Guest whatever by David Middleton
This Quillette essay by Dr. Patrick T. Brown of San Jose State University is interesting…
Published on July 30, 2019
Empiricism and Dogma: Why Left and Right Can’t Agree on Climate Change
written by Patrick T. BrownAs a climate scientist, I often hear puzzled complaints about the political polarization of the public discussion about anthropogenic global warming. If it is an empirical and scientific matter, such people ask, then why is opinion so firmly divided along political lines? Since it tends to be the political Right that opposes policies designed to address and mitigate global warming, responsibility for this partisanship is often placed solely on the ideological stubbornness of conservatives.
This is a theme common to research on political attitudes to scientific questions. Division is often studied from the perspective of researchers on the Left who, rather self-servingly, frame the research question as something like: “Our side is logical and correct, so what exactly makes the people who disagree with us so biased and ideologically motivated?” I would put books like Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality in this category.
Works like The Republican Brain correctly point out that those most dismissive of global warming tend to be on the Right, but they incorrectly assume that the Left’s position is therefore informed by dispassionate logic. If the Left was motivated by pure reason then it would not be the case that liberals are just as likely as conservatvies to deny science on the safety of vaccines and genetically modified foods. Additionally, as Mooney has argued elsewhere, the Left is more eager than the Right to deny mainstream science when it doesn’t support a blank-slate view of human nature. This suggests that fidelity to science and logic are not what motivates the Left’s concern about global warming.
[…]
Quillette
On the one hand, Dr. Brown “gets it”…
Those on the Right are more likely to see the wealth of developed countries as rightfully earned by their own industriousness, while those on the Left are more likely to view the disproportionate wealth as fundamentally unjust and likely caused by exploitation. The idea that wealthy countries must therefore be penalized and made to subsidize poor countries is one that aligns well with the Left’s views about rebalancing unfairness. An accentuating factor is the Right’s tendency to favor national autonomy and therefore to oppose global governance and especially international redistribution.
[…]
Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, in which logical agents act in ways that run counter to the longterm interests of the group. These types of “collective-action problems” usually call for top-down government intervention at the expense of individual action and responsibility. Furthermore, the longterm nature of global warming demands acquiescence to collective action across generations. This natural alignment of the global warming problem with collectivist themes makes the issue much more palatable to the Left than the Right.
Quillette
- The “Left” embraces Gorebal Warming because it appeals to collectivism.
- The “Right” laughs at the “climate crisis” because it appeals to collectivism.
On the other hand, Dr. Brown “doesn’t get it”…
So, it should really not be particularly mysterious that opinions on global warming tend to divide along political lines. It is not because one side cleaves to dispassionate logic while the other remains obstinately wedded to political dogmatism. It is simply that the problem and its proposed solutions align more comfortably with the dogma of one side than the other. That does not mean, however, that the Left is equally out-of-step with the science of global warming as the Right. It really is the case that the Right is more likely to deny the most well-established aspects of the science. If skeptical conservatives are to be convinced, the Left must learn to reframe the issue in a way that is more palatable to their worldview.
Quillette
It’s impossible to reframe Enviromarxism in “in a way that is more palatable to [our] worldview”…
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
UNRIC, 2015
I am a properly educated scientist, BS in Geology and MS in Economic Geology, who is very introspective (I fact-check myself at least a dozen times a day), and who has economically benefitted from being a scientist functioning at a high-level (interpret this as making provable correct judgements, like drill here and you will discover a valuable metal deposit which was previously unknown). I wish the above commentators would stop lumping all scientists together, like 50% falsify reports, or 75% can’t replicate their results, etc. The tendency of liberals to believe in CAGW is because it fits their construct of what selfish and dishonest white guys in suits are up to, which somehow includes stealing from Africa, Baltimore, Detroit, whereever, to line their own pockets, and dooming the whole planet in the process.
Is there anything left to steal in Baltimore and Detroit?
The economic geology analogy:
You work up resource distributions for 30 prospects. All of the prospects are “geological successes”… But… 8 fall below p99, 20 barely scratch p90 (minimum case) and 2, barely scratch p50 (most likely case)… Would you claim that the observations were consistent with your model? Or would you schist can the model?
Here’s a reality bite for you David (and I bet you can relate to it vis a vi the oil business). There are two ways to make money off mineral exploration, one by hyping/selling stock and getting out at the right time, and the other by simply drilling a world-class mineral discovery. With respect to the prospects looking like the model, I never relied on a model, I always worked out the details of what the geology directly in front of me was showing. And a final comment to both you and Geoff, a real scientist must be introspective, that is, they must re-examine all of the mixed data and ideas they allow into the formulation of an opinion, because reality is really complicated.
Ron Long,
Like you say.
The conduct of science is heavily dependent on a little-discussed factor””, “accountability”. As in, if your future income is linked to your success in your science, the science is better.
In assessing accountability, you need to look at the purpose of science. Here, we find contrasts. Accountability is easier to measure when, as in mineral exploration, the objective is to find more ore deposits. In environmental work, the objective can be purposely undefined, ill defined or a blank space to be completed if by accident, a useful result pops up.
When the science is closely structured about accountability, operators quickly realise that there is either negative or nil value in making up stuff, doing math things like homogenisation, adverse extrapolations, concealment of proper error bounds and so on.
In mineral exploration science, the target is an entity of fixed properties that is completely opaque to data fiddling. The record shows that environmental work, where there is a set scientific target, is quite amenable to data fiddling because it is often impossible to do the equivalent of “Let us drill an infill hole to cross check our grade assumptions”.
This difference in accountability, in the firmness set for scientific targets, is hugely influential on the quality of the final scientific outcome.
As you note, Ron. Geoff S
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
Well, other than communist, socialist and national socialist attempts – yes. Hide the decline.
The biggest stupidity I see from the global warmists is their opposition to nuclear power. All of their supporting scare stories hark back to a Communist Russian meltdown of a poorly designed nuclear reactor. The future of nuclear is NOT conventional , massive, costly light water reactors ,but intrinsically safe molten salt small modular reactors that can produce power as cheaply as any other technology. And my calculations show that the U.S. could, by retaining current nuclear capacity (20%) and hydro generation (10%) , enough molten salt reactors could be built (fairly quickly) to obtain 100% carbon free emissions and also power a totally electric transportation fleet, for roughly one trillion dollars. This solution should satisfy everyone, aside fromthe brainless anti-nuclear folks , who aren’t worth paying attention to.
I have been hearing about molten salt for a while now. So far nothing. I hope it becomes a reality, but I feel it is going to be like the sterling engine and the battery revolution. Always 5-10 years off.
From the article: “If skeptical conservatives are to be convinced, the Left must learn to reframe the issue in a way that is more palatable to their worldview.”
The way to reframe the issue so conservatives will accept it is to provide EVIDENCE that CO2 is doing what the Alarmists claim it is doing. To date, NO evidence has been presented that shows CO2 is having any effect on the Earth’s weather or climate.
I’m not a skeptic because I’m conservative. I’m a skeptic because CAGW is pure speculation and no evidence of its existence has ever been produced by anyone on this planet.
Climate scientists were just as sure we were going into another Ice Age back in the 1970’s, as they are that we are now going to an overheated Earth. Their certainty in the 1970’s didn’t make a bit of difference to reality. The same thing applies to CAGW now. Just because you are certain it is happening is not evidence that it really is.
I need evidence, not speculation, and all climate science is at this stage is pure speculation. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics, as far as I’m concerned, and everything to do with evidence or the lack thereof.
These vaunted alarmist climate scientists can’t even tell you how much net heat human-derived CO2 adds to the atmosphere. They do not know this number. Yet they are so sure of themselves.
Here’s a good experiment: Ask your favorite alamist climate scientist what this number is. Don’t be surprised when they tell you they don’t know the number, because they don’t. Not one person on this planet knows this number. So if they don’t know this number, and they don’t, then how can they calculate the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere? How can they be so certain? Answer: They can’t, they are just blowing smoke (speculating and exaggerating).
Tom Abbott
“The way to reframe the issue so conservatives will accept it is to provide EVIDENCE that CO2 is doing what the Alarmists claim it is doing. To date, NO evidence has been presented that shows CO2 is having any effect on the Earth’s weather or climate.
I’m not a skeptic because I’m conservative. I’m a skeptic because CAGW is pure speculation and no evidence of its existence has ever been produced by anyone on this planet.”
Interesting… so the planet is warming, the ice is melting, the sea is rising as is the level of CO2 (provably, primarily caused by mans actions). Tell me specifically what evidence you need to convince you the CO2 we are putting in to the air is having an affect? I would seriously love to know. There is not a climate scientist on this planet who does not accept we are in part responsible for the recent warming. Not Spencer, not Christie, not Curry not even Mr Watts. They are convinced, so what will it take to change your mind?
“These vaunted alarmist climate scientists can’t even tell you how much net heat human-derived CO2 adds to the atmosphere. They do not know this number. Yet they are so sure of themselves.”
If this is what it takes to convince you the science is real… a number… then you will be waiting a long time. You (should) know it is not possible to give an exact figure for the warming, which is why the IPCC works in levels of confidence.
Simon wrote: “Interesting… so the planet is warming, the ice is melting, the sea is rising as is the level of CO2 (provably, primarily caused by mans actions).”
Yes, the Earth is doing all those things but that doesn’t mean CO2 is responsible. The Earth did the same thing back in the 1930’s, and the IPCC says CO2 was not a significant factor in that warming. So if we have the same magnitude of warming in the 1930’s without CO2’s help, then why should I assume that today’s warming is caused by CO2? I won’t assume such a thing until some evidence of such is provided, and that has not occurred. Speculation about what CO2 might do in the atmosphere is not evidence of anything.
Simon wrote: “Tell me specifically what evidence you need to convince you the CO2 we are putting in to the air is having an affect? I would seriously love to know.”
What I see is evidence to the contrary. I see that the 1930’s were just as warm as today without the benefit of high CO2 levels. So I don’t see any reason to think today’s similar warming has to be related to increased CO2 levels. Mother Nature raised the temperatures in the 1930’s and as far as I’m concerned, Mother Nature is doing the very same thing now, and I will continue to think that way until some evidence is shown to refute that position. Speculation will not refute that position.
Simon wrote: ” There is not a climate scientist on this planet who does not accept we are in part responsible for the recent warming. Not Spencer, not Christie, not Curry not even Mr Watts. They are convinced, so what will it take to change your mind?”
They are also making guesses about CO2 and the climate. Educated guesses, but guesses none the less. None of them say definitively what the ECS is. They don’t know the number either, and if you don’t know the number, then you are guessing. Ask them if they know the number, Simon. You know what they will say. Yet you are so certain of CAGW being real. I don’t see a case to be made for certainty.
Simon, would you agree that there is a possibility that CO2 adds zero net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere? If not, why not?
Tom Abbott
I’m wondering what evidence you have the 30’s were as warm as today “globally.” Because I have never read or seen any proof of that. If you can provide that, then that would be a good starting point to convince me I could be wrong.
“Simon, would you agree that there is a possibility that CO2 adds zero net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere? If not, why not?”
Anything is possible, but right at this point the chances are almost zero that CO2 is not playing some part in the warming. This graph from Berkley demonstrates the link, and also calls BS on your “30’s were warmer” fiction.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, Simon, my internet connection was out all day yesterday.
Simon, I have unmodified surface temperature charts from all over the world, both hemispheres, which show the 1930’s as being just as warm as today. I have posted examples numerous times and I’m sure you have seen them.
There are also Tmax charts from all over the world, both hemispheres, that also show the 1930’s were just as warm as today.
All of these temperature charts have the same profile: The 1930’s were just as warm as today.
So, how can you ignore this information? Willfully, I think.
As for your Berkeley Earth link: Don’t make me laugh. Berkeley Earth is a bogus, bastarized Hockey Stick chart which is shown to be BS by the unmodified regional charts of the Earth which look nothing like the Hockey Stick chart. None of the unmodified charts look like the bogus Hockey Stick chart.
The problem is that some of the adjustments are necessary, particularly for time of observation.
The thing that really annoys me about series such as Berkeley earth, or noaa for that fact, is the concept of “necessary adjustments” – if a station changes thermometer, is moved 50 feet to the left, or anything similar, we shouldn’t be applying “corrections” to make the data before the change match the data after the change. The moment a change happens in equipment or location, a new series should start, period. If that means that we don’t have contiguous data for a specific location so be it. If that was the case I would trust the data. Short of that it’s just useless, and any report from it is just as useless. I see that at my own work all the time, changes made everywhere, no data lineage kept, no way that anyone who gets a report can be truly sure that the report they are using to make decisions are in fact based on correct, unmodified source data. And these reports are used to make decisions that can have immense effect in the area I work in. It’s an endemic problem, and it always amazes me that people who are otherwise very smart are happy to trust numbers on papers to make very consequential decisions without ever asking themselves how accurate such numbers actually are.
If you want to rob me (that is, if you are a Leftist), I’m not listening to any justification you give me. Cloak your criminal designs in the robe of !Science! all you want, but until you give up violence as a means, I don’t really care what your ends are.
If skeptical conservatives are to be convinced, the Left must learn to reframe the issue in a way that is more palatable to their worldview.
Yet again the old if only we can communicate the message in the right way we’ll get them on our side canard. What they don’t ever get is that we’re getting their message loud and clear already, the problem isn’t with how you dress up the message, the problem is the message itself and it’s appeals to authority and emotion lacking in any real substance. If the science really did support their position, they’d be able to convince us with the science, but actual empirical hard facts (not computer game models and projections/predictions of imminent disaster that don’t match the real world) doesn’t support their narrative hence why their messages fall on deaf ears.
It’s not the skeptical conservatives that need to be ‘convinced’ but it’s the alarmists that need to be convinced about how wrong the pseudo-science promoted by the IPCC actually is.
Given how transparently corrupt the IPCC/UNFCCC is and how obvious the errors in their pseudo-science are, it should be easy to convince alarmists how wrong they are, unfortunately, partisan politics has the power to override truth when that truth doesn’t support the desired political goals.
Lefties have never moved beyond the conditioning they received in the first few years of elementary school. This is why they seek to conform to a group, and why they demand that every one else also conforms. It is a failure of secondary and higher education to teach people to think for themselves. Rather the higher education systems continue to punish people who do not conform to the group think. Greater value is placed on conformity, even if it is illogical and clearly wrong, than on discovering.
The argument based on the Tragedy of the Commons (TotC) is insightful in a couple of ways and not completely in ways the essayists intend. I can accept that pollution laws address a TotC scenario. When industrial pollution causes rivers to catch fire (Cuyahoga River, 1969) or air to become difficult breathe (I lived near LA in the early 1960’s) then laws are needed to prevent destruction of a common resource.
But the essayists miss that the worst destruction of the commons has occurred in nations with leftist collectivist governments. Witness the horrible pollution in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. In today’s China the industrial pollution from refining exotic metals is far in excess of anything permitted in the western world. It’s noted above how much CO2 China emits. And, air pollution in China is legendary.
Meanwhile, here in the USA, the green industry, created by leftist policies, gets breaks from laws meant to otherwise protect the environment. Wind farm and solar array construction destroys what would be considered pristine land and protected forest should another industry want that land. We know the wind turbines are killing birds and bats that are otherwise protected.
While “the right” is criticized for ignoring climate scientists, the left is totally blind to the destruction caused to the commons and the environment by their own policies and practices. Hypocrisy, thy name is “leftist”.
I have learned to understand the left as a prophetic religious movement.
Marx? The world is going to end for workers unless we act now.
Civil Rights? We are all going to racist hell unless we act now.
Climate? We are all going to burn unless we act now.
Note that there is a case for moderate, balanced action. But that is not enough for True Believers that want to save the world.
I do not buy the Left vs Right as if climate is a psychology problem.
The Left wing parties picked up CAGW as a political weapon and they lost control of it, the idea.
The political elite have turned off all thoughtful critical discussion about policy which is why we are in chaos now.
CAGW is the excuse the Left have used to use Little Hitler tactics such as taking over the courts and ignoring the constitution, as if CAGW is the equivalent of a time of war, justifying extraordinary measures such as forced spending of trillions of dollars on green stuff that does not work.
The reason politics will never resolve the climate science controversy is because there’s no overlap between sides. The sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is between 0.4C and 1.2C per W/m^2 of forcing, while the sensitivity theorized and measured by skeptics is closer to 0.3C which is below the lower limit claimed by the IPCC, moreover; the entire range presumed by the IPCC can be precluded by Conservation of Energy which requires the next Joule to have the same impact as the average Joule when it comes to warming the surface. This is because the work it takes to warm the surface is measured in Joules and temperature is linearly proportional to stored Joules. The IPCC considers the temperature to be linear to the rate that Joules are delivered and/or emitted by the planet which is a source of many errors as this relationship is not linear, but emissions are proportional to temperature raised to the forth power and in the steady state, the emitted Joules are equal to the solar Joules incident on the planet which makes them proportional to temperature raised to the forth power as well.
The gap is so large, only one side can be correct and it just happens that political objection to the futility of the proposed remedies is a valid enough reason, even if the IPCC was right about the science which they have made misleading and obtuse in order to diffuse objective analysis with confusion and redirection.
Politics is subjective while science is objective. The political left chose the wrong side owing to emotional arguments pushed by its radical green elements, while the political right chose the other side for rational economic reasons. Unfortunately, the correct reasons to oppose alarmism is how wrong the pseudo-science support for the alarmists actually is and the corrupt bias at the IPCC who established what is and what is not climate science. This is why subjective political or religious faith must not play a role when it comes to a controversy that can be resolved objectively.
In my case, the division in beliefs about global warming is far more simple. The more I catch one side of the argument lying to me, I assume it’s because the truth doesn’t support their position. Once I found out the truth about the “97%”, I knew which side I was on.
I resent the political classifications that assume that _IF_ I agree with a diagnosis, I must _THEREFORE_ support (pay for, advocate, punish opponents of) the prescribed therapy.
I deny that windmills provide useful electricity to the current grid. I deny that battery technology can solve this problem. I deny that electric cars reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I deny that tax subsidies to solar, wind, and car companies are good use of public funds. I deny that the United Nations has EVER solved ANY problem it has tackled. I deny that government programs are flexible enough to deal with new data as such becomes available. I deny that fears regarding nuclear waste are justified. I deny that conserving electricity will significantly affect fossil fuel use in industry, heating, transportation, chemical processing … I deny a whole shop-pit load of prescriptions about “what we should do” about “the crisis” of global warming — in depth and in detail.
But frankly, it’s easier just to declare myself in denial about the whole “warming” thing. Saves EVER so much time. Yeah, call me denier. Why not?
Surely it is obvious why right and left wing do not agree. The actions that result are all left wing agenda so left wing will start from the premise of belief and need proof the science is total and utter cr@p or in most cases will probably not even accept proof. The right wing will disagree with the actions proposed and will start from the premise the science must be 100% proven beyond question before they will accept any actions.
Unfortunately no one is willing to accept the rational premise the science should be proved in a court with a proper defence and prosecution and the scientists merely considered witnesses and any expertise claimed open to questioning by experts from other fields often far better trained and used to being examined to far higher standards than mere peer review by their quality assurance departments.
In the UK we have a situation where the BBC are openly allowed to promote the scam without even the right to have it questioned.
The consolation prize is learning a lot about the flaws at the BBC and other institutions in the process. Such insights are invaluable and not soon forgotten–somewhat like national defense lessons after the Battle of Britain.
Wanting science to be settled and having BBC police scientific thought are two sides of the same coin. The origin of science to be settled stems from politics. Bernie Lewin has a good book “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change“, 2017 explaining how this happened: politics ruling over science. In IPCC early years politicians were frustrated with scientists. People like Hansen warned about the end of the world yet early IPCC reports were full of, what seemed to them, fudge phrases. Initially scientists couldn’t even agree that CO2 was shown to cause climate change! Over time the IPCC solution was to establish a consensus, so all countries would agree on a course of action. The science is settled just means we agreed a consensus. They’re both political terms invented by politicians in charge of the IPCC via UNFCCC. In the early 1990s IPCC came close to abolition because politicians wanted more certainty from the uncertain science. Then Ben Santer came along and gave us false certainty in 1995 with his cherry-picked study showing the CO2 signal. It fooled enough people for long enough to save the IPCC. Everyone should read Lewin’s book.
The problem is not when left and right can not agree but when the left refuses to engage in a civil and well thought out discussion on topics that may expose their lack of logic and reliable sources. This was illustrated in a Trump rally poll from Ohio.
I do not share Trump’s world view and I find his stand on certain matters disconcerting but, but, but he is certainly not wrong on everything. Indeed on some matters he is right and his critics wrong but one would not think so from the response from his opponents as revealed in the following clip. Only dishonest people refuse to give credit where credit is due. Trump may have a superficial understanding of climate but his rejection of the Paris Climate Accord may be more than justified.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pollster-voter-dials-immigration-trump-rally
Perfect example:
https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/08/toronto-new-rainfall-record-2019/
Notice how they have to stretch to find a “record”?
“It really is the case that the Right is more likely to deny the most well-established aspects of the science.”
It’s so refreshing to have a scientist finally take an impartial look at the problem. /sarc
Personally, I just lump such drivel into the same liberal consensus that suddenly holds that men can be women and women can be men without the need for any real (and fearless) scientific scrutiny.
The right has more incidence of questioning the Climate War and the left has more incidence of piling on to broaden the front for the “fun” of it and maybe some self gain like tenure and promotion, notoriety, and chicks. Besides you could get fired (Google) for not playing along in lockstep with virtue signaling marching orders.
While reading these comments I had a vision of the scientific battle over “continental drift”, Alfred Wegener’s proposal of the possibility of the continents were floating slowly across the globe in 1912. It wasn’t until technological improvements in measure geomagnetism and the discovery of seafloor spreading in the 1950s and 1960s revived and confirmed the idea, which became known as plate tectonics.
My vision was of a “Catastrophic Anthropological Global Drifting” crisis arising, blaming the drift and its attendant earthquakes and volcanoes on human activity, namely oil and gas exploration. Only by ending the deprivations against Mother Earth and the draining of her life’s blood could humans prevent stop the impending disasters.
Luckily, in those days scientists amused themselves by insulting the other side of a scientific conflict, e.g. the 40-year battle over the origin of the Channeled Scablands in Washington State, rather than by proposing civilization-shattering changes to the world’s economies.
Why can’t the scientists who post articles or comments, nip the idiots and those wicked intent, refer to the climate as “” current climate change” or “climate changes(plural)”.
The folks that dont understand the 4000,000,000 history of our Earth may then realise it is just the time that they live in, pretty small!
I categorically reject the premise that the issue can or should be settled in a court with a trial. T further reject that your premise is even rational.
A court trial is no place to seek the truth. A trial as an adversarial proceeding, the point of which is to WIN, not seek truth. As such it has more in common with a football game that with the truth. I have seen your argument advanced many times, always by people who align with the Liberal Arts as opposed to the sciences. Perhaps they choose the courts because that is what they are familiar with.
In the sciences, we know that the laboratory is the place to settle things.
Theory Guides, Experiment Decides
“Theory Guides, Experiment Decides”
But climatology is an observational, not an experimental, science.
“It’s impossible to reframe Enviromarxism in “in a way that is more palatable to [our] worldview”… ”
Give money to farmers to put their land into prairie grass for 20 years. Is that compatable to Red State Rednecks worldviews? I say yes. It restores the soil, improves watersheds, stores carbon and gives deer hunters more deer to shoot.
Deerhunting on prairies?
Deer are about everywhere in Minnesota. Some of my Dad’s land is program land. 3 deer stands on about 300 acres. The stands are not in heavy woods. More out in the open. Clean shot.
https://www.deerworlds.com/deer-habitat/
I am depressed to the point that when I have thoughts that I want to release from my mouth that I play them over in my head before the moment of speech and give them a good dose of the P.C. facture as I look around at the crowd to see if it is ok.. This is brainwashing at it’s finest and it directly relates to this climate warming-change global thing. We must stay strong and not be afraid to speak our minds on things we feel strongly about. What hat did I put on before leaving the house today?
One thing I always love is something like a heat wave, “Highest temperature since 1962!” So, explain 1962 for me then… how was it so hot then without all this extra CO2?
In novels and movies when people learn the end is near they have block buster parties.
Our lefties tell us the end is near and that we must huddle in the dark as we starve.
I don’t know what’s worse, that they are so wrong or that they are such buzz kills.