Jump to content

"The ugly delusions of the educated conservative." (Or, AGW deniers explained)


homersapien

Recommended Posts

Finally, an explanation for why even educated conservatives believe the crap they do about global warming. It makes me feel stupid for having tried to educate them.

http://www.salon.com...d_conservative/

Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama's a Muslim. Here's why:

CHRIS MOONEY, ALTERNET

I can still remember when I first realized how naïve I was in thinking—hoping—that laying out the “facts” would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence—and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

Those facts are these: Humans, since the Industrial Revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

Such is what is known to science–what is true (no matter what Rick Santorum might say). But the Pew data showed that humans aren’t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had cleaved over the facts stated above, like a divorcing couple. One side bought into them, one side didn’t—and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And most of all, for many liberals.

Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

No less than President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it’s an “education problem.”

But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.

Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don’t need any more information on the issue.

Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves—they considered themselves “very well-informed” about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they “do not need any more information” to make up their minds on the issue.

But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans,according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government “death panels.” According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were “paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.” Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no “death panels” in the bill.

The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly.

Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.

What accounts for the “smart idiot” effect?

For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect lessinformed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.

In fact, there is even research suggesting that the most rigid and inflexible breed of conservatives—so-called authoritarians—do not really become their ideological selves until they actually learn something about politics first. A kind of “authoritarian activation” needs to occur, and it happens through the development of political “expertise.” Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are—whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change.

So now the big question: Are liberals also “smart idiots”?

There’s no doubt that more knowledge—or more political engagement—can produce more bias on either side of the aisle. That’s because it forges a stronger bond between our emotions and identities on the one hand, and a particular body of facts on the other.

But there are also reason to think that, with liberals, there is something else going on. Liberals, to quote George Lakoff, subscribe to a view that might be dubbed “Old Enlightenment reason.” They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are. And fascinatingly, in Kahan’s study liberals did not act like smart idiots when the question posed was about the safety of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biases—kind of the flip side of the global warming issue–for the following reason. It’s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: There’s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

So are liberals “smart idiots” on nukes? Not in Kahan’s study. As members of the “egalitarian communitarian” group in the study—people with more liberal values–knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried—and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but let’s face it: This is not the “smart idiot” effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

What does all of this mean?

First, these findings are just one small slice of an emerging body of science on liberal and conservative psychological differences, which I discuss in detail in my forthcoming book. An overall result is definitely that liberals tend to be more flexible and open to new ideas—so that’s a possible factor lying behind these data. In fact, recent evidence suggests that wanting to explore the world and try new things, as opposed to viewing the world as threatening, may subtly push people toward liberal ideologies (and vice versa).

Politically and strategically, meanwhile, the evidence presented here leaves liberals and progressives in a rather awkward situation. We like evidence—but evidence also suggests that politics doesn’t work in the way we want it to work, or think it should. We may be the children of the Enlightenment—convinced that you need good facts to make good policies—but that doesn’t mean this is equally true for all of humanity, or that it is as true of our political opponents as it is of us.

Nevertheless, this knowledge ought to be welcomed, for it offers a learning opportunity and, frankly, a better way of understanding politics and our opponents alike. For instance, it can help us see through the scientific-sounding arguments of someone like Rick Santorum, who has been talking a lot about climate science lately—if only in order to bash it.

On global warming, Santorum definitely has an argument, and he has “facts” to cite. And he is obviously intelligent and capable—but not, apparently, able to see past his ideological biases. Santorum’s argument ultimately comes down to a dismissal of climate science and climate scientists, and even the embrace of a conspiracy theory, one in which the scientists of the world are conspiring to subvert economic growth (yeah, right).

Viewing all this as an ideologically defensive maneuver not only explains a lot, it helps us realize that refuting Santorum probably serves little purpose. He’d just come up with another argument and response, probably even cleverer than the last, and certainly just as appealing to his audience. We’d be much better concentrating our energies elsewhere, where people are more persuadable.

A more scientific understanding of persuasion, then, should not be seen as threatening. It’s actually an opportunity to do better—to be more effective and politically successful.

Indeed, if we believe in evidence then we should also welcome the evidence showing its limited power to persuade–especially in politicized areas where deep emotions are involved. Before you start off your next argument with a fact, then, first think about what the facts say about that strategy. If you’re a liberal who is emotionally wedded to the idea that rationality wins the day—well, then, it’s high time to listen to reason.

Chris Mooney is the author of four books, including "The Republican War on Science" (2005). His next book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality," is due out in April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This explains so much:

"Moreover, additional analyses of panel survey data produced findings consistent with the notion that more knowledge yields more concern among Democrats and Independents, but not among Republicans."

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2009/2009%20Global%20warming%20knowledge%20and%20concern%20PUBLISHED.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This explains so much:

"Moreover, additional analyses of panel survey data produced findings consistent with the notion that more knowledge yields more concern among Democrats and Independents, but not among Republicans."

http://web.stanford....n PUBLISHED.pdf

Garbage in = garbage out. More garbage in ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This explains so much:

"Moreover, additional analyses of panel survey data produced findings consistent with the notion that more knowledge yields more concern among Democrats and Independents, but not among Republicans."

http://web.stanford....n PUBLISHED.pdf

Garbage in = garbage out. More garbage in ...

And "exhibit A" chimes in. Right on time too. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right I'll speak out against your cult. Feel free to believe what ever the hell you want, but when you start affixing normal occurrences like drought and storms to AGW, and then want to impose heavy taxes and social controls on what people can and can't do... you're going to lose that battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right I'll speak out against your cult. Feel free to believe what ever the hell you want, but when you start affixing normal occurrences like drought and storms to AGW, and then want to impose heavy taxes and social controls on what people can and can't do... you're going to lose that battle.

What if the actual facts show otherwise? ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right I'll speak out against your cult. Feel free to believe what ever the hell you want, but when you start affixing normal occurrences like drought and storms to AGW, and then want to impose heavy taxes and social controls on what people can and can't do... you're going to lose that battle.

What if the actual facts show otherwise? ;D

They already have. C02 isn't poisonous or a pollutant. Plants rely on it to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the agw claims are true the solution is an economic disaster

It cost untold billions and kills thousands of jobs all for a miniscule change in temperature

It's about economic redistribution.

Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff Noyes version of that article:

Libs feel that if you don't agree with them, than you are clearly wrong.

Waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right I'll speak out against your cult. Feel free to believe what ever the hell you want, but when you start affixing normal occurrences like drought and storms to AGW, and then want to impose heavy taxes and social controls on what people can and can't do... you're going to lose that battle.

What if the actual facts show otherwise? ;D

They already have. C02 isn't poisonous or a pollutant. Plants rely on it to survive.

That's it, keep it up! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the agw claims are true the solution is an economic disaster

It cost untold billions and kills thousands of jobs all for a miniscule change in temperature

Actually, it's an opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the agw claims are true the solution is an economic disaster

It cost untold billions and kills thousands of jobs all for a miniscule change in temperature

Actually, it's an opportunity.

For communism. As Hugo Chavez admitted , @ Copenhagen .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right I'll speak out against your cult. Feel free to believe what ever the hell you want, but when you start affixing normal occurrences like drought and storms to AGW, and then want to impose heavy taxes and social controls on what people can and can't do... you're going to lose that battle.

What if the actual facts show otherwise? ;D

You mean like Global Warming caused ISIS...those facts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

This is where I know the author has lost it...Republicans do not have a Debt Ceiling Denial except to say that the debt has gone up and up under this administration more so than all of the other presidents combined....the only ones in denial that this is a bad things are liberals...their solution is to tax the rich...but soon forget that it tends to be the middle class that pays for it. Also if they don't think it is a problem then they could gladly write a check to the treasury as a gift especially those that already have a great nest egg of over a mil....The Tea party was created because of the government who think they can spend and spend without it being a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is because educated conservative can do math and have an understanding of the way the world works. We can look at the data and see the errors and data manipulation to force the data to fit a theory. We can see that the entire thing is based computer models that have failed to model the actual climate. We see a movement desperately clinging to a thoroughly discredited graph shaped like a hockey stick. We see a 97% mantra derived from a cooked survey.

We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness. We understand that AGW is designed to take our freedom from us and to give governments complete control over our daily lives.

That a supposedly educated Homer can continue to believe in AGW despite all of the data disproving demonstrates a level of faith found in religious cults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, what a juvenile and idiotic article from salon.com. The title alone is ridiculous, and just the first paragraph reveals what tripe this nonsense is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is because educated conservative can do math and have an understanding of the way the world works. We can look at the data and see the errors and data manipulation to force the data to fit a theory. We can see that the entire thing is based computer models that have failed to model the actual climate. We see a movement desperately clinging to a thoroughly discredited graph shaped like a hockey stick. We see a 97% mantra derived from a cooked survey.

We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness. We understand that AGW is designed to take our freedom from us and to give governments complete control over our daily lives.

That a supposedly educated Homer can continue to believe in AGW despite all of the data disproving demonstrates a level of faith found in religious cults.

That's the key. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 Ways to Deal With Your Conservative Relatives' Fox News Talking Points

Fox spends 364 days a year misinforming your loved ones. Do your part one day a year setting them straight.

http://www.alternet....-talking-points

This thread is started with a link to salon with a piece that tends to be editorial. The last post then mocks Fox News. That is classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is because educated conservative can do math and have an understanding of the way the world works. We can look at the data and see the errors and data manipulation to force the data to fit a theory. We can see that the entire thing is based computer models that have failed to model the actual climate. We see a movement desperately clinging to a thoroughly discredited graph shaped like a hockey stick. We see a 97% mantra derived from a cooked survey.

We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness. We understand that AGW is designed to take our freedom from us and to give governments complete control over our daily lives.

That a supposedly educated Homer can continue to believe in AGW despite all of the data disproving demonstrates a level of faith found in religious cults.

That's the key. ;)

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 | 11:27 AM EST

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.

- See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#sthash.KfqGALbI.dpuf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is because educated conservative can do math and have an understanding of the way the world works. We can look at the data and see the errors and data manipulation to force the data to fit a theory. We can see that the entire thing is based computer models that have failed to model the actual climate. We see a movement desperately clinging to a thoroughly discredited graph shaped like a hockey stick. We see a 97% mantra derived from a cooked survey.

We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness. We understand that AGW is designed to take our freedom from us and to give governments complete control over our daily lives.

That a supposedly educated Homer can continue to believe in AGW despite all of the data disproving demonstrates a level of faith found in religious cults.

That's the key. ;)

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 | 11:27 AM EST

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Readers are encouraged to review the entire interview at GWPF or Google's slightly different translation.

- See more at: http://www.newsbuste...h.KfqGALbI.dpuf

You are not paying attention. I have been emphasizing the fact Republicans have totally bought into such absurd nonsense. While providing additional evidence is amusing, it's not really necessary.

But I like your description of their motivation: "They hate our success and freedom to pursue happiness". :laugh:

That's certainly reason enough to organize global climate scientists to generate a multi-decade scientific hoax based on the use of carbon fuels. :rolleyes::ucrazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly reason enough to organize global climate scientists to generate a multi-decade scientific hoax based on the use of carbon fuels.

Actually it is. And you are a truth denier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly reason enough to organize global climate scientists to generate a multi-decade scientific hoax based on the use of carbon fuels.

Actually it is. And you are a truth denier.

"We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...