UPDATE: February 10, 2009: 8:12 AM:

Endangered Spaces blog (one of my favorites for environmental news) did a timely post on the issue of methane entitled, "Permafrost meltdown means more methane" (February 10, 2009) with a link to a National Wildlife Federation article that I recommend you visit and read: "A Ticking Time Bomb in the Arctic?" by Susan Q. Stranahan (Feb/Mar 2009, vol. 47 no. 2).

Climate scientists fear that massive levels of a greenhouse gas with 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere from the thawing Arctic Ocean.

There's a post over on OpEdNews entitled, "Global Cooling and the Madness of Davos," by Patrick St James, on which I posted the following 2 comments (so far). If you find these interesting, go read the whole of Patrick's article and the other comments there. It's what one might call "cutting edge" right now.

Exxon Shill?

The economic downturn slowed the increase burning. The recession started in 2007. Driving was dramatically reduced during parts of 2008 when gas was at its highest price. People and businesses are now driving and transporting more than then (last year) but still far less than 2006 rates. The Antarctic ice is still melting and breaking despite some earlier libertarian propaganda from Exxon to the contrary. The Arctic ice also did not increase but continued receding more during the summer. The chemtrails and freshwater runoff are impacting. It all adds up. It is a terrible mistake to take things in isolation. Of course the Sun changes. Of course those changes impact the whether [meant weather] here. One volcano can have a larger impact. Many things can. Melting the peat bogs in Russia can. Melting the methane in the oceans can. Why act as if human activity though is all but irrelevant? Were [meant We're] killing the planet in many ways. Global warming is just one aspect, but we need to handle every aspect. By the way, not everyone who wants clean, alternative energy is for Cap & Trade. I'm not. It's lame. I'm not saying you, Patrick, said they are; but it's worth stating here nevertheless.

by Tom Usher

The Prize

Hi All,

I'm sorry about the spelling errors in my earlier comment: "whether" for "weather" and "were" for "we're," etc. I was actually up all night on account of someone who will remain nameless here.

First, a shill hardly has to be paid in mammon to be a shill. I realize it isn't fashionable to think so, but shill's can be nearly unwitting. I don't say I profess to know you are a witting pawn of Exxon. You do though tout their line. Others, such as Glenn Beck, get huge monetary compensation from the global-overlord system. You can bet that General Electric is not one of his sponsors.

As for the issue of whether or not human-induced CO2 is not a factor in global warming or "climate change" (that was Frank Luntz's – the Republican word smith – contribution and not the "liberals"), the only source you, Patrick, have cited is the Bush administration's U.S. Department of Energy.

You recall that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush and many others in Bush-43's administration were oilmen and women. You recall that Dick Cheney had the top oil executives (exclusively) work with him in formulating the U.S. energy policy (and therefore the Bush foreign policy with the Pentagon suppliers – Halliburton – and paramilitary contractors also very largely in mind). The minutes of the meetings remain secret to this day if I'm not mistaken. You remember that the Middle East's oil was the central imperial "prize," as Dick Cheney termed it, that was the reason the U.S. went into Iraq financially to colonize it under U.S. oil corporation exclusives (exclusive contracts) and that the rest of the story has been proven to have been completely concocted (WMD's, etc.).

Why then do you automatically believe what has been called the anti-science Bush administration when it comes to what is supposed to be scientific data? Are the 3% and 9% figures really correct? What do other scientists say about those numbers? I haven't specifically looked, but I'd be shocked if those numbers are the general consensus, not that the general consensus is always right, far from it. However, you're standing on the one leg of the Department of Energy that developed those figures under an oil-industry's Presidential administration, lock, stock, and barrel. Doesn't it give you pause?

How much CO2 does it take to tip the balance? That's important. How unstable do things get how quickly? Exxon appears willing to gamble to win now and lose later just as the Wall Street investment bankers (now quickly and conveniently regulated banks, to game the FDIC) have shown they were willing to do in their huge sector. The greed motive, the inherent error, doesn't disappear just because one moves from considering one industry to another. Greed is greed. Are the people at Exxon somehow less greedy than are the people at Goldman Sachs? No, they aren't. They aren't less selfish or shortsighted.

To be clear, I'm not in full agreement with Al Gore. I don't though think it's all about money with him. I don't though hold with Exxon-funded junk science and obvious false propaganda at all. It is all about money with them. It is about getting theirs now while they're still alive (mundanely so) to get it and posterity be damned. Let the next generations worry about it. It's not the living's problem.

I'm glad to hear that you are an environmentalist for a carbon-neutral world. I also agree with you that the world has been hotter. The issue though is with the rapidity of change and how it will impact humanity. A more stable climate is easier on the people. I trust you agree.

Also, is this "colder phase" a trend or a blip? Is it the result of secret but visible technology, such as chemtrails, that may be (no doubt are in my book) the harbinger of more environmental degradation that later on, the enthusiast will claim (the chemtrails) held unforeseeable, unintended, negative consequences (externalities) – that could have, however, easily been avoided had the whole thing not been done in secret in the first place. There's no money in being open, honest, and direct though, right?

CO2 is not a poisonous gas in all cases. However, if you are put in a room of nothing but CO2, you'll die if you remain there with only CO2 to breathe. Al Gore isn't claiming that CO2 is a poisonous gas in all settings. Let's be careful to avoid wording that may easily be construed as a blatant attempt to imply that he is and to twist weak minds such as those of the constant Fox News watchers and adherents.

Libertarian propaganda is no contradiction in terms if one is speaking about the Libertarianism of say the Austrian School of economics. To be clear here, I don't hold that what they call liberty is real freedom. I'm a Christian, not a capitalist.

Also, Al Gore doesn't own the debate on the side of those who are opposed to unbridled CO2 emissions.

Finally, where would you draw the line, Patrick, since the 3% and 9% figures don't seem to cause you any concerns whatsoever? Maybe you could clarify. Are you just against the Cap & Trade scheme, or are you against all regulations? How do you achieve carbon neutrality?

I'm for a non-coercive system, but I'm for going all the way to Christian communism. Libertarianism as the term is generally used right now (a misnomer) is not prepared to go there. That Libertarianism (false-hearted) will never make it. It won't last.

Bless you, Patrick.


If you don't know about chemtrails, Google it. Also Google "global dimming." I've written about both before on this site. You can do a site search here on both.

2, CO2 emissions, colder phase, colonize, communism, communist Christian, consequences, culture, current affairs, current events, Davos, Dick Cheney, economic downturn, economics, environmental degradation, environmentalist, exclusive contracts, externalities, Exxon, Exxon shill, Exxon-funded, false propaganda, false-hearted, FDIC, Fox News, Frank Luntz, freedom, freshwater runoff, gamble, General Electric, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, global cooling, global dimming , global warming, Goldman Sachs, Google, greed, greedy, Halliburton, imperial, investment bankers, Iraq, junk science, liberal Christian, liberal Church, liberals, libertarian, Libertarian, Libertarianism, liberty, mammon, media, methane, Middle East, misnomer, news, non-coercive, oil, oil corporations, oil executives, oilmen, OpEdNews, overlord, paramilitary contractors, Patrick St James, peat bogs, Pentagon, philosophy, poisonous gas, politics, posterity, propaganda, real Christian, real liberal, recession, regulations, Republican, Russia, science, scientists, secret, selfish, shill, shortsighted, socialism, socialist Christian, society, spirituality, stable climate, sun spots, technology, the prize, theology, tip the balance, Tom Usher, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. energy policy, unbridled, unforeseeable, unintended, unstable, volcano, Wall Street, WMD's[/tags] —>

Tom Usher

About Tom Usher

Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.


  1. stephanie says:

    Today many factories came and increasing the pollution more and more. There would be so many problems because of it. So it is in our hands to reduce it.

    • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

      Hello Stephanie,

      It is amazing that there are people who don't care about the environment. They're evil and don't care. Some people actually go out of their way to ruin the environment — to ruin other people's effort to clean up and to recycle, etc. How will those who even deliberately ruin the planet escape damnation? How can anyone even show his or her face without caring and doing the right things?


  2. Jason Barr says:

    [Jason, I took the liberty of adding your last name, per the recently updated comment rules for this site. Tom Usher]

    This is right on. Right, exactly, spot on. Most uninformed critics of global warming with whom I deal in my daily life have no grasp of the fact that what is at stake is not that human beings are responsible for every or even MOST of the factors that determine the increase in global temperature - but that what really matters is that human activity has tipped the balance in favor of an unnatural increase in global temperature.

    It's scary that in only about 200 years of industrial society we've caused effects that it would take the earth a millennium to deal with even if the problem were solved completely right now.

    And God will hold us accountable, not least by the judgment the earth will pass upon us through floods and storms if we do not change our ways.

    Thank you for continuing to call attention to these vital issues. May God raise up more voices in defense of his creation who will help us see the need to live in harmony with all of creation, human and non-human.

  3. Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

    La Niña in the Pacific in 2007-8 contributed to cooling. George Will didn't know this when he tried to debunk Global Warming. La Niña can last several years. It was predicted to last through spring 2008. Then, all other things being equal, warming would return.

    I just checked the latest info on it. It has continued up to now only in a weakened condition. They are now saying it will end this coming spring of 2009.

    Answers to La Niña Frequently asked questions: Frequently asked questions on La Niña, Southern Oscillation Index U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    "NASA Observes La Niña: This 'Little Girl' Makes A Big Impression." ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2008)

    Cool, wet conditions in the Northwest, frigid weather on the Plains, and record dry conditions in the Southeast, all signs that La Niña is in full swing.

Comments are closed.