Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe has been attacked, but don’t look for the Left to be outraged. Outrage comes from Leftists only when Conservatives speak freely, but at least Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is tweeting about something his family well knows – sexual deviancy.
Where is the same righteous indignation for these remarks after they so recently attacked Rush Limbaugh for his accurate description of Sandra Fluke? Yes, Limbaugh apologized, but will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. do the same? Don’t bet on it.
Click here to see Kennedy’s note via Twitter.
Kennedy is the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-host of the nationally syndicated weekly talk radio show Ring of Fire, but will the Left call for his resignation from radio?"
Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard has a thought on the subject writing, “These liberals sure are offended by terms like ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ – only when said by a conservative about a liberal, of course.” Click here for Sheppard’s post.
The Blaze also published questions of Leftist propriety suggesting that free speech reigns only when it serves the most politically correct Leftist agenda. Click here for the post on The Blaze.
For the facts of global warming and details on how to approach the science, the Cornwall Alliance has available online a speech by Dr. Richard Lidzen before the British House of Commons in Parliament, click here for the full story.
A summary in Lindzen’s words follows:
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.