19 09 2013


Wow.  About a month ago, I had a conversation with an acquaintance who was ranting about all that is absurd with the “liberal agenda.”  He brought up the most recent 60% increase in Arctic Ice to point out the fallacious nature of climate change. The inanity of such a statement left me speechless, but I opted to let it alone. What can you say when you realize someone believes what they believe so adamantly, regardless all of the facts to the contrary?

Given his political leanings, it’s hard to say exactly where he came up with this number, but goodness knows there’s plenty of sites out there repeating the same misleading information. Here’s a recent one (Sept. 7) from the quality publication MailOnline, which then got referenced in RealClearPolitics today.

Now I see yet another person parroting the same b.s., but this individual happens to sit on the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Power. During the hearing on climate change this past Wednesday, David McKinley (R-W. Va.) spouted off the same climate change denial talking points. like a pro, yet his “facts” have been debunked, time and again.

There’s no point in recreating the wheel here. Plenty of others have done a much more eloquent job of pointing out the ludicrousness of this. Here’s a great article on this whole fiasco from Slate. One of my favorite “debunkers” is also quite entertaining in his delivery. Check out Potholer54‘s  commentary on this latest climate change denial here.

While you’re visiting his Youtube channel, watch his clips on creationism for a good laugh!



2 responses

19 09 2013
Paul Bate

I’m still upset that Al Gore was wrong about the Summer Arctic Ice being nonexistent by 2013. How could the guy who invented the internet be wrong?
I just hope he doesn’t have to give back his Nobel Prize…..

4 10 2013

Hahaha… You do realize, of course, that the only place Al Gore ever claimed either is in the headlines of right-wing media, right? You know, the same types of sources that Rep. McKinley is quoting above. The “journalists” who will cherry pick the parts of the research that could cast the desired doubt, while ignoring the vast body of research that flies in the face of their desired storyline.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Learning to tackle and grapple.

Werneck Family Jiu Jitsu

World Class Training in a Family Environment


Musings of an aspiring martial artist and father

%d bloggers like this: