What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Oct. 25 2009 - 8:55 am | 1,275 views | 1 recommendation | 25 comments

ABC all upset at poll showing huge drop in global warming believers

Not to be the master of the obvious here, but it is going to be hard to convince people that the earth is warming . . . when it is not.

The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

But we’ll give ABC credit for reporting the poll numbers. Then they get downright hilarious trying to discredit it eight ways to Sunday. The advocacy is top-notch, it is just too bad that they don’t see it as such.

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change. . . .

Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That’s down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year’s poll.

So only a small (and drastically shrinking) minority thinks that we are causing any global warming. The rest of the normal people presumably think one of two things, either (1) the planet is not warming (so the whole issue is moot), or (2) that bright yellow ball in the sky seems to have something to do with the earth’s temperature. Either way, this hardly seems the time to go taking over all of American industry with a Cap and Trade scheme and taxing the bejesus out of the American people. Let’s just say it ain’t exactly a stimulus package.

But ABC dives right in with the standard attacks. First we have the “settled science” of global warming with which we are not allowed to argue.

At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world’s oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

Hmmm. I heard a little something different in a couple of places about those ‘melting’ ice caps.

First, the 2009 summer minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent [Area of ocean with at least 15 percent sea ice] that was predicted by alarmists to decline, instead, grew dramatically. According to International Arctic Research Center AMSR-E satellite data, it grew by about 1 million square kilometers of ice (1.4 times the size of Texas), which is a 23 percent growth above 2007 and 11.5 percent growth above 2008 sea-ice levels, respectively.

More bad news for alarmists came when results of the Arctic Sea Ice Expedition were released. NASA characterized this expedition as a six-nation, 20-scientist Arctic expedition, equipped with an aircraft that had precision measurement instruments. Alarmists had argued that new Arctic sea-ice growth was thinner and less robust than older ice. The expedition instead found new sea ice was much thicker, up to four meters in places, which was more than twice what was expected.

I guess ABC didn’t find any of that in the “settled” science. But they nevertheless proceed undaunted.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic’s thermostat.

Funny, they must have forgotten to mention that 650 of the world’s leading climatologists met in Poland in December and declared that man-made global warming is a media-generated myth, without scientific basis. Then there was the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York earlier this year, in which at least 70 scientists seem to have missed the memo about the “settled science.” Oh yeah, and the They kept talking saying crazy stuff like “we don’t agree” and “the science shows something else.” Surely these people must be silenced.

Then ABC goes with the perennial favorite of lefties who are losing an argument: The people are confused by crazy things like weather and, lobbyists, or something.

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness. [me - now there is some professor-speak for you]

“It’s a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public,” he said.

Translation: Dammit! If people weren’t so stupid, we’d have this thing in the bag already.

So, to help turn the tide, ABC decides to haul out a little more of that “settled science.”

Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.

Jane Lubchenco, head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a business group meeting at the White House Thursday: “The science is pretty clear that the climate challenge before us is very real. We’re already seeing impacts of climate change in our own backyards.”

In whose backyard? Have you noticed any global warming in your backyard? If not, you must be confused. You’d better read up a little more on the “settled science.”

Surprisingly, it seems that the more liberal you are, the more the science is settled.

People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

Oh yeah, and even if you are a Warmer, turns out that China and India aren’t with you and aren’t coming to Copenhagen. So keep in mind that whatever the Democrats do with Cap and Trade or the “world community” does at Copenhagen, we are unilaterally killing our own economy while two of the world’s biggest “polluters” charge onward. They must marvel that we are hell-bent on chasing a hoax while they continue to go about the business of living in the real world.

Though ABC gratuitously includes the liberal talking points and mounts an impressive defense on behalf of the Warmers, they grudgingly concede that the American people are figuring out the truth.

Note: The link in the first paragraph is now fixed.


Comments

Active Conversation
25 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    Let me guess, evolution is just a theory? The rest of the Planet is wrong and a few of us in the US are right, is that your position?

    • collapse expand

      There. Is. No. Global. Warming.

      The earth is cooling. It is a fact.

      So yes, people who believe the earth is cooling are right, and everybody else is wrong.

      How hard is this?

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Talk about a media outlet ignoring pieces of evidence to push a position. Come on.

        This “article” is hilarious; Bill bashes another media outlet by doing exactly that which he accuses them of doing – relying on bad science, cherry-picking information, and using data out of context, (and citing links that don’t work). I hope Bill made some money off this piece, because it appears he put the conservative value of personal pride that comes from an honest effort on hold.

        I don’t mind intelligent skeptics; but labeling yourself a conservative (like calling something the Int’l Conference on Climate Change) doesn’t make it accurate. Intelligent, honest, journalists (and conservatives) cite legitimate sources in their analysis, not editorials and corporate lobbying groups fronting as think tanks. Any genuine journalist or conservative should be disgusted with your effort. I have to wonder who’s paying you and what are the journalistic/intellectual standards for getting a piece published on this site.

        When a piece is so unexpectedly unintelligent that it makes me unsubscribe to the RSS feed for the entire site, I thought it merited a couple thoughts. It’s not your fault, I’ve been wary of T/S for a few weeks (it’s possible I don’t get the point of the site). Your sloppy inferior analysis sealed the deal – I just unsubscribed.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        It must be so comforting to KNOW that there is no global warming when there remains an open scientific debate on the subject.

        Personally, I’m not at all sure. I’ve seen good science that says that it is real and that we play a role – and I’ve seen good science that says quite the opposite.

        Yet, you seem to allow no possibility that you might be wrong. Could the scientists who see it differently possibly be right—even if we give you all benefit of doubt–is there a chance of the global warming scenario being true?

        And since there is a scientific debate, which, despite your own announcement that there..is..no…global..warming… continues, what do we hurt by erring on the side of being careful?

        A closed mind is a very dangerous thing. It also makes it incredibly hard to take you seriously on other subjects when you possess a arrogance and sureness of your position that is unhealthy at the least.

        It is precisely your absolutely certainty that destroys your credibility on a topic that many conservatives, along with liberals, believe is an important issue.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Ah Rick, you make my point so well. Guess how many times we global warming critics have made the following point to Gore and Co.?

          Yet, you seem to allow no possibility that you might be wrong. Could the scientists who see it differently possibly be right—even if we give you all benefit of doubt–is there a chance of the global warming scenario being [false]?

          And since there is a scientific debate, which, despite your own announcement that there..is..[absolutely]…global..warming… continues, what do we hurt by erring on the side of being careful?

          A closed mind is a very dangerous thing. It also makes it incredibly hard to take you seriously on other subjects when you possess a arrogance and sureness of your position that is unhealthy at the least.

          It is precisely your absolutely certainty that destroys your credibility on a topic that many conservatives, along with liberals, believe is an important issue.

          And by the way, the Warmers are the ones who proclaimed there would be no debate. I am old-fashioned; I am in favor of debate.

          Sometimes one tries to not only state their position on an issue but also highlight the tactics of the other side. That is what I was doing and your comment drove it home beautifully.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            “There. Is. No. Global. Warming.

            The earth is cooling. It is a fact.

            So yes, people who believe the earth is cooling are right, and everybody else is wrong.

            How hard is this?”

            I usually have a pretty good ear for irony ad sarcasm. Sorry, but I’m not using where you are employing the ‘tactics of the left’ to make the point that debate is required and helpful. It looks to me that your simply as hard headed and certain as those on the other side who refuse to see this as an open question. If this was an effort at role play, I think you missed it. Glad I could help explain it for you because I’m fairly sure nobody reading it ‘got it.’…if there is an ‘it’ there.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Wow, good going Bill. You know how to attract the true believers.

          http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/

          It’s done. Finis. The jig is up.

          Damn, if Frank Zappa (once grilled by blowhard Gore and Tipper regarding musical censorship) were alive now he’d have a great video about all you flabby thinking fools with a roll call of slaw jawed photos.

          I’m having a good laugh… didn’t know there were still people on the planet with brains stewed enough to be quoting Al Gore.

          But here they all are – a parade of groupthinkers.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        To say that “it has been getting cooler since 1998″ just demonstrates a lack of understanding basic math.

        Let’s see, the global warming trend is a 100 year trend of average increase. It’s been getting cooler for two years.

        Hmm.. lets see, for the last ten years, I’ve saved an average of $10 a week. Some weeks more, some weeks less. Last week I spent $300 from my savings on a new set of tires. That $300 dollar withdrawal doesn’t change the average savings over ten years. I sill have $4900 in the bank. Especially when my next paycheck comes in and I start putting $20 a week in for a while.

        In the short term, it goes up, it goes down. In the long run, it just keeps going up.

        I try real hard not to call people stupid. Sometimes, it’s not a point about AWG. Sometimes, it’s the point that this guy is just plain stupid.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        I can always tell when someone doesn’t know what they are talking about because they believe That.Punctuating.And.Capitalizing somehow makes an argument!!!

        And the funny thing is, he’s ready to say, “Four days of rain in Chicago proves global warming?” noting that a recent variability doesn’t change the long term trend.

        Yet, he claims 11 years of cooling, ignoring that it was even cooler in 1976. It’s this arbitrary choosing of dates to create some artificial point that clearly demonstrates the tendency to seek out misleading and isolated facts.

        I don’t know which is worse, that he would know that it was cooler in 1976 and is intentionally misleading or if he’s attempting to talk about a science that he is obviously not equipped to discuss.

        This would be why he is so quick to suggests politicizing science, a behavior that he is guilty of himself. Funny how the guilty are the quickest to make accusations. It’s like drug addicts always think that everyone else is doing drugs. Or abusers claim that everyone beats there children.

        This guy has more BS than climatologist have actual science. It’s like throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping something will stick.

        I wouldn’t trust this guy if he told me to take an umbrella because it was raining outside. Indeed, I think I’d take sunblock.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  2. collapse expand

    You’re right Bill, there is no global warming. There is global climate change, oscillation of climate systems around the world caused by the addition of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere as the result of human activities. As a consequence of global climate change, we are likely to see higher highs in some places, lowers lows in others. That’s why the scientific consensus established in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change refers to ‘change’ and not ‘warming.’ I’m happy to be a ‘changer,’ and not a ‘warmer,’ nor a denier who was bought and paid for by the energy companies who bankroll groups you cite like the Heartland Institute, which also happily took money from the tobacco industry to prove that cigarettes don’t make people sick. Other than that, you’re linking to a bunch of op-ed pages all reading from the same script as groups like Heartland, rather than primary sources.

    That said, it doesn’t trouble me at all that everyone in America does not agree with the scientific consensus in favor of the existence of global climate change. Thank goodness we live in a republic where the skepticism of small populations in states like Montana or North Dakota does not have equal legislative weight with the beliefs of centers where most of the country’s population lives. If environmentalists are capable of forging a coalition of Members of Congress who will vote as a majority for controls on greenhouse gases, they win, and the polls be damned. That’s how politics in America works, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    You raise some good policy points – greenhouse gas controls that don’t have an impact on mounting greenhouse gas spewers like China and India are not likely to get far. On the other hand, developing an energy economy in which we rely less on coal and oil and more on renewable energy sources seems to be in the interest of all Americans, regardless of their beliefs in the existence of global climate change.

    • collapse expand

      The fallacy Michael is that Al Gore pushed all the ice cap melting, rising sea levels, drowning polar bear thing and then . . . the earth started to cool. So now they call it climate change. I will reiterate my primary gripe with all the cap and trade/climate change legislation. It is that (especially climate change, which is a moving target either up or down) regardless of the laws, you will never be able to determine ANY measurable effect, whatsoever, on the planet. Therefore whatever taxes and regulations are enacted will never be repealed and we are permanently hobbled. If global temperature increase, then the politicians double down and screw us even worse. And even if they decrease, they never repeal them. It is even more asinine that we are taxed to counter the “warming” by India and China. All the while the temperature is cooling.

      Climate is dynamic. Logically, if global warming is bad and we are taxing and regulating to cool the earth, then there should be fewer regulations and taxes when the earth is cooling. After all, if there will be widespread cooling, shouldn’t we do something to warm the planet before we lose valuable agricultural areas to permafrost?

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        ‘Climate change’ has been the scientific nomenclature for decades. For instance, if I go back to Al Gore in 1992 talking about his book ‘Earth in the Balance,’ he refers to climate change, not ‘global warming.’ ‘Global warming’ is the argot used by a lazy press, and by people who like to hold up stupid photos like “It’s snowing in October in Colorado and the Rockies can’t play baseball, obviously there’s no global warming.” It’s not like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to be the UN Panel on Global Warming.

        What you’re referring to as a ‘moving target’ is what climatologists refer to as ’science.’ It’s the scientific consensus that the more greenhouse gas you inject into the atmosphere, the more unpredictable that ‘dynamic’ climate you’re referring to becomes. Higher highs in some places, lower lows in others.

        Now you’re right; perhaps taxing carbon is not the preferable policy solution here. That’s a great debate to have on its economic merits. The short-term pain it will cause versus the downstream benefits of a new energy economy that may or may not materialize, factoring in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we’ll actually be able to reduce in the interim and the benefit that may or may not yield. But the people who are bringing all your op-ed authors their “there is no global warming” talking points are the same people that served up the “cigarettes don’t kill” BS of an earlier era. I prefer the fair economic debate to the one propagated by climate change deniers.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          I’m entirely comfortable still referring to the current Climate Change trend as Global Warming, because that is STILL the trend and looks to be that way for some time to come. Now, it’s not so simple as just that and we have to look at long term trends before year-to-year comparisons. The data fluctuates due to things such as Ocean currents, solar radiation, etc on a short term basis. After we factor those natural issues out though, what explains the overall warming trend? Well, a growing consensus says that carbon being spewed into our atmosphere at naturally unprecedented amounts is the explanation.

          Also, while the author of this article is very confident in his 11 year assertion, 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade in modern history (do a google search for “warmest decade on record”) and according to NASA records 2005 was warmer than 1998 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/) with 2007 close behind. Additionally, temperatures flattened out for various reasons in the mid 20th century, but continued their climb and then some since. So, Mr. Dupray’s assertions seem to be an overstatement to say the least.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      “Thank goodness we live in a republic where the skepticism of small populations in states like Montana or North Dakota does not have equal legislative weight with the beliefs of centers where most of the country’s population lives. If environmentalists are capable of forging a coalition of Members of Congress who will vote as a majority for controls on greenhouse gases, they win, and the polls be damned. That’s how politics in America works, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

      No kidding?….. Mob rule by the majority, you say? I thought you also said we were a republic (where the majority supposedly cannot trample on the rights of the minority)?

      What happened to that concept? Don’t you think there is something inconsistent with the imposition of your will through force of law upon others that disagree with you, and the concept of a republic?

      But, that certainly was spoken like a classic intolerant “its-all-for-your-own-good” omniscient socialist tyrant. And I bet you claim to be one of the tolerant one’s as well….? I find that very funny, talk about cognitive dissonance….

      Those of us freezing our asses off the last couple years of increasingly harsh winters here in the far north midwest (that you show such apparent disdain for), have a similar attitude. although in reverse.

      Only it is without the implicit threat of governmental force upon the coast’s inhabitants, when we don’t agree with them or the crackpots, weaklings and criminals that pass for their (all our)leaders these days.

      While you obviously feel compelled to force your way of thinking and your lifestyles upon us, we only ask you to stay the hell out of our faces, and out of our lives. (The same thing the founding fathers wanted, if you recall that “Constitution” thing we used to have….. Maybe we should bring that back some day, eh…)?

      But, you just won’t be able to tend to your own knitting and stop trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us will you? We must convert to your new environmental religion, or we must be suppressed and corrected through government. Good luck with that… I think that kind of thought-correction was already done in the Soviet Union in the 50’s and in Asia after the Viet Nam war too…

      If you actually think you have a valid case and incontrovertible evidence of anything, don’t discredit it by tolerating lies, pseudo-science, distortions and exaggerations, even though they might support your argument. That makes genuine evidence suspect, assuming it even exists…

      Anyway, if all the pseudo-intellectual crackpot alarmists from population centers on the coasts want to impose this highly doubtful farce upon themselves, fine. But, just don’t think you can so easily impose/force your environmentalist wacko views on everyone else.

      You want us to believe that up is down, and down is up, hot is cold, and cold is hot because you have the conclusion made ahead of the debate – and you are smarter and more fashionable than mere mortals too, so you gotta be right. Right?

      The bountiful evidence contrary to your opinion is completely ignored or explained away by (“warmer” – now “changer”) true believers. Or, the subject just gets changed when logic does not support their preconceptions. You recall the 1970’s impending ice-age warnings that respected scientists were warning us about then?

      Who was it that said “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time?” Was that P.T. Barnum? No, I think he was the “there’s a sucker born every minute” guy…

      Anyway, you will be happy to hear that another climatological crises has arrived!!! It just snowed two feet in Denver, it says on the news. That’s probably incontrovertible evidence of global warming in Uruguay perhaps?

      Whatever the contrived rationalizations offered are, I am sure they will be plentiful. I am also sure my children could come up with arguments why that is still supportive of warming/change, if asked and spoon-fed the desired answer.

      Climatological modeling and interpretation is the same kind of shot-in-the-dark analysis of hypothesis stacked upon multiple hypothesis that economic modeling is. We have all seen how well the “best and brightest” geniuses did with that and the earth is certainly more complicated overall than our economy.

      I believe that this is just another scam by alternative energy investors (like Gore) to get rich and they are aided by control-freak nanny-state do-gooders trying to scare people and wrecking what remains of the economy in the process. Please send any excess global warming up here. We could definitely use the warmth, not to mention the reduction in our staggering heating bills. Thanks!

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Might want to look in that mirror. The lion’s share of contrived arguments are from your side. If you held your own ‘evidence’ to the same degree of scrutiny you try to hold science to, then you’d give up your side of the argument well before the side that supports AGW.

        Also, take your libertarian rhetoric home. You and your whole lot of deniers are affecting everyone because you have a poor grasp of science and you have a misplaced sense of distrust. Let me tell you that the most active political and economic agendas at play here are NOT in favor of the AGW consensus. Just look at all the neocons who are deniers. And it really comes down to the FACT that the overwhelming evidence is against you, despite how many articles you’ve read by semi-informed people. Just because you’ve read something by some hack questioning the science here doesn’t mean he knows what the heck he’s talking about or that he’s right. Just because you have unanswered questions, doesn’t mean there aren’t already answers. You’ve just failed to do more than superficial research.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  3. collapse expand

    Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, but I don’t understand this “everyone else is wrong”, absolutist stance. Are you trying to sound immature and petty?
    How do you know global warming isn’t in my backyard? As a matter of fact it is. I’ve been living in Chicago for 20 years now and for the first time last year my house completely flooded after 4 straight days of torrential rains. That has never happened before. There IS climate change and it is NOT cooling down.
    And really you’re going to quote another biased report to support your stance on global warming? Who were those supposed 650, over-qualified scientists? Who’s payroll were they on and who made that list? 5th graders?
    And really there is no way to defend the impossibility of global warming, climate change is a natural cycle that is controlled, no not by the sun, but the atmospheric content. And what happens when billions of millions of U.S. citizens drive down the block to get a hamburger? There is a release green house gases. No, the sun doesn’t cool down or heat up. Sorry, basic science says so.

  4. collapse expand

    4-days or 11 years, both count as fluctuation in a complex system that is warming.

    At some point we have to believe the experts, even if it creates uncomfortable political choices. And those who know say we need action, and action now. Human-induced climate change is destroying the climate in which civilization developed. Sad to say but that has been established. What is at issue is how much damage, how quickly, and from what feedback mechanism.

    Referencing a Jan. ‘09 study from the American Geophysical Union Peter Doran, author of the report and a University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, spoke about the near-unanimity among climate scientists,

    “They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
    (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php)

    Some people believe the world is flat, Elvis lives, and we never went to the moon. Since 97% of those who know the science believe in man-made climate change perhaps those who deny it should be moved into the same category?

  5. collapse expand

    Even if global climate change proves not to be caused by humans, is this a reason not to find environmentally sustainable means of living?

    If you’re a conservative, you should want to CONSERVE nature, right? So you shouldn’t be offended by energy efficiency and properly managed natural resources.

    When I think of US energy policy, it’s like a spider with two legs: oil & coal. If one goes out, the spider ain’t gettin’ back up. Give it more legs: wave power, wind power, solar power, hydro-electric, and yes, nuclear.

    If you want to CONSERVE nature, you should at least be concerned that man-made climate change might be a real possibility and deserves scrutiny, ergo a careful approach to technological/industrial development.

    The truth is, “conservatives” like Mr. Dupray are very liberal wasters of natural resources with no sense of stewardship for future generations because they value money over all else.

  6. collapse expand

    you.need.to.do.better.research

    Seriously, you have to research your sources and see what the scientists are actually saying. For example, you make statements like “The earth has been cooling for 11 years.” This is simply a vast overstatement. Firstly, if you go by NASA data (rather than the British Data), 2005 was actually warmer than 1998 and 2007 was only slightly below it. 1998 was a huge El Nino year where lots of heat was released into the atmosphere, and there was also a high amount of solar activity. Did you know this? Did you conveniently leave it out, or are you simply uninformed? You may want to check out this video by Peter Sinclair which lays out the data and the analysis quite clearly:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

    In fact, I’d suggest you go to his channel page at http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/7/QwnrpwctIh4 because just about every argument you’ve made on this page is wrong.

  7. collapse expand

    That’s it! Apparently ABC can’t do their own investigating, so I’ll send them a link to my blog.

    http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/

    Some of us actually give a crap about the truth. Some of us are actually intelligent enough to research and know what is fact and what is horse sh*t. Some of us actually give a damn about humanity and are not disgusted by that very humanity and all its “horror” – eh, you know, technology, industry, curing diseases. I guess everything was sooooo much better when people were burning their garbage and pouring buckets of sewage out their front doors in those oh-so lovely pre-industrial days.

    I thought environmentalists were “progressives”? But the things they love to hock are archaic nonsense spewed by old creepy guys with skeezy looking beards: socialist John Dewey’s education philosophies (had to pull my daughter quickly out of one of those schools when I got a clue) and Marxism, to name a few.

    Progressives would be funny if they didn’t have so much power.

    I grew up in ’60s & ’70s San Francisco, the daughter of people who became flower children. I came to the conclusion, even as a child, that the movement back then was groupthink on steroids. A kid thinks these things when values, rules, thinking, ways of speaking change with the decades. Long hair and beads were replaced in the ’80s with corduroy suits and ties. Far out, groovy, right on and “meet my old lady” turned into bringing home the bacon, where’s your latchkey, kid? I’m ok, you’re ok… Now leave me alone so I can find myself.

    Sorry, but when you don’t think on your own – as many aren’t in their rabid defense of global warming and you don’t have a compass, don’t have your own premises… you are unable to debate yourself out of a recyclable bag. I know, I’ve entertained myself by debating progressives for years. They merely parrot, not lots of new, creative, individual thinking.

    The progressive movement works best on the young, they need gullible, susceptible minds to absorb the sort of nonsense they spew. It doesn’t need to make sense.

    It’s a religion. All you need is to be fervent and have faith.

    Okay, I’m off to give ABC a piece of my mind!

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I am a lawyer afflicted with a consuming desire to analyze and debate politics.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 55
    Contributor Since: September 2009
    Location:Virginia