Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Vox contributor David Roberts, a right wing army of people in the media always stands ready to kill off the green shoots of Conservative climate action.
Don’t bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change
A new report examines the climate right. It doesn’t find much.
By David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com Apr 26, 2019, 10:00am EDT
…
The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it.
Meanwhile, the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook dedicated to shaping public opinion, stoking it, dragging it rightward. Not investigating it, not charting it, not reacting to it — creating it.
The left’s technocrats are targeting values-based messages at New Era Enterprisers while the right is out building full-fledged identities, letting conservatives know what they’re supposed to think.
Imagine, if you will, that “innovation” really started taking off and becoming the basis for bipartisan climate policy. Or imagine that New Era Enterprisers really started coalescing around climate action. Imagine that earnest conservative advocacy groups succeeded in generating some small movement, among some part of the GOP, toward some kind of climate action.
If Fox didn’t like it — and Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels — Fox would kill it. Immediately. End of story. Sad trumpet.
And it wouldn’t be hard. All they would have to do is make up some scary story about how it, whatever “it” is, is socialism, or some variety of Other, and then repeat that story, over and over, for a week or two. Voila: conservatives would turn against … whatever it is. The green shoots would be crushed.
…
This can be simplified even further, since that trait is highly correlated with sensitivity to fear. The more sensitive someone is to negative or threatening stimuli — even, experiments have found, negative stimuli flashed by too fast for the conscious mind to register — the more likely that person is to prize order, tidiness, predictability, and routine. In other words, the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative. (Ezra Klein rounds up some of the growing evidence for this thesis in this post.)
…
Read more: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives
David cites a recent think tank study into why Conservatives reject climate action. Interestingly the study David cites hilights the damage combining socialism with green activism has done to wider acceptance of climate action.
Prospects for Climate Change Policy Reform
A Landscape Study of the Conservative Environmental Movement
By: Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris
Last updated on April 23rd, 2019Climate policy in the United States is in a time of great uncertainty. The Trump administration has moved to roll back much of the policy momentum the sector had experienced in previous administrations. After a number of years of climate policy being a relatively low priority for voters, its salience is rising on the left as progressives move toward a strategy of yoking climate to a larger set of progressive priorities in the form of the Green New Deal. However, as this report explains, such a broad and multi-issue message is less effective with conservatives and may also polarize opinion on some aspects of climate response where bipartisan support had existed. The narrower messages focused on innovation and energy reforms which reach many conservatives, on the other hand, may become less acceptable on the left if they are seen as an alternative to or negation of some of the economic and social policy ideas in the Green New Deal.
Read more: https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/prospects-climate-change-policy-reform/
There is no evidence Conservatives are inherently hostile towards climate action.
Perhaps David Roberts forgets there was a time when Conservatives were strongly in favour of climate action. Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, who stood with President Ronald Reagan during the final years of the Cold War, was a strong supporter of climate action.
What happened to turn Conservatives against climate action? The Ecologist magazine provides a surprisingly thoughtful answer to this question.
her [Thatcher’s] autobiography states: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying.
“So in a speech to scientists in 1990 I observed: whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable all our economies to grow and develop because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”
Read more: https://theecologist.org/2018/oct/17/who-drove-thatchers-climate-change-u-turn
Thirty years after James Hansen announced his climate emergency in Congress, nothing unusually bad has happened to the global climate. But as genuine scientific evidence of the need for climate action faded, the Left and their academic enablers increasingly embraced the climate cause as a political trojan horse to overturn Capitalism.
David fails to question the “army of people in universities”. How did universities become so polarised?
We have one example of how this might have happened – a university which recently compromised academic freedom to purge its ranks of someone who disputed the university’s cosy green consensus.
Fast forward to today, and it is completely obvious what the problem is.
Today’s “army” of politically polarised climate academics embrace dubious temperature adjustments and academic totalitarianism to maintain the fiction that climate stability is at risk.
Most of their friends in the green movement continue to reject obvious low socio-economic impact solutions like nuclear power in favour of promoting an extremist political agenda of green socialism, while forlornly spinning insulting theories about why Conservatives remain unconvinced by their openly political climate dogma and abuse of process.
Testing, testing. Last refreshed at 1:25 AM EDT. Is this a normal lag or,…?
A false claim that echoes and expands the similar false claim from alarmists that “big oil” funds everything skeptical.
FaceBook and most major Tech companies, twitter, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. along with the majority of news outlets,including cable news are hopelessly leftist democrats.
Facts that are rapidly becoming known to a majority of Americans during the past two years of tech and news censorship of Conservatives coupled with an onslaught of near constant fake news.
Many leftist news sites are dealing with major viewer declines while large numbers of people seek Conservative outlets to hear the truth.
Only those people who believe the GND can gain them voter support or greater amounts of donations believe the “Green New Deal” has any function in a real world. The overwhelming majority of people are appalled at GND’s outright push against the American Constitution while strongly favoring tyrannical socialism.
That David Roberts, Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris espouse this fantasy regarding Conservatives and GND is as others above have commented, pure projection.
e.g.:
Fox News killed several stories for lack of verification.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter, Google and a host of others invented and/or repeated partisan and climate fake news practically every day of the last 30 months.
These same outlets, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter, Google and a host of others, ignored virtually every news article that put positive light on Conservatives. They also banned or minimized every piece of negative news against leftists, progressives, alarmists, climate scientists, climate models, alarmist claims of doom, fraudulent research, inconvenient lack of extinctions, etc. etc.
David Roberts, Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris are following the standard practice of leftists, progressives, alarmists, miscreants, terrible journalism, etc.; and spinning absurd accusations based upon their delusions.
And I am sure it will continue for the next 18 months because that is where “The Big Bucks Stop” (November 3, 2020). Hundreds of millions of Big Bucks.
Yup, with all the liberals, leftists, progressives, alarmists, climate scientists, climate modelers, etc., getting all their news, advice and opinions from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter and Google ……. then you can be assured that that is where the 20 (so far) Democrat POTUS candidates will be spending the bulk of their donated money on “election advertisements”.
Posted @ur momisugly 1:59 PM EDST
If the green alarmists want to understand why conservatives oppose RE, it would be far easier to ask a conservative, rather than spend months theorising nonsensical BS. The answer can also be easily provided in sign language, for those alarmists hard of hearing.
You miss the point … the message is for the faithful, they are not trying to convince anyone.
Conservatives are more realistic. Lefties more inclined to magical thinking.
I’m not inherently hostile toward sensible policies, I’m inherently hostile toward dishonesty, lies, mindless group think, baseless fear mongering, totalitarian impulses, political corruption, the suppression of critical thinking, and the politicization and corruption of science.
One dreams of where the UK would be today if Margaret Thatcher was still in charge of our country. Brexit would be a thing of the past; the global warming hoax supported by the MSM would have been nipped in the bud; our parliamentary system would not have become the useless body which it is today, the countries economy would be booming and we would all still be enjoying those sunlit uplands that Winston Churchill forecast in 1944. She would most certainly have clipped the wings of the lying BBC following its disgraceful recent Attenborough programme on global warming. Dreams have sometimes been turned into reality in the past and a new Margaret Thatcher might emerge, in which case we will reflect on the current period of the nation’s history with perpetual ridicule, wondering what the hell happened for a nation to fall so quickly from its traditional values.
Really?
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_3043873
But Thatcher changed her mind on global warming subsequently when faced with the evidence.
Well said, Mr. Lawson. Right on the nail!
Thatcher lost it when she went to war over the Falklands. It was a war she didn’t need to fight, only to save herself from election loss.
Now the Falklands are set to benefit from oil wealth. Did Thatcher go to war for oil back then to secure it as British?
I am curious. Why did Thatcher not need to fight for the Falklands? Would Argentina have simply pulled out and said sorry about that?
She went to war for political reasons, to save her ass basically. I have plenty of my mates that lost their lives, fingers and/or limbs. Many still traumatised by their experiences. Those lands have been in dispute for hundreds of years.
The islanders wanted to remain “British”, the Argentinians thought otherwise, and lost.
One of the most daring missions was flying Vulcan bombers to the Falklands.
I guess Roosevelt went to war with Japan for political reasons. Sovereignty, not so much. (is there any land that has not been in dispute for hundreds of years?). It would have cost him his posterior if he hadn’t.
Okay, now for the counter punch. Climate Alarmists have become infected with toxoplasma gondii which has short-circuited their fear instinct and increased their risk-taking behavior.
Attempting to dismantle or weaken the modern Energy net that results in assured food, clothing and drinkable water is risky. If the grid goes down there will be a massive die-off from starvation and violence and they will be eaten by their domesticated cats. And the toxoplasma gondii life cycle will be complete.
The cats will escape, disease-free, leaving the Climate Alarmists to wither and rot in their closed, not fireproofed apartments, with all their electronic junk gathered around them in piles of empty double-whipped soy latte cups, plastic containers of spoiled tofu, and ugly clothing. The cats will find a kind fellow who likes to feed them in small groups on park benches, and there will be bluebirds escaping over the confines of the city walls.
And to think that, if they’d only looked beyond those confining walls, they’d have seen a beautiful thing outside them. But they’d have to get a permit to go outside and Us Outsiders will only allow one permit per city per decade.
“What happened to turn Conservatives against climate action? ”
I’ll tell you what happened – fifty years of dire, apocalyptic predictions of disaster, drought, food shortages, famine, pestilence, locusts, disappearing Artic ice, et. al., without a single one of them coming true. It’s a spectacular record of failure (and by this point regarded by myself and many others as pure horseshit) and futility that could only be matched by me taking 150 at-bats in Major League Baseball. Mr. Vox writer, you are hereby invited to stop blowing smoke up our collective asses. STFU and GTFO, thank you very much.
They have managed to infer a universe and beyond. Why not resort to the same systemic conflation of logical domains and infer the past, present, and future? The scientific logical domain is notably limited. People need to believe in something, and will with sufficient secular incentives, a “consistent with” ensemble of models, and promises of redistributive, per chance, retributive change. #HateLovesAbortion
According to Roberts, climate change is simple, and you don’t really need to know “the science”. Here’s an example of how he spins a web of lies about how our climate has been stable the last 10k years, staying within a range of +/- 1 C, and that there is a 50-100 year time lag in the climate response to increased CO2. He then goes on to describe his sci-fi fantasies about how, if we continue down the road we’re on, by the year 2300 we could see a temperature increase of 12C. Some places on earth would reach temperatures of 170-180 F. The video (done in 2012) is mercifully short (15 minutes). Notice the occasional nervous laugh he gives – a telltale trait of habitual liars.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I think that is a basic conservative value.
Before conservatives go to fixing the Earth’s climate, you first have to show them it is broken. To date, that has never been done.
I thought it was funny listening to AOC the other day when she was pontificating on Veterans Health care and she said of the VA: “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” I bet she didn’t know she had conservative leanings!
Of course, she is wrong about the VA, it is broke and does need fixing, and Trump is doing a pretty good job of fixing it, although I must say my personal experiences with the VA health system have been completely satisfactory in every respect. They treated me like a rock star.
The media is has been totally taken over by the climate doom-mongers, and it would appear that the world of science is heavily infested as well.
They’ve won.
I’ve found it impossible to discuss the subject with most people. They have no interest in figures or alternative views, and don’t question what they’re told by the media or do any research for themselves.
In a recent letter to a local UK newspaper, I cited temperature records from the UAH satellite data.
The response of a warmist? He wrote a letter saying that ‘he tries to justify his nonsense from an obscure university in the US bible belt where there are laws about not teaching evolution.’
This individual ignored the figures, offering no comment to suggest that he had the remotest interest or appreciation. It’s the warmist ‘shoot the messenger tactic’, of course.
That’s the UAH put in its place, then……
The newspaper hasn’t as yet printed my robust response. Maybe it will, maybe not. Given the response of the individual concerned and so many others, I have difficulty imagining how reason can prevail.
Vox: Conservatives Reject Climate Action Because They have More “Sensitivity to Fear”
More projection — exactly opposite the reality. Progressive kooks are the ones w/no emotional maturity.
Dave, many posts above, used the line “Climate hypochondriacs”.
Outstanding!
A line going around for a while is for government “fear is a growth industry”.
This article reminds me of similar to garbage from writer Caroline Haskins who penned, “Climate Realists are Delusional” for Vice/Motherboard. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wjvqvz/climate-realists-are-delusional
From Haskins’ article, “Claiming that any radical and necessary plans to mitigate climate change, such as the Green New Deal, is “unrealistic” is disingenuous. The people who make these accusations are either delusional or actively disregarding the facts.”
I have never heard a conservative say that the world will end in 12 years. So who lives in fear – or uses fear to attain their political goals?
The one most important thing the “right” has that the “left” does not is scientists who actually follow scientific method and engage in actual science.
So where are they? Why do those scientists, except for a very few, not speak out? Why have they allowed their professional societies to espouse the CAGW / CCC line?
Retired Engineer Jim: there are some excellent books available – for example, the late Professor Robert Carter’s ‘Climate – the Counter Consensus’ and Dr. Roy Spencer’s ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder.’
Retired Engineer Jim: this article by Richard S. Lindzen makes for interesting reading:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
So does this resignation letter by Dr. Lewis from the American Physical Society:
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics and former Chairman of the Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara; former Member and Chairman of Technology Panel, Defense Science Board; Chairman, DSB Study on Nuclear Winter; former Member, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; former Member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman, APS Study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman, Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; former Member, USAF Scientific Advisory Board; and author of the books, Technological Risk and Why Flip a Coin.
Retired Engineer Jim:
Here’s how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived.
In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be accessed via the internet.
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to be the most knowledgeable!
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.
Who controls the universities? What happens when a university research scientist disagrees with the climate change narrative?
Or how about this: where were the intellectuals, scientists, and economists in the USSR when the government was claiming how great things were?
I always liked Monckton’s epithet of “climate bedwetters” for the Alarmists, but perhaps that could be updated to “climate snowflakes”. Particularly apt because, if you question their climatist religion, they likely will have a meltdown.
Fear? It’s what caused the better pioneers to survive in wilderness conditions. It’s complacency and acceptance that destroys.
Would you believe it
“Obama earthworm threatens to decimate crops and wildlife
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/obama-worm-threatens-to-decimate-british-crops-and-wildlife-rkm8sqptj
Since we are talking about the differences between liberals and conservatives here are a few: Words and Numbers, liberals are great with words but not numbers; Emotions and Reason, liberals are great with emotions it’s why movie stars tend liberal; Future versus Immediate, liberals always care about the immediate pleasure not the long term consequences.
It is the last one that makes me not trust liberals on the climate change. There is no other issue where they care about something that is going to happen in fifty years. That is why I believe the climate change issue was invented as a way to swing conservative votes. The fact that they are against those things that would actually make a difference like, nuclear power, desalination and food that is not ‘natural’ shows that they don’t really care about the climate.
Leftist media is obsessed with Fox. Fox is a cable news channel. On a good night they have 3 or 4 million viewers. That is a fraction of the declining number that still watch the three letter networks, and an even small fraction of the total population.
However, in an effort to appease the left I am willing to trade Fox for ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Deal?
Why can theses folks that write screed about conservatives ever say that conservatives think they have history. Geology and science on their side?
Do these people realize how stupid they sound? The real “fear” is that which is generated by the climate alarmists to whip their left wing puppets into a frenzy. One need look no further than to AOC for what that looks like.
Good God these people are mental cases.
I am still trying to figure out what “Sensitivity to Fear” means.
For Lefty Lib’s it’s all about the words. All they know is how to twist the words around to make people believe them. As some one once said “God is not Dead …..Truth is” ……………………..
Please do not mistake Conservatives for conservatives. There is very little conservative in the doctrines of Theresa May and the party and the direction in which she and her puppet masters are attempting to lead the Conservative Party.
Equally do not mistake Liberals for liberals. There is nothing liberal about policy of the rump Liberal (Democrat) party which is currently vying with Corbyn’s Labour Party to be crowned the true apostles of socialism.