Senate hearing today: John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steyn

Roy Spencer passed on a note about this, and I figured I should post here before the event because there will be live video. And Mark Steyn.

Roy understates:

Ted Cruz’s climate change hearing (today at 3 pm EST) should be interesting. Witnesses on our side include my sidekick John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and (drum roll) Mark Steyn. I expect a few zingers.

He also notes live video will be available, see for details, I don’t see them yet.


Excerpts from

Cruz tees up panel on warming after taunting Obama

Hannah Northey, E&E reporter

Published: Monday, December 7, 2015

After poking fun at President Obama’s call for action at climate talks in Paris last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate, is scheduled to convene a hearing on the effect of money and politics on climate research.

The senator last week accused Obama of mistakenly focusing on the threat of emissions over terrorism (ClimateWire, Dec. 2). “Instead of focusing on the perceived threat to national security of the SUV in your driveway, President Obama should be standing up and leading to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during an interview in the Capitol. “But he refuses to confront the very real threats facing America today.”

The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters, including John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who disputes the consensus on human-induced climate change; Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology; and William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University.

Also testifying will be Mark Steyn, the Canadian National Review writer and author of “Climate Change: The Facts” who told attendees at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change this summer that his claim to fame is calling fraudulent the well-known “hockey stick” theory that Michael Mann — a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University — has developed.

The lone call for action to thwart the effects of climate change will likely come from the Democratic minority’s witness, Rear Adm. David Titley, formerly of the Naval Oceanography Operations Command, who recently joined Sherri Goodman, President Clinton’s deputy undersecretary of Defense, in calling on politicians to stop politicking on the issue of global warming (Greenwire, June 10).

Titley has predicted that as more Arctic ice melts, nations may want to revise the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, especially with regard to fish stocks moving north due to rising ocean temperatures. If that happens, he has said, nations like China could potentially file claims on Arctic resources while the United States would be left out of the negotiation process (E&E Daily, Oct. 1).

144 thoughts on “Senate hearing today: John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steyn

      • Will you accept for starters the U.S. Government as a source for information on the ‘concept’?
        Please note the ‘concept’ of climate ZONES or regions. There is no single global climate.
        U.S. Department of Energy
        Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
        VOLUME 7.3
        Guide to Determining
        Climate Regions by County
        Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
        August 2015
        Additional information on international climatic zones can be found in
        ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Normative Appendix B – Building Envelope
        Climate Criteria.

    • Too funny for words…

      The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters, including John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who disputes the consensus on human-induced climate change; Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology…

      A “climate scientist” and a “climatologist” who supposedly doubt the climate… LOL!

    • Exactly Greg. That’s a terrible choice of words which plays right into the alarmists’ hands.
      Climate doubter? What could the author be thinking?

      • Hannah Northey, E&E reporter uses ‘climate’ as a truncated version of ‘climate change’™, a term formally defined by the UN….
        This UN confabulated political term is deliberate in both its confusion and misdirection. It was designed to be, rather like the UN’s use of ‘civil society’™ implying civilized society, which of course it is not or either.
        It may not be too far away when the necessity for pretense ceases and they simply drop ‘climate’ and ‘change’ from any discussion and state, ‘UN’ in their place. It works very well and rarely interferes in any way with the meaning. Actually, I find it usually clarifying matters quite nicely.

      • One small but important correction to your fine post, mighty Manfred:
        … ‘climate’ as a truncated version of ‘{human caused} climate change’™, … .”

    • It explains why Saratoga is colder now, than Sunnyvale was 150 years ago, and they are maybe ten miles apart. (Si Valley geography).

      • But then again, Saratoga and Los Gatos often have the warmest temperatures in the South Bay. The micro-climates here gives one an appreciation for how naturally variable the climate can be.

      • I could have sworn that I didn’t say anything about temperature.
        I think I said Saratoga is colder than Sunnyvale. And likely still was 150 years ago.
        Nothing to do with temperature.
        Anomalies are anomalous.

      • “Anomalies are anomalous”
        except in meteorology where it is defined as
        Anomalies denote the departure of an element from its long-period average value for the location concerned, and since the temperature is rarely exactly the average value it’s almost always an anomaly!

  1. “The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters…”
    I doubt that they doubt that the planet has a climate.
    Titley sounds a little tipsy, but at least he didn’t claim that the Ocean’s would boil over.
    Well, he hasn’t yet, anyway.

    • Titley is at least a century premature with his concerns, given the paleoclimatic evidence of a coming cooling period. If the globe ever actually warms enough to open up the arctic ocean to exploitation, the bigger question is, what will have become of what was once the greatest nation on the planet?

      • The way that Obummer is handling National Defence, there might not be any USA left, to have any interest in Arctic fish stocks.

      • More likely, will human beings have been eliminated by robots, courtesy of emotionally stunted engineering idiots who actually thought they could create intelligent robots without them taking over??

      • Dawg,
        I don’t think you mean the U.S.S.R. – at over 8,000,000 square miles, far bigger than any two other great nations – do you?
        Mods –
        – note the /sarc tag I now deploy, to avoid doubt, any doubt.
        Any doubt whatsoever.

  2. So, it will be a few folks talking actual science and common sense versus one person promoting gloom and doom fear mongering.
    Wonder which one the MSM will proclaim “won” the debate?

  3. “Also testifying will be Mark Steyn, the Canadian National Review writer and author of “Climate Change: The Facts”…”
    Gee, I wonder if Steyn knew he wrote that along with “A Disgrace to the Profession”?

    • JohnWho (exactly). When one is trying to save the Nile Crocodile, naturally it’ll be ignorantly trying to bite your leg off. A big surprise would be in store for the 40,000 useful fools, er..I mean delegates, pushing to foreclose on civilization and put in charge the elitist marxbrothers, if they were to be successful. Johnny, the Kumbaya forever result you and the 40k designer-brained nice but disillusioned facilitators are trying to achieve would be a worse nightmare for ordinary folk than in the USSR. I’m assuming you won’t be one of the elites.

    • The journalist who composed that garbled the facts; Steyn is a contributor to that anthology, not its author or editor.

      • Yes, but facts and accuracy don’t matter. That appears to be about the accepted level of quality in journalism these days, at least in “climate science” and environmental journalism.

      • Just read the .pdf file of his presentation. He holds no punches back and there is not a bit of comedy in it. It’s one of the most scathing indictments of everyone involved in the climate scam, including the committee to whom he is testifying. He’s covered all the bases.

    • It would be great if this warmist got the proper response to his concern that “politicians stop politicking on the issue of global warming”.
      The right response is that if politicians stop politicking there will BE no issue. Global warming is PURE politics, top to bottom.

  4. I hope Steyn tones it down and gives a serious explanation of the legal intimidation that’s going on rather than putting on a comedy show. This isn’t a podcast or a radio talk show; it’s supposed to be a venue for serious examinations of fact.

    • Dems know better than to expose their racket to an interrogator as brilliant as Cruz. By fielding an admiral, they hope to win some sympathy, if not mercy from the GOP-dominated panel.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Michael,
        No. Why would any sane person ask such an absurd question?
        Don’t take my word for Cruz’ brilliance. Ask his Harvard Law professors. Dershowitz said he was the most brilliant student he had ever met there. Or look at how brilliant his campaign strategy and execution have been. He’ll have a hard time overcoming the Liberal Eastern Establishment RINOs, but so far it’s hard to fault his performance on the trail from a strategic or tactical standpoint.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • His filibuster didn’t fail.
        It achieved his strategic goal of becoming the leader of senators opposed to the business as usual, go along to get along RINO leadership in Congress.

    • The last time they sent a pro AGW idiot, he and his lawyer support got seriously smacked down.

      I suspect we won’t see Sierra Club President Aaron Mair at another hearing for a while. 🙂

    • The pro (wrong prefix or word) CAGW folks declined to speak or ignored the requests.
      Odd, they couldn’t wait to ‘testify’ when Boxer, Mikulski or Waxman held climate hearings.
      But I don’t think any of the CAGW faithful are anxious to repeat the Sierra Club’s President’s ‘Aaron Mair’ testimony.
      Apparently they are disgusted that Representative Cruz refused appeals to authority or emotion and instead demanded hard proof.

        • You are correct. I obviously wasn’t paying attention while typing.
          For my part, “The Teahouse of the August Moon” was coming on and I was distracted. Still my bad.

  5. The USA’s military budget is laced with billions for climate change thingies and green gee gaws.
    To get budget votes lots of log rolling and back scratching in the form of pet projects is slipped into the Pentagon budget. Meanwhile the Generals shriek that they
    need more money for operations. An old game.
    When you hear that the US spends fantastic sums on it’s military it helps to know where big chunks of that money go.

  6. WHY CAN’T I make comments with my WordPress Account??????????????????????
    [The mods do not know. Your question ended up in the queue for review, and therefore was not immediately printed publicly. .mod]

  7. a hearing on the effect of money and politics on climate research.

    Hopefully, ….. the testimonies presented at this Congressional hearing will “trigger” additional hearings with subpoenas being issued to Directors, Managers, etc., of NASA, NOAA, NSA, DoD, DOE, etc. to give testimony on their expenditures, awarding of Grant monies and their politically biased science preferences …… and especially their highly questionable claims of scientific facts n’ figures.

  8. Cruz, Christy, Curry, Steyn . . . all at once! Don’t want to miss this.
    Wish I could attend live but I can’t. Assuming these sessions are recorded, does anyone know the link to view recorded sessions?

  9. I can foresee lots of hard drive crashes coming in the not too distant future of NASA, NOAA..etc…..And I didn’t even need a ” mode l” or to make any corrupt ” adjustments ” to my data !!!

  10. Titley went to school with me. As for more of the arctic melting, the amo flip coming in the decadol sense will end that little charade.

  11. A big surprise would be in store for the 40,000 useful fools, er..I mean delegates

    I wonder how many of those 40,000 walked, or better still, swam to Paris?

  12. Rear Adm. David Titley … who recently joined Sherri Goodman … in calling on politicians to stop politicking on the issue of global warming.

    That is unless the politicians are Democrats.

  13. Assuming the obvious, that global warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google this search: Battery NOAA Sea Level. The NOAA chart will show a strict linear trend of sea level increase, quite obviously not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1 billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that data measurement. (This is likely a trend that began with the last melting of glaciers 12,000 years ago.) Given that burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased by orders of magnitude in that time, the data completely mitigate against any conclusion that there has been influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.

  14. Wondering why it’s a ‘record’ temperature year? It was high TSI in 2015.
    In order, from high to low,
    2015, 1361.4512
    2014, 1361.3966
    2013, 1361.3587
    2012, 1361.2413
    2011, 1361.0752
    2003, 1361.0262
    2004, 1360.9192
    2010, 1360.8027
    2005, 1360.7518
    2006, 1360.6735
    2007, 1360.5710
    2009, 1360.5565
    2008, 1360.5382
    Sep, 1361.1063
    Oct, 1361.3139
    Nov, 1361.3688
    TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward:
    2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long outstanding solar cycle TSI peak like Feb 2015. Enjoy it while lasts, solar minimum is on the way… It took 6-7 years for TSI to drop to it’s lowest levels in 2008, and UAH temps followed. SSTs had a similar dip for 2008, also tracking TSI. Easy to see the temp drop here into 2008:
    Every bit of the increase in temps since 2008 is from the rise in TSI during SC24. Even though it’s the lowest SSN cycle in 100 years, SC24 was (and is) still potent.
    It’s TSI. It’s the Sun! 😉

    • Bob,
      Sorry to be – perhaps – a micro-tad cynical, but your emboldened statement, above – 2016 will NOT be a record year – refers, I presume, to UN-ADJUSTED ‘data’.
      I have no idea what the adjusted data looks like . . . . unless, say, as a blind guess, a hockey stick.
      Mods – please note the metaphysical /SARC as added anyway.

    • Bob, you do know that the TSI levels shown are not what is really hitting the earth. Check this statement on the offered website.
      The available Level 3 TSI data products produced by the SORCE program consist of daily and 6-hourly average irradiances reported at a mean solar distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) and zero relative line-of-sight velocity with respect to the Sun. At-Earth values are also included for climate researchers to use as inputs to models.
      Unless your a ‘climate researcher’, they have taken away the actual distance and daily affect.

  15. Well Dr. Roy, I have always thought not so much of a ” side kick ” relationship; but more of you, and your wing man; or verse vicea.
    That way the two of you can do the Thatch Weave, while running down the greemlins.
    Sounds like Mark Steyn, and Will Happer, will also make a nice duo.
    Dr Curry, can just pick off the stragglers.
    Sounds to me, like sanity will be well represented , and I hope that Senator Cruz understands that.

  16. Good choice of characters. I am surprised someone from the AG side of life was willing to turn up. I hope everyone is polite and sets an example of how to present a scientific argument,

  17. I don’t see any links anywhere for the live broadcast of this event? I do see the Senate Live on C-span 2 via cable TV, but don’t see anything on their schedule for the event referenced on this blog? WUWT?

    • You found that quite a coincidence as well? After all that time working in the Navy, in 2009 he gets a command to work on climate change from his superior whom received the command from ?, and then he gets a job at Penn. St. Do I see smoke?

    • All I get is: “Error: No valid source could be found”
      Maybe it requires that abysmal Adobe Flash Player.

  18. I will quote Dr. Evans :”The World has spent 100 billion dollars
    on global warming research since 1990 and
    we have not found any actual empirical
    evidence that carbon dioxide has caused
    most of the recent global warming.
    If there really was any evidence that
    rising carbon dioxide caused the warming
    don’t you think we would have heard about it?
    Instead we hear a deafening silence about
    the non-warming of the last 18 years.”
    ~Dr. David Evans~

  19. I LOVED Steyn’s testimony! HEY….I’m a human on this planet and I COUNT. The rigors of science SHOULD BY DEFAULT invite opposition to ANY and EVERY theory…if the goal of that science is to discover unbiased facts that is. The only theory that needs to be protected from criticism and refutation is a WEAK ONE. So obviously politicians and their “science community” informers are trying to prevent open, honest, critical discussion because they KNOW their position is WEAK.

  20. Dr. Titley was contacted in 2009 (one year into current POTUS) by a 4-star general to assess Arctic climate change’s impact on the Navy. I’m sure an exact transcript of that conversation would be much more interesting.

    • Dr Titley – “Let’s talk about orbital decay adjustments, stratospheric contamination, …” Waiting……….Oh, moving on?

  21. Titley moronically, and in robot fashion follows the script of the IPCC and the Obama administration. Really? That’s the best they could do? This is a romp. Climatism is such a complete joke that it is bizarre that it hasn’t been laughed off the planet.

  22. Oh YEAh!! The Democrats go for the “97% consensus” as defense!! Which only proves that the Democrat representative either doesn’t understand the actual “evidence” or likes slogans and “DOGMA instead of Data”! Nothing like using sloppy, inaccurate, published drivel to support one’s argument!

  23. I look forward to updates on climate focus science related summaries from John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steen.
    And also look forward to any other witnesses, whether they be consensus CAGW proponents or independent critical thinking proponents (aka skeptics).
    The assessment of which set of proponents has the better science and more integrated approach will be fun to do.

  24. Titley’s 4 “facts” or “things we know” all turned out to be nothing but climate memes. The “debate” will be stalled as long as the cult of global warming refuses to stop confusing facts with conjecture.

    • And here comes Senator Schultz to demonstrate his ignorance and more tired climate memes. He is certainly full of beliefs but devoid of well constructed thought.
      I especially love his logic that, he will believe non-cognitive entities, i.e. AGU, but not these climate scientists that just so happen to be members of the AGU. The takeaway, believe the political administrators posting a message statement but not the scientists.

  25. OMG…and they are BACK to Cook et al! I love it! This is how well these idiots understand it! Appeal to authority established by opinion!!!! It’s like a logical fallacy on top of another logical fallacy! I hope, it is my personal, vindictive, human, horrible, corrupted desire that if/when the world collapses due to the economic choices based on NON science (and not due to climate changes) that the entire world calls it the “Cook Effect”. May John and his buddies live in INFAMY as they so desire and deserve.

    • OMG “OMG…and they are BACK to Cook et al! I love it!” – and no one called them on it!!
      The 97% consensus scam was deflected to the opinion of 97% of the public that AGW isn’t a crisis. The good guys AGREED to write off the majority of the world’s scientists by their silence, and let the most important fraud in marketing the AGW scam persist.
      I don’t think ignoring the lies and merely presenting the truth is a robust policy; it’s not a policy of being as clever as serpents and as gentle as doves.

  26. This broadcast is a good example of why these congressional hearings end up accomplishing nothing: You have two sides with witnesses for each and advocates for each, but no judge running the hearing. And with no the rules of evidence in play you get nothing but a bunch of speeches and sloganeering with no meaningful cross examination (and senate committee rules are NOT rules of evidence). This hearing is not going to change anyone’s mind about anything; it’s just a bunch of “Hooray for our side and boo to yours!”

    • It will however mark in history that Ted Cruz and others tried to expose the lies, that he saw another side to the argument, and that ALL the AGW side had is a phony consensus study and the tactics of bullies on their side. Whatever happens in the future, history will show that not everyone were sheep, and that no matter how smart we think we are, we still need Gallileos in this world. (And no idiot Democrat Senators…it’s the underdogs opposing the consensus that are Gallileos….not poor stupid Dr. Titley who agrees with it.)

  27. According to Titley, the climate models are great at showing boundary conditions and don’t depend on boundary conditions. So apparently, he thinks that starting the climate model average temperature below or above equilibrium has no baring on what it will project. Amazing!

    • I wanted so badly to extend Dr Titleys little graph a LOT more to the left and shrink that HUGE trend (which showed mere 100ths of a degree) down to size and then smack him over the head with it! How idiotic did he look making a TINY increase in temps look like a skyscraper? And NOT citing his sources? And NOT putting his own chart into geological perspective? Shame on him and everyone who falls for his stupid.

  28. Wow…Senator Markey missed the entire point that the SKEPTICS are being called heretics, NOT Dr Tittley! That the apology will be directed at the OTHER panelists, NOT to him. He can’t even follow the conversation taking place in front of him today!

    • Awesome – Judy Curry has the skills to deal with political policy marketing shills; it sure was wonderful watching her getup on her hind legs and call them out.

  29. Funny thing is, none of the “deniers” sitting at that desk DENY that as the planet warms, the seas will rise, temperatures will change, ice will melt etc. No one with a brain would deny that the planet has ALWAYS DONE THOSE THINGS, and will, most likely do it again. Markey seems to think that they do….which is odd.

    • He needs to read the title of the hearing very very closely and then think about that with all his might.

  30. The satellite record was impugned with “constant updates”. that had me groaning… as if the entire land and sea record isn’t constantly updated.
    I wish someone would have said “sure, but at least the satellite folks keep the old versions around that you can check against”, unlike, say GISS…

  31. Dear Ric,
    “Climate Doubter(s)” is a nonsensical expression.
    A more suitable expression in the context of your paragraph would be “global warming” doubter(s).
    Please re-write your sentence. Thank you.

  32. It reminded me of an extended scene from “The Twilight Zone”.
    The call to authority and consensus was nauseating.
    The attempts at reversal of reality were laughable.
    No progress appears to have been made toward reconciliation that man might affect climate but nature might effect it more.

    • I had to LOL at Titley’s attempt to “shell game” all the calculations needed to derive temps by satellite, after Happer pointed out that satellites are calibrated to balloon observations.

  33. Everyone, please take the time to read Mark Steyn’s testimony in total.
    His wickedly sharp humor is exactly what is needed to defuse the Alarmist bafflegab.
    The Big Climate goons are laughably incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial (to borrow an old “Perry Mason” line)
    Don’t bother arguing facts with Alarmists – just laugh at them, over and over again.
    They are on the wrong side of reality.

  34. 1. All climate sceptics should have a rebuttal for as many of the 97% figures as they can remember. The use of the 97% figure was a classic example of dogma that should have been highlighted – particularly as it was quite central to many arguments.
    2. It needed to be pointed out that the thermometer datasets also had a pause until earlier this year when the pause was “corrected” out of the record.
    I have to say that those present did a good job under what are quite difficult circumstances. The inquisitors know all the rules and use them to their advantage.
    I thought Judith Curry got a difficult question somewhat outside her sphere of interest but she coped well – and can’t she “let rip” when riled?

  35. The arguments made by the Climate Liars were, as usual, stunningly weak and idiotic, falling back on the same, tired logical fallacies. Tittles trotted out the stupid “Risk Management” idea, that since we can never be 100% certain of anything, we can’t wait any longer to act, and mentioned “climate events” like Katrina and Sandy as examples of results of not acting. What we are up against isn’t just wrong; it is in fact evil.

    • As usual, indeed, Mr. Cobb. LOL, poor old Titley trots out the old Precautionary Fallacy under a businessy sounding name. “Risk management” (in the real world) attempts to prevent or to ameliorate known, risks. For instance, requiring workers to wear goggles when working with acid or to back up their data to an external hard drive.
      Human CO2 has never been shown, not one measurement, only wild speculation, to cause any change (much less harmful change) in the climate of the earth.
      But, a little thing like lack of data doesn’t stop a Titley…
      Announcer: Welcome to…… Climate Hour! (with host, Dave Titley)
      {blah, blah, blah for about 50 minutes straight (with 2 rush-to-the-fridge-for-a-snack breaks for: 2 electric car ads, one solar panel ad, and an ad for men’s underwear made out of bamboo)}
      Announcer: And now, this final word from our host…
      Titley: Everyone! STOP EATING BEEF, NOW! It makes the weather fairies very angry and we CAN’T HAVE THAT NOW, CAN WE!
      Announcer: And now, a word from our sponsor.
      Titley’s Cousin, Eddie P. Roffiter: Hey! Guys! Come on down to Slick Eddie’s Supersubsidized Market! Buy our flavored puffed rice gelee! Tastes like beef! And saaaaaave your receipt! You’ll get a nice tax credit, too!
      Skeptic Viewer 1 to SV 2: (mirthless laugh) Better buy a lot of it, suckers, , BECAUSE IT ONLY PROVIDES ABOUT 1% of the nutrition of beef…. whydidwewatchthatanyway……..

  36. I got ‘angrified’: (Re: Data or Dogma) Dear Senator Markey,
    A thoroughly cowardly, deceitful, partisan, uninformed, talking-point-tirade chock-full of mindless incantations of “the 97%” FRAUD, as well as the mindless repetition of the word “Republican”.
    You should be ashamed, calling Judith Curry a Liar and denying her the opportunity to rebut! As at least one other has observed, you are: A RUMPSWAB, BUM-KSSING, COAT-HOLDING MOONBAT. HACK!, HACK! HACK!
    Do The Republic a favor – take your gold-plated retirement and GO AWAY. Please God.
    Peter H. xxxx
    Major, US Army (ret.)

  37. Titley: Alluded more than once to his duty to carry out the higher ups directives. It’s a shamew no one founfd a way to highlight the fact that he had received his order to ‘Put to sea’, so to speak. I GIVE HIM CREDIT for somewhat ostentatiously refusing to back O’bumble’s ‘Paris Climate Conference = “Strong Rebuke” (crippled by uncontrollable laughter) to ISIS’. What a friggin limp-dick Ivory Tower, Intellectually Vacuous, REALITY DENYING Narcissist he is.

  38. Why did no one point out to Sn. Nelson that the high tide flooding in Miami happens when the sun, moon and earth get into the right alignment and it happens twice a year every year and has been happening for untold eons? It has nothing to do with global warming, CO2 or sea level rise.

    • J.B.
      It would be hard to imagine that the Senator from Florida is unaware of the facts of high tide flooding in Miami Beach, as you have stated them. The Senator from Florida is interested in taking money from people in Kansas to give to people in Florida.

Comments are closed.