Just another liberal orthodoxy 1
By Christopher G. Adamo
February 8, 2007
An astounding range of absurd ideas have been incorporated into the "mainstream" of modern America, based not on any inherent merit, but rather on the benefits to liberalism that can be derived from them. So much of today's "conventional wisdom" represents neither convention nor wisdom, but instead results from a fundamentally leftist worldview, combined with a truly juvenile dosage of wishful thinking.
Consider, a few such pillars of the liberal faith, and more specifically how fragile they quickly become when placed under the hot lights of honest scrutiny.
As the American culture continues to crumble, we are incessantly reminded that "our diversity is our strength." Tell that to the people of the Balkans where, prior to U.S. intervention, centuries old feuds and tribalism had rendered the region little more than a wasteland of unending bloodshed between bickering "warlords."
Hardly any better is the current plight of those hapless Europeans, who pride themselves on that most virtuous of liberal precepts, their "tolerance" of other cultures. Yet on a daily basis they witness ever more of their heritage being eradicated by militant Muslims who are neither diverse nor tolerant. Barring a miraculous resurgence of fortitude and conviction of its former heritage, Europe's fate is sealed.
On this side of the ocean, American liberals claim a virtual monopoly of "tolerance." Yet the facts indicate otherwise. Under the preposterous auspices of "tolerance," liberals have over the past several decades sought to squash any stance, any opinion, or any logical question that threatens their agenda.
As it was with Cold War "compromise," whereby American negotiators were expected to abandon their positions in order to embrace those of the Soviet Union, the steadily emerging definition of "tolerance," from the liberal perspective, amounts to a demand that traditional America unquestioningly blesses their ideology, with no promise whatsoever of reciprocity.
Thus, in the name of "tolerance," liberals expunged any mention of God, the Bible, or America's Christian roots from the school system, and ultimately all other areas of public life. Concurrently, in the name of "diversity," they relentlessly work to replace those standards with the canons and icons of other, often pagan, cultures. And ultimately, in the place of traditional morality and faith, they seek to establish an orthodoxy of the secularist liberal state.
So it is no surprise that the latest catechism of their "true believers," is conversion, by force if necessary, to an acceptance of "global warming" and all of the necessary precepts of the liberal agenda needed to "fix" it. This mandatory conversion is being pursued with a fervor rarely witnessed outside of the most oppressive cults.
Humanity has been dealing with the extremes of climate since time immemorial. Admittedly during that entire period, eras of heightened temperatures, followed by cooler periods have been visited on the human race. Thus it is natural to react to such shifts with feelings of helplessness, and at times, foreboding.
To many, the dire implications of last summer's blistering high temperatures seemed irrefutable, at least until the record setting lows of this winter. So far, the inarguably "conclusive" proof offered by those who claim the planet is getting steadily warmer has borne little or no repeatable evidence of a scientifically established pattern.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
From: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2007/cga_02081.shtml
Just another liberal orthodoxy 2
 | ||||||||||||||
|
By Christopher G. Adamo
February 8, 2007
Page 2 of 2
We were likewise forewarned that the 2006 hurricane season would surely eclipse the devastation of Katrina, Rita, and the horrendous toll of 2005. Yet this proclamation of doom turned out to be a bust. Apparently the prophets of the left need a bit of honing on their skills. Nevertheless, to even question the legitimacy of their utterances is no less than "blasphemy," spawning instant calls for excommunication of the offending parties.
So, rather than dwelling for too long on such an unknown quantity as the weather, it is more relevant to consider the wholly anticipated patterns of liberalism. Among their ranks, far more than in the weekend forecast, can be found the underlying motives and workings of the current global warming hysteria.
In no other way can the sanctimonious rantings of Dr. Heidi Cullen of the now thoroughly politicized Weather Channel be explained. Cullen recently pushed for the professional disqualification of any meteorologist who refuses to profess the doctrine of man made global warming. And what, other than similarly mindless fanaticism can explain the behavior of the Grand Green Inquisitor himself, former vice-president Al Gore?
Elsewhere, the "hot earth society" seeks to denigrate skeptics as a class of politically incorrect social "pariahs," labeling them as "global warming deniers," a clear allusion to those anti-Semitic deniers of the Nazi holocaust.
Yet among few if any of these people is the primary goal to "save the planet," but rather to promote the liberal agenda, as their own unbridled usage of energy, and selective attacks against the "Great Polluters" clearly proves. Perhaps the most glaring evidence is that the Russians and Chinese, who pollute to a horrendous degree, get a "pass" on account of being good socialists. Meanwhile the United States is roundly condemned.
The '08 campaign season is already gearing up, and Democrats are desperate to frame the debate around anything other than traditional values or the terror war. So of course, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) has been quick to jump onto this bandwagon. Expect Hillary to follow soon.
The randomness of sunspots and other factors quite beyond the understanding of humanity ultimately render it impossible for meteorologists to forecast the weekend weather with absolute certainty. In contrast, the actions and motives of the American left, committed always and only in pursuit of their own interests, are among the most predictable phenomena of the modern world.
--------
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
From: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2007/cga_02082.shtml
Link: British defence of the man made global warming farce.
Link: Junk science used to justify global warming
Hurricanes
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2005
FORT COLLINS, Colo. -- Hurricane researcher William Gray on Monday forecast two hurricanes, one of them one major, for the rest of October - nearly double the long-term average for the month.
Gray and fellow researcher Philip Klotzbach of Colorado State University said the likelihood of a major hurricane crossing the U.S. coastline is 15 percent, more than double the long-term average of 6 percent.
"Unfortunately, the very active season we have seen to this point is not yet over," Gray said.
Gray and Klotzbach said the likelihood of a named storm hitting the U.S. coast in October is 49 percent, compared with an average of 29 percent from 1950 to 2000. The probability of a hurricane making landfall in the U.S. is 21 percent, compared with the long-term average of 15 percent, they said.
Through the end of September, the 2005 season has had nine hurricanes, five of them major, and 17 named storms. The 50-year average is 5.9 hurricanes, 2.3 of them major, and 9.6 named storms for an entire season.
Story Continues Below
Three of this year's major hurricanes - Dennis, Katrina and Rita - made landfall. Ophelia hit the North Carolina coast as a Category 1 hurricane although its eye remained just offshore.
Gray and Klotzbach said factors behind this year's active season include warmer-than-average Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures and lower-than-normal sea level pressures, lower-than-average vertical wind shears and moister conditions in the lower and middle atmosphere.
They said they do not attribute the active season to human-induced global warming. Instead, they cited "long-period natural climate alterations that historical and paleo-climate records show to have occurred many times in the past."
© 2005 The Associated Press
From: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/4/91331.shtml
Melting glaciers
|
From: http://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2006/news20060217.asp
Global warming debunked
| Global Warming Catastrophe Debunked By Scientists On Fox Special By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition May 23, 2006 - Fox News reporter David Asman hosted an important investigative report on Sunday evening entitled, “Global Warming: The Debate Continues.” This latest report was a counterpoint to a Fox feature that aired last November on the same topic. Asman’s report featured numerous scientists and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who chairs the U.S. Senate Committee On Environment and Public Works. All of those interviewed for this show were skeptical of the claims made by former Vice President Al Gore and radical environmental activists on the causes, extent and potential damage that global warming might cause to the future of our planet. Much of the hysteria generated by Gore and his cronies in Hollywood about global warming causing melting icecaps or the flooding of coastal cities, is unsupported by scientific data, according to meteorologists and climatologists who were interviewed for Asman’s special. In fact, many of the same environmentalists in the 1970s who were screaming about pollution bringing about a new ice age, are now claiming just the opposite with their dire warnings about global warming. They were wrong then; they are wrong now. Those scientific experts who were interviewed by Asman pointed out that the computer models used by Al Gore and other environmental activists to predict future world flooding, etc., are notoriously unreliable. These models fail to take into account the extraordinarily complex nature of the environment. Two of the scientists interviewed by Asman said that activity on the sun may be a major factor that is overlooked by the Chicken Little environmentalists. Radicals like Al Gore typically look at the worst-case scenarios—and those are based on flawed computer models—that fail to take into account future scientific breakthroughs. Gore and his cronies also ignore the current efforts being made by the Bush Administration to encourage such technology as energy plants that convert coal into gas—or technology that converts grains into low emission fuels. Senator James Inhofe has called the claim that global warming is a man-made problem, as “the world’s greatest hoax.” I am convinced he is correct—and many reputable scientists agree with him. Former surgeon and best-selling author Michael Crichton wrote “State of Fear” in 2004 to expose the radical environmental movement and its wildly inaccurate claims about future ecological disasters being caused by global warming. Crichton researched the environmental issue for three years before he began writing this book—and wrote a devastating critique of environmentalism in his author’s message in “State of Fear.” Crichton observed: “Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400%, de facto proof that nobody knows. … We can’t ‘assess’ the future, nor can we ‘predict’ it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.” So, the next time Al Gore gives a speech about man-made global warming, melting ice caps, and flooded coastal cities, keep in mind that he’s just guessing—and basing his wild opinions on the worst case scenarios developed by unreliable computer models. (And, remember that this is Hollywood’s pick for the presidential run in 2008.) Al Gore has a history of making statements that are unsupported by the facts. Entire web sites have been developed to chronicle Gore’s misstatements, including one published by National Review magazine several years ago. This is hardly a man who could be trusted with our national defense or environment if he became president.  Printer Friendly Page -  Email To A Friend -
Support TVC -
Get Our Newsletter!
|
 |
From: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2731
