(Advertisement)

COMMENTARY: Liberal Mindset Provides Cover

Posted: February 12, 2013 at 5 a.m.

It ain’t easy being liberal these days. You put your faith in the agenda of Al Gore and Barack Obama and what do you get? Nothing but embarrassment.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/12/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: Leaders Eye Springdale’s Downt...

Every town eventually witnesses a once heralded part of its fabric become stained with closed storefronts, dilapidated buildings and a loss of the identity that once drew p... Read »

Next Story »

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Politicians Are Costly, But...

So what do gas, medicine and politicians have in common? All three are costly and necessary. Wait, you say. Are politicians really necessary? Read »

What happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.

Posted by: Coralie

February 12, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So the best argument against climate change that the Koch brothers can come up with is that there are still a lot of polar bears?
Well, polar bears weren't a major part of An Inconvenient Truth, or of the scientific consensus about climate change, but the bears became a popular symbol.
And Mr. Frederick neglects to make a distinction between the short term and the long term.
It wasn't that all the polar bears were in immediate danger of drowning, but that as the planet continued to warm and the ice to melt, they would be in more and more trouble.
Some people are able to look ahead.

Posted by: Coralie

February 12, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In fact, I don't think scientists were ever looking at polar bears as the main "indicator" of climate change.
Scientists in the field are busy studying various animal and plant species as indicators.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/science/feature...
http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_...

Posted by: Coralie

February 12, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As for the use of drones under Obama's administration, it may be a war crime. That doesn't wipe out the considerably greater war crimes of his predecessors Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. who began a war under false pretences that killed far more people both Americans and Iraqis.
I don't have enough time and space here to list all the war crimes that have been committed under the American flag. (And of course, under many other flags.)
It is not the liberal mind at work, it is the military mind at work; it is the geopolitical mind at work.

Posted by: Coralie

February 12, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's been awhile since I've seen so much stupidity and utter falsehoods packed into one article. Mr. Sherman had to really work at it to get this misinformed. Somebody ought to give it a good spanking with the Truth Stick of no Mercy, with the pants down this time just because he's so gleefully ignorant (not that your points weren't good Coralie). Maybe tonight, if Alphacat doesn't smack it first.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 12, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ohh, I'm shivering with anticipation waiting for this spanking. If you keep the pants up Freeby you could put it on youtube. Coralie, you need to up your batting average because Freeby and Kitty are having to clean-up after you.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 12, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Educate me on how the military mind works, Coralie. Some folks don't like it when their heroes get beat on in the media. Different rules for different folks..... again.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 12, 2013 at 6:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let's give Sherman a shake on his climate science claims and see what falls out:

Sher: "It ain’t easy being liberal these days.">>

Oh really? You should try being a conservative. Some of them them are so out of ammo they are reduced to reaching for the bottom of their pail and throwing out dated warmed over junk at Al Gore and his 7 year old documentary. It's a pitiful situation.

SH: "You put your faith in the agenda of Al Gore and Barack Obama and what do you get?">>

Well, you get your republicans losing the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and if your guys hadn't gerrymandered the hell out of their districts they would have lost the House too.

"The Democrats won 50.6% of the votes for president, to 47.8% for the Republicans; 53.6% of the votes for the Senate, to 42.9% for the Republicans; and…49% of the votes for the House, to 48.2% for the Republicans."

See: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

SH: "Let’s start with Al Gore and his polar bears.">>

Really. That's what you are reduced to? Lying about some 7 year old documentary you didn't understand? Okay, let's do this again.

SH: "Those brave polar bears, dying horrible deaths... Only one problem. It wasn’t true. There are more polar bears today than there were 40 years ago,">>

This is climate science denier canard number #36. I've been knocking it down for years.

http://skepticalscience.com/polar-bea...

Excerpt:
"...a few points need to be made about polar bear numbers:

--Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.

--Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting,... [banned in] 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.

--Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers.

With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions." --ibid

So what does Sherman have? Oh, an interview with a fireman who went on a vacation and wrote a book about it. Good grief.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 12, 2013 at 8:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

SH: "Zac Unger, who has written a new book called “Never Look a Polar Bear in The Eye”,">>

And Zac's area of expertise? Guess what it isn't: polar bears. So all of the Fox Bots are currently giggling and passing around this bit of clap trap from this guy.

Excerpt from a review of Zac's book:

***
"This has to be one of the least informed pieces of writing on polar bears to come along in decades or perhaps ever. This is basically a book that describes a family vacation to see polar bears over a few months in the "Polar Bear Capital of the World" (Churchill, Manitoba in Canada). Seeing polar bears in Churchill is a rather narrow lens to view a species that lives across the whole Arctic. Clearly, Unger didn't do much research or his training was inadequate to understand what he was reading. As a travel diary of a family holiday, the story has some merit but the lack of insight makes it seem more like an excuse to write off the holiday for tax purposes. The subtitle says it all: the search for mini-marshmallows. If he was looking for "truth" then it's easy to see he made up his own version of it.... It seems that he was jilted by some polar bear researchers that wouldn't take him out on their research..."

"It is so painfully clear that Unger wasn't able to get any serious insights into polar bears in a few months so he had to invent a story and interview a variety of oddballs. If you're looking for pseudo-science to support a serious climate change denying thought pattern, this book's for you." -- http://tinyurl.com/b8kstde

And of course, that's exactly what Sherman was looking for.

SH: "Funny how that hunting fact never made it into Al Gore’s movie.">>

Notice how Sherman doesn't cite what Gore supposedly said about polar bears in the movie, he just smears and runs. In conservative circles, on matters of Al Gore, that's enough. For another example of wingnuts like Sherman cluelessly passing along ignorance about Al Gore and Polar Bears, see:

http://skepticalscience.com/Muller-Mi...

SH: "...here liberals now sit, mourning the comeback of polar bear.">>

Sherman should investigate his canards before he passes them along. Again:

"...of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions."

Tip: don't get your animal science from a person who's expertise is fighting fires.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 12, 2013 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'll keep this one short.

Sherman: "Awlaki was an American born Muslim cleric who became an outspoken figure in Yemen for AL-Qaeda terrorist activities against Americans.
On Sept. 30, 2011, President Obama,... ordered Awlaki “droned” - that is, killed by adrone aircraft.">>

Good.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 12, 2013 at 8:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sherman's area of expertise: firefighting

Gore's area of expertise: Making a fuss about fossil fuels then making $100M off fossil fuels

FFT's area of expertise: Pitching a fit because his tied-dyed portion of the opinion spectrum gets embarrased in the paper

We do agree about Awlaki being neutralized though.

http://www.politifake.org/live-the-gr...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 12, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Gore... Making a fuss about fossil fuels">>

Actually, he made a fuss about climate change, and in doing this he has the science on his side. And he was so successful at doing this, that, besides making the wingnuts furious with him for all time, he shared a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

This is in contrast to Sherman and the know nothing climate science deniers who do not have the science on their side and, as I show above, don't even know how to get their facts straight.

However, the wingnuts do know how to smear the messenger while at the same time remaining entirely oblivious to the fact that Gore could be a horrible person and the biggest hypocrite on the planet (he isn't, he gave all of the money from the book and movie away), and this would have exactly *zero* relevance to the question of whether the claims of climate change are true, or not true.

And that's the question blowhards like Sherman dare not address, because then their bottoms will really get warmed up, and their ignorance revealed.

Incidentally, when Sherman smears the messenger and wastes time irrelevantly attacking the source (Gore), do you happen to remember which logical fallacy he is committing? It's your old favorite.

TNK: "FFT's... Pitching a fit because his... opinion spectrum gets embarrased...">>

If you think my pointing out the gaping holes in Sherman's foolish assertions caused me embarrassment, then I don't think you've figured out how this works.

D.
------------
"Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative"

"Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming" --Scientific American, December 2012.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 12, 2013 at 11:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm sure Michael Moore is proud of you and your friends, FFT. What does one need to do to win a Nobel Prize these days? Don't bother answering. It was rhetorical. Somebody doesn't like it when a pot and/or kettle is identified, and that is the inconvenient truth.

"Global Warming is as real as Al Gore creating the Internet."

- S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, 1/2/12

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute).

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/01/04...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 13, 2013 at 1:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The above quote

"Global Warming is as real as Al Gore creating the Internet."

was errantly attributed to S. Fred Singer. Stephan Frank should have gotten credit. Same link though.

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/01/04...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 13, 2013 at 2:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Stephan Frank should have gotten credit. <

About 'Stephan' Frank:

"This is exclusive created, each day by Stephen Frank, a long time political activist and now consultant. He started in 1960 working for Richard Nixon for President, moved on to Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan for Governor in 1966.

He then spent two years in the Army, including a tour of duty in Viet Nam, with the First Infantry Division (Big Red One). After coming home Steve became state Chairman Youth for Nixon, replacing Dan Lungren who was on his way to law school.

Then he, along with Bob Dornan created the POW/MIA bracelet. He spent seven years, full time working on behalf of the families of these men, including opening over 100 offices nationwide, met with representatives of the North Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge, Viet Cong and others to gain release of the POW’s.

For the past 50 years he has worked on behalf of conservative, constitutional candidates, from water districts to president. He founded the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, past president of the California Republican Assembly, past board member of the California Republican Party, and many other political positions.

He also served for several years as Chairman of the Girl Scout Councils of California, Board president of Travelers Aid Society of Los Angeles and numerous other charitable , and community organizations.

Now, is he the publisher and editor of the California Political News and Views, speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week.

http://capoliticalnews.com/about-us/

Head of Girl Scouts of Calif. Helluva source!

Posted by: cdawg

February 13, 2013 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

The link was to an article about Singer and his theory about "global warming". He is more than qualified to have a theory on the subject.

Which of the things you listed do you have problem with? Not the Girl Scouts!

Not anti-American, atheist, or otherwise complete liberal enough horsespit for you?

Are you mad about folks getting called out on double standards like your friends or are you just tired of caterwauling and prevaricating about the Springdale Chamber of Commerce right now?

http://jcrue.files.wordpress.com/2010...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 13, 2013 at 3:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why single out the Girl Scouts, cdawg? I would have thought being in the Army would have been enough disqualification for the liberal mind, but you latched onto the Girl Scouts.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 13, 2013 at 7:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "I'm sure Michael Moore is proud of...">>

Please excuse Tank, he has genetic fallacy tourettes. If he doesn't throw a mindless and irrelevant insult at Moore or Madow every couple posts, he may have a seizure.

TNK: "Somebody doesn't like it when a pot and/or kettle is identified,">>

Feel free to talk about the color of my kettle any time. Careful readers will notice you don't directly address any of the points made.

TNK: "Global Warming is as real as Al Gore creating the Internet." - S. Fred Singer,">>

Singer is a political prostitute who gets paid by industry to peddle junk science. Read about his history here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/...

Or even his wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

When the tobacco industry tired of paying him to lie about their product not causing cancer, he moved on to getting paid to lie about climate change. What peer reviewed science has he published on the issue? Press releases don't count.

D.
---------
"BBC contrarian top 10"

"The journalist, Richard Black, put together a top 10 list of sceptic arguments...
this list comes with the imprimatur of Fred Singer – the godfather to the sceptic movement, and recent convert from the view that it’s been cooling since 1940 to the idea that global warming is now unstoppable. Thus these are the arguments (supposedly) that are the best that the contrarians have to put forward.

Alongside each of these talking points, is a counter-point from the mainstream.... In truth though, I was a little disappointed at how lame their ‘top 10′ arguments were. In order, they are: false, a cherry pick, a red herring, false, false, false, a red herring, a red herring, false and a strawman. They even used the ‘grapes grew in medieval England’ meme that you’d think they’d have abandoned already given that more grapes are grown in England now than ever before (see here). Another commonplace untruth is the claim that water vapour is ’98% of the greenhouse effect’ – it’s just not.

So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly false? I think the most obvious reason is that they are simply not interested (as a whole) in providing a coherent counter story. If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries – the contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments demonstrates their divorce from the scientific process more clearly than any densely argued rebuttal."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 13, 2013 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And of course Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet.
He said he took the initiative in creating it. He did in fact work on passing several laws in Congress that made it possible for it to exist in its present form.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet...

Posted by: Coralie

February 13, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, what kind of sezure do you have, a goregasm. If Singer is a political prositure, what kind of prositute are you, Freeby?

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 13, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like I said many times before, Money, different rules for different folks. It's especially obvious how bad "equal treatment" burns certain leftwing moonbats. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Michael Moore fan in the house. Not in the least bit suprising since he fits so nicely into the same category as Gore in this case.

http://theuklibertarian.com/wp-conten...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 13, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "especially obvious how bad "equal treatment" burns... leftwing...">>

But you've shown no "equal treatment." I've Sherman the same basic treatment I would to any nut that can't get his facts straight and goes on about matters he doesn't understand. Sherman's climate science canard is palpable junk, as was easy to show.

So it's all smear no substance as usual. Tank ought to get some water for his squirt gun some time because this smear the messenger and run away method is the same as shooting blanks.

Ain't gonna hit your target that way.

D.
---------------
ps. If you think you've got any snappy and up to date science from that 88 year old prostitute Singer, bring it along and we'll see what it looks like after the Truth Stick of No Mercy smacks it around a bit.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 13, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good job, Tank, you really rattled the door to his cage. Singer really upsets him. Freeby, Tank didn't use a squirt gun on you, it was a fire hose. I'm sure glad that Freeby doesn't use personal attacks against anyone, if he did that would really be No Mercy.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 13, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your problem FFT is that you're "anti-belief."

Posted by: cdawg

February 13, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, I think maybe you put so much water on him he is out.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 14, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )