Climate Change: ‘We’ve Never Seen What We’re Seeing Now’
UNITED NATIONS - One night about four years ago, Lakhan Bibi’s grandfather told her that things in their land were going to change. “How come?” she asked. “Look up to the sky,” he said. “You see the moon? It is no longer where it used to be.”
To many, it may sound superstitious. But Bibi, a former commercial airline pilot and young leader of the indigenous Kailashi people of the Hindu Kush mountains, has no reason to doubt her grandfather’s wisdom. “He was right,” she said. “Since that moment things have changed.” 
“We had never seen before what are seeing now. Our herds are running away. Our homes are getting buried in huge glaciers,” Bibi told IPS at a news conference Tuesday called by the U.N. to highlight the significance of the International Day of Biodiversity on May 22.
Wearing a colourful Kailashi dress, Bibi said that with faster melting of the glaciers, her people are increasingly worried about the future of their livelihoods and traditional lifestyle, which has been based on a self-sustained economy for hundreds of years.
The lush green Kailash valley is located in northern Pakistan, home to some of the world’s highest mountains, ranging from 3,000 to 8,000 metres in altitude. The natives live there in close proximity to nature, with crystal lakes and dense forests.
Bibi, a delegate to the sixth annual meeting of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said she feared many of her people might be forced to leave their homes if the world community did not take urgent and practical measures to mitigate the impact of climate change.
As a result of glaciers melting and collapsing, many native people have been killed and wounded in the past few years. “That had never happened before because they knew when it was going to happen,” she said. “But not anymore. The glaciers are falling very frequently. It was different in the past.”
U.N. experts on the science of biodiversity say concerns about the changing patterns of the natural environment are all too real, and high-altitude areas in various parts of the world are being particularly affected by the rising temperatures caused by climate change.
“An important common feature and characteristic of high altitude areas is that they provide low-lying communities with a vital source of fresh water,” according to a U.N. draft paper on indigenous communities’ vulnerability to climate change. Mountain glaciers are important for water levels in lower lakes and rivers, and comprise a vital part of many communities’ subsistence and economy. Recent research suggests that faster melting of glaciers may be the “most serious” impact of climate change.
According to the U.N. draft paper, which is based on numerous studies, climate change is already having adverse impacts, with new weather conditions posing “severe difficulties for many indigenous communities.”
Bibi said her people are losing the crops and animals on which they completely depend for survival.
But the natives of her mountains, as well as in the Himalayas and Andes, are not the only ones who are bearing the brunt of the greenhouse gas emissions fueling global warming. Experts say those living in the snow-covered Arctic region and small islands across the world are equally threatened.
According to researchers, in the Andes of Latin America and the Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, the retreat of glaciers is accelerating. In February, National Geographic magazine reported that some glaciers in the Andes are melting 10 times faster than they did 20 years ago.
Indigenous leaders point out that their communities are least responsible for the industrialisation triggering climate change, yet they are the ones who are hardest hit, not only forced to abandon their lands, but also the knowledge about those lands.
“It is time to stop the senseless exploitation of the Earth’s natural resources,” said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a native of the Philippines and president of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which brought more than 1,000 activists here last week.
Scientists working with the U.N. now fully acknowledge that traditional knowledge about plant and animal species is key to their understanding of how to conserve natural resources and protect species that are vital for the survival life on Earth.
“The link between biodiversity and traditional knowledge is evident,” said Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, who says he views the Earth as a “spiritual mother who not only gives life and therefore food, but also provides the cultural and spiritual identity of its occupants.”
Believing that indigenous peoples’ dependence on the sustainable management and use of biological sources “can protect and enhance” biodiversity, he adds: “Their cultures and cosmo-visions are therefore essential in the global effort to halt biodiversity loss and natural habitat destruction.”
The biodiversity treaty, which has been signed or ratified by 190 countries, not only recognises the significance of traditional knowledge, but also asserts the need to “respect” and maintain indigenous innovations.
Though appreciative of the objectives laid out in the treaty, indigenous leaders are upset that the U.N. General Assembly has failed to recognise their right to exercise full control over their traditional lands and resources.
“Although in recent decades some progress has been made in the area of legal recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to the protection of their lands, territories, and natural resources,” notes Tauli-Corpuz, “in practical terms, this recognition has not translated into reality.”
Threats to indigenous peoples’ lands and territories, according to Tauli-Corpuz, include mineral extraction, logging, toxic contamination, privatisation, and development projects, as well as the use of genetically modified seeds and technology.
When the U.N. General Assembly met last September, many had high hopes that the body would unanimously endorse the draft declaration on the universal rights of the world’s indigenous peoples, but that did not happen.
Though already approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the United States, Canada, Australia and some other nations refused to accept the text because it included a clause calling for the recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination.
Indigenous leaders say unless the world body recognises their peoples’ right to self-determination, international efforts to reverse the loss of biodiversity and overcome the challenges of climate change will remain futile because their resources will continue to be exploited by private corporations.
“On the one hand, they recognise our traditional knowledge as part of the solution,” Arthur Manuel of the Canada-based Indigenous Network on Economics and Trade told IPS. “But how can we share our knowledge without exercising our right to control our traditional lands and resources?”
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service
Of course the innocent will suffer most and first as the humanoid species ramps up the complete destruction of nature as is its God-given right according to the Bible, which is probably when the last great age of extinction began. We’re just in the end phase, the end of history, religion, nature, maybe we have 100 years, but by then 1/2 of all species will be gone. We have probably less time, but time has definitely run out for folks and polar bears on the edge, in the most precarious places.
Ah jeez… So short-sighted. Just the title alone already: “Climate Change: ‘We’ve Never Seen What We’re Seeing Now’” There’s plenty of evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (about a thousand years ago) was a global phenomenon with similar warmer temperatures. It was followed by what’s called “The Little Ice Age”, which in turn was followed by the Modern Warm Period. And that’s just the relatively recent past. At other times since the last Ice Age, in the last 12000 years (the ‘Holocene’), it was even warmer, around about 8000 years ago. And if we look at the geological temperature record over the last 400,000+ years, each interglacial period (the warm period between ice ages, such as the current Holocene), has been significantly warmer than it has been so far.
Of course, our memory doesn’t go that far, our written history didn’t even start until after the last ice age. But to say “we never seen this before” only applies to the present in comparison with the very recent past. In other words: alarmism.
That we’ll have to deal with global warming I won’t dispute, and that indigenous knowledge and respect for habitat and indigenous cultures is very important, yes. I agree. But the climates have always changed, and always will, and based on what we know of the time that humans have been around, nothing is all that unusual, so far.
And, regardless of how many times it gets repeated as being ‘truth’ and ‘beyond debate’, there is still immense uncertainty that “industrialisation [is] triggering climate change”. The trace gas CO2 did not trigger warming in the past and it’s not very likely that it’s doing it now either. Relax.
Here’s a nice summary of relevant perspectives:
http://earthintime.com/earthintime.html
Coolhead,
You wrote, “The trace gas CO2 did not trigger warming in the past and it’s not very likely that it’s doing it now either. Relax”
The consensus in opposition to your statement is overwhelming among climatologists. Can you furnish us with some documentation that you are so qualified that we should believe you over all the other scientists?
And, the periods of climate change you cite either took place over much longer periods of time, or, they took place so rapidly or were of such a magnitude that they did, in fact, result in mass 90%+ species global extinctions, such as the Permian and Paleocene/Eocene events - and these took place without the added effect of man-mde industrial emissions.
So, it seems to me the geological record provides exactly the opposite of any evedence that we should “relax”…
Indigenous people have never been respected throughout our history. This article represents “climate change” as a way for indigenous people to leverage their causes. Unfortunately western societies have little need for the indigenous cultures since most have been conquered and placed on reservations as relics of a forgotten age. As I have stated in the past, “the meek shall inherit the earth” because they are tied to the land.
Science is based on providing the best evidence to support a theory. Core samples and geological evidence only supports a theory as to what might have happened but, is unable to give exact details of events due to the lack of expert witness, records and such.
Industrial reliance on fossil fuels are known to harm the environment (top 10 most polluted cities are currently in China), we know this because we are witnesses, experts or not. So if we significantly curtail this reliance on a polluting non renewable energy source, that is believed to be in decline, then it benefits our environment. If we are not causing “climate change” then our efforts to stop “climate change” (curtailing consumption) will not be without merit for possible future generations.
What if we are causing “climate change” and we continue our rate of consumption? Then the indigenous people will get what they are striving for, because they will be the only ones with a culture and knowledge that will enable them to survive climate change. The meek will ultimately inherit the earth.
Amazing. Frank Luntz changes “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and everybody picks it up.
For anyone who finds himself or herself in a discussion with someone like coolhead, check out “Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed” at http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462. It provides substantial data with which to counter global warming (there, I said it! : )) naysayers.
“ezflyer: Amazing. Frank Luntz changes “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and everybody picks it up.”
Right —
Isn’t it strange how people don’t question things?
Keep using Global Warming — it keeps the HEAT in what’s happening. For those who don’t get it, stick your heads out your windows.
One has only to look at our Nobel Prize scientists who have been telling us about GW for almost two decades.
They now tell us with 90% accuracy which is unprecedented that GW is man-made.
One has only to look at ExxonMobil which has financed a propaganda war on truth re GW over three decades — and their power has been so great that only in the past six months did the Royal Academy of Scientists speak out calling them to account for their lies and distortions and demanding that they STOP.
Other oil companies used to be with ExxonMobil — but they have all dropped out, presumably because they are not suicidal.
Ask yourself WHY our natural resources are controlled by a few private families.
Start questioning capitalism which has permitted this pollution of our planet.
That anyone would still think that Global Warming is something our scientists made up suggests that the propaganda lingers, but the sad reality speaks more loudly every day.
“Relax”? Actually that is good advice. There is nothing we can do. It is too late. Enjoy the show. It will be the best ‘reality’ show we have ever seen. However, if you really want to do something…switch to low energy lightbulbs. It won’t change the future but it may make you feel better.
KoolAidHead..Life as we have known it may well exist because Carboniferous era CO2 levels (1500ppm) were reduced to approximately what they are now, by the deposition of COAL and OIL (and CHALK, but that is another topic). We are continuing to release large quantities of that back.
Also, we are rapidly “filling up” (Oceans) OR destroying (Amazon and other forests) the existing Carbon Sinks that have kept levels more or less stable for, oh , millions of years.
Life as we know it has not seen the sort of levels that it is feared we will see, if we continue to release CO2 BACK into the atmosphere.
Oh, in poisoning the seas we do kill of the CO2 absorbing, Oxygen producing capability of PHYTOPLANKTON..
But don’t let that small matter bother your fizzy head.
Why are scientific illiterates allowed to post here??
One should suspect that Coolhead and Kayaker are a tag team. Try to convince people Global Warming is not happening, if that fails, try to convince them it’s a lost cause. Either way we’re suppose to do nothing. “Isn’t that convenient for the Coal and Oil companies.
It’s going to take an entire new culture for Americans to do anything effective about global climate change. And I don’t see Americans lining up to do so.
Things we will have to change: no more consumerism, period. No more disposable stuff. No more waste as a form of luxury. No more economic specialization. No more conspicuous consumption. No more private irresponsibility. More hard work, and less management. More localism. More ability to get along with people in physical proximity (those we used to call neighbors). More cooperation with people we don’t share values with.
In general, more maturity, and the abandoning of our national Peter Pan syndrome.
What kills me is that evangelical christians want this to happen. They want people to destroy the earth so the end times will occur and jesus will ride a lightning bolt down to the earth to wisk them all away… But maybe that will be a good thing and the people that are left will once again live within the rhythms of nature and not by mechanical time.
And another thing. It’s so funny that people (idiots) try to say that warming happened 8000 years ago and that that makes it okay today. I don’t there was deforestation and massive amounts of pollution 8000 years ago. Let these idiots continue to write here because their idiocy makes me laugh.
The hell with the war, Piss on Bush, The hell with congress,.. The only thing I can shed a tear about is the Whales in california,
signaling for help as the U.S. watches and we know they will die.. If one of the assshole politicians would show some concern about these Whales.. They would get my vote..
My vote ain’t cheap…
Well it’s true the earth’s climate has always fluctutated. Climate change may not be a huge disaster, but the lack of fresh water and food will be. The worlds population will have outgrown food population by 2015. What then? Even if we go nuclear and eat vitamins we will not be able to stop famine and close on the heels of famine rides disease.
Even if the whole global warming is blown out of proportion we are still facing a frightening future of massive famines, disease and displaced populations. We are still facing a future of police states, rioting and economic collapse. So it really doesn’t matter whether you believe in it or not.
how true that the dinosaurs didn’t pollute the air with gases and chemicals. we as the human species now are the only ones in history to do that. so for me it stands to reason that we are responsible. and sueno is right about the frightening future - that is the realistic scenario with people fighting for food and water. scientists have said long ago that the next wars will be over water. and in his book before his death, jacques cousteau the famous french mariner, who spent all his life on the ocean said, that the earth has 50, 100, maximum 150 years to go. i believe him. and what with the bees disappearing now, it’s like the rats leaving the sinking ship.
““You see the moon? It is no longer where it used to be.””
huh? global warming has changed the moons orbit?
anyone care to explain this?
Take a deep breath…
0.038% of Earth atmosphere is CO2, a rather small trace gas. Water vapor can be up to 4% in the tropics, with about 1% on global average. Just FYI. When there’s very little of something, it’s not that hard to double it. And why hasnt the temperature shot up yet. It’s still well within the range of natural variability, wether you like that or not, wether that will have dire consequences for many or not. It’s time to end the blame game.
This beautiful planet, which I love very dearly and have at times risked life and liberty to defend, demands our respect, demands we take responsability. The mindless and short-sighted greed-driven behavior that results in so much toxins and various dust particles being released into the air, ground, and water; the habitat fragmentation, the heart-wrenching deforestation, injustices and dispicable power dynamics, all of that does need to be stopped, needs to be addressed. Curbing CO2 may do some of that, sure, but in the bigger picture all the focus on this effort is actually more of a distraction, and it near-cerainly won’t “stop climate change”. If there was clear evidence (not generated by biased computer-models) that antropogenic greenhouse gasses were to blame, then, sure, the IPCC would deserve our respect and support. But that is sadly not the case.
And, indeed, even with all, or nearly all of this warming being due to natural causes, we will have to cope, and do so humanely and in solidarity with our fellow brothers and sisters. We may very well have to turn toward a very different way of living. But there will be a journey, and joy, and love to be had, friends to be made and habitats for our animal relations to be protected, with migration corridors to be re-established, and so on. Lots of work to be done. Don’t let this bit of geopolitical maneuvering distract you.
I personally do not have the scientific expertise per se to say the IPCC missed the mark, however evaluating IPCC criticism of various experts in the field and going through the IPCC small print myself has left me convinced that the general public is being manipulated for ulterior motives. I won’t turn this into a forum to debate the potential conspiracy theories. All I’m saying is: Relax. Research it. Unmask the untruths! Here is wat some notable experts say about that so-called “consensus”:
British scientist Keith Shine, one of IPCC’s lead authors, discussing the Policymakers’ Summary, said: “We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented…. It’s peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists’ report”.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences, has publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”.
Renowed US climatologists Roger A. Pielke (who actually stands by the IPCC) wrote: “How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn’t paying attention”
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[The] recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: “Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.”
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change.”
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” + “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.”
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “There’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect.”
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to “If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?”): “No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations.”
…
And so forth. So… do your freak’n homework before you believe related media reports on blind faith, or start name calling me, or questioning my sensibility, etc.
And relax. All is well. Take a deep breath of fresh air, wipe the sweat of your head and stick you feed in sweet Mother Earth mud and let Her wisdom guide you to sanity.
Peace,
coolhead
What planet are you from coolhead? Is it nice there?
Coolhead is from planet “I’m smarter than you”. I wondered how he could risk his life and liberty to defend his planet (because earth hasn’t noticed his efforts at all). Which galaxy attacked us when you risked your life and liberty for planet earth, cool? Must be the same galaxy that you got your very few scientist list from. Even a list of 50 scientists is a very tiny list. Thousands of scientists think otherwise. Get a life.
To Alkalye,
I will use the Republican approach to answering your question.
“If I have to explain it to you, you probably wouldn’t understand.”
Does that make sense?
Dear Coolhead,
Your entry looks very impressive at first glance, but I, in the name of truth and honesty, have to cast doubt on it. It starts with a few comments nearly completely devoid of science. Then, at great length, you trot out the comments of a number of world class anthropogenic global warming skeptics. I am curious what web site you gathered all those names from. Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University… is that the oil Rockefellers?… just joking. Sally Baliunas is an astronomer, and, if I remember correctly, largely funded by right wing oil interests. Renowed is one way to describe US climatologists Roger A. Pielke, but he frequently gets beat up by other climatologists, figuratively speaking of course.
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, is a fading light in the world of climatology. His wondrous hurricane predictions,perhaps
made a little less wondrous by their continual updates throughout the season, have fallen flat in the recent past. Seems like fewer and fewer scientists are subscribing to his little bang theory of climate, and, by the way, more and more is known about ocean circulation each year. Ignorance of new oceanographic data is no excuse for invoking the limits of knowledge.
Citing a so-called experts list of individuals with multiple ties to the fossil fuel industry (check it out if you don’t already know)does nothing to address the fact that the planet is warming. Almost without any doubt, most scientists worthy of the name are concerned about the heat capturing properties of that trace gas you mentioned early on. Even if the current consensus among real climate scientists were wrong, and anthropogenic global warming were found to be insignificant, there would still be plenty of other reasons to question the wisdom of using fossil petrochemicals inefficiently. Reducing exposure to toxic pollutants, cutting off funding for terrorist and their rapatious oil baron supporters, and saving something for the grand children are a few concepts that make the oil-industry-funded point of view on climate change look more and more unattractive.
“Some folks look for answers, others look for fights.”
Peace,
ScienceSteve
Oh Goodness. It just dawned on me. “Coolhead” is probably Willie Soon or some other member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.
“And relax. All is well. Take a deep breath of fresh air, wipe the sweat of[?] your head and stick you feed[?] in sweet Mother Earth mud and let Her wisdom guide you to sanity.”
Sweet mother earth mud is probably refering to drilling mud! How could I miss the authoritarian father figure worshipping sarcastic adolescent tone of another brainwashed, Exxon Mobile funded ideologue! Guess I am slipping!
Well, give them credit. They are starting to tone down their rhetoric and at least trying to give the appearance of being friendly! That is a serious breakthrough in contrarian tactics. They finally realized that honey catches more flies than vinegar. But then again, who wants to catch flies, anyway?
Could reasoned discourse be next?
Unlikely!