And the blind-sighted arrogance has only gotten worse.
From the Bay Area Public Radio blog KQED:
The title itself is misleading.
What does KQED mean by "climate change."
Are they talking about the four seasons? These are serious and series changes, nothing more. It happens all the time.
Are they talking about the sudden storms which hit the coastlines of California?
The climate alarmists have also forgotten that in 1978 and in 2003, it snowed in Los Angeles! Yes, it snowed in Southern California. SoCal also experienced a mini ice age (of sorts) in the mid to late 1800s.
Does the article give any clarity to the meaning of "climate change"?
So, 2016 goes down in the books as the warmest year on record, globally. And a new report affirms that a “pause” in global warming, often cited by climate science contrarians, never happened. So that should settle this climate thing once and for all, right?
The record for warmest year "on record" is a necessary marker. Compared to what other time? 100 years ago? Two hundred years ago? There has indeed been a pause in global warming, as well as global cooling.
“Wrong,” seems to be the view of many Americans.
The question of how people make up their minds about climate change turns out to be complicated, which helps explain figures due to be released next week by Yale and George Mason Universities as part of the ongoing Six Americas study of climate attitudes. The project’s most recent survey shows that while seven in 10 U.S. adults believe that the planet is heating up, only about half (53 percent) will concede that human activity is driving it, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to that effect.
The planet gets warmer, gets cooler, but the argument that the changes in heat depend on human activity is still spurious information at best.
This passage especially showcases the smug arrogance of climate alarmists, who believe that because of their ivory tower learning, they know more than everyone else, and that the "common people of Middle America" don't know what is best for themselves:
“Government is the Problem”
The impulse to reject climate science goes to the heart of American culture.
“We have a long history of being suspicious about government,” says Oreskes, and for better or worse, the most meaningful countermeasures to climate change require some level of government intervention, such as regulating and taxing carbon emissions.
Individuals should be suspicious of government, since the extension of federal power comes at a great price to our wallets and our morals. The federal government's unprecedented reach into our lives, coupled with corruption, collusion, and waste, have rightly raised concerns for countless millions of Americans in this country.
Climate scientists are not following for this climate alarmism agenda. They recognize that the biggest drivers for this agenda come from government entities, and not independent scientists. Public universities are relying more on taxpayer dollars, and they are doing teh bidding of legislators, lawmakers, and the special interests behind them.
The cooling and warming periods in global history undermine the long-standing arguments of global warming proponents again and again.
Logic, reason, evidence, facts are immune to stations of class, race, of age. It is entirely a matter of fact and evidence, all of which fall under the scientific method, and they are not the exclusive purview of the university, the media, or Hollywood.
The reason why liberal websites and rages like KQED struggle for readers or respect is the utter disdain that the visit on Americans of diverse backgrounds, plus their committed inability to recognize that their liberal talking points are bunk of the lowest order.