Out and About on a Sunday

Because you knew they’d say it – Joaquin is caused by Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption:

…Hurricanes love warm water and the sea surface temperatures in Joaquin’s path are the warmest ever on record.

Thank humans for that…

This winter there will be a blizzard…or, there won’t. It doesn’t matter. It’ll be Global Warming…

So, a new national poll shows Carson leading Trump. I’ve wondered if Trump would flame out. Well, strictly speaking, I expected him to flame out, weeks ago. He didn’t – but that just advised me of the depth of anger at the Ruling Class. But, maybe he’s on the way down, now? Time will tell. I hope we keep getting these flavors of the month until people realize that Bobby Jindal is like 10,000% better than everyone else in the race.

But I doubt that’ll happen. As an aside, Obama’s approval rating in the aggregate at RCP is 45.5%. Generally, the President’s party scores right around the President’s approval rating on election day. There is nothing which will happen over the next 13 months which will improve Obama’s rating – and plenty of things can happen which will drag it down. Really, we can win this thing next year – imagine how hard it will be for Hillary to out-poll Obama…

Obama says that Syria is not some sort of super power chessboard. It is precisely that. Really, that is all we need to know about Obama – he hasn’t a clue.

Jake Tapper – who is a pretty smart guy – just doesn’t get it about Islam. In fact, of course, no one in the Ruling Class really does. The reason they don’t is because they, themselves, don’t really believe in anything in the sense of being willing to sacrifice life or, at least, comfort for it. Those who believe in something – even if you consider it a wrong thing – will always win out over those who don’t believe in anything. We can be friends with the Muslim world – but only if we are very firm in our own beliefs and show ourselves full willing to sacrifice in their defense.

The thing about immigration in Europe is that the Europeans have no real reason to keep them out – it is not like they are of a mind to defend a Christianity they don’t adhere to, or a liberty which is already vanishing anyways. Even if you want to think that they’d like to keep, say, Germany German for the sake of Germany’s children, you’re up against the fact that Germans have 1.4 children per woman – far below replacement level. There aren’t a lot of German children for Germans to be concerned about. Unless the people of Europe radically change their world view, they are doomed.

“Christianity is always out of fashion because it is always sane; and all fashions are mild insanities…” The Ball and the Cross, chapter 7


95 thoughts on “Out and About on a Sunday

  1. Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 9:12 am

    …Hurricanes love warm water and the sea surface temperatures in Joaquin’s path are the warmest ever on record.

    Clearly the people who hold this view need to reevaluate their theory.

    Quiet Atlantic hurricane seasons such as this year may become more commonplace, a new study says.

    The study in the British journal Nature Geoscience said the Atlantic could be ending a 20-year stretch of unusually active hurricane seasons that began in 1995. This included 2004 and 2005, when Katrina battered the Gulf Coast.

    Klotzbach, lead author of the study that came out Monday, said a natural cycle may be responsible for patterns of active or quiet hurricane seasons, and the Atlantic is now entering an off cycle.

    The cycles often last 25-35 years, he said, and go back and forth between salty, warm ocean water and less salty, cooler ocean water.

    Warmer, saltier water helps spur hurricanes, while chillier, less salty water brings fewer and weaker storms, Klotzbach said.

    Weather scientists call it the thermohaline circulation (“thermo” means temperature and “haline” means salty).

    Klotzbach said the U.S. could be entering a new, quieter period, similar to the one that lasted from 1970 to 1994. But he said it is too soon to know for certain that one has begun.

    Other scientists aren’t sure about the study. “I think they’re pretty much wrong about this,” MIT meteorology professor Kerry Emanuel told the Associated Press. “That paper is not backed by a lot of evidence.”

    Emanuel, who also specializes in hurricane research, thinks the quiet period of hurricanes in the 1970s and ’80s is connected to sulfur pollution and the following busy period is a result of cleaner air, the AP reported.

    Is anyone surprised that there is actually disagreement among scientists. I always thought that was the way science was supposed to work, not based on “consensus”.

    • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 12:05 pm

      I always thought that was the way science was supposed to work, not based on “consensus”.

      Well, that’s just silly. Everybody knows that the way science works is that someone has an outcome that he wants—-abortion, more government intrusion into our lives, more opportunities for corruption and sanctioned theft—-and then comes up with a theory to make this palatable to the masses. Someone else reads the theory (which is, by the way, presented not as a theory but as a FACT) and says “That doesn’t make any sense at all…..” and presents an alternative point of view. with different data to back it up

      Then the masses vote on which one is really SCIENCE, and of course the next step is to prosecute and jail (or maybe just jail) the dissenters.

      You need to keep up. (//sarc off)

      • Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 12:18 pm

        and of course the next step is to prosecute and jail (or maybe just jail) the dissenters.

        So far it’s just been kook Leftists, largely in academia, who have called for such action. If the Left could figure out a way to disarm the American people, I think you’d actually see it become reality.

  2. Amazona October 4, 2015 / 12:15 pm

    Don’t remember anyone arguing against gravity, though I have posited the theory that if I, Amazona, were to support gravity the Lefty Loons would declare that the only reasonable way to live would be to float around like helium balloons.

    Gravity: Proved by reproduceable independent experiments and never disproved. Again, not sure if it was ever a “theory” as it was defined by people pretty firmly anchored to terra firma and just looking for an explanation for same.

    Germ Theory: Again, proved by reproduceable independent experiments.

    Evolution: Supported by fossil data, showing evolution of established species, but never “proved” regarding the theory that these species came about by some cosmic accident.

    Global warming: Proved not by reproduceable independent experiments but observed throughout the history of mankind, and acknowledged by all species affected by it—migration, hibernation, fossil records, written accounts, etc.

    There has been no independent reproduceable experimentation showing any causal effect of human activity on the climate as a whole.

    • Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 12:22 pm


    • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 12:31 pm

      Uumm, gravity, as defined by Newton as an attractive force between two bodies, was disproved/redefined by Einstein as a curvature of specetime brought by mass. And someday, Einstein’s theory will be disproven/redefined as something else we cannot fathom. That is why it is the “theory” of gravity and not simply “gravity.”

      Evolution has been reproduced many many times, in fast-reproducing species like flies and bacteria. It can be reproduced in humans if one were willing to capture humans in a seperate petri dishes for generations, but somehow they can’t get volunteers for that experiment.

      Germ theory was ridiculed for a long time until surgeons were finally convinced to wash hands and clean the operating rooms and there was a massive decrease of infections.

      As for AGW, it doesn’t sound right but I do respect when such an overwhelming majority of scientist claim it is so. I’m leery but I cannot simply write off such a vast opinion.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 1:19 pm

        Bob, I see a difference between observed and even reproduceable evolution within a species. We have seen this just in the brief span of human observation, as you say we have made it happen with lower life forms such as flies and bacteria, and I am sure we could reproduce some level and form of evolution in humans as well. I think as humans evolve, unless we just jump right over the way we are communicating now into thought transference, humans will evolve to have narrow, pointed thumbs.

        I was tongue in cheek in my comments on gravity, as this is reproducable by dropping a brick on your foot—it is the REASON for this happening that has prompted theories. I thought the comments about helium balloons and being planted on terra firma were adequate hints that I was not being completely serious. As you so kindly point out, the argument is not yet settled.

        Not even if we all vote on it.

        Back to AGW—if you can dig beneath the huge pile of claims and assertions, you will see that there is NOT an “overwhelming majority of scientist(s) claim(ing) it is so…” On the contrary, there is a group that claims it is so, a group which is not only very loud but supported and quoted so extensively by those seeking to advance their theory rather than accept something they might not like, the perception is that this represents “an overwhelming majority”. It does not. There is a huge body of scientific dissent, ranging from simple disagreement with the (proven) defects in the methods used to arrive at the conclusions quoted to opposing proofs that are at the very least as compelling as the claims of proofs of AGW.

        If you burrow down just a few more levels, to the reasons behind this insistence on accepting partially proven or thoroughly disproved theories, you will find some ugly truths. One is the one I referenced, the corruption and theft sanctioned by reference to these partial truths and/or disproved claims. A careful analysis of the proposed “solutions” to the threat of AGW will show the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of mankind, with the loudest defenders of the theory standing to gain the most. Take a look at how much Al Gore would make if carbon credits were established as a way to control global climate disruption, and then examine the impact of this policy on the poorest and most vulnerable.

        AGW, as it is presented, is the biggest attempted scam in history. I, and I am sure other skeptics of the current hysteria, am quite willing to accept any proof of human caused damage and seek solutions. I am appalled by the garbage island in the Pacific, and think this must be addressed. There are many examples of manmade harm to the planet that demand attention and remediation. It is a shame that these are being overlooked in the pursuit of politically advantageous actions that will, if implemented, result only in massive transfers of wealth, massive expansion of Central Authority in this country and in others, and harm to the poorest among us in every country.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 3:01 pm


        I’m going to answer with two posts because I just love my own words so.

        This one is on evolution in higher life forms. There was a long-term (40 years, I think) experiment in the USSR and a shorter, more recent one in Israel that got the same results.

        They started with foxes, wild animals, and let them breed. Of the pups, they kept the most docile, domesticated ones and they bred them. Within 10 or 15 generations the wild foxes – bushy tailed, tall eared, aggressive, and all white – were dogs – floppy eared, spotted, friendly, unable to breed with foxes.

        This duplicated the domestication of dogs in which people killed or kicked out aggressive foxes until the survivors of that new, human-populated environment became an entirely different species.

        One could say humans bred dogs, not evolution, but the same choosing-each-generation’s-survivor is no different than nature’s own choosing of survivors. Survival of the fittest clearly creates new species.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 3:08 pm


        Part two.

        As for AGW, I do not believe it is so but then again, I don’t know squat. I DO believe that a majority of scientists who do know squat (ok, that did not come out how I thought it would) believe in AGW.

        As such, while I don’t think AGW makes sense I am not going to argue against it. I do not have much ammo other than “Well, these (fewer) scientists say AGW ain’t so versus your (majority) of climate scientists saying it is so.”

        I also don’t buy the so-called profit motive in AGW. Sure there is a lot of money in solar and etc. but that is relatively recent. Until now there was a lot more R&D cost in that field than profit.

        Such a grand, long-range profit scheme would require tremendous intelligence, foresight and planning. None of those are adjectives I could apply to liberals without a snicker. Such a scheme simply could not exist.

      • Cluster October 4, 2015 / 3:21 pm

        The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 4:14 pm


        Saying “the government” stands to gain power and therefore they are juicing along AGW presumes “the government” is a unified deciding body. As we well know, “the government” consists of thousands of people with thousands of their own priorities fighting with the other thousands of people in government.

        I discard the idea of a government power grab via AGW in the same way I discard the notion the government brought down the WTC. Such a thing would require coordination, intelligence and secrecy far, far, far beyond the capacity of this government.

        As for the scientists colluding for their own profit, such global secrecy is beyond the possible.

      • Cluster October 4, 2015 / 5:03 pm

        Bob, did you gloss over the $32 billion government money spent exclusively on scientists who support the AGW claim? $32 billion will buy a lot of consensus.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 4:52 pm

        Bob, if you want a short answer from me, it will happen during a Bronco game.

        Regarding profits to be made by a ginned-up AGW scam—forget about the small stuff. The money to be made in brokering carbon credits is astronomical. Down the food chain a little, ever hear of Solyndra? There are other government handouts in the multi-million dollar range, and Cluster knows more about those details than I do. You can’t just look at one single area.

        Comparing massive government expansion and its associated value to various factions to blaming the government for the WTC thing is just not a good comparison. For example, expanding federal power and authority in, say, entitlements, might not look—on the surface—to be related to AGW programs. Yet they all expand the scope, size and power of the federal government. Just look at the EPA—an AGENCY now so vastly powerful it can and does make its own laws. It can, and does, now simply declare what is or is not a “pollutant” and then has the power and authority to make any laws it wants to address the problem it has just identified. No checks, no balances, no Congressional legislation, just a massive bureaucracy run by Civil-Service-protected government hirees who did not have to be vetted by anyone other than those who hired them.

        Yes, we can artificially control characteristics of various breeds and species. Check out the history of the Black Russian Terrier for a great example. But I acknowledge the evolution within a species. I question the origin of a species. No one I know challenges the concept that species change over time as the result of various influences. I am talking about the hard-line “evolutionists” who claim that all life came about from some cosmic accident that converted inorganic matter into complex life forms ranging from moss to Kate Moss.

        You say “Such a grand, long-range profit scheme would require tremendous intelligence, foresight and planning.” I do not agree. I think it depends on an uneducated populace schooled by a Complicit Agenda Media.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 4:54 pm

        “As for the scientists colluding for their own profit, such global secrecy is beyond the possible.”

        I did not say the scientists have colluded for profit. There is ego and there is political ideology. We have proof of faked “scientific” reports and collusion to either hide results they don’t like or make claims that are bogus. Again, Cluster had posted a lot more on this than I can remember, and Spook is a gold mine of information and links. There is no “secrecy”, just information not the focus of the Complicit Agenda Media.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 5:31 pm

        Bob, ever hear of GIGO? That is, Garbage In Garbage Out. How many of this “vast opinion” of this huge number of scientists that has such an influence on you actually do their own research and support AGW with their own independent findings?

        Because when the studies are published, it turns out there are just a few, and the other “scientists” rely on them and refer to them. Therefore, if the foundational research is flawed, all the opinions based on it are meaningless. The infamous “hockey stick” chart that was supposed to be so conclusive has been proved to be a hoax. Proved, by the way, by the emails of those who concocted the thing in the first place. But it’s the basis of a lot of the opinions voiced by this huge number of “scientists” who supposedly support the “science” behind the concept.

        We are told that the polar ice is melting at an alarming rate, yet the antarctic ice pack is growing. Remember the photo of the mother polar bear and her cub on the tiny ice floe? It was photoshopped so we could not see that it was floating just a couple of hundred feet from a huge ice shelf. And ya know what? Polar bears swim. Melting of arctic ice is a disaster of epic proportions, yet it happens all the time—ever hear of the Northwest Passage?

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2015 / 6:23 pm

        We still haven’t reached the level of warmth we had in the Middle Ages…when you could grow wheat in Greenland. I don’t see what the disaster actually is. If we lose a bit of land along the coasts, I suspect it’ll more than be made up by land we can use in the far north. Even the claims that we’ll have different patterns of rainfall doesn’t alarm me…it just means different areas will be better for farming.

      • Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 5:46 pm


        You sound like someone who subscribes to the better-safe-than-sorry school of thought. Nothing wrong with that, but I’m curious what changes you’ve made in your lifestyle “just in case” there happens to be something to AGW.

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2015 / 6:20 pm

        The proof that AGW is a scam stems from this: none of the actions demanded of us would actually halt, let alone reverse, AGW. Remember what it claims: human-produced CO2 is the primary culprit in a rise of global temperatures. Got to remember that a very large amount of the increase in human-produced CO2 is simply because there are so many more of us than there were – 1.6 billion 100 years ago, 7.3 billion today. Just in the amount of CO2 we exhale, we’re putting vastly greater amounts into the atmosphere…and I have yet to see Al Gore call for eliminating 5.7 billion humans.

        As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) puts it, I’ll start believing in AGW when those who advocate for it start acting like its real…no more private jets flying them to swank conferences where they discuss how some poor subsistence farmer in central Africa can reduce his carbon foot print. When I start to see plans to move the populations of New Orleans inland. When I see rich people selling their beachfront property for a song. Then I’ll start believing it.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 6:24 pm


        I’m not sure how this turned into an evolution discussion but I feel compelled to continue by your statement.

        The experiments with domesticating foxes created (or more accurately, re-created) a new species – dogs – from another species – foxes. The newly-minted dogs could breed fertile young with all other breeds of dog but could not produce fertile young with foxes.

        While there are several pieces to the definition of “species,” its most basic is that it can breed with its own with fertile young and cannot breed with others so.

        Indeed, foxes evolved into dogs in this experiment.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 6:33 pm

        As regards whether AGW is real or not, I am not making that argument. I am not qualified.

        As I’ve said earlier, I do not believe it, but I cannot simply write off the opinion of the larger scientific community.

        As for it being a hoax, for profit or power or whatever, I don’t believe the supposedly-conspiring parties have the organizational ability to execute such a hoax.

        As for (I like the phrase “as for,” apparently) regulation of the environment, I appreciate lead being regulated out of gasoline, which was a controversial decision with unclear science. Taking lead out made engines less efficient and certainly cost Industries (especially transportation) billions. But the results of that regulation were clear. As countries regulated lead, their average IQs raised and their lead-related birth defects dropped.

        I don’t think human exhalation is our most significant producer of CO2, it is our industry. I do not know if that industrial CO2 is responsible for GW or even if GW is happening, but if AGW is real it is due to our industry, not more humans on Earth breathing.

      • Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 6:53 pm

        Indeed, foxes evolved into dogs in this experiment.

        The immediate question that comes to mine is, would foxes EVER have evolved into dogs on their own? The evolution of a vicious carnivore into a docile house pet seems to me to be counter to the “survival of the fittest” theory.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 7:04 pm

        One more time, Bob—I question your acceptance of this imagined “larger scientific community” because AGW is NOT accepted by a “largER scientific community”. It is accepted by a significant number of people who identify themselves as scientists, who—if you look at why they accept it—is because they accept what they have been told by a very small number of other people who identify themselves as scientists. (Note to Bill Nye—calling yourself the “science guy” does not really make you a scientist.) So, if the “science” is represented by the “hockey stick” graph, and this is quoted by so many in this alleged “larger scientific community” as the basis for their acceptance of the overall theory, and the graph is proved to be bogus, then the opinions of this “larger scientific community” aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

        There is absolutely NO reproduceable scientific proof of AGW. There is not even any proof that CO2 is dangerous to the climate. As has been repeated, over and over, the periods of high CO2 were in times there was no industrial activity at all, and furthermore there is very credible evidence that rising CO2 levels follow—that is, are caused by—higher temperatures, not the other way around. Someone theorized that CO2 might be a “greenhouse gas” and this “data” was plugged into some computer programs to project what MIGHT happen IF CO2 IS a “greenhouse gas” and then the highly speculative results of this what-if have been produced as proof. But the “science” is backward. You can do this with anything. You can posit that cars run better on root beer, and once this is plugged into your computer projection you can come up with all sorts of “data”—-the effect on the economy of making megagallons of root beer, the cost of revising exhaust systems of vehicles, etc. But someone has to go back to the beginning, and ask just who discovered this amazing root-beer-as-fuel theory and PROOF that it is true.

        As far as I have seen, a lot of the “science” of AGW is similar to proving that it is tree branches waving around that make the wind blow. I just don’t understand how anyone can still have faith in the concept that we are the reasons the climate is doing what it has always done, when the “science” behind the claim has either been disproved or can’t be reproduced to get the same result, and when there is SO MUCH evidence of shenanigans on the part of those promoting this whole AGW thing. Shenanigans as in lying, fudging reports, filing false reports, and conspiring to hide contrary proofs and evidence.

        You keep talking about how big a global scam this has be, with global coordination of deception, but that is simply not necessary. All you need is a means of providing information to the masses that is on board with repeating what is compatible with political beliefs, and a few “experts” to quote, and the whole thing takes on a life of its own. It is “fake but accurate” writ large, because it advances so many agendas—anti-conservative in this country, anti-capitalist, anti-American, just to name a few.

      • Cluster October 4, 2015 / 7:37 pm

        That is really good analysis of what is going on. Fake but accurate indeed. AGW is built on lies. Obamacare was built on lies. Immigration is built on lies. Abortion is built on lies. And recently we learned that our foreign policy is built on lies.

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2015 / 7:53 pm

        A commenter over at Ace put it best a couple years back – “if only there was something besides human CO2 to explain global warming. Of course, it would have to be huge – something on the order of magnitude of the sun”.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 7:43 pm


        I haven’t cracked a book, and I likely could not understand the science in that allegorical book. My point is that I do not think AGW is real but I recognize the community that DOES believe it CAN read that book.

        Amazona makes some very good points. I cannot counter them cause, as I said, I’m not that smart. Do you have anything to counter her specific point?

        BTW, I liked this last post. With the exception of some minor snark in the last paragraph, it was very to-the-point and non-antagonistic (which I guess means “agonistic?”).

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 7:47 pm


        “AGW is built on lies. Obamacare was built on lies. Immigration is built on lies. Abortion is built on lies. And recently we learned that our foreign policy is built on lies.”

        Ummm…I think that kinda sprawls your answer all over the place in a way that negates its entirety.

        I think you know I am no fan of Obama and I’m not even supporting AGW, just saying those that know seem to agree (which Amazona disputes in a thought-provoking way). Your answer seems to say, “Hey, if you aren’t 100% behind AGW being a hoax, you probably believe everything the left posits.”

        That makes 0% sense to me.

      • Cluster October 4, 2015 / 9:00 pm

        AGW – manipulating data, collusion, many false alarms, no data to back up CO2 assertions – aka lies
        Obamacare – $2,500 annual savings, keep your doctor, keep your plan, etc. – aka lies
        Immigration – they just want to come here to work, the border is secure, etc., – aka lies
        Abortion – federal funding is not used, denying women access to healthcare, health of the mother, etc., – aka lies
        Foreign Policy – ISIS the JV team, our mission is to degrade and destroy – aka lies

        Any questions?

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2015 / 7:50 pm

        Even if we grant that, Rusty, you’re still on the short end of the stick…7.3 billion people will never release as little CO2 into the atmosphere than 1.6 billion people did. Ever. There is simply no way that we’re going to get CO2 emissions down to a point were AGW is so much as halted, let alone reversed (and if you can tell me just exactly how much CO2 emissions from humans will cause temperature stasis, I’d be interested to hear it…).

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 8:42 pm

        That’s a good point. I gotta think about that one.

      • Retired Spook October 4, 2015 / 10:58 pm

        (and if you can tell me just exactly how much CO2 emissions from humans will cause temperature stasis, I’d be interested to hear it…).

        What an excellent question!

      • M. Noonan October 5, 2015 / 1:07 am

        Took it from you – as you asked what is the “correct” temperature for the Earth? After all, if AGW is correct, then there has to be some amount of CO2 which is “just right”, as it were. Too much higher than that amount, we get too hot – but too much lower than that amount and we’d get too cold, right? I’d just like to know what that amount is. And then ask how large a reduction of CO2 we’d have to have to obtain it. Also, be nice to know just how long it would take us to get there…because if the damage, as it were, will happen by 2150 and we can’t get down to our happy medium until, say, 2200, then it is a bit pointless, isn’t it?

        I’d also like to have it explained to me just what, precisely, is bad about global temps rising. I’m aware that it will cause various stresses in the current ecology…but our liberals say that changing conditions lead to all sorts of wonderful, new life as the fittest survive. Won’t that happen if things are hotter?

      • Retired Spook October 5, 2015 / 9:02 am

        That does seem to be a question that the warmists are reluctant (or unable) to answer. One of the reasons is that they really have no idea what the relationship between CO2 and temperature is. As long as they could show a chart that showed both going up at the same time, they were fine, but when the two diverged back in the late 90’s the only way they could counter that was to start cooking (pun intended) the numbers. Much of what was discovered in the emails that were hacked in what has become known as Climategate and Climategate II was the manipulation of data and the subversion of the peer review process. Pretty easy to claim that the debate is settled when you don’t allow anyone to challenge your “facts”.

      • M. Noonan October 5, 2015 / 10:42 am

        My attitude pretty much from the start has been that if its happening, there’s not much that can be done about it – after all, we here in the United States have been getting steadily cleaner in the CO2 production area, anyway. We could, at great cost, do a bit more, but it wouldn’t be enough to halt or reverse the trend. Even supposing AGW is entirely correct, no one is going to get China, India and Africa to really do what would be necessary to massively reduce their carbon emissions…in fact, for all three of those places, we’re going to see the emissions rise over the next century; they will refuse to remain in poverty in order to make white liberals in Europe and the United States feel better. And I don’t blame them in the least.

      • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 12:11 pm

        Yet even you, Mark, are assuming that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” that affects temperature. What about the example I gave, above, referring to the massive amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by the foliage of the time and the, to put it rather coarsely, dinosaur farts? It’s hard to imagine any better machinery for creating CO2 than a wet planet covered for the most part by water and trees and grasses and huge animals respirating to beat the band and emitting all the gases associated with digesting organic matter. Computer models at the time would have predicted that the planet would soon be a desert with all life cooked out of it. Yet the planet still plunged into an Ice Age.

        What about the evidence that it is warmer weather that generates rising CO2, and not the other way around?

        Where is there any proof that CO2 increases the temperature of the planet? This is just one of those things that has been said so often it becomes an accepted part of “common knowledge” and then every repetition strengthens its hold on the consciousness. Denver radio host Mike Rosen calls this “semantic infiltration”.

      • M. Noonan October 6, 2015 / 12:24 am

        Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas – that is known. But you’re right in that we don’t know the entire mechanics of how it works. We know that plants, of course, need lots of carbon…and as more carbon gets into the atmosphere, maybe we just get more and larger plants, fixing ever more carbon out of the atmosphere? It is also true that, clearly, human beings are putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than we did in the past – but is this a net benefit or a net degradation? No one really knows – and given the politics of it all, know one is really asking.

        It was brought up earlier that it seems a bit of a stretch to think that there could be some way for politics and money to shove scientific consensus one way or another – and I pointed out some time ago that the example of Lysenko shows precisely how easy it is to do such a thing. Just because someone has a degree in science doesn’t mean they aren’t prey to the same failings as the rest of us mortals. After all, which is more likely to get a government research grant in 2015: a study to determine whether or not human CO2 emissions are good, or a study to show just how badly we’re all gonna die if we don’t cut CO2 emissions? You know the answer to that – and no one can possibly tell us that a scientist won’t bend his line of inquiry in service of grant-mongering. A really good scientist won’t – but where we get into the really insidious nature of this is that a good scientist who won’t sell himself for a grant will still be wary of bucking the trend because it puts his whole career at risk. Suppose you’re a climatologist and your particular interest is, say, wind patterns in the equatorial regions. You want to research this – but if you come out and say that AGW is wrong – or even doubtful – you’re not a “climate change denier” and when you go before the dispensers of grants, you’ll find closed ears. So, AGW is at least a plausible theory and you give it a bit of lip service (and thus help people with their “scientific consensus” malarky) for the sake of peace, and your ability to go forward with genuine scientific inquiry.

      • Retired Spook October 6, 2015 / 8:09 am

        It is also true that, clearly, human beings are putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than we did in the past – but is this a net benefit or a net degradation? No one really knows – and given the politics of it all, know one is really asking.

        Actually, we do know the answer, but I doubt you’ve ever heard it on the news.

        For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

        Along with better farming practices and improvements in herbicides and fertilizers, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a factor in the tremendous increase in crop yields seen in recent years. And remember, we’re talking about a trace gas that represents only .04% of the earth’s atmosphere.

      • M. Noonan October 6, 2015 / 12:30 pm

        That makes sense – and now that I think about it, all of the carbon in coal and oil we are taking out of the ground must, at some point, have been in the atmosphere…and an atmosphere quite vibrant with life. Some times it appears that the AGW argument boils down to “sky god grow angry if we dig up underworld god”.

      • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 12:21 pm

        The history of the Earth is one of “various stresses on the current ecology”. I am sure the “current ecology” of Greenland was pretty stressed when the temperatures plummeted and all that greenery was covered by ice and snow—yet the planet survived, animals survived, mankind not only survived but flourished.

        I live on the flanks of the Rocky Mountains, in an area that was once a great sea before its “current ecology” was “stressed” by the upheaval of the Earth’s crust, resulting in huge jagged ridgelines and mountain peaks towering thousands of feet above the old bed of that sea. The area went from warm and wet to dry and very very cold, from dense air to a region where some find it hard to breathe due to lack of adequate oxygen. To quote Jeremy of “Top Gear”, that would have been pretty “stressy”.

        We do not control the Earth. We are along for the ride. We can still build coastline cities below sea level and fret when our feeble manmade efforts to hold back the seas don’t work very well, but man has always survived by adapting to current conditions, and if that means not having major population areas in low-lying waterfront locations, well, we’ll just have to get used to it.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 8:25 pm


        Contrary to your request, I am not going to counter Amazona’s claims because I do not have the knowledge to. You claim her points are outlandish, so I presume you have knowledge to counter it.

        Her point seems to be that scientific groupthink is combining with liberal agenda/power seeking to make the consensus on AGW. Please counter it for me, I am incapable.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 8:35 pm


        Rusty beat me to the answer. Being accepted by humans WAS the survival mechanism that created dogs from vicious beasts.

        Indeed, the animals that were hitched to humans – dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc. – are the most successful lifeforms on Earth. True, individual cows get eaten, but cows as a species are abundant.

        Consider this. The human genome shares about 40% of its DNA with a banana. In fact, all animal life forms share a ton of DNA with that banana. The only reasonable explanation is that once upon a time there was a life form – maybe a bacteria – and that life form gave birth to other life forms (probably other bacteria). Those new bacteria made more types of bacteria, some of which became plants like the banana. Other bacteria eventually evolved into animals. Both the banana and all the animals hold the genome of that original bacteria, which accounts for 40% of our genome.

        God created the most intelligent means of creating biology possible, greater than any human could derive. Darwin figured out God’s mechanism a century and a half ago. God is amazing and Darwin was a pretty smart fella.

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 11:54 pm

        Bob, I can imagine sharing human DNA with any life form, but not with a rock. While your fox experiment may have led to foxes that are not fertile, they are still foxes, not bats or bears.

        I understand the question about whether or not human activity has an effect on weather/climate. After all, if we see a huge cloud of ash from a volcano rising into the air, it makes sense to wonder if its effect is going to be temporary or if it is going to significantly alter some major climatic mechanism.

        The thing is, there is so much to look at, far beyond the simple question of how much crap can we put into the air without it making a difference. We have learned, for example, that the oceans have a self-healing ability we never knew about, seen when huge oil slicks are absorbed and then seem to disappear. We have no idea of what nature is capable of doing. We do know that natural events such as volcanoes and forest fires dump more pollutants into the atmosphere at one time than modern industry or activity, and have done so since the beginning of time on Earth, and there appears to be a coping mechanism in nature.

        What I object to is the huge leap from the original question to a claimed answer, without the in-depth and complicated research, open-minded study, necessary to tell us just what effect our activities DO have.

        CO2, for example. In eras where the Earth was nearly covered with dense vegetation, and huge animals were expelling all sorts of gases including CO2, the very warm temperature (evidently a lot warmer than what we are hyperventilating about today) still plummeted so dramatically that the planet experienced an Ice Age. More than one, by the way. That seems to indicate that high levels of CO2 do not cause planetary warming. A few years ago there were dire warnings about an impending new ice age, as the Earth moves away from the Sun.

        Uh-Oh—-looks like there might be something else at work here, affecting planet temperatures. Like a giant blast furnace, for example. And it seems that when it is closer to us we get hotter, and when it is farther away we get cooler. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

        There are just too many hinky things about this so-called AGW that bother me, and make me suspicious.

        One is the giant leap I mentioned above, skipping over any possibility that any planetary mechanism can deal with materials in the air and sea.

        One is the determined evasion of any fact that might challenge the predetermined results of alleged research, so major contributors to CO2 emissions such as oceans and South American termites are simply ignored. “Inconvenient facts, don’t like ’em, won’t acknowledge them.”

        One is the refusal to consider the many BENEFITS of a slight warming of the temperature of the Earth. For example, warmer temperatures lead to more food production, less energy required for survival, and less use of fossil fuels for heating, snow removal, etc. It’s as if half a degree of temperature rise over several decades represents the most horrible catastrophe known to man, disaster and horror and despair. It seems to me that real science would weigh the advantages against the disadvantages.

        One is the lying. Temperatures have NOT continued to rise, polar ice is NOT melting at terrifying rates, but to hear these breathless stories of disaster you would think the real facts are just not available. But they are, and are just ignored in favor of lies.

        One is the Chicken Little approach, mentioned above. Come ON, folks! If this is a real problem, why does it have to be addressed in such shrill, hysterical, panicky terms? I got a letter allegedly sent out by Robert Kennedy Jr. begging me, in the most pathetic and sobbing and despairing tone, to THINK OF THE BABY POLAR BEARS SUFFOCATING IN THEIR DENS AS THE SNOW, SOFTENED BY GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COLLAPSES ON THEIR TEENY TINY CUDDLY LITTLE BEAR HEADS !!!!!!!!!!!!! Serious people address serious problems in serious terms. Demagogues, on the other hand, appeal to emotions and count on emotional manipulation to achieve their ends. True, it is theoretically possible for serious people to use demagoguery to achieve serious ends, but the whole breast-beating, sky-is-falling, baby-bears-can’t-breathe circus makes me wonder why simple facts are not enough. Maybe because what they call facts are NOT enough? Jes’ sayin’…….

      • Amazona October 4, 2015 / 11:56 pm

        BTW, Darwin made some interesting observations and also some colossal mistakes. He was pretty smart but his conclusions are not really science, just a hint at what we can learn from science.

        And only God can create biology. He made us smart enough to tinker with it, and sadly not quite smart enough to realize that might not be a good idea.

      • M. Noonan October 5, 2015 / 1:19 am

        I can entirely see a positive thing called an ape slowly turning over time into a positive thing called a man. It makes sense and it fits – and it is just as good as any other method we can think of for the development of life. What I can’t see is chemical-rich goop turning into anything no matter how long we wait. And that leaves aside the fact that we’d wait a very long time before we’d see nothing turning into something.

        I can never really understand the people who say there is no God – logic dictates that for there to be any facts, there must be a self-existent Fact for the facts to be based upon. For there to be an effect, there must be a Cause. Part of the problem is, of course, that such people can’t expand their minds enough to understand that God is outside the universe. Yes, present in a sense in every place of the universe, but not locally present in any part of it (except for a certain, 30-odd year period about 2,000 years ago, of course). I think Lewis said it best when he used the Author and the Book example – the Author is entirely outside the book, but the existence of the book is entirely dependent upon the Author…you can search endlessly into, say, The Taming of the Shrew and find not the least bit of evidence for the existence of Shakespeare – but without him, there is no Taming of the Shrew. Of course, it is still a weak example – as all human attempts to describe God must be weak. We lack the knowledge to really describe God.

      • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 12:00 am

        Bob, you say ” Survival of the fittest clearly creates new species.” Can you name one? Not arguing with you here, just curious about which “new species” have evolved due to survival of the fittest.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 5, 2015 / 1:04 am


        In regards to your request I name a species created through natural selection and there can only be a single answer: all of them.

        That is the very point. God created evolution, as He created all the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Science seeks to explain God’s laws, to understand them. We understand, to what degree will only be known far in the future, how God’s Gravity works. We understand some, but not enough, of how God’s Biology works. And we’ve worked out the basics of how God made the simplest of life forms blossom into all we see before us…including us.

        Last thing, just cause I think you were joking but one never knows do one…rocks contain no DNA. Only living things do, and there are certain blocks of DNA shared by every living thing, so much so that our DNA isn’t that far removed from a banana.

        I know. All that “we’re part banana” sounds crazy. But then again, Pasteur was considered crazy for thinking invisible critters made you sick. But crazy as it sounds, invisible critter DO make people sick. And we are 40% banana.

      • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 12:45 pm

        Bob, you have just stepped into the area of evolution accepted by those the Left sneers at as anti-science deniers—that is, evolution from intelligent design at its inception. You say that once God has set everything into motion, anything is possible. A very general paraphrase, true, but that is what I got from “God created evolution, as He created all the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Science seeks to explain God’s laws, to understand them. We understand, to what degree will only be known far in the future, how God’s Gravity works. We understand some, but not enough, of how God’s Biology works. And we’ve worked out the basics of how God made the simplest of life forms blossom into all we see before us…including us.”

        I fully accept evolution within a species. I have fossils from prehistoric horses. As I keep saying, I differ from the hard-core (that is, atheistic) evolutionist in not accepting that those prehistoric horses started off as pebbles on a beach, or algae in a primordial swamp. Hence the comment about sharing DNA with organic matter but not with a rock. While I admit that an all-powerful God could, if He so desired, make it possible for algae to develop into mammals and then have that diverge into the many diverse species of mammals we see today, I cannot accept that this could happen by cosmic accident, and using Occam’s Razor (the most obvious answer is usually the right one) once I accept intelligent design at the beginning it makes more sense to believe that God set in motion different species and life forms.

        I have some questions about foxes turning into dogs, as foxes are from a different species (canis vulpese) and dogs (including wolves and coyotes) are canis lupus. The difference between a poodle and a wolf is pretty much whether it likes people and can be trusted to not eat the baby, traits that can be bred into an animal by selective breeding over generations. But these are TRAITS. You can breed for these same traits in foxes, but you can’t change the foxes’ DNA by changing their behavior and conditioning. I am suspicious of the study you cited and would like to know more about it. From wikipedia: “The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, and golden jackal diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize freely (barring size or behavioral constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal both have 74 chromosomes. Other members of the Canidae family, which diverged seven to ten million years ago, are less closely related to and cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids; the red fox has 34 metacentric chromosomes and from 0 to 8 small B chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, the fennec fox has 64 chromosomes. The African wild dog, however, still has the same number, 78 chromosomes, as do the wolf-like canids but it has yet to hybridize with any of them.” I don’t know how changing the behavior of a fox can change its chromosomal signature.

        I recently retired after about three decades of breeding, training and showing horses, and I have had experience with many breeds and types of equines, including zebras, donkeys and mules. Most gaited horse breeds were created by selective breeding, breeding only animals with desired gait characteristics, and after many generations these characteristics became inbred, genetically predictable, so you had a pretty good chance of predicting that a horse would pace instead of trot, for example, because its lineage back for dozens of generations paced and did not trot. But no amount of selective breeding can turn a horse into a zebra, even though they are so close that they can interbreed. (Check it out: “Zorse”.) I don’t know if a zorse is fertile or not, but I do know that mules (crosses of horses and donkeys) are not.

      • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 1:15 pm

        Bob, I just did some reading on the fox breeding experiment. I found a lot about the morphological changes (broader heads, shorter snouts, changes in estrus) but nothing that said the resulting foxes could breed with dogs but not with other foxes. In fact, the whole program is about breeding foxes with other foxes, to develop certain traits.

        One thing that struck me was the change in some body characteristics. I remember a big story out of Colorado State University, where an equine embryo was cut into thirds and each third was implanted in a different mare for development. Naturally, one would expect each foal to be identical to the others, as they were from the same embryo, had the same DNA, etc. But the markings on their faces were not identical. This led to speculation that uterine environment had something to do with the way the color genes developed. I have to wonder if the same kinds of things influenced fox fetal development—less stress (the study referenced less adrenaline production due to less stress) and different nutrition, possibly consistent nutrition instead of the sporadic feeding of predators in the wild, controlled environment allowing different uses of body chemistry (not having to stay warm enough to survive might mean body chemistry utilized in other ways) and so on.

        But, at the end of it all, they were still foxes.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 6, 2015 / 3:20 pm


        Well now this really sucks. OK, deep breath. You’re right and I am wrong (re: the fox experiment).

        I was sure my memory was correct because the interbreedability thing struck me profoundly, but either is misread it or mis-remembered it, cause I can’t find anything to back my claim. Hell, I couldn’t even find the Israeli experiment, which I’d really hoped would back me up.

        Ah, well. I guess foxes don’t become dogs in 40 years. Very depressed.

      • Amazona October 6, 2015 / 4:35 pm

        Bob, no need to be depressed–unless you promised your little girl a fox-dog for Christmas. I often get an impression from reading something that, upon closer examination, isn’t exactly what that “something” said. Kinda maybe, but not quite. And I stub my toe every now and then on my impressions.

        But we managed to disagree, argue our points, and get to here without either of us insulting the other or calling names. It can happen, but that is because we are discussing IDEAS, not personalities or identities which have been defined as Evil Others.

        The thing is, we are basically in agreement—-there is Intelligent Design at the very beginning of life, after which changes within species occur. We’ve got fossils, we’ve got foxes that like people, we’ve got a wide range of evidence and even proof that such changes can and do occur. What we don’t have is proof, or even evidence, that inert primordial muck became complex organisms and then even MORE complex organisms, We have an awe-inspiring complexity and diversity of complexity that fits into an Intelligent Design beginning and subsequent evolution within each species but not into a Big Bang cosmic accident that changes inert into organic into a vast array of species.

        And BTW the study I read about was Russian, and kind of fell apart when funding dropped off after the fall of the USSR. The Russians seem to like to tinker with things like this—–again, you might look at the Black Russian Terrier, custom-bred by the KGB to be the ultimate war dog. I saw a Russian training film in which the various other breeds pursued and took down “bad guys” in different scenarios, but when the Black Russian went after his guy he not only took him down but dragged him back to the handler. You could almost hear the Russian-accented dog talk saying “Don’t bother yourself, I’ve got it, be there in a minute.” They weigh about 140.

      • dbschmidt October 6, 2015 / 9:20 pm

        Follow the Money

      • Bob Eisenhower October 6, 2015 / 10:33 pm


        I am nursing the wounds of being incorrect with scotch and pie filling, right out of the can. Don’t judge me.

        I think it is a misstatement that I agree about Intelligent Design and intra-species differentiation. Notwithstanding the debunking of my understanding of the fox experiment, I wholeheartedly believe that Darwinian evolution (or something close to it) formed all the species we know from simpler life forms.

        I believe God created life in its most basic form. I believe God created laws that cannot be broken and Man has labeled those laws with names like physics, chemistry, math, etc. I believe the basic life God created then followed the genius of God’s laws, which has produced the extraordinary biodiversity found on Earth, and probably elsewhere in our Universe.

        I do not believe God is an Intelligent Designer, creating individual species. I believe God is a Genius Designer who built this engine we call existence and then let His genius run with the throttle open.

        Honestly, I do not know why devout people feel the need to defend religious ideas from the concept of Evolution. If one wants to see the image of God, look at the genius of his ways.

      • M. Noonan October 6, 2015 / 11:03 pm

        I highly recommend to you C.S. Lewis’ Miracles. Also, Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man.

      • M. Noonan October 6, 2015 / 11:04 pm

        Maybe no evidence – but ID makes a heck of a lot more sense than life rising from lifeless…or matter rising from nothing.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 12:08 am

        Yes, it does. In fact, it explains it in the only way possible.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 12:14 am


        I’ve read them both, and I have to say I disagree with them both.

        Lewis posits that supernatural miracles are immutable fact and I have yet to see any evidence any miracle has ever happened. There are things considered miraculous that are later understood as normal (solar eclipses, for example) but I’ve never heard of a true miracle. Perhaps if I were there for the parting of the Red Sea or the Loaves and Fishes I would feel differently, but unless there is evidence something supernatural happened, I’ll believe only natural things happen.

        With Chesterton, I learned he was disputing a specific book by H.G. Wells. I forgot the title but I went and read it and found Wells’ book made sense and Chesterton’s did not.

        I know you quote Chesterton a lot and therefore must have great admiration for his works but the few I read did not speak to my very much, I am sorry to say. But thank you for the recommendations.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 2:10 am

        Glad you’ve read at least some Chesterton – but his book disputing Wells wasn’t The Everlasting Man; different book. Wells and Chesterton went at it quite a bit – so did he and Shaw. I do quote Chesterton a lot these days – mostly because I find him the most sensible man of the last 150 years…though, of course, he is no infallible guide (as he would be first to admit). Wells, though, makes sense to the modern mind because he is entirely modern – that is, he’s entirely convinced of the materialist, determinist world view which most people, consciously or not, subscribe to.

        But I don’t subscribe to that – I can’t; as Lewis pointed out in Miracles, the mere fact that I can think demonstrates that there is something outside Nature. If there is something outside Nature, then it is the most astounding thing there can be…and from there it is no great leap for me to believe, for instance, in the Incarnation.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 12:17 am

        There does not have to be a first cause at all.

        How’s about if God had no beginning? God always was and always will be. The Universe always was and always will be. Somewhere along the line – maybe even in the beginning, if I may be so cheeky – God sparked life and let his laws do the rest.

        Is that a possibility?

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 2:19 am

        God, indeed, always has been – no beginning, no end. This is what some people find hard to grasp: that God is outside Time. It wasn’t like he was “poof” there one day and then waited 10,000 years to create the Universe. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for God. It is hard for the human mind to get outside that frame of reference because we’re so tightly bound by time…but once one gets away from that concept in discussing God, it becomes clear that the question “where did God come from?” is meaningless…he didn’t come from anywhere: he always exists: the universe started to exist, and thus has Time…but God is not bound by his creation.

        God willing you and I will one day be with God – but I don’t think it’ll be that you and I will be in a place where we’re saying, “you know, tomorrow I think we’ll do such and such”. We will do things, I believe (and Scripture does indicate that we will – indeed, that we will have some specific purpose set for us from before the foundation of the universe) but it’s not like we’ll ever be saying, “well, the first billion years in Heaven were pretty good, now let’s see how the second billion go”.

        God being everlasting, he has no cause – but that things exist demonstrates that God can cause things to happen. Creating them, as it is said, out of nothing. This is because God is so real that he can actually give reality away without losing the fullness of reality. Another thing from Lewis (different book) is that we here in our world and in our time are probably not more real than the souls in heaven, but less real – more insubstantial. A sort of shadow of what we promise to be in the fullness of time, if we just surrender ourselves to God and allow God to make us into what he desires us to be.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 3:24 pm

        Far more incredulous to think that nothing makes something – or that lifeless matter could randomly assemble itself into living organisms.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 3:58 pm

        Nope – I take the logical route. The universe is, indeed, here and thus must have come from something. As we can’t have an infinite regression of causes, there must be a First Cause. Keep in mind this doesn’t get us to the Incarnation – just to the acknowledgement that there is a Creator.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2015 / 6:03 pm

        As I said, First Cause doesn’t get you to much knowledge beyond the fact of a Creator. But because there are a plurality of theologies doesn’t mean there isn’t something to be theological about. I subscribe to the Catholic faith because it explains everything – not for nothing is the symbol a key; because it unlocks the door. But I can full grant that someone may think deeply on the subject and still stumble over things like the Incarnation – it is a difficult thing to believe; and it is the real bone of contention in the world…has been since it happened, will be until the End. If it happened, it is the most important thing which ever happened and all humanity should conform to it; those who reject it come to a vast number of different conclusions…those who accept it come to only one conclusion.

        But what is clearly absurd is to think that the universe came from nothing – all we know of how it works indicates that it started at one point; that it came into existence where there hadn’t been existence before. As it came into existence, it must have a source because only the self-existent needs no Creator.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 7:17 pm


        I am not saying I know how things are. In fact, I can guarantee neither I nor anyone else on Earth KNOWS how things are at the Universal scale.

        I do not believe the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Perhaps a Big Contraction of an earlier Universe preceded the Big Bang and existence is a neverending loop of Bangs and Contractions. in this case, the Universe always was and always will be.

        Or perhaps our Universe is one of an infinite number of Universes out there that may grow and die, like blood cells in a human body, but the greater existence that contains all the Universes has always been and always will be.

        Or perhaps there is an entity that I’ll call God that always was and always will be, who created the Universe or Multiverse or whatever it is that existence is.

        If you accept the idea of infinite time and infinite space why is it difficult to accept an infinite Creator?

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 7:19 pm


        So if that’s not the Chesterton book I read, what’s in the one you recommended as pertinent to this thread? Do his comments support or deny whatever it was I was jabbering on about?

      • M. Noonan October 8, 2015 / 12:08 am

        The Everlasting Man is about God.

        One of my first journalistic adventures, or misadventures, concerned a comment on Grant Allen, who had written a book about the Evolution of the Idea of God. I happened to remark that it would be much more interesting if God wrote a book about the evolution of the idea of Grant Allen. And I remember that the editor objected to my remark on the ground that it was blasphemous; which naturally amused me not a little. For the joke of it was, of course, that it never occurred to him to notice the title of the book itself, which really was blasphemous; for it was, when translated into English, ‘I will show you how this nonsensical notion that there is a God grew up among men.’ My remark was strictly pious and proper; confessing the divine purpose even in its most seemingly dark or meaningless manifestations. In that hour I learned many things, including the fact that there is something purely acoustic in much of that agnostic sort of reverence. The editor had not seen the point, because in the title of the book the long word came at the beginning and the short word at the end; whereas in my comment the short word came at the beginning and gave him a sort of shock. I have noticed that if you put a word like God into the same sentence with a word like dog, these abrupt and angular words affect people like pistol-shots. Whether you say that God made the dog or the dog made God does not seem to matter; that is only one of the sterile disputations of the too subtle theologians. But so long as you begin with a long word like evolution the rest will roll harmlessly past; very probably the editor had not read the whole of the title, for it is rather a long title and he was rather a busy man.

        But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.

        But this notion of something smooth and slow like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogically as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman traveling for the first time in a motor-car.

        Mr. H. G. Wells has confessed to being a prophet; and in this matter he was a prophet at his own expense. It is curious that his first fairy-tale was a complete answer to his last book of history. The Time Machine destroyed in advance all comfortable conclusions founded on the mere relativity of time. In that sublime nightmare the hero saw trees shoot up like green rockets, and vegetation spread visibly like a green conflagration, or the sun shoot across the sky from east to west with the swiftness of a meteor. Yet in his sense these things were quite as natural when they went swiftly; and in our sense they are quite as supernatural when they go slowly. The ultimate question is why they go at all; and anybody who really understands that question will know that it always has been and always will be a religious question; or at any rate a philosophical or metaphysical question. And most certainly he will not think the question answered by some substitution of gradual for abrupt change; or in other words by a merely relative question of the same story being spun out or rattled rapidly through, as can be done with any story at a cinema by turning a handle.

        It goes on like that for a good while – and a good read.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 7:22 pm

        Oh, and Moderator, may I please request keeping Rusty’s comments? He seems to be behaving and we’re all have a great discussion…

        He is not behaving very well and is already being insulting and trying to demean the ideas of others instead of discussing or debating them. We have been down this road before and there have been discussions among moderators about how to deal with people like this. On this particular blog we have experimented with leaving people like him on the blog until they get extremely offensive but after realizing that getting extremely offensive is always going to happen and there is a period of different degrees of offensive before we get there we decided it was not worth it to let him and people like him write on this blog. You commented on it yourself. There can be arguments against a religious origin of life without insulting those who believe in a religious origin of life but Rusty does not go there and instead ridicules faith and people of faith and uses the blog to expound on some very hateful ideas. There are several moderators and we never know who will be making what decision. Sometimes I see posts deleted that I might not have taken down. But our average is pretty consistent in not wanting to give a forum to haters even when they do put on a nice face for a while to suck in newcomers, like you. You also need to realize that he has fouled this nest so much so often that only a newcomer can stand to have him around. “I can’t think of a more tedious debate than debating why it is someone wants to debate, but whatever floats your boat, Bob. I believe you when you say you’re an experienced troller. Happy fishing.” is not exactly behaving well. //Moderator

      • Cluster October 7, 2015 / 8:56 pm

        And to assume that the first cause is random (i.e. atheism) is to weave out of whole cloth. Maybe you should ease up on those that simply have a different Faith than you do, because as Bob said, none of us really know.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 7, 2015 / 11:43 pm


        I cannot speak for Mark or Amazona but I have never claimed knowledge of an Ultimate Creator, I have said I believe it. I do not claim knowledge of neutrinos, but I believe in them.

        Now I know full well where this leads you. “You can prove neutrinos exist, you can’t prove God does.”

        Well, go prove neutrinos exist. Not only do you lack the extraordinary knowledge of math and physics required, but if you did I likely would not understand it in a truly meaningful way. But we both agree neutrinos exist.

        OK, so I can’t prove God exists. But it is something I believe in my gut, for whatever reason, and it does harm to no one that I believe it.

      • M. Noonan October 8, 2015 / 12:01 am

        The Big Bang has a cause – the material that went into making the Big Bang could not have come from nothing. There has to be a Creator – push it back as far as you want in the chain, but you can’t have an infinite regression of causes.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 8, 2015 / 2:26 am


        I’m sorry but I’m not very smart. Would you explain to me nutrinos, considering the vast evidence and science behind neutrinos. Please explain that proof of nutrinos, and please don’t simply link to some mathematical proof I couldn’t begin to understand.

        Prove to me the nutrino exists, as one would a five year old.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 8, 2015 / 2:49 am


        Oh, please. Your issue is I don’t start every sentence with “I believe that…?”

        It’s called having an opinion. Watch: nutrinos exist. See how I just stated an opinion as though I were capable of proving it.

        We all have opinions…er, I mean, I believe that we all have opinions.

      • Cluster October 8, 2015 / 8:07 am

        That’s why it’s called Faith Rusty, and considering man’s Faith in a Creator since the beginning of time, combined with the physical presence of Jesus the Nazarene, I would say a Religious Faith has a little more substance than the Faith of Atheism.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 8, 2015 / 3:10 pm


        Actually, no, the heart of this conversation was about evolution and my conviction that evolution and religion are not mortal enemies. I posited the evolution is the way God provided to created biodiversity from the simplest start.

        The thing is, the heart you are getting at is to convince me I am wrong. You are determined to get me to realize God does not exist, which makes me wonder why? Why do you care?

        Let’s say God doesn’t exist and any thoughts I have in that regard are delusional. Let’s say religion runs my whole life. And let’s say you did come up with the golden argument that convinces me I’m wrong. Great. Now you have shattered my life, and you and the world have benefitted…how?

        Why do you work so hard to convince people to give up whatever makes their lives happier? What do you get out of it? Money? Chicks? Chicks with money?

      • Bob Eisenhower October 8, 2015 / 7:56 pm


        I have never stated an agreement with Intelligent Design. In fact I refuted it, stating explicitly that God did not create each organism but that his laws – including survival of the fittest – evolved everything from simpler organisms. How on Earth are you and I in disagreement on this when I was so specific?

        I do not KNOW God exists and more than I KNOW He does not. I don’t know squat. I stated that in an earlier post, too. Again, I’m not sure how we differ on this point, but according to you, I am positively avowing these statements about God as well-document facts.

        Lastly, I wonder about your answer to my question. You say the reason it is important to you to debunk God to religious people is that you enjoy a good debate and you rational thinking is advantageous to all.

        That seems pretty petty to me. You will try your hardest to take away something precious from someone as sport.

        Let’s take Mark for example. Clearly, to him religion is way up there in his priority scale. If you were to have that magic argument, the thought some complex Mark were to pause and say, “What a fool I’ve been!” Don’t you think such a drastic shift in his worldview would be jarring, to him, to his family and friends?

        Poor Mark’s life would be disrupted, he’d no longer have the comfort of church and prayer, but hey, it was a fun debate and you spread rationality to the good peoples of Earth. Huzzah.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 8, 2015 / 10:37 pm


        If I were trying to stop the spread of religion, I’d probably talk to kids and teens rather than arguing with people fully entrenched in their religion.

        Look, you know there is absolutely no argument that would convince Mark there is no God. So back to my question, why do you do it?

        You said it was for good debate and to spread reason. Well, you’re never gonna convince Mark of “reason” so you must just be here for the sport.

        The weird thing is that you have fought to be heard here. The only reason your posts aren’t being deleted is because I’ve been petitioning for it. You’ve been commenting here and there for months. This clearly means something to you and I don’t think it is just good sport.

        Why do you come here, fight to come here, to argue with people on their deepest, most unchangeable issues? I mean, convincing a Catholic there is no God is not the same as disagreeing over exactly how crusty Hillary’s drawers must be.

        So, my original question stands. Why do you work so hard to convince someone their faith is pointless?

      • M. Noonan October 8, 2015 / 11:50 pm

        Ah, but there you’re incorrect – I do believe in Reason…in fact, as a Catholic, I’m devoted to it…unlike our more secular and/or atheist friends. Reason and Catholicism are tightly joined – in fact, it was the existence of the Catholic Church which set the stage for the glories of the so-called Age of Reason. These days, the only place you’ll find a forthright defense of reason is in the Church- because we believe that God created the world and made it a place where truth can be known by observation and experiment. The only requirement for this submission to reason is to concede a few mysteries – like the Incarnation and the Real Presence. Take that, and you’ll be able to go anywhere you want…refuse it, and you’ll lock yourself off from various lines of inquiry.

      • M. Noonan October 8, 2015 / 11:24 pm

        If you believe something as illogical as an infinite regression of causes, then we’re never going to get anywhere.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 9, 2015 / 3:08 pm


        See, this is exactlty what I talking about.

        Do you honestly believe there is anything – anything – you can say that would convince Mark God doesn’t exist? I’d have an easier time convincing you that nutrinos (sic) don’t exist.

        So, if Mark is simply never going to be convinced, if he is as obtuse as you say (and btw, nothing is gained using combative words like “obtuse”), why waste your time?

        My original question STILL stands. Why do you do this?

        It isn’t to spread reason, or you’d be talking to people who aren’t as devoted as Mark.

        It isn’t for good debate, as you know you’ll wind up running into faith vs. reason, which has not been resolved for a while. Good debate involves topics that can be resolved, for good debate is intended to educate its audience, even when the only audience is the debaters themselves.

        So, we’re left with sport. I understand the good fun of trolling people with whom you disagree, so trust me, I’m not knocking you for it. I have trolled before and it is, indeed, good fun.

        But that doesn’t explain why you worked so hard, so long, to get back on here? Are there no other troll-worthy conservative sites out there? i’m sure one or two must exist. Why did you stick around here?

        I’m thinking there is a reason beyond fun trolling or love of good debate or spreading reason and I am curious as Hell about what it is.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 9, 2015 / 5:19 pm


        So you don’t think it is a waste of time to convince Mark that God doesn’t exist? You believe that if you just get the right argument he’ll see the light?

        I guess that is the mystery left. I don’t see any argument doing it. I don’t think the Pope could convince Mark that God does not exist. I would bet that if Pope John Paul II rose from the dead and walked across the Atlantic to inform Mark God does not exist, Mark would politely disagree and send home the Sainted Zombie.

        But you think it can be done, huh? OK, I guess you gotta have dreams…

      • Bob Eisenhower October 9, 2015 / 6:43 pm


        Yes, yes, there is a great unwashed mass of people on the fence about contraception that seek answers at the former Blogs for Bush. That’s the blog I would habituate if I simply hadn’t gotten enough facts.

        You say you are here for reasons that are preposterous. At least give me the dignity of a believable answer.

        Say, “just to wind Amazona up.” That makes sense. But don’t tell me you are here to educate the non-posting population of this blog. Post back with something better/wittier/smarter.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 9, 2015 / 8:18 pm


        I’m sorry I bored you. I’m trying to decide whether to take you seriously in the future. I fought hard to get you here and I find myself questioning that choice.

        Everyone here warned me that you just like to stir the pot and not engage in serious conversation, and you pretty much admitted the same thing. You are here for fun, poking at anything to annoy them.

        To the others on this blog I formally apologize for not heeding your advice. Moderator, you shall never again hear me request that Rusty be heard. He is not a serious poster.


      • M. Noonan October 9, 2015 / 11:54 pm

        Theologically, no animal has a soul – though C.S. Lewis paints a pretty story, which I hope is true, that as we all rise in Christ, so will our beloved animals rise in us. As for when the human species became human – endowed with an immortal soul and thus capable of reason – who the heck knows? It happened. Art is the mark of this strange beast – when you start seeing signs painted on cave walls or scratched into rocks, you know you’ve come across a human with a soul.

      • M. Noonan October 9, 2015 / 11:55 pm

        To believe there is even the possibility of an infinite regression of causes is a pseudo intellectual dodge – it is something to get one off the hook; you don’t have to think…you can just go, “but if there is an infinite regression then there is no First Cause, and thus no God”. It is intellectual cobweb spinning. It not only doesn’t explain anything but it is a flat defiance of reason, experiment and observation.

      • M. Noonan October 11, 2015 / 12:47 am

        Our physical bodies are animal – what makes us human, isn’t.

      • M. Noonan October 11, 2015 / 1:43 am

        As I said, if you’re going to assert infinite regression, there’s really nothing for us to discuss. We have no common frame of reference. The Universe I live in – the cosmology I believe – excludes the possibility of infinite regression. You want to believe it – knock yourself out; I won’t follow down that rabbit hole because it leads nowhere.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 4, 2015 / 4:25 pm

      They have no understanding of how the gun is, historically and sociologically ingrained in America. America wasn’t just tamed by the gun, it was defined and defended by it.

      Lefties think you can just ignore history and the Constitution and turn us all British again. That genie left the bottle in 1776, if I recall correctly….

  3. Amazona October 4, 2015 / 7:16 pm

    You know what I have learned today? Teddy Bridgewater has “POISE”. I must have heard that word used about him two dozen times during the Broncos/Viking game. To the point where it is getting funny.

    All the announcers have used it, repeatedly. It is also a very tiny microcosm of groupthink. A word, or a phrase, or a concept, gets lodged into the consciousness of a group, or a nation, and it takes very little time for it to take over as accepted unquestioned knowledge of absolute fact.

    Look at how many people think Hillary is an effective leader who can “get things done”. There is not enough absolute proof in the world to change the minds of those who have, for whatever reason, accepted this meme about Hillary, in spite of the lack of proof it is true, despite the abundance of proof it is not.

    There are people who think the economy under Obama is better than it ever has been, that unemployment is down, that incomes are up. There are people who think the United States is in a much better and stronger position, internationally, than it was under Bush. These are unshakable beliefs, in spite of lack of proof any of it is true, despite abundant proof it is not.

    None of this has required more than uneducated people getting their “information” from biased, agenda-based, sources.

    I don’t know just how the meme of “poise” got attached to Bridgewater, but there seems to be a consensus that this is a very important word to define him. I’ll bet it clings to him throughout his career.

    • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 12:24 am

      Actually, after I wrote this, I heard the word “poise” mentioned about six times in one very short chat about Bridgewater, in one case twice in one sentence if you count both “poise” and “poised”.

      Do I think there was a big conspiracy to get this meme linked to this man? No, not really. I think it just kind of happened. He is the flavor of the month, and the talking sports heads need something to say about him. It’s like in the old University of Colorado days when announcers were still allowed to describe players, and Cliff Branch was always, without fail, referred to as “the fleet Cliff Branch”. Never speedy or fast or quick like a bunny, but “fleet”.

      And quite honestly, there isn’t much else to say about Bridgewater. He may have some basic talent, but after six sacks and one that would have been a sack if he hadn’t thrown a panic throw out of bounds, I wondered if “poise” meant looking calm while flat on his back, and not crying when he was getting up. So a word was needed, and someone came up with it, and it was just easier to go with it than admit the guy has a long way to go to earn any word more indicative of real football talent.

      Once one guy said he was “poised” the others fell in line.

      Same thing with scientists. These are not for the most part the boldest among us, not risk-takers, and not likely to want to insult the guys they are going to have to sit with at the next Scientist of the Year banquet. Some guy has a rep, he says something that sounds pretty plausible, he has GRAPHS for Pete’s sake and scientists do love them some graphs, and pretty soon a bunch of them are going along with the program. it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just herd dynamics.

      Then some left-wing university (sorry for the redundancy) sees that Scientist Joe came out supporting Scientist Bob’s paper on global warming and says “We’ll give you half a million dollars to do research on how global warming is upsetting pigeons in Manhattan.” He doesn’t want to insult Scientist Bob, and half a mil is a lot of money, and you can prove damned near anything if you know what it is you want to prove, and pretty soon there is another name on the AGW support list.

      Dems like this, for several reasons. One is that it provides a great mechanism for expanding the size, scope and power of the federal government, so they are all over it, handing out grant money and using AGW as a club to batter the Opposition in elections. It turns out to have a much better use—it’s a wonderful distraction. “Why did you vote for Obamacare? Who cares? Have you seen the latest figures on how long it will be before San Francisco is underwater?”

      Other nations love AGW because it lets them point accusing fingers at the U.S. as villains and rapers of the world. Lefties love it because it lets them attack capitalism. Politicians love it because it lets them funnel money to people they want to funnel money to—after all, not everyone needs a web site built for Obamacare, to feather the nest of some incompetent buddies of Michelle’s, but every state has a university or two looking for grants, and every state has a shot at some other kind of graft, like ethanol or Solyndra or electric cars.

      It’s not an organized global conspiracy, it’s just something that a lot of different factions find convenient and profitable and potentially even more profitable. Check out Al Gore’s brokering of carbon credits…………..

      • Retired Spook October 5, 2015 / 8:36 am

        Lest there be some doubt, here are some quotes from notable Lefties WRT global warming/climate change:

        “We need to get some broad based support,
        to capture the public’s imagination…
        So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
        make simplified, dramatic statements
        and make little mention of any doubts…
        Each of us has to decide what the right balance
        is between being effective and being honest.”
        – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
        Stanford Professor of Climatology,
        lead author of many IPCC reports


        “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
        Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
        we will be doing the right thing in terms of
        economic and environmental policy.”
        – Timothy Wirth,
        President of the UN Foundation


        “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
        climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
        bring about justice and equality in the world.”
        – Christine Stewart,
        former Canadian Minister of the Environment


        “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
        on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
        – Prof. Chris Folland,
        Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


        “The models are convenient fictions
        that provide something very useful.”
        – Dr David Frame,
        climate modeler, Oxford University


        “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
        on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
        – Al Gore,
        Climate Change activist

        Even the people who profess to believe it don’t.

  4. Lurker October 5, 2015 / 3:57 pm

    I am starting to understand why some people automatically have their posts deleted. I have been watching and it seems to me that Rusty just waits for a couple of people to post such as Amazona and then jumps in to say something mean or snotty. I don’t think it matters what they say. He just hates them.

    • Amazona October 5, 2015 / 9:38 pm

      Lurker, you are right. It is Identity Politics, blog-style. Rusty always tries to convince us that his posts are “reasoned opinion” and that he engages in “polite dialog” but they always quickly degenerate into personal attacks, and now he is trying to reframe his personal attacks as “quips”.

      The game is to go away for a few weeks or even months, then come back under the guise of “polite dialog” which lasts for a post or two before the knives come out and he goes on the attack. His “polite dialog” is always a rehash of tired old Lefty talking points, and any response to a contrary opinion is going to be snarky and snarly, quickly veering into vicious. And then get worse. I tried engaging in actual polite dialog with him but once a contrary opinion was presented and then defended it was game on, regarding personal attacks on me, and on Cluster. (He says he “hates” Cluster—that’s pretty strong language and feelings for a blog in which the rest of us manage to disagree with each other all the time, and defend our positions with vigor but not with vitriol.

  5. tiredoflibbs October 5, 2015 / 8:53 pm

    Only the left can gather cherry picked scientists and ignore all others, create faulty models, massage data and give away government cash to force it all to fit into a predetermined conclusion to push their limited growth (or no growth – because America has just too much) agenda. All this is now known as the “scientific method” as the mindless drones call it. It is amazing how many people fall for this BS.

  6. tiredoflibbs October 6, 2015 / 12:31 pm

    “And remember, we’re talking about a trace gas that represents only .04% of the earth’s atmosphere.”

    Awhile back a posted a paper presented by two physicists who showed that the CO2 molecule could not possibly store (retain, absorb, etc) the heat necessary to create the conditions the libs were stating that would result in catastrophic environmental impact. Facts on the physical behavior of CO2 molecules, how much energy they can store, the concentration in the atmosphere now, etc and what has been predicted did not come close to storing the heat necessary to make the libby’s wildest predictions come true. The math was not there.

    The best response the mindless drones could give to counter the facts and calculations presented in the scientific peer reviewed paper was “they are not climate scientists”.

    It is truly amazing what they will accept and reject on the most dubious circumstances. They reject any study done by scientists who come out against AGW, climate change or whatever they are calling it today by any excuse. But they whole-heartedly accept a study done by an ECONOMIST that made the claim, “97% of scientists agree…..”.

  7. Retired Spook October 8, 2015 / 8:47 am

    I would say a Religious Faith has a little more substance than the Faith of Atheism.

    I have never understood why non-believers get so worked up about people of faith. To me believing in nothing greater than oneself is a much harder task than believing in something greater than oneself. Anyway, I couldn’t care less what someone else believes as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me or interfere with me following the dictates of my conscience.

    • Cluster October 9, 2015 / 7:07 am


Comments are closed.