Wicked people causing climate change, 1437-2015 47

From A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew D. White, 1896, pages 350-361:

Few errors have ever cost so much shedding of innocent blood over such a wide territory and during so many generations [as the theory of] evil agency in atmospheric phenomena … the belief that certain men, women, and children may secure infernal aid to produce whirlwinds, hail, frosts, floods and the like. …

In 1437, Pope Eugene IV, by virtue of the teaching power conferred on him by the Almighty, and under the divine guarantee against any possible error in the exercise of it, issued a bull exhorting the inquisitors of heresy and witchcraft to use greater diligence against the human agents of the Prince of Darkness, and especially against those who have the power to produce bad weather. … [And] on the 7th of December, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII sent forth his bull Summis Desiderantes. Of all documents ever issued from Rome, imperial or papal, this has doubtless, first and last, cost the greatest shredding of innocent blood. … Inspired by the scriptural commandment, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” Pope Innocent exhorted the clergy of Germany to leave no means untried to detect sorcerers, and especially those who by evil weather destroy vineyards, gardens, meadows, and growing crops. … [W]itch-finding inquisitors were authorized by the Pope to scour Europe, especially Germany, and a manual was prepared for their use – the Witch-Hammer, Malleus Meleficarum … revered for centuries, both in Catholic and Protestant countries …

With the application of torture to thousands of women, in accordance with the precept laid down in the Malleus, it was not difficult to extract masses of proof for this sacred theory of meteorology. The poor creatures, writhing on the rack, anxious only for death to relieve them of their sufferings, confessed to anything and everything that would satisfy the inquisitors and judges. All that was needed was that the inquisitors should ask leading questions and suggest satisfactory answers: the prisoners, to shorten the torture, were sooner or later to give the answer required, even though they knew this would send them to the stake or scaffold. …

Pathetic, indeed, are the records; and none more so than the confessions of these poor creatures, chiefly women and children, during hundreds of years, as to their manner of raising hailstorms and tempests. Such confessions, by tens of thousands, are still to be found in the judicial records of Germany, and indeed of all Europe. …

Throughout the later Middle Ages the Dominicans had been the main agents in extorting and promulgating these revelations, but in the centuries following the Reformation the Jesuits devoted themselves with even more keenness and vigour to the same task. … It was mooted among the orthodox authorities whether the damage done by storms should not be assessed upon the property of convicted witches. The theologians inclined decidedly to the affirmative; the jurists, on the whole, to the negative.

In spite of these tortures, lightning and tempests continued, and great men arose in the Church throughout Europe in every generation to point out new cruelties for this discovery of “weather-makers”, and new methods for bringing their machinations to naught. …

But here and there, as early as the sixteenth century, we begin to see thinkers endeavouring to modify or oppose these methods. … As to argument, these efforts were met especially by Jean Bodin in his famous book, Démonomanie des Sorciers, published in 1580. It was a work of great power by a man justly considered to be the leading thinker in France, and perhaps in Europe. All the learning of the time, divine and human, he marshaled in support of the prevailing theory. With inexorable logic he showed that both the veracity of sacred Scripture and the infallibility of a long line of pope and councils of the Church were pledged to it … In the last years of the sixteenth century the persecution for witchcraft and magic were therefore especially cruel …

Protestantism fell into the superstition as fully as Catholicism. … The Reformation had, indeed, deepened the superstition; the new Church being anxious to show itself equally orthodox and zealous with the old. …

Typical as to the attitude of both Scotch and English Protestants were the theory and practice of King James I, himself the author of a book on Demonology, and nothing if not a theologian. … [H]e applied his own knowledge to investigating the causes of the tempests which beset his bride on her voyage from Denmark. Skilful use of unlimited torture soon brought these causes to light. A Dr. Fian, while his legs were crushed in the “boots”, and wedges were driven under his finger nails, confessed that several hundred witches had gone to sea in a sieve from the port of Leith, and had raised storms and tempests to drive back the princess. …

With the coming in of the Puritans the persecution was even more largely, systematically, and cruelly developed. …

Torture was used far more freely [in Scotland] than in England, both in detecting witches and in punishing them. The natural argument developed in hundreds of pulpits was this: If the All-wise God punishes his creatures with tortures infinite in cruelty and duration, who should not his ministers, as far as they can, imitate him?

From the Daily Caller, March 17, 2014:

An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.

His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation”. Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent”.

Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.

Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.

“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.

“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign funded and organized a campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made”.

“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.

From the Washington Post, April 30, 2015:

[At the Vatican], the center of global Catholicism, church leaders joined with politicians, scientists and economists to draft a statement declaring not only that climate change is a “scientific reality” but also that there’s a moral and religious responsibility to do something about it. And an even more powerful statement is expected soon from Pope Francis himself, who is slated to release a major papal encyclical on the environment this summer.

All of this is enough to make environmentalists, members of a traditionally secular movement, nearly rhapsodic. After a history of being rather too technocratic and wonky, there seems to be a growing realization in green circles about the importance of an alliance with the world of faith.

This has been a long time coming. The effort to mobilize religious believers to worry about climate as part of a broader, biblically grounded “creation care” mandate has a long history (though it has traditionally focused more on evangelicals than Catholics). …

The reason … is that it makes the climate debate moral, not scientific or technocratic. And when issues are moralized, people feel before they think and refuse to compromise. It may not be what we strictly call “rational,” but it is politically powerful… The moral emotion that is probably most relevant to the environment is … what many of us would simply call compassion or empathy. Recent research suggests that this emotion drives people toward environmental causes. There seems to be a deep connection between caring about other humans and then extending that to nature.

Yup. We need to know history so we can repeat its mistakes.

  • Andrew Dickson White’s work hasn’t stood up to a century of critical scrutiny. It’s to be expected that a guy like White, who wanted to establish a secular college without religious influence, would want to promulgate the idea that religion had always been the enemy of science and education. I’m nonreligious, but the historical consensus appears to be that White’s research (though a hoax) filled a need among secular academics for reinforcement of their anti-clerical prejudices.

    Stephen Jay Gould wrote a characteristically masterful essay on White that examined how and why he was able to persuade educated people in the 19th century that their medieval forebears believed the Earth was flat. As usual, it involved culturally popular notions of progress, the waning influence of organized religion, and the stereotype of the uneducated believer that persists to this day.

    • Well, Shem the Penman, tours is a sober comment with points we are certainly prepared to consider. We find White’s book entertaining, fun to quote. Also, a lot of it is confirmed by multitudes of other sources (eg. the Catholic Church’s reaction to Giordano Bruno and Galileo – which nobody denies). But let’s say much of it is unreliable. There is no doubt that: 1. the Catholic Church did order the burning of witches; 2. many “witches” were burned; 3. many were burned for “making bad weather”. So our story stands, regardless of whether the author we quote is accurate on all points, or not.

      Next, Science and Religion ARE incompatible. If you say they are not, show us your proofs of the existence of Jehovah, or Allah, or the Trinity, or Brahma, or Zeus …

      Finally (for now), we have found much to quarrel with in the writings of Stephen Jay Gould. But if White maintains that there was a time when people generally believed the earth was flat, then yes, he probably got it wrong. We have not been able to find a time when literate people believed or taught that the earth was flat.

      • I’m not trying to deny that the Catholic Church was an oppressive, authoritarian organization that thought nothing of brutally eliminating heretics and dissenters. But the idea that the Church was always opposed to science and education is one that lacks historical nuance. Copernicus and his work were admired by the Pope, and it was the scheming of Vatican bureaucrats that caused trouble later. Giordano Bruno was a heretic, plain and simple, and the authorities of the day had no compunction about dispatching him with little evident Christian mercy. The Galileo affair was a lot more complicated and political than the science vs. religion morality play taught by pop science writers today.

        Neither am I denying that the knowledge we’ve gained through empirical inquiry contradicts a literal reading of religious myth. However, there’s such a wide spectrum of interpretation of Scripture that it’s impossible to declare that these myths are supposed to mean the same thing to all believers. If we’ve concluded that all believers are literalist fundamentalists, maybe we’re not much better than the educated people White and Draper gulled into believing that medieval folks thought the Earth was flat.

        • Education? How did that come into our discussion?

          The Church always has been and remains opposed to Science. It can and does pretend otherwise, but belief in miracles, exorcism, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, is opposed to Science.

          Giordano Bruno was a “heretic”? You sound like a believer, which you say you are not. Yes, he disputed Catholic doctrine – more than just its cosmology. But he did dispute its cosmology, and that was one of the arguments that made him a “heretic” in Catholic eyes.

          How was the Galileo affair anything more than science vs. Catholic dogma?

          As for interpretation, yes, we know that “interpretation” can make any statement mean its opposite. The sophists were good at that.

          We have conceded some of your points. We think you are now splitting hairs.

          White’s research and publication, even if it is flawed, cannot be dismissed as a “hoax”. There is far too much of it for that – and much of it is incontrovertible.

      • liz

        I read Goulds article and he doesn’t make much of a case that the church was so compatible with science. It was only when it was to their advantage, just as is the case today.
        I think I’ve read before that Gould is an “accommodationist”.
        Just because the “earth is flat” belief may have been a myth, it doesn’t negate the many conflicts that did factually exist between science and the church.
        His argument is like saying that just because people have made up stuff about Obama (such as, he’s gay, or whatever) -if that’s proven not to be true, then that means none of the other claims – (that he’s a radical leftist, etc) are true either. It’s sidestepping the point, as does Gould by debunking the “flat earth” myth.

      • Sarah

        I can only suppose that this: “yours is a sober comment with points we are certainly prepared to consider.” is a jab at me. Fair enough.
        Shem the Penman is right though. White’s scholarship has *not* stood up to the test of time. Thus even if White’s book is “entertaining” and “fun to quote” it’s also “innaccurate”, “unscientific” and “spreading falsehoods”.
        If you quote things you know are incorrect because you like the way they sound you’re neither an empiricist, rationalist or scientist.
        Also it’s a nitpick but Unable to Prove Zeus =/= Science and Zeus are incompatible. You may have other sensible arguments to prove science and religion are incompatible, but that one is worse than nonsense.
        Science is currently unable to prove that I had breakfast sixteen weeks ago, that doesn’t mean that science and me having breakfast are incompatible.

        • This last paragraph of yours – don’t you realize that it is really very silly?

          You have been nit-picking. Your indignation worked up over nothing very much.

          All very peculiar. Let’s drop it.

          • Sarah

            ROFLOL. The last resort of someone who realises they’re wrong “Don’t you realise I’m right, look I can’t prove it right now, lets just drop it, please?”
            You either don’t understand science or don’t understand proof if you think my comment was silly. Don’t be sad, you’re an ignorant climate change denier so I wasn’t expecting more from you. Don’t worry, you haven’t disappointed anyone here, except those who were hoping for an intelligent scientifically informed conservative atheism.

          • Sarah

            p.s. Did you know that science can’t prove the Law of Noncontradiction or the Law of Identity?
            That’s right – according to your “logic” we can’t prove the Law of Identity (A=A) therefore it’s incompatible with science.
            Either that or “science can’t prove it” is a stupid criteria for whether something is incompatible with science or not.
            In fact, science can’t prove any of philosophy or logic. There is no empirical test for the laws of logic.
            There are ways to prove that science and religion are incompatible. This is not one of them.

          • Sarah

            Interesting. Memory holing and deleting comments that prove you wrong. How… rational and evidenced based of you.

  • Sarah

    Wow, that first guy is incredibly ignorant. He doesn’t understand Papal Infallability. “With the application of torture to thousands of women, in accordance with the precept laid down in the Malleus” – this is a massive overestimate according to current scholarship, not as bad as the Wiccan/Feminist “Burning Times” mythology but not supported by the evidence either. “chiefly women and children” Not true – see recent scholarship into the Spanish Inquisition. “great men arose in the Church throughout Europe in every generation to point out new cruelties for this discovery of “weather-makers”, and new methods for bringing their machinations to naught” Bollocks. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Who are these great men? What were their great advances in torture? What were these new “methods for bringing their machinations to naught”? “If the All-wise God punishes his creatures with tortures infinite in cruelty and duration, who should not his ministers, as far as they can, imitate him?” – Yeah, that sounds like how they would have justified that. Stupidly and in a way designed to make it sound cruel.

    Given all these factual errors in such a short passage. How accurate can we assume the rest to be? Certainly I’ve never heard of the “Démonomanie des Sorciers” so that’s a good test – he asserts “All the learning of the time, divine and human, he marshaled in support of the prevailing theory.” On the Wiki on the other hand it describes him as “opposing the normal safeguards of justice” so which was it? Was the prevailing opinion in favour or against safeguards? Frankly I’m going to trust Wiki, and the supposed source – Witchcraft (1969) Pennethorne Hughes, rather than this 1896 tome by someone ignoramus with a half dozen obvious factual errors in a few paragraphs (and who’s title suggests he supports the discredited Conflict theory). What a dope.

    • liz

      The “discredited Conflict theory”- meaning that the idea of a conflict between science and religion has been discredited?
      If you actually believe there is no conflict between science and religion, then you are the ignoramus. No wonder you’re willing to believe everything you read in Wikipedia.

      • Sarah

        If you don’t know what Conflict Theory is and why it’s been discredited it’s better not to open your mouth and remove doubt that you’re the kind of idiot who would have an opinion on something they don’t know about. Of course “the idea of a conflict between science and religion” is not conflict theory. Look it up.

        • Why are you so rude and aggressive, Sarah? These ideas can surely be discussed without feverish anger. You wrote “Conflict theory” not “Conflict Theory” the first time. Naturally liz – like ourselves – took this to mean the theory of the Conflict that had been alluded to in other words in the title of the quoted book. The book is famous, the author spent many years on his research, he is not a “dope”. I have a number of books, by well known historians, on the Inquisition, all of them endorsing what he says. Are they all dopes because you don’t like what they say?

          Are you alluding to Marxist “Conflict Theory”? We are not persuaded by Marxism. We think it is lies and an abomination. Are you a defender of Marxism as well as the Catholic Church? If so, are you a “Liberation Theologist”?

          • Sarah

            I suppose you ask all the confrontational men you encounter why they’re so “rude” do you? Or do you reserve delicate polite standards for women who say stuff you don’t like? Can you link yourself ever saying anything so presumptuous to another man on the web or is this a first? .
            Calling a long dead author an ignoramus I don’t consider rude.

            liz turning around with her uninformed opinion and calling me an ignoramus seems like quite enough reason to mention that she has opened her mouth and removed doubt that she’s an idiot by speaking confidently about something she obviously knows little about.

            The author is a dope, an ignorant muppet from 1897, who’s multiple factual inaccuracies make him as reliable a teacher of history as any ‘Wiccan Feminist’ who claim similarly debunked nonsense as he does.

            I know he says some things that you agree with but that’s no reason to abdicate your intellectual responsibility to empiricism by embracing such *demonstrably factually incorrect* nonsense. If you don’t think he’s factually incorrect, feel free to dispute the mistakes I pointed out above.

            You’re right, it’s not called Conflict Theory, it’s called Conflict Thesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
            It’s relevant that it’s discredited because that guy in 1897 was before it being discredited and therefore still pushed it, however we now know better and that renders much of what he says completely irrelevant.

            • Yes, I say exactly the same things to men and women when they elicit the same response.

              Religion and Science are incompatible no matter how many “thinkers” say otherwise.

            • One other thing. About Wikipedia. The entry on me is accurate as far as it goes, but I have found many others that are quite wildly inaccurate. Why do you assume that I, my co-editors, and our readers are ignorant or naive about the world we live in? Have you read much on our website? I think we show that we know what we’re talking about to a reasonable degree. And we welcome reasoned argument.

            • Sarah

              O holy shit I’m talking to a legit celebrity and person of great achievement. There is no wikipedia page one me. Also I’m talking to someone born in 1932; If offended by my tone please accept my apologies, I had no idea I was talking to someone who is 83 years old (ish), otherwise I would have modified my confrontational persona to one more appropriate to speaking to someone who grew up when standards of common civility were stricter and more widely enforced. I’m sure you’re capable of dealing with any sort of nonsense, and have done throughout your life, but I would have communicated with greater delicacy anyway. Congratulations on all your achievements.
              I have not read much of your website, I was passing through when I noticed the quotation from that book. I am not a conservative (though I am far from a hard leftist/SJW) so I will probably not stick around after this conversation is done, however I’ll glance around. I hold no negative opinion of the site, and I’m sure you do know what you’re talking about to a reasonable degree, however the guy from 1897 who wrote that book you quoted, he definitely didn’t. You’re right that Wikipedia can be wildly innacurate though it can be useful if used with appropriate caution, external reference and without accepting anything it says as the gospel truth.

            • liz

              Although you obviously are a typical product of your generation – a know-it-all with bad manners- it’s still a lame excuse.

            • Sarah

              Lol. Know it all is better than condescending but uninformed.

            • Sarah

              I did think that Jillian was an odd name for a man in passing, but didn’t pay much attention because what people write is more important than who is writing it. You wouldn’t believe how much more condescension and hostility and pleas for civility that I get writing under this name as opposed to my alternate more gender neutral/masculine nom d’internets, where I’m more often (though not always) supported for my forthrightness and “telling it like it is”. I’m not about to retreat to hide behind a masculine name though just because people on the net are sexist shits though. (Not you)
              Religion and science may be incompatible but the Conflict Thesis is debunked, badhistory, and like Logical Positivism is just a blind alley waiting to entrap unwary atheists into believing self-congratulatory nonsense that will leave them embarrassed when they realise how wrong they’ve been, or even worse are destroyed in a debate by someone more informed/more intelligent.

            • Sarah

              “Religion and Science are incompatible no matter how many “thinkers” say otherwise.”
              Yeah. Bollocks. Of course you’d have to understand science to see why that’s stupid, and you obviously know nothing about science because you think
              Can’t prove A = Science and A are incompatible.
              Which is retarded.

    • We know that Catholic writers are trying to whitewash the Inquisition. It’s a hopeless undertaking. Give it up.

      • Sarah

        Don’t care about Catholic writiers. Proper historians however do have numbers, statistics and evidence. If you think millions of women and children were killed in “the burning times” you should see what modern scholarship tells us. You might be surprised, and might learn something.

        • Apart form Wkipedia, if you have references, give them to us.

          • Our point is that people have been blamed for bad weather for a long time, although people are not actually, and never have been, responsible for the weather. How many people have been blamed when and by whom, it is not essential to establish.

            • Sarah

              You speak with the Royal “We”. Are you the OP or are you just having an attack of ego?
              p.s. even if you are the OP you look like a fucking idiot when you speak in the plural as though you speak for multiple people or a group when you’re just giving your own opinion. We think this is very true, it is our opinion.
              Are we sure that we can believe that people have been blamed for the weather when we’re being informed by this ignorant fucking cretin? He makes numerous factual mistakes in those few paragraphs, but for this one thing you think he probably got it right? Because it supports your argument and it’s useful to you, you’ve convinced yourself that it’s irrelevant how wrong he is about other things, he’s probably just right on this one point? Are you retarded.
              And don’t start again on this pseudo misogynist “concern” for my unladylike language. This isn’t a feminist fainting couch right? I’m sure you can cope with some salty language when discussing these ancient cretins.

            • Sarah

              Not essential to your argument. Essential to being an accurate and scientifically informed person who is only spreading the truth with no lies though. I wouldn’t spread false claims about anything just because “it’s in the right area to prove another point and I don’t need the specifics”. If I had to make the point and didn’t have any actually reliable or accurate evidence I would say “Though we don’t have evidence of the specific numbers/places/whatever we do know that…” as opposed to “These are the right numbers and places and the overall situation supports… …Oh, I’ve been called out on the specifics, I guess you’re right they’re not accurate however we do know…”
              That way I wouldn’t have ever been spreading unscientific and long debunked nonsense.

          • Sarah

            If you want a simple introduction: http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition.htm
            If you want it from a Jewish (culturally) perspective like mine*: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
            Otherwise, if you have access to a library, try: Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge University Press (1990) – William Monter, Inquisition and Society in Spain (1998) – Henry Kamen, Inkwizycja Hiszpańska [The Spanish Inquisition] (2005) – Henry Kamen, Orígenes de la Inquisición Española. El Tribunal de Valencia, 1478–1530. Ricardo García Cárcel, “Some recent work on the Inquisition in Spain and Italy”. Journal of Modern History 54 (3): 519–532. Geoffrey Parker (1982), The Spanish Inquisition, 1478–1614, An Anthology of Sources, Lu Ann Homza, The Spanish Inquisition : A Historical Revision. (2014) Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, (2006) Helen Rawlings

            • I have so far only followed the 2 links you gave me. Nothing there contradicts anything we have quoted.

              As for the books, my own library on the Inquisition(s) is bigger than that. I very much doubt that any of these disprove the scholarly works I have on my shelves. If there’s a very new study among them – one of the whitewashing variety – I have read some of those too, articles rather than whole volumes – and remain unpersuaded by them.

              What exactly are you saying is wrong with the quotation? What exactly are you saying would be the accurate correction?

              Why the hell are you defending so frightful an institution as the Inquisition – Papal or Spanish?

              Another reply to you below.

            • Sarah

              What I’m saying is wrong are the numerous factual errors identified in my original post.

              I’m not defending any inquisition, I’m defending good history. If you want a more informed debate or education by actual historians, try out http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory

              Why are you defending debunked protestant mythology about catholics? What’s your dog in that fight? I just want us to be accurate and informed because

              1) Truth matters

              2) empiricism is superior to mythology and

              3) tactically it’s better to promulgate the truth rather than nonsense that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside because it protects you from being debunked and made to look extremely foolish and uninformed – this is particularly true if like me you hit your points hard and don’t have any truck with nonsense, you will look especially foolish when it turns out you’ve been angrily insisting exaggerated mythology is factual truth and

              4) The inquisitions were bad and cruel enough without exagerrating their extent and depravity. We don’t need to buy into the feminist Wiccan myth that millions of witches were burned by evil priests and doctors who feared the competition of their wise woman medical knowledge to acknowledge that the witch burnings and murders that happened were atrocities that should be condemned to our utmost. And we don’t need to buy into (mostly English protestant) myths of millions of tortured inquisition victims to know that the ones who *were* tortured and murdered were victims of the cruel excesses of religion and to condemn the religion and religious for it. Condemning people for what they’ve actually done is more powerful and more secure than condemning them more harshly for things they haven’t done, and means you never have to backpedal and make everyone suspect that everything you have said is untrustworthy, out of date and not empirical.

            • Sarah

              “As for the books, my own library on the Inquisition(s) is bigger than that. I very much doubt that any of these disprove the scholarly works I have on my shelves.”

              Where’s the scholarship that supports “”great men arose in the Church throughout Europe in every generation to point out new cruelties for this discovery of “weather-makers”, and new methods for bringing their machinations to naught””

              What were these new cruelties? When were they discovered and by who? This is a nonsense claim and I bet you don’t have any evidence to support his opinion.

  • liz

    “Cases in which science information is intentionally undermined for the sake of political or financial gain.” Amazing how people like this professor never stop to consider that they themselves are the gullible pawns of just such an agenda.

    • Azgael

      They are not scientists, they are leftists first and that’s it, they will do everything possible to advance their murderous ideology truth and facts be dammed.

  • Don L

    Gore is the God Of Global Warming!


      And you, my friend, are the “God” of insight!

      • Don L

        LOL…as I told Jillian when she indicated I was missed: REALBEING, I think the cheese has slipped off your cracker! LOL. (heard this at the hospital by some guy behind a curtain in the pre-surgery ward.)

        • REALBEING

          You’re not only the “God of insight,” you might even be the “patron saint of comedy!”

          • Don L

            LOL…I’ll take that latter one…’cause i”m the pig wing optimist!!!.LOTFOL Not only, then, am I a Don Quixote of possibility, I’m near drone-like overhead problem for that ‘slamist scum!!! Pig wings sold here!

  • Azgael

    Unless there is a swift eradication of these Human imposters, humanity only has 1 future and that is extinction, no other species on this planet, would intentionally put their own species on the path to extinction, thus the logical explanation is that these so called “people” are not human.
    The left has done what religion has failed to do for 2000 years and that is corrupt science.

    The left is hate, Genocide is their past time, Slavery is their legacy


    According to the latest NASA data, apparently the Earth’s North Pole and it’s South Pole haven’t heard of “Global Warming” yet:


    And you will NOT hear anything about this on the mainstream media………

    • Don L

      Ya know, the thing that is more probable and making climate change moot is the magnetic reversal thingamabob. It never gets much press but there is a serious likelihood of the North/South pole reversing and during this transition we would be vulnerable to significant, if not deadly, X-Rays from the sun (think poles deflecting suns murderous rays which give rise to the aroura bor….northern lights (LOL).

      We SHOULD be erecting huge metal shields over all our cities…raise taxes now!!!

      Or, even more human destructive is the Yellostone caldera. They just discovered an even deeper sea of magma below the near surface lake…all ready to do a life jeopardizing kaboom!

      We SHOULD design an built massive atmospheric vacuum cleaners to suck the ash from the skies so agriculture an solar panels won’t be affected…life will go on.

      By he way…save the earth…BS. The earth will be here. We may not but the planet ain’t going anywhers!!!

      If the courts weren’t so corrupted with collectivism ideologues…all pollution could have been solved under the constitutional established notion of private property…secure these rights. Pollute my air, pollute my lake (privately owned earth in a free market society), my portion of the river, my lesser or greater canyon…real dollar damages and cease & desist orders/rulings would fly out of real courts of LAW.

      Today we have judges, deemed honorable, who willingly go along with developers (who historically have failed) to steal ‘paahrivate’ property. UnLaw today: In the name of climate change…gov’t doesn’t have to compensate you…gov’t can just take/control/deny you access to your property. Heck of a deal.

      It’s for the good of all.


        Question for ALL of the “sky-is-falling” pundits in our government……….
        When are you finally going to give up TRYING to control everything?

        Over and above this being a political agenda item,…is this “external controlling program” a compensation for the control that you feel is absent in your own personal life?

        • Don L

          My GI Friend…they will never give up.

          Azgael has made some really armed revolutionary
          …angry…comments. I have to say I’m not too far off from him. I’m just waiting to see sufficiency to lead or join rather than getting a gunand revolting all by myself…I’m allergic to lead entering my body…especially if foolishly putting myself in that position.

          The left has never had a problem seeking power and then eradicating all manner of opposition. I think we Atheist Constitutionalists [?] (a differnt post explains this terminology) need adopt this dictatorship/Lincolnesque operandi…kill the socialists…anyone who opposes free market capitalism gets the choice of re-education or Victory ship oceanic adventure in collectivist survival.

          Those, like myself, who are truly and unquestionably brilliant adhere to Hayek’s and von Mises admonishments….ignorance is not knowing you don’t know. Milton Fiedman, Charles Krauthammer are only two of the many TV touted experts who aren’t. Brialliant but failing to see that they don’t see. Krauthammer and Friedman support/supported FED as but one example of failing. They truly believe they can manage an economy…See the “I. Pencil” post a few days ago. (They are conservatives…why I think the word loses all meaning)

          As long as there is ego that believes it knows how others should live, have plans that will make all better….they must be slapped down or eradicated. Or, true intelligernce is knowing that one doesn’t know.

      • liz

        No kidding – Iran will probably nuke us all before anyone dies of CO2 poisoning. But Obama continues to direly warn of climate change while giving Iran the bomb.

        • Don L

          The Domestic Enemy misdirection.

          Maybe if we get a secret service guy laid we can get him to reroute the exghaust on limo one…Oh, that’s monoxide…ah, what the hell…either or if it works! LOL.

          • liz

            Good idea!!!