Government Official Thinks We Act Like Children

Energy Secretary Steven Chu compared American adults to teenagers and said that we are not acting like we should act with regard to using energy. Here it is, conformation that someone in government thinks you are a child who needs to be taught by the adults in DC how to act.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” WSJ

Who does this guy think he is? Who is this twerp to tell us that we are not acting like we should? In whose eyes are we not acting like we should, his? Because it is not up to him or any other government agency to tell us how to act as long as we are not breaking the law. It is one thing to say that criminals are not acting the way they should because they are breaking the laws established by society but it is quite another for this guy (or any government official) to decide we are not acting like we should because something we happen to do runs contrary to what he expects us to do, as if his opinion matters.

This little man has insulted us and compared us to teenagers and said we do not act like we should. Not only is this insulting but it gives credence to the idea that the nanny state thinks it knows better than you do.

They take your money and spend it because they know better how to use the fruits of YOUR labor than you do. They take your money and “invest” it in Social Security because they know better how to take care of YOUR future than you do. They take your money and put it away for Medicare when you are old because they know better than YOU what you will need when you retire.

This insulting little man actually thinks we are like teen aged children who need to be taught how to act by Big Brother in government.

This is a free country and how we use the energy we pay for is our business. If the Energy Secretary wants to have initiatives to help people use energy more wisely, should they choose to do so, then fine. However, we do not need this pencil neck twerp admonishing us and treating us like, or comparing us to, children.

Chu’s people said that he was not comparing us to teenagers:

Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”

That, of course, is a blatant lie. While this article does say they are teaching children about energy use, the statement is separate from the quote about us acting like teenagers. When he said, just like your teen aged kids, you [adults] are not acting as you should, he compared you to teenagers. The words “just like” are used for comparison as in Steven Chu acts just like a nanny state official. Or Steven Chu denied he said what he did just like a liar would.

There is no denying what he said and all the back peddling in the world will not change what he said.

I wonder if Joe Wilson is available to give Chu a “You lie!”.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

95 Responses to “Government Official Thinks We Act Like Children”

  1. victoria says:

    This is the guy who thinks we need to paint all our roofs white to reflect the sun back into the sky to prevent more global warming.
    It is astounding the absolute stupidity coming from up there.
    Just keep remembering this everytime a liberal comes on here and starts telling us how smart they are and how stupid we are.

  2. Blake says:

    They are already attempting to indoctrinate our children- if I still had small children, I would think seriously about home- schooling them.
    Have you seen a short “film” called “Stuff”, by a lady named Carolyn Leonard (who works for the TIDES Foundation, a Soros organization) that schools are showing children, that teaches how bad America is, and evil the corporations are, and how it is the “government’s job to take care of us-” WHAT? How insane is that?

  3. Adam says:

    Any time I see conservatives crying foul over Chu’s suggestion that we act like teenagers over energy consumption I think of that moron Glenn Beck and his Carbon ONset program that so many of you conservatives thought was just so funny!

    How many conservatives did we see who pledged to actually burn MORE energy than usual to offset the offset of the Democratic National Convention? Right, that’s the action of responsible adults, for sure…

    And painting your roof white? HILARIOUS! Common sense science is such a joke! What does Chu know about Physics anyway?!

    Still waiting on a better transcript of Chu’s remarks instead of that same WSJ article that everybody keeps citing…

    • Blake says:

      Well, I am doing my part to help Global Whateveritis- I’m eating the steaks as fast as I can.

    • Blake says:

      And painting your roof white might have unintended consequences- that is, if everyone did it, which they won’t-

    • Big Dog says:

      What Adam, because it is the WSJ it is not reliable? Isn’t that the only paper to gain circulation?

      If Chu wants to discuss things we can do to conserve, power to him. However, to insult us and say we act like teenagers is condescending and unprofessional. Beck and anyone else is free to do what they want and it is not up to Chu to call them or anyone lese children.

      But speaking of carbon footprints, how about Michelle Obama. Her jaunt to buy tomatoes used a lot of resources so each tomato had a huge footprint. Surely she has people who can buy her tomatoes without causing such a problem.

      And how about the UN conference on global warming? The footprint by the participants is more than any one of us will have for decades.

  4. victoria says:

    Back in the 70s it was global cooling, then it became global warming except now it has been cooling for the past couple of years. So now, in order to keep it man’s fault it has become climate change.

    This isn’t common sense science–it is complete lunacy and science isn’t about consensus or majority rule either.

    • Adam says:

      I say common sense about the fact that if you have a lighter shade of color on your roof that absorbs less light than a darker color you can save on energy costs in your home. The more advanced part of the color deals with what IR light is created due to the level of absorption but that stuff is over my head so I won’t try to expand on it.

      As for the other climate rubbish you wrote, just because 1998 was record hot due to El Nino and 2008 wasn’t the warmest year on record, does not mean the trend is the earth cooling instead of warming. Quite the opposite in fact. The 2008 report from GISS Surface Temperature Analysis disproves you right away:

      Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

      The year 2008 was the 9th warmest year on record since 1880.

      But of course all the data pointing to global warming is null since Al Gore and the UN are creating too big of a carbon footprint…

      • Blake says:

        The temperature has been falling for a decade now, and look Ma- no Hurricanes!

      • Blake says:

        During the last Ice Age, the more snow, the colder it got, due to reflection- that part is, as you say, common sense, BUT if everyone did this, we might bring on too much cooling, which would also strain our energy needs.
        What does need to be done is to keep planting trees, as they are the scrubbers of our atmosphere, and they LIKE Co2- that would be a good thing.

      • Adam says:

        The temperature has had ups and downs over the last decade but the trend is not falling.

      • victoria says:

        Mark Levin–quote-“Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an advisor to Al Gore, and whose early work was used to justify global cooling but who is now the most influential and bombastic high priest of the global warming movement, told Congress in 2008 that the “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” Hansen a master at spinning policy makers and the media has been effectively challenged by certain of his critics. In 2007, he was forced to revise his figures that showed the hottest decade of the twentieth century was not the 1990s but the 1930s and correct a more recent blunder that showed October 2008 as the hottest on record. (scores of temperatures were not based on October readings but on September’s numbers which had been carried over.)

        • Adam says:

          So where is your evidence the earth is getting cooler recently?

        • Darrel says:

          VIC [citing Levin] “[Hansen] was forced to revise his figures that showed the hottest decade of the twentieth century was not the 1990s but the 1930s”>>

          The claim is asinine, yet standard fare for GW deniers who pass around lies without checking their facts.

          The ’90’s were clearly, by far, unquestionably hotter than the 1930’s. And our current decade, is hotter still.

          No informed GW denier (and there are about four of them) would say something this foolish. Levin is a fool, or he is lying, or both.

          “The climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s (see datasets here). Global warming is accelerating, as predicted.” –ibid

  5. Blake says:

    Stop the Methane Farts Now! Eat a Steak Today!

  6. Blake says:

    Reminds me of the Quote by G. Gordon Liddy- he said,”I’m waging my own war on Cuba- I’m burning their tobacco fields one cigar at a time.”

  7. Big Dog says:

    And the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was many times more than it is now tens of thousands of years ago. No man, but lots of carbon and there was an ice age…

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “And the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was many times more than it is now tens of thousands of years ago.”>>

      Wrong. I grab wiki here only because this is standard info and it’s handy:

      “The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[21] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[22] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[23]”

      See chart here showing the extraordinary rate of increase.

      See also:

      2.1 Million-Year High Measured for Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere

      June 18 (Bloomberg) — Carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has risen to its highest level in at least 2.1 million years, according to a new investigation of the greenhouse gas’s role in ice ages over the millennia.”



      • Blake says:

        It is ridiculous to think that a gas, which has been far more prevalent in the past, AND is required for plant growth, would be as bad as Gore and others say it is- they are, flatly, idiots.

  8. Big Dog says:

    How about the temperatures? How about snow in September?

    How about this mild Summer?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “How about this mild Summer?”>>

      The US has had a mild summer, “0.6°F below average, making it the 30th coolest August in the 115-year record.”

      That’s nice, but has nothing to do with climate change which, in fact, refers to the globe.

      “The globe recorded its second warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. NOAA rated the period June – August (summer in the Northern Hemisphere, winter in the Southern Hemisphere) as the third warmest on record, and the year-to-date period, January – August 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated August 2009 as the 6th warmest August on record. The August satellite-measured temperatures for the lower atmosphere were between 7th and 9th warmest on record. According to NOAA, for the third month in a row, the global ocean Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) were the warmest on record. August SSTs were 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average, breaking the previous August record set in 1998. The record August SSTs were due in part to the continuation of El Niño conditions in the Eastern Pacific, which has substantially warmed a large stretch of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño conditions are expected to amplify during the coming months, and record or near-record global ocean temperatures will probably continue.”

      • Blake says:

        You are hilarious- the 30th coolest August has nothing to do with climate change.
        Isn’t the United States a part of the globe? Or are we separate, but equal?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “the 30th coolest August [in US] has nothing to do with climate change.”


          BLK: Isn’t the United States a part of the globe?>>

          Are Australia and New Zealand part of the globe?

          Best to not confuse weather, with climate.

          “Australia had its warmest August on record in 2009, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorlogy. Temperatures averaged a remarkable 3.2°C (5.8°F) above average, making August 2009 the most anomalous month ever recorded in Australia. The previous record was set in April 2005, which was 3.1°C (5.6°C) above average… The Australian winter (June-July-August) was the 2nd warmest on record, next to the winter of 1996. New Zealand also experienced its warmest August on record (records go back 155 years).”

  9. Adam says:

    Yeah, but any science there?

  10. Big Dog says:

    There has been plenty of science all along but you reject it as nonsense because it is not what you believe.

  11. Adam says:

    I’d be happy to review again for the record any research you have that suggests the earth isn’t warming up, or is even cooling off instead.

  12. Big Dog says:

    It has all been here. And you can find it just like you find the things that support it.

    Here is a little story discussing the data. It has links and you can find other data to show that the temps are going down.

    I also remember reading how thermometers used to measure are near items where they get radiant heat (like from asphalt).

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Here is a little story discussing the data.”>>

      The story is news/fluff garbage based upon debunked disinfo from the “mineral consultant” and mining shill McIntyre. None of his material holds up or is taken seriously by anyone in the field of climate science and he has no qualifications (or respect), whatsoever, in the field of climate science.

      Try defending his stuff. See what happens. I’ve been roasting him for years. It’s all in stock and ready to go.

      Bigd: “I also remember reading how thermometers used to measure are near items”

      This is the Urban Heat Island Effect. Understood and accounted for, read about it, with references, here.


      • Blake says:

        The urban “Heat Island” is true- that I do not dispute, but you can have the same effect without urbanization- just cut the trees-
        o if a Hurricane came along and blew down all the trees, the climate in that area would change, at least until the trees grew back.
        But it is tiresome how you dismiss ALL evidence contrary to any conclusion you favor.
        We both know the truth is probably somewhere in the middle- Hansen, for example is a hack, looking for big bucks as is Gore.

  13. Adam says:

    I suppose in the end Victoria is right so I should carefully construct my argument. The planet is cooling lately. There is no mystery to why this is happening though and it doesn’t debunk the fact that the longer trend is Earth is warming up, not cooling down.

    Nobody is saying year after year is hotter than the rest and in fact 2008 was indeed a cooler than normal year as far as recent trends go.

    Here is a graph of the trends by Had-crut, GISS,UAH, and RSS. All 8 trends are upward, not downward and to take out just the last few years to say global warming is “complete lunacy” just goes contrary to the data.

    It’s like saying the stock market is down the last few days so we are in a recession. It’s just not the truth over the long term.

    • Adam says:

      This is why it’s absurd to point to a mild summer or snow during a global warming conference. Nobody is saying global warming means no snow, no colder than average days, no freak storms, etc. You know this, surely.

      • Blake says:

        So the fact that it is colder, just means that it is getting hotter?
        What rabbithole did you dive down?
        Lets all talk Jabberwocky.

        • Adam says:

          If you think a couple of cooler years mixed in with decades of increased Earth temperatures means the planet isn’t warming, well…who’s down a rabbit hole now?

        • Blake says:

          You and I both know I could find a graph to counter your graph, and you would get another graph, and so would I, ad infinitum – I know what I know- and some of it would agree with what you postulate, but much would not.
          I just can’t agree with scientists whose employment is contingent on their conclusions- just the perception seems to skew the results.
          I want info from someone who doesn’t have a dog in that hunt, and I am skeptical of someone who does.

        • Adam says:

          You know what you know? If it’s so easy why don’t you find me a graph and prove to me what you know is true?

        • Blake says:

          OK Adam- here’s a graph for you-

    • Darrel says:

      ADM: “The planet is cooling lately.”

      Not really. See the references here.:

      “In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen.”

      • Adam says:

        My point is simply that 2008 for instance is cooler than recent warming trends despite it being the 7th to 10th hottest on record. Yet, no scientist pretends that for the Earth to be warming it has to get warmer every year. It’s just not the reality, despite what deniers want to think…

  14. Big Dog says:

    Not wrong Darrel. I actually linked in the past to data from real sources that show the higher levels of CO2 during that time period.

    Look for them

  15. Big Dog says:

    The global warming scientists are reversing course one by one. Man is not causing any warming as it is part of the cyclic activity of this planet that has taken place for longer than this country has been around.

    We will not melt in 10 years and we will be just fine.

    I am not willing to spend billions of dollars on junk science solutions that will give little if any results.

    It is not worth it from an ROA standpoint.

    All will be well.

    Darrel, you could not roast a chicken if I gave you the oven.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The global warming scientists are reversing course one by one.>>

      Actually, they are finding that their previous projections were too conservative and it’s worse than they thought. I can bury you in examples or you can get informed yourself.

      Bigd: Man is not causing any warming>>

      Not even close; “Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.”

      Not one.

      Bigd: I am not willing to spend billions of dollars on…>>

      An entirely different topic from:

      a) is the earth rapidly warming (it is)
      b) are we largely causing it (we are)

      Bigd: “you could not roast a chicken if I gave you the oven.”

      This is because if you gave me the oven, the oven wouldn’t work.

      “A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,… none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. –ibid

      • Big Dog says:

        Actually, it is all entirely different. The topic was should we be compared to children by someone who wants us to “learn” what he wants to teach? Is it productive or condescending?


        A group of US scientists however disagree, and have written an article on their views that is published in The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society.

        “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn’t show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming,” wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.

        “The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming,” Douglas wrote.

        According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data “and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface,” while greenhouse models “demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater.”

        Data from satellite observations “suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects” of human carbon dioxide emissions.

        The journal authors “have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases.”

        Maybe this author did not look in the right places

        This is insightful

        Or this:

        Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

        So many differing opinions and you want me to educate myself? I guess your idea of education is to agree with you. I have said that we should be continuing research but that we should not be spending money on this until it is proven. Too many scientists disagree and the computer models are only as good as the data entered into them.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: [cites] “The observed pattern of warming,…” wrote lead author David Douglas,>>

          Best to not get your climate science information from NewsMax. A far right group patterned after Drudge.

          If Mr Douglas would like to have his scientific theories taken seriously he needs to write them up in a paper and have his peers review them just like everyone else. This is called peer review and is a (if not the) cornerstone of science.

          Oh, I see he already has. And the result?

          A 2007 study by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[1] However, a 2008 paper published by a 17-member team led by Ben Santer noted errors in the Douglass study, and found instead that the models and observations were not statistically different. [2]

          Bigd: “John Christi from the University of Alabama…”>>

          He “is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured” but he doesn’t think green house gases are as strong of a driver as most scientists do. Okay.

          Bigd: Maybe this author did not look in the right places>>

          Roasted that long ago. A litany of crap put together 2 1/2 years ago by Marc Morano..

          He was the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment [he worked] under Senator James Inhofe.” Was involved with the swift boat BS artists and a “reporter” for Rush Limbaugh.

          So he’s a hatchet man that knows nothing about climate science, and doesn’t care. Let me know if you would like to defend any of his stuff.

          Bigd: “So many differing opinions and you want me to educate myself?”>>

          Exactly. Stop reading crap from political hacks who know nothing about the science and are in the employ of propagandists. Look to the best science.

          Bigd: “Too many scientists disagree”>>

          I already addressed that claim directly, above, and you ignored it.

          “The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments*, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.

          “…the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

          Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

      • Big Dog says:

        And then there is this:

        Charles Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, Kan., says there’s a growing sense in the scientific community that the earth may be entering into a “grand minimum” — an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that results in cooler planetary temperatures.

        In July through August of this year, 51 consecutive days passed without a sunspot, one day short of the record. As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum — with 717 spotless days since 2004 — ranks as the third longest on record.

        Perry cites data indicating that global temperature fluctuations correspond to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle and variations in solar activity. 1816, the “year without a summer,” was during an 1800 to 1830 grand minimum when Europe became significantly cooler.

        Latif and others conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and analyze and learn. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “And then there is this:
          Charles Perry, a research hydrologist>>

          Already read it actually. What training does a “hydrologist” have to understand climatology? None. Zero.
          Imagine if you were going some nursing duty and the janitor came over and started to tell you how you were doing you job all wrong.

          Bigd: [quote] …days passed without a sunspot,>>

          And then Perry, the hydrologist, recycles the old sunspot material. Trouble is, he is unqualified to write anything that would be of interest to the people who actually work in this field, because he doesn’t know where to begin.

          But he sure can fool the regular folk at “” (that’s where I go to get the best science information!). Especially when he tells them something that fits their political bias. The uninformed misinforming the even less informed.

          Here is an article written by climatologists on a site that avoids the politics.

          That’s a good start.


        • Blake says:

          Darrel, read this then-

        • Blake says:

          Or this info-

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: Whoops not enough coffee- http://www.geocraft.>>

          Did you notice it was anonymous? Perhaps if they were confident of their claims they would put their name on it.
          I think this is a variation of one of the very first GW denier sites I ever roasted, about five years ago. I recognize the spiral binding template. It was put together by a sea captain with no training or understanding of the issues. Ah the memories.
          There is not a claim on that page (or your other links) that I am not familiar with and haven’t responded to many times.
          Perhaps pick one that you think is convincing and has the best chance of being true and holding up to a little scrutiny (good luck).
          Anyone can google a bunch of GW denier material so let’s not pretend you have accomplished something, or learned something, or even thought about something simply because you can (after three tries) paste a link.


  16. victoria says:

    This is Dar—
    “I’m smart!!! You dumb stupid conservatives are the ones who think your smart but are the dumb stupid ones!”
    If you read the post of every single liberal on a conservative site.

    Why don’t you save yourself a lot of typing and just write that everytime. You can go Dar: and Dog: line by line all you want to and quote liftwing blogs all day long and you aren’t going to get anywhere with anyone here. The only thing you have ever convinced me of is that you have drank enough leftwing koolaid that you will never recover from your delusional thinking. You know lets just say that there really is global warming or global cooling–it is the height of arrogance or stupidity to say that man has anything to do with it and that man could possibly prevent it and especially not with money which is what this is all about–making us all pay money for it.

    • Adam says:

      Speaking of adults acting like children…

      • victoria says:

        It is the truth and when you state the truth your not acting like a child.

        • Adam says:

          You like truth? The truth is you are the one who calls people delusional and pathetic or accuses them of drinking kool-aid and all that jazz. You are far more disrespectful and condescending to people you disagree with on this site than I have ever seen Darrel be.

    • Darrel says:

      Perhaps if Victoria had taken the time she used for that tantrum, to say something substantive and relevant, it would have been a better use of her time.

      • Blake says:

        Ah, Darrel- you do so like acting as if you are the adult here- what tripe- all you do is try and push people’s buttons and waste everyone’s time with bogus info- everything we cite you allegedly “roast”, when you are but a legend in your mind only.
        Truthfully, I have never seen you say you might be mistaken- the hubris of you is disgusting- your only point is to argue- period.
        Even and especially when you are wrong- and that’s a lot of the time.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “I have never seen you say you might be mistaken”>>

          I have made many mistakes and admitted to them several times on this forum.

          In fact, I made a mistake, and admitted to it, on my very first post.

          I wish you would point out more mistakes/errors in my posts, because then I would learn and correct my mistake.


  17. victoria says:

    You are far more disrespectful and condescending to people you disagree with on this site than I have ever seen Darrel be.
    What excuse me!!!!!If the Dog says I am–then I will buy that one but I believe I apologized to you Adam something neither you or Darrel has ever done.

  18. Big Dog says:

    As opposed to the hatchet people and hacks you cite? It all leads back to what I have said, the science is NOT settled and there are varying opinions on it.

    I notice that no matter who it is and what they write if you agree with it you fictitiously roasted it in the past.

    I have linked to many credible scientists (and they were all credible when they believed in man made GW) but you claim they are hacks.

    Here is some education for you. In 7 years we will be about the same as we are now, there will be no more or no fewer natural disasters and we will not be melting. Al Gore and Prince Charles can tell us not to drive while they motor about claiming that the apocalypse will be here soon (about 7 years from now) but it is not true.

    • Darrel says:

      As opposed to the hatchet people and hacks you cite?>>

      I refer to climatologists and the very best science (which is all on my side, and entirely against yours). You cite, fluff pieces from “” and “Newsmax.” No, comparison.

      Bigd: “you fictitiously roasted it in the past.”>>

      Again, I don’t make claims I can’t back up. If you would like the direct links to the specific roasts in question, just ask. They are but a click away on our freethinker forum where I have posted 4,622 posts. Hundreds of them on this topic.

      Bigd: I have linked to many credible scientists…>>

      Marc Morano is not a scientist, but he is a political hack. No one should take what he says seriously on this subject. I am not a climatologist so I refer to the best peer reviewed science, not hacks.

      Bigd: In 7 years we will be about the same as we are now,>>

      Right. With record breaking temperatures, less see ice, more bleaching of the ocean from carbon etc, highest C02 levels and less glaciers. We agree.

      Get the latest issue of Scientific American. It has a good article on Arctic/Antarctic/Greenland ice melts and sea levels. If you think losing the twin towers was a big financial hit on the US, what do you think Manhattan sloshing around in seawater is going to do?

      You really ought to just give up the GW denier position. All the smart ones already ate their crow and moved on. It’s like trying to pretend smoking doesn’t cause cancer. You just don’t have the data and the science with you. You pass along lies, and junk and then it gets spanked. It’s embarrassing.

      Best to say you just don’t care (like gay marriage) and God will sort it out. Or even go with we can’t fix it (possible), or won’t fix (likely), or can’t afford to fix it (possible). But enough with the crappy BS material from people who are simply profoundly misinformed or dishonest or both.


  19. Big Dog says:

    And I am not supposed to cite Newsmax but you cite Wiki and some 537 guy?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: but you cite Wiki>>

      I don’t cite anything from wiki that isn’t supported with standard mainstream references. Newsmax is neither.

      Feel free to challenge any of my claims, specifically, and I will back them up with additional references.


  20. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, did you miss this part of the article?

    In a speech last week at the U.N.’s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, one of the world’s foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades

    So Perry is not qualified? How is that so when Hydrology is a science that is related to climatology?

    Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.

    When respected scientists have something to say you claim they are not qualified. If they are not climatologists you claim they are not qualified unless they believe in GW, then they are vetted by you as OK and not “roasted.”

    But Al Gore is no climatologist and you all follow him around. He has no credibility in the issue because he is not even any kind of science.

    As for your analogy of a janitor telling me about nursing, it did not fit. Janitoring is not a RELATED discipline. However, if a dietitian told me what was good for my patient nutritionally then I would listen because that is a RELATED health care field.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: did you miss this part of the article?>>

      What article?

      Bigd: Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute… acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades>>

      Let’s check that. Note:

      “It’s pretty clear though that Fred Pearce took Mojib’s words out of context and that is unfortunate. If New Scientist is supposed to be reputable, they should post a correction.

      I like the way Mojib wrapped it up in saying: “I’m definitely not one of the skeptics, okay, and if my name was not ‘Mojib Latif’, my name would be ‘Global Warming’.”

      His concerns with what the press might do with his words was not unfounded.”



      Latif showed the 20th century variability around a rising trend, and noted that it could happen that temperatures cooled for a decade or even two, and if that happened, people would say global warming had stopped. He did not predict that this would happen over the next decade or two as the article suggests. His comment on needing to “ask the nasty questions ourselves” was in the context of addressing model biases, not in the context of a decadal cooling.

      Latif felt the jury was still out as to the relative contribution of internal decadal variability to the recent warming. He went on to discuss the NAO as one of the important internal modes of the climate system exhibiting low-frequency variability. Putting two and two together, Pearce got “NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades”.

      In short, in his presentation Latif did suggest — in passing, and very off-hand — that as much as two decades of cooling could happen despite underlying AGW. That would probably upset a few bets. He did not predict “that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans” and that the cooling would be down to changes in the NAO. Nor did he mention that the NAO was moving into a “colder phase”. If anything, his speech was about the difficulties attending such predictions and the need to improve our abilities to make them.>> –ibid

      It’s telling that your side is so desperate that they have to jump on any little opportunity to distort and take out of context some little comment an actual scientist makes. Professor Latif is on my side, not yours.

      Bigd: So Perry is not qualified?>>

      Correct. He doesn’t publish scientific papers on the issue of climatology, because he isn’t qualified.

      Bigd: when Hydrology is a science that is related to climatology?>>

      A lot of things in science can be made to look as if they are “related.” Knowledge is specialized. Perry, the hydrologist, is trying to speak about sunspots and how they effect the earth’s climate. Besides clearly speaking out of his area of specialty, he is passing along the same old junk that that has been debunked for years by those who have devoted their lives to studying THIS subject. This is because he doesn’t know what he is talking about. This is very common.

      Bigd: When respected scientists have something to say you claim they are not qualified.>>

      When they speak outside of the specialty, correct.

      Bigd: But Al Gore is no climatologist>>

      Al Gore relies upon the best science, as I do. He should only be taken as seriously to the degree that the science he references is taken seriously.


  21. Big Dog says:

    You keep knocking sunspots but they are the key.

    No, no cotton balls and fires, real sunspots that cause disruptions. Might not seem like much being so far away but the sun is that far away and it keeps us warm.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: You keep knocking sunspots but they are the key.>>

      Show they are “the key.”

      Why don’t you start with this BBC beginner article. It has the top ten claims with nice short rebuttals.


      “Claim: Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun’s energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun’s magnetic field and solar wind.

      Answer: Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.”

      If you have any questions about their answers I can easily steer you to solid science information backing it up.


  22. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, who are you to decide what is a better use of someone’s time? It is HER time, she may use it as she wishes.

    I guess she could just as easily waste her time tending goats.

  23. Big Dog says:

    Watch it Blake, Darrel will have to roast this if he has not roasted this scientist in the past.

  24. victoria says:

    I never thought anyone who came on here could ever ever be worse than Bunny Colvin but Darrel is Bunny Colvin on steroids.

    • Adam says:

      I think you forget the personal attacks Colvin is known for. Darrel may come off as condescending to some but he doesn’t even come close to the personal attacks by Colvin so I don’t see how he’s Colvin on steroids. You may not like that Darrel thinks you’re wrong most of the time but at least acknowledge that DAR doesn’t stray into personal attacks any more or less than any other person on this site. None of us are immune to it, it’s just the nature of the beast.

      • Big Dog says:

        I agree with Adam in part on this. Colvin is known for the personal attacks and Darrel has not done that any more od to a higher degree than any of us. Darrel is, however, Bunny on steroids when it comes to being condescending.

  25. Big Dog says:

    “Anyone can google a bunch of GW denier material so let’s not pretend you have accomplished something, or learned something, or even thought about”

    Ditto with regard to stuff supporting it. So let’s not pretend…

  26. Big Dog says:

    Tell you what Darrel, assuming we are both still alive in 7 years I wager a dinner that Manhattan will not be sloshing in water (natural disasters such as hurricanes excluded).

    If the ice melts and it is sloshing around I will buy you and your wife a dinner and if not you will buy me and my wife a dinner. We won’t go out together (geography and all) but will pay for the meal.


    • Darrel says:

      Good idea. I am very much for putting my money where my mouth is. We’ll need to work out the deals which would not include NY sloshing around in seven years, something I would never claim. But I tend to consider the longer term consequences of our actions. See the Scientific American article I referred you to. If New York is sloshing around in sea water in 50 years, it’s still a big deal. Even a hundred years.

      There have been many attempts to get GW skeptics to place bets backing up their belief that the earth is not warming. Observe the result:

      “The list of sceptics who have refused to bet against the IPCC position has grown steadily since then, and now also includes Michaels, Jaworowski, Corbyn, Ebell, Kininmonth, Mashnich and Idso (all my blog posts and related comments are linked from here). While I would be happy to take money off any or all of them, there is more to this than sceptic-bashing and a few high-profile bets – it could also perhaps result in a working market that would generate a true consensus…

      Betting on climate change


      • Big Dog says:

        I am pretty sure I will not be here in 50 years and if I am I will not remember the bet.

        I see very few of the supporters betting. Is Al Gore willing to bet on his predictions that he says will come to pass (now in 7 years)?

        We can work it out but it can’t be some lame thing like a temperature unless it was drastic, too much variability.

        We need to pick the doomsday predictions of Gore, who listens to scientists (as you say) and work from there.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “predictions that [Gore] says will come to pass (now in 7 years)?>>

          Let’s see the citation you are referring to. Verbatim please, not some interpretation recycled through a reporter’s imagination.

          Bigd: We need to pick the doomsday predictions of Gore,>>

          I don’t know of any doomsday predictions from Gore. Would you like to share one?

          Predictions, estimates regarding the extent of the effect of climate change of course vary. I don’t spend much time on that since this is something we can’t know. What has already happened we can know, and yet, some still try to deny this. Bizarre.


  27. Blake says:

    or perhaps you’d like this one better-