine is at the core of issues of epidemiology.

Now physics is itself a big umbrella that covers many linked topics much like medicine does. Just like you don’t go to an podiatrist to discuss brain surgery, there are certain branches of physics that are more salient to the problems of climate than others. In the case of Giaever and many other “experts” associated with the usual climate denial groups, his research never touched on anything particularly related to climate. He was a solid state guy before starting a biotech company some years ago.

There are many tragic things about this, but one of them is that it is apparent from various of Gieaver’s remarks that he never bothered to look into climate science with any rigor beyond that of a smug kid from highschool. Physicists of all sorts are still physicist. Just like you would not expect any sort of MD, no matter what branch of medicine he or she practised to talk about balancing humors or using magic crystals to treat an ailment, we have similarly stupid ideas coming from Heartland and Cato types that no self respecting scientist would make.

For example… the meaningless 0.7 degree statement made by Gieaver.

freetoken Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:25:06pm

re: #72 jaunte

Don’t Trust the Experts!

That’s part of Del Tackett’s Truth Project, which is an apologetics site and Tackett himself travels around the country holding his “schools” in various churches, etc. Tackett is a strong father/authority figure and if one views his videos he is hawking, of him lecturing his ~~students~~ victims on his science you’ll observe his approach, which is basically to shut down any questioning minds and force recitation.

wrenchwench Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:26:02pm

re: #88 freetoken

☑ we’ve found this person with a (science) degree who thinks AGW is (wrong|not incontrovertible|now a myth because he wrote a paper on a related topic that can be misconstrued to say anything we wish) so there!

It seems to work even when the person they’re citing did not write the paper they’re citing. Magic!

the professional obfuscation industry

A usage I will adopt.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:27:39pm

re: #88 freetoken

I prefer professional political liars. But your use of the word obfuscation industry is very descriptive their tactics and the fact that they do this for pay.

jaunte Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:29:48pm

re: #90 freetoken

Interesting definition of truth and reality: [Link: family.custhelp.com…]

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:30:51pm

Religious Right against government welfare because it doesn’t force the poor to rely on Churches

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:32:32pm

re: #93 jaunte

Interesting definition of truth and reality: [Link: family.custhelp.com…]

hurl
gag
spit

freetoken Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:34:16pm

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Religious Right against government welfare because it doesn’t force the poor to rely on Churches

Which exposes the motivation behind it all - a power play.

The rise of the secular nation-state removed the Church from being the senior authority in society.

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:34:18pm

re: #93 jaunte

Interesting definition of truth and reality: [Link: family.custhelp.com…]

Cognitive dissonance in action.

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:34:46pm

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Religious Right against government welfare because it doesn’t force the poor to rely on Churches

wow…spiritual sustenance is more important than food…chew on that

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:34:51pm

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Religious Right against government welfare because it doesn’t force the poor to rely on Churches

Afraid of the competition? Don’t worry, churches, there is enough poverty to go around. A Republican win next year would produce record growth in this industry at least.

100

jaunte Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:37:08pm

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Medicare, Medicaid , and food stamps are not going to get you to turn away from behaviors that are destroying your life, but the Gospel will.

I see they’re staking out the extreme low-tax position.

101

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:38:20pm

re: #98 albusteve

wow…spiritual sustenance is more important than food…chew on that

“many circumstances, particularly in this country, poverty is the result of an awful lot of bad choices.”

Yeah, like investing in a house and the market dropping out from under you, getting laid off so your boss can keep his bonus, voting Republican. That’s an awful lot of bad choices.

102

freetoken Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:38:43pm

re: #93 jaunte

The Truth Project is an attempt to popularize Presuppositional Apologetics; summarizing their approach:
1) We know our book is the absolutely true;
2) Now we will spend 10,000 hours restating that in 10,000 ways to convince you that our assumption is therefore our conclusion.

103

Kragar Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:39:16pm

re: #100 jaunte

I see they’re staking out the extreme low-tax position.

They obviously hate Jesus or they wouldn’t be in such a predicament.

104

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:42:05pm

re: #55 Obdicut

Well, most of the world-class scientists I’ve met have also been perfectly competent in ordinary life.

The cliche of a scientist who can’t do anything else really is just noticeable because otherwise, those kind of people would be unremarkable.

Paul Erdős comes to mind…

105

recusancy Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:43:25pm

Foo Fighters sing to Westboro dbags in counter-protest

Youtube Video

106

recusancy Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:45:07pm

Sweet I finally don’t have to re-login here when changing between computers.

107

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:45:20pm

re: #66 albusteve

Einstein played the fiddle…and did his own hair

The story I’ve always heard about Einstein is that he would use his paychecks for bookmarks, and then neatly reshelve the book when he was done with it.

This may well be an urban legend. I think it makes people smile, because so many of us can relate.

108

jaunte Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:45:29pm

twitterfight going on now between @CommonDescent and an anti-evilutionist:

mbisconti Dr. Michael Bisconti
RT by CommonDescent
@CommonDescent The proof is the same as that for evolution. It is just that, SINCE THERE ARE NO EVOLUTON PARTICLES, your THEORY falls flat.

Evoluton Particles!

109

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:51:16pm

re: #72 jaunte

Don’t Trust the Experts!

lawl:

Youtube Video

110

SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:52:48pm

re: #83 albusteve

I’m old and one legged…if I were a horse the republicans would shoot me

Fear not. The Democrats will put you in an organic petting zoo.

111

Killgore Trout Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:55:10pm

Sarah Palin’s latest speech against crony capitalism is winning some new friends…..
Ralph Nader praises Sarah Palin

I think she’s a lot smarter than most people credit her,” says Nader. “Judging by her comments, she is squarely in the camp of conservative populism, opposed to corporatism and its corporate state.”

112

Kronocide Mon, Sep 19, 2011 1:58:15pm

re: #108 jaunte

twitterfight going on now between @CommonDescent and an anti-evilutionist:

Evoluton Particles!

He links to the Anti Devil Judges Forum.

Order! WHACK WHACK WHACK Order!. Bailiff, remove that demon!

113

Interesting Times Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:00:22pm

re: #111 Killgore Trout

Sarah Palin’s latest speech against crony capitalism is winning some new friends…
Ralph Nader praises Sarah Palin

Palin/Nader 2012! All hail the emergence of moronic convergence!

114

makeitstop Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:00:23pm

re: #105 recusancy

Foo Fighters sing to Westboro dbags in counter-protest

[Video]

Yet another reason to love that band.

115

freetoken Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:03:26pm

Del Tackett would not approve:

Bayesian inference of ancient human demography from individual genome sequences

Whole-genome sequences provide a rich source of information about human evolution. Here we describe an effort to estimate key evolutionary parameters based on the whole-genome sequences of six individuals from diverse human populations. We used a Bayesian, coalescent-based approach to obtain information about ancestral population sizes, divergence times and migration rates from inferred genealogies at many neutrally evolving loci across the genome. We introduce new methods for accommodating gene flow between populations and integrating over possible phasings of diploid genotypes. We also describe a custom pipeline for genotype inference to mitigate biases from heterogeneous sequencing technologies and coverage levels. Our analysis indicates that the San population of southern Africa diverged from other human populations approximately 108–157 thousand years ago, that Eurasians diverged from an ancestral African population 38–64 thousand years ago, and that the effective population size of the ancestors of all modern humans was ~9,000.

116

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:10:22pm

re: #111 Killgore Trout

Sarah Palin’s latest speech against crony capitalism is winning some new friends…
Ralph Nader praises Sarah Palin

Lol. Nader, I really hate that guy. He made his name by killing the Corvair with a fake controversy. The Corvair was an innovative car for its time, being a light, rear-engine, air-cooled aluminum flat-6, with some models being turbocharged. This was in the sixties when most manufacturers were going with the big block v8 route for more performance. And his efforts helped to scare auto makers into staying on that “safe” path until gas prices forced a change.

And yet the greens love him for some reason. Hurl.

117

albusteve Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:11:38pm

‘Patriotic Millionaires’ attack millionaire lawmakers for fighting tax hike

As Republicans attack President Barack Obama for a plan being proposed Monday to increase taxes on the wealthy, a liberal group called the Patriotic Millionaires is hitting back at some of those congressman they say are millionaires who are defending their own self-interest over the good of the country.

In a new web video released Monday, the group targets Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor, Sen. John McCain, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Mitch McConnell.

“Most AMERICANS want to raise taxes on MILLIONAIRES,” says the script on the screen in the video, as patriotic-style music plays. “These POLITICIANS don’t.”

Breitbart’s Big Gov’t Publishes Pathetically Bad Global Warming Article

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud