Despite their rants and raves about being America being scared and lied into Iraq, the media elites do more than their share of fearmongering. On no issue is this more apparent than the subject of the environment where "savvy" and "impartial" journalists act like modern-day inquisitors to defame anyone who dares question the prevailing leftish orthodoxy on the earth's temperature.
Not everyone on the media left is marching in lockstep on the issue, however. One such dissident is Alexander Cockburn, a former columnist for the Nation who has experienced nothing but hatred from the "tolerant" left for thinking for himself:
Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.
There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.
This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.
Great stuff. He also hits on another important point that many in the business-hating media always overlook when it comes to the temperature debate: This movement is being bought and paid for by the world's largest corporations:
For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.
This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.
This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry see in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.
Right on the money. In addition to scamming its investors, Enron was a huge booster of the global warming agenda. Across the globe, this pattern of deception continues as rich, large companies have figured out that environmental regulation is a great way for not only getting great publicity but also to shut out the competition.
—Matthew Sheffield is Editor of NewsBusters.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Intolerant Left
January 25, 2008 - 12:40 ET by allanfThere is nothing tolerant about the American Left. Ideas such "fairness doctrine", "hate speech", campus speech policies, McCain-Feingold are not meant to foster honest discussion. Today's left seeks control by bullying, bluster and petulance.
The word intelligentsia was once used. These folks are the new intoleragentsia – as in intolerant.
How many liberal journalist
January 25, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Chris NormanHow many liberal journalists have we read about experiencing the same kind of punishment from their liberal peers when they stray, even momentarily, from the liberal dogma? Bernard Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens, ...?I was watching "Gangland" on The History Channel last night. The liberals behavior reminds me of the "Blood In. Blood Out." rules of prison gangs.
Liberals are antichrists ...
January 25, 2008 - 13:03 ET by gideonmjames... pure and simple.
You want Satan's take on world events? You want his viewpoint and his will on the issues of the day? Then listen to a liberal.
Liberals are Cain's, Lamech's, Esau's, Pharoah's, Phillistines, Moabites, Amalekites, 2-inch Goliath's, Doeg's, Herod's, Caiphases, Pharisees, false prophets, dissemblers, backbiters, murmurers, complainers, mockers, and ANTICHRISTS.
Everything these people did they DO ... INCESSANTLY.
"Liberals are antichrists
January 25, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Chris Norman"Liberals are antichrists ..."
Misguided? Yes. Dangerous ideas and policies? Yes. Need to be defeated? Yes. Antichrists? Uh, I wouldn't go quite that far...
Why not! Hey, everybody!
January 25, 2008 - 13:25 ET by balboaWhy not! Hey, everybody! Free Biblical hyperbole!
Environmentalism will be
January 25, 2008 - 12:42 ET by mattmEnvironmentalism will be our doom.
Here's an interesting article.
remember these?
January 26, 2008 - 03:22 ET by acadia1755—David Foreman, Earth First!
—Pentti Linkola
—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
—John Shuttleworth
—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
—Economist editorial
—David Foreman, Earth First!
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
—Earth First! Newsletter
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
—Carl Amery
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
—Lamont Cole
—Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge
—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
http://www.friendsof...
Camps in our future?
January 25, 2008 - 12:48 ET by planetrepublican"One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted." And if the left could they would pass just such laws with long prison sentences and reeducation camps. Soft Socialism becomes hard Communism real fast. Read Jonah Goldberg's new book: "Liberal Fascism"; he describes in detail the various despots and thugs the left is in company with.
"Global" Warming Auto Da Fe's
January 25, 2008 - 12:54 ET by gideonmjamesThat's EXACTLY what "global" warming prophets like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen are conducting ... AN INQUISITION.
Their goal is to silence, discredit, defame, and eviscerate anyone and any evidence that shows global warming to be a lie based on biased, manufactured, cultivated, and doctored data.
Environmentalism is the New Fascism of the 21st Century
January 25, 2008 - 12:59 ET by R D HelmThese people are a direct threat to not only our freedom, but our very nation.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
"In addition to scamming
January 25, 2008 - 13:15 ET by bacher468"In addition to scamming its investors, Enron was a huge booster of the global warming agenda."
Matt, would you be able to provide some links documenting the claim about Enron? I would love to force feed it to some of my hysterical eco-friends. Thanks for any help.
Lots of links
January 25, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Matthew Sheffieldcourtesy of Google
Enron/AGW
January 25, 2008 - 15:28 ET by masslibertarianIn one of these links, I'm sure you'll discover that Chris Horner at CEI, who wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)," worked at Enron in the '90s and witnessed this firsthand.
He's a great source to cite on this and has the double advantage of being someone who really p*sses the warmers off.
2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year
January 25, 2008 - 13:20 ET by lotrScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
http://www.scienceda...
→ lotr
January 25, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Cool ArrowJoking, right?
♣ a seal
Uh, no actually. Just
January 25, 2008 - 13:41 ET by lotrUh, no actually. Just throwing it out there FYI.
ROFL
January 25, 2008 - 13:40 ET by SouthJersey1953Okay...If this is true, then please explain to me how come, when the local weather report shows "record high/low temps for the day," MOST of the record highs took place in either the late 19th century (1890s) or the late 1930s??????
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
The GISS Also Says.....
January 25, 2008 - 14:30 ET by zeestephenlotr - The GISS data also say that the earth's ten year average temperature from 1998-2007 has not increased.
From 1999-2007, the GISS nine year average temperature has actually shown a statistically significant decline.
Since the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased for ten years, this is not the result one would expect.
zeestephen, I'm not sure
January 25, 2008 - 17:30 ET by lotrzeestephen, I'm not sure where you are getting that information from. The temperature plot shown on the ScienceDaily site clearly shows a warming trend, and I have yet to see any data that shows otherwise.
I believe the real worry for us, however, is that fossil fuels will eventually run out. More nuclear plants would help (and are desperately needed) in the short term, but far more R&D is needed for developing new energy sources.
Thanks for your note, lotr
January 25, 2008 - 18:26 ET by zeestephenThanks for your note, lotr. I'm speaking of the "Ten Year Moving Average Temp," which has been calculated since about 1975.
For example, you would find the average temp for 1975-1984, plot that on a graph, then 1976-1985, plot that, and so on up to 1998-2007. This long term trend line cancels out short term noise like the cooling effect of volcanic ash in the early 1990's, and clearly shows a trend line as up, down, or flat. For 20 years, the trend was indisputably going up. That trend line has flattened in recent years. Using smaller, but less accurate, data sets like 9 years or 5 years, clearly shows the moving average has begun to trend slightly downward.
For the first time, just after release of the 2007 temps, at least two "pro-global warming" climatologists stated this trend is "noteworthy." One of them said if this trend continues for three more years, "We will have to go back and look at our models."
The 10 year moving average for atmospheric CO2 goes back to about 1966, I believe. That trend line has been up continuously for about 20 years, although it does show some flattening when there is a USA recession, which always slows world wide energy use.
The theory is that man-made CO2 warms the earth, and that more CO2 causes more warming. However, the earth's temp has been basically flat for ten years, despite record levels of CO2.
As to sources - lotr, I go through the web the same way I go through cable channels.....click.....click.....click. I will try to track this stuff down for you. There are several superb "Denier" websites, but I don't know them off the top of my head.
The quotes from "pro-warmers" came from the AP, I believe, which is completely shocking when you consider their usual bias.
More Grist For All You James Hansen Admirers
January 25, 2008 - 20:50 ET by zeestephenI get the NASA TV channel at my house, which is often quite good, and very educational about astronomy and space craft engineering.
But.....this just in.
Hansen's group at NASA has finally acknowledged publicly that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown substantially in recent years.
The reason? Fasten your seat belts.....global warming has melted ice in the continent's interior, and that melt water has run off onto the glaciers and re-frozen.
The NASA GISS plot also
January 25, 2008 - 22:51 ET by lotrThe NASA GISS plot also shows the 5-year moving average. I now understand what you are talking about, though -- that the trend may be flattening out, something that would not be expected (without a volcanic eruption like in the early 90s). I will take another look at the plot (or others if you point me to them). But, nevertheless, there has been an observed warming trend over the past 100 or so years. Of course, that doesn't mean it will definitely continue to rise, or that we should commit to draconian measures to curb CO2 without also carefully considering the inevitiable economic consequences. Bush was right to reject U.S. commitment to Kyoto.
Here is a recent graph from
January 25, 2008 - 23:23 ET by danboHere is a recent graph from Icecap.org. Comparing Hansen's GISS with UKMET, U of Alabama Huntsville (Christy and Spencer), and Remotes Sensing (satellite). We're talking about close to a .3 variance from RSS. And the supposed increase is what .6-.8. That's a good chunk of the supposed increase.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
These datasets agree fairly
January 26, 2008 - 11:14 ET by lotrThese datasets agree fairly well. They only go back to 1990 probably because they are considering satellite data -- I am guessing that the RSS data are microwave sea surface temperatures. They show a cooler 2007 -- not sure what may have caused that.
Look again. The others show
January 26, 2008 - 15:14 ET by danboLook again. The others show no warming since 1998.
RSS is Remote surface sensing. also called satellite.
"They show a cooler 2007 -- not sure what may have caused that." Venture a guess? Maybe Hansen is full of it?
It coes back to 1990 because that's when IPCC projected the warming. All but GISS are way below the IPCC projections.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
RSS stands for Remote
January 27, 2008 - 21:54 ET by lotrRSS stands for Remote Sensing Systems -- they are a private company on the West Coast that specializes in satellite microwave products, particularly sea surface temperatures. All the datasets show a warming trend over the relatively short period of 17 years. All datasets I am aware of, satellite or otherwise, show a warming trend in surface temperatures, not inconsistent with model predictions.
lotr.....
January 26, 2008 - 02:55 ET by zeestephenlotr - I don't pretend to be a scientist or a statistician. I also completely agree that the earth is warming and that the rate of warming clearly accelerated from 1975-1995. What's important to remember is that the total warming and the rate of warming in the last century are completely consistent with totals and rates from earlier times when man was not a factor in CO2 levels. From 900-1200 AD, the Vikings grew crops and raised farm animals on the coastal plains of Greenland. Greenland is too cold to do that in 2008, in spite of dramatic pictures of melting glaciers. It is entirely plausible that man has affected earth's climate, but, today, the evidence for that theory is based on political emotions, not science. One last note - all major news sources imply that Bush rejected Kyoto. In fact, Kyoto was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. When the US Senate indicated it would defeat Kyoto by 95-0, Clinton shelved the treaty and never submitted it. Bush simply followed Clinton, and I'm not aware of any leading Democrat who has asked Bush to submit it. Also, via Investors Business Daily, in multiple editorials, since 1998 the USA has cut its CO2 rate of increase almost to zero, a rate which is dramatically lower than in Europe, which signed Kyoto.
zeestephen, interesting
January 26, 2008 - 10:59 ET by lotrzeestephen, interesting about Kyoto -- thanks for clarifying and pardon my ignorance. The media led me to believe that Bush rejected it, but that's whole point of this blog, isn't it?
All very true about the natural variability of climate. Everyone knows about "the Ice Age," and there were actually many of them. Climate changes probably played a role in the demise of several localized cultures in the past (e.g., the Anasazi Indians). That would not happen today, thanks to a highly advanced technology.
I'm not not advocating that continued global warming is an inevitability, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we all vote for Al Gore. The atmosphere-ocean system is highly complex -- several important feedback mechanisms (e.g., clouds) have not been completely accounted for, and these introduce uncertainty. But, by the same token, one cannot deny that there has been an observed warming, and that climate models predict continued warming due to the greenhouse effect. Even if the models are correct, which they may not be, global warming is lesser concern for the future -- new energy sources (including nuclear power) are a far greater concern.
lotr - One Last Anecdote
January 26, 2008 - 14:07 ET by zeestephenRe: "the Ice Age"
I live in Seattle, world HQ for Extreme Greens.
At some point in every local conversation I have about Global Warming, I find it necessary to say this:
"For 100,000 of the last 120,000 years, this spot, where we are now standing, was buried under 2000 feet of glacial ice. You are going to have a difficult time convincing me that Global Warming is a bad thing."
A valid point. You should
January 27, 2008 - 22:08 ET by lotrA valid point. You should also advocate nuclear power to them -- zero greenhouse emissions. Seattle is a lovely place (been there once), but I feel your pain having to deal with the Left Coast mindset.
Don't you have anything
January 25, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Jack BauerDon't you have anything better to worry about than one day "fossil" fuels will run out.
What are you? In your 30's. You might as well worry that even if you live to the average life expectency of an adult male in the US, you're gonna be dead pretty soon in cosmic terms. Earth and its constantly changing climate: about 4 billion years old. You: 80 years.
But think of all the CO2 that won't be expelled from your lungs when you're rotting in the ground. That should help.
The grave awaits us all,
January 25, 2008 - 22:31 ET by lotrThe grave awaits us all, Jack.
According to articles I have read (e.g., one in a recent issue of Physics Today -- I can provide you the exact citation on Monday at work if you want), fossil fuels are projected to be depleted within our lifetimes, and that's assuming stable demand. Oil prices are now at near-record highs, and this is certainly felt in my wallet; and I wouldn't expect them to come down anytime soon. Even if you don't believe that, be assured, they are not in infinite supply. Unfortunately, wind power ain't gonna cut it when it comes to powering cities, automobiles, etc., the engines of our industrialized society.
Not to worry. I'm in my
January 25, 2008 - 22:59 ET by danboNot to worry. I'm in my 60's. When I was in grade and high school, they were telling me the oil would be gone in 10-15 years. they were kind of wrong. We have more now than we had then. You guys just won't let us get it. So we have to import it.
And when I was a kid the old folks claimed they were told the same thing when they were kids.
The term fossil fuels may be incorrect. It may be inorganic in origin. And is coming from the mantel or the core. And seeping up to pools closer to the surface. They're finding it very deep in the southern gulf off Yucatan. In a fractured section of igneous and sedimentry rock. My understanding is that oil has been found in archeozoic rock which formed before plants and animals are known to exist.
If this is correct. Oil may be virtually limitless. And we may also be able to find it on places like the moon, Mars etc. Remember, methane is known to exist on Titan.
But if it helps your guilt feelings. Worry.
But, excuse me if I don't.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
guilt?
January 26, 2008 - 10:37 ET by lotrDon't know who you are referring to by "you guys," and my postings have nothing to do with "guilt" -- not sure what it was that I wrote that caused you infer that.
That's an interesting hypothesis, one that I've never heard of, that fossil fuels aren't organic in origin. Believe you me, I would love nothing more than to find out some scientist has discovered that there is an inexhaustible source of oil available to us -- let the prices fall and the economy soar! Only a strong committment to science and R&D in this country (ethical/moral, that is), however, could confirm or discredit the "unlimited oil" hypothesis. Unfortunately, we don't hear anything about this from any of the major candidates, even the conservatives, whom typically are more pro-R&D.
It's called the Abiotic
January 26, 2008 - 15:49 ET by danboIt's called the Abiotic theory of oil production.
Evidence:
Oil has been found at 30,000 feet. Deeper than the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
Wells that are pumped dry are later replenished. So apparently oil seeps up from a deeper level.
Methane has peen produced in the lab by subjecting materials found deep in the earth to the pressures and temps found there.
We've been told for over half a century we were running out of oil. And still have it.
That's more evidence than AGW has.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo, thanks for bringing
January 27, 2008 - 22:23 ET by lotrdanbo, thanks for bringing this to my attention -- I will check it out in my spare time.
You have James
January 25, 2008 - 15:30 ET by danboYou have James Hansen declairing 2007 was the 2nd warmest year.
James Hansen. The king of adjusted data. The same man who told us 2005 was the warmest year. The creator of the Y2K error.
No one else bought into 2005, I doubt many will buy into 2007. Even NOAA and CRU with their adjusted data disagree with him.
Does this mean, that Hansen is admitting he was full of it in 2006. When he called 2005 the warmest year?
Here
No warming since 1998. "There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Was he censored?
January 25, 2008 - 15:56 ET by danboBeing Hansen complains about being censored? Did he get approval to announce this? Or, are his complaints of being censored as real as his claims about climate.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The jackass who blackmailed ...
January 25, 2008 - 17:30 ET by gideonmjames... and extorted NASA and NOAA for weather data that he could manipulate into evidence for global warming?!!
He's the only global warming prophet more biased and more deceived than Al Gore.
"ScienceDaily (Jan. 17,
January 25, 2008 - 19:26 ET by ckc1227"ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that
2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since
1990."
And yet, somehow, the earth wasn't destroyed in the process. How can that be??
Meanwhile, Arctic Sea Ice Expanding at Record Pace. Once Algore gets hold of this information, he'll be telling everyone that Florida and NY will be under 20 feet of ice instead of water. Nothing a little socialism and a tax increase won't solve though.
Exactly -- the earth wasn't
January 25, 2008 - 22:35 ET by lotrExactly -- the earth wasn't destroyed in the process, nor will it be (nor will life as we know it cease to exist).
Algore is an opportunist and no scientist. It is a sham that he gets a Nobel prize, whereas someone like John Paul II does not.
Warmest year on record - 1934
January 26, 2008 - 11:12 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsActually, 1934 was the warmest year on record.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
The eight warmest years
January 26, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Jack BauerThat's simply untrue. This is the Clinton method of discourse. Just make something up. I'd like to see GISS's records for July 1066 AD. Or maybe August 1451 BC.
Oh that's right. They don't have any. What a load of manure.
Unfortunately, directly
January 27, 2008 - 22:19 ET by lotrUnfortunately, directly measured surface temperature records don't extend back that far. Of course, there are plenty of ways of inferring relative temperatures from geological evidence, but not on a monthly scale.
For those with aversion to Hansen, here's another interesting article:
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/press-releases/20050707.htm
The AGW Web.
January 26, 2008 - 03:15 ET by acadia1755National Academy of science (NAS) reviewer WMConnelly
Wikipedia Global warming editor WMConnelly
RealClimate.org M Mann G Schmidt and contributor WMConnelly
IPCC reviewer: G Schmidt...MBH98(Hockey stick) M Mann.
NASA J Hansen's.. employee G Schmidt.
NASA Web site Contributors Gavin Schmidt and M Mann.
NASA Web site scientific reference. RealClimate.org run by M Mann and Gavin Schmidt.
GISS Modeler Gavin Schmidt.
here's a good start.
NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures
By Steve McIntyre
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536
The 1450's? Try 2008, Mr. Cockburn
January 25, 2008 - 14:15 ET by zeestephenAlexander Cockburn says the "hysterical outrage" and "self-righteous fury" directed against his challenge of global warming dogma has helped him "understand" what it must have been like to be a "blasphemer" in the 1450's.
Mr. Cockburn, in 2008 we call that feeling "what it's like to be a Conservative."
Hear hear!! Conservatives
January 25, 2008 - 16:54 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHear hear!!
Conservatives are constantly being blasted for all the stereotypical reasons the left always blasts us for. What’s worse is that they do not see their actions as being oppressive or intolerant, but rather make those specious claims about us with no evidence to back them up. The common leftist tactic is to accuse the other side of similar transgressions, so that those engaging in the questionable conduct themselves can deflect attention from their actions. It also helps to get the accusation out there first so they can muddy the waters so that the general populace can’t tell one from the other, and while the Conservatives try and appeal to the voting public’s logic, the Liberals go straight for the emotional ploy… Conservatives want to starve old people, or they want to tell you what to do with your womb etc…. and conveniently leave out why these issues are being debated in the first place. It's not about issues, it's about convincing people from an emotional point of view rather than the logical one.
Conservatives think first and let feelings come in later, Liberals feel first and think little later since emotions are always easier to justify than logical actions. Liberalism is easy, and hence, most Liberals are just intellectually lazy.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Maybe Mr. Cockburn will have an epiphany...
January 25, 2008 - 19:17 ET by ur-conabout the differences between conservative and liberal discourse? nah...
>>I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical
reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the
consensus.
Consider us the choir.
>>This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been
like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the
summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring.
You might consider what it's like to be a conservative and that the present day is a dark period as a result of the progressive movement.
Welcome to the club Mr. Cockburn