Reading the Tampa Bay (formerly the St. Pete) Times can be a brutal experience for a conservative. This Sunday's edition, in the editorial pages at least, was no exception.
One article and one editorial about the horrific threat of climate change set the tone. The first from Edward Renner a professor in the Honors college at USF, starts off with a complete falsehood -- "New measurements show that the climate-changing gas carbon dioxide is at the highest atmospheric concentrations...in at least 3 million years."
A peer reviewed study was released only this year showing that CO2 levels reached as high as 435ppm a mere 12,000 years ago. That's a far cry from 3 million years! At many other times in our geological history, CO2 levels have been as high as 1000ppm and life has gone on, plants and animals have thrived. Studies indicate we are, if anything, in a CO2 drought at the moment.
The Times itself doubles down on this with its usual climate hysteria pointing out a CIA (of all people!) report issuing "...a warning that the acceleration of climate change will spark conflicts and human migration of such magnitude that it will strain the American military."
Setting aside the fact that the CIA isn't exactly an expert on global science, the problem with all this is that we are currently in a period of global cooling right now. In fact, planet temperatures have risen only 4 tenths of a degree celsius since the mid-70's.
In point of fact, there is still no conclusive data to suggest that CO2 has any specific re-radiative properties that would contribute to global warming or the so-called greenhouse effect. In fact, studies show we have experienced ice ages with CO2 levels as high as 2000ppm.
The Times also trots out their favorite scare tactic -- rising oceans. Problem with that is that studies show that the figure used by the IPCC and other climate hysterics is 70% higher than the actual figure. The Journal of Geophysical Research -- Solid Earth finds that the actual figure for estimated sea level rise averaged from 2003 to 2012 is .16mm/yr. Extrapolate that figure out to the year 2100 and you have a sea level rise of 1/2 inch! That's hardly flooding of biblical proportions!
But climate astrologists like those at the Times continue their hysterical claims that we must turn ourselves backward to the days of horse drawn carriages to save the world from some imaginary impending disaster. And despite being proven wrong on every single prediction since Al Gore's faux science has lined his pockets with millions of dollars, the so-called purveyors of truth at the Times continues to publish this nonsense on a daily basis.
Also in the editorial section was a disturbing piece by columnist Robyn Blumner. In the wake of Angelina Jolie's revelation of her double mastectomy to protect herself from what she believed was an 80% chance of breast cancer in the future, Ms. Blumner admits she has had the same thing done.
Ms. Blumner states that in 2011 doctors found a small cancer (technically a "stage zero" DCIS), and though there was no cancer history in her family she went ahead with the procedure because of . . .
"...the single minded obsession Republicans have with repealing the Affordable Care Act."
That's right . . . Ms. Blumner mutilated herself over a political difference of opinion! Now last I looked, Ms. Blumner is employed by the paper and probably makes somewhere close to the mid $50's. Are you telling me the Tampa Bay Times doesn't offer health care to its employees?! Where are the articles excoriating them on that? I haven't seen any. And if that's the case, why hasn't Ms. Blumner sought out one of the many personal health care plans that a person of her means could easily afford?
Because Ms. Blumner is a died-in-the-wool nanny state liberal who thinks that your tax dollars should pay for her medical costs even when she could manage them herself. She states that her double mastectomy saves her the future costs of mammograms (which are affordably offered by the baby slaughtering Planned Parenthood last I looked) and saves her from bankruptcy even though she admits the possibility of that is slight.
She closes her article with this insane statement -- "With Republicans in Congress waiting for their opportunity to kill off my medical and financial security, I simply couldn't risk keeping my breasts."
OMG! I simply don't know how to respond to someone so deranged that they do something like this. All I can say is that I pity you Ms. Blumner, I'm sorry you've let a simple political disagreement drive you to self-mutilation and I worry about your mental health in the future. This is the sort of hyper-overreaction to politics or idealogy that drives someone to do what happened in Boston earlier this year. If the sanctity of your own body means so little to you, what might you be capable of should conservatives gain control of Congress and/or the White House in the future? I shudder at the possibilities.
My God! What is wrong with liberals anymore?!
And on a lighter note, here's some tree hugging I can actually get behind: