The planet is still warming


 Steve Benen TAKES NOTE of the fact that the so-called Climategate scandal has nothing to do with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.

 POSTSCRIPT: In one of the comments attached to Benen’s piece, there’s a link to a HANDY LIST of videos of lectures on global warming by David Archer at the University of Chicago.

 UPDATE: Well, well, well. It appears that Exxon-Mobil is behind a certain group that’s been peddling global-warming skepticism. Read about it HERE.



  1. shawnnews

    Richard, I think you are confusing criticism of religion with criticism of statements, positions or actions taken by church men. Churches or church people in this country sometimes take political stands. As a result this opens them up to criticism. I’m sure as a conservative, you criticize church people like Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright. Likewise, a liberal person would criticize the perceived inconsistencies in Catholic Church’s positions on abortion or the disastrous child abuse scandals of the past 50 years. I would hope you would criticize child abuse by ANYONE and not be soft on people just because they wear a Roman collar or are a part of your faith.

  2. mike – I’m sure you are easily bored, considering how little you can comprehend. The world must be a really simple place to someone like you.

  3. Henry: Mike who? The only Mike around here is Mike Carroll. There was another guy who spelled his name with a lower-case “m,” but he got mad at me and left, vowing never to return. And trust me, he won’t return.

  4. Craig Knauss

    Newsmax, snuss? Didn’t the Moony Toons have what you needed? How about WeirdNutDaily? Or the National Enquirer?

  5. Richard C

    It maybe warming up somewhere, but its not here.

  6. Richard: I shouldn’t have to explain this, but I will, element by element.

    1) The headline on the post takes no sides. It merely notes that Matthews tangled with the bishop over abortion.

    2) The one sentence introduction to the video notes that Matthews, who is himself a Catholic, gets a little tough with the bishop. Nothing in the sentence “bashes” the bishop.

    3) Of the eight comments attached to the post, only one is from me. In that comment, I respond to Chuck Sweeney’s knock on Matthews by acknowledging that “I don’t like Matthews either, which I’ve made clear here on several occasions.”

    And then, I add this: “I rarely watch him, but I came across this clip on the Internet and found it interesting considering that the two combatants are co-religionists.” Again, there’s nothing in that sentence that bashes the bishop. All I’ve done in that sentence is establish my motivation for posting the video.

    The last sentence of my comment is this: “I also was amused at how Matthews prefaced each of his roundhouse punches with a deferential ‘your excellency.'”

    My point there, which I shouldn’t have to explain, is that it struck me as funny that Matthews, while directing some pretty tough remarks at the bishop (or roundhouse punches, as I put it), still had the courtesy, from having been brought up as a Catholic, to address the bishop with the deferential term “your excellency.”

    That’s the entirety of what I said. There’s nothing there that is even remotely negative about the bishop, never mind sinking to the level of “bashing.”

    Indeed, the first mention of bashing in that whole thread on that post was in your comment: “Anything to bash religion, eh, Pat?” But I HAD NOT bashed religion. I had not even taken sides in the argument between Matthews and the bishop. The only thing that motivated my posting of the video (as I made clear in my response to Chuck Sweeney) was that you don’t often see a practicing Catholic arguing with a Catholic bishop on TV about abortion.

    How you could have interpreted anything I said in that post as anti-religion, anti-Catholic, or anti-Bishop Tobin is simpy inexplicable. But you went way beyond that in your comment. You called me a “meathead” and said I had shown with this post my “disdain for the church and its teachings.” I did no such thing. Not even close. Nothing.

    In other words, Richard, you either lied or showed yourself to be pretty deficient in understanding the English language,

    Your problem, I suspect, is that in your self-righteousness you’re extremely quick to accuse anyone with whom you disagree of being anti-God and anti-religion. You’re a self-appointed protector of what you consider to be sacred religious orthodoxy. Anyone whose opinions on faith and morals differ from yours is ipso facto a demon to be smited.

    Get over yourself, Richard. Nobody has appointed you the arbiter of religious correctness. And I dare say it’s perhaps sinfully presumptious for you to pretend otherwise.

  7. Richard: One more thing: As for my position on abortion, I tried to explain that to you about six weeks ago, but you seem to have forgotten. Here is an adaptation of what I said:

    Richard seems strangely sure of my position on abortion, though I’ve never spelled it out in any detail on this blog.

    I mentioned in passing once that I’m pro-choice, but my thoughts on the matter are somewhat nuanced. Pro-choice is a political position, not a moral position. I don’t favor laws against everything I consider immoral. And, in fact, I do have moral misgivings about abortion in certain circumstances.

    But I also reject the position taken by the Catholic church, among others, that birth-control pills are immoral tools of abortion. Nor do I think that embryonic stem-cell research is tantamount to killing a baby.

    However, it might surprise some readers to learn that I think it’s morally inconsistent for so-called pro-lifers to allow for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. If abortion is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who impregnated the woman or how he did it.

    In May of last year, I wrote the following (which I’ll set off with lines at the top and bottom to distinguish it from the rest of this comment):

    John McCain is one of the millions of Americans who are generally opposed to abortion but want its legality maintained in cases of rape or incest.

    Accordingly, McCain has advocated on several occasions that the Republican Party platform be changed from its current opposition to all abortions to a position allowing for certain exceptions.

    But now that he’s the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Straight Talk is under big pressure from the party’s hard-core anti-abortion wing to drop his plan to change the platform.

    The squeeze in which McCain finds himself involves a few angles that might not occur to the casual observer. As I’ve said before in this forum and others, the stricter position against abortion is more logically consistent than the one that allows for exceptions. (My own pro-choice view involves numerous other factors and is not at issue here.)

    The only good reason for a person to oppose abortion in general requires one to believe that it’s the taking of an innocent life. If it’s not the taking of an innocent life, it’s no different in an ethical sense than having your appendix removed.

    (Granted, the decision on whether to bring a fetus to full term can involve complex emotions and considerations, but absent the homicide question, the ethics are not very problematical, and the government has no legitimate interest in the matter.)

    So, the basic premise advanced by the so-called pro-life movement is that abortion is wrong because it’s tantamount to murder. If you don’t buy that argument, you have no valid reason to want abortion outlawed.

    That makes it hypocritical to say you’re against abortion except in cases of rape or incest or the life of the mother.

    How can a fetus in a case of rape or incest be less innocent than one produced in more acceptable circumstances? How can John McCain and those who agree with him deny that they’re logically and morally inconsistent on this score?

    Indeed, one has to wonder if McCain has actually thought this matter through, or whether his opposition to abortion is an insincere political convenience for purposes of advancement in the Republican Party.

    But there are lots of other hypocrites on this issue. Most pro-lifers shudder at the thought of a woman having to bring a fetus to full term in a case of rape or incest. And most politicians are loathe to buck majority sentiment in that regard. So much for the sincerity of their pro-life positions.

    There’s another political question that arises here: If a fetus is a person, and abortion is the unwarranted killing of that innocent person, why don’t any of the pro-life politicians favor a law under which the mother would be charged with murder?

    The answer, of course, is that taking such a position likely would be political suicide. Most Americans don’t want women who get abortions to be prosecuted as murderers.

    Nor is there any consistency of logic in making an exception for an abortion to save the life of the mother. In his book “Papal Sin,” author Garry Wills argues: “If the fetus and the mother have equal status as persons, the natural and not the inflicted death should be preferred,” if you’re going to be morally and logically consistent about it.

    Then, too, politicians should be required to square their anti-abortion positions with the belief among some folks — orthodox Catholics, for example — that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient. Are any of these pols willing to call for a ban on morning-after pills? Are they willing to call for murder charges against women who take such pills? If not, why not?

    The politicians should be required to explain in detail their opinions on just when life starts and when, if ever, it’s permissible to end such life and what penalties should be imposed for violations of any limits that are enacted into law.

    Questions like that would prompt the Republican pols, I’m sure, to squirm and dance and tie themselves into ideological knots.


    As I said in the second paragraph of this comment, my position on abortion is somewhat nuanced. But alas, Richard probably doesn’t go much for nuance. To him, as to all simpletons, everything is black or white.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *