With no explanation, label the following with either "hyperpartisan" or "not_hyperpartisan".
By Joe Boatwright: I’m amazed that there is still an argument surrounding global warming. Most of the literature is full of articles from organizations that deal with planetary weather issues or other political organizations that have joined the climate change movement. Conclusively, none of any of their global warming predictions have come to fruition. Almost every assertion has been debunked or proven false, sometimes by other parts of the same organization! Why should conservatives continue to debate liberals on this topic? Firstly, conservatives should always try to stop any insanity from the left, no matter what the subject. Secondly, the left continues to put forth their agenda on global warming, no matter how idiotic. So unfortunately, the right must respond against these arguments (again, no matter how absurd). Rush Limbaugh agreed by positing another reason: “The only reason we’re even talking about global warming — well, the real only reason — is its part of the left’s agenda of expanding government worldwide, raising taxes worldwide, and a key ingredient of this is blaming average citizens for the problem.” The conservative fight is to keep the left’s ‘one world order’ and worldwide tax increases from happening. We should not allow them to blame anyone for something that does not exist and can’t be proven. Back in August 2014 Alex Newman wrote in The New American, “Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry.” This excellent article details in length the litany of failed global warming predictions. It also criticizes organizations like the UN that recanted some of their farcical claims, sometimes even before they could be proven wrong. In one instance, the UN discovered their ‘scientific’ evidence came from the World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The claims from the liberal agenda of these organizations are so outlandish that it wouldn’t be surprising for them to throw in some type of zombie apocalypse. Global Warming is not scientific; it has become a political issue with many commenters who act as experts. In addition, articles that have been debunked continue to be echoed in other commentaries. These commentaries continue to make further inane assertions based on information already proven wrong. Global warming theorists who act as though this information is the word of God have taken the definition of non-sequitur to another level. Neuman points this out: “the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol.” However, “the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.” Only liberal extremists still beat the global warming drum — you shouldn’t be listening. No compatible source was found for this video. However, global warming myths continue to circulate periodically, despite being dispelled at length. For instance, there is the worry of our ecosystems being disrupted by rising temperatures or increasing CO2. Numerous studies show that there is no proof of rising temperatures distinct from natural system variations, and atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants! Regardless of the causes of these variations, the planet’s ecosystems have been adapting since the beginning of time. Almost as an urban legend, abnormal ice melting claims about both the north and south pole regions continue. But the only thing that is abnormal is that anyone believes them. I had two liberal colleagues at the CIA who believed in global warming and neither had any proof to justify their opinions. One had just experienced a hurricane and said that he would crush anyone’s head who was a non-believer in global warming. He was later fired, not because of his global warming beliefs, but because of his poor analytical skills. Our very liberal office allowed the other colleague to show slides from a vacation trip to the Arctic Circle. In addition, an alleged diminishing local animal population was presented as further proof. Of course, no real proof was presented. As one of the senior analysts of the office, I took no real part in the discussions. Office politics aside, I took to heart Mark Twain’s saying, “never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” However, in their defense, they never professed to be experts — they were just more misguided liberals (is that redundant?) who are plentiful everywhere including the intelligence agencies. How can you argue with the so-called global warming experts that use the inanest ‘evidence’ and arguments to support their claims? For instance, it is amazing how many ‘experts’ use fictional movies about global warming to support their claims! If Al Gore gives up on Global Warming, he should move on to vampires, werewolves, and zombies. There are plenty of movies with that type of scientific evidence! I’m surprised that people aren’t curious why there are no other climate claims other than global warming. For example, what happened to concerns about oceans. Seriously, decades ago severe pollution and rising sea levels was as big of a concern as global warming. I read that there was a swordfish in the Smithsonian that was over 150 years old, and that a group of global warming advocates would have conclusive proof of the effects of industrial man if the tissue in the swordfish was significantly different from fish of today. However, examination showed that it wasn’t. Thus, they had to go back to their old theory of rising oceans, which of course, can’t be proven either. When I was living in the D.C. area, one of the stations was particularly proud of their new Doppler radar that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They touted that it could predict snow arrival, as well as depth. As a former Army air defender with a knowledge of this radar, I didn’t think they fully understood its capabilities or value. The other stations predicted the weather just as well without the radar, one station even used an old wooden yardstick to show the depth of the snow. Their depth measured the exact same as the station with the Doppler. Some cynics believe accuracy was never the goal in any global warming forecasts anyway; the goal was always to gain more money, power, and influence. I agree with other rational, logical ‘climate deniers’ that “the Earth’s climate has always changed, and very likely will continue to change, regardless of what humans do. What is now clear, though, is that the establishment has no idea what those changes will be — much less what drives the changes or how to control them.” However, does it really matter to a liberal what the truth is? They control almost all of the main stream media,which in turn presents their propaganda. It is shamefully evident why there are so few conservative messages from the media. If the left are so correct, shouldn’t they still compare and contrast their opinion with others to prove their point?
hyperpartisan.