Climate Stuff: Climate Scientist Sums Up Some Important Things Nicely


First: Here’s the YouTube video in which the scientists appear:

The video is of a Senate Hearing entitled: “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.”

Quick response: Well, Duh! That’s all the climate does! The climate never, ever, not ever does anything else but change! A more meaningful title for the hearing might have been: “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now, As It Has Every Day Since The Earth Has Existed.(1)

The fact that the only thing the climate ever does is change, and the fact that almost no one ever makes that point is kind of a pet peeve of mine, and I’ve often raised it in these pages. I was delighted to note that, at least in this hearing, the climate scientists also made that same point that I’ve been making for a long time now.

The witnesses at this particular hearing are Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Jennifer Francis, climate scientists all. They’re being questioned by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

Dr. Pielke, made these “Seven Take Home Points:”

  1. It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or drought have increased on climate time scales, either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increase in cost of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.
  2. Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP; they’ve actually decreased by about 25%. And insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
  3. Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones since at least 1970, when we have good data.
  4. Floods have not increased in frequency or intensity in the US since at least 1950, and remarkably flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by 75% since 1940.
  5. Tornadoes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1950, and there’s some evidence to suggest that they’ve actually declined.
  6. Drought has, (source: the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change — IPCC) for the most part  become shorter, less frequent, and covered a smaller part of the US in the last century. Globally, (source: Nature) there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.
  7. Costs associated with disasters will continue to rise, due to increases in wealth and higher populations in the areas prone to climate extremes.

What does all this mean? Well, pretty simple: the new media seize on flashy climate disasters and regularly report the absolute falsehood that climate catastrophes are on the rise, that it’s due to “climate change,” with the unsubtle implication being that mankind is  responsible for the climate change causing these increased disasters.

The video linked above was recorded in 2013, so you’ll note that committee chairs were  different then, Obama was President… things have changed in America. However, the video contains some actual serious discussion of climate that even included some Democrats!

The most prominent Democrat, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) actually says some intelligent things. They’re incorrect for the most part, but they’re not the usual fluff you hear from the Left in climate matters.

For example, one of the witnesses, Dr. Pielke I think, points out that (1) everyone knows that humans affect the climate but (2) no one has any idea of the extent to which human activity affects the climate. He then goes on to say that no one will have any idea of how much human activity affects the climate on the topic of, for example, tornadoes, for at least several decades, if not hundreds of years in the future. Pielke called the anticipated indicators of human activity: markers.

Whitehouse makes the erroneous rhetorical point, “Shouldn’t we try to get out in front of these ‘markers,’ and not wait for them to appear?”

The correct answer: an emphatic No! Because we have no idea what those “markers” will tell us! Whitehouse is operating from the assumption that the “markers” will simply confirm what the environmentalist extremists are all saying: that mankind has a massive effect on the climate, and that we can also stop doing what we’re doing and control the direction of global temperatures. I was disappointed that Pielke didn’t make this point.

It’s just as likely, or even more so, that the “markers” will indicate that humans have an effect, but not nearly as much as, for example, global vulcanism, or sun cycles, or fluctuations in the Van Allen radiation belts.

Regarding these interesting points, I made two interesting observations recently in these pages:

  1. Everything affects the climate, so, of course humans are bringing about climate change. Did you just wiggle your little finger? Shame on you! You just brought about climate change!
  2. No one knows precisely how humans are affecting the climate. Remember back in the 1970’s when the Chicken Littles of America were running around warning of the coming Ice Age? If the current craze were all about “Global Cooling” you can be sure that the Left and environmentalists would be all up in arms about all the stuff humans are doing to cool the planet.

Pielke or Spencer, makes the point that it would be much more prudent to make our infrastructures, our structures, our dwellings, roads, bridges and ourselves, more adaptable, and more ready and able to take on more varied behavior on the part of the planetary climate. This is, I might add, a point I made in these pages as well.

All in all, an interesting and instructive video, and worth a look and listgen. Don’t fooled, however, by Sheldon Whitehouse! His questions are political, but couched in the slippery, weasel language at which the Left is so adept. They’re often intended to mock or deride the beliefs of the climate scientists who are his intellectual betters. David Vitter does the same thing, but he’s neither as clever, nor as devious and slippery as Whitehouse. To Vitter’s credit, he allows the scientists to speak for themselves, while Whitehouse tries to manipulate and maneuver them.

(To Doug’s point, as I’m sure he’ll watch the video and respond to this post, none of this eliminates our responsibility to clean up after ourselves. 🙂 Doug and I disagree on the extent to which environmentalism has been corrupted by politics. I say that it has been thoroughly so corrupted, while Doug says it has not.)

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) And it’s happening on Mars, on Jupiter, and, in fact, on every star, planet, minor planet, moon, quasar, black hole, neutron star, asteroid, white or brown dwarf, in every galaxy, in every galactic cluster, supercluster, mega-giga-jiga- supercluster (I made that last one up) in the universe. That’s all any climate does anywhere!

 

 

 

 

10 thoughts on “Climate Stuff: Climate Scientist Sums Up Some Important Things Nicely

  1. Good video. So, my observation and very limited and very amateur research suggests three elements in play on the entire environmental issue.

    1> Science in general proves or disproves theory primarily on established and predictable cause and effect situations. Weather and climate remains wildly unpredictable yet tantalizingly fairly predictable. A weatherman can tell us a high pressure system is passing through so expect some rain, a storm, or even issue a tornado warning with some degree of precautionary accuracy… yet we can’t completely predict the 1000 mile track of an approaching hurricane until it gets closer. Yet it seems there is no uniformly accurate computer models for assimilating available data that works under all climate conditions. In other words, the sheer variety of climate possibilities and what composes climate cause & effect is huge… and just how many of these variations we have in computer data banks must be minuscule to the all possible combinations. These two scientists, who are apparently highly qualified and skilled in their field… failed to mention anything about natural shifts in gravitational stresses to the Earth itself affecting atmosphere and in many cases, itself affecting organic behavior across the living spectrum. There’s tachyon and gamma bursts from the cyclical nature of the Sun and other heavenly bodies affecting the various atmospheric layers. In other words.. if one wants to explore the environmental situation of the planet one would have to cross many scientific disciplines… or coordinate with same.. to get a full picture of what causes what to the get effect we are trying to measure. Bottom line… to the level that our current knowledge of everything around us exists… scientists themselves have to get together to agree on some reliable formulas. Hence Pielki saying we have a difficult time establishing long term indicators and predictors.

    2> The politics of it all. Or rather more to the point, the economics of it all. Common sense suggests that the moment man discovered how to make fire… he started polluting the planet in some form. On the other hand, that discovery alone allowed man to leave his cave and begin producing things to survive and advance in knowledge of the world around him. The issue at play comes from the economic sectors around the world taking issue because of the wide range of production potentionally affecting climate… fossil fuels, merchandising, factories, etc. all versus the unified global effort to get the world to sign on to regulate climate emissions, thus placing economic stress on regulating all industries, and essentially all facets of human life. Internationally, developing countries who are just now establishing their own economic markets would be placed with having to meet emission regulations that the industrialized countries never had to worry about. On the other hand… here in the States our normal technological advances in solar and alternative fuels is a natural process of trying to save money in the long term.. to the point that robotics have reduced human production lines and fossil fuel demand has decreased the need for greater mining. While that depletes the earning potential for those red states folks… it is a positive effort to our GNP. As you indicated.. common sense suggests we clean up our own messes anyway and a lot of that will depend on market conditions. Simple supply & demand may take care of all of this. I have never bought this nonsense that scientists, supporting either side, were ALL being swayed to fake opinion because of payoff conspiracies.

    3> Growing population. I’ve mentioned this before more than once. People are growing into areas where natural and/or man-made disasters will have greater impact on insurance companies, FEMA, and government bailouts, not to mention the suffering of the humanity involved. When more people are involved in some calamity it will get the media attention, as it should. This alone makes it important for science to keep the public aware of its limitations in what science knows.. and come together themselves in some level of consensus.

    1. Hi, Doug! For some bizarre reason, your fine post went into moderation. I do not know way.

      I had a pesky commentator whose vocabulary was really bad (BW is like that sometimes), so I have a bad word filter.

      However, you’re not prone to bad words.

      Anyway, thank you for your fine comment. I’ll try to get around to posting a better reply than this, but for the moment I’m working on one of my several billion dollar ideas.

      This reply should get your post out of moderation, though!

      Best,

      — x

        1. Lol! If you were prone to bad words in this venue, we’d edit them out with a request not to use them.

          I’ve always used this guideline: My 12-year old son should be able to read what you write. He’s 18 now, so anyone’s 12-year old son, or daughter, should be able to read what you write. You’ve been just fine!

          Best,

          — x

    2. If I may expand a bit on my own reply above…

      Adding to the population increase I describe in #3… we are currently in a political age where being a refugee is not really welcome, hence the increased interest in isolationism, nationalism, and fear with those nations refugees normally run to for assistance. The increasing populations around the world, again, are forcing humans to live in otherwise places of risk from natural and political disasters. This only supports the idea that natural disasters and normal weather conditions, if not global warming conditions, will just get traditionally benevolent nations more economically stressed.

      Now.. in spite of my seeming affirmation of global warming specifically being in doubt, and it’s all just some cyclical climate change, that is not truly my opinion. What I am saying is that I am willing to accept that the science for accurately predicting global warming threats as it relates to human causes is perhaps not exactly at the point where it might be 100% credible without more data collection and research. I am also willing to accept the idea that since the science is not totally conclusive that global warming is an immediate threat to the planet. As part of the layman population I have to rely on those institutions/scientists that express their findings based on the things they do to interpret the data. NOAA, NASA, etc. come to mind. We have to trust the things we feel confident in trusting. The argument between one side or the other is not political but one of science and technology. As laymen we are basing scientific accuracy on some percentage of scientists weighing in with their opinions one way or the other. Deciding between climate change and global warming is not a political popularity contest. I recommend the scientists themselves reach a consensus for action… maybe an international committee under the auspices of the UN or whatever. Made up of scientists from both sides of the argument, to present to the world the “best guess” of how we proceed. It is VERY conceivable that both sides of the argument are correct.. as far as they go.

      Forget the money conspiracies, deep state political conspiracies, international posturing, theories of government desiring to control more of our lives, loose our freedoms… all that is just plain politically inspired populist right wing gibberish.

      1. You Said:
        If I may expand a bit on my own reply above…
        My Reply:
        Please feel free!
        – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

        You Said:
        Adding to the population increase I describe in #3… we are currently in a political age where being a refugee is not really welcome, hence the increased interest in isolationism, nationalism, and fear with those nations refugees normally run to for assistance. The increasing populations around the world, again, are forcing humans to live in otherwise places of risk from natural and political disasters. This only supports the idea that natural disasters and normal weather conditions, if not global warming conditions, will just get traditionally benevolent nations more economically stressed.
        My Reply:
        I agree. Don’t forget, however, that there are places in the world in dramatic demographic decline. Western Europe, Russia, for example. The U.S. itself is at exactly replacement rate now, meaning that any population growth (needed to support senior citizens as they age into Social Security) will have to come from elsewhere.

        I don’t think there’s any real hostility toward “refugees” (writ large), but rather a suspicion that a lot of refugees are not so much refugees as people hoping to go to places where the social safety net is robust, and then live off that social safety net. There’s quite a cottage industry in England devoted to that very thing. The suspicion in America is, and it’s a valid suspicion, that many “refugees” come here for the generous welfare benefits. That is, with many nuances, true.

        Sweden and Germany are experiencing different problems, having taken in hundreds of thousands of so-called refugees, who have then simply imported and established the same culture they were supposedly fleeing. Hence, Germany actually issued official advice in recent years to women in its big cities to stay at home at night and not venture forth or risk being assaulted by “refugees.”

        The experience in America with South American arrivals, and that of Europe with muslim arrivals has, overall, been a negative one, with many of those people having csaalled themselves “refugees.” Real refugees, of which there are millions around the world, have been unfairly tarnished by that association.
        – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

        You Said:
        Now… in spite of my seeming affirmation of global warming specifically being in doubt, and it’s all just some cyclical climate change, that is not truly my opinion. What I am saying is that I am willing to accept that the science for accurately predicting global warming threats as it relates to human causes is perhaps not exactly at the point where it might be 100% credible without more data collection and research. I am also willing to accept the idea that since the science is not totally conclusive that global warming is an immediate threat to the planet. As part of the layman population I have to rely on those institutions/scientists that express their findings based on the things they do to interpret the data. NOAA, NASA, etc. come to mind. We have to trust the things we feel confident in trusting. The argument between one side or the other is not political but one of science and technology. As laymen we are basing scientific accuracy on some percentage of scientists weighing in with their opinions one way or the other. Deciding between climate change and global warming is not a political popularity contest. I recommend the scientists themselves reach a consensus for action… maybe an international committee under the auspices of the UN or whatever. Made up of scientists from both sides of the argument, to present to the world the “best guess” of how we proceed. It is VERY conceivable that both sides of the argument are correct.. as far as they go.
        My Reply:
        Excellent points! Where you and I might differ is in my assessment that the Left in America is totally corrupt, and they’re the political side that supports vast
        expenditured on Climate stuff, as well as legislation that would be extremely costly, and curtail freedoms. I agree that we all have to put our faith in experts whom we deem credible, and that as laymen many of us have to assign credibility as best we can. What I most dislike is the false premises under which so much of the “Climate Change” thing was put forward. First it was global cooling (back in the ’70s), then it was Global Warming, then that didn’t excite people enough, so it became “Climate Change,” the weasliest words of them all! (Again, the climate does nothing but change).

        You and I will differ also on the extent to which we assess the argument to be political. When I saw one side of the argument, the Left, do its level best to shut down skeptics, and when I heard the scientific nonsense term “Settled science”,” again only from the Left, I found that to be compelling evidence that science was being taken over by politics.

        Doug, I’m afraid I’m just a tad more cynical than you when it comes to these things! Please keep your youthful idealism!!!
        – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

        You Said:
        Forget the money conspiracies, deep state political conspiracies, international posturing, theories of government desiring to control more of our lives, loose our freedoms… all that is just plain politically inspired populist right wing gibberish.
        My Reply:
        Lol! An outstanding paragraph!!! I love it. I disasgree with it entirely, but it’s outstanding! Again, I’m afraid I’m much more cynical than you as it pertains to the political Left. I was there once, and I found it to be a snake pit that brooked no dissent, no disagreement with leftish orthodoxy, and demanded a total lockstep adherrence to varoius positions. No exceptions. You might want to watch any of the YouTube videos entitled “Leaving the Left.” There are quite a few of them, apparently. People like Dave Rubin, Penn Jillette, Laci Green and more. I have, however, dear, dear friends on the Left who have no problem with my criticism of the Left in general, if not of them in particular. They try to convert me — really to deconvert me — and I try to convert them. I win all my arguments with them, but I recognize that’s not necessarily the best way to convert someone!

        As for “theories of government desiring to control more of our lives“, you can search for “xPraetorius Curve” in these pages to see where we stand on that one. It is our firm belief that the government has been trying to control more and more and more and more of each of our lives since the founding. And, the govenment has been controlling more and more and more and more of each of our lives since the founding. All that wasn’t by accident, and it didn’t have to be because of any grand conspiracy either. Simply: that’s what government’s do.
        – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

        Best,

        — x

        1. I’m not so much an idealist as I am a bit of a pragmatist. I collect Social Security so I’m a little distant from being young and impressionable. If you have experience in service to the nation outside of the military and have become jaded and or cynical.. I am not qualified to pass any sort of judgement on that given I’ve not walked the proverbial mile in your shoes. But being more of a humanist I tend to believe in certain basic qualities of humankind. For example.. you said…

          “Where you and I might differ is in my assessment that the Left in America is totally corrupt…)

          Again the divisiveness and yet again the ambiguousness of the remark. Who exactly makes up the “Left” that you find so corrupt? No question it’s the universal Conservative lament to spread the “they & us”; spread the fear of something being taken away or being lost to “villains” with suspicious agendas. Please share with me the grand left wing conspiracies, the secret handshakes, the deep state. No one keeps a secret in D.C. for very long.. the place leaks like a punctured dam… because of a myriad of human reasons, many beyond just the exchange of money. It was shocking Mueller seems to have kept his investigation a secret for two years. The man deserves an award for that alone.
          Here’s some news for you.. fellow Americans make up that “corrupt” Left… just as “corrupt” Conservatives make up the Right. Whoda thunk, huh? You likely dismissed my remark about population increasing being a reason for climate-related and man-made tragedies. It’s inevitable that as population increases (forget all the application of demographic shifts in racial representation in America) so do the demands by that population for more governmental controls of some sort. Especially in a democracy (or a democratic republic if you find the need to show what you know) as populations rise and government tries to adjust to increasing demands, political upheaval usually follows.

          1. You Said:
            I’m not so much an idealist as I am a bit of a pragmatist. I collect Social Security so I’m a little distant from being young and impressionable. If you have experience in service to the nation outside of the military and have become jaded and or cynical.. I am not qualified to pass any sort of judgement on that given I’ve not walked the proverbial mile in your shoes. But being more of a humanist I tend to believe in certain basic qualities of humankind. For example.. you said…
            My Reply:
            Just wanted to single out my strong concurrence with your assertion: “I am not qualified to pass any sort of judgement on that given I’ve not walked the proverbial mile in your shoes.” Well said! I work hard to keep that as an important part of my base assumptions in dealing with others! As you can probably guess, if I have to work hard at it, sometimes I fail.
            – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            [Quoting me] “Where you and I might differ is in my assessment that the Left in America is totally corrupt…)”[end of quote]

            Again the divisiveness and yet again the ambiguousness of the remark. Who exactly makes up the “Left” that you find so corrupt? No question it’s the universal Conservative lament to spread the “they & us”; spread the fear of something being taken away or being lost to “villains” with suspicious agendas. Please share with me the grand left wing conspiracies, the secret handshakes, the deep state. No one keeps a secret in D.C. for very long.. the place leaks like a punctured dam… because of a myriad of human reasons, many beyond just the exchange of money. It was shocking Mueller seems to have kept his investigation a secret for two years. The man deserves an award for that alone.
            My Reply:
            I’m okay with divisiveness. For example, it would have been very “divisive” in late 1930’s Germany for someone to have loudly and publicly anti-Nazi as that country “unified” around its charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler. It would have been divisive, but it would have been the right thing to do. I’m not making a moral equivalance between the Left and Hitler, despite the fact that they do that to us Conservatives all the time. 🙂

            Furthermore, it was “divisive” for Martin Luther King, Jr. to make all the points that he did, but he still did the right thing. And few people were more divisive than Jesus Christ. Change, real change comes only through divisiveness… from someone looking at some established thing and saying, divisively, “This is wrong, and it has to stop! (or change)” Like those very divisive abolitionists in the time of slavery. Divisive, but right.

            Now, you’re forcing me to clarify what I mean by the corrupt “Left.” And good for you! It’s an excellent question, and one that we’re answered in these pages quite a lot: We distinguish the well-meaning “liberals” who vote Democrat, and who wish for a better America, from “the Left” whom we view as power-hungry and thoroughly corrupt. Those people are the leadership of the Democrat Party — not most of the rank and file — as well as the various parasitical organizations and entities that have affixed themselves, like remoras, to the Democrat Party in a deal meant to bring power, influence and money to them all. These organizations and entities are things like the Black Lives Matter movement, Antifa and other assorted thugs, as well as the dominant media, academia, Hollywood and most of pop culture. This is why we never castigate liberals, but always “the Left.” No real conspiracy needed, just the general human tendency to stick with one’s own kind. However, in the case of influence-peddlers, most especially the media, academia and Hollywood, they’ve taken this natural tendency to the next level and actively, and sommetimes violently, squelch Conservative expression, purging it, and Conservatives — in McCarthyesque fashion — from the institutions’ ranks. This is inexcusable and unAmerican. Furthermore, no one denies it anymore! Still furthermore, you hear of those who have broken ranks with the Left in their own industries only after they’ve become so well-known, that the repercussions — swift and powerful — of their apostasy can be successfully withstood.

            Conservatives don’t spread the “they & us” thing nearly as much the Left, by any stretch! Remember: as soon as a Conservative proposes anything at all he’s met with a barrage of name-calling. Racist! Sexist! Nazi! You hate women! You hate black people! Homophobe! You want people to die! Conservatives, in the vast majority, simply don’t traffick in that kind of vitriol. There have been no right-wing shoutdowns on college campuses, for example. There are no corresponding “names” that we Conservatives can call the ostensible opposite of all the standard terms. Nothing for when someone hates white people, as there’s certainly no shortage of that! Nothing to call someone who hates men… even though there’s a word for it. Nothing for someone who hates straight people, even though the great evil-doer of history is supposed to be that no-goodnik, the “straight, white male.” Why? We on the right didn’t invent any! Or, if we had, the media didn’t pass them along, further provinng my point. 🙂 No, when someone is shouting Racist! Sexist! Homophobe! the understanding is that a leftist is castigating a rightist. No Conservative has ever suggested curtailing freedom of speech, as is much in vogue now in the Democrat Party… And so on and so forth.

            All this was started by the political Left, all the way back in the silly ’60’s and it’s been perpetuated by the Left ever since.

            I’d love to get away from the current tone of political “debate” in this country, but it would mean that the Left, where all the dirtiness started, would have to publicly foreswear half of what they consider their debate arsenal! I honestly don’t know what the Left would be able to say if they were unable to name call or insult! Literally every time I’ve debated with them online, they’ve trotted out all the standards. Every time. You have to understand: this is the playbook. Alinsky wasn’t writing a manual, he was merely describing what the political Left around the world had long since adopted as a “debate” strategy all the way back into the middle of the 19th Century!

            And, no, I don’t consider this a debate with the Left. I consider you a good, well-meaning liberal, like one of the many who are good friends of mine. 🙂

            – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Here’s some news for you.. fellow Americans make up that “corrupt” Left… just as “corrupt” Conservatives make up the Right. Whoda thunk, huh? You likely dismissed my remark about population increasing being a reason for climate-related and man-made tragedies. It’s inevitable that as population increases (forget all the application of demographic shifts in racial representation in America) so do the demands by that population for more governmental controls of some sort. Especially in a democracy (or a democratic republic if you find the need to show what you know) as populations rise and government tries to adjust to increasing demands, political upheaval usually follows.
            My Reply:
            I agree, and it’s good of you to point out that there are Corrupt Conservatives as well. Again, in these pages, we’ve made the point that the Left is 100% corrupt (and again, that’s the leadership, not the rank and file), while the Right is 50% corrupt. Why the focus on the Left? Easy: they represent the bigger problem! It’s correct, as you accurately point out, that there is too much corruption on the Right as well.

            I don’t think I missed your remark about population increase. Didn’t I answer it? I thought that I mentioned that most scientists figure that the world population will peak out at about 9-10 billion, and then retreat somewhat. That population retreat has already begun in Western Europe and Russia. It’s inevitable in China where they’ve just spent decades aggressively aborting baby girls, and we’ve leveled off in America, where we exactly at replacement rate, but heading down, now. Still, until the human population arrives at that peak, human tragedies related to climate will, as you pointed out, increase.

            – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Especially in a democracy (or a democratic republic if you find the need to show what you know)
            My Reply:
            My goodness, I hope I’m not that pedantic! A “democratic republic” is (arguably, I understand) a sub-set of the term “democracy.” I bristle when people sniffingly “correct” those who call America a “democracy.” I’m just fine with the term! If someone wants to clarify for whatever reason, that’s fine. Otherwise, it’s hardly a major distinction.
            – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            as populations rise and government tries to adjust to increasing demands, political upheaval usually follows.
            My Reply:
            I agree.
            – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

            Best,

            — x

          2. I’m not a liberal… never was. I’m guessing you’ve not checked out my blog.. not that it’s a requirement, just something I tend to do sometimes as I meander about.

            This might clarify my position more.

            https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/why-i-dislike-this-guy-as-my-president-2/
            I posted this as soon as he was sworn in so this is not some contemporary opportunist afterthought.

            Also.. following each post I make, at the bottom.. I make the point that I am a card carrying Republican… member of the NRA.. a veteran… and a degreed “elitist”. Before Trump I considered myself a liberal conservative. So my distaste for Trump is not affiliated with another political party. I’m old school republican who wants nothing to do with this guy.

            Just wanted to present that at the outset given my online persona might appear to emulate a liberal persuasion.

          3. MANY thanks for this clarification, Doug! I will go there and check out your blog! More than I’ve checked it out already that is.

            And MANY more apologies for jumping to an obviously erroneous conclusion!

            Or at least to a conclusion that required some serious adjustment!

            Best,

            — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s