Sane NIPCC Scientists Trump Insane IPCC Political Alarmism

To the Honorable Congressman X:

I first took an interest in global warming after I read the IPCC’s 1990 report entitled, “Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment,” and noticed it failed to consider water clarity (turbidity) and its effects on depth of solar heating. As an avid skin/scuba diver and water sports enthusiast, I had observed in the mid-1980s that the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Mississippi River levy system largely prevents annual Spring flooding, channeling the lions share of alluvial runoff to proceed downstream.  This fact is well noted by the Mississippi River Delta’s increased growth rate since the levy system was installed.  Not only has this result in significantly increased growth of the Mississippi River Delta, but it also significantly increases the turbidity of the waters in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to both warmer surface temperatures and colder temperatures at depth.  This phenomenon is repeated around the world, wherever levies and similar river flood mitigation techniques are used.

When I noticed the IPCC’s initial 1990 report lacked any mention or even consideration of water turbidity and heating depth, I began to wonder what else was missing. Indeed, over the next two decades I consulted with a number of scientists on the issue and we found plenty of gaping holes in the IPCC’s reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014).  I also discovered that scientists had broken into two camps: Those who wholeheartedly backed the IPCC assessments and those who reluctantly admitted the IPCC reports both fail to consider a number of factors affecting or mitigating climate change while summarily dismissing others.  As Mr. Praeger has resoundingly documented, the “97% of climate scientists agree” argument is pure bunk.  The latter group and I have highlighted many missing elements, efforts which eventually lead to the creation of the NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.”

Although I possess both bachelor of science and master of science degrees, I also hold an MBA. I graduated top of my class in both masters programs. My educational background is heavy on both engineering and business, specifically, finance, management, and administration. Thus, when read the Conclusion to the NIPCC’s report entitled, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” it wholeheartedly confirmed literally thousands of hours of previous discussions, while acknowledging the IPCC’s numerous oversights:

“IPCC and national governments around the world
claim the negative impacts of global warming on
human health and security, occurring now or likely to
occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that
come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks
any scientific or economic basis. Nearly all the
impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are
net positive (benefits minus costs) or are simply
unknown. The alleged negative human health impacts
due to air pollution are greatly exaggerated by
researchers who violate the scientific method and rely
too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak
relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human
security due to climate change depend on tenuous
chains of causality that find little support in the peer
reviewed literature.

“IPCC and its national counterparts have not
conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels,
global warming, or regulations designed to force a
transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely
to do so given their political agendas. The CBAs
conducted for this volume find the social benefits of
fossil fuels exceed the costs by a wide margin. A
forced reduction of GHG emissions to 90 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050 would require that world
GDP in 2050 be reduced to only 4% of what it is
projected to be in that year. Most regulations aimed
at reducing GHG emissions have costs that are
hundreds and even thousands of times greater than
their benefits.

“The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced
in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in
the second decade of the twenty-first century, was
never founded on sound science or economics. The
authors of and contributors to Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s
policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that
war.”

Congressman X, I wholeheartedly encourage you and your colleagues in Congress and the executive branch to review the NIPCC’s “Climate Change Reconsidered” series of volumes (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/). Therein you will find the sanity that so elegantly counters the IPCC’s irrational and alarming projections which lacks significant data elements which run counter to their idealism and mantras.

As the American Thinker well notes:

“How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.

“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

“Now consider the NIPCC. It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz. The NIPCC’s only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC. It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort.

“The NIPCC views the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change to be a hypothesis to be tested, not a preordained conclusion. It asks whether the null hypothesis – that changes in climate are natural variability caused by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks – has been disproven. Its research reveals thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals supporting the null hypothesis, meaning that the IPCC’s mountains of data and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately wrong.”

Indeed, the NIPCC has a number of outstanding reports, and unlike the IPCC’s political attempts to sound scientific, the NIPCC volumes were researched, written, and published by actual scientists:

Climate Change Reconsidered II:

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2011 Interim Report

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2009 IPCC Report

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

Sincerely…

Mankind’s TOTAL Global Warming Wobbles Earth Just 68 Helium Atoms

Yet another grossly unscientific article attempting to drum up support for anthropogenic global warming.  After doing some REAL SCIENCE, we find that Mankind’s absolute maximum contribution to the wobble of our planet is 22,000 times SMALLER than a human hair.

To see how we arrived at this figure, follow along as we do some REAL SCIENCE!!!

Earth weighs 1.32E+25 lbs. That comes to 6.58E+12 Gtons. Greenland has lost 7,500 Gtons. The Earth weighs nearly a billion times more than the lost ice mass (877,786,667 times more, to be precise).

The pull of gravity from the sun and the moon contribute to the planet’s wobble. So do variations in atmospheric pressure, ocean loading and the wind, which change the position of the Earth’s axis relative to the surface. Together their effect is called the Chandler wobble, and it has a period of 435 days.

Another force causes the rotational axis to move over a period of a year. This “annual wobble” is due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun.

Between these two effects, the Earth’s axis migrates irregularly along a circular path with a radius of up to 20 feet (6 meters).

Moreover, precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body. In an appropriate reference frame it can be defined as a change in the first Euler angle, whereas the third Euler angle defines the rotation itself.  Meanwhile, nutation (from Latin n?t?ti?, “nodding, swaying”) is a rocking, swaying, or nodding motion in the axis of rotation of a largely axially symmetric object, such as a gyroscope, planet, or bullet in flight, or as an intended behavior of a mechanism. In an appropriate reference frame it can be defined as a change in the second Euler angle.

Pinning down the overall wobble of the planet’s rotation is key to keeping certain tracking systems like GPS accurate. Until recently, this was done through a complicated process that involves 30 radio telescopes around the globe that measure the direction between Earth and specific quasars, a type of galaxy that is assumed to be stationary relative to the Earth. More recently, the Wettzell Geodetic Observatory, in the Bavarian Forest of southeast Germany has been using a pair of highly precise ring laser gyros (Live Science.  (2011).  Lasers Measure Earth’s Rotation and Wobble.  Retrieved from:  https://www.livescience.com/17619-lasers-measure-earth-rotation-wobble.html)

NOW… Remember when we calculated that the Earth weighs 877.8 million times more than Greenland’s lost ice mass? Even if 100% of Greenland’s

Each of the small squares on this 6″ wafer contain billions of 7nm transistors

lost ice mass was due to human effect, the absolute greatest contribution to Earth’s wobble would be 6.84E-9 meters. (6 meters / 877,785,667). That’s 6.84 nanometers (nm), less than 70 helium atoms lined up side by side. Only just this summer, in June, was mankind capable of shrinking the size of computer circuits that small. “As of June 2018, mass production of 7 nm devices has begun.” That’s 22,000 times SMALLER than a human hair.

Seriously, folks. This is SCIENCE. It’s what reasonable, rational people use to piece through the blitheringly idiotic mudstream media BS.

Mankind’s absolute maximum contribution to the wobble of our planet is 22,000 times SMALLER than a human hair, but it’s still nearly a billion times less than the mass of the entire planet.  Heck, that’s so small, that as of August 22, 2018, only two companies on the planet are even capable of making semiconductors with traces that small!

That’s roughly the same effect as tossing a baseball off the deck of a U.S. Aircraft Carrier.

So, before, based on this article, a bunch of greenies were screaming, “OMG! Our planet is going to shake itself to death and it’s all our fault!!!” Now, however, armed with REAL SCIENCE, we see mankind’s absolute greatest effect on the wobble is to incredibly tiny, 22,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair, that we will never be able to measure it.

As for crust rebound, the effect is similarly minuscule.  Changes in the Earth’s very slowly moving mantel and far more rapidly moving molten core outweigh ice mass, crust rebound, and even changes in ocean currents millions of times over.

The Lowdown on Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change

As a registered statistician and well-educated scientist (3 degrees and 37 years of experience), I’ve been all over the IPCC’s and others’ data they use to justify the claim that rising CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Here’s what I found:
 
1. There is indeed evidence that the Earth has gone through a warming period over the last 70 years, one that was interrupted for at least 12 of the 18 years since the turn of the century.
 
2. There is indeed evidence that CO2 levels have also risen during the last 70 years.
 
3. CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas,” meaning it tends to trap a portion of IR (infrared) radiation (heat) from being radiated back into space.
 
4. CO2 is by no means the most potent greenhouse gas out there. In fact, both water and methane are far more potent.
 
5. While animal husbandry does produce some methane, termites and microbes produce far more, and deforestation is a leading cause as it interrupts the biological role of methane in the environment.
 
6. Patterns of atmospheric H2O have been significantly changed by aviation. In gaseous (invisible) form, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In condensate and crystallized (cloud) form, H2O reflects sunlight back into space, but it also reflect Earth’s IR energy back to the ground. In most instances, clouds retain more heat to Earth than they protect Earth from acquiring. Both the shape and altitude of the clouds determine the net IR energy flow.
 
7. While CO2 and global warming over the last 70 years are correlated, there is no statistical evidence that either one has caused the other.
 
8. The amount of global warming occurring over the last 70 years is minuscule as compared to the temperature swings associated with the comings and goings of ice ages.
 
9. Prior to the start of the last ice age, the temperature also took a sharp, but small and short swing upward, and it, too, was accompanied by a short rise in CO2 levels.
 
10. We’re about due for another ice age.
 
11. Scientists still discount the role of sunspots, despite the fact that sunspots are strongly correlated with Earth mean temperatures. Since the Earth is certainly not affecting the cycle of the Sun’s sunspots, simple deduction says that sunspots do affect Earth’s climate.
 
12. Scientists who study the dynamics of sunspot formation have determined that sunspots are formed by the Sun’s magnetic activity, which undergoes periodic cyclical change.
 
13. Indications are strong that the Sun is close to entering a period quiessence, where very few sunspots would form, thereby resulting in an accompanying cooling period — even an ice age — here on Earth.
 
My recommandation: Hyper-insulate your house and stock up on snow shovels. Even if you wind up not needing the shovels, you’ll save on cooling. 🙂

The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.
 
Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.
 
If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.
 
If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.
 
If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.
 
 
When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.
 
In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.
 
For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.
 
The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.
 
The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.
 
Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.
 
The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation:

Florida will NEVER be even HALF flooded

Another blitheringly idiotic, agenda-driven article asks,

How much longer before all of Florida is underwater?

Well, let’s see…  Florida’s mean elevation is 100 ft, and it’s highest elevation is 345 ft.

Although the mean sea level has risen at least 120 meters since the last glacial maximum 21,000 years ago, it plateaued to within 15 meters of today’s level some 8,000 years ago.

Thus, even at the absolute MAXIMUM sea level rise rate between 21,000 and 8,000 years ago (7.78 m/k-years) from the glacial maximum to the modern warm period, it would take 4,243 years for Florida to be half-flooded, and 12,857 years for Florida to be completely flooded, but only IF…

That IF is that the max rate were even possible. It’s not, as that was due to the melting of world-covering glaciers. We only have a tiny fraction of such coverage, so, given today’s CURRENT rate, it will take 16,500 years for half-coverage, and 50,000 years for full coverage.

BUT WAIT!!! Is there even enough ice in the world LEFT to provide that much flooding???

No! In fact, if all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet).

Thus, Florida can NEVER flood to even the half-way point, even if all ice in the world were to melt.

Thus, the article above is FAKE NEWS.

Thus, talks of “rising two meters by 2100” is outlandishly fake news, particularly when the WORST CASE estimate currently stands at about 4 inches, just 0.1016 meters, placing the “two meters” exaggeration factor at 19.7 TIMES greater than reality.

Come on, world! Learn some math. Learn some science. Learn how NOT to be lead around like a cow with a ring in your nose by agenda-driven NON-science.

sea-level rise
Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise

Yet another blitheringly idiotic, agenda-driven global warming scare-scam article DEBUNKED BY SCIENCE!

Chicken Little vs the IPCC

Now that the Democrat’s have been dethroned, scientists galore are coming out of the woodwork in favor of the truth:

“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

I hold two science degrees, and a third in business administration. I graduated summa cum laude from both graduate degrees, with a 3.94 our of 4.0 in one, and a 4.0 out of 4.0 in the other. I completed both degrees, along with two full concentrations, one in technology management, the other in project management, in just 2.67 years. I began my collegiate studies in Aerospace Engineering back in 1981.

Since 1986, I have been either a moderator or an administrator on at least one message forum (The Bible BBS, Blacksburg, VA).

I spent 20 years, from 1989 through 2009, flying B-52s and C-130s for the Air Force.

Major non-flying positions included as an instructor and the Asst Director of Academics at a well-known school at Nellis AFB. We taught 60+ Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coalition students ranging from E-2 through O-6 how to integrate joint firepower on the battlefield everysix weeks.

Between 2003 and 2005, I redesigned the Airlift Request process for the entire Korean Theater of Operations, a task that I was repeatedly told was “impossible, unless you have ten years.” I accomplished it in six months, and was duly recognized for the benefit it conferred to U.S. Forces Korea.

Since 1995, I have been a member of at least one physics, astronomy, or science forum (Bad Astronomy, Universe Today, Physics Forum, Science Forums).

Since 1998, I have been studying the IPCC reports, First through Fifth assessments (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2014). Although I was “on board” with global warming from the early 1990s through 1998, while examining the IPCC’s detailed documents during the fall of 1998, I began to notice a number of discrepancies, both when compared with external data as well as internal inconsistencies. I came to a logical conclusion that whoever was behind these reports was working primarily off of rhetoric and dogma while cherry-picking their “logical” discourse to match their ideologies, rather than actually following the scientific method. Years later, I learned that John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel, had arrived at the same conclusion. Excerpt:

“Through self study and correspondence courses at Penn State (all while he was working on television full-time) Coleman eventually obtained Professional membership status in the American Meteorological Society and was named AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1982. After ten years of attending AMS National Meetings and studying the papers published in the organization’s journal, Coleman claimed the AMS was driven by political, not scientific, agendas and dropped out the AMS.”

I conclude that what was fomenting in the AMS between 1982 and 1992 lead to the self-seeking establishment of the IPCC, along with the peddling of non-scientific global warming/climate change “doom and gloom” in exchange for some $200 BILLION in government funding over the last couple of decades…

…even if many of them were unaware of the various cognitive biases that lead to their heading down the wrong path.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#500a927d171b

A Final Word on Global Warming

I don’t know if we’ll ever put the global warming/climate change/extreme blah blah argument to rest. Unfortunately, far too many people are arguing on the side of funding rather than the side of science.
 
The graphic below, however, reveals something rather startling. It is a composite of two different graphs.  Please click on it to see a full-sized version.
 
global war,omgThe first graph in the upper left shows the AGT (average global temperature) between the present and 2.4 mya (million years ago). As you can see, prior to about 30 mya, Earth was far warmer than it is today. In fact, normal temperatures remained above 70 deg F, while ice age temperatures dipped to around 50 deg F.
 
Given the age, however, the data was not very fine-grained, meaning that ice-age temperatures could easily have dipped down to what they have been over the last 0.5 mya (500 thousand years), ranging between 20 deg F and roughly 35 deg F.
 
The graph in the upper left is roughly a thousand times greater scale than the other two graphs. The red lines from the bottom graph show just how much smaller the more recent 450 thousand years in the other two graphs than the long-term, 2.4 billion year graph in the upper left.
 
Now here’s the interesting part: The graph on the right is properly positioned with respect to temperature. Notice the 50 deg F point on both graphs match. Thus, when the 2.4 by graph says “Ice Age” at its right, and given the glacial and interglacial temperatures on the 450,000 year graph to the right, here’s what it means:
 
Earth is STILL in the middle of its last ice age, some 40 deg F COLDER than the periods between ice ages.
 
Furthermore, current interglacial temperatures are a good 9 deg F colder than they usually are, meaning another 9 deg F increase would be entirely normal given the glacial and interglacial periods over the last half a million years, during which time both Earth and mankind has survived just fine.
 
By comparison, the IPCC’s “worst case” analysis and conclusion that global temperatures might exceed 6 deg F by the year 2100 is entirely within the range of “normal temperature variation,” clearly evidenced by the AGT over the last half-million years. With respect to Earth’s “normal” temperature over the last 1 billion years, however, what little global warming we might have experienced is but a tiny drop in the bucket as to 40 deg F warming trend good, old Mother Earth will toss our way if she decides to thaw us out back to Earth REAL normal temperature.
 
Naturally, since all climatologists already know (or should know) this information, it royally begs the question as to why they keep whining about the few puny degrees that mankind “might” add to the planet’s temperature over the next couple hundred years. Is it money? Billions of dollars in government funding can certainly provide a huge incentive for telling whoppers to the American taxpayers who fund the vast majority of those grants. Perhaps it’s a pseudo-religious belief that they’re doing something “good” for mankind, and the belief is so strong as to blind them to the truth.
 
Regardless, the truth remains, as clearly evidenced by Earth’s climate history:
 
A. As compared to Earth’s pattern of temperatures throughout it’s determinable history, we’re currently in the middle of an ice age, albeit in a relatively minor interglacial peak.
 
B. Temperatures could easily drop 10 deg F at any time, plunging the Earth into the deeper portion of an ice age such as the ones that carved Yosemite with deep glaciars.
 
C. Temperatures could also easily rise 40 or more deg F at any time, turning Greenland, Siberia, and the Yukon into the next series of tropical jungles, while turning the Congo and Amazon River basin into the next Sahara.
 
D. All of these possibilities are normal and natural, completely void of any human input. They have happened here on Earth multiple times in the past, completely without any input or causative factors by mankind.
 

E. No matter what mankind does, it won’t stop the normal, natural, and inevitable swings in Earth’s temperature. Mankind’s attempts to stop these swings is a reflection of arrogance at best, but at worst, a widespread attempt to extort (if not outright steal) vast sums of money from the hard-working people of this world.

In summary, I would like to divert your attention to this article from Investor’s Business Daily:

New Phrase for the Day: Global Warming Derangement Syndrome – When the Media and other Non-Experts claim those who don’t agree with their misconceptions — particularly politicians — are “deranged.”
“It’s the media and alarmists’ distance from reality that has moved. How else to explain how the alarmists, with a supportive media, could rip Trump for backing out of a deal they said was insufficient to start with?”
“The alarmists’ screeching is incessant, their lectures grating and without restraint, their hypocrisy as fetid as the wrong side of a sewage treatment plant. And of course their fanaticism is so rigid they cannot acknowledge anything that challenges their narrative.”
True.  True.