When Ten Years is not a Trend
Nevermind That Data Behind the Curtain. Look at These Dire Predictions
By Mark I Posted in Environment | Global Warming | Liberals | Miscellanea | radical environmentalists — Comments (65) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The proponents of man-made Global Warming have been dealt another serious blow. The United Nations World Meteorological Organisation’s official forecast predicts that global temperatures will be cooler in 2008, again. If it is correct, this will be the tenth consecutive year that global temperatures have not increased. Temperatures stopped increasing in 1998, according to the allegedly impartial world body.
But the Secretary General of the organization, Michel Jarraud, says that the cooling does not constitute a challenge to Global Warming theory. Amazingly, he says that one must not take the evidence of ten straight years of decreasing temperatures as indicative of anything when it comes to the consensus view that Global Warming is real. Rather, he says, one must “look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
In other words, even when it’s cooling, it’s warming.
Read on…
Ten years seems like a pretty long time considering that in the mid-1970s the consensus view on the climate was that a new ice age was coming. It only took about 15 years to completely reverse that thinking. But Mr. Jarraud doesn’t want anyone to get the idea that the last ten years are significant because the worldwide left has invested so heavily in Global Warming. Any evidence that casts doubt on Global Warming must be suppressed or spun so that it appears to actually fit the theory.
Mr. Jarraud also cautioned against looking at “any particular year” when assessing the global climate. But that is exactly what the Global Warming purveyors do every year. There have been countless news stories and breathless announcements that this year or that season, even this month or that date, “was the warmest on record.” Each of these are used as evidence to support the Known Fact that Global Warming is happening, man is responsible, and the consequences will be so dire that drastic and intrusive action is required on the part of world governments. There is almost no attention paid to relatively cold winters, or rainy summers, or inactive hurricane seasons as evidence of anything. Now, even ten consecutive years of steady and even declining temperatures are not significant.
There is more bad news for Mr. Jarraud and the Global Warming apologists. The meteorologists in his own agency say that the cooling…anomaly…is due to La Nina, the cooling of Pacific Ocean surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. Worse, forecasters at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for Forecasting say that the cooling…searching for a word other than trend…could continue for another five years until La Nina’s counterpart, El Nino, again warms the Southern Pacific.
That analysis pretty clearly refutes the Global Warming crowd’s doctrine that the Earth’s warming is caused by man. If the natural phenomenon of La Nina lowers worldwide temperatures, and the equally natural phenomenon of El Nino raises them, what does that say for human activities? Clearly humans have no effect on the warmth of the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, while man’s activities have changed since 1998, they haven’t changed so much as to cause a drop in the global temperature, or so the Global Warming activists would have us believe. And, while man’s activities are almost certainly going to become even more eco-friendly over the next five years, the world’s temperature is expected to peak again. Doesn’t all that seem to indicate that natural cycles and rhythms have far more impact on the climate than man does?
Not according to Mr. Jarraud. He dismisses La Nina as a, “variability.” “There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up,” he says. So that settles it. Forget the data. Nevermind the natural cycles of the Earth. Man is causing Global Warming because…well…because Mr. Jarraud and the worldwide left say so. That’s what his argument boils down to.
The more that we learn about the Earth’s climate, the less there is a clear picture of what is actually going on. About the only thing that is established with certainty is that Global Warming proponents will ignore any data, suppress any research finding, and spin any result to further their cause.
Turning Out the Lights on Freedom — Comments (15) »
When Ten Years is not a Trend 65 Comments (0 topical, 65 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
seems like the laws of physics is not quite as on board as the AGW promotion industry would like you to think:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87#comment-17110
AGW promoters are not only hurting the environment with their bio-fuel scams, they are not only wasting untold amounts of financial resources; they are not only inducing a fuel price crisis; they are lying and they know it.
I normally ask just what would it take to make you doubt in the proposition. But at this point, I am thoroughly convinced there is no weight of evidence that can confer common sense.
But just to be laughing at you(Some More). When you complain about an arbitrary date range have you noticed that 120 years is a pretty well cherry picked time frame ? I mean 1860(decade) was a trough in temperature as best can be measured. 1850(decade) was considerably warmer. If you go to a thousand year timescale we are just equaling where we were in the tenth century. If you got to a two thousand year timescale we are hitting back up to where the temperature was when the roman empire was at its peak.
If you go to a ten thousand year range we are below the trend
You can go off now and tell your friends how you showed up the know nothing deniers at Redstate.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is they do not even understand the implications of having a non-falsifiable belief system posing as science-based.
If you read the entire article it is pretty straight forward.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect (La Nino) was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree... ...temperatures would still be well above average for the century."
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
They aren't talking about a 10 year cooling trend they are talking about the hottest year on record (1998).
"What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
It is a ten year trend. That's the point.
Also, 1998 was not the hottest year on record. 1934 was.
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
1998 was the warmest year --- since 1998 :-) You Flat Earther Gorbal Warming Deniers have got to stop this, it is non-productive and interferes with the Reveal Religion of Antropogenic Global Warming Climate Change.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
1934 was a hot year in the continental US, as the link says. It was nowhere near the hottest globally.
But how do you explain the fact that four of the ten hottest years on record in the U.S., the worlds "largest producer of greenhouse gas emmissions," were in the 1930s? If human activity has the impact on climate that we are being led to believe, shouldn't all of those hot years in the U.S. be more recent?
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
CO2, after production, is spread throughout the atmosphere in a few weeks. It then lasts for many decades. So there is very little local heating concentration - CO2 doesn't heat the US especially.
Industrially produced aerosols, however, have a cooling effect, which many believe to be the cause of the cooling dip following mid-20C. They have a much shorter lifetime, and there is a theory that they caused the much greater post-WW2 dip in US temperatures, relative to the global average, which then continued for much of the century.
Incidentally, your claim ten straight years of cooling since 1998 also can't be sustained. It is genertally agreed that 2005 was the hottest year globally, with others since 1998 also coming close to its level.
There is no reliable record from that period of time to make any statement about 1998 that has any real meaning.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
So when they go down a 'fraction of a degree' that is anecdotal, non-trend. But when they have *maybe* gone up a fraction of a degree in 100 years (and let us not discuss range of accuracy issues!)that is a huge world ending crisis.
realconservative, you have just demonstrated why more and more people see AGW for what it is: a non-falsifiable faith-based beleif system.
AGW is a social movement. It is not about established science or evidence at all.
As I repeatedly point out to my friends and acquaintances; your local weatherman uses data from the same agencies/computer models that the global warming proponents use. They are simple unable to predict the weather with any kind of accuracy 7 days out. Why then are they so certain of the weather in 50 or 100 years!
It defies common sense.
Another argument that I have seen skeptics use and it is a good one. Is that even if you plug into the models all data for previous years, they are unable to predict last year's weather pattern using these computer models. Ergo their models are missing data that would make them accurate. If you cannot predict what has already happened with any kind of accuracy, what makes you think you can predict what has not happened?
I used to struggle with these questions as well. After doing a little research it is pretty straight forward. No one is trying to predict weather patterns. It is simply projecting global temperature trends. All repercussions of those trends are hypothesized. I.E. warmer waters will cause larger and more frequent hurricanes. No one is going to attempt to tell you that on Friday August 30, 2030 there will be a category 35 hurricane that hits Florida.
The two hurricane seasons since Katrina have been characterized by fewer than the expected amount of storms. Have the oceans cooled?
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
Yes, the oceans have cooled. See here: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1245606.php
2005 was the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record with 28 storms and 15 hurricanes, both records. Coming on the tail end of the oceans dumping over 20% of their warming over the previous 50 years, I guess we can conclude that cooling oceans cause more and more intense hurricanes.
Now there's an argument for global warming!
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
Your link relies on a paper by Lyman et al. In 2007 they published a correction. Key quote:
Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data.
The oceans are cooling.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/npr-nasa-oceans-slightly-cooling-since...
I especially like the part where Argos workers point out that theirs is the first accurate and comprehensive look at ocean temps.
but your position makes sense since the AGW prmoters depend on o one actually examining their premises in detail:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87
but I'm travelling at the moment. It's an interesting story - the Argo's have great potential, but as that 2007 correction etc indicate, time is needed to resolve the instrumentation issues.
no warming atmosphere and no warming on earth.
There is expanding ice, cooling oceans and weakening storms worldwide.
AGW is a social movement based on selling fear.
you can't just look at a small period of time to make sweeping conclusions about the climate. Unfortuantely, he and other global warming hysterics do just that by claiming all these runaway record high temperatures that we have had recently. Of course, these temperatures are nowhere near the highest they've ever been. They are only the highest in the last 100 or so years. Mankind has been around a lot longer than that, and the earth has been around even a helluva lot longer. It has been far warmer and far cooler than it is today. The climate has been and always will be changing. There will be periods of warmth and periods of cooling. All the Kyoto agreements, hybrid cars and CFL lightbulbs won't change that fact.
...All the Kyoto agreements, hybrid cars and CFL lightbulbs won't change that fact.
all those things will make a few selected people very wealthy and give enormous power to a bunch of socialists who couldn't gain power by rational argument.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
This isn't true and is old inaccurate information. Historical records indicate the average global temperature increased by 0.5 to1° Fahrenheit (F) between 1890 and 1990. In the next 100 years, scientists predict the temperature may rise another 2 to 6° F. Such increases have occurred previously in Earth’s history, but never over such a short time span. In fact, the average global temperature has risen more in the last century than at any time in the past 10,000 years. Even the Bush administration has admitted it is happening and that we are most likely the cause.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/
Investing In Renewable Energy Technologies Is One Of The Best Ways To Address The Long-Term Challenge Of Global Climate Change
The United States is forming international partnerships to pursue clean sources of renewable energy.
President Bush is committing $2 billion over the next three years to create a new international clean energy technology fund to help address the growing problem of accelerating greenhouse gas emissions in major developing countries. Along with contributions from the U.K., Japan, and other countries around the world, this fund will increase and accelerate the deployment of cleaner, more efficient technologies in developing nations like India and China and help leverage substantial private-sector capital by making clean energy projects more financially attractive. The U.S. believes countries seeking access to the fund should be undertaking credible national plans to limit greenhouse gases and have those plans reflected in a post-2012 climate change agreement.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/made/
The website above explains how ethonol is made. An interesting sentence on that page:
"The mash is cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) begins."
So how does this help in the battle against anthropogenic global warming?
So we produce carbon dioxide to achieve a "renewable energy source" which by the reading of this solitary website, requires the use of natural gas to achieve. Considering that more energy is used to produce the ethanol than it provides is another situation of ignoring the facts to feel good.
We see here political expediency once again playing havoc with our environment. Not only will food costs soar, but we waste fossil fuel in making this "renewable energy" product.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/04/02/cstillwell.D...
The article provides more falacy to the biofuels debacle.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
Please take any claims of historical records of global temperature accurate enough to determine: "average global temperature increased by 0.5 to 1° Fahrenheit (F) between 1890 and 1990" with a large grain of salt. Relying on recent, more accurate, satellite GT measurements, we note an annual jump of 1.8 F in '98, followed by a 1.6 F drop the next year. The decades-long "trend" quoted is due almost entirely to the accidental juxtaposition of Pinatubo a few years before El Nino. This measurement is derived from a base surface temperature that varies almost continuously between -60 to + 160 F. My point is that the earth seems to be quite resiliant to temperature variations much greater than claimed, even if you accept the "observations." Start worrying when the Vikings start farming Greenland, again.
The premises of AGW, along with its lack of accounting for laws of physics, makes its claims dubious at best.
It makes me laugh that this stuff is discussed on a political blog. It's hilarious.
I doubt Einstein consulted the political junkies of his time before coming up with the theory of relativity.
Can you imagine a lay person looking at his political views before accepting or rejecting his new theory?
Cna you imagine if you had heart problems...
Would you follow the advice of the world greatest heart expert who gives money to the ACLU and cherry picks data (like your arteries are 90% blocked)to justify invasive action
or
would you follow the advice of a biology major who is a good conservative who cherry picks data (like your blood pressure is fine and your hear is in rythm) to suggest you don't need to do anything?
In this potential life and death situation, how much would you value a person politics over credentials?
In Global Warmism, it's just the opposite.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Becuase all of the "solutions" to the "problem" just happen to dovetail quite nicely with the preferred policy positions of liberals. They make it political, not us.
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
How come the common first objection among global warmists to scientists that dispute global warming is 'they're getting funded by those evil oil companies!'?
The reaction by these types to anyone disputing global warming is to drag the disputer's politics into it. Point your fire where it's deserved.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I'll start valuing people's "credentials" when they stop allowing their personal politics to interfere with their science.
I know a lot of good scientists. I also know a lot who are just as dogmatically blind to data that refutes their cherished beliefs as the most rabid religious fanatic.
You argue that us political junkies shouldn't be discussing science. How much time have you spent pointing out to the scientists that they shouldn't be dictating public policy, when their own "credentials" leave them ill qualified to measure the impact on society of those very policies?
Any rational approach to analyzing and solving problems of this nature requires an honest discussion of all aspects of the problem, including scientific, political, and societal.
--
"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.'" -- C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian"
The one you have been hyped into believing?
The on where Ted Turner says temps will be up 8o in 30 years and we will be cooking each other up?
AGW is based on false premises and disproven predictions. It is only credible because the fear that gore has leveraged into a large personal fortune is still profitable for him.
The oceans are not heating up. The weather is not radically changing at all. Storms are not getting more frequent, or worse. The world has been cooling, not heating over the last decade.
All of those facts are counter to AGW predictions.
what life and death?
I am amused by some many people who hold such strong opinions on this topic (on both sides) who can't even begin to understand or evaluate the science BUT feel perfectly comfortable stating very strong opinions based on the politics of the scientists.
In this game of rock, paper scicors - politics beats credentials.
It's hilarious.
(the life or death in my post was about the hypothetical patient with heart disease)
The irony is lost on them
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is:
"Can AGW - the theory that mankind is causing a climate catastrophe be falsified?"
Is there any evidence that could change their minds?
What these alarmists just don't get is that the internet allows "disqualified" lay people like me, (I won't assume you are "disqualified"),to discern, compare and contrast available information. They simply can't shovel a load of dog $h!# in front of us and tell us it's chocolate mousse anymore.
Tim Schieferecke
And still have integrity.
One cannot choose one fact's and keep their integrity.
AGW promoters and believers are selecting their facts.
failed time and again to produce the results he wanted, to have started blaming critics for the lack of the results he was seeking?
What if Einstein had not been willing to accept that many of his models of the universe after SR & GR were flawed, but that his critics were instead flat earth believers?
Of course we are talking about the real Einstein, and not Gore, the wannabe Einstein.
Einstein was actually smart and driven by scruples, as far as his science was concerned. Gore is the opposite in every way.
a kooky theory that has as its thesis the fact that you will die, you will follow his remedy in its entirety no matter how much damage it does to your life because you otherwise might die.
You are much more likely to die from an auto accident than from global warming. Will you still get into a car?
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is the "oxygen" for plants, which results in the oxygen for us. The idea that we need to cut down on CO2 is crazy. How about we just plant more plants? Oh, I forgot we are already doing that. There are more trees here now than there were when the country was founded.
Einstein's theory of relativity did not require the U.S. to destroy its economy, and its validity was validated over time. Many theories turn out to be wrong.
The same scientist you rely on now for Global Warming was warning about Global Cooling 30 years ago.
Too many folks on this good earth of ours want to feel guilty about something. The ones that believe this global warming drivel the most are the ones that have no firm associations with God. Like Rush says, "if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything else." There are deep spiritual instincts within the human soul, and guilt assuaged by contrition is definitely one of them. The earth has been here a long time, and will warm and cool whether we are here or not.
Tim Schieferecke
because many of the proposed "solutions" involve massive economic dislocations; infringement of the rights of citizens; diminution, if not elimination, of the sovereignty of nations (especially ours). It can't help but be political.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
I can be as much of an AGW skeptic as the next person, but some of the arguments being made on this page are foolish.
While most of what's coming out of the UN these days is nonsense, the point that Mr. Jarraud makes about the El Nino / La Nina effect is valid. If you want to determine the overall trends, then you need to compare the temperatures during one El Nino period with the temperatures during another El Nino period. Similarly, compare the temperatures during the La Nina periods. Otherwise, you're mixing apples and oranges.
Finally, to suggest that because scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow means they can't predict it forty years from now is overly simplistic. It is obvious to everyone that there are weather and climate changes that occur on different time scales. Just because you don't understand or can't predict all of the factors on one time scale doesn't imply that you can't have a better grasp of changes on another time scale. You may not be able to tell whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow afternoon, but if you live in the northern hemisphere, you can make a fairly safe prediction that it's going to be cooler next January that it will be in July.
--
"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.'" -- C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian"
Except, Global Warming activists claim to have a complete understanding of what is happening, what will happen, and what has to be done to fix it.
According to your logic, we don't know if the warming seen over the past say 50 years is part of a longer warming trend or just a blip in a longer time frame of overall cooling. It's not out of the realm of possibility. As recently as 35 years ago, science was predicting an ice age.
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
I have no argument with you that the vast majority of Global Warming activists claim a far better understanding of the data and cycles at work than is warranted. I agree that we need to call them on that when it occurs.
I agree, we don't know for certain what the data collected over the past 50 years say about the overall trends. I'm not certain that we even know whether the data collected thus far are conclusive as to what the temperature change has been (i.e., warming or cooling). We have frequently seen studies emerging which have pointed out why one set or another of the data is suspect for some reason, whether it's local conditions affecting the accuracy of the readings or lack of necessary coverage of the data.
I am no expert in global climate change, but I do know enough about science in general and planetary science specifically to know that there are a huge number of factors affecting climate change. We have to understand and include the effect of various solar cycles, changes in the tilt, rotation, and orbit of the earth, the changes in the composition of the atmosphere, the changes in the composition and size of the continents versus the ocean depth, the changes in the types and coverage of vegetation, the role of the various positive and negative feedback cycles that have developed in response to change, the influence of catastrophic events like large volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts, and yes, the possible impact of changes introduced by man. I'm sure there are plenty of other factors I've not even listed here. Given all of this, I'm skeptical that anyone really has a solid understanding of what's going on and what the implications of that change, if present, are. Finally, I'm skeptical that anyone has a firm grasp of what might happen if we start intentionally tinkering with the system. I'm frankly far more afraid of what the AGW activists might do to "correct" the problem than I am of the damage that man might or might not be doing now.
Sorry, I guess my current position is more that of "skeptic" than of advocate of any particular position.
--
"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.'" -- C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian"
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87#comment-17110
The AGW promoters do not even understand the basic physics.
And do read the comments section. The great AGW promoter himself tries to shrug off the laws of physics in a ridiculous, transprently misleading way.
Hunter, thanks for the link. I don't have time to read it just at the moment since I have three young kids screaming for lunch. I'll try to get to it later. In the meantime, I would just repeat what I said to Mark above that I have no argument with you that much of what is coming out of the AGW community is nonsense. I just don't think that gives us an excuse to spout nonsense in return.
--
"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.'" -- C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian"
Elizabeth, I struggle with your point on being able to predict temperatures 100 years from now. What exactly do we know that allows us to do that? The fact is, even though short term and long term weather forcasting are different, that doesn't mean that we are any better at long term forcasting. Remember when the long term for cast was cooling?
I did NOT say that I believe scientists can accurately predict what temperatures will be in 100 years. What I said was that just because they can't predict the weather next week doesn't mean that they can't predict temperatures on the time scale of 100 years. Please read my response to Mark above, specifically the list of all the factors that can have an impact on climate change. Those factors all have different time scales. Some of those factors are better understood than others.
--
"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.'" -- C.S. Lewis' "Prince Caspian"
The tuna run up the west coast and the fishing is awesome. Nothing quite like having a 100+ lb. yellowtail tuna on the end of your line.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
The big L liberals want a Utopia on earth ...
No system of government has succeded in creating that Utopia in their mind because nobody has managed to eliminate conflict. No borders, no money = no rich / poor, no war ...
America stands in the way of Utopia because many people believe it is has the best form of Government in history. The big L liberals must shoot down this idea that America is great by showing how bad we really are and how good our enemies are. They simply can't have people thinking that American government and capitalism are worthy goals to aspire to, only Utopia is worth it.
In the case of AGW America's success depends of CO2 and cheap energy. The AGW crowd needs to convince Americans that we should destroy our economy and country to save the planet because, after all we really aren't that great after all.
AGW is just another anti-American tool to destroy America and capitalism and pave the way for Utoopia.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...how exactly?
Please share with us your sources inside the Liberal Inner Sanctum that give you such insight into their thinking and motivations?
Do you have a mole? Did you sneak into one of their meetings (do they HAVE meetings?) and tape their secret proceedings? Tell us about that. It must have been fun. Were Brad and Angelina there? Did you get their autographs?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, is this a straw man that you have constructed for yourself. Because it is certainly easier and less stressful to be opposed to the America-hating Ls that you hypothesize than it is to have to actually think about this stuff.
Gar
when they speak? He is absolutely correct in his assertions about liberals and their utopian ideas/pipedreams. You might try opening your eyes and ears sometime.
Tim Schieferecke
have you even read one of the links posted about the problems with AGW?
Thinking is a great idea. Try it sometime.
As to Gore, he is a real creep. his eyes are not right, his vocal cademce is not that of a healthy normal person. His inability to answer all but pre-agreed softball questions is not that of a well adjusted person.
And the movie that he made million off of (possibly giving some $ away) and rode to a strange sort of power, is full of lies, half truths and misinformation.
Try thinking, if you can.
I reject your Strawman categorization, and recognize there is a "certain discomfort" that generally accompanies a factual representation which goes beyond accepted Talking Points™ and hits a little too close to home.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
So, if we pick this particular date range and ignore this particular climate driver, ergo, global warming. got it. Maybe if I repeat it over and over I'll eventually believe it.
Jim