Forget the thermometer, the scientists cannot add correctly.You see 2+2 is supposed to be 4, the way their equation worked was 2+2+-1=4 and that don't work. They lied, they cheated, they profited from the deception, thats fraud, thats taking money in false pretenses, that for you or me is jail time. But these are big mucks, so I doubt it.
They shut off dissent by getting the others fired, or losing their credentials at their universities, they should be done the same with. But now how can we trust science? To do the best for us? To heal, to transport and to feed us? These guys did the unthinkable and set science back 50 years. And nothing is going to happen to them, their friends are the investigators, and the judges. So I pity humanity for all they are going to do to us.

While we've been through this --- over and over again, in multiple previous threads --- it looks like it's necessary to keep asking, since none of the denialists here seem to be able to answer the question.

Where is the global warming science (or any science, since you've decided that all science is now meaningless) that has been shown to be inaccurate by this so-called "fraud"?

The only thing that has been "set back 50 years" as far as I can tell, is the interest in fact-based journalism from a broad swath of our citizenry. But I'm looking forward to your demonstrating otherwise. With such strong opinions, I'm sure you'll be able to share your evidence which demonstrates that global warming facts and science are no longer valid.

Another unfortunate name...Moran-o...

You can't make this shit up!

The biggest sources of greenhouse gasses are folks like james above, rush limpballs, and the rest of the wingnuts.

This is in response to Brad, the fraud is when you have scientists suppressing info to get their "hockey stick" graph, ignoring the data showing middle ages temps warmer than today. Wake up! Global warming is just propaganda to advance the New World Order. Al Gore doesn't even believe his own crap. Some of these "scientists" were predicting global COOLING back in the 70s.

"Biased thermometers", "coldest period ... geologically" and et cetera!

Just how friggin' stupid do yo have to be to not ask "colder than the last Ice Age?" or "biased thermometers... are inanimate objects in cahoots with the Grand Conspiracy, too?".
I'm even wishing everyone a "Merry Christmas" to dispell any hint of that dubious conspiracy, yet still I'm asking the slimate change Denialists "Why do the (fossil fuel) energy companies keep sending you money?"
(Yep, it must be for your debating skills).
Cripes!

Comment @5

Why do denialists associate climate change with the " new world order" ?

Yet they'll ignore that private central banks now own the worlds governments including the United States govt.

Seems the corporate media machine has brainwashed them by telling them that climate change science is their real enemy....These Elmer Fudd denialists are clueless about who owns the fist that is pounding their asses.

The corporatocracy is screwing them like a drunken prom date...but the denialists will swallow everything their corporate masters tell them to...and regurgitate it all over the blogosphere with no verifiable sources, facts or meaningful argument....

I've seen Brad ask on several threads for climate change denialists to produce one shred of verifiable evidence of their position. I haven't seen any of them produce any respectable science to bolster their claims...
Please post a link...an article or something that credibly debunks global climate change...

or shut the f*ck up...

Denialists? You really need a link to find evidence that man made global warming is a hoax? Please define corporatocracy, the only one that is getting screwed here is the American people. Isn't Brad supposed to be some kind of investigative journalist. But what do I know I'm just some guy with a family to support who believes in the Constitution and the feedom it is supposed to provide for all Americans. Hey bluehawk why don't you move out of your parent's basement and get a job.

BlueHawk

They're putting LSD in our coffee. This isn't really happening. Nobody, but nobody lets some ugly corporatist jackass come on tv and tell them the ugly corporatists on the other side paid for biased thermometers and believes that based on bubkes. Nobody lets murderating fascist oil men feed them this shit to keep their precious corporate welfare from shifting to the clean fascist green barons. They know better. Americans are not morons. Americans are not fat shit-for-brains nose pickers. Americans can tell right from wrong. It's the LSD. We're on a bummer. It'll be better tomorrow.

Go after big oil, after going up against big tobacco and big insurance/phrma? (not even counting big church, ie; gays, abortions). They also have big auto up against them even after getting a bailout.

What's next? Big Nuke?

And we wonder why the Dems are in trouble with the corporatocracy.

Some people are even willing to sit on their hands over it next election rather than vote Dem...sheesh

Wow, Brad.

One of the arguments used concerns Al Gore, saying he is trying to get rich! But, but, but, isn't that the capitalist way?

I agree with you, call for the evidence. Three denier websites and not one iota of fact or data. All speculation and fantasy.

Listening to Dennis Prager, the radio talk show host, I wonder if it might be helpful to distinguish between global warming and the cause, something Dennis conflated quite a bit.

Flying over Greenland for the last twenty years, it does not take much data to see the changes. Global warming is indisputable. One lecture I attended at CalTech, the speaker expressed remorse over the choice of words, implying that anyone would be able to feel the difference. He stated that, more than verifiable temperature change, one will be able to see more storms and more violent storms, at least until the Arctic ice melts.

About cause.

The hockey stick depiction is indisputable. Never in the historical record has warming been so fast. This would tend to lead to an external forcing function, such as human activity. While many cannot imagine how such an apparent "small" input can influence climate, the deniers cannot put a reputable number to how much CO2 humans place into the atmosphere. They ignore the structure of the atmosphere which behaves in to manner of a buffered system in which small, fast changes can drive the environment into a new stability, one that may not be conducive to human life, as the historical record shows.

When I point this out, many take the fatalistic attitude that whatever happens, happens. I then point out that, if they are walking through a tunnel and ahead of them, a light grows, would they not try to get out of the way or would they accept their "fate"? Yes, it may be the end of the tunnel, but why take a chance?

BTW, the email thing. Out of 900+ emails, I only found one that "denied" global warming, written by a group of petro-geological engineers. Yeah, no bias on that one.

Derek Franklin @8

Denialists? You really need a link to find evidence that man made global warming is a hoax? Please define corporatocracy, the only one that is getting screwed here is the American people. Isn't Brad supposed to be some kind of investigative journalist. But what do I know I'm just some guy with a family to support who believes in the Constitution and the feedom it is supposed to provide for all Americans. Hey bluehawk why don't you move out of your parent's basement and get a job.

No Mr. Franklin I don't need to find any evidence that climate change is a hoax...you do. Did you even read my comment @7?

Corporatocracy= Those that have you bent over like an ape in heat...and they are telling you what to believe. Hell they didn't even buy you dinner.

Brad as investigative journalist:
Yes Brad investigative and reported the very article you're commenting on. Maybe you should go back and actually read it.

You're a guy with a family to support who believes in the constituion :
Then one would hope you understood the 1st amendment...and hopefully understand that arguments aren't won with simple denials. A court of law and the court of public opinion requires credible evidence; which you avoided posting yet again.
I would think a man with a family would be concerned about a deforested earth and escalating carbon emissions (research that connection)...but you seem more concerned with preserving the corporate party line.

Hey Bluehawk why don't you move out of your parents basement and get a job:
Wow that's some argument for your side...I think I first heard that argument from a guy who was getting his ass handed to him in an internet debate around 1999. Is that all you got.

Okay Mr. Anderson you have some homework to do...Go forth...seek evidence that climate change is bullshit...and then report back here. hell you may even discover some in yo' face evidence...

UMMM
Now whom would I believe?
... let's see ...
a nut-case with no scientific background nor credentials and the retrograde congressmen being paid by coal and oil consortiums
or a raftful of scientists with shitloads of man-years learning how to conduct experiments and shitloads of man-years putting out reams of data to be studied and interpreted by shitloads of other scientists trained to interpret such data...
UMMM
can't decide
Isn't this a toughie?

Agent 99 @9

Or it seems like a particularly eerie Twilight Zone episode...

But hey...I miss acid...I saw god...really...oh well that's another subject....

LOL!

The bigger sidestory, which Brad and 99 touched upon, is how the "right" has infiltrated the so-called "liberal" mainstream media to even push these lies. Decades ago, these people were generally known as fringe radicals and laughed at. Now they get on CNN. Not just FOX "news", they get on CNN. I keep saying: the "liberal media" isn't liberal. The only one calling the "liberal media" liberal anymore is Rush Limbaugh and the gang, in case anyone can possibly think it's still "liberal".

Think about it: WHO are the only ones still calling the mainstream corporate media "liberal"? It's only Rush Limbaugh and the gang. They have to! Or else we won't realize it isn't liberal! Think about that.

They get on CNN as "balance", as if there's a 50/50 argument going on among scientists as to whether there's Global Warming or not. Instead of being totally ignored by the so-called liberal media as "fringe radical KOOKS". So, they have their media: FOX "news", Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc...and now they're on what they call the "liberal media", too. The liberal media that isn't liberal. Who here thinks the mainstream corporate-owned media is liberal? Are corporations liberal? I didn't know that! I didn't know corporations would OWN media and make it liberal against their interests!

Every time I read comments like those left here by James and Derek Franklin, I cannot help but recall Rep. Earl F. Langrebbe (R-IN), who was one of only two members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against the Articles of Impeachment of Richard Nixon.

When asked how he could vote against impeachment in the face of the "smoking gun evidence" contained in the Oval office audiotapes, Langrebbe responded: "Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up."

It is pointless to place science before the eyes of mindless wingnuts like James and Derek Franklin. They live within a disinformation bubble that has been erected by the hard-right echo chamber --- a bubble that is impervious to facts, evidence and logic.

They do not see the necessity of supporting their "belief" that global climate change is a hoax with scientific evidence. If former Rush Limbaugh producer Marc Morano says global climate change is a hoax, then it's a hoax. In their minds, belief = knowledge.

Someone mentioned the "hockey stick" which was also featured prominently in "An Inconvenient Truth".

I'm not denying global warming (better known as a CO2 climate forcing among other forcings).

If most of you guys did your research better or at all you would find that:
1. the emails about "hiding the decline" is about the hockey stick!
2. the "trick" referred to in some of the emails is about the hockey stick

Skepticism, the scientific kind, is a very useful and necessary scientific trait.

What some of you are doing is just like what Bush did, i.e. marginalizing dissent and skepticism.

Mike Hulme says....(I'll leave to you to research who Hulme is)

Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.

The problem on this thread (and other climate change threads here) is that the denialists aren't producing any evidence of their position...they're just calling climate change bullshit and we should take their word for it.

Almost ANY climatologist/scientist I can find says CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING ...the real debate is the cause, not the fact that climate change is a fact.

I find it interesting that none of the deniers cite the rising ocean temps...the true evidence of climate change. What scientist worth their doctorate would simply use as evidence "biased themometers"...but that's the level of argument that's being fed to the ignorant. What level of scientist would cite a themometer set close to asphalt of air conditioning ?

But the deniers want to believe so badly that climate change is bullshit that they'll lap up those insane explanations like cats lap up gravy...

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

It sounds like James @ #1 and Derek @ #5 are using the Rogue N' Mavericky template today.

Konstantin, pointing out that the denier-posters have yet to produce any evidence to back their claims is not "marginalizing" --- it's requiring them to produce evidence to back up their claims. Especially because it'd be really awesome to see someone uncover the heretofore unknown, unbelievable power of a few emails to unmelt the glaciers and un-acidify the oceans, and overturn all the field data gathered so far in all the other earth systems discplines that are independent of and don't rely on a scintilla of data from the CRU!

Here's a more recent survey to back up Blue Hawk @ #20, from January 2009: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

first off I'd like to appologize for my last comment to bluehawk about the parents basement, I just don't like to be told to shut the f up. Here is some of the sites I have been to that that has changed my mind about man made G.W. globalwarmingheartland.org, thehumanspirit.net, scienceandpublicpolicy.org. If anyone would take the time to read America For Sale by Jerome Corsi you would get my position on how global warming fits into the globalist's agenda.

Des @ 22

That's why I said "scientific skepticism", i.e. by scientists in the field like the links I posted to all my comments.

(I'm not trying to attack your convictions about climate change. I just think you guys, Brad and you, have to do better in your reporting.

Isn't Jerome Corsi the stooge that wrote "unfit for command" and forged an Obama Birth cert for Taitz?
He's a big oil butt buddy now I guess.
Corsi has not one iota of credibility.

@Derek:
2 Exxon funded sites and a whacked out Christian blogger is all it takes to deny years upon years of research?

Come on man...

Derek Franklin @ 5 said:

This is in response to Brad, the fraud is when you have scientists suppressing info to get their "hockey stick" graph, ignoring the data showing middle ages temps warmer than today. Wake up! Global warming is just propaganda to advance the New World Order. Al Gore doesn't even believe his own crap.

Thanks. Can you point me to the specific email revealing the "fraud" you say say has been revealed? Much appreciated, if so.

Big Danny (#15) ~ I meant to respond to a comment you made on the last thread on this subject, but my weekly fun-time with wax went long and the thread disbanded. There, you warned against the perils of ignoring the...(trying to be polite...um...) 'Fact-tards?'** running this teabag / right wing cabal whose rabid, viral, tangent-lies end up being the main focus of media discussion.

Here you write:

They get on CNN as "balance", as if there's a 50/50 argument going on among scientists as to whether there's Global Warming or not. Instead of being totally ignored by the so-called liberal media as "fringe radical KOOKS".

Exactly!While I know the "liberal media" Orwellian meme is the one that sumps your pump - I tend to get my naughties twisted up in a nut about the amount of coverage we give them on the internet. The corporate media (for you Fox-tards upthread - all of it - not just Fox tho' your Fox is by far the most frequent and shameless liar) is bad enough, but then to see these propaganda-distractions bouncing into the rational people's lane like a frozen turkey dropped on us from an overpass...

...makes me twitch.

While I realize we can't ignore them, and while I realize their stupid-bombs have to be exposed and debunked - O! What a tragic waste of our valuable "man-hours" (love that term, btw). Puts us (We, the Rationals)on constant defense, never time to advance for our own yardage. Just look at how much of Brad's / Desi's "REAL investigation" time is now spent in these threads trying to talk sense to people, as Ernest Canning aptly puts it: "in a bubble that is impervious to facts, evidence and logic." (Tho', to be clear, they are infinitely gifted with such debate, and very, very patient with the foibles of the emotionally stunted, patsy pop-offs who offer no evidence to back their bluster. Brad is finding a better balance, here on BradBlog, IMHO.)

I really do think it's a worthwhile debate to have at some point: how much oxygen do they deserve? Why do they constantly get to drive the debate? Is it just because they're louder?

Especially timely question in light of Brad's latest post, where he writes:

"We really do now, officially, live in two different Americas. One actual America, with all its flaws, failures and frustrations, and another world completely existing only in the minds and self-produced group hallucinations of wingnut media-addled fantasists, fear-mongers and phonies."

Yes, we sure do.

(**read it back and it seems I missed my mark on that whole 'polite' thing. Oopsy. Plus I realize that those hybrid terms can be read as an unseemly attack on 'tards. Sorry, 99 / Brad, if these two new insults that technically aren't "textbook" insults, are rule breakers, here. I leave it up to your fine discretion. I'm never above re-writes.)

I thought of one, but never said it: Fucks News.

Derek Franklin @23

My apologies also...I lost my poise.

Although I do agree with SHORTBUS @26.....it's kinda hard to see those sites you provided as credible or unbiased.

I do want to ask you about your comment @5:
How is climate change a "new wrold order" ploy ?

There is a new world order mind you ...but it has nothing to do with climate change...

If you're looking for a new world order institution then look into central banking (Federal Reserve) and how they've corrupted and replaced governments around the world, including the good ol' U.S. of A.
Actually there's nothing new about it...but it is a world order.

Nevertheless...my apologies for an insensitive remark to you earlier.

I stopped watching corporate owned news, I really lump FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS all in one, it's just that FOX is absurd, they're not even faking being real news.

I watch Free Speech TV and LINK-TV. I "kicked the habit" of ANBCBSNNX almost 10 years ago.

Plus, I carefully choose real news sites on the series of tubes on the internets.

I have a suggestion for a name for a new rock group: Marc Morano and the Liberal Thermometers...

http://moranswithsigns.f...m/2009/09/moran-sign.jpg

I'm surprised he spelled "USA" correctly.

I guess they don't have Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, and FOX "news" in England:

Around 20,000 people marched through central London on Saturday to demand action on climate change, police said, as rallies took place in other cities.

http://rawstory.com/2009...ts-march-central-london/

Smacking the Hack Attack

http://www.youtube.com/w...feature=player_embedded#

I am so stoked about that stupid video, Danny, because it suggests to me that they're kicking dendroclimatology out of the modeling... and that is good news for the planet.

Jeannie Dean said

...propaganda-distractions bouncing into the rational people's lane like a frozen turkey dropped on us from an overpass...

_____________________

Fabulous use of metaphor and simile! Really nails the global climate change denial propaganda.

Can't remember when I laughed so hard. Thanks Jeannie.

The greatest hoax on the American people can be summarized in three letters: WMD

Bluehawk @30
Those sites are just a few, there are some 30,000 scientists who are skeptical of man made global warming. I just don't trust someone like Al Gore who stands to make billions off Cap @ Trade and doesn't practice what he preaches. Climate change itself is not a New World Order ploy but when you look into the partnership between Gore and David Blood and other former executives of Goldman Sachs and their roles in the Federal Reserve you will see the connection. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Derek, are you referring to this one? Can "31,000 Scientists" Be Wrong? You Betcha.

Compare it this one and see which methodology sounds most plausible to you.

derek franklin @38

Bluehawk @30
Those sites are just a few, there are some 30,000 scientists who are skeptical of man made global warming. I just don't trust someone like Al Gore who stands to make billions off Cap @ Trade and doesn't practice what he preaches. Climate change itself is not a New World Order ploy but when you look into the partnership between Gore and David Blood and other former executives of Goldman Sachs and their roles in the Federal Reserve you will see the connection. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

30,000 scientists are 'skeptical' of man made global warming ?
Yet you're convinced it's a sham.
All because Al Gore is the messenger ?
Please explain to me how Al Gore will profit from cap and trade ? (mind you I'm on the fence about cap and trade). I ask you won't cap and trade be a government policy and is Al Gore not in the government anymore ?

Al Gore and David Blood started a sustainablity investment firm...Big Whoop. Blood is a former Goldman Sachs exec who sees an opportunity to capitalize on green sustainability ventures. Isn't that the American way ?...Isn't a green-sustainability industry going to need some capital investment ?
How you conflate the Federal Reserve into this I don't know...unless you're trying to trip my trigger because I cited the Fed in earlier posts.

I cited the Fed as the real fly in your soup Mr. Anderson, the real global government conspiracy. You seem to think climate change is screwing you around because Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said it...The Fed simply isn't a player in the climate change debate.

Des's comment @39 has to awesome links...please check them out.

My point is there is not a consensus among all scientists regarding man made G.W. yet you are convinced it isn't a sham. The NWO agenda is implemented from both sides of the political spectrum, the Fed was the first step. Please don't put words in my mouth w/ regards to Beck/Limbaugh, my concern is what will happen to the American economy w/ Cap & Trade, and what will happen to America's sovereignty if Kyoto is signed. I seems as though anyone who disagrees w/ anthropogenic global warming theory is automatically labeled as right wing, I believe in the principals of the Constitution which these days is not represented by republicans or democrats.

Well, Derek, first of all, there will be no affect on America's "sovereignty" if any eventual climate treaty is signed (neither in Copenhagen, as that has been put off, or the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012). The U.S. Senate must ratify any treaty first, and the provisions currently under negotiation leave the methods, means and measurements to the individual countries. The point is to put a price on pollution, which is currently free for industry and passed on to you to clean up with your tax dollars.

It's worked before. The Montreal Protocol (ozone depletion) and the Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol (acid rain from coal-fired power plants)were both negotiated by the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations and both treaties were successful in reducing harmful pollution.

The Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol utilized a cap & trade scheme. The energy industry fought hard against it, saying it would devastate U.S. economic growth, but surprise! They were wrong. The real costs turned out to be much lower than the projected costs, and were followed by a period of historic economic expansion during the Clinton administration.

That's not to say that the cap & trade system currently under consideration in the Senate is perfect. But there is ample evidence from the last thirty years of American history that shows the concept of cap & trade and international treaties to address climate issues can work.

Finally, we draw a clean line of distinction here between the scientific evidence underlying human-caused climate change and the policy implications and proposals. Most climate change "skeptics", "deniers" and "contrarians" conflate the two because they are unhappy with what they perceive the policy implications to be. The two are not the same.

Derek @ 41 said:

My point is there is not a consensus among all scientists regarding man made G.W. yet you are convinced it isn't a sham.

Yes. There IS a consensus. Among "all scientists"? Perhaps not. Obviously there are a few fringe skeptics, but the vast majority believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Whether it's man made, or partially man made, or not man made at all, makes little difference (to me, as a non-scientist), in that the warming is undebatable, and the ways in which that, and oil dependence are being dealt with seem only to be positives to me. To call any of it a "sham" is, well, a sham.

my concern is what will happen to the American economy w/ Cap & Trade, and what will happen to America's sovereignty if Kyoto is signed.

Good. Glad you have such concerns. If they're legitimate, you'll be able to look at history (as Desi pointed out briefly above) and see that your concerns are likely merit-free.

But stay vigilant, and even skeptical. When you become cynical however, you then do no good for anybody, IMO.

I know I'm a bit late to the debate, but as someone who saw the utterly repugnant Mr. Morano's performance on BBC's Newsnight as it broadcast (I've only just stopped laughing at Professor Watson's parting comment - it was fantastic to behold, and can I just share with you that when Professor Watson made his truly exasperated "What an asshole" comment at the very end, we could hear cheers coming from several other apartments across the road), can I humbly bring the following to the table:

http://i58.photobucket.c...lancyworld/getabrian.jpg

What I saw in Mr. Morano was a braying, smirking, mocking bully, who had not the slightest interest in listening to what was being said to him, even though now, several days later, even the right-biased AP, having set a group of hand-picked journalists to analyse every single one of the hacked emails for a single sign of data fabrication, couldn't find a single shred of evidence:

http://www.google.com/ho...KaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHPLC00

Morano attempted to rudely bray and mock over almost every sentence that Professor Watson uttered, proving his game plan was to behave as insultingly and ignorantly on the BBC as he is used to being allowed to behave in his home country.

At one point Watson actually had to say "For God's sake, will you just shut up!".

I know you've got this thing about so-called free speech in the USA, but when did free speech just mean shouting rubbish and falsehoods every time the other person opens their mouth as a means to physiacally stop the other opinion being heard by the audience? If this is how serious debates are treated in the USA, you almost deserve the consequences that will come from it.

If Marc Morano was so sure that he was right, then why could he not calmly and intelligently debate the points being made one by one without shouting and sneering? That he was truly incapable of a rational grown-up to grown-up TV debate with Professor Watson belies the naked, unavoidable truth of Morano's credentials in all this.

Morano displayed the manners and intellectual gravitas of a cheap street thug, which politically is exactly what he is; the hired hoodlum used by the Robber Barons to beat down the starving strikers at the factory gates, the seedy Cosa Nostra foot-soldier blindly serving the Don in the shallow hope of financial gain and advancement at the cost of his own mortal soul.

Mr Morano is a professional Wrecker. He is not on your side, any of you, regardless of which side of the fence you sit. He is in this just for himself and his huge, bloated ego.

Mr Morano is deeply in the pockets of precisely those in the USA in whose personal financial interest it is to let the Earth go to Hell.

Understand this: The Petrochemical industry is ultimately your enemy, and like Big Tobacco and the Arms Industry and the Medical Insurance Industry to name but a few gems of American "Free" Enterprise, there is no depths to which they will not sink in order to kill this debate, even if they have to rip apart the very civil fabric of the American nation by setting neighbour against neighbour purely to keep the Bottom Line increasing year-on-year. They prove this to you all year after year after year, and you STILL won't stop them getting away with the carnage they cause across the globe.

We are just dust to them, make no mistake about this.

These Corporations' hired mouthpieces (both visible and hidden) have found a truly rich vein of agitprop recently in the whipping up of the mentally unhinged Teabaggers into what is clearly going to end in deaths unless someone manages to do something truly extraordinary to cool the offensive rhetoric down, and reintroduce these people to the concept of Civilised Debate, which would involve them actually arming themselves with actual facts, not the latest Glen Beck slogan.

A tall order, I know, but how else is there going to be intelligence injected back into the conversation? At the point of guns? Cudgels? Fists? It's up to all of us how this resolves.

There are already instances of the elderly and the disabled being assaulted at public meetings by these pigs, and bereaved parents being openly and viciously mocked, then stalked online by people who are so deranged stupid they actually believe that they're saving the soul of America by spewing the most unbelievable poison at anyone who dares to stand up to them. What other proof do you need that the lunatics have taken over your asylum?

His previous relationship to the equally absurd Mr. Inhofe proves that Mr. Morano is so deeply, genetically imprinted with the pattern on the bottom of his Master's boot that he is beyond redemption. He is on your televisions because he is is very good at beating people down like a schoolyard bully, not because he is good at forming a provocative, intelligent counterpoint.