Replies

I'll reply to Obama on just the global warming issue: we have all seen long lists of failed prophecies of environmental doom, and we are all aware of how the specific nature of the impending doom (warming versus cooling) has changed over the years.

We are also aware that - for most of us - life goes on much as before. Even if we live in an area which has suffered from draught or flooding, excessive cold, or excessive heat, we know that this has been going on since time immemorial. (Ten thousand years ago, the place where I am sitting was at the southern edge of an ice sheet hundreds of feet thick.)

We also know that mountains rise and fall, oceans and seas spread and recede, coastlines erode, rivers change course, reefs form and disintegrate, and earthquakes change the landscape.

We also know that all scientists do NOT agree with the doomsday alarmists, that most of the science is based on computer models, and very little of it on actual fieldwork. We also know that - even in our own lifetimes - the scientific consensus on many issues has changed, and has sometimes been proven wrong.

Finally, we know that climate alarmism is being deliberately used as a political tool to justify vast changes in our way of life, our economy, our civil liberties, and our form of government.

Alternate media give us a BETTER chance to separate truth from fact because we are not presented with only one set of facts, but with competing data. And, no, "alternate facts" does not mean we can make up facts nilly-willy, much less lie, but that - in accordance with the premise of all debate - facts can be mustered in support of contrary opinions.

But if we disagree with Obama's facts, then we are ridiculed as science deniers and told that there is a consensus and the matter is closed -- claims that are wholly antithetical to the scientific method.

Hard to argue with the hysterical rocks-for-brains if they can't even grasp the concept of science and the scientific method. So I say. just eff 'em.

Life is too short...