Weather Channel Founder Attacks Global Warming

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, has been one of the loudest opponents of the concept of man-made global warming. He recently gave a very powerful speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in which he outlined the real motives of the global warming crowd–to wean the United States off fossil fuels at any means possible.

The full text of his speech is below. Warning: If you’re on the fence about man-made global warming, you may not be after reading this.

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Advertisements

Brr! This Global Warming is Freezing My Skin!

It will be interesting to see how the global warming Nazis continue to spin the barrage of data against their cause. It makes me wonder how this can continue with the evidence just piling up against this movement. As reported several weeks ago, over 31,000 scientists across the U.S.–including 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition that rejects the basic tenants of “global warming”. The so-called “scientific consensus” supporting global warming does not exist and now even more data is available that debunks this wide spread unfounded notion.

But the latest news is that global temperatures continued to fall and did so significantly in May 2008.

From Anthony Watts:

Compared to the May 2007 value of 0.199°C we find a 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.

But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.

So, in other words, ever since this man-made global warming notion was sold to the general public, global temperatures have actually plateaued and even fallen slightly. Carbon emissions have continued to rise, yet there is almost no response in the temperature graph despite this rise.  No one is debating that the last number of years have been hot, but the cause is what is debatable.  It’s funny that the environmentalists ignore the fact that the temperature of several of the planets in our own galaxy have risen to a similar degree.

Man-made global warming is not based on fact. It is an ideology that is rooted in destroying the “western” way of life. It seeks to place us as the cause of all the problems in the world. The way we assuage our guilt is becoming poorer–we drive less, we use less, we eat less. There are even new “green” websites that will tell you when you should die, so that you don’t use up too much of the earth’s resources.

The goal of the man made global warming movement is to beholden us to environmentalism and their political views–not to actually save the planet. Besides, from much of the recent data, it looks like we don’t need saving from much of anything–other than perhaps global idiocy.

A Big Crock of Biofuel

Ethanol has become public enemy number one. Not only do we get lousy gas mileage with corn based ethanol, we get higher food prices too! This problem began in 1994 when a Senate vote on mandated ethanol use was tied 50-50 and broken by Vice President Al Gore. So say thanks to Mr. Gore for the real crisis that is looming….food shortages. The general public is just now becoming aware of the real problems ethanol is causing and support for elimination of mandated biofuels is building from the left and the right.

Ethanol is placing liberals in a real bind. One one hand, they feel the need to try to manipulate companies like Exxon Mobil by forcing them to accept alternative fuel, yet by using these alternative fuels, it drives up the cost of food and disproportionately affects the poor worldwide. So, we can either “save the environment” by ethanol and starve millions worldwide by driving up food prices, or we can just stick with tried and true fossil fuels and keep feeding everyone. Not surprisingly, the same people that demand we use ethanol also oppose drilling for additional sources of oil, including in ANWR. If we had started drilling for oil in ANWR ten years ago, it is possible that oil prices would be considerably lower than they are now. Higher oil prices means higher prices on all the goods we buy and higher transportation costs.

Ironically, corn-based ethanol and other blends of biofuels have been shown to produce substantially more greenhouse gases than regular gasoline. This ethanol issue illustrates a common problem with our representatives in Washington D.C. Too often policies are promoted based off of fads in the public without their consequences being fully studied before being made law. In this case, mandating the use of ethanol was justified under the guise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The result? Ethanol produces MORE greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline, using ethanol drives up the price of food worldwide, and ethanol causes us to use more fuel than we would if we used regular gasoline because of decreased fuel efficiency. If ethanol was really this hidden gem and had huge potential, wouldn’t it be advantageous to big oil companies to research this technology themselves? Yet, ethanol has not replaced traditional gasoline among the private sector by any big energy companies largely because it is a lousy fuel source. Policy makers in Washington have mandated that we use this new technology without researching the true effectiveness or consequences. This is yet another example of the government sticking their noses and their policies where they shouldn’t. It has only resulted in harm to American citizens and businesses with literally no benefit.

Right now, 1/3 of the corn produced in the U.S. goes to ethanol production. It takes 400 lbs of corn to make 25 gallons of fuel. So with that 400 lbs of corn, we can either feed a grown man for a year or we can fill up our car twice. It seems to me that feeding everyone affordably is more important that responding to a global warming “crisis” that doesn’t even have a scientific consensus yet. After all, we can actually prove that people are starving, whereas we can’t prove that ethanol will have any effect on anything climate related.

Now, I’m not saying that all biofuels or all ethanol are lousy fuels, but for now, the ones that are available certainly seem to be. The mandated use of ethanol isn’t solely responsible for the rising food costs worldwide, but is unquestionably a large factor. The farmers and researchers that are beneficiaries of ethanol use don’t want the public to know the truth…that corn-based ethanol is a bad fuel that never should have been mandated in the first place. Corn-based ethanol has been called a “transitional” technology by some, so why are we forced to use it? Because it is a fad that congress has bought into.

Congress needs to do its job and eliminate subsidies for ethanol NOW. But with Reid and Pelosi in charge, we can count on further bad energy policy for the future where more clout is given to environmental fads than actual verifiable research. As long as liberals (Democrats and Republicans) are at the helm, we can be assured that $7 per gallon milk is right around the corner.

An Attempt to Save the Household Light Bulb

Recently, representative Michelle Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, has proposed a bill that would repeal the nationwide phase out of incandescent lightbulbs in 2012. The old-school bulbs are being replaced by the fluorescent energy efficient bulbs. Her bill is called the “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act”. This bill is a second chance for Congress not to appear completely socialist.

bulb

Don’t get me wrong, I like fluorescent energy efficient bulbs for the money I save and the fact that I rarely change a light bulb anymore. I have them in nearly every lamp in my house and most of the ceiling lights. However, as I’m sure many of you know, fluorescent bulbs don’t really dim and they don’t have brightness settings. They are either completely off or completely on. There’s no in between. So with the banishment of the Edison-style light bulb, out goes the concept of a dimmer switch and things like a three-setting light bulb. Unless there is some new technology that I’m unaware of, these things will likely disappear along with the incandescent light bulb.

Why would Congress go to such lengths to eliminate something as harmless as the incandescent light bulb? You guessed it….global warming. By eliminating all of the extra energy use of these incandescent light bulbs, we will theoretically burn less fossil fuels to power them and thus we will release fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So instead of simply leaving it to consumers to figure out for themselves that they save money with the new bulbs, Congress passes a law (that Bush signed) that banishes the old light bulb. Socialism at work. I thought liberals were pro-choice….or is that just when we’re talking about human life? I guess it’s not okay to be pro-choice when it comes to light bulbs.

Fortunately, the Bachmann bill (if passed) would stop this nonsense.

“This is about freedom, this is about consumer rights,” she said.

Yes it is. Fluorescent bulbs pose their own risk with trace amounts of Mercury in them. So, the government effectively forces the elimination of Mercury thermometers from medical use but then turns around an mandates the use of Mercury-laced fluorescent bulbs in every household in the country. Legislative schizophrenia–all in the name of global warming.

“The least government can do if they are going to ban the household light bulb is provide evidence to back up their claims that there’s some long-term benefit,” she said. “Congress should not be in the business of promoting fads and Congress should always be in the business of watching out for the health, safety and budget bottom line of the American family.”

Global warming is just the latest fad, just like the coming Ice Age was back in the 1970’s. A very recent article published in The Australian gives evidence to the fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing over the last ten years, but temperatures globally have continued to fall. This debunks one of the main points in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary. How very inconvenient for the global warming folks (or is it global climate change….oh, I can’t make up my mind).

The point is that the death of the incandescent light bulb is just one of the first casualties in this global warming hoax to control our lives. Next will be the government controlling your thermostat in your house, then controlling what kind of car you drive, then controlling how much you drive. If this is something you look forward to, please save the rest of us and move to Europe now. You’ll get more than your fill of 15% unemployment, 60% income tax rates, and free (lousy) healthcare for all.

More Trouble for the Global Warming Movement

When I was in sixth grade, I specifically remember reading in my science book about global cooling and the coming Ice Age. Some things change and some others never do. One thing that changes on a regular basis is science. When I started medical school, I was told that more than half of what I was taught during medical school would be proved incorrect by the end of my career. This is not an anomaly for just medicine. You see it throughout all fields of study when you are dealing with inexact sciences. The study of weather is certainly not exempt from this. If you think the people that study weather really have a firm grasp on what is going on, just watch the weather report on the local news for a few weeks and you’ll change your mind.

Al Gore

One thing that never changes is the desire by some to control the masses through environmental nonsense. In our current day and age, one of the ways this is manifested in the hysteria of man-made global warming. We are told that we must cut down on greenhouse gas emissions by cutting energy consumption presumptively by eliminating fossil fuel use. We are told that we must embrace “green technology” and buy hybrid cars to save the earth. This global warming hysteria continues to reach magnitude proportions in our government and has already manifested itself in a bill that permanently bans the incandescent light bulb a few years from now (sorry Edison!). Congress is pondering passing a law mandating fuel emissions to reach somewhere around 50 miles per gallon on all cars manufactured in this country. If that isn’t the quickest way to destroy the auto industry in this country, I don’t know what is.

Global warming, or global “climate change” as some like to call it is actually far from a scientific consensus. Scientists that do not prescribe to global warming are ridiculed, ostracized, and silenced. The Weather Channel founder, John Coleman, called man-made global warming the greatest scam in history. Proponents of this global warming hysteria have a specific goal of politicizing the weather, because if you can politicize the weather, you can control everyone. There’s a tornado–it must be OUR fault for global warming. There’s a tsunami–global warming. There are wildfires across California–global warming. Hurricane–global warming.

In what must be discouraging news for the man-made global warming crowd, Michigan had the snowiest winter EVER this year, or at least since they started recording snowfall in 1880. Milwaukee had 95.4 inches of snow this year, the second highest amount on record. In even worse news for Al Gore and company, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported that all of the allegedly “lost” ice has now returned to the polar ice caps. Is it just an anomaly that we are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record in the last century?

While I’m not saying our earth hasn’t warmed a degree or two overall in the last hundred years or so, Jupiter, Neptune, Mars, and Pluto have also been warming. So are we to assume that our greenhouse gases are affecting other planets or just our own? I guess the possibility of our own sun causing the earth to become warmer or cooler is just too obvious. Of course, if the sun were causing it, there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about it and there wouldn’t be any money or political power to be gained over the illusion that we are at fault for it. If the sun is going to get infinitely hotter, then we’re screwed no matter what we do.

Please follow along closely through this presidential campaign to the promises made by the candidates to stop man-made global warming. This is actually code language for more government regulation on businesses and private citizens leading to a worse economy than we are already in. All the candidates are guilty of it–McCain, Clinton, and Obama. They’ve already taken away the incandescent light bulb because of what is likely junk science–don’t let them take away our SUV’s. They’ve already mandated that we use ethanol, despite studies showing that it actually puts out more greenhouse gases into the environment than just regular gas. What is next? The government controlling the air conditioner in our home?

In twenty years we are going to look back and this and laugh when we realize that science changed it’s mind again and there was no global warming crisis after all…unless of course we’ve completely changed our lives and our lifestyles over a manufactured crisis. Then instead of laughing, we might be crying.

Hillary rips “passing fancy” Ralph Nader

On Sunday, Hillary stated that she hoped Ralph Nader’s current run for the presidency was a “passing fancy” and that he was responsible for Al Gore losing the presidency in 2000. One has to honestly wonder if the end of the Bush presidency is going to end the left’s obsession with the 2000 election and the Florida aftermath. The only thing the Florida aftermath taught us is that Democrats like recounts as long as it gives them the result they want, but until they get that result…all the votes haven’t been counted yet.Hillary

Contrary to popular belief among the left, Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose the presidency. It was all those darn Bush voters! If Al Gore had successfully convinced voters that he was human instead of an android during the debates, he might have actually gotten a few thousand more votes in Florida and won the election outright. Hillary conveniently forgets about a miniature billionaire named Ross Perot that helped get her husband elected to his first term. It could just as easily be said that Ross Perot was responsible for George Bush Sr losing in 1992 as Nader was for Al Gore losing in 2000. Let’s be honest here…you can only speculate as to what all those Nader voters would do if Nader weren’t in the race. They might have stayed home or they might have participated in a Code Pink rally outside a Marine recruiting office. We really have no idea.

The truth is that Ralph Nader got a whopping 0.4% in his last bid for the White House in 2004, so he will likely be a huge NO FACTOR this year. However, the REAL question is whether or not he will be included in the debates. If he is, he should get a significantly larger portion of the vote….say 2%. If he isn’t, he will likely get less than 1%.

Hillary’s arrogance is dripping from her statement Sunday morning, “I remember when he did this before. It did not turn out very well for anybody, most especially our country….I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously.” She might as well have said, “How dare Ralph Nader slow my rise to power! It is only I, the great Hillary that can lead this country.” The Democratic party’s response to Ralph Nader running for President is anything but democratic. He appeals to a distinct type of voter and he should be allowed to run. But let’s remember, third party candidates are only a good thing when they split the Republican vote, right Hillary?