Have you seen this? Brought to you by Mitt Romney, the GOP 2012 Convention, and Sandy:
Res ipsa loquitur, a Latin term, used in law. Means “the thing speaks for itself.”
Global Warming, Hurricane Sandy, Hubris,
More:
- Cartoon: Talking about Sandy (englishblog.com)
- Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity, Vol. XLI (maddowblog.msnbc.com)
- WATCH: Romney vs. Sandy (huffingtonpost.com)
- “Big Oil reports massive profits during Sandy Cleanup,” Grist
- Update: John McCain’s daughter, Meghan, tweeted a bit of support for working to fight climate change — so-called conservatives jumped all over her. No kidding.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
No. As the fish doesn’t know what water is, Republicans don’t know what nihilism is, either.
LikeLike
So, conservatives, let get this straight. The electorate was angry at the Republican party for not being conservative enough that the electorate put a supposedly uber-liberal Democrat back into the White House for a second term, gave the Democrat inroads into the House and not only kept Democrats in control of the Senate but gave them a bigger lead in the Senate.
So the answer that you have come up with is to demand that the Republican party become more conservative instead of less conservative because if the Republican party becomes more conservative your party will magically convince the electorate that they are exactly that conservative too and will vote accordingly….
You guys do know what the definition of the word “nihilism” is right?
LikeLike
More referring to this comment of his: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/donald-trump-election-revolution_n_2085864.html
LikeLike
James, you mean the guy who Tweeted, “Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before?”
Such an articulate spokesperson for the Right…I’d hate to lose him. Perhaps, though, someone could lend him a dictionary?
LikeLike
yes, Trump.
I’d like to know why we shouldn’t throw his butt in jail for formenting high treason.
LikeLike
Trump, you mean?
LikeLike
and let the right wing whining and excuse making begin.
The Hairpiece starts it off by saying we need a armed revolution.
LikeLike
David Xavier: Your ideas appear to have lost in the real marketplace — alas, perhaps too late to do anything about it.
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/too-late-to-save-the-planet/
LikeLike
David writes:
The message was stark. If the non-believers didn’t convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages.
Well at least you finally recognize how your fellow conservatives and especially the so called “Christian right” has been acting.
You conservatives so do love trying to drag the world back into the dark ages.
LikeLike
Hi Ed…
Not sure where I heard the candies & pinatas jab. Possibly at a Diocesan retreat where we discuss lots of things. Nutters, in particular.
Jim
LikeLike
I’d love to see you compose a history that cites those claims.
Our kids face hell on Earth regardless your “conversion.” We’ve done nothing too long.
No one was “excommunicated” from any “priesthood.”
Alternative views are entertained more than they deserve, longer than they merit, and with a lot more respect than they’ve earned.
Utter bilge, you know?
LikeLike
Good point.
That doesn’t obviate nor ameliorate, nor in any way answer, the troubles we have with a rise in average temperature now. You’re right, a two-degree jump either way in average global temperatures produces problems for every human on Earth.
Right now that jump is up. Your observation does not change the facts that a rise critically threatens a lot of humans.
LikeLike
Original with you? Maybe we should publish a collection of these phrases.
LikeLike
“Heating of 2 degrees (Celsius) is catastrophe ” .
..and were half way there…mmh so we have half a catastrophe? I counter with this , for I do not know if what you say is true, and neither do you as its all in the modelling. But I will wager that 2 degrees cooling would produce greater harm.
“Decadal trend should have been down considerably over the past decade, with whole years dropping below the 20th century average temperature, considering the influences of solar cycles and El Ninos, and volcanic action”
And, of course, there are always extenuating circumstances. El Nino and La Nina are there when you need them, to be forgotten when temperatures are warming or remembered if they are cooling. And, we’ve had a record Arctic melt. But better not mention the storm that NASA concedes broke the ice up and drove it south, or the record Antarctic ice gain.
When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.
The message was stark. If the non-believers didn’t convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?
Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky,the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year
Of course, the religious high priests were quick to play down the significance of this pause. Phil Jones of the Climategate denomination claimed it was to be expected and, he insisted, 15 or 16 years is not a significant period.
Yet in 2009 he said that a “no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”. But that was then and this is now and he is not about to lose his religion simply because the evidence doesn’t support the text.
ED, if you think the temperature will rise again then ….so be it, it must else you will lose your theory.
I am open to the fact that it may rise again and if so I will lose some of my scepticism though there are other confounding facts which will need to be explained. My position is all along that correlation is not causation and there are problems with the physical record and what AGW theory predicts. I am sceptical when you raise questions , you get shouted down and called names. There is another agenda hitched to the AGW wagon, which demands it to be true and wants capricious action and tolerates no dissent…you agree with this redistributist anti industrial nanny state agenda and it blinds you …and causes you to betray the demands of your own scientific posture- that demand is scepticism . Play devil advocate with your own position and you will see I have the stronger hand.
finally , my position is one of optimism. If you are right and 2 degrees is catastrophic then there is no way , in accordance with AGW theory with CO2 emission growth from China and India etc …that we will all not burn. …there again , you perhaps get some satisfaction with this salient fact. …. better we all die than that the religion be false. Me …..I hope the religion is false.
LikeLike
Oh David, you’re a naughty boy.
Your little remark — The utopian is a fanatic, who at every opportunity informs us that we will all die if we go on living like we do in this world, who makes a fetish of his revolutionary martyrdom, making his unreason into his crowning virtue.
….struck me as, though entirely bereft of logic, nonetheless coherent. A little too coherent to be your own work.
Would you care to come clean with me and with Ed and with everyone else looking in?
See David, when take what someone else has written word for word (or even close) but fail to cite them…it’s called plagiarism.
That’s a no-no, David.
I found that exact phrase on a google search. Multiple search results, none of which track back here. So unless you have a dozen blogs…something tells me you are “ripping and reading”, as they say.
And I have a hunch — just a hunch — who you might be ripping off here.
I am not sure which disappoints me more.
That you plagiarized. Or that it might be the work of Ayn Rand.
Seriously. You couldn’t find better than that old hag?
Whatever is scrawled on the stall-wall of your middle school boy’s room might be better.
You’re caught.
LikeLike
Oh, by the by — for Ed’s benefit and that of anyone else looking in:
David’s little soliloquy here ——> The utopian is a fanatic, who at every opportunity informs us that we will all die if we go on living like we do in this world, who makes a fetish of his revolutionary martyrdom, making his unreason into his crowning virtue.
……can be found almost verbatim online on a variety of conspiracy theory web sites. I could be wrong, but I think it is straight out of either “Atlas Farted” or “The Virtue of Selfishness”.
Oh David, you’re a plagiarist.
But that offends me a lot less than WHO you are ripping off.
Rand?
Really????
You might have done better to jot down whatever you read on random walls in the little boy’s room at your high school.
Oy.
LikeLike
More depth of insight from young Master David… OK, where to start…I guess firstly with your name. Anybody who adopts the moniker ‘sojourner’ is about the ‘political’ rather any truth seeking.
Do you know what the word means? Words have meanings, you see. Do you understand the biblical frame of reference for the word? Let me know if I can help.
He further opines, The name you misappropriate seeks to elevate you morally , while simultaneously condemning your opponents.
I see that Mr. Darrell has already assisted you with a dictionary definition. And a fair passable one at that. David, how does being a traveler — or identifying as a traveler — seek to elevate me morally? How does it condemn my opponents? Is there a meaning to the sobriquet that I am unaware of?
David continues, There again I guess you need all the help you can get, though I fear you are beyond rational persuasion due to the jaundiced way you posed your question.
Jaundiced? Contextually, I would guess you mean to say my question was framed in a prejudicial way. Yes? Please enlighten me. What in my question was even remotely inaccurate? To be sure, I have an answer that is on one side of the question. If that’s your point, i plead guilty. See, what I did, David, was to ask myself the question the first time issues of environment and global warming came up. Who has the most skin in the game, financially speaking? That’s an almost foolproof rubric, you know. I won’t say it’s perfect, but nearly so. You will almost always get an accurate read if you follow the money.
Or is mammon such a deity to you that you’re blinded to the thorns on that particular rose?
Here’s quite a turn of events…Is it a hoax? No one believes that. Everyone acknowledges there is such a thing as climate change and man-kind must surely influence it.
Then I apologize. I have been misreading you all along. Oh, and I must be misreading Senator James Inhofe, Glenn Beck, Congressman Paul Ryan, Bill O’Reilly, The “Reverend” Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Congressman Alan West, Laura Ingraham, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Michael Savage, Senator Mitch McConnell, Neil Cavuto, Senator Jeff Sessions, G. Gordon Liddy, Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Eric Cantor…
Phew! I’m just naming the people who’ve cried “hoax” in my hearing over the last five years or so. Apologies to any I left out. There simply isn’t enough bandwidth to name everyone. Oh darn the luck. And I so believe in full inclusion…
David further offers, It is the amount of influence that is in question and the consequences of the mankind influenced component and how we address it ( do nothing and direct money into food production , water, access to cheap energy and development for the third world or ..spend trillions on trying to reduce carbon emissions in the developed world .
You mean we all agree? And it’s really just a question of discord on matters of praxis? That would lead one to believe there could be common ground. How lovely a thought that is. David, how can someone who believes climate change is real and is, at least partly, caused by man come to concord with Senator Jim Inhofe or Congressman Roscoe Bartlett? These people — and some of the ones who I named above (shapers of either public policy or public opinion) — not only deny that global warming is real; not only derisively call it a hoax; they immediately hold forth with cries of “tree hugger!” and “job killer”. Then, invariably, someone yucks it up with a wisecrack about the need to save more fetuses and club more baby seals. We’re not exactly dealing with the intellectual pillars of conservatism. (Of course, in fairness, one must recognize that intellectual conservatism may just have died with the passing of dear old Bill Buckley. Like the dodo bird, I am not sure this animal is extant any longer.)
David adds, t is though a hoax when you conflate storms and weather with climate change. Especially as there has been a ‘drought’ of hurricanes in the last few years, that global warming has stalled. When you select events like a drought or a storm and scream climate change when history shows that there have always been droughts and storms. ..you have abandoned science.
Oh, I’m not a scientist. I don’t even play one on TV. I’m a journalist and what I know about science is probably little more than one can fit in a thimble. See, I look at science the way you look — hopefully for your feet — at podiatry. You know a few things, maybe, about your feet. Your shoe size, what brand of shoes are best for your arches and so on. You hopefully understand the importance of washing and clipping your toenails. You know that when your dogs are barking, it’s time to elevate them awhile. But you’re not a podiatrist. When the feet really start to hurt…when they might even need surgery…you go to the podiatrist. He or she is what we call an expert. This person when to school for DECADES to master the craft and learn everything possible about your feet. If you’re wise — and I am sure you are — you trust him or her with the care of your feet. You wouldn’t attempt to operate on them by yourself. You wouldn’t call me or Ed over to cut you open. No, not even if we offered you a half-price deal.
So here’s what I do with science, David. I go to the experts. Do you know who the experts are? They teach a plethora of hard sciences like biology, geology, meteorology, environmental science, climatology, oceanography, toxicology, hydrology…I am sure there are many more. These folks have Phds. Sometimes several. Now, they likely have little idea about the one or two areas I might own a modicum of expertise in. I wouldn’t necessarily trust them to exegete a passage of Scripture or put a hard-hitting newscast together. But trust them to lay out a map of environmental problems and then suggest remediation?
You bet. Six days a week and twice on Sunday.
Better than 90% of these folk, David, are on Ed’s side of the global warming debate. Not yours.
And the agony prolongs, So in the above sense that environmental groups , activists , scientists ( induced through well funded government grants) and media are perpetrating a hoax to change the nature of government and society in America and the West.
So your claim is that a cabal of government pooh-pahs and potentates have bought off 90% of the world’s scientists? To what end, David? Oh — wait — I see you’re getting to that. Well, let me first respond to the money piece of this.
What evidence have you that anyone is getting rich on the environmentalist side of the debate? How much of these government grants are scientists pocketing and squirreling away in secret Cayman Island bank accounts? What sort of luxury cars are they driving and how many mansions do they own? Have you spotted them on grey poupon junkets to Monaco and the Hamptons? Prove your point, David. Don’t just pull crackpot notions out of your rear end.
So your claim is that this cabal consists of government (all Democrats, I am sure), the media (whatever you mean by that), environmental groups, activists and scientists — and that this group has a secretive agenda to… (drumroll, please)….
change the nature of government and society in America
Ed may sue me for copyright infringement if he wishes. But…
Oy.
Why, David? Where is the profit in it “changing the nature of government and society”?
Do you read Jack Chick tracts? Left Behind Books? Do you watch a lot of TBN? Or are you a secular nutter? Because this kind of talk is really around the bend several times over.
Forging on, David says…The media reports the alarmist positions , but not the omissions and never corrects the record when the predictions come and go. The media is manufacturing consent for the role of the government based on mis- information.
Why? What skin do they have in the game? You’re not answering the question.
He tries. Bless him. He tries…Also what about the vested interests like the financial sector who desperately want carbon trading, the alternative energy sector that wants subsidies, governments who see a taxation bonanza and wish to implement s21…
S 21? Oh my. David, are you a golfer? Is that where this is all coming from? If Ed and I promise to pay your greens fees in perpetuity, will you agree to read a book? Attend a lecture? Enroll in a community college course if you’re of age? Because really…S 21?
You’re heading into territory I am all too familiar with. I made my bones back in the Clinton era when the conspiracy du jour involved the UN’s black helicopters patrolling our rivers.
See David, it’s when people pull this sort of jubbjubb out of their hindquarters that i realize I’m dealing with someone who’s a few candies short of a full pinata. So let me know right now. Are you a conspiratard? I would rather not waste any more of Ed’s bandwidth or my time if the answer is yes.
He continues, all the groups that are antagonistic to free markets , American exceptionalism and want to “destroy the joint” to make way for the utopia they desperately sense….
Tell me, David…would Jewish bankers be involved in this plot to “destroy the joint” by chance? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? How about the Bilderbergs?
Seek help. I mean it. Therapy. Counseling. Medication. A tinfoil hat. Something.
But young David’s not done… The utopian is a fanatic, who at every opportunity informs us that we will all die if we go on living like we do in this world, who makes a fetish of his revolutionary martyrdom, making his unreason into his crowning virtue.
We WILL all die, David.You. Me. Ed. All of us.
And we will all die whether we go on living as we do or whether we change our ways. Whether we are Marxist, Socialist, Capitalist, Anarchist or Fascist. We all die. That’s hardly the point.
The question is, “How shall we then live?” (To borrow a phrase.) How shall our children and their children live?
I don’t know if I would call Him a utopian or not. But a wise man once advised that we should “do unto others as we would have done unto us”. That’s the liberal ethic, David.
As I read over the rest of your tortured tome, it seems yours is the antithesis. Yours can be summed up quite aptly with the old phrase, “I’ve got mine, Jack. Now root, hog or die.”
Both statements are ideals. Antithetical, to be sure. But ideals. They inform our economic policy, our environmental policy, our view of civil rights, war and peace.
I realize the first ethic is a more difficult one to live by. It sometimes requires intellectual heavy lifting. It sometimes requires patience and, for people of faith, prayer. It almost always requires sacrifice.
The second demands very little of any of that. So yeah — it’s easy. It’s oh so easy. Every single time something makes you a little bit uncomfortable or every time someone calls you to be something more than just an epicurean consumer –it’s there to offer up a conspiracy theory, an easy-peezy answer to a complex problem, a “damn those egghead college boys” mantra to make you feel superior somehow…
But it’s also an unhappy way to be in the end. The mind molders. The heart calcifies. The soul dies a little bit more each day.
It’s your choice.
LikeLike
That’s a gross misreading of the science, and of the projected and expected effects of global warming.
Among effects we might expect to see, understanding that “warming” means, chiefly, there is a lot more energy in the atmosphere: More violent storms, or an equal or lesser number of storms, some of which will be individually more violent, but which overall will show trends toward more power; and wider swings in weather fluctuations (since that is how the atmosphere “gets rid” of excess energy), with higher high temperatures, but also lower lows in some places or many places, with less rainfall in some places, but dramatically more rainfall in others, in both cases outside the normal swings seen over the past century or two; with changing rain patterns, monsoons coming earlier, or later, or not at all, or increasing in intensity well beyond the norms of the past century or two.
You talk about a “drought” of hurricanes, but that just tells us you’re not paying attention. For most of the 20th century, hurricanes would number in the low teens. When we started naming them, for decades the naming stopped at “m” or “n” in the alphabet. In recent years the storm trackers have had to plan names through Z; in one year in the last ten, we exhausted the alphabet. Those extreme hurricane years have had, in between, a few years where the number of tropical cyclones dropped below average in number. The prediction is that the fluctuations will be greater, if there is warming. We see greater fluctuations. You try to take the low numbered years and average them with the high numbered years, and say the fluctuations don’t count. You’re not dealing with the data.
The more troubling trend is to the great total energy wrapped up in the storms. Whereas denialists love to point out that many of the hurricanes we’ve seen lately were Category 1, or less (“just tropical storms”), that completely fails to consider in accounting what the storms do. Katrina was big, but it was the amount of water it dumped that caused most of the trouble. Houston had been flooded out earlier with a “500-year flood” but Katrina provided another 500-year flood event in some of those same venues. Ike came through the next year or so, and while it didn’t pack the same winds, it carried more water, and it created flooding from Central America up through the Mississippi Valley and well into Canada. Then, last year, we had Irene; and this year we had Sandy.
You could point to two 100-year floods in a short period and say “statistical fluke.” But several 100-year floods, coupled with 500-year floods, in a decade or two, and covering an entire continent, cannot be explained as a statistical fluke.
Deal with reality, please.
LikeLike
Talk about misreading signs, history and tea leaves:
From the Free Online Dictionary:
As all humans, we are all sojourners on this planet.
LikeLike
Heating of 2 degrees (Celsius) is catastrophe — you concede nearly half of that already, but you’re sanguine.
Sort of like saying a human body has about 5 pints of blood in it, and the victim has only lost 2 pints — so he’s okay, ‘and let him keep bleeding.’
Denialism makes people say strange things.
But of course, now we have the Koch Brothers-sponsored study which shows that there is no false Urban Heat Island effect — that heating has actually occurred worldwide, and there is no bias in weather reporting stations that alters the reality.
Let me ask you a question that Anthony Watts refuses to touch: Why is warmer weather near cities not counted as real heat in your calculations? Do you imagine that the heat generated by cities somehow magically radiates away? Why would we not count the heat generated in cities?
And, by the way, if you take out ALL urban areas, the worldwide temperature measure shows about the same warming anyway.
That’s not in evidence, it seems to me. You’re fanatically clinging to the idea that heat from cities and around cities magically doesn’t count, and you’re fanatically clinging to the idea that warming has somehow slowed, when all measures show the opposite.
No, not derision. Evidence of something that would counter the CO2-pushed heating trend doesn’t exist. Noting that absence, and sticking the facts, is not derision, but is instead hard measurement. My old elevator-buddy Patrick Moynihan said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own, private set of facts. Those things that were supposed to cool us off — solar cycles, volcanic emissions, ocean currents, skewed data from badly-placed thermometers, longer-term cycles forgotten about, etc. — have all been carefully measured, and accounted for. Still the Earth warms. You may have doubted that result in 1990 or so, and urged adjustments based on several factors. But the adjustments were accounted for, or made. Still the Earth warms.
At some point, all of those people who claim to be skeptics instead of fanatics, must stop fanatically claiming the evidence says something other than what it really says. A skeptic doesn’t prejudge the evidence, and then deny its validity when it doesn’t do what he wants it to.
One might be wise to study the story of King Canute. Famously, he had his throne put by the side of the sea, and he commanded the tides to stop rolling in. In the shorthand version, eventually the King’s attendants see his throne about to be washed into the sea and they pull him back before he drowns.
In the longer version, the more accurate version, it is the attendants in an attempt to flatter Canute who tell him even the tides would obey him, so he need not regard reality in his consideration of actions as the ruler of his people. Canute was not crazy; he was a real, true skeptic, with a flair for drama. ‘You say we can ignore reality and I can command the tides?’ he asked. ‘Let’s test that hypothesis.’
Wise policy requires an eye fast-fixed on reality and the real trends measured by real data. Denialists have left the human throne in the rising tides too long. You ask that we risk our throne, our very existence on the Earth, that we religiously put faith in data that not only are invisible, but actually are contrary to reality. Attendants who truly loved King Canute, pulled him out of the tides.
How much more craven are warming denialists than the smarmy, fawning, deadly-wrong sycophants around Canute.
LikeLike
Decadal trend should have been down considerably over the past decade, with whole years dropping below the 20th century average temperature, considering the influences of solar cycles and El Ninos, and volcanic action.
But instead, we had the warmest decade in history, with nine of the ten warmest years in history — no cooling.
The decadal trend shows warming.
You’ll have to rely on people who actually track the stuff to get the data — Tamino has one of the briefest explanations, here:
Do you disagree, David? We should have seen 0.21 degrees Centigrade cooling in the last decade, based solely on the natural trends. What actually happened?
Whereas, based on natural cycles alone, we should have seen cooling, we didn’t.
Do you read Sherlock Holmes? Do you remember the problem of the dog that didn’t bark in the night?
LikeLike
And btw…the earth has heated up by 0.7 degree in over 100 years…looks like a reasonably stable period. Especially with the GISS data set NOT taking proper account of the urbanisation heat effect and probably overstating it. Nevertheless …if the trend starts going up again then I will be willing to change my opinion re: AGW …….after all I am anything but a fanatic! interestingly , any evidence that may mean the earth isnt at the mercy of AGW is met with derision …what’s happening with that, you would think there would be some relief?
LikeLike
“scientists focus on the decadal trend”
Gee Ed , what is the decadal trend?
LikeLike
jsojourner
OK, where to start…I guess firstly with your name. Anybody who adopts the moniker ‘sojourner’ is about the ‘political’ rather any truth seeking. The name you misappropriate seeks to elevate you morally , while simultaneously condemning your opponents. There again I guess you need all the help you can get, though I fear you are beyond rational persuasion due to the jaundiced way you posed your question..
Is it a hoax? No one believes that. Everyone acknowledges there is such a thing as climate change and man-kind must surely influence it. It is the amount of influence that is in question and the consequences of the mankind influenced component and how we address it ( do nothing and direct money into food production , water, access to cheap energy and development for the third world or ..spend trillions on trying to reduce carbon emissions in the developed world .)
It is though a hoax when you conflate storms and weather with climate change. Especially as there has been a ‘drought’ of hurricanes in the last few years, that global warming has stalled. When you select events like a drought or a storm and scream climate change when history shows that there have always been droughts and storms. ..you have abandoned science.
So in the above sense that environmental groups , activists , scientists ( induced through well funded government grants) and media are perpetrating a hoax to change the nature of government and society in America and the West. They do this through alarmist and catastrophic predictions that have extremely low likelihoods. , omissions , and outright false-hoods.
I see you haven’t mentioned the Media or the government in your little logic problem…how illogical. The media reports the alarmist positions , but not the omissions and never corrects the record when the predictions come and go. The media is manufacturing consent for the role of the government based on mis- information. Also what about the vested interests like the financial sector who desperately want carbon trading, the alternative energy sector that wants subsidies, governments who see a taxation bonanza and wish to implement s21 and change those consumption patterns, and finally all the groups that are antagonistic to free markets , American exceptionalism and want to “destroy the joint” to make way for the utopia they desperately sense….
We are the true moderates for we stand at the middle ground of the present day, respectful of the past and optimistic of the future, but refusing to sacrifice all we have in a mad dash for making another world.
The utopian is a fanatic, who at every opportunity informs us that we will all die if we go on living like we do in this world, who makes a fetish of his revolutionary martyrdom, making his unreason into his crowning virtue. Like a stubborn child, he believes that his destructive hate mongering will convince us to submit, when in actuality it convinces us only of the necessity to resist. He howls that we must all follow him, and hatefully demonizes us when we don’t concur- that we dare dissent! Science is science – there is confounding data regarding the AGW hypothesis. The world has stopped warming- 16 years ago, yes, the arctic ice is in retreat but what of Antarctica- ice records? Polar bears aren’t drowning, the earth has been warmer and colder in the last millenniums- there is something else going ON, an underlying process that may swamp the contribution of the CO2 trace gas …. either way its More than enough questions to question the “settled science”.
Finally ..here’s a question for you…who are those bribe recipients that Big oil, coal and gas companies are spending their obscene, mostly untaxed profits on? Please do tell…… you cant even imagine anybody who could disagree with you without some ulterior motive. Just like a fanatic…nothing can convince you because your belief is anchored , not by evidence but by a dissatisfied soul rebelling against the constraints of a complex civilization. You are wedded to the notion of trying to to synthesize a cocktail of the spiritual simplicity of the imagined past and the social technologies of the future. The result will invariably creates totalitarian horrors, monstrous bureaucracies and secret police forces who guard the efficacy of your philosophies. Certainly to the gas chamber , you would march me…. All in the name of your abstract Brave New World – a ‘ heaven on earth’ is worth almost any price isn’t it!
LikeLike
Still waiting for David to answer the question posed. Thus far…
::: crickets :::
LikeLike
David, who told you there had been no warming “for 16 years,” and why do you listen to drunks and blatherskites?
Caption from NASA:
LikeLike
And as for Megan and her fellow believers, they are out of their depth. How can a storm or anything else be a result of global warming when there has been no warming for 16 years?
LikeLike
Ed said “While you were kvetching and GOP was ridiculing disaster victims:”
Hey , they were ridiculing Obama …not quite the same thing.
And as for the further intrusion of federal government into the lives and choices of Americans ….it sounds like picking winners and loser all over again. How’s the ‘volt’ going it’s 133rd-place ranking may require a change of the rules so people have to buy it . eh. And is there a government ( taxpayer funded) subsidy for it? Taxpayers have to pay through subsidies for the flights of fancy the governments chooses. Why not let the market decide…especially since under obama feul prices have doubled …you get same result…smaller more efficient cars without the taxpayer funding , which could be spent on …well …education.
LikeLike
A question for David: Which is more logical?
Environmental groups, non-profits and community activists spend their tiny operating budgets in some massive conspiracy with more than 90% of the world’s scientists and college professors to create a worldwide hoax and thereby crash the U.S. economy?
Or…
Big oil, coal and gas companies are spending their obscene, mostly untaxed profits to bribe anyone they can in an effort to protect their profits and limit any future liability their pollution may cause?
I’d sure like an answer.
LikeLike
While you were kvetching and GOP was ridiculing disaster victims:
LikeLike
…yes it does speak for itself…..Obama should have promised to begin to stop the storms. Which would have been on par with his stopping the rise of the oceans hubris , which Romney skillfully skewed at the convention.
You know the science is weak when they conflate weather and storms with climate change ….and attempt political point scoring off the misery of others. There again its never been about the science , its never been about a search for truth, it doesnt matter if AGW is completely over stated or false- its always been about a political agenda and the will to power by those who think big larger government which has greater control over individuals is the road to utopia. Of course a nanny state is some peoples perfect dream , but its a nightemare for others.
A speaking of nightmares , it Looks like the election will go down to the wire and I still think the chances of Romney winning is 2 to 1 against…..but I live and hope and look forward to the excitement of election night. A vote for Romney will be a vote of love for their country while a vote for Obama will be some perverse expression of ‘revenge’ , his words that express the incoherent garbled nature of what his agenda is.
If Obama wins then the first American Republic will be effectively over, and a weakened USA bodes ill for the harmony of the world, as other competing nations, hardly libertarian in nature , fill the void. Is this what 1938 felt like????
LikeLike