GeniusIsDisruptive

If you had any idea of the history of science and its countless failures, you would not have made such a statement. Science is the search for truth, and the truth is often elusive. Everyone forms his own opinion based on observations and inferences. It is absurd to pretend that humans can do so perfectly, always. "Heavier-than-air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895 "If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true really is true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright

July 10 - Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat. – Zapatos July 10 – Zapatos - Of course, that isn't what I said, is it? What is amusing is your inability to actually read what I write (you are now two for two). Did you come to this site because you ran out of local people to be rude to? Here is “RUDE”, Zapatos: __________________ July 10 – Manticore Your egotistical rant might make some kind of sense if you were right. July 11 – koti While at it, you could continue your progress by stoping projecting your insecurities on this forum to a point in which a group of 12 year olds could see them...not to mention a bunch of PHD's who you are trying to "disrupt" with your bulshit There are 14 year olds on this forum writing more coherent and valusble posts than you. July 11 – DrP No-one wants to hear your ignorant angry rants except your brainwashed mates. You come across really angry about stuff - probably because that is synonymous with the kind of fear and loathing bred by right wing propaganda in people that believe it. It's sad. July 11 – LordAntares - you're an average moron who read something on the New World Order or some other crackpot site and you think you're going to ''save christianity'' and ''disprove science''. I have not read a single intelligent thing by you. Perhaps you should learn some science. [GeniusIsDisruptive replies: Your hatefulness, condescension, and dishonesty are extremely reprehensible. Leftists such as you often are.] July 12 – koti - "What are you nine years old ?!" Moderator is right, I withdrew my comment. //////////////////////////// Rude comments directed at me are truncated. /////////

As YOU have been shown time and again, the "data" and the graphs and the arguments have been terribly skewed and biased and censored. No, they do NOT "look at the subject from different angles." Those "deniers" are ostracized, denied tenure, denied grants and promotions. That has been the case in "deniers" of Darwinian evolution, and it continues apace in this latest fraud. "Easily offended" is YOUR convenient rhetoric. I have been repeatedly misquoted, misconstrued, called ignorant, and lectured to interminably by such as you, always cock-sure of themselves and insistent on telling ME to tow the P.C. line. This isn't "debate." It is intolerance. It is rudeness. This group couldn't even solve a laughably simple riddle, and when I pointed out the lesson, the moral in that fact, the group went absolutely ballistic. NOBODY said, "Dang, that's a good one. You got us. We screwed up." Because in your world here, you groupies NEVER screw up. You're ALWAYS right, and you misquote and misconstrue to make it so. How many examples must I provide of your collective FAILURES to "bear witness to the truth"? How many!!! You misquote me. That's reprehensible. Collectively you are unkind, ungracious even when I show you your errors. You refute the truth again and again. Your friend "Manticore," ridiculed my forum name,"GeniusIsDisruptive," stating I am anything BUT a genius. For the record, I have not claimed to be, but that has also escaped Manticore." When I turned his pettiness on him, stating that according to HIS little game, this is NOT a "science" forum and he is NOT a "Man". Oh my, but Man(sic)ticore called THAT "childish." His attack was just clever. My identical turnabout on him, hoisting him with his own petard - "childish." Is this the "truth" all of you "bear witness to"? Tell me. Don't YOU lecture ME on skepticism or what is or is not "the scientific method." The subject of THIS THREAD is "When did you stop learning?" It's not any "obscure journal" and I have not cited one. I have not published in one and nowhere have I "claimed to be a scientist." But you enjoy making your inane pronouncements and attaching them to me, to make yourself look so very wise. And the crowd chose Barabbas the thief to be set free. A popularity contest, lost by the very One you cited so arrogantly, so injudiciously.

"So you're now assuming I am a Democrat" is what YOU said. THIS is what I said: He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. I say "Left." You say "Democrat." You understand how that makes you look, right? I didn't think so. It's always one way with you Leftists. YOU'RE smarter, more environmentally conscious, more genuinely moral and decent, more giving, ever so much more scientific, and smarter. Did I say smarter? Leftists from any country can be expected to pounce on Donald Trump, after he defeated Hillary Clinton in the election, despite all the best efforts of the Fake News Media. That's why your Leftist nature is abundantly clear. He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. I say "Leftist." Your Leftist friend says he's not a "Democrat." And that is supposed to make ME look..... You kind and gentle folks enjoy ganging up on one newcomer here who rejects your political correctness, and you attack relentlessly, giggling at your own cleverness at every step. How utterly "scientific" and "rational" of you. Really. The "extraordinary skills" are all yours. I'm just a simple nine year old. Ask your friend koti.

WAS it "acceptable behavior during Obama's presidency"? Acceptable to you? Please, stop the rhetorical nonsense. That's all it is and you know it. The CEO of a technology company in San Diego publicly threatened to assassinate President Trump. He was abruptly fired, and he apologized profusely. Too late. An art teacher at University of Alaska, Anchorage drew a painting of Trump decapitated, his head held by a nude homosexual, whose left leg was being hugged by Hillary. Lovely. Classy, much like, oh Piss Christ. A lecturer in Fresno State I believe hit a Trump supporter over the head with a heavy U-Bolt bike lock, which could have been fatal. A chubby girl lit the hair of a Trump supporter on fire. All in good fun, right? The infamous Democrat attempted to assassinate Republicans playing baseball. And when a New York congressman said "both sides need to reduce the rhetoric," Nancy Pelosi went crazy. She exclaimed, "How dare he say such a thing (as we should tone down our rhetoric). How dare he." So excuses are ALWAYS proffered for outrageous Democrat words and deeds. But Republicans, should they try anything hurtful or hateful, well that is a very different story. Shut them up, boycott the hell out of all of them. Snowflakes unite, gather your crayons and Play Doh. Let's go to a Safe Space.

LOOK, everyone! A civil response. God Bless you, DrP. It's so very rare around here for someone stepping a millimeter off the Politically Correct Path. Let me answer it and... have a conversation with DrP, my best friend around these parts. 1. NO, I am NOT "saying (I) just don't care if the rain forests totally go." YOU said that. You correctly followed up with the point that rain forests have "little to do with NASA." The bigger point is this: Leftists make these little jokes and cartoons and everybody on the Left nods their collective head, and snickers in perfect agreement. Yes, the "repugs" are SO STUPID and SO POLLUTING and SO UNCARING and SO GREEDY. But when one looks more carefully at the nonsense so eagerly and endlessly repeated, it falls apart like Hillary's and Obama's lies. 2. There were EIGHT POINTS! You addressed ONE of them, and even so, asked if I don't care if the rain forests totally go. Should Donald Trump suggest we do something toward their preservation, of course Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Haters would rise up in righteous indigation that we were "interfering" with a sovereign country. HOW DARE HE! they would scream. What about the other seven, which elicited so many knowing giggles from this gathering of scientists?

Why no, as a nine-year-old, according to koti, I have not the slightest idea of "without limit." So please, tell me, would you? "Science research" has included funding studies on why lesbians get drunk more often than normal women. "Science research" has included funding studies on how climate change is impacting malaria in South Africa. "Science research" has been lampooned for many years for squandering taxpayers' funds. Do you understand what "scarce resources" are? Or do you not consider them remotely scarce, but falling from government troughs like so much slop? A teaching moment, courtesy of Professor Walter Williams, of George Mason University: "Ninety percent of government spending is unconstitutional." A profound and enlightening commentary, for those who would learn. It is virtually impossible for a Democrat to comment on a conservative without making gratuitous references to our "ignorance" and "anti-science" mentality. So Arete makes a "left vs right" issue and says that doing so "displays considerable ignorance" without noting the irony of his smear. He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. Nor is there ever an apology made to me, even after I have been called a "nine year old."

Oh please. PLEASE! Challenge evolution, or "climate change (recently called global warming, but reformulated when warming paused for 17 years), and see how you are attacked by the Leftist elite. Challenge atheist pretensions and suffer their condescending wrath. There is no "constant retesting." Science has been deeply politicized, by the godless Left. When Darwinian evolution was on the wane, the Russian communists revived it as a great boon to their atheist state control. No less an authority than Stephen J. Gould said as much. "Atheism is an essential part of communism," said Lenin. (I won't bother to verify if this is his exact quote, but it is in perfect context.) Zounds! I have been outed by rangerx. He clearly knows that conservatives are ALL *anti-intellectual* ... and little else. Thank you, rangerx. I have learned SO MUCH from you in just your one sentence. Please join beecee on my Ignore List.

A cute drawing by iNow, with four thoroughly documented "scientific" steps. That does it. I'm convinced. Thanks for the "lesson." It was so factual and convincing that I will immediately add your name to my Ignore List. ~ciao swansont cannot be added to that list because he is so very privileged, as a *moderator,* shows an extreme bias in both his posts and his criticisms. But I will not reply again to any of his posts for the same reason I have beecee, and iNow and another one of you on Ignore.

YOU "think he meant." Why didn't he SAY what he meant? Is that too difficult? Again and again, YOUR FRIENDS put words in my mouth and then attack me for the words they put in my mouth. So I quote your friend, and you conveniently try to cover for him in ways nobody has begun to do for me. "Higher temperatures" are NOT brought on by "the increase of CO2." Higher temperatures are the result of seasonal changes, and winds. Whatever "new water levels" are you talking about! Ah, I see. Relative humidity is "constant." It doesn't fluctuate with seasonal temperatures, or wind currents. It's becoming clear to me now. Thank you for the science lesson. Every time I provide facts and statistics, I am misquoted, misinterpreted, browbeaten, castigated and told to "learn" from all those seasoned wits here. Even in such straightforward and incontestible matters as the Prisoner Riddle I posted, not one person in two hundred has had the decency, the courtesy of thanking me for an interesting puzzle that demonstrates how a large group of people, all viewing precisely the same information, can utterly fail to reach the correct conclusion. That was a valuable lesson which nobody on your side of the aisle would acknowledge, much less appreciate verbally. This is a function of your group's refusal to "change their minds" even when the lesson is obvious. They resent and therefore reject the source. Terribly unscientific, terribly political. And the pretense is that these two are mutually exclusive.

The Scary Graph (Keeling Curve) does not. And BTW, those "climate models" have been reliably worthless and inaccurate. Surely a few hundred billion dollars more in government grants will change everything.

"Science" is not advanced exclusively by government grants and largess. What do you think the $19.5 trillion debt bodes for the US, when the Left insists on increasing spending without limit, raising taxes "on the rich" without limit, and expanding the $200 TRILLION in unfunded mandates? Science demands more money. Welfare proponents demand more money. Educators demand more money. Artists, environmentalists, "activists" of all kinds, you name it, everyone pretends that the well will never run dry, just keep on sticking it to "the rich." And by the way, "the rich" never includes George Soros or John Kerry or Richard Branson or Al Gore or the Obamas, who by the way continue to suck HUNDREDS of millions of dollars as the flit from Washington, D.C. to Palm Springs to the Bahamas to Indonesia to Italy to Germany. And by the way, YOU cut back your carbon dioxide emissions 80%. The Obamas got places to go, people to see, beautiful, rich people. Important people.

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..." The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

Or have you not? Quite a few people in this forum have lectured me on "learning" here, ostensibly from them. Are they beyond learning? There is a widespread presumption on the Left that they are smarter than the "other" side, and the clear inference is always because they are smarter, they are right in whatever they say or opine. What is "smart"? The Unabomber is a very learned man, a former mathematics professor at Berkeley. How smart is he? I will leave that to each of you to ponder. It seems to me that all of us are smarter than any of us, and that we can learn from the unlikeliest of sources, sometimes even young children. There is great joy in learning, and as well in expressing gratitude and entertaining a good sense of humor, of which I have seen little anywhere in this forum. Self-deprecation comes to mind. Toward that end, I will relate a story of a brief conversation I had with a professor at Dartmouth. His published paper was on the internet, and I downloaded and read it. It was interesting and informative, but in his summary, he errantly used exactly the opposite word he intended, as was clear from the context. I phoned him and left a message on his answering machine. Within an hour, he called me back and said, "I wrote that paper fifteen years ago and you are the first one to bring that to my attention. Thank you!" "You're welcome, professor, but with all due respect, why is it there is so little correlation between common sense and education"? Without hesitation, the good professor replied, "Tell me about it!" What is more desperately needed in this forum is a willingness to consider other points of view, in a kind and good-humored, even self-deprecating perspective. Tell me about it.

Let me address the second snippet above before returning to the first. My POINT about water vapor is simply this. The Keeling Curve may be accurate as far as it goes, which is to say, carbon dioxide IS increasing, as shown. HOWEVER, the base is non-zero. The base is ~390 parts per MILLION! The annual INCREASE is 1.36 parts per MILLION! Now the significance of 1.36 parts per MILLION decreases tremendously when you redraw the graph with a zero base. It flattens the *scary graph* into something less frightening. Science should present data honestly, not with the intention to deceive. Now have I overlooked something? Could I be wrong in simply adding THE DOMINANT greenhouse gas to the Scary Graph? If so, please feel free to suggest my errors. So far, the most creative criticism has been from one fellow who suggested that I add oxygen and nitrogen, neither of which are greenhouse gases. Then too the comment was made that rain falls, and old water must somehow be different from new water. Please explain to me how old water vapor differs in its physico-chemical properties from newer water vapor.

1. YOU claim it is "a very difficult riddle." I did not. YOU and your friends make such claims and then attribute them to me. The riddle is interesting and it presents a corollary to which I alluded and you clearly missed. 2. We are discussing the riddle, and your reaction(s) to it. Not ONE PERSON had anything to say of a complimentary or appreciative nature. No not one. ONLY AFTER there had been 89 views did I point out that nobody had correctly solved it. In this "science" forum full of PhDs. 3. Would you care to reconsider the above, including your misspellings and how "cardinaly (sic) dumb" your remarks were?

Let's consider these points on the screen, realtive to the "topic," viz., Trump's cutting NASA climate change budget. 1. Energy independence - IRRELEVANT 2. Preserve rainforests - IRRELEVANT, and what business is it of ours what other countries do within their borders? Are we the world police force, to order them around? 3. Sustainability - IRRELEVANT, HOWEVER you should know that there is only one country classified as "sustainable." That would be idyllic Cuba. One wonders why all the climate change faithful don't move there. 4. Green jobs - Good point! Lots of green jobs will be preserved by throwing around many more hundreds of billions of tax dollars. But then again, economic laws cannot be disregarded without consequence. Scholars and academics like all good Democrats seem blissfully unaware of this reality. 5. Livable cities - IRRELEVANT. However let it be known that the most UNLIVABLE cities have long been run by Democrats, who demand obeisance to the climate change religion. We're talking Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, where murder is high right along with misery and squalor. 6. Clean water, air - IRRELEVANT. NASA has no authority in these areas whatsoever. Completely dismissed is cost/benefit analysis. If "clean water" and "clean air" are so desirable to the exclusion of everything else, then nobody here can ever again urinate into a toilet. You're "polluting" the water supply. Don't ever drive a car again. You're "polluting" the air - certainly not to the extent that hypocrites like Richard Branson, Al Gore, and Barack Obama do, but I digest. 7. Healthy children - IRRELEVANT. But take it to Planned Parenthood, which murders hundreds of thousands of them, every year, especially black ones. 8. Etc, etc. - "A better world" with a crushing debt, foisted upon the shoulders of our children and grandchildren? And nobody in the gimme more sect gives a damn? This is the politics of what is so imperiously called "science."

1. You miss the entire point, and of course you do so intentionally.. Focused as you are on the single issue of "change," you overlook the relativism of this "change." Your fatuous pretense that the "change" in earth's climate is singularly or largely so determined by the "change" in carbon dioxide utterly neglects the PERCENTAGE CHANGE in GREENHOUSE GASES. What is 1.36 divided by 15,500 in "CHANGING" the temperature? It is negligable. 2. "A lot of people on a science site have an understanding of climate science." That's a good one, coming from someone who said to me: "If you care about the science." Oh the insufferable condescension and insolence simply abounds here. And hot on the heels of your remark was this from John Cuthber: Why not add the oxygen and nitrogen too Were you concerned that such obvious manipulation couldn't be overlooked? People would notice that you are adding apples to oranges; it's not legitimate arithmetic. Was Cuthber concerned that oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases? Or did he simply put me down as a rube who would overlook his obvious manipulation of words and apples and oranges? 3. For you to pretend that science and politics are mutually exclusive is simply another pretension of the highest order. In the future, I will disregard and ignore anything you and Mr. Cuthber have to say. I am tired of your inane banter and don't want to continue responding to anything you have to say. The condescension and pretension around here is rampant, IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CONDESCENSION. AND THE PRETENSION.

The Global Warming Hoax documentary "The (global warming) reporting has to get more and more hysterical." Indeed.

Has anyone in this forum considered, just considered the possibility that spending trillions of tax dollars to address "climate change" might truly be a colossal waste of money? What if in fact that is the case, as John Kerry claims here: And IF in fact so many millions of people are as "concerned" to "do something" as they claim, why then do they: 1. Continue to take vacations all over the world 2. Continue to drive their children to and from school every day 3. Continue driving their children to soccer and softball and swimming and tennis and summer camp and friends' houses, and 4. Continue driving to picnics and family outings 5. Continue flying to California to visit Disneyland and Yosemite and the beaches and attractions 6. Continue driving in excess of the speed limit, needlessly burning far more of that horrible fossil fuel than they need to and that they claim to hate so very much 7. Buy electric cars such as the Tesla, which is very expensive compared to conventional cars, and which costs a very great deal of fossil fuel to build as a consequence 8. Live in colossal houses, as in the case of Al Gore, who purchased a massive mansion near sea level close to San Francisco 9. Globe trot around the world, constantly, while telling everybody else to cut back their use of fossil fuel by 80%, as in the case of Barack Obama, and Richard Branson, and UN functionaries, and "academics"

Please, stop it. Stop the misrepresentation. I have attempted to defend "a concept or agenda for legitimate and sincere reasons" and all I have gotten from the group of hyenas is harassment, attacks, condescension, pettiness, and ignorance. The hyenas have put words in my mouth that I did not say, and misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what I did say. One in this *science* forum asked why I did not "include" oxygen and nitrogen" in a graph I created of greenhouse gases. For the record, so you do not spin and misrepresent, oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water vapor and CO2 are. And so it goes, with even "Man(sic)ticore" mocking my forum name - that it surely must be the opposite of reality. Too clever by 0.00001. By "Man(sic)ticore"s brinksmanship, this "ScienceForums.net" is not science oriented and "Man(sic)ticore" is not a man. Is this mature discussion, this "Man(sic)ticore" childishness, this relentless harassment of me by a pack of angry, screeching hyenas? Or can you as a group try to practice some maturity, and listen and think about what is presented, because I'm not nearly as ignorant nor as evil as so many hyenas pretend. Why don't you give it a try, and I'll respond in kind. So far, you people have been only unkind and intolerant to me. This is terribly anti-scientific and unintelligent. Unmanly, even. "Science is part and parcel humility." - Carl Sagan, in one of his books I read and critiqued.

In any left-wing, atheist forum, either one falls in with the angry majority, or else one is called names, relentlessly attacked, and maliciously treated. Leftist atheists need to be arisen. Obviously you don't realize that science consists of... "getting a rise out of people," i.e. challenging the prevailing narrative. Carl Sagan is worshiped as some kind of god by sanctimonious leftists. No inconsistency of his, no error, no pettiness or bias can ever be challenged without his legions mounting a very angry, very condescending rebuttal, notwithstanding Sagan's own admonition that "valid criticism does you a favor." Despite his pride in his agnostic beliefs, Sagan was eulogized at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City. This is the fellow who mocked "commercial television" in one of his books, only to appear in "commercial television" time and again. Sagan claimed that "we could build Daedalus now if we wanted" and travel at 10% of the speed of light. Not remotely true even today, and that was decades ago.

You obviously did not cite A SINGLE "unscientific and unfamiliar science sounding word." Not one. You engage only in vague accusations without the slightest bit of specificity or evidence. You misquoted me, misrepresented me, and show that you have no understanding of rational discourse, much less scientific acumen. There is a Nigeria proverb: "A lion does not turn when a small dog barks." You will be the first to be added to an Ignore List, if this forum has one. Many of your friends are sure to follow, as I have not the time nor the interest in responding to all the inane yapping that goes on here.

You would LIKE TO "ignore water vapor in our analysis," but that is clearly impossible. It is impossible because water vapor behaves EXACTLY like carbon dioxide in absorbing radiation. To the extent that once 100% of relevant frequencies have been absorbed by extant gases, whatever they may be, adding 1.36 ppmv MORE will have absolutely no effect on that system. Moreover you have clearly neglected a very critical factor in the dynamic equilibrium. Water vapor is exponentially dependent on the temperature, so AS temperatures increase, so too does the vapor pressure. It's not "constant," it INCREASES. Furthermore, as water temperatures increase, degassification of carbon dioxide takes place, reducing the concentration of CO2 in the ocean, which is a far larger repository of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere. The ocean is ~18.2 times more alkaline than pure water, at pH 7.0. So much for the fraudulent claim of "ocean acidification," also designed to create fear and hysteria. "It sounds a lot like you are saying".... is YOUR biased interpretation. YOU said "atmosphere holds water." I said "NO IT DOES NOT." You play word games, like all of your friends here, and then smear me with your wordplay. Most unscientific. Let me also point out that I am one and you are hundreds. You take on a large, militant, angry group, intent on twisting your words and science as well, while they keep changing the subject, trying to be hateful and antagonistic. Nobody would behave as you people do in a friendly setting. Nobody. But here it is de rigeur. All of you rather enjoy having someone to hate and attack. I merely pointed out the fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, which clearly omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, and you all come apart at the seams, instead of just even ONE PERSON acknowledging, "You know what? That is a valid point. We never saw that graph before." The collective arrogance and intolerance here is something your group should acknowledge and be ashamed of, but never will. It is part and parcel of the Leftist mentality. Is there anyone here who will admit to having voted for Donald Trump? Anyone who believes God created the heaven and the earth, as stated in the first sentence of the first chapter of Genesis, thousands of years before anyone posited the Big Bang, or as it was called by the Jesuit Priest who first described it as "The Priomordial Atom"? "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable," replied Albert Einstein to Father Georges LeMaitre. But Einstein was wrong. LeMaitre was correct. ANOTHER science lesson for swansont: You LEAP from "the atmosphere" to the "big picture here, the salient point", viz., 20 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere. 1. The "atmosphere" is not fixed at 20 degrees Celsius, nor 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stop trying to prove that there is no bias, and that the Scary Graph is beyond criticising. "Heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895 "If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true really is true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright, who flew only 8 years later And Orville never went beyond high school, so he was, as all of you would pounce on him, an ignoramus far beneath any of you. Credentialism is SO overrated.

YOU said "No water in the atmosphere." I did not. It is all to common for you Leftists to put your words into other people's mouths and then ridicule THEM for what YOU said. Let me give you a sorely needed science lesson, swansont. One can easily evacuate a container and then inject a quantity of water into what was just a vacuum. Do you know what will happen? I'll tell you because obviously you don't know. Water will evaporate, AND there is no "atmosphere" to "hold it." Water vapor is a gas. Nitrogen is a gas. Nitrogen doesn't "hold" oxygen or water vapor. Now get down off your high horse. My, how truly "brilliant" of you, Manticore. Likewise this forum has nothing to do with "science" and you are not a "man." Why don't you try positing some science, for a change. You DO know how, don't you? [That exchange didn't work out quite the way you planned, did it "Man(sic)ticore".] “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/