First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record

[Ouroboros]

Some effects of pollution....
Lead (from gasoline, paint, shotgun pellets & plumbing) is a neurotoxin which is particularly dangerous to children.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/health.htm
Even after removing tetraethyl lead from most gasoline (not aviation fuel), engine exhaust damages respiratory systems.
Effect of motor vehicle emissions on respiratory health in an urban area.

None of them are related to a denial of AGW though. A person who is a denier can of course have more opinions about other things and pollution, but the position of denying something isn't the same as approving or accepting another. AGW denial is about denying AGW, not about accepting other forms of pollution. A person can be for or against AGW and can also be for or against all other forms of pollution. By itself, denying AGW does nothing to motivate a person to act against pollution. It is the view that pollution has nothing to do with AGW.

While not the same, they are related.
Reducing fossil fuel usage thru conservation will proportionately reduce pollution, eg, ozone, mercury, CO2, carbon nano-particulates.

The AGW denier is saying that human pollution has nothing to do with those things. AGW stands for anthropomorphic global warming, i.e. one of the key components is "CO2 pollution is causing global warming". An AGW denier denies that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.

I favor a cost-v-benefit approach regarding pollution, with additional consideration for strategic concerns (eg, energy independence from hostile countries).
Factories have some advantages over distributed sources in reducing pollution because mitigating systems can be more cost effective due to large scale, eg, scrubbing mercury from coal. Consider that pollution results in lost work days, medical costs, lower IQs, shorter life spans, & reduced quality of life.

So why would someone who denies the human pollution in relation to global warming somehow come to the conclusion these things? I don't see how rejecting pollution in one view leads a person to accepting pollution in some other area. Of course a person can have those views, but rejecting AGW has nothing to do with accepting other pollution problems.

I'm giving reasons (with links to additional info) that pollution reduction & conservation are worthwhile independent of AGW.
This serves my agenda of getting them to support public policy which will secondarily mitigate AGW.

Yeah, but we're talking about someone who is rejecting AGW, so my point is that someone rejecting AGW, which is dependent on the discussion on AGW, will not have a reason (based on their rejection) to do anything about pollution. They might have other reasons, but the rejection has nothing to do with reduction of pollution. Rejecting pollution isn't the same as accepting pollution.

So you would tell AGW deniers that there it's not worth reducing polution, ie, environmental contamination unless it causes GW?
Oh, dear!

They might have other reasons. They might be convinced of other kinds of pollution. But I don't see how rejection of pollution type A leads to accepting pollution of type B.

We have 2 major AGW camps......deniers & believers.
Do you want to sway the deniers so that they go along with good environmental policy?
If so, we need to avoid the sky-is-falling-shrill-Al-Gore kind of dialogue.
It should be about detente....not a war of words.
Find common ground.

Sure. Still doesn't mean that denying pollution is somehow leading a person into supporting actions against pollution.

Put it this way, name a law, policy, action, action group, or any kind of attempt of stopping pollution that is driven and spearheaded by the argument "we don't believe pollution is causing global warming." I'm sure you must agree that no one could use that kind of platform or argument for reduction of pollution.

 

[Revoltingest]

None of them are related to a denial of AGW though. A person who is a denier can of course have more opinions about other things and pollution, but the position of denying something isn't the same as approving or accepting another. AGW denial is about denying AGW, not about accepting other forms of pollution. A person can be for or against AGW and can also be for or against all other forms of pollution. By itself, denying AGW does nothing to motivate a person to act against pollution. It is the view that pollution has nothing to do with AGW.

The AGW denier is saying that human pollution has nothing to do with those things. AGW stands for anthropomorphic global warming, i.e. one of the key components is "CO2 pollution is causing global warming". An AGW denier denies that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.

So why would someone who denies the human pollution in relation to global warming somehow come to the conclusion these things? I don't see how rejecting pollution in one view leads a person to accepting pollution in some other area. Of course a person can have those views, but rejecting AGW has nothing to do with accepting other pollution problems.

Yeah, but we're talking about someone who is rejecting AGW, so my point is that someone rejecting AGW, which is dependent on the discussion on AGW, will not have a reason (based on their rejection) to do anything about pollution. They might have other reasons, but the rejection has nothing to do with reduction of pollution. Rejecting pollution isn't the same as accepting pollution.

They might have other reasons. They might be convinced of other kinds of pollution. But I don't see how rejection of pollution type A leads to accepting pollution of type B.

Sure. Still doesn't mean that denying pollution is somehow leading a person into supporting actions against pollution.

Put it this way, name a law, policy, action, action group, or any kind of attempt of stopping pollution that is driven and spearheaded by the argument "we don't believe pollution is causing global warming." I'm sure you must agree that no one could use that kind of platform or argument for reduction of pollution.

Well, all I can say is that I find common ground with deniers with the approach of conservation & environmentalism.
In my experience, some deniers can be coaxed to look at AGW & solutions with open eyes.
(It helps to make fun of Al Gore. Tis a bonding experience.)
One does what one can.

 

[metis]

The NOAA authors of this paper have adjusted some of the observed data to change the trend slope...it will probably have to be retracted at some point...

Why do you believe as such? Where does your information come from that you seemingly believe they haven't seen?

 

[metis]

The problem is that the AGW alarmists take the predictions as real and ignore the non-alarming observed reality...lol..

Now you're being hypocritical. When I mentioned what a friend of mine who works in Antarctica and my older daughter who has a cabin near Glacier, have witnessed in regards to the retreating of the ice, you said that these observations one cannot go by. So, I would suggest that the real "observed reality" is that you're being quite inconsistent.

 

[metis]

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

The number of excuses for the global warming pause or hiatus had grown to more than 66 when the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) added yet another one to the list in a just-published study in Science. In their argument that came out yesterday, NOAA said that long-existing instrument bases have masked rising sea surface temperatures. Once they "readjusted" the data, the warming hiatus disappeared. By cooling the past, they were able to make the most recent years even warmer.

This assessment has drawn heavy criticism from both sides of the bitter climate debate, but one thing no one disputes: NOAA may have overstepped its authority in rewriting climate history and relying on faulty data sets. By making the early 1900s colder, and using only land-based temperature stations and less-reliable ocean temperatures, NOAA can now readjust the past to chart a new future.

As Marc Morano of the site Climate Depot noted in an interview with National Geographic, "NOAA's new study will have "virtually no impact in the climate debate. … This latest study merely adds to the dueling data sets and of course time lines in the climate debate."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened - THonline.com: National/World

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened
The argument draws criticism from both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.

"The main claim, that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend, is certainly dubious," wrote a panel of climatologists at the libertarian Cato Institute.


"I don't find this analysis at all convincing," wrote Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."


More surprising, however, was the fact that researchers on the opposite side of the debate also rejected the idea of a vanishing slowdown.


"It is a bit misleading to say there is no hiatus," said climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


"I would argue the study is misleading on the implications of its results," said Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Leeds, in England. "This study has not 'magiced' the hiatus away or somehow corrected the IPCC."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's quite "remarkable" that you thoroughly swallow the trash at that website but ignore what the scientific papers and periodicals have been saying. I checked the link and went to the home-page, and it is simply a partisan political website. It's "amazing" in where you get your information-- er, I mean propaganda-- from.

 

[Ouroboros]

The skeptics in general are not deniers,

I assumed that when we talked about deniers we were talking about deniers. If you're just skeptical, that's fine, but we still should act as if it was true, because if it is true, we've done the right thing, and if it's not true, then we've still done the right thing.

they agree there has been warming, and even that human derived CO2 does contribute to warming,

Uh. To deny that AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming. I'm not sure how denial of AGW can agree to that CO2 contribute to warming. To me, denying AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with warming.

but they do accept that humans are the main cause, but that the observed warming is mainly due to natural variations...

I'm confused about what you said there. You mean they do not accept humans as main cause?

If this is the case..the cost of a lot of the AGW mitigation will be wasted...and the money would be better spent on reducing particulate pollution and global warming adaptation....

There's no reason to spend money on reducing particulate pollution and global warming adaptation if pollution is considered a non-issue regarding global warming.

Obama is trying to push regulation into carbon pollution. The opponents are trying everything they can to stop these regulations because they believe it only costs money for something that doesn't have to be fixed. This is an example of how rejection of pollution is not regulating reduction in pollution, but rather resist the attempts to reduce pollution.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, all I can say is that I find common ground with deniers with the approach of conservation & environmentalism.

Sure. You, a person, can find a common ground.

What I'm trying to point out here is the viewpoint, the idea, the concept, the belief, the rejection, the position itself. The position that pollution does not change our climate, is in itself, as a concept and belief, not a motivator to do anything to reduce pollution. It's not even a motivator for which ice cream flavor to pick.

Put it in a little fictitious analogy:

Bob believes that deforestation in forest A has negative effects on the environment. Bob also believes that the deforestation in forest B has no negative effects. Company BigConglomerate Inc decided to cut down trees in both forest A and B. Which one will Bob work hard at stopping, and which one will he just let go? He most likely will stop the actions in A, because he believes the negative effects happens there. He won't do anything for forest B, because... why would he? He doesn't believe it would do any harm. Bob has two views. They're not incompatible or contradictory, but what you (hopefully) can see that the beliefs he has will affect different decisions, and where he doesn't think there's any danger, he won't work very hard, if at all, to stop it.

In my experience, some deniers can be coaxed to look at AGW & solutions with open eyes.

Of course. And some deniers do work on stopping pollution and improve things in other areas or situations, but they're not doing it because they deny AGW, they do it because they approve/accept pollution in other areas.

Obama wants to reduce carbon pollution. The republicans are trying their hardest to stop this to happen.

Example of article:

When the Obama administration unveiled its plan to make the most significant move ever to tackle the carbon pollution that causes climate change, it expected opponents to throw everything they had, even the kitchen sink, against it.

So it can be hard to keep track of all the tactics that critics in Congress, the states, and industry have been using to keep the administration from regulating carbon dioxide from power plants. Some are redundant, some are doomed to fail, and some have a chance of stopping or fatally delaying the rule.

Opponents Of Obama's Carbon Pollution Rule Are Trying Nearly Everything To Take It Down | ThinkProgress

That's a recent event. So... the opponents, what are they suggesting instead of reducing carbon? And why are they refusing to reduce carbon or let regulation happen on it? It's obvious that they believe it's just wasted money since carbon doesn't pollute or affect global warming.

So is there any example of these opponents to carbon regulation pushing through bills to regulate pollution based on their view that carbon isn't a pollution?

(It helps to make fun of Al Gore. Tis a bonding experience.)
One does what one can.

---edit

Just to clarify, AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. It's the belief that human pollution is causing global warming, not just that global warming is happening or that pollution in general is bad, but specifically that humans are responsible through pollution to cause the global climate change. Someone who rejects, specifically, AGW, rejects, not the global warming per se, but the anthropogenic part of it. A denier/rejector is rejecting that humans have anything to do with global warming.

Now, with that said, there are of course the "doubters" in between who is a mix of them both, but I'm talking about the extremes to focus on the motivations each isolated view has. To isolate them, you have to focus on the extreme, the singled out, the clean, pure, unadulterated view, not the mixed view.

A person will have multiple views and motivations, but in its pure form, a single view, the rejection of human cause, will not in itself, by itself, give a motivation to act on that very same thing. A person rejecting X will not act as if X is true, but will act as if X is false, since they are rejecting the truthfulness of X.

 

[metis]

To deny that AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming. I'm not sure how denial of AGW can agree to that CO2 contribute to warming. To me, denying AGW is to deny that CO2 has anything to do with warming.

Yes, and what some cannot get through their rather thick skulls is that we know without any shadow of doubt that we are in a warming trend since this is based on actual measurements that have been kept universally for roughly 200 years and not based on projections.

Obama is trying to push regulation into carbon pollution. The opponents are trying everything they can to stop these regulations because they believe it only costs money for something that doesn't have to be fixed. This is an example of how rejection of pollution is not regulating reduction in pollution, but rather resist the attempts to reduce pollution.

Yes again, but where some try to do is to obscure economic reality by stating that the extra money that may be needed somehow disappears into thin air. Like other forms of energy production, "green energy" makes money, both in the production of the mechanisms needed plus selling the energy that's produced.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and what some cannot get through their rather thick skulls is that we know without any shadow of doubt that we are in a warming trend since this is based on actual measurements that have been kept universally for roughly 200 years and not based on projections.

Sure. But I'm in this little branch of discussion focusing more about just the "A" in AGW (Anthropogentic Global Warming). Some people accept that we're having a global warming (GW), but deny/reject that human pollution is the cause. I believe that a person who accepts the human cause will have a stronger motivation to do something about pollution than a person who rejects human cause. That's the point I was trying to make earlier, but somehow the focal point gets lost in blurry concepts.

After all, even according to NASA, we're only 90% sure it's anthropogenic. I'm probably around 90% myself too. We're most likely to blame for most of the climate change. Some is probably natural, but we've helped it along quite a bit. Which means that I'm concerned. I'm not frantic or panicked, but I am thinking about what I can do improve my chances to survive through the times to come. Simply because I strongly suspect there will be tough times.

Yes again, but where some try to do is to obscure economic reality by stating that the extra money that may be needed somehow disappears into thin air. Like other forms of energy production, "green energy" makes money, both in the production of the mechanisms needed plus selling the energy that's produced.

Of course. There's money on both sides, ultimately. You will create jobs and business with these things.

 

[metis]

Sure. But I'm in this little branch of discussion focusing more about just the "A" in AGW (Anthropogentic Global Warming). Some people accept that we're having a global warming (GW), but deny/reject that human pollution is the cause. I believe that a person who accepts the human cause will have a stronger motivation to do something about pollution than a person who rejects human cause. That's the point I was trying to make earlier, but somehow the focal point gets lost in blurry concepts.

After all, even according to NASA, we're only 90% sure it's anthropogenic. I'm probably around 90% myself too. We're most likely to blame for most of the climate change. Some is probably natural, but we've helped it along quite a bit. Which means that I'm concerned. I'm not frantic or panicked, but I am thinking about what I can do improve my chances to survive through the times to come. Simply because I strongly suspect there will be tough times.


Of course. There's money on both sides, ultimately. You will create jobs and business with these things.

We always hedge our bets in science since we don't like getting egg on our faces. The only serious discussion on global warming over the last two decades is what's causing it, and the 90+% (it's actually 97-98% recently) general agreement amongst climate scientists reflects that all other potential factors have been discounted.

We know what the effect of higher levels of CO2 and methane gas is, and we also know where most of the increase comes from. The evidence goes back for many decades, but scientists tend to opt for more certainty, especially in this case since so much is at stake economically.

But either way, why take a chance that the evidence is all wrong? Seems much more sensible to act on the side of caution and at least start moving in a safer direction, which also has some other side benefits, btw. .

 

[philbo]

Yes, and what some cannot get through their rather thick skulls is that we know without any shadow of doubt that we are in a warming trend since this is based on actual measurements that have been kept universally for roughly 200 years and not based on projections.

The massive temperature spike in 1998 didn't help: if you take a starting point of 1997 or 1998, you don't see any significant upward trend; take any other starting point (i.e. one which isn't largely skewed by 1998 data) and it's obvious that there is such a trend. It has looked inevitable that the global temperature would keep heading upwards, but the "no warming since 1998" mantra has been so often repeated many believe it to be true.

 

[metis]

The massive temperature spike in 1998 didn't help: if you take a starting point of 1997 or 1998, you don't see any significant upward trend; take any other starting point (i.e. one which isn't largely skewed by 1998 data) and it's obvious that there is such a trend. It has looked inevitable that the global temperature would keep heading upwards, but the "no warming since 1998" mantra has been so often repeated many believe it to be true.

But let me make a correction in that 1998 was indeed a spike year when compared to the previous set, but the reality is that it has gone up every year since, with 2014 being the hottest (see graph here: 10 Warmest Years on Record Globally | Climate Central ).

 

[Ouroboros]

We always hedge our bets in science since we don't like getting egg on our faces. The only serious discussion on global warming over the last two decades is what's causing it, and the 90+% (it's actually 97-98% recently) general agreement amongst climate scientists reflects that all other potential factors have been discounted.

Yeah. I read about the sun's influence. If the sun was responsible, the outer layers of the strata would be hotter, but it isn't. It's cooler than the lower strata, if I understand it right. So the heat isn't from increased sun activity.

We know what the effect of higher levels of CO2 and methane gas is, and we also know where most of the increase comes from. The evidence goes back for many decades, but scientists tend to opt for more certainty, especially in this case since so much is at stake economically.

Sure. Don't doubt it.

But either way, why take a chance that the evidence is all wrong? Seems much more sensible to act on the side of caution and at least start moving in a safer direction, which also has some other side benefits, btw. .

Exactly my point. It doesn't matter if the anthropogenic part is true or not, acting on it as if it was true has only benefits and is the most responsible position. To stop and hinder reduction of pollution based on the chance that the anthropogenic part is not true, is to take a huge chance. It's like putting all our lives as a bet, all in, in a poker game with a crappy hand. Do nothing is the bad decision. Resisting improvement is even worse, and that's what we're seeing now. Resistance to improvement based on the assumption that perhaps we're not in trouble. AGW denial is unethical. Having doubts about AGW is fine, but rejecting it and even resisting the work that's been done based on AGW, is really unethical and dangerous.

 

[Ouroboros]

The massive temperature spike in 1998 didn't help: if you take a starting point of 1997 or 1998, you don't see any significant upward trend; take any other starting point (i.e. one which isn't largely skewed by 1998 data) and it's obvious that there is such a trend. It has looked inevitable that the global temperature would keep heading upwards, but the "no warming since 1998" mantra has been so often repeated many believe it to be true.

Already the first quarter this current year is beating all records for the past 136 years.

2015 Already Setting Heat Records

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's another issue we're facing because of CO2, oceanic acidification.

The pH level is sinking and it's becoming more acidic, causing coral bleaching and death of sea life, and increase in toxic microbes. About 30-40% of human production of CO2 is taken up by the oceans. This is happening regardless of global warming. It's a global change of food supply and ecological support for our very existence. Should we worry? Should we reduce pollution? Yeah, I think so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you believe as such? Where does your information come from that you seemingly believe they haven't seen?

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

The number of excuses for the global warming pause or hiatus had grown to more than 66 when the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) added yet another one to the list in a just-published study in Science. In their argument that came out yesterday, NOAA said that long-existing instrument bases have masked rising sea surface temperatures. Once they "readjusted" the data, the warming hiatus disappeared. By cooling the past, they were able to make the most recent years even warmer.

This assessment has drawn heavy criticism from both sides of the bitter climate debate, but one thing no one disputes: NOAA may have overstepped its authority in rewriting climate history and relying on faulty data sets. By making the early 1900s colder, and using only land-based temperature stations and less-reliable ocean temperatures, NOAA can now readjust the past to chart a new future.

As Marc Morano of the site Climate Depot noted in an interview with National Geographic, "NOAA's new study will have "virtually no impact in the climate debate. … This latest study merely adds to the dueling data sets and of course time lines in the climate debate."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened - THonline.com: National/World

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened
The argument draws criticism from both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.

"The main claim, that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend, is certainly dubious," wrote a panel of climatologists at the libertarian Cato Institute.


"I don't find this analysis at all convincing," wrote Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."


More surprising, however, was the fact that researchers on the opposite side of the debate also rejected the idea of a vanishing slowdown.


"It is a bit misleading to say there is no hiatus," said climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


"I would argue the study is misleading on the implications of its results," said Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Leeds, in England. "This study has not 'magiced' the hiatus away or somehow corrected the IPCC."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now you're being hypocritical. When I mentioned what a friend of mine who works in Antarctica and my older daughter who has a cabin near Glacier, have witnessed in regards to the retreating of the ice, you said that these observations one cannot go by. So, I would suggest that the real "observed reality" is that you're being quite inconsistent.

No.....you miss understand....there has been 0.7 C increase in temperature so far....and there has been no further warming this century....not so scary yes? Unless the scary predictions of 2 C warming this century is raised, no one is frightened...it's the 2 C plus predicted that I'm talking about.... Skeptics are interested in observations...not predictions that have been shown to bee always much higher than reality.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's quite "remarkable" that you thoroughly swallow the trash at that website but ignore what the scientific papers and periodicals have been saying. I checked the link and went to the home-page, and it is simply a partisan political website. It's "amazing" in where you get your information-- er, I mean propaganda-- from.

Did you note the scientists who are skeptical and found the paper unconvincing and dubious....Dr Curry, Dr Trenberth, etc., these are names that carry weight....so bad mouthing them only shows your true colours as a closed minded agw alarmist...

 

[metis]

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

How NOAA rewrote climate data to hide global warming pause

The number of excuses for the global warming pause or hiatus had grown to more than 66 when the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) added yet another one to the list in a just-published study in Science. In their argument that came out yesterday, NOAA said that long-existing instrument bases have masked rising sea surface temperatures. Once they "readjusted" the data, the warming hiatus disappeared. By cooling the past, they were able to make the most recent years even warmer.

This assessment has drawn heavy criticism from both sides of the bitter climate debate, but one thing no one disputes: NOAA may have overstepped its authority in rewriting climate history and relying on faulty data sets. By making the early 1900s colder, and using only land-based temperature stations and less-reliable ocean temperatures, NOAA can now readjust the past to chart a new future.

As Marc Morano of the site Climate Depot noted in an interview with National Geographic, "NOAA's new study will have "virtually no impact in the climate debate. … This latest study merely adds to the dueling data sets and of course time lines in the climate debate."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened - THonline.com: National/World

Climate scientists speculate: Global warming 'hiatus' never happened
The argument draws criticism from both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.

"The main claim, that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend, is certainly dubious," wrote a panel of climatologists at the libertarian Cato Institute.


"I don't find this analysis at all convincing," wrote Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."


More surprising, however, was the fact that researchers on the opposite side of the debate also rejected the idea of a vanishing slowdown.


"It is a bit misleading to say there is no hiatus," said climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


"I would argue the study is misleading on the implications of its results," said Piers Forster, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Leeds, in England. "This study has not 'magiced' the hiatus away or somehow corrected the IPCC."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already checked out the site before, and it's the typical right-wing hack-job that those who really don't check out peer-reviewed science might spout.

 

[metis]

No.....you miss understand....there has been 0.7 C increase in temperature so far....and there has been no further warming this century....not so scary yes?

That's simply another lie as the overall temp has been increasing that is clearly obvious with the chart I linked you to. Again, all you are doing is parroting right-wing political statements from right-wing sites.