Posted on 02/16/2005 12:12:54 PM PST by 1Old Pro
Edited on 02/16/2005 2:03:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Or Michael Medved or Alan Keyes....
Sean's got his gig, and hey good for him... but please if you are looking for strong intellectual articulation and defense of the conservative ideology Hannity is NOT your go to guy.
More of a preaching to the chior type... and there's nothing wrong with that... just don't try to pretend you are something else.
Perhaps you can explain a few things about the global warming data collection models to me, then:
1) If the Earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old, how can we draw meaningful conclusions about long term geologic/climatic trends based on 100 years worth of data?
2) Given the complexity of the global climatic system (a system that is far from being fully understood even by "scientists" for whom it is a speciality), how is it possible to isolate the human factor in any warming trend, however transitory?
My point is this: I don't necessarily doubt that we are in the midst of a warming trend. The Earth, after all, is not static; it is in a constant state of flux. Even in recorded human history (which is itself a blip on the geologic time scale), we know that the climate of Western Europe has undergone significant changes. One need only read a few Roman or Greek historians to know this.
However, what concerns me about the pseudo-science of environmentalist climatology is that it over-reaches. It attempts to draw conclusions that are not possible on the basis of the evidence. For example, "...given current warming trends over a 100 year period, global sea levels will rise and engulf coastal cities by the year 2050..." or "...warming has accelerated since the advent of the industrial age, therefore we know that man is causing dangerous destabilization in the global climate..." Could these things be true? Absolutely. Is there any way to know if they are true based on current evidence or science? Absolutely not.
Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a 100-year, 200-year, or even 2000-year warming trend going on. There may well be. I am saying that we cannot know how this is happening, why this is happening, or how it will end based on current data models. Period.
As for the politics of the matter, I find it dangerous in the extreme to base public policy on pseudo-science. It is an attempt to bypass both common sense an the democratic process, the only two safeguards we have against authoritarianism.
Fringe people?
I've been called worse.
Hard to figure. As others have observed, he could have been even handed and fair. His lack to do so shows either an elitist arrogance or, in his words, a lack of "intellectual honesty" (or capacity). Or perhaps both...
Most comments on this thread are merely comments about Sean's pettiness in having to drag down FR to promote his own venture. It was shabby and pathetic. That's the essence of this thread!
It was an ugly, small side of Sean that most FReepers did not know existed. The great majority of the posts on this thread are quite reasonable about his behavior yesterday in front of his audience.
Simply, he blew it. The shine is off the apple.
If Hannity is trashing us then that speaks for itself...
Sorry you can't handle it.
nav
Wooooo. :-) I'm reading everything loud and clear.... I should know what I'm talking about before I speak. You're right, I don't know marti.. I'll take my foot out of mouth...
n
Ditto....... what do you think the chances are?
kool tagline. Tho nixon did go soft domestically with the EPA and price controls.
Did he drag down FR or just some FReepers?
I'm sorry for offending him....as I don't know anything about him. Sean should share this with his listeners esp those of who are just getting his radio show.
I'm sorry I offended anyone... I am still a bit ticked at Hannity coming down on people on this site.
n
Damn, Damn, Damn
Just damn
I listened to it. It is money and glory.
"The tendency to eat their own?"
Maybe I am the exception, but I do not care if anyone disagrees with me. I do not care if I am flamed for having a different opinion. I am very rarely flamed because I try to post my opnions in a thoughtful, respectful manner as does the majority of posters. And I am the first person to say I do not know everything and am not an expert in any given subject.
Sean, I will put our moderators up against yours any day. But the fact that we may have our small fringe element should suggest we are the town square.
I have a suspicion that if he is accurate when he says he has not logged on in several years, he has someone monitor FR. The thing is Sean--if you don't want to log on, don't. If you want to promote your site, go right ahead. But when you make such a blanket statement about a group of people such as us, you are not being as intellectually honest as you say you are. That's a dem tactic.
Leo Terrell........... is often referred to as: a leftist activist and perennially angry man.
He often comes on talk shows and loses it. I really like his "zest". It's GREAT TV! It's nice to see someone who really lets it loose every once in a while.
;-)
An apology would sort of prove that he lied when he said he hasn't been to this site for several years, wouldn't it?
I mean, how else would he know he got everyone hear all riled up, if he never checks in....
... and another sad example of carelessness.
(pulling your leg)
;-)
Go to his board if you want one-sided mindless crap from a barely literate brat.
My verdict on 37 is that he
-Won the vietnam war (Ted lost it)
-Would not diss liddy for running down a ho ring (Hatch, call your office--FDR did far worse)
-Felt like he had to run to the middle domestically to appease the hippies
Its too bad on the last point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.