“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” – Margaret Thatcher [h/t Kristen Meisner]
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” – Margaret Thatcher [h/t Kristen Meisner]
Read:
Gun control & climate change.
Climate change, unlike the effectiveness of gun control, has mountains upon mountains of evidence. Please read a book, or even a quick google search and stop making yourself look foolish.
Much or most of which has been falsified to fit a political agenda. Next scam, please.
That would take thousands of scientists all over the world working to get a single conclusion. You also don’t get famous in science by upholding the status quo. I guess if you really want to delude yourself, you can go a head, but reality disagrees with you.
“You also don’t get famous in science by upholding the status quo.”
As a scientist, that statement makes me doubt that you are a scientist.
And “the sky is falling, cede control of your wealth and natural resources to international socialists!” has been more of less the status quo in climate science since the late 1800’s. Though, whether impending doom takes the form of warming or a coming ice age has changed cyclically about every 30-40 years.
Considering that the vast majority of those scientists are getting the data for their studies from only one source (NASA), it is a little more simple than that. And the current trend in the scientific community is to conduct studies that are likely to produce a desired result. It is BS, but it is happening in all corners of research nowadays, from environmental science to nutrition. Most scientific studies get funded by people with an agenda, so the studies are biased to support that agenda to secure more funding. It’s not a world-wide scheme, it’s just politics as usual, and it’s junk science.
Oh, and 95% of all greenhouse gases are released by volcanoes and the Earth has a 10,000-20,000 year ice age cycle of which we are currently in an upswing. So there’s that.
The majority of scientists get research grants from the government. If your research isn’t providing the results that the government wants, you won’t continue to get funding. It’s not hard to understand why people desperate to keep their jobs would make their work show the results their boss wants to see.
Old Ben, you’re clearly not a climatologist, or you’d know how full of bullshit your statement is. Or maybe you can’t even do a basic search of articles even from the 70s, or you’d know that most articles even then predicted warming. Or maybe you’re just making shit up on the internet, where you can pretend to be a scientist instead of a bullshit artist.
Climage change has mountains upon mountains of conflicting evidence. There is no consensus, there is no “settled” science. Please read more books, and do an extensive Google search and stop making yourself look like an ass.
Funny, every time you look up “climate change scientific consensus” you’d know that this was over over a decade ago. Are you lying or simply ignorant?
But please, go ahead and show me these potentially thousands of scientists that have evidence conflicting with the current state of science. I’d love to see that.
So I have to assume you guys mean, man-made or man-caused climate change…? Because climate change is happening, just nothing out of the ordinary for the last +1 billion years… Again, read even more books, even more google searching, before you all make yourselves into liberals… errr asses…
^@rip_vw32
Spot on. A person can agree with the reality of climate change (the climate is constantly changing and has been for the history of our planet) without giving in to the liberal-driven proposition that regulating human activity into the ground is the only way to avert the end of the world as we know it.
A person can agree with the reality that many crimes are committed with guns (criminals have used weapons since the dawn of civilization) without giving in to the liberal-driven proposition that regulating gun ownership out of existence is the only way to reduce criminal activity.
@JAalan Here you go: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Scientists knew that we were raising the global temp via greenhouse gasses back in the 1930s.
There are glaciers disappearing, and entire island nations going underwater. Both have existed for 10,000+ years, and are shortly going to vanish. It certainly isn’t all on us (nature has volcanoes and a host of other off-gassers), but to say humans putting out billions of tons of CO2 isn’t bad is just ludicrous. Maybe if we weren’t deforesting the planet at a record pace, there would be some way to store it all.
At this point it’s all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Our grandchildren will pay for our short-sighted ways – the main one being allowing the population of the earth to exceed a billion or so humans. I don’t exactly know how the planet will correct for that mis-step on our part – the one thing I do know is it will be brutal.
The guys from the ‘institutes’ that told you smoking was still ‘unsettled science’ got new jobs, selling the same old doubt. Luckily, they are still able to find people who desperately want to believe.
Yes, I’m sure some random guy’s blog outweighs all scientific journals on the subject. This Monte Heib character is an actual bullshit dealer, yet you really want to believe him. I wonder why.
16V says:
June 30, 2016 at 09:08
“Scientists knew that we were raising the global temp via greenhouse gasses back in the 1930s.”
Were these the same Scientists that knew eugenics was healthy Natural selection?
“Maybe if we weren’t deforesting the planet at a record pace….” Speak for yourself, I reject your assumption of my guilt since I’m not deforesting anything. Neither am I poaching elephants or committing crimes with assault weapons.
“…allowing the population of the earth to exceed a billion or so humans….” Hmmm, that’s interesting, who exactly are you accusing of allowing this and how do you suggest PREVENTING the population from exceeding an arbitrary number?
If you are so worried about mother earth by all means perform a late term abortion on yourself and reduce that carbon foot-print.
Not to create a whole string on climate change, but there are plenty of reasonable, highly-educated scientists and other professionals who question the validity of the consensus conclusion on climate change. Shutting down all discussion on a theory by plugging your ears and shouting “IT’S SETTLED SCIENCE!!” at the top of your lungs is not the stuff of good scientific method.
Even if a person were to agree that climate change is occurring, it is a very legitimate question whether human activity is truly the main driving factor. By the same token, it is perfectly valid to debate what, if any, regulatory restrictions on human activity would effect a positive change on the condition of climate change–or if the potential benefits of such restriction justify the cost.
I’m not saying it’s totally settled science. There is debate about details and all kinds of minutia, however, I suspect that the previous posters are not discussing that. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’re not even aware of what the main ares of contention in climate change are. They’ve just heard it’s a myth and have never bothered to read a journal or even find out what peer review is.
Exactly Peter. The “science” of human caused climate change is still debatable. It is not settled.
But even if it was decided that we humans are causing climate change, the fact that the “solution” being pushed by the establishment is more taxes and more government control of essential power systems is the problem.
What do you know, the “crisis” of global climate change can be solved by giving more freedom, giving more of our money in carbon taxes, and more power and control of our power systems to the government. How convenient.
Well, if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I can sell you, at a real good deal.
Agree. To think man is having this huge impact on climate is the height of arrogance. Who’d the blame the Ice Age on? Those damn Neanderthals and their invention of fire (forgive me if i’m not anthropologically correct here). Al Gore ruined my damn gas cans! I look for retro gas cans at every garage sale, and find them.
Jai Lai man
There are an unknown amount of volcanoes on the planet at any one time, both on land, and under the ocean. The first, OR ANY, eruption from an ‘active’ volcano spews 200x the poisonous, noxious, gasses and solid waste as created by the entirety of the human population on this planet EVER.
There are volcanoes in Indonesia: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140130-kawah-ijen-blue-flame-volcanoes-sulfur-indonesia-pictures/ that spew hundreds of tons of molten Sulfur and its by-products 24/7/365.
There is no way that all these volcanoes would just be in happy harmony with the planet if not for humans.
We don’t even make a dent here, and as soon as we stoop to tie our shoes, mother nature will bury us.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture%20of%20shuttle%20launch%20from%20space&qs=n&form=QBIRMH&pq=picture%20of%20shuttle%20launch%20from%20space&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&ajf=60
If it wasn’t for those thrice-damned neanderthals, we would still be on a glorious, frozen, ice-encased wonderland of a planet! Instead we have the bullshit, temperate, vegetation-growing-on-95% of a planet. Who needs vegetation and plant-based life? I say we freeze this fucker back to the way it was when we found it!
This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? So we affect climate. I have also educated myself on the fact that, living in flyover country, my house used to reside under a sheet of ice about 2 miles thick at certain points. Did the mammoth ride their Hummers until all the ice melted? No. So we affect climate. Is the response to tax every human being from birth for just existing? And the fact that a politician is heavily invested in a carbon-tax exchange where such carbon credits would have to be traded doesn’t trouble you? Gotcha. The men who paid to erect the Georgia Guidestones think that human population to 500 million (or a reduction (read elimination) of 95% of the current living population) You want in on that game? Politicians using climate change to enact their fascist fantasies can go suck on a big fat one.
Joe R, volcanoes have been taken into account. You would know this if you read the scientific literature.
http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Crowley_2000_Causes%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Over%20the%20Past%201000%20Years.pdf
JAalan says: “Funny, every time you look up “climate change scientific consensus” you’d know that this was over over a decade ago. Are you lying or simply ignorant?”
JAalan says: “I’m not saying it’s totally settled science.”
Hmmm…..seems there isn’t even a consensus in your own mind, JAalan, let alone the scientific community.
Pro tip: when you come out of the gate in attack mode, you forfeit credibility. You also tend to tough talk yourself beyond your ability to back it up. Then comes the inevitable back pedalling and desperation face saving.
Just give it a rest, pal. It’s obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re far outclassed. That’d be bad enough, embarrasing and quickly revealed on some common comment board site. In here, though? You just walked face first into a buzz saw of well educated and well informed thinkers. It’s painful to watch you flail and flounder. Make it stop.
I’ll take that one step further.
Technologies exist to use so called ‘renewable’ resources. It is up to every INDIVIDUAL to determine whether those ‘renewable’ resources are RIGHT for them, NO DIFFERENT from whether carrying a firearm for self defense (or any other reason).
I don’t begrudge those that choose to drive an H2 or leave the windows open with the air conditioning running. It’s not a choice I would make.
An INDIVIDUAL can choose, or not choose to make choices appropriate for THEMSELVES. This is Freedom. This is the RIGHTs of LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS. Being Free means (IMHO), among other things, taking responsibility for ones actions (while not apologizing for those actions) . If the world goes to shit due to man, then every single person is responsible.
Whether it’s climate change, gun rights, gay rights, abortion rights… It’s not my RESPONSIBILITY to JUDGE others for their decisions until they MAKE it my responsibility. If someone wants ME to pay for an abortion that I had no hand in the consummation, then that person is willfully irresponsible (excepting in cases such as rapes, etc – at which point, the perpetrator should be held responsible and judged for their actions).
Perhaps I’m being naive. For me, its a simplistic viewpoint, and covers most bases. It’s also pretty easy to defend…..
Jonathan, you clearly haven’t read the rest of my post or you’d know that while I alluded to disagreements in the scientific community, I also mentioned that people like you aren’t even aware of the nature of those disagreements to begin with. This is because you are completely ignorant of the actual science and you get your science news from tabloids instead of scientific journals.
Even if you don’t believe in man made climate change, I’d still prefer to live in a society that values clean air, water, and forests.
JAlan,
Allow me to correct one of your previous statements …
You also don’t get GRANTS in science by upholding the status quo.
If a scientist solicited grants/funding to investigate whether or not 1 calorie of energy will increase the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius, how many funding sources do you think would be lining up to fork over cash?
Perhaps it’s you that should read a book. You might learn that we’re living in something called an ‘ice age’. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation ) Or you might learn about this thing called ‘photosynthesis’. You might even learn that before we came along atmospheric CO2 was at it’s lowest level since complex multi-cellular life appeared on the planet. Or how we’re killing a million bats and 700,000 birds every year just to make 2% of our electricity in the name of climate change. Seems to me that to anyone who’s read up on the subject it’s you who looks foolish.
JAlan
How many hours are you spending to recharge your batteries on that stationary bicycle to operate your computer to send posts to TTAG?
What job do you have to be able to afford the tesla electric car? I think a tesla costs about $100,000.
Did you spend the $50,000 to $70,000 to put solar cells on the roof of your home? Or are you still living in your parents basement rent free?
The one thing I see over and over again about climate change believers is that they never lead by example and spend their own money to help “prevent ” climate change.
As a socialist gun owner do feel good getting permission from the government to buy a firearm? Does it warm your heart when they say yes you can?
You are equating recognition of science as something that reflects reality with my political positions. Your problem is that you think science and politics are one and the same. They are not. Climate change denial is so embarrassing that you are almost at the level of creationists by this point.
No, the science isn’t completely settled. Things like what role the ocean plays in absorbing CO2, acidification, positive feedback, and other such things are not settled. The solution to the problem is also outside the role of science. What is settled is that climate change is a real phenomenon, is largely caused by humans, and is a product of industrialization. Now, do I personally believe that this is a catastrophic situation? No, but I do think it’s going to be rather expensive in one hundred or so years.
Your problem is that you think admitting that you may be wrong on a topic of scientific study means that you must also favor proposed solutions from the left. You are led by feelings and not logic.
The Myth of the Climate Change 97%
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/
SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=reno64-wsj
Summary
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/the-phony-claim-that-97-of-scientists.html
The 97% claim is based on two-question surveys and ambigious meanings from 97 scientists. Another 31,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD’s) think global warming is not dangerous.
=== ===
[edited] The claim that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is false. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and biased, abstract, counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for “the consensus” is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, and no abstracts directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus includes “man-made” but left out “dangerous”, and omitted scores of articles by prominent scientists who question “the consensus”, such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey do not create a consensus.
The Petition Project is a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, California. It published in 2009 signatures from more than 31,000 scientists, of which more than 9,000 have a Ph.D. Most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
=== ===
Dr. Roy Spencer, Phd in meteorology and former head of climate research at NASA has not only blown the whistle on climate histeria, but he is one of the foremost scientific minds on the subject. He debunks anthropomorphic climate change and the scientific consensus myths. He also has a petition signed by thousands of climate scientists who disagree with man made global warming. Interesting that we abandon scientific method when it comes to climate change. The burden is on the person proposing the theory to prove its true with repeatable evidence, not on the rest of us to prove it false. http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
It’s really funny that he never submitted any of his positions to a peer-reviewed journal. Probably because he knows he’ll be laughed out of there so fast his head would spin. A quick look at him also shows that he believes in the bullshit that is so-called “intelligent design”.
Climate change exists yes. Earth’s climate naturally shifts. Now, humans causing (or rather acccelerating) that change is what is up for debate and leftists like to say we are accelerating it so they can impliment more governmemt control. Even though government is by far leaves the biggest carbon footprint (through DoD and subsidizing the meat industry)
Those poor cows.
Getting blamed for destroying the planet every time they burp or fart.
Too bad we can’t get rid of all the cows in this country – some 40 million head, and replace them with the 60 million bison that roamed the plains 150 years ago.
Yes. That will fix things.
Not all is as it seems. There is room for skepticism. http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-denial-finally-pays-off-1467151625
“Climate change, unlike the effectiveness of gun control, has mountains upon mountains of evidence.”
The substance of which is necessarily based on correlational “research”. Inferred causality is in no way the same a empirical causality. The latter has strict rules for establishing truth . . . the former, not so much. You can correlate phases of the moon with women’s skirt lengths but that doesn’t mean one thing causes the other. But, just try telling that to a climate change true believer.
Global WARMING ( the name they used until too many bullshit detectors started going off) is the biggest wealth redistribution scam the world has ever seen. I’ve listened to their predictions of doom and gloom for 40 years. None of it has come to pass.
And the earth is only 10,000 years old….. You poor bastard.
No compromise. Non negotiable.
“This is no time to go wobbly.”
Classy!
I’m curious if she came up with these lines or if it was her staff. Either way, very impressive.
Thatcher was a true genius of a conservative politician. She was Great Britain’s Reagan. I don’t believe she had a writer to come up with this stuff, she was just that principled, intelligent, and eloquent.
If you get the chance to see the movie “The Iron Lady” I’d highly recommend it. Even Hollywood’s take on Margaret Thatcher is (mostly) complimentary.
Check out some of her Prime Minister Questions segments on YouTube. She did not suffer fools, and was a witty and quick thinker on her feet.
“To me, American Government seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which not enough object to.” FIFY
Not one inch, one round, one range, one rule, one gun, one arrow, one rock….ever…yet infringement continues every day because we let it.
Rights are not bestowed, they’re earned and maintain with great effort.
Abolish the original firearms ban. Who can afford a full auto anyway? Why do shooters have to pay a 200 tax on supressors?
“You don’t compromise with evil.”
– unknown
The last great British leader. Hopefully that’s just “so far.”
No compromise on gun rights. There needs to be a lifting of all taxes on the manufacture of weapons and ammunition, and it needs to be retro-actively reimbursed.
W E
W A N T
R E P A RA T I O N S ! ! !
There needs to be an abolition of the Gun Control Act and a repeal on any weapons bans.
Thought I logged on to Truth About Climate Change there for a few.
Lol! It does tie into the whole industry of selling view points that giving up more freedoms and power to government will keep us safe, whether we are talking about guns or climate change.
My position is that any time there is a “concensus” that giving up more freedom, money and civil rights to the government, for any reason, to keep us “safe”, then that reason, until proven otherwise, is automatically suspect as just another ploy of our wanna be slave masters to enslave us all.
Compromise on which movie to watch? Sure.
Compromise on which restaurant to eat at after the movie? Sure.
Compromise on my basic civil rights like the second amendment? Not only no, but Hell! No!.
Only a person with the soul of a slave, or of a boot licking sycophant would willingly compromise any civil right, let alone the most important right like the second amendment.
It should go without saying, but the reason our founders amended our Constitution with the Bill of Rights was so we would never have to compromise them.
Dumbest comments section on ttag ever. That pissing match over climate change made me want to become a “gun violence” statistic.
How the he!! did this thread get hijacked by the global warming loons? Sorry this world(planet is the loons word) has undergone radical warming & cooling with and without manmade interference. 1000years ago Greenland(the southern part) was habitable. Was it because those Vikings (and Inuit) made it warm? Nope-just a normal cycle. By 1400 all those Vikings were GONE-it was cold(until about 1815). And I am old enough to vividly remember the 1970’s and ” the ICE AGE IS HERE ” hysterics.So WHERE are all those hurricanes predicted for the Atlantic??? Just the new religion for the godless. Like gun control-all about control (as crime falls every year). NO SURRENDER!
Today is a great day! TTAG has reached so far that even people willing to accept the scientific opinion on “climate change” are following. That must mean that the gun debate is becoming so obvious that simpletons can comprehend it. Oh and might I point out that the same people pushing “climate change” opinions are usually the same people trying to disarm you, indoctrinate your children, cut free speech, expand welfare, and open borders. Thus by there fruit and all that…
I used to work in a government lab and I can tell you without a doubt that the vast majority of scientists are socialists at best and communists at worse.
I had scientists that escaped Argentina and the military junta there talk about how they wish they could tell everyone else to live their lives.
Thankfully, most of the people who believe in this nonsense don’t reproduce. I just wish they’d hurry up and die. 😉
Re: “Climate Change”
Science is not a process of consensus. It is a process of disciplined skepticism. “Consensus” arguments are exactly backwards.
Resources:
If we’re proposing stuff to read, Karl Popper is foundational, if a bit of a slog. Richard Feynman had a bit to say about this, with his usual pith. There were a few “how to be skeptical” commencement speeches recently, also not bad.
These are all resources on how to think, and the process of doing science.
The canonical modern reference on consensus in public science is Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Really, quite brilliant on the tension between evidence and institutional groupthink. His point – you have to break the grip of the conventional wisdom for a new model to get traction. (He says “paradigm” – a word I avoid because it is so much abused, mostly as hand-waving covering sloppy thunking. Kuhn uses “paradigm” with a specifi , not quite the usual, meaning.) “Consensus” is kinda the enemy.
Because politicized “science” is all about picking sides, then deciding one’s team’s agenda, then marshalling “science” as fits, I have to note that Kuhn was quite the progressive, politically. Not a backward-looking revanchist. So, maybe on the right team. Except for that inconvenient analysis of his about consensus.
Skeptical science is good, because the problem with deciding what you must find, *then* looking is you get Soviet agriculture.
Last resource:
There was a brilliant lecture vidio on “global warming” by a Cal Tech physics prof, some years back. A real tour de force in how to think about systems problems, and how people do science. He had a new book out, after his earlier “The End of Peak Oil”, (which hadn’t happened as predicted.) So, again, not a “denier.”
Physics prof-guy avoided all the finger pointing around politicized climate policy, to end up with some grounded conclusions, uncomfortable for all advocated positions. Reality is like that.
My own $0.02, because like gun control, the game is “Tell me your position, so I know whether to dismiss your evidence and argument.” (Again exactly backwards):
There’s a great, deliberate muddle of what we know, suspect, and can or should do around
global warmingclimate disruptionclimate change. I like my policies, like my science, less muddled.We should maybe do some science.
My position is very similar, and I’d point people to Popper and Feynman as you did. Feynman was an excellent intellect on the subject of science – always skeptical, never cynical.
As an engineer, I had to occasionally work with scientists. I’ll say this about scientists: They all too often fall in love with their ideas. Often, their lovely ideas would crash head-first into the real world when given to engineers to implement. Factors they dismissed as “negligible” suddenly became rather important, or issues they never considered at all would “appear from nowhere” and wreck otherwise beautiful ideas.
Funny thing, tho: When the crap hit the fan, it was never a scientist on the phone with a pissed-off customer at 3 AM. No, the fat rats with PhD’s after their names always were sound asleep and insulated from the wrath of reality when it came calling…
I use to tape CSPAN on Sunday night when Prime Minister questions was on. It was wonderful watching her.
The Iron Lady title was suppose to be a put down by the USSR. But she wore the name proudly.
I miss her. But she was wrong on civilian gun ownership.
Maggie was really something else. Watch some of her speeches if you ever get the chance, she knew where things were headed.
The Iron Lady was absolutely prescient on the current state of the EU.
People who are champions of liberty must give Baroness Thatcher her due: She knew our enemies well, and she called them out for what they are.
Before the glorious Brexit vote, I thought that the late Maggie Thatcher had more balls than the rest of England combined.
Now I’m thinking that the English and the Welsh are regaining their lost heritage of courage. The Scottish? Not so much.
The Scots have become a sordid tale of the eugenic effects of being welfare dependents for four+ generations – they are to the UK what urban blacks are to the US.
While it is sad, the truth is that after the Highland Clearances (one of the first examples of ethnic cleansing in modern history), the Scots with some gumption and “get up and go” got up and left – for here in the US, Oz, New Zealand, Canada, etc. What few men that were left behind then were extirpated in WWI’s campaigns, where the English were only too happy to use everyone other than the English in their empire as Maxim targets first.
Today, you see what’s left: a feminized culture of soft, drink-sodden louts and layabouts.
^This exactly. ^ All the hearty stock in Scotland left first for Ireland, then America long ago (for a detailed account read Born Fighting by Jim Webb).
As Renton said in Trainspotting, “It’s shite being Scottish, we’re the lowest of the low. Some hate the English, I don’t, they’re just wankers. We on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can’t even find a decent culture to be colonized by…”
Hee hee hee. Havin fun yet? Same hucksters pushing a hoax are pushing another hoax on the American citizen…..no data or evidence to prove either.
Then there’s this from a few years ago
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
Statism/socialism is all about control. Climate change is a hoax, gun control is the next (although not new) hoax.
It is just like the “90% of people want a gun registry” lie.
Grains of truth, slivers of honesty, and lots of tortured statistics;
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
Comments are closed.