0

ROBINSON: Hot enough for you?

Eugene Robinson

Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON -- All right, nowcan we talk about climate change? After a year when the lower 48 states suffered the warmest temperatures, and the second-craziest weather, since record-keeping began?

Apparently not. The climate change denialists -- especially those who manipulate the data in transparently bogus ways to claim that warming has halted or even reversed course -- have been silent, as one might expect. Sensible people accept the fact of warming, but many doubt that our dysfunctional political system can respond in any meaningful way.

The thing is, though, that climate change has already put itself on the agenda -- not the cause, but the effects. We're dealing with human-induced warming of the atmosphere. It's just that we're doing so in a manner that is reactive, expensive and ultimately ineffectual.

Congress is being asked to approve $60 billion in emergency aid for the states that were ravaged by Hurricane Sandy. Strictly speaking, it is not possible to say this freakish storm was caused by climate change. But Sandy was the second hurricane to strike the northeastern United States in two years -- which, to say the least, exceeds the normal frequency of such events.

And Sandy was part of a pattern. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 was "the second most extreme year on record," with 11 weather-related disasters including Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac as well as swarms of killer tornados across the Great Plains and the Ohio Valley.

The year was also exceptionally dry; by July, about 61 percent of the country was experiencing conditions that qualify as "drought." On a cheery note, the situation was not as bad as the Dust Bowl droughts of the 1930s. Less happily, the lack of rainfall in 2012 exacerbated wildfire activity. "The Waldo Canyon fire near Colorado Springs, Colo., destroyed nearly 350 homes and was the most destructive fire on record for the state," NOAA reported.

Hurricanes striking where they don't usually strike, fires burning where they don't usually burn, drought everywhere -- these anomalies begin to add up. Scientists have long been telling us that one impact of climate change will be increased volatility, and unpredictability, in weather events. This appears to be what we're getting.

We're also getting heat. Lots of it.

The average temperature in the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3 degrees. That's 3.2 degrees above the average for the 20th century, according to NOAA, and an astonishing 1 degree higher than 1998, the previous warmest year.

A degree here and a degree there might not sound like much, but these are impressively scary numbers. To put it in context, breaking the record for hottest year by a full degree is like breaking the world's record for the long jump not by an inch or two, but by nearly two feet, as Bob Beamon did at the 1968 Olympics. To update the track-and-field metaphor, if all the years were sprinters, 2012 would be Usain Bolt.

In some parts of the world -- Alaska, for example -- it was a bit cooler than usual. But preliminary indications are that in terms of global temperatures, 2012 fits the overall pattern of a warming world. Of the 10 hottest years on record, all have come since 1998.

The consensus among climate scientists is that this is happening because the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearly 40 percent greater than at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when humankind began burning fossil fuels on a grand scale.

Most scientists also agree that their predictions were conservative about how fast temperatures would climb, glaciers would melt and sea levels would rise. This may all be happening more quickly and inexorably than anyone thought.

So we're going to deal with climate change whether we like it or not. We're going to spend many billions of dollars over the coming years providing disaster relief in the wake of hurricanes and other destructive weather events. If we're a bit smarter, we'll spend even more to protect our coastal cities from storm surges of the kind that devastated parts of New York. Investment in barriers and floodwalls will ultimately save both money and lives.

But if we were really smart, we'd be talking about how to mitigate the ultimate damage by weaning ourselves from coal, oil and other energy sources that produce carbon emissions.

We see what looks like disaster looming but don't even talk about it, because the politics of climate change are inconvenient. Future generations will curse our silence.

Eugene Robinson is an associate editor and columnist for The Washington Post. Email him at eugenerobinson@washpost.com. For archived columns, go to www.gwinnettdailypost.com/eugenerobinson.

Comments

Why_not 1 year, 3 months ago

Maybe the liberals are the only ones that have enough sense to see what's really happening to our planet. Guys like you amaze me with your ignorance.

2

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

Why_not: Let's be fair. Not all republicans are ignorant. Unfortunately, many represent themselves as ignorant to attract voters by being against anything that has been labeled as liberal. The right wing pundits feed this situation by labeling any idea of the Democrats as liberal. Too many politicians (including some Democrats) only care about getting reelected and padding the accumulation of wealth with no concern about the later generations. You will notice that JV's response is to regurgitate a copied picture which he has now posted several times. A picture that he somehow feels is an insult to liberals, thus resorting to the old republican tactic of insults when you have no facts. Personally, am not insulted by the picture. JV probably doesn't even know whose picture he posted. At least he could get some variety, this one is better: http://cheezburger.com/5180342784

0

NewsReader 1 year, 3 months ago

Here is a fact Jan. We know from experience it doesn't matter if we present fact to you, or any other liberal for that matter, because you simply do not know the difference between fact and opinion. So we don't bother any longer.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

Time and again, I see the liberal answer to climate change involving taking money from one nation and giving it to another. How, exactly, does the global temperature drop if we enforce this kind of global socialism?


Another thing that climate change "supporters" (for lack of a better term) often seem hesitant to admit is that the recording stations were often built on the outskirts of cities that then grew. The stations, however, never moved. Thus, the recording stations became subject to urban heat-domes, where the concrete and asphalt hold in the heat of the day and slowly release it during the night. Have you ever wondered why the temperature in Atlanta is usually 5 degrees warmer or so than the rural or even suburban areas? Heat-dome.

0

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

Science isn't a political party, FordGalaxy. I would hope that you, as a conservative, are offended if someone were to suggest that listening to scientists is 'liberal'.

That said, the urban heat island theory was for the most part debunked. You are correct that cities do show slightly higher temperatures than rural areas. However that trend has no impact on global temperatures.

And if that really is your explanation for this whole climate change debate, then I will ask you to point out which cities are causing the north and south poles to melt.

3

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

BurritoJones (and in some part to kmn's comment) - I don't trust scientists or politicians, frankly, because all too often scientists are dependent on politicians for grant money to continue their research. Seems a breeding ground for conflicts of interest. Not saying that scientific information is wrong, but the East Anglia emails showed some potentially damaging correspondances between scientists to employ tricks to make the data say what they want it to say. Imagine if a global warming researcher found that the planet wasn't warming. Do you really think he would just say "The planet's not warming" and risk losing his career? Or do you not see the potential for him to mislead the politicians and the lobbyists funding his research so that he could live another day?

I was merely pointing out one thing. Whether you believe this world to be 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old, the evidence is all over the place that we've gone through multiple cyclical changes of climate. We've been incredibly hot, and incredibly cold. The oceans during the last ice age were many hundreds of feet lower than they are now. In several places you're seeing land subsidence (Chesapeake Bay) or Post-glacial Rebound from glacial retreat (Finland, where the Gulf of Bothnia is on its wa to being an inland sea thanks to rising land.) The planet is in a constant state of change, and a large part of that change comes from that giant ball of broiling gas aabout 93 million miles away. I don't put as much emphasis on the human aspect, mainly for the reasons I laid out earlier (the idea that simply moving financial resources from ne country to another will somehow lessen climate change). Are human contributing to climate change? Likely, yes, just as any creature in a sytem contributes to change within that system. I'm not going to run off screaming that the sky is falling because Al Gore displays a hockey stick graph. I love the fact that these politicians running around touting anthropogenic global warming are doing so in multi-Hummer motorcades and private jets, but you and I have to limit where we drive and they'd prefer we all drive smart cars that are just death-traps on wheels.

1

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

I definitely see what you're saying. And I think it's foolish to assume no scientist shows bias. Luckily scientific findings are open to peer review, and the politician one scientist may be beholden to is not likely to intimidate another. Even if every single American scientist were completely enveloped in falsifying data for the sake of funding, their counterparts throughout the rest of the world aren't going to care. They just want the science done right.

The scientific community has reached a huge, overwhelming consensus: the Earth is warming up. It's not in question at this point. The question is why.

2

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

No, I agree with you. The question is why? Unfortunately, as Elephanthead points out later in this thread, there are people out there who makes statements like "The debate is over" or "The Science is settled." As noted, I've always been of the impression that the debates were rarely, if ever, actually over. I mean, there was once a time where people thought the Earth was flat. Then there was a time where it was a given that everything revolved around the Earth. Then we though everything revolved around the Earth while the Earth revolved around the Sun. Our understanding of the Universe changes everyday, thanks to scientific innovation. For someone to say that the "science is settled" seems a slap in the face to scientists everywhere.

0

elephanthead 1 year, 3 months ago

Thanks for the citation. The panic mongers are really their own worst enemy, because people can smell a fraud a mile away (Mr Gore). Any time someone spins me a doomsday story that requires immediate action based on incomplete or dubious data, I have a duty to be skeptical. Especially when it seems that the whole project is a Trojan Horse for the empowerment of the transnational elites - the Ted Turner/George Soros/UN Permanent Bureaucracy types.

0

kmn 1 year, 3 months ago

Who do you trust the most a scientist or a politician.

2

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

neither. they are both dependent on each other.

0

BuzzG 1 year, 3 months ago

The history of the planet earth is full of climate change. It is the norm.

1

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

Now this is worth a discussion. The science community certainly can't come to a consensus on just how much of the trend is man-made and how much is natural. That's worth the debate.

Responding to concerned reports about rising temperatures with accusations of liberal bias or dishonesty is what annoys me.

1

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

Dinosaurs didn't run factories. So what caused their climate to change? People are just a tiny spec on this planet and have very little, if any effect on such a large factor as the climate. Change is normal.

0

elephanthead 1 year, 3 months ago

Climate change is real. The climate is ALWAYS changing. The operative theory is that human activity is pushing the temperature higher. The fact is that the earth and its climate is a vastly more complex system than anything we can imagine, and there's damn little we can do to have any meaningful effect on it. This campaign to 'do something' about climate change (not global warming anymore), is another example of not letting a perceived crisis go to waste. People are using this issue for their own ends. Politicians will derive increased power - researchers will get more grant money (job security), rent seekers like GE and Solyndra will feast off the taxpayers, etc. The best clue to what is going on came early in the campaign when you hear the cult leader Al Gore howling that "the science is settled" "the time for debate is over!". In science, debate is NEVER over and NEVER settled. A proposition is either disproved or reinforced by observation and experiment. Every generation produces nuts who try to get attention by predicting doomsday scenarios. Paul Ehrlich with the population/food crisis that never happened, Mayan calendars... I could add many more but I need to get to work.

1

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

How come Al Gore doesn't drive an electric car or transformed his home into solar? A lot of you know why!

0

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

In the past several days, I have noticed the disappearance of several posts. At first, I thought it was some kind of warped idea of censorship by the staff since posts much more offensive remained. With the disappearance of the first poster on this topic, I am considering some computer glitch. Here's hoping they get it fixed. Even when I disagree with someones position, they have a right to be a part of an open civil discussion and removing a section of the thread removes some of the sense from later responses. If the GDP is censoring the comments, then they should at least post an explanation so readers can understand that the thread was intentionally interrupted. I am still curious why they blocked all commenting on this: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2013/jan/07/founder-of-shopping-network-charged-in-2-dui/. Did Frank Circelli have too much influence?

1

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

I know what you mean. A_Gwinnett_Atheist, Kevin, and I seemed to be having a spirited, though not necessarily mean-spirited debate on an opinion piece, and then most of A_Gwinnett_Atheist's post disappeared. Really ruins the discussion for others who might try to read it.

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

Lets test that theory. if everybody will click this response of mine, see if it disappears quickly. If it does, seems to put too much power in the hands of a few.

0

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

I have flagged your horrible little post for removal. :)

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

I helped in flagging it for removal. This is fun.

0

Say_that_again 1 year, 3 months ago

Me too, that makes at least three and it still remains.

0

charlesg 1 year, 3 months ago

Flagged for removal @12:21pm on 1/11/13

0

Mack711 1 year, 3 months ago

Any time i see Jan just ignore and go on. She makes no sense to most of us and it is shown here.

0

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

Looks like I may have been wrong about the auto-delete for removal flags. I think I may have a criticism or two for our friends moderating the comments.

0

notblind 1 year, 3 months ago

This continent was originally peopled by humans traversing the Bering Strait during an ice age app 15,000 years ago. Then the oceans started to rise cutting off this access. Then there was another mini-ice age and more people migrated over the land bridge. Then the earth started warming again and their 'coastal' villages were inundated. The oceans have been rising ever since.

It takes many centuries to plot a pattern. Get back to me in 4013 or 6013.

Screwing our own industry while Asia is pumping massive amounts of pollutants in the atmosphere just hastens our slide. Most of the really harmful pollutants in the air over the Pacific northwest are traceable to China.

1

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

I don't disagree that China is as big or worse of an offender. But the "What if we make the world a better place for nothing?" argument isn't going to get you far. We don't HAVE to ruin our own environment for the sake of cheap industry.

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

I wonder if we can at least agree on three points:

  1. Some pollutants are contributing to climate change.

  2. Climate change is causing the melting of ice near the poles.

  3. Pollutants are contributing to unhealthy conditions such as smog.

If all agree with these three statements, then it is only reasonable to make efforts to reduce pollutants. We have politicians telling us we need to subsidize the oil industry but wind and solar power should compete without any assistance. Since solar and wind produce virtually free energy after the initial investment and almost zero pollutants, we should be be encouraging its development. I have investigated solar homes. Currently, the extra investment necessary to build a home requiring no outside power can be recouped in 20 years. As this becomes more common, the price will fall and the technology will be improved. Right now, China is the leader in solar power. With our resources, shouldn't we be the leader?

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 3 months ago

With conservatives such as myself (more Libertarian than anything) you'll not find disagreement that we should be working to reduce pollutants. The problem comes from the means of enforcing these reductions, which is typically found at the federal level, and the bureaucracy and ineptitude at the federal level is often astounding. There is a balance to be found in reducing pollutants but not hampering the economy or industry.

One of the biggest things I've heard and found in research on wind power is the fact that you get some of the best wind collection along shorelines. Yet, the shorelines are often packed with wealthy people who can afford to fend off a wind farm because it would ruin the ambience of their property. In all fairness to their point, the wind turbines used for wind power collection are not the prettiest things in the world.

One tihng this country will have to fight is the overabundance of polluting technology. We're an economic nation based on oil and coal. You can't change those overnight and not suffer. Nor can you, as President Obama said, foster energy policies that would bankrupt the coal industry. Something has to be done, in a sensible way, at the federal level to foster growth in research and development of cleaner and renewable energies. It just doesn't seem like the will is there in our country just yet.

0

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

and what about bomb testing and "fallout.?" What about the movement of the earth's axis closer to the sun?

0

charlesg 1 year, 3 months ago

@FordGalaxy (trying to respond to the specific post)

The problem comes from the means of enforcing these reductions, which is typically found at the federal level, and the bureaucracy and ineptitude at the federal level is often astounding

Not to mention similar idiocy at the Georgia-level, too. To avoid having these powers stepping in, what do You do to help set up boycotts, adjust industry standards, change your (and friends', family's, charities/community organizations') behavior? There are a bundle of non-governmental movements which could use your help to change peoples' minds and habits.

One of the biggest things I've heard and found in research on wind power is the fact that you get some of the best wind collection along shorelines. Yet, the shorelines are often packed with wealthy people who can afford to fend off a wind farm because it would ruin the ambience of their property. In all fairness to their point, the wind turbines used for wind power collection are not the prettiest things in the world.

Wind power is also extremely efficient throughout the central regions of the US, particularly through Texas.

I'd argue that the aesthetic problem won't last. In the inevitability that wind turbines' designs change, so too will their 'beauty'. People complained 'NIMBY' about cellphone towers upon first construction, too.

1

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

You global warming nuts cases need to look at some of the educational channels, not those by NPR. The earth always goes through changes from warm to freezing, all on its own. I guess the dinosaurs caused the ice age. Ha!

Haven't you all yet learned that the Earth's axis passes closer to the sun now then ever before? Guess you forgot to mention that. This is a poor use of our words to discuss global warming of the type being caused by humans. It's a natural thing.

I guess next you Liberals will be pushing to make "human" made global warming the cause of all the shootings gone wild!

Thus reported still keeps his head in the sand and blames humans for what is going on. How come our record temps for certain days goes all the way back to the 1900's? How come we aren't setting warm records every day? We won't eve accept your reasons for the Earth getting warmer some days and colder other days. It surely isn't humans causing this to happen.

0

BurritoJones 1 year, 3 months ago

Stop it, kevin. You're making yourself look silly.

2

charlesg 1 year, 3 months ago

But that's what he does best.

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

This no more proves anything than the places that have experienced record highs or hurricanes and tornadoes hitting some areas with more ferocity. You must compile all the evidence. That is what scientist do. Because the data computer simulation programs do predict greater swings in temperature in some regions, it was decided that a better name would be climate change. You cannot prove anything with anecdotal evidence.

1

JV 1 year, 3 months ago

This is more fun than gun control. Thanks for pointing out the GDP deletions earlier.

0

toby 1 year, 3 months ago

People that believe in Al Gore's "the earth is on fire" scam are the same ones that believe the earth is billions if not trillions of years old. So let's start there. Scientists have been measuring temperature for what, 250 years maybe? And what kind of thermometers did they have then? So the readings are not consistent over just 250 years. And if we are looking at 250 years of data over a billion years of life, that is not much of a sample size. A statistician would laugh at this. Always ask yourself, who makes money off of stuff like this? Our tax dollars, that we don't have, will go to someone who a politician owes. Is all about the money and Al Gore is smarter than he looks and sounds with the carbon credit scam.

0

NewsReader 1 year, 3 months ago

Here is what I believe. I believe most of you here don't have a clue and couldn't buy one where global warming, and now commonly referred to as climate change, is concerned. You don't even know what it means to go through a methodical logical thought process commonly known as the "scientific method", yet feel compelled to argue the merits of what amounts to a scientific guess. I also believe that many of the moonbats, like Eugene Robinson, continue to perpetuate this nonsense from the liberal wasteland that is main stream media. I believe that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles as a normal random process as the planet ages. I believe we have a duty and responsibility to be good stewards of our planet and to take care of our planet and not trash it unnecessarily which is why I have many reservations about man's ability to work with nuclear materials. Many of you who preach this crap, where were you say 20 years ago before this was something of a bandwagon to jump on and support? What will your cause du jour be tomorrow? You only care about it because it makes you feel better about yourself and gives you another platform to engage in a redistribution of wealth scheme. I built my house to be super energy efficient using Geothermal and Icyene before you even heard of any of these technologies. I didn't do it for the climate. I did it to make my home more economical to live in. Gore was so busted with his "majestic glacier" crap that was video footage stolen from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and the emails exchanged between climate scientists perpetuating a fraud to the world. At this point, even if it is true that man is responsible for global warming, good luck getting the bulk of the population on board.

0

notblind 1 year, 3 months ago

People without a life gotta do something !!! They adopt various Busy Body Inc [ non profit of course ] crusades to save the world !!!!

0

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

Gore owns a software company that stands to make millions on the global warming scare tactics. Glad to see that many of you agree with me.

0

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

please provide the public with the source of your stats and what weather locations were used in the figures? Stats can be selected to serve anyone's purposes. Has anyone checked out the weather reports for today? Calif with record LOWS. How stupid do you all think we are? At any given point in time, the earth does what it wants to, without humans. How naive you all are? I bet there hasn't been much evidence of it in Alaska lately! Blind bats!

0

Why_not 1 year, 3 months ago

I honestly think "climate change" is a more appropriate term for what is happening. Some parts of the world will see colder weather than normal, like what is happening in parts of the middle east now, and other will see extremely hot changes, like in Australia. One can't deny what we are seeing as the new normal is very unsettling.....except maybe Kevin.

1

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

First, 125 scientists is less than one per nation of the 192 UN member nations. Far from a consensus. Next, this letter says "no statistically significant global warming". In statistics, one calculates the standard deviation to determine what, mathematically, is significant. Read the findings of leading scientists and you will see that global temperature changes of much less than the standard deviation seriously effect global climate. Even these 125 scientists did not say climate change is not occurring or that man made pollutants were not adding to the problem. The only significant claim they made was that climate change was not the primary cause a devastating hurricane. Looking at other articles on the site and it becomes obvious that the site has an anti climate change agenda. They reprint poorly sourced articles, some of which have blatant lies. Read some and then research the facts.

1

Don_Coyote 1 year, 3 months ago

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this [stuff]. I’m tired of [bleeping] Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a [hoot] about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your [stuff], folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… [stupid].” -- George Carlin

0

R 1 year, 3 months ago

See for yourself

We were "here" to make Styrofoam for mother earth...

Besides Al "Climate Change Gore" sold is interest in Current TV to Oil Inc. Now if REAL convictions were in play, this would NOT have occurred like the man doesn't have enough already ...

0

NewsReader 1 year, 3 months ago

Here is some facts for all of you moonbats to absorb...

Eugene Robinson is nothing more than a journalist that works for "The Washington Post" - a liberal sheet worthy of competition of such notable publications like "The National Inquirer" He consistently publishes his rambling rhetoric on global warming because that is his cause. Don't believe it?

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news... http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news... http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news...

There is another such individual that does the same. His name is Seth Borenstein. Here's some of his rambling...

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news... http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news... http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news...

Oh, and let's not forget the nameless faceless "STAFF" reporter, whoever that may be at the GDP that thought so highly of his rhetoric that published this article...

Global warming worsening as greenhouse gas grows by Staff

These people need to find another liberal cause. This one is broken!

0

Jan 1 year, 3 months ago

As usual, those that prefer blindly following right wing pundits and oil company pr than do actual research can only respond with feeble attempts at insults. You should do some real research and stop limiting yourself to right wing propaganda.

1

R 1 year, 3 months ago

Oh you mean like 1/12/13 being the HOTTEST temp on record for this date breaking one set 1890 ...

0

NewsReader 1 year, 3 months ago

As usual, you show up to demonstrate your profound ignorance and stupidity for all of us to read. Carry on Moonbat! BTW Moonbat (I'm impressed you even had the wherewithal to realize that the term "Moonbat" is a reference you've come to know as "you". Do you also turn around and say "...somebody call my name?" when somebody yells out in a crowd "Hey Stupid!") those links were all left wing propaganda. Perhaps you could find a student that wasn't taught by the likes of people like you in a gov'ment school to 'splain it to ya.

0

jack 1 year, 3 months ago

But I thought there was no left wing propaganda.....just right wing propaganda and "facts".

0

kevin 1 year, 3 months ago

Funny how the Liberals keep changing their definitions. When global warming fails, they switched to climate change. There is a huge difference between the two definitions. That's how they twist the U.S. Constitution to suit their culture also.

0

Sign in to comment