Global warming becomes even harder to deny... - Page 4

WHAT, NOW I'M REPSONSIBLE FOR YOUR READING? I've read the hand twisting 'peer reviewed' articles, nothing but speculation about the unknown. Little more than fear mongering with "what ifs"; well "what if" an astroid hits earth, "what if" we have another Krakatoa, "what if" UFO's are true, "what if" there is warming, "what if" its bad...etc. Such chicken little piffel.

Warming is just as likely to be a good thing - the Medival Warming Period brought increased food production, expanded settlement to Greenland and Iceland, created a great climate for Europe. Hell, it would even lower Winter energy needs...who can say?

Before trillons are spent, the previous probabilities need resolved.

Grifters? Frauds? Mountebanks? I mean Mann and his hockey team that did a con job in his first "hockey stick" study and created a cottage industry of hucksters and flim-flamers in pursuit of government grants. Toss in Jones, Espir, Briffa. How do I know? Cause I spent the last couple of weeks reading their statements and noting their activities - the NAS tried to whitewash it, but none to successfully.

Horse poo. Even if the science was untainted by unsupported claims in peer reviewed papers, the jump from "there is warming" to "pending disaster" is a disingeniious leap - a carney trick used by Gore in his recent "Triumph of the Green Will" propoganda piece.

Scientists have margins of error in climate warming model, they have NO idea of its likely impact on human well being. Sure, they say the ocean will rise 1.5 feet (OH HORRORS), and that it might be 3.6 degree C warmer but it's cost/benefit is unknown. And given the science being saturated with fakery, it may not happen and may not be unprecedented.

Complete gibberish. You're simply pretending that all things that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty are equally unlikely. Thus, saying that cigarettes cause cancer is of a piece with speculating that power lines do as well, and both theories must be dismissed out of hand.


"Just as likely"? "Who can say"? You haven't been reading the literature at all, have you?


Right out of the industry backed disinformation campaign, which it sounds like is your primary source (as disseminated through various right wing blogs, editorials, think tanks, foundation and articles). Unless science can do what it cannot-- nail down the future with 100% certainty-- we are restrained from action until "more research is done", i.e., forever.


This is such a grotesquely wrong-headed gloss on the state of the science and the "controversy" surrounding Mann et al's research it scarcely deserves response, but suffice to say that despite the vigorous promotion of McIntyre's attacks by such respected scientific entities as the Wall Street Journal and various far right congressional experts (leading to seemingly endless editorials about the "broken consensus" on global warming, all relying on the same few bits of information), Mann's interpolation of the data is born out by dozens of independent researchers.

This kind of seizing on irrelevant squabbling as evidence that the whole edifice of scientific research is some kind of con game backed up by heavy handed censorship is very typical of the right's new game plan for attacking the science they find unpalatable, as is the predictable canard that such research is simply an unseemly scramble for funding.

The trick is to make sure every shred of "controversy" is endlessly promulgated, tossed back and forth between interlocking systems of disemination, until it seems like you never see "climate change" without "controversial" attached. The shear volume of repetition makes up for the paucity of actual legitimate criique. It's a familiar model from the evolution "debate".

Eventually, I suppose, they'll conceive everybody that science is merely a partisan trick designed to make regular people feel stupid, and we can be done with all that tiresome "progress" in so called "disciplines" such as medicine, cosmology and physics.


What, they're having a contest for "most pompous internet martinet know-nothing"? You very clearly have spent time pouring over the usual right wing distortions, which are certainly plentiful.

You can rattle on all you want with your content free dismissal of these dreadful frauds, but it doesn't change the fact that there is remarkable consensus, within the climatology community, that human driven climate change is real. The dissent of a few, no matter how broadly trumpeted by economically interested parties (and how is it that research scientists are never to be trusted because they'll say anything to get a grant but we can accept the machinations of an ExxonMobile at face value?) does not lay to ruin the consensus of the many, nor does it make of the many any species of charlatan.

No, honest men of science represent research fairly, produce the data and calculations used to reach their conclusions, explain their methdology, and permit the replication of their work for testing.

You probably don't know (as many outside of climate science do not) that the climate scientists give (at best) partial disclosure (and sometimes none). It is a highly secretative "science"; (E.G. Jones to someone asking to replicate his model: "Why should I give you my data so that you can criticize my researh".)

The paleo climatologist researchers (perhaps 9 of them in total) are running a huge con-game wherein they "co-author" each others work and spin their untested models.

Holy shit! I need to get in on this pointy-headed academic con-game where I only have to give "partial disclosure" and where big piles of us get around in a circle jerk to promote one another's work!

Oh, wait. I am. But the humanities must be waaaaaaay harder-assed about all of this than the sciences. Whodathunkit!?

Damn, I wish my discipline was so unabashedly undisciplined as the sciences! To think I've spent all this time submitting abstracts to conferences, anxiously awaiting to hear back whether I've been accepted to stand before a room full of my peers and advance my arguments and then be subjected to questions from them afterwards (and subsequent email and hallway conversations)! I'm glad my reputation isn't on the line every time I do this! And to think that for all this time I've been conducting research and then spending months writing it up and then submitting it anonymously to journals which then send it to anonymous readers who, without discussing it with one another, vote about whether I should be accepted for publication, told to revise and resubmit, or rejected outright. And that takes months!

Damn! I need to get into the sciences! Apparently, all I need to do is scrawl something in crayon about global warming = true and Bush = bad and I've got TENURE!

CLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, HERE I COME!!!

Guess it might be nice to start getting some sourcing on these crimes. Clearly it's a huge scandal, the scientific community must be outraged by the transparent abuse of every standard of methodology. Unless......they're all in on it! Shit, there are no honest men of science. What a scam!


Yes, those of us "outside" climate science are at a distinct disadvantage debating a man with access to the internet, nevertheless the idea that climate scientists are a cabal of secretive schemers is simply laughable. Again, perhaps you have some sourcing so we can judge for ourselves the gravity of the conspiracy?


And they're managed to do this under the noses of the entire rest of the climate research community (numbering in the dozens!), which is incapable of untangling the nest of lies, closely guarded voodoo, and methodological slight of hand that characterizes the very core of this so called "research". Damn you, mind control climate cabal!

Edit-- hey, there goes Midwinter again, preempting my line of thought!

Using hyped and sensationalized fear (aka Gore's movie) is not gibberish, its just fear mongering based on speculation and over-active imagination. His overlaying of invasive species, picts of ebola viruses, 20ft water levels, etc. is pure nonsense. While I consider the IPCC statements to be political, even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb.

As I said, I have. But if you have peer-reviewed literature that says it is likey we will have a major disaster and unlikey to see benefits with global warming, why don't you reference it? Till, then, its just an empty assertion.

Really, and here I thought I was original. So, I gather you don't think it important to answer these questions before major and costly efforts are made to "prevent" a problem that may not be a problem, or may not be preventable, or may not be worth preventing. Ya, that really makes a lot of sense...


How about 80% certainty, quite different from we know little SO LETS ACT NOW!

Mann's "interpolation" is a modern Piltdown hoax, defended not in its substance (methods, calculations, or data) but in "his conclusion" (the blade of global warming). One could (but not without embarrasment) defend Piltdown as having errored in approach, not being cross-validated, hiding results, and refusing to release data "but the apelike features of early man is borne out in dozens of other studies - his conclusions were correct".

Fortunitly, science had (then) enough integrity to re-examine it and, finding it a hoax, not let Darwinism become a political mantra that buried objective truth.

BTW it is mainly "borne out" - not by independent studies but by Mann himself (he was co-author in three others) and his associates. Moreover, they used the same flawed data, and/or methods as he did. Moreover, the most independent (Moberg) rightly shows most of history as far more accurate; yes, there was a MWP and a LIA.


If, like those sciences, climate researchers provided all data, methods, calculations, and source/script code for review (hopefully prior to publication) then it would be far more trustworthy. As it is, its a cult of researchers who use the Bush approach "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".

Ironic.


No, I've spent a lot of time reading papers. Among the know nothings are von Storch, Zoritch, Burger, Chubash, and others...quite aside from McIntyre and McKitrich.

So orthodoxy becomes a defense - so this is what science is about? We appeal to "the remarkable consensus" when probably less than 20 people in the world have actually teamed up to build these models and understand them? This consensus is not based on a wide knowledge and application of climate models in the field (as it is with evolution), rather its an esoteric 'science of models' by the few.

Is it not the Greens (e.g. Al Gore) that impugn the motives of scientists who do not agree? Did he not make the point that when one's paycheck is dependent on producing certain results, that these people can't be trusted? Climate science has been very well funded since the global warming hysteria started, and UCAR's couple of hundred million dollar budget comes from the government. Anyone who threatens these funds (like M&M) get savaged.

No what makes them charlatan's is their practice of partial or no disclosure.

Thanks for a good laugh.

Doctor to patient: "Well, it looks 99% certain you have several tumors spread around your body, and over the past few weeks, metastasizing sure has happened a lot. Given the remaining 1%, however, it's best we wait and see."

Easy for you to say.

Why should we believe you over them?

It really always comes down to this doesn't it? When someone makes wild statments in the face of what experts say you have to call into question the source.

Let's see your credentials.


Ps. Piltdown is a bad one to use. Not only have we studied global warming longer than the piltdown hoax (I just watched a special on PBS about piltdown ) we have tons more data supporting the theory.



" even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb. "


EEEEEEEEE! Wrong : http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html


But we'll send you on your way with a home version of " Let's pull the wool over their eye's with rhetorical nonsense ".

Well, no time like the present. Now if you can get Al to make a powerpoint presentation showing the dire consequences of a sudden rise in the lack of appreciation for post-modernist perspectives or the crisis in American literature (toss in some slides on angst ridden modern man) you might not need to attend climate school.

Your kidden you guys submit articles for anonymous review (if so, a good idea that ought to be extended to climate studies). Of course, reviewers don't get to vote in Climate science. The editor or fellows running the conference make that choice.

Have I mentioned that the negative effect that millions of melted-icecap refugees will have on the economy is far greater than that of some alternative energy research?

You ought to believe is that paleo-climate "science" ignores the methodological rules of science, because it is true. We may be taught that science builds paradigms that are tested by replication, but the truth of it is that it does not have the standards required to do so.

Until M&M (2003) questioned the 2001 IPCC 'consensus' over Mann's never replicated studies of 98/99 it was not appreciated by dispassionate observers that such scientists intentional obstruct testing - and peer journals are only willing to apply marginal preesure to authors to produce data/methods/code. Reviewers, for example, are not permitted to ask for data or detail prior to publication.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=559

Von Storch, a global warming supporter is quoted and linked to in the above commentary. Unlike the hockey crowd he is pressuring the discipline to change its attitudes towards those who would question results...till then, its merely claims without proof.

Yes we do have much more proof, which is just my point. There is no doubt about human evolution, but for an evolutionist to justify Piltdown based on "his conclusions being basically supported by others" is farcical - Piltdown must stand or fall on its own.

So must Mann and his other studies. And if there is not full disclosure, then no testing can occur. Therefore, without such disclosure, I consider the field a quasi science of problematical accuracy and little honesty - and unproven claims.

Perhaps you should note the story behind the headlines, its just a crude hack job and possible parody. The reporter calls a 100 scientists, only a handful saw the film. Obviously critics did not bother to see it so they could not comment, but among those who did see (the faithful) they gave predictable kudos.

I've seen better manipulated Soviet Pravda work, which is why I thought this stupid story was a put-on, but I'm told it was serious (hard to believe).

Well once again you've postured a lot without any kind of proof of validity.

Who the hell is climateaudit.org. ???????

There's no " about " on the website with real credentials. It's just someone's blog.

Credentials or real proof of validity please.


You know I have a friend that sounds like you. He believes a lot of things that are off the beaten track. He speaks with great authority about his pet peeves and quotes what people have said. He sounds really informed.

However when you check into his sources you find all of his knowlege comes from places like climateaudit.org. No proof of who they are ( and if you dig deep enough to find out......) or how they can make these claims other than it's just an opinion.


From the article :
-----------------------------------------------------------

Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

-----------------------------------------------------------

You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.

Interesting site. They don't say much about who they are and how they are qualified, but I found this in their FAQ:


Obviously a couple of guys with the academic qualifications to question the findings of climatologists.... NOT!

But I guess that such an observation is nothing more than an ad-hom attack, right?

There won't be millions of ice cap refugees - where do you get this stuff?

Besides, I'm looking forward to the return of a boreal forest to the South Pole - great real estate buying opportunties - BUY NOW...CHEAP.

Seriously, the warming hysteria is absurd. In the last century we had a 1/2 ft to 1 ft raise in sea level without anyone even noticing. Sure, climate may change - especially in Northern latitudes where most of the warming will occur. Canada, Northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska will all have better weather - what's wrong with that?

And there will be more precepitation - and if like the warming of the early holocene (4000BC - 8000BC) you will see a green Sahara with lakes and grasslands.

Change is never comfortable, but it can be a good thing.

Climate Audit is the blog of model researcher Steve McIntyre, who with economtrician Ross McKitrish started the controversy over the "Hockey stick" climate reconstrution. In 2003 they published a peer-reviewed paper exposing serious problems with Mann's study (Gore's hockey stick of historic temperatures), then got into a long fight with Mann over his errors, lack of cross validation statistics, etc. Mann was forced by Nature to publish material corrections to his study (but he refused to release source code or explain his claims), M&M pubished another study critiquing Mann, Mann replied, etc. Eventually the whole thing ended up before the Barton committee and the NAS was asked to investigate and resolve many issues - including the one of data sharing and replication.

Mann and his supporters started Real Climate (before Climate Audit) hoping to smear M&M in the public arena and defend his work. The rhetoric itself is instructive...

Among the links that inform:

Presentation to NAS
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.M&M.pdf (esp p25, Appendix B)

Good Intro to the Debate
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Commentary on Science Process
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=66#more-66

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=350#more-350

Von Storch (well reputed researcher) Presentation to NAS, note comments on attitudes:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/vo...302/index.html


Climate Audit is not your partisan screed - it is tempered commentary from a published critic of flawed studies - His background being geological statistical modeling...

Max, Max, Max!

Have you seen maps of the way the world looked during say the Cretaceous? When there's very little ice cap the coastlines flood. If that were to happen today most major coastline citys would be gone. Many would be displaced with no where to go. It will be too warm. Also you look at this as a gradual process. Now here's where we are unsure. Depending on how global warming affects the climate it could go the other way and trigger and ice age.

Please don't even try to attempt to tell me this can't happen they've happened many times in the earth's history and some thing set them off. Volvanic activity spewing greenhouse gases into the atomsphere blotting out the sunlight to a point where too much of it is reflected. Temps drop. Plants die and so does a huge percentage of animal life including most of us.

Also the way our world is set up now economically, food growing, and habitable wise this would mean a huge disaster for humans. Lot's of victims in the process.

It doesn't a rocket scientist to figure this out.


Besides I think formerlurker has already answered the validity question.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jimmac
Well once again you've postured a lot without any kind of proof of validity.

Who the hell is climateaudit.org. ???????

There's no " about " on the website with real credentials. It's just someone's blog.

Credentials or real proof of validity please.


You know I have a friend that sounds like you. He believes a lot of things that are off the beaten track. He speaks with great authority about his pet peeves and quotes what people have said. He sounds really informed.

However when you check into his sources you find all of his knowlege comes from places like climateaudit.org. No proof of who they are ( and if you dig deep enough to find out......) or how they can make these claims other than it's just an opinion.



I certainly noted the AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group, who seems to have "a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President."

In addition, Corrells reported links "by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP". See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

Somehow the AP reporter missed the following alternative views from the other side:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gores film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. (Lindzen in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal)

Gores film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?- Roy Spencer in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gores claim:

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology, Tim Ball according to the Canadian Free Press.

So it depends on who you survey...

Well. That's four. I guess there's not really consensus!

And when you check out who runs the website you quoted......

" Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com. "


Uh yeah.

That's the problem with alternative news. It reads like it's from an alternative universe where the things that you depend on to make an informed conclusion are missing.

Look I'm sure there are people who take an opposing view. There always are. But they're in the extreme minority here Max.

Jimbo, I must tell you this won't happen - even if your volcanos get really active. While I've not heard of any sane 'expert' claim that we are on the way to Cretaceous flooding (and certainly not due to global warming) one must note that during this period of Earth history sea levels were 200 meters higher than today. If the poles melted today, according to an article in USA Today, we'd have a 65 meter rise - tops! (reminds me of George Scott's reassurance in Dr. Strangelove that pre-emptive strike would only kill 20,000,000 Americans tops!).

Of course, in the next 100 years we may have a rise of 20 inchs...pretty tame stuff. No, we won't get boreal forests but its a nice thought.

Now your worried about an Ice Age ...bitch bitch bitch, nothing makes you guys happy.


You mean that these fellows are not from the climate science scam gang? And yes, he is correct, there exposure to climate science is not relevant; their abiity to teach the CS yahoos some applied statistics is.

How about we hope that global warming doesn't happen, but pretend that it is the case? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DETRIMENT IN DOING SO, AND IS THE SAFEST WAY OF APPROACHING THE PROBLEM.

Maxo,

Most scientists think volcanos are one of the things that triggered ice ages in the past. Something did. That's not theory. Now we can do it on our own.

What you don't care about the people who would die in the process ( just as long as you're comfortable in your easychair )? That sounds just my friend with looneytoon, conspiracy rags he reads.

Because to do so would be wasteful, and to be wasteful means you hate business, and to hate business means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate the baby Jesus, and to hate the baby Jesus means you hate America, and to hate America means you hate capitalism, and to hate capitalism means you hate business.

Jeez. It's so simple.

Ya gotta love that baby Jesus! I wonder what he'd have to say about global warming?

You stated:

"You'll notice in the article it says who they are. They have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements."

So? You'll notice in my post it points out a quoted buddy of Gore, and I point out those that disagree with the movie. Note they also have real credentials and obviously the knowlege to make these statements.

Whatever one's opinion on gloval warming, the AP article, like Mann's study, is a scam. Like him, they sample only the opinions of those who have seen the movie to arrive at a 100% consensus, ignoring that most of those called never bothered to see it. As a proof, it fails, as an objective sampling it fails, as propoganda its rather crude.

As somebody has previously stated, Jesus is making his second coming soon, and God wants to warm the damned planet up first so he doesn't freeze his balls off in that sparse clothing of his.

I'd say the stuff you have presented is rather crude. Ok you've got a very small nuber of real scientists and some guys with academic credentials in other fields. All from a website run by a guy ( who's not in the field ) who works for a news oganization who has a very strong rightwing bias. I've got to tell you I'd feel better about your source if they were endorsed by even Foxnews itself.

Damn! I almost choked on my coffee with that one!

You make quite a few claims on your own (in the midst of demanding cites/links for my statements). If you think the NAS and ICPP are wrong about a mere 20 inch rise in sea level, and ascribe to the chicken little paradigm (and to question it is "looneytoon"? - please) then give a link or cite or two.

I've given plenty of background and cites, time to produce some back up for your Piltdown man...

What exactly has Gore to gain here?
Cleaner air? Wow that would be terrible.
Less energy consumption? Ouch how would I survive with lower bills??
Cleaner water? Oh my goodness that would anger god himself!!
Better gas mileage? That is pure terrorism.

The man had more votes that Bush. I don't think he needs popularity.

Nonsense. While you may not care to read junkscience.com, its quite irrelvant to the statements of these scientists...not unless your claiming the website lied.

And if that is your retreat, then look them up in Wikipedia. Ball, Lindzen, Spenser, etc. are all critics of Global Warming hysterics.

You should also note (in my prior links) that "the couple of guys" were invited to make a Presentation to the NAS panel, are peer reviewed in Nature and GSL, and whose methodilogical criticisms were accepted as valid by the panel.

That two fellows outside of a cloistered 'science' had to point out egregiious mathematical and statistical flaws says more about climate science than it does them - but then again, it was a non-geologist that first proposed Continental Drift and he was ridiculed by their orthodoxy.

Apparently you believe that if a man has no material gain in his advocay, he is morally pure. The motivations of those who build, or farm, or transform nature are obvious: material security, monetary gain, producing wealth.

Politicians and Intellectuals primary desire is not in creating wealth. They strive for power and respect from their fellow men. Like preachers they are moralists - being listened to, being respected, being leaders, being honored, being RIGHT feeds a bottemless pit of need. Their edifice of self-respect is in manipulating men, not things.

Gore has nothing material to gain: his family already made money off of Tobacco and Occidental Petroleum (nothing to lose here) - and his recent new wealth is from Google (a virtual and environmentally free product).

No Gore needs to lead a cause, a cause that expunges his guilt (as he confessed) over Tobacco, etc. He needs to be "a good man" who is believed. He needs to show others (where his money is not affected) their sins. His gain is simple: the satisfaction of being right on policy, and respected by his peers.

He can't afford to be wrong, he's an idealogue.

And what's the harm? How about the cost to peoples well-being? The cost of taking money from paychecks, savings, and investment for their children for a global warming that is not a threat?

Burning money, to save a few MPG, to lower CO2 (which is not dirty), costs money...money is the productivity of men who may want to spend it on something else. Gore does not see that, because he has no problem in enslaving men to his cause - to steal their labor for his "ethics".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ming_evidence/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...sf/web/climate

http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM...al_Intro.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5517-5464r.htm


And of course :

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...ref=sitesearch


It just doesn't go away because Bush says so.

Yeah, no kidding. Max is the very angry version of NaplesX.

Well that's just not the case here. In cases like this throughout history the ridiculed have been the liberal outsider being critisized by the conservative establishment ( like the church ). Here you have the opposite. The conservatives are questioning the liberal " new idea " viewpoint.

You'll notice in my site links you'll only find sites from well known and recognized organizations.

Not " Junk ".

You know this is all about the conservative viewpoint and it's willingness to stick it's head in the sand for profit today don't worry about tomorrow.