Conflicting Liberal Authorities: What to Do?
This piece is almost enough to make one feel sorry for the liberals.
Why? Because it puts two foundational beliefs of the left-wing mind -- i.e., faith in the New York Times and a passionate conviction about the existence of man-made global warming -- in conflict. (It comes only a day after an LA Times editorial observed that, "By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome." What's going on?!)
The New York Times article actually reports that a number of scientists without partisan agendas or political axes are expressing skepticism about some of Al Gore's more cataclysmic charges relating to global warming. It's about time -- dissenters from man-made global warming orthodoxy have been ignored, threatened, or bullied for far too long.
No need to worry that liberals will have too hard a time reconciling the conflict between the Times and global warming talking points -- the beautiful thing about belief in global warming is its infinite flexibility.
After all, as this story reveals, even after two explorers were forced to give up on a trek to the North Pole -- intended to call attention to global warming -- because it was simply too cold, the global warming enthusiasm of one of the trip's organizers remained undiminished:
"They [the explorers] were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," [the trip organizer] said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Right.
Why? Because it puts two foundational beliefs of the left-wing mind -- i.e., faith in the New York Times and a passionate conviction about the existence of man-made global warming -- in conflict. (It comes only a day after an LA Times editorial observed that, "By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome." What's going on?!)
The New York Times article actually reports that a number of scientists without partisan agendas or political axes are expressing skepticism about some of Al Gore's more cataclysmic charges relating to global warming. It's about time -- dissenters from man-made global warming orthodoxy have been ignored, threatened, or bullied for far too long.
No need to worry that liberals will have too hard a time reconciling the conflict between the Times and global warming talking points -- the beautiful thing about belief in global warming is its infinite flexibility.
After all, as this story reveals, even after two explorers were forced to give up on a trek to the North Pole -- intended to call attention to global warming -- because it was simply too cold, the global warming enthusiasm of one of the trip's organizers remained undiminished:
"They [the explorers] were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," [the trip organizer] said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Right.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:17 AM
2 Comments:
Is that an oxymoron? Liberals by their nature are not authoritarians.
faith in the New York Times
Hardly. The NYT should suffer and die because of Judith Miller and their pact with the White House to sell the Iraq War.
Liberals aren't fond of the NYT.
They're doing okay now because they are calling a spade a spade and criticising Bush for his lawbreaking, but they are still a sinking ship.
Post a Comment
<< Home