Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 9 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 10/9/19

How Did "Liberal" Become a Foul Epithet?

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   33 comments
Author 48597
Message Kevin Tully
Become a Fan
  (24 fans)

Holy Bible
Holy Bible
(Image by (Mick Baker)rooster)
  Details   DMCA

My journey to writing this began seven years ago. I confronted our small town's celebrity racist in a local pub and a minor tussle ensued, in the middle of which the racist very forcefully and angrily defended himself with "But he's a Liberal!" Shortly thereafter I ran for mayor of the small town. I walked the streets knocking on doors and trying to engage the townsfolk in meaningful conversation about issues that were important to them. Most were eager to talk about the local civic failures or successes. However one large, forty-something fellow, in a rambling, expensive home, demanded to know what I was -- was I a Republican or a Democrat? I responded that I was actually neither. He refused to accept that as an answer, demanding I label myself. I tried to reason with the gentleman, explaining to him that at that level of government it didn't really matter, what mattered was that the s**t flowed and the garbage was removed and taxes stayed low. He became angry, responding, "Well if you aren't a Republican than you're a Communist, Liberal!" with extra emphasis on "Liberal."

During the last political season here in Texas I attended a rally in a neighboring town in support of now-Republican Congressman, Chip Roy. I was asked to go and take pictures. One of the first things out of Roy's mouth was a warning about "Godless Liberals." He claims he didn't say it and maybe I'm misremembering but either he or the other speaker at the event did say it on at least three occasions. Finally, over the past few months I have been paying attention and participating with evangelicals on Facebook. The term "Godless Liberals" or simply "Liberal" gets frequently tossed out as a foul epithet. Recently my morality has been challenged because I'm a "Liberal." I have also been called a heretic because I believe in climate change and the need to address it. So, I decided to take some time and think about all this and do a bit of research.

It appears that a large portion of evangelical ministers don't have formal theological training or a scholastic background in the arts or humanities. Many simply go through an extensive period of indoctrination; based entirely on the institution's interpretation of the bible. They are not intellectually empowered or equipped to engage with us of "the world." Therefore it makes perfect sense how and why evangelicals and those affected by their politics, and multitudes of Americans of other denominations unwittingly under the spell of evangelical politics, easily and with absolute authority use the word "liberal" as an epithet.

Evangelicals are guiding and defining political debate in America today. It doesn't matter which side you are on -- you are either promoting evangelical ideals or you are defending against them. How can this possibly be? Evangelicalism is deeply rooted in the capitalist culture of America. It currently is an American lifestyle. It is bizarrely nihilistic and determinative at the same time. Evangelicals are simultaneously in control of everything and nothing because they see God in control, which requires them to defend their orthodoxies while also waiting for God to destroy the world -- thereby negating any altruistic impulses they may have concerning climate change, etc. They appear to be a doomsday cult dressed up as Aunt Bee.

Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in America are transactional. Public pronouncements of faith are seen as spiritual currency. The faithful support the pastors and their admonitions and orthodoxies and in return they receive acceptance into the community. They toe the line politically and they receive further acceptance. Their giving of religious and political support to church and ministry ultimately gains them heaven. The words and examples of Jesus are no match for a people living the American Dream as they define it -- a world devoid of empathy and compassion but empowered by judgement and strangely, materialism.

It is not hard, upon inspection, to understand how the word liberal has become a ubiquitous, foul epithet in certain circles. Liberals care -- this apparently goes against the will of God and negates the idea of a predetermined end to all of this. Liberals care about women -- this is an abomination in the eyes of evangelicals because of the issue of abortion. Liberals care about LGBT rights -- this also is an abomination in their eyes. Liberals care about multiculturalism -- this too is an abomination because Muslims and Buddhists and Confucians and Hindus, etc., are infidels and not going to their heaven. Liberals care about the environment -- this an abomination because it denies God ultimately blowing this place up in a fiery hell, after all the evangelicals have left of course. Liberals support gun-control measures -- this is an abomination because evangelicals have so absolutely melded nationalism and patriotism with their religious beliefs that guns are deeply respected totems of their Americanism. Liberals care about economic justice -- this is an abomination because it smacks of Communism or socialism, which evangelicals equate with godlessness. How oh how did the Jesus story get so perverted? The simple answer may be Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell. The more complicated answer is capitalism.

So, no it's not really very hard to see why the racist called me a "liberal" or why the pastor called me a heretic. Care evidently is an awful burden to bear.

Evangelicals proudly mix politics and religion. Current evangelicalism is not compatible with a pluralistic Democratic Republic. Evangelicals gave us Donald Trump. They created, for themselves, a magically substantive man out of very thin, soiled cloth -- Donald Trump is an evangelical Golem. Liberals/Progressives must vote in all elections going forward: local, state and national. It is crystal clear, when looking at the world today, why separation of church and state is a national imperative if we truly want domestic tranquility.

The chilling thing about my personal experiences with being called a "liberal" is that my fellow Americans, smiling or not, hated me and what I represent and are being taught this in their churches. It was precisely this type of activity that motivated the nineteen men to create death and destruction on September 11, 2001.

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Kevin Tully Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Kevin is an Artist, Writer, Carpenter and Gallerist in Texas.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Open Letter To Green Party Candidate Jill Stein

The Rise of Shallow, Demonstrative Religion

Kellyanne Conway/Joseph Goebbels

The Little, Slightly Tilted Church

BECKWATCH: Ayn Rand Would Have Absolutely Hated Glenn Beck

Bill O'Reilly Must Go

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
          

Comment Here:   


You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 

Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

5 people are discussing this page, with 33 comments  Post Comment


David William Pear

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 51 fans, 80 articles, 384 quicklinks, 3831 comments
Facebook Page Twitter Page Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

The liberal vs conservative or right/left dichotomy is just a diversion to keep people from focusing on issues that the powerful really care about.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:29:48 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
Indent

Kevin Tully

Become a Fan
Author 48597
(Member since May 15, 2010), 24 fans, 127 articles, 30 quicklinks, 1414 comments, 247 diaries
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David William Pear:   New Content

David, no, it's a very real difference in lifestyles and worldview -- politics is just one part of it. It is absolutely entrenched now in Southern Evangelical religion. I think the hardest thing for folks to come to understand is that for the Right, it absolutely is a lifestyle -- it permeates everything. Here is one small example -- young men in Texas and the South are having their truck's emission systems altered so that they spew black smoke as a show of their solidarity with right wing thought. This is why the Dems lost the last election -- they grossly underestimated the power of the middle class right wing lifestyle. I will repeat, lifestyle, this is now a cross generational thing. it is not going away. They didn't just vote for Trump, they assimilated him into their lifestyle -- t-shirts, caps, worldview, etc.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:57:50 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
IndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Kevin Tully:   New Content

Kevin, I apologize for diverging from the discussion of your good article. But, I saw where David Wieland brought up Dennis Prager and PragerU. I had seen discussion of Prager U in a couple of videos that I asked D Wieland to watch and comment on. That all led to talking about climate change.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:44:09 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

Kevin Tully

Become a Fan
Author 48597
(Member since May 15, 2010), 24 fans, 127 articles, 30 quicklinks, 1414 comments, 247 diaries
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

David, no problem, enjoyed watching the back and forth. I'm very familiar with PragerU. "Christian" Right Wingnuts that I know use it all the time to try and validate the magnanimity and efficacy of their belief system -- they mix reasonable stuff in with propaganda. It doesn't work.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:42:17 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

I think there's much truth to what you wrote, but some of it must vary by region. Certainly the mixing of evangelicalism with politics is an unfortunate and distorting devolution from the founding principle of separation of church and state.

As for emphasizing that liberals care and implying that conservatives don't, that's not at all what this left-leaning guy sees. Of course, the current usage of political terms seems to have strayed from their earlier meaning, impairing rational discussion. But by gathering information from across the current spectrum in an attempt to get closer to truth, I've noticed that centrist views are hard to find (although Dave Rubin is trying) and leftist views are very dogmatic. It's among conservative thinkers (not ranting online commenters) that I find some of the most thoughtful commentary, e.g., Dennis Prager and PragerU.

Regarding climate change worry, you should consider that it's not altruistic as much as dogmatic. It should not require belief; if the climate were actually changing rapidly and dangerously anywhere, scientifically valid data should show that. That's what people should seek, not repeated admonishment to "listen to the science" without ever revealing data but pretending that model projections are real data. We're being subjected to an alarming level of fear-mongering these days; it's damaging the mental health of many; and it's especially shameful to be inflicting such worries on our children.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:15:25 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
Indent

Kevin Tully

Become a Fan
Author 48597
(Member since May 15, 2010), 24 fans, 127 articles, 30 quicklinks, 1414 comments, 247 diaries
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

I agree with a lot of what you said. But, your getting too wonky here. What I'm talking about is an organic, anthropological phenomenon. It is primal.

We had a Town Hall in town here last night. A local minister showed up and ambushed the Democratic speaker. Insinuating that she is a "Liberal" baby killer. And then later on his Facebook post about the event he and his followers went on to trash "Liberals." In that moment they were not talking about Liberals in political terms, they were talking in tribal, visceral terms. That is why this is so disturbing -- this has moved way beyond politics into the realm of Jung and Campbell.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:44:54 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
IndentIndent

Robert Gormley

Become a Fan
Author 42289
(Member since Dec 12, 2009), 375 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Kevin Tully:   New Content

I know what you are talking about Kevin. We have this phenomena

in New England also. These "right thinking" people

have been brainwashed. The ministers in Texas don't really practice

Christianity, it's some sort of perverse mixture of politics and Christianity. In the Bible this is called "idol" worship.

The world's problems will never be solved by joining a political sect.

Jesus spoke the truth, but few realize it. I would say that the majority

of people who label themselves as Democrats and Republicans are

lazy thinkers, they would just rather tow the party line to vent out their anger.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:26:33 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

Kevin Tully

Become a Fan
Author 48597
(Member since May 15, 2010), 24 fans, 127 articles, 30 quicklinks, 1414 comments, 247 diaries
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Robert Gormley:   New Content

Robert, you got it.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:31:34 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

David, Watch this video that talks about PragerU and climate change. Let me know your thoughts. click here

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:00:04 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
IndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Potholer sounds like a reasonable guy, calm voice and all, but what bias! It's true that Dennis Prager is an unabashedly religious man, which I'm not. But that doesn't stop me from watching the videos, only a few of which feature Prager himself.

What I see is very informative, and the fact that it comes from a conservative organization is likely the simple consequence of the information and views not aligning with the politically correct strangeness that infects much leftist output. But PragerU certainly doesn't align with the evangelical religious politics either!

As for Patrick Moore, I have far more respect for him than for the Canadian who was instrumental in setting up the IPCC, with the mandate to identify human-caused climate change, whether or not it truly exists. That man was Maurice Strong.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 16, 2019 at 4:44:32 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

There are so many articles and videos and studies I don't know which ones to choose. But here is a good one,

Dahr Jamail | Mass Extinction: It's the End of the World as We Know It

click here

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:55:28 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

I could keep posting proof of how bad this is. Anyway, here is one more:

The Unexpected Threat to Greenland's Melting Glaciers (HBO)


Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:42:37 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Please don't take any video as proof of anything. Real science doesn't even deal with proof, which only exists in mathematics. A theory can never be proven, only disproved by evidence that doesn't conform to the theory. We're all drowning in misinformation, which is why I have to dig for scientific data, which statements made in videos are not. And Guy McPherson is a remarkable catastrophist, but Daniel Geery seems to favour him.

This site has articles and comments concerned about the military-industrial complex, but it seems that few recognize the climate-industrial complex steering us to economic hardship and mental anguish, all based on a fallacy. It has been quite lucrative for many climate scientists, however, few of whom study climatology. Some universities have even added specialty programs in "climate change communication", focused on better marketing. These are delusional times.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:24:55 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

You said, "... It has been quite lucrative for many climate scientists, however, few of whom study climatology." You must be talking about Patrick Moore.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:59:42 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Claiming that we're facing dangerous climate change could somehow be lucrative for Dr. Moore, who clearly counters that? I'm afraid you're not making sense with that one.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 at 5:12:11 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

I am talking about it being lucrative for Patrick Moore to deny and deceive about the truth of climate change and that he doesn't do any climate science or publish any scientific material, i.e., in your words, "It has been quite lucrative for many climate scientists, however, few of whom study climatology."


Patrick Moore is a PR consultant who has "made a very good living lobbying for fossil fuel companies, pulp and paper companies, and nuclear power companies and gets hired by political organizations ... " to give talks downplaying climate change. If you haven't seen it, Moore said Glyphosate is not dangerous and you can "drink a quart of it and it won't hurt you." When asked if he wanted to drink some he said yes he would but then backed down saying he was not stupid, he was not an idiot. The information I have stated comes from this video I gave you link for, click here. The whole video is very good but you can start watching at 12:40.

Potholer says the point is not that he is making money off of this, he can make a buck any way he can. But what matters is that his claims are factually incorrect. He has "chosen to omit crucial information that supports the peer reviewed science rather than the blogs."

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:40:05 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

I'll admit that Dr. Moore's statement was surprising and probably carelessly worded. Many (or all) of us have said things we wish we had said differently. The idea of drinking a quart of any herbicide, even diluted, is disgusting, and I have no idea why he said that. But the rest of your (or potholer's) comment is dismissive, and any statement that Moore's claims about the environment (his field is ecology, not PR) are factual, not spun and exaggerated like so much of the produced videos. People on a crusade to attack ideas that don't align with theirs are not a reliable source of information.

As for glyphosate itself, see, for example, this page or some personal experience from users.


Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 5:55:59 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

"It should not require belief; if the climate were actually changing rapidly and dangerously anywhere, scientifically valid data should show that. That's what people should seek, not repeated admonishment to "listen to the science" without ever revealing data but pretending that model projections are real data. We're being subjected to an alarming level of fear-mongering these days; it's damaging the mental health of many; and it's especially shameful to be inflicting such worries on our children."

There is plenty of scientifically valid data readily available. You say there is an "alarming level of fear-mongering." Is it fearmongering with the situation being so dire? Damaging the mental health of many and worrying our children? With what, the truth? Would it be better to hold back the absolute truth so nobody was alarmed? That would be like watching TV in the living room with a fire in the basement and telling your children don't worry, its just fine here in the living room, it has only heated up a tiny bit.

You should spend a little bit of time and look for proof of global warming.

Here are several things I simply chose quickly, there is a lot of stuff online:

Greenland is melting


Greenland is melting CNN's Clarissa Ward visits Greenland to learn about how quickly the ice sheet is melting and the effect it has on the planet.
(Image by YouTube, Channel: CNN)
Details DMCA

Scientists alarmed by record-high temperatures in the Arctic

Three Reasons Scientists Are Freaked out by Crazy-High Arctic Temperatures

click here

The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming

click here

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:35:45 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Believe me, David, I've spent a lot of time researching this. I was a Greenpeace supporter for many years, so my inclination was to trust the claims, although my science background always made me wonder how anyone could be sure how much warming could be definitely attributed to humans. It was only after I retired that I had enough time to deepen my research past the sort of things you "simply chose quickly". As I remind my wife, who watches a lot of TV and sees these videos, they are TV productions and utilize the well-developed techniques for engaging and persuading viewers. "Freaked out by Crazy-High Arctic Temperatures" is emotional language, not a realistic statement.

I eventually learned how to get to real data and scientific discussion. Frankly, I was embarrassed to realize what a tiny part of the atmosphere is CO2 (400 ppm = 0.04%) and then disgusted to learn that the greenhouse gas theory was never scientifically tested and the CO2 "control knob" hypothesis never validated. As someone whose initial career goal was to be a physicist, I found it deeply disturbing that any scientists would be willing to be so unscientific in support of a cause.

The data confirms that CO2 is continually rising (although even a doubled tiny amount is still a tiny amount), but it also shows that temperatures go up and down, not correlated in any way with "greenhouse gases". (See, for example, Climate4You for detailed, undistorted data.) To go from such reality to "existential crisis" claims requires not only a lack of awareness but a suspension of critical thinking. Only a few truly alarmist, activist scientists might support those claims. That they not only disturb many adults but terrify impressionable children makes it shameful. One man at an all-candidates meeting I attended last night said that his daughter committed suicide due to "eco-anxiety". A teenager addressing a city council committee regarding a "Climate Emergency Declaration" said "Please don't kill us!" This is serious reality distortion and must be stopped. We have a heavy burden of guilt if we inflict such angst on our children.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:44:04 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content
"When we're told about "the situation being so dire", we're being told a lie." Why do you call it a lie? Are you saying virtually all of the climate scientists are lying? They are just telling it like it is supported by the facts and the science.

" ... my science background always made me wonder how anyone could be sure how much warming could be definitely attributed to humans." Watch the following and you will see how. Another potholer54, aka, Peter Haden video that talks a lot about the science; a very clear, and easy to listen to and easily understood video.


Top 10 climate change myths SOURCES ARE BELOW I made this video to summarize all the various climate myths I have covered over the last 10 years. There is no copyright as long as it is ...
(Image by YouTube, Channel: potholer54)
Details DMCA

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:52:31 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

Okay, so the language in the title is emotional. But what about what the article actually says? Do not the soaring arctic temperatures give you a reason to even pause to at least wonder if you might be wrong? I guess not, or maybe you did not even read the article. That kind of thing is a common tactic for people that don't want to know, whether it be climate change or the truth about 9/11. Look, I can tell you are a "scientific" kind of person, but good science requires open minds. I don't think your mind is open, you have already decided and are not willing to look at all that is counter to what you believe.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Hmm. I don't know how you can imagine that my mind isn't open, considering what I've said about my early trust and subsequent investigation. Perhaps it's projection. Have you ever wondered if you might be wrong? Knowing the risk of bias, I look for empirical data to avoid it. Did you have a look at the data site I linked?

I've watched quite a few videos (and likely one or more of the ones you embedded or linked) and don't want to use my expensive internet on more. As I've noted, they're not a reliable source of data but are able to utilize persuasive techniques.

Regarding the "soaring arctic temperatures", one of the articles you linked says " Greenland has had 61 hours of above-freezing temperatures this year, which is roughly three times as many hours as 2017. "Going back to the late 1950s at least, we have never seen such high temperatures in the high Arctic," said Ruth Mottram of the Danish Meteorological Institute". Think about that: The "alarming" figure is 61 hours above freezing. Aside from not being a very large number in absolute terms, there's no mention of how much above freezing or if there's any sign of a trend. Without such context, this statement has little scientific value, but it's a great quote for the author to include in an article intended to excite the reader.

My mind is very open to analyzing what I read in a search for truth and understanding. Unfortunately, for me and everyone else, most articles (and even a "scientific" paper from James Hansen that I read) show disturbing bias and emotional appeal.

It seems they've thoroughly convinced you, David, but I'm most disturbed by the terrible impact on children. Only in the last year have I learned how much climate fear indoctrination has infiltrated classrooms. It's shameful and it's dangerous for us all. And, getting back to the article above, I don't think Jesus would approve of what we're doing to our children.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 at 5:44:06 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

You said, "I've watched quite a few videos (and likely one or more of the ones you embedded or linked) and don't want to use my expensive internet on more. As I've noted, they're not a reliable source of data but are able to utilize persuasive techniques." Yes, that is true, videos can utilize persuasive techniques and so can printed material. But don't generalize that ALL videos are not a reliable source of data. That is like saying ALL college lectures including videos of those lectures, do not have reliable data.

You say you watch videos; do you dismiss them all because videos can be unreliable? No, I'm sure you don't. I am not a scientist but I do understand science; science is one thing I have always been very interested in learning about. What one must do is do the best to recognize which ones do give reliable data.

Of course some videos have the science correct. You say you look for the science, then watch the one I embedded above with the picture of the woolly mammoth. The entire 20 minutes is excellent in teaching what the science of global warming is and why. One thing is, it shows the science and and scientific "proof" of the current global warming being caused by the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution; meaning humans are the reason for levels of CO2 climbing steeply. But, it is made clear that the warming is not because there are human beings; the cause of the warming is the same as it always has been before there were humans, i.e., CO2. Its a good video and I learned a lot by watching it. It is like a good college lecture. You should watch it.

I put quotes around "proof" because of what we said before. I understand it is always possible something or someone in the future might disprove the science. But like most science, there is little, if any, reason, to think the science about humans and CO2 is not correct.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:28:09 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

Yes, CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. But a scientist in the 1800's(!) discovered co2 traps heat. By the 1950's scientists were warning if CO2 keeps increasing the globe will heat up. So while co2 is a small percentage, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the quantity of CO2 by about 33%! And, temperatures have been increasing too at the same time. Yes, CO2 being tied to temperature has been tested and holds true. I hope it does not disturb you that scientists are very willing to be scientific. After all, if they were not scientific they would not be much of a scientist, would they?

"The data confirms that CO2 is continually rising (although even a doubled tiny amount is still a tiny amount) ..." True, but a tiny amount of some things can be quite significant. Try a tiny bit of arsenic and see.

This, I think, is the bottom line to all of this. I said you need to open your mind a bit. As much as anything I am speaking of this. You said, "To go from such reality to "existential crisis" claims requires not only a lack of awareness but a suspension of critical thinking." Well, if you are right and global warming turns out to not really be a problem, fine. But, there is much scientific evidence saying you are wrong. Are you willing to ignore it? And, what if you ARE wrong? What IF global warming IS an existential crisis and nothing is done to prevent it? That would most certainly end at least most life on this planet. You apparently are willing to risk that happening. You are playing dice with virtually all life. I am not willing to look the other way and play games with life on this planet. With that being said, I understand that the only thing I can do anyway is stop driving my car, turn off the heat and air conditioning, take cold showers, and write comments on OpEd... :)

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 4:58:46 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Actually the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is likely mostly due to out-gassing from a slightly warmer ocean. (This is the same effect you see if you warm a cold, stale soft drink, because a cold liquid can dissolve more gas than a warm one.) One of the earlier UN IPCC reports included a chart showing the human contribution of various "greenhouse" gases and had our contribution to atmospheric CO2 at a fraction of that from the ocean.

You've been convinced that the nineteenth century discovery of CO2 (called carbonic acid at that time) and its ability to absorb/block infrared is somehow consistent with the modern modelers insistence that it "traps" heat. CO2 is good at transferring heat, which is why it finds use in commercial refrigeration.

Finally, is there anything in your experience that makes you suspect there may be an existential crisis looming? Anything other than the claims you've heard and read, that is? These are admittedly confusing times, with people with various motivations making various claims of varying veracity. But you should be suspicious of extreme claims, even though they have now become mainstream. Slick productions also raise warning flags for me, because I've seen how manipulative they can be (or usually are). Juxtaposition of otherwise unrelated images or even facts, accompanied by emotional delivery is a persuasive technique, often presented in rapid sequence to discourage critical thinking.

Scientific evidence is data -- measurements. When it comes to climate, a multi-decade time frame is the absolute minimum, but a multi-century view is more revealing. The graduated thermometer wasn't invented until the 18th century, so we can only approximate earlier times. But just looking at the 20th century, we have fairly rapid warming in the 1930s and early 1940s, then cooling into the 70s before warming again. Meanwhile, CO2 was rising steadily, as it continues to do. But temperatures keep going up and down, with the range increasing with latitude but little trend in average. No one should be alarmed, but children, along with many adults, are being urged toward panic. These are delusional times.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 6:34:10 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

That is "carbon flux." The oceans both absorb and expel CO2.

Quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution. As quantities of CO2 increased, temperatures have increased right along with it.

How do scientists know the increases in CO2 have been from the burning of fossil fuels? Check out carbon isotopes and global warming. Different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere scientifically prove that the increase in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. And yes, CO2 traps Heat and is therefore labeled a greenhouse gas.

All of what I just said is based on science.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

These are the things that have to be factored in re: global warming.

1 - Solar radience, i. e., solar forcing.

2 - Aerosols

3 - CO2

4 - Also, feedback loops resulting from the warming that has already occurred, mainly methane and albedo.

All are in the climate science that says we are in trouble. You can also factor in that nothing significant is being done to try to save the dire situation. It may not seem "dire" at the moment, but we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere resulting in more heating. Even if we stopped emitting Co2 yesterday morning, the heating will contine for a long time. The Co2 currently in the atmosphere causing the heating will stay in the air a long time. And, the feedback loops are already churning and will contine to ramp up. I say it is too late, we are on the road to it being over. Think about it...

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 at 11:24:31 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Well, if you believe we're on the road to it being over, there's not much point in trying to separate good science from alarmist concoctions. Edward De Bono (and probably others) have described the difference between intelligence and skillful thinking. In addition, he notes the "intelligence trap" that highly intelligent people can fall into by being able to create plausible explanations for practically any phenomenon. It seems certain that scientists are intelligent.

I've reviewed everything you've listed, including the explanations of how this creates danger. I've also reviewed descriptions of what is known about molecules such as CO2 and atmospheric processes; scientists who are expert in these areas recognize that our understanding is limited and that climate factors are not well understood. IPCC reports acknowledge that the climate is chaotic, which the climate models are not. (Models need algorithms, which by definition can't model chaos.)

But most of the alarm is coming not from scientists, although there are some activist ones, but from political actors -- extremists and compliant politicians who haven't a clue about the science. (There also those who just follow along, giving undeserved respect to the alarmists.)

Finally, fancy explanations of how "greenhouse gases" are warming the planet are nothing more than intellectual exercises if the data doesn't support them. Since rising CO2 is not matched by rising average global temperature, no explanation of how temperature is driven by CO2 is helpful. Of course, we are continually bombarded with claims that this or that weather event or species decline or ice melt is due to "climate change", as though it's some kind of dangerous force. Real climate change happens slowly as a result of various forces, mostly having to do with change in the strength of solar radiation reaching the lower troposphere. The change is a result of forces, not a force itself.

Since the all-purpose (and always dangerous) "climate change" force has become normalized in political discourse, the rhetoric has been ramped up to "environmental collapse" and "existential crisis". (See SPARK Neuro's proud description of their research.) This is where it gets especially dangerous for our children, who are being scared by such indoctrination, some scared to death.

It's not so-called "climate deniers" (realists, actually) who are being unethical; it's the alarmists inducing hysteria who are unethical and a great danger to our sanity. Poor Greta has been persuaded that it's appropriate to say "I want you to panic". It's a sign of immaturity to see panic as ever being helpful in any way.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 20, 2019 at 5:13:26 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

"Finally, fancy explanations of how "greenhouse gases" are warming the planet are nothing more than intellectual exercises if the data doesn't support them. Since rising CO2 is not matched by rising average global temperature, no explanation of how temperature is driven by CO2 is helpful."

"The data doesn't support them?" Rising CO2 is "not matched" by rising average global temperature?"

Quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution. As quantities of CO2 increased, temperatures have increased right along with it.

Let us make a deal. You believe your "science" and I will believe mine which is solid science. You read your bloggers and listen to Patrick Moore and I will read the real science. So then, we will never agree. But:

Answer these simple questions -- simple for you because you "know" what you are talking about -- and I will continue discussion with you. Of course, if you answer the questions you are welcome to ask me any questions.

Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas" meaning it lets solar radiance in but blocks thermal heat from escaping?

Was the level of CO2 very stable for the 8 thousands years before the industrial revolution at between 260-280 ppm?

Since the start of the industrial revolution -- less than 150 years ago -- has the level of CO2 risen to close to 420 ppm?

Has the globe been getting warmer since the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels began at the start of the industrial revolution?

Do Patrick Moore and other "crackpot" climate "scientists" leave out the science that shows their conclusions are not correct?

Submitted on Monday, Oct 21, 2019 at 3:08:37 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

As quantities of CO2 increased, temperatures have increased right along with it.

That's simply not true. If you haven't yet looked at Climate4you, check the graph that shows both CO2 and temperature and note that for part of the 20th century temperature declined even though CO2 was rising. They're not correlated.

Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas" meaning it lets solar radiance in but blocks thermal heat from escaping?

As I think I noted earlier, the GHG hypothesis, on which the theory depends, has never been scientifically validated. There are, of course, demonstrations that purport to validate it but simply show, for example, that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (Tyndall, 19th century) or that the greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer (Bill Nye's Climate 101 demonstration). No scientists claim that CO2 "blocks thermal heat from escaping". An object or a molecule radiates energy (heat) in all directions equally.

Was the level of CO2 very stable for the 8 thousands years before the industrial revolution at between 260-280 ppm?

Probably not, but irrelevant.

Since the start of the industrial revolution -- less than 150 years ago -- has the level of CO2 risen to close to 420 ppm?

Yes, as far as we can tell, although the official CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa began only in 1958.

Has the globe been getting warmer since the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels began at the start of the industrial revolution?

Overall, yes, but not steadily and definitely not in concordance. And please note that we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age since that time and that the net warming (interrupted with some cooling) is about 0.01 degree per year. How has anyone been convinced that's alarming?

Do Patrick Moore and other "crackpot" climate "scientists" leave out the science that shows their conclusions are not correct?

If you're determined to think of Dr. Moore as a crackpot, it's pointless to continue this thread. (Actually, I feel a little guilty for taking it so far from the original article.) I hope you will consider how dangerous climate hysteria is. Here's a quote from a recent article in The Australian: "A mate of mine called me this morning to tell me his daughter had texted him from school to tell him that her teacher said a third of their class would be dead by 2050 because of climate change," Ms. Storer said. "Climate anxiety is becoming­ a real thing." This is as terrible as liberal becoming a foul epithet.

Submitted on Monday, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:28:09 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
IndentIndent

David Wieland

Become a Fan
Author 512811
(Member since Jan 1, 2019), 1 fan, 148 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Watts:   New Content

When we're told about "the situation being so dire", we're being told a lie. The teller may be innocently repeating what he or she has been told, but it's still a lie. On the other hand, the mental damage is unfortunately true.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:06:53 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:36:31 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429
(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 13 fans, 20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 2336 comments, 27 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to David Wieland:   New Content

The quote in my comment is yours from a comment above.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:37:41 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment