Ed Rogers writes in the Washington Post:
In a recent Financial Times piece, when trying to explain the inconvenient truth that the earth doesn’t appear to have gotten any warmer in more than a decade, the co-chair of the IPCC AR5 report Thomas Stocker stated that, “Fifteen years of slower warming is simply too short a timeframe on which to base a judgment.” So if he says that 15 years is not long enough to determine a trend and make any kind of judgment, why do Democrats insist on “proving” that man-made global warming is upon us because of a single storm, Sandy, that ravaged the northeast? They take one single storm and any cluster of tornadoes and use them as an “a-ha” moment when it suits them, but then bluster and belittle anyone who dares to suggest that data from the past 15 years showing that no warming has occurred might actually be significant.
This reveals President Obama’s and the Democrats’ strategy on climate change for what it is, even if they can’t admit it to themselves. They just want to undermine the free-market economy and enforce an anti-growth lifestyle that they find more suitable for the rest of us. But through perks in government and post-government high incomes, they effectively exempt themselves.
Yes, destroy the good because it is good. I began wondering recently whether they had done anything good by accident, but nobody was able to name any such accident.
I guess it will be kind of childish to call them “bad people”, but anti-good they are for sure.
I would go a step further. They resent the responsibility for being human and thus strive to destroy anyone who does not as well as any institution that supports the taking of that responsibility. This even though it means their own demise as well as everyone else. To put it more directly: they wish to destroy the good BECAUSE it is good. They do not mean well and never did.
Remember! When you see something that is absurd, don’t question the absurdity. Look for what it accomplishes and, when you find it, you will have found the purpose behind the absurdity.
Howdy RL Bell
I’m trying to figure out what part you consider “crap.”
If you mean that it is false that Democrats, with their figurehead Obama, want to constrain our lifestyles and limit growth, the author is basing that conclusion on both the statements and the actions of the “progressives”, which have been to constrain lifestyles and limit growth.
Tobacco is neither as benign as it was portrayed in the 1940s nor as malignant as it has been portrayed since the 1970s. I’d be glad to see everyone choose to quit using tobacco and nicotine products but that’s what I want — for people to choose, not for you or me to choose for them.
As for the fossil fuels industry, it has provided more wealth for more people in the last century than was ever known before. Thanks to low-cost energy, even poor people in industrial nations have a higher standard of living than did middle-class people of 1880.
Some people in government and academia work very hard for satisfaction, achievement and a middling standard of living. Some people in academia and government do get rich — Hansen and Mann are both wealthy and those egalitarians, Friedman and Krugman, have estates larger than many middle-class schools.
good to see some truth
There is no place for them in the free-market economy, or in free anything, that’s why they are hostile to it. Freedom means they are either down and out, or need to work.