To The Bush Haters

[Nimue1995 1]

Nimue...Seriously... GO F yourself....I don't believe in global warming, But as someone said earlier... you cant argue with religion...

Lol 85, just like others you hate those pesky facts that keep being contrary to your religion of the right wing. I happen to be pretty moderate in my views but to you I'm one of those leftwingers. Just keep repeating your mantra that "Global warming doesn't exist, global warming doesn't exist" "don't confuse me with any facts because I'll just put my figurative hands over my ears and chant that global warming doesn't exist".

[brvheart 1,752]

No, I know you're wrong. You were not talking about the House, and you didn't mention Gingrich until after that post, in a reply to somebody else. And your cut-and-paste job

Is this a veiled attempt to rip on me for posting proof of what I was talking about... if so... lol.

The House introduces spending bills, both the House and Senate vote on them, and the president signs them. That means that for 3/4 of Reagan's term, the Democratic House introduced the bills, but a Republican Senate passed them and a Republican president signed them. Moreover, the House doesn't ever come up with the budget out of thin air. They usually work from a budget the president (in that case, a Republican president) submitted. It took all three groups to drive up the national debt to record levels, and two of the three groups were Republican. Just one of those darn facts you so dislike dealing with.And I don't believe for one minute that you "misspoke." "But Democrats controlled Congress" has been a conservative canard for decades in an attempt to absolve Reagan for blame for the national debt he created. It's been echoed around the right-wing chamber for years, and you echoed it here. I don't doubt that you believed it, but it happens not to be true.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

Since you might need this all explained in pictures, here's a chart. I doubt it will help. One reason I only participate in the political boards intermittently is because debate rarely changes anyone's mind (have Lois and Nimue ever changed each other's mind?!). To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his ideology depends on his not understanding it."By the way, you cite the Cold War and everybody cites Iraq as a war and conservatives seem to be under the impression that Reagan and W were wartime presidents. Not so. If we had been at war, the president would have asked Congress for a declaration of war and Congress would have significant leadership over the way the war was conducted. Reagan's national debt, and Bush's, are both considered peacetime debts, because you can't sidestep the act of declaring war and then claim the benefit of being a wartime president. We haven't been at war since August 1945, and look at how much debt Franklin Roosevelt racked up in winning WWII, a far bigger enterprise than either the Cold War or Iraq.

You delusion is deep. If you ask 10 people on the street if we went to war in Iraq... 10 would say yes. If you ask 10 people that work for NPR if we went to war in Iraq, 10 would say nope, Bush wanted to kill kids and steal oil. You call it whatever you want, but more than 100 of your friends in the democrat party voted to go to war (would 'use force' make you feel better) in the Iraq Resolution. (that number is house and senate combined)

No, I know you're wrong. You were not talking about the House, and you didn't mention Gingrich until after that post, in a reply to somebody else.

On my clock 1:14am comes before 1:44 am, but you're the author.

And I don't believe for one minute that you "misspoke."

I'm losing sleep just thinking about the possibility that you don't believe me.

We haven't been at war since August 1945,

Hello delusion, there you are... I haven't seen you for a few sentences.

and look at how much debt Franklin Roosevelt racked up in winning WWII, a far bigger enterprise than either the Cold War or Iraq.

You're way too smart to not know how stupid and wrong this sentence is. WWII was FAR easier. It had a definite end and an impeding finality. It also had EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE 1st WORLD fighting for their lives. The Cold War was us alone, making sure that Russia knew that they couldn't attack us. No one was helping. The Iraq war didn't have a definite end either, as the war actually started after Saddam was removed. Bush didn't sell this correctly... obviously. (It actually makes me very mad just thinking about how stupidly Bush handled the entire war process)Also, I'm not happy with my ability to not be excessively annoyed at you. I'm going to work on that. I apologize.

[strategy 4]

Thanks for proving my point, again.

honestly, I don't understand why it's so hard to just admit that your (our?) party has been the anti-fiscal conservative for a few decades. it's okay, everyone does it. just stop pretending that reagan was any different.

[Nimue1995 1]

honestly, I don't understand why it's so hard to just admit that your (our?) party has been the anti-fiscal conservative for a few decades. it's okay, everyone does it. just stop pretending that reagan was any different.

That would be just blasphemous to the revered ancestor.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

honestly, I don't understand why it's so hard to just admit that your (our?) party has been the anti-fiscal conservative for a few decades. it's okay, everyone does it. just stop pretending that reagan was any different.

Reagan had a plan and you have to admit that he got some bang for his buck.

[brvheart 1,752]

honestly, I don't understand why it's so hard to just admit that your (our?) party has been the anti-fiscal conservative for a few decades. it's okay, everyone does it. just stop pretending that reagan was any different.

I never said that Reagan was fiscally conservative. I said there was an extreme situation that caused him to not be. I'm the first person in line to agree with you that we haven't been what we should have. It should be scary to everyone that the Democrats don't want to be fiscally conservative.

[brvheart 1,752]

...

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Is this a veiled attempt to rip on me for posting proof of what I was talking about... if so... lol.

Nope, it's just a fact. You seem to have issues with those. My conclusion that you don't understand very much about history, government, or what you post is an inference, or an opinion. The "cut-and-paste" comment is a fact. The difference between the two is taught around seventh grade or so. You might want to review.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

So, you're just hopelessly fixated on the fact that because the House introduces spending bills, then the fact that the Republican Senate passed them and the Republican president signed them must mean nothing at all. Try reading again, slowly and carefully, the sentence about the House working from a budget the president submits and the sentence that says, "for 7 of the 8 years Reagan was in office, the budget he submitted to Congress was actually larger than the budget Congress sent back to him for his signature."

You delusion is deep. If you ask 10 people on the street if we went to war in Iraq... 10 would say yes. If you ask 10 people that work for NPR if we went to war in Iraq, 10 would say nope, Bush wanted to kill kids and steal oil. You call it whatever you want, but more than 100 of your friends in the democrat party voted to go to war (would 'use force' make you feel better) in the Iraq Resolution. (that number is house and senate combined)

Did you white out the part about House and Senate combined because 100, out of approximately 260 Democrats in the two houses total, pretty much undercuts your argument that "everybody" supported the war in the beginning?It doesn't matter, because "war" is a word with actual political, legal, and historical meaning. We are not at war right now, under any definition of war that a political body, or a legal body, or historians would recognize. There has been no declaration of official war. We were not at war in the 1980s either. What it's called on the street or by pundits is immaterial. Ask an economist whether Reagan and Bush racked up wartime debt or peacetime debt. Ask a historian the same thing. Hell, ask the government itself, the CBO. All three will tell you it's considered peacetime debt. It's not a matter of opinion or ideology, it's a matter of knowing what the definition of a word is. The United States is only at war when the president goes to Congress and asks for a declaration of war against a named other country (not a notion or an abstract concept) and Congress passes a war declaration in response to the request. Only the president can ask for war; only Congress can authorize it. It has not happened in this country since December 8, 1941. I call Iraq a war, and Vietnam a war, too, because everyone else does, but that's only semantic convenience.

On my clock 1:14am comes before 1:44 am, but you're the author.

2:14 on my clock, and most definitely after your post to me, and most definitely in reply to someone else. Talk about nitpicking (which is actually the word you appear to have wanted a couple of posts back).

You're way too smart to not know how stupid and wrong this sentence is. WWII was FAR easier. It had a definite end and an impeding finality. It also had EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE 1st WORLD fighting for their lives. The Cold War was us alone, making sure that Russia knew that they couldn't attack us. No one was helping. The Iraq war didn't have a definite end either, as the war actually started after Saddam was removed. Bush didn't sell this correctly... obviously. (It actually makes me very mad just thinking about how stupidly Bush handled the entire war process)

Look up some numbers. We had more men under arms, we turned our national economy completely over to wartime footing. We rationed food, we rationed fuel, rubber, sugar, virtually all metals, and other war materiel, and we were fighting a two-front war on opposite sides of the world (really, three fronts while we were fighting in Africa). We ordered Detroit to stop building cars for four years and instead turned every automotive factory in the nation over to 24-hour shifts building tanks, airplanes, and guns. Did we do that in the 1980s? Are we doing it now? World War II was by miles the largest war effort America has put forth in this century. It was by far and away bigger than the Cold War -- which was not "us alone," who do you think NATO is? We certainly did have allies -- much of the world had aligned itself with one of the two superpowers. We talked plenty then about "satellite countries" and "non-aligned countries."Look, I got my degree as a historian. I don't mind philosophical disagreements. I just like them to be based on clearly-sourced, unbiased fact. Once everyone is working from the same set of facts, on which they can all agree as to the veracity, then they are perfectly free to argue about which philosophy is best for the nation, which interpretation of facts is most accurate, and how to understand and respond to new incoming data. Your arguments are fact-light and the facts you do cite are often wrong. I don't much mind one way or the other if I annoy you, and I'm certainly not trying to change your mind. But I'll continue correcting factual and historical mistakes when I see them. BG and Hblask can tell you I don't put any venom behind it, and at least the two of them actually appreciate seeing the hard data. When we disagree, we usually see each other's viewpoint and pleasantly agree to disagree.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Reagan had a plan and you have to admit that he got some bang for his buck.

Reagan had an interesting plan. The US won WWII by sheer weight of materiel (that last 'e' needs an accent mark over it). Our war machine produced over twice the amount of Germany's, and more than five times the amount of Japan's (more than our allies, as well). I talked to an author who wrote a book about a German POW who was held in the US. He had never been here before being captured, and was on a POW train of other new "visitors" to the US. They were brought here on a US warship, boarded the train at New York, and were taken to Texas to be held for the duration of the war. The POW (who later settled here in Virginia) said when they rolled past mile after mile after mile of oil refineries in New Jersey (yay, Bayonne!), he knew the war was lost. When they went to sleep, slept through the night, woke up, and were still rolling and not yet in Texas, some of the Germans began to weep. They had never even imagined the size or the strength of the US, and they knew then that everything they had fought for was hopeless and would be destroyed.That, in a nutshell, is the lesson of WWII. The US was a sleeping giant, and the attack on Pearl Harbor made us rise to our full height. When that happened, our enemies realized that they had no idea what they had unleashed. It's hard to imagine now, but in the 1930s other nations really did not realize how much larger and more powerful the US was over every other nation on earth. Sure, the Soviet Union was physically bigger, but their workers were inept, their resources fairly limited, and much of their land is locked up in Siberia, which is useless but for gulags. China has more people, but stayed out of world affairs and was extremely disorganized as a national power. It was WWII that made other nations see our full strength, and they've never forgotten the sight. [Well, maybe some have forgotten it. Us shifting to full war footing would remind the world in a big way.]Anyway, that was also the lesson Reagan absorbed from the war. In Korea and in Vietnam, we had pulled back again to partial involvement, fighting but not declaring war, keeping the economy on a peacetime basis, and in both cases, we had struggled, once fighting to a stalemate and once arguably losing. He was determined not to do that again. He didn't want to declare all-out war on the USSR, because of the nuclear danger, but I think (and this is only me thinking, not something I've seen historians say) -- I think that he decided to quietly and unofficially put the economy on something like secret war footing. He knew that once again, our material (no 'e' this time) might and productive ability could crush any opponent. So he embarked on an arms race. Because we can't lose any race in material production. He knew we would win, that is, that we would bankrupt the Soviet Union long before they could bankrupt us. All he had to do was keep the actual bullets from flying and continue to apply pressure in building arms. Sooner or later they would collapse economically.And that's just what happened. It worked, I think, exactly the way he planned. The problem is that it exponentially increased the national debt, and laid the basis for us to be virtually bankrupt today. His successors continued to spend money like he had, only without any kind of strategic reason for doing so other than to win votes and underwrite a massive government that they did nothing to shrink. It took a few decades, but what wasn't exactly brinksmanship for him has in fact taken us to the brink thanks to the debt increases under Bush I and II. [The debt continued to rise under Clinton, but as the chart shows, he had gotten a handle on it and was beginning to turn it downward by the end of his administration.]I don't like the idea of mortgaging the nation's future. I'm just happier with a much lower national debt. Low debt is where we've always been historically and I think it's where we always should be. But the strategy Reagan employed is a sound one, it worked perfectly, and why most historians don't seem to talk about this is a bit of a mystery to me. I think it's fairly obvious, in retrospect, what he was doing.By the way, I also meant to address Brvheart's assertion that Reagan took office at the height of the Cold War. Not even close. There are two periods in which the Cold War came very, very close to being a hot war, much closer than it ever did under Reagan.1948-49: The Berlin Blockade and Airlift; USSR explodes its first atomic bomb, having obtained nuclear secrets through spying; Chinese Communists win civil war and take over the most populous country on earth. Truman talked to his generals at this time about a direct military confrontation with the USSR, but they advised against it.1961-62: Bay of Pigs invasion; Cuban Missile Crisis; East Germany builds Berlin Wall. This is when most historians believe we were the very closest to war with the Soviets, possibly only days away from it.

[85suited 0]

Lol 85, just like others you hate those pesky facts that keep being contrary to your religion of the right wing. I happen to be pretty moderate in my views but to you I'm one of those leftwingers. Just keep repeating your mantra that "Global warming doesn't exist, global warming doesn't exist" "don't confuse me with any facts because I'll just put my figurative hands over my ears and chant that global warming doesn't exist".

For every scientiest you say believes in global warming, I can find one that says it isnt happeningFor every pesky fact you say you have ... I Have more that say it doesntBTW... contrary to your moronic thought pattern... I am anything but a "right winger" But you wouldnt know becuase you would first need to pull your head out of your ass to comprehend anything I have posted...After you hear that loud pop... I would be happy to debate you

[Nimue1995 1]

For every scientiest you say believes in global warming, I can find one that says it isnt happeningFor every pesky fact you say you have ... I Have more that say it doesntBTW... contrary to your moronic thought pattern... I am anything but a "right winger" But you wouldnt know becuase you would first need to pull your head out of your ass to comprehend anything I have posted...After you hear that loud pop... I would be happy to debate you

Yeah sure you're not a right winger. I've read all your posts (fortunately or unfortunately) and you never saw a Republican you didn't like and never saw a Democrat you did. So yeah I'll peg you as a right winger. Anyway, it's my opinion that it's way too soon to say whether global warming will continue or not. And it's also my opinion that we probably won't have a definitive answer in our lifetime (at least mine anyway). At this time, most scientists agree that we're in a warming period though they may disagree on what is causing it and the impact of human activity on it. The ones who don't use pretty suspect science to draw their conclusions and usually have a corporate agenda.

[vbnautilus 48]

For every scientiest you say believes in global warming, I can find one that says it isnt happening

No, you can't. A study published last month surveyed 3,146 scientists on global warming and whether it was caused by human factors.¹ • Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800 levels? 90% of scientists say yes• Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 87% of scientists say yes, with 97% of climatologists saying yesThe authors conclude that "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."If that's not enough for you, the following scientific organizations have released statements stating their consensus scientific opinion is that climate change is heavily influenced by human activity: European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Science Foundation, The US National Research Council, the UK Institute of Biology, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the World Meteorilogical Association, the National Academy of Science in the United States, the corresponding organizations in China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Russia, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, and about 18 other nations. So, please revise your statement to: "For every 9 scientists you you say believes in global warming, I might be able to find one who doesn't."¹Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22-23.

[CaneBrain 95]

Belgium

you had me.....and then you lost me.unless we figure out a way to revive the Star Wars program using giant waffle shields.....Belgium is useless.Had to be said.i am constantly surprised by how many proponents of pascal's wager are willing to roll the dice on the health of the planet. I really dont think being environmentally friendly will ruin the businesses of America. (That's Congress' job. Hiyooo!)

[vbnautilus 48]

you had me.....and then you lost me.unless we figure out a way to revive the Star Wars program using giant waffle shields.....Belgium is useless.Had to be said.i am constantly surprised by how many proponents of pascal's wager are willing to roll the dice on the health of the planet. I really dont think being environmentally friendly will ruin the businesses of America. (That's Congress' job. Hiyooo!)

Yeah, well you should see the countries I didn't list.

[85suited 0]

No, you can't. A study published last month surveyed 3,146 scientists on global warming and whether it was caused by human factors.¹ • Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800 levels? 90% of scientists say yes• Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 87% of scientists say yes, with 97% of climatologists saying yesThe authors conclude that "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."If that's not enough for you, the following scientific organizations have released statements stating their consensus scientific opinion is that climate change is heavily influenced by human activity: European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Science Foundation, The US National Research Council, the UK Institute of Biology, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the World Meteorilogical Association, the National Academy of Science in the United States, the corresponding organizations in China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Russia, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, and about 18 other nations. So, please revise your statement to: "For every 9 scientists you you say believes in global warming, I might be able to find one who doesn't."¹Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22-23.

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming,"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming - a detailed list of some opposing your HoaxJohn Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and a member of the Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smokinggun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climatesystem, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations.It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns overthe next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I seejump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer

[brvheart 1,752]

you had me.....and then you lost me.unless we figure out a way to revive the Star Wars program using giant waffle shields.....Belgium is useless.Had to be said.i am constantly surprised by how many proponents of pascal's wager are willing to roll the dice on the health of the planet. I really dont think being environmentally friendly will ruin the businesses of America. (That's Congress' job. Hiyooo!)

What does an individuals eternal salvation have to do with global warming?

[El Guapo 8]

I have always thought the scientists (and Al Gore) who are convinced that we are causing global warming to have a strange egotistical viewpoint that mankind has a greater influence on a planet that has gone through massive changes over a 5 billion year period of time.

[vbnautilus 48]

I have always thought the scientists (and Al Gore) who are convinced that we are causing global warming to have a strange egotistical viewpoint that mankind has a greater influence on a planet that has gone through massive changes over a 5 billion year period of time.

Last year I saw this book which has pictures of L.A. from above, now and 60 years ago. Its truly astonishing the changes we've made in such a short time. The surface of the earth went from green and fluffy to hard and computer-chip looking. I find it hard to believe there is no effect of all of this. Everything effects everything else.

[vbnautilus 48]

More copying-and-pasting

That's fine. There is nothing wrong with disagreement. But the disagreement is a small minority of the scientific community, and is working against a rather large consensus. You had misrepresented that fact.

[vbnautilus 48]

What does an individuals eternal salvation have to do with global warming?

Amen, brother! Screw this place, who needs its anyways!

[Balloon guy 158]

Last year I saw this book which has pictures of L.A. from above, now and 60 years ago. Its truly astonishing the changes we've made in such a short time. The surface of the earth went from green and fluffy to hard and computer-chip looking. I find it hard to believe there is no effect of all of this. Everything effects everything else.

LA county is 70% undevelopedJust saying_{*70% is a number I heard years ago and it may no longer be accurate, but it's close enough to make VB look dumb and me look smart no matter how hard it is.}

[vbnautilus 48]

LA county is 70% undevelopedJust saying

Back in the 80s maybe. Now its only 34%.¹¹ I fabricated this number entirely to make my point and placed a link there which does not actually contain any relevant information so that it would look like I was officially citing a reputable source and knowing that balloon guy would never click on it.

[CindyLou 11]

Back in the 80s maybe. Now its only 34%.¹

Balloon guy just got hoisted by his own petard.

[CaneBrain 95]

What does an individuals eternal salvation have to do with global warming?

if we try to be more environmentally friendly and it turns out global warming was a myth then we lose nothing. if we dont change how we treat the planet, and it turns out Al Gore is right, then we lose everything (our planet).fits the metaphor to me.

[85suited 0]

That's fine. There is nothing wrong with disagreement. But the disagreement is a small minority of the scientific community, and is working against a rather large consensus. You had misrepresented that fact.

Fact...LOL... Please put the Kool aide down.... Do you think they many might "agree or Say Nothing Contrary" due to the money that is blowing into them now with the Global Warming Scare Tactics?? Billions and Billions ....of Dollars...“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.