Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[Grand Vol]

You can't really believe any of the propaganda he posts. And, that's what it is.

I do.

Al Gore is an unappreciated genius.

 

[Vols520]

Ironic that you make this statement and then post a picture of Tyson. Tyson is the Malcom Gladwell of astronomy.

What do you mean by this. Not trying to debate just curious.

 

[Vols520]

I got cold on Saturday night when it was 63 degrees out.

 

[therealUT]

What do you mean by this. Not trying to debate just curious.

I mean that Tyson, like Gladwell, has a thorough understanding of the issues in his field. However, like Gladwell, he is also engaged in a general information awareness project with the public. And, in this project, he generalizes a whole lot. In fact, I would argue that while spreading information to the public, he does so in what some might deem a scientifically illiterate manner (which is why I think the quote is ironic).

A few examples:

1) Tyson's quote regarding science and truth, "The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it." Such a statement is radically scientifically illiterate. The most we can say about science and truth is that the method is true. Yet, even plenty of scientists question that. It's a dangerous statement to make, in the manner in which Tyson made it, because it could be perceived by many to imply that the conclusions of science are true, so we ought just put all our faith in what the scientists of the day tell us. That is dangerous and unscientific.

2) Tyson's recurring statement about us and stardust bugs me. Yes, I know, all matter comes from the Big Bang, and the gases and what not from various supernovas, so, yes, in a sense, we are all stardust. Yet, in stating that everything is stardust, we are essentially also stating that nothing is stardust. Identification is, in part, distinction from others. But, if everything is stardust, then there exists nothing to identify as stardust. Hell, if you want to claim that since we can trace our roots back to stardust, thus we are all made of stardust, well, we can also trace existence back to a singularity, thus we are all made of a singularity. It's just trivial and stupid.

It is good that Tyson wants to engage the masses and inspire in them an urge to learn more about science, but I never understand why pop-scientists, pop-psychologists, pop-philosophers, etc., feel the need to make stupid statements to the masses. I'd rather he take his talents, his charisma, and his ability to engage in scientific discourse and spend his time enunciating contrary arguments, showing where such arguments conflict with different scientific methods and arguments, and giving reasons why we ought to favor the scientific methods.

 

[Vols520]

I mean that Tyson, like Gladwell, has a thorough understanding of the issues in his field. However, like Gladwell, he is also engaged in a general information awareness project with the public. And, in this project, he generalizes a whole lot. In fact, I would argue that while spreading information to the public, he does so in what some might deem a scientifically illiterate manner (which is why I think the quote is ironic).

A few examples:

1) Tyson's quote regarding science and truth, "The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it." Such a statement is radically scientifically illiterate. The most we can say about science and truth is that the method is true. Yet, even plenty of scientists question that. It's a dangerous statement to make, in the manner in which Tyson made it, because it could be perceived by many to imply that the conclusions of science are true, so we ought just put all our faith in what the scientists of the day tell us. That is dangerous and unscientific.

2) Tyson's recurring statement about us and stardust bugs me. Yes, I know, all matter comes from the Big Bang, and the gases and what not from various supernovas, so, yes, in a sense, we are all stardust. Yet, in stating that everything is stardust, we are essentially also stating that nothing is stardust. Identification is, in part, distinction from others. But, if everything is stardust, then there exists nothing to identify as stardust. Hell, if you want to claim that since we can trace our roots back to stardust, thus we are all made of stardust, well, we can also trace existence back to a singularity, thus we are all made of a singularity. It's just trivial and stupid.

It is good that Tyson wants to engage the masses and inspire in them an urge to learn more about science, but I never understand why pop-scientists, pop-psychologists, pop-philosophers, etc., feel the need to make stupid statements to the masses. I'd rather he take his talents, his charisma, and his ability to engage in scientific discourse and spend his time enunciating contrary arguments, showing where such arguments conflict with different scientific methods and arguments, and giving reasons why we ought to favor the scientific methods.

Thanks, was simply curious.

 

[MG1968]

While we're talking about "settled science", wasn't "peak oil" a scientific consensus at one time? We (the world) were supposed to be on a downward trend in production, not because of AGW or the rise of renewables, because there simply was no more oil to be had.

 

[BartW]

I think you misrepresented his argument...like a lot. You can't judge a model's accuracy using the past when the past was its input. Somehow turned into “Models are based on the past, therefore aren’t useful for predicting the future." He never said they weren't, just that they haven't been tested.

I think the "other dozen independent fingerprints of AGW" is also cherrypicking. I'm not informed on the subject at all, but why would those fingerprints represent be more representative than others? Are there a dozen supporting AGW, but hundreds against it? That's why the models are important. Are they more important, I don't know, don't follow the science.

I’m just saying models are by definition based on the past. They will never predict the future with 100% accuracy. Such is the non-linear nature of climate. That said, clearly models have predicted a lot of things right. For example, Hansen’s 1988 surface temperature projection (which ‘skeptics’ inexplicably highlight) was spot on. Present surface temperatures are still entirely within the range predicted by the IPCC.

More importantly, I argued that the models do have explanatory power. Aside from surface temperature (which TRUT is harping on way too much), I point out that climate science successfully predicted increasing downward radiation, decreasing outward radiation, stratospheric cooling, decreasing diurnal temperature range, polar amplification, rising tropopause, and more.

I’m not trying to sound aggressive (given your disclaimer of not following the science), but how am I the one cherry-picking? I showed that far more of climate science’s predictions have come true than haven’t. There are not “hundreds against it”. Even the pause is a misnomer, since we can tell that Earth continues to accumulate heat faster than ever from satellite and ocean heat content measurements. Yes the rate of surface warming appears to have slowed a little over the past 15 years, but the vast majority of heat from global warming goes into the oceans, so ocean heat content is a better indicator of climate than surface or atmospheric temperature to begin with.

There are literally dozens of 10-15 year intervals in the instrumental surface temperature record you can cherry-pick to show a period of little or no warming. It reflects short-term variation, which is why the smallest unit of time used to analyze climate is 30 years. Skeptics make way too much out of the “pause”

Doesn't look like its doing much of anything.

How do you not see a trend in that? Even using UAH’s historically sucky data there’s obviously a trend.

It’s comical how Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done. Yet still the skeptics buy their crap.

And yes, being a creationist absolutely hurts Spencer’s credibility. Creationists and climate deniers are birds of a feather. It’s interesting to see how they’ve teamed up on the legal front.

You can't really believe any of the propaganda he posts. And, that's what it is.

Science = propaganda! k:

 

[82_VOL_83]

Most scientists are credible. Only a small handful work for astroturf anti-environmental organizations. Serial disinformers are easy to spot if you know what to look for.

You just lost ANY credit you may have gained......ever.

 

[therealUT]

Sure, the models correctly predicted a lot of things. None predicted a 20-year pause in surface temperatures, only 2 percent predicted a 15-year pause. That means there is a problem with the models, though it doesn't necessarily debunk climate change. Only a zealot would say the models are fine if over a 25, year period they failed to explain a significant climate phenomenon during 15 of those years.

Science ought to avoid zealousness at all costs.

 

[Sandvol]

Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in second figure.




The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature. The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.

If Bart and Al were living 125,000 years ago they'd be running around the camp fires nagging everyone to put their fires out or face the consequences.

P.S.-I think we've been lucky to live in the warm period we live in. Our posterity won't be so lucky. When the planet is about 6 degrees cooler it's going to suck.

 

[82_VOL_83]

View attachment 76447
Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in second figure.


View attachment 76448

The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature. The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.

If Bart and Al were living 125,000 years ago they'd be running around the camp fires nagging everyone to put their fires out or face the consequences.

You denialist you!

 

[FLVOL_79]

I mean that Tyson, like Gladwell, has a thorough understanding of the issues in his field. However, like Gladwell, he is also engaged in a general information awareness project with the public. And, in this project, he generalizes a whole lot. In fact, I would argue that while spreading information to the public, he does so in what some might deem a scientifically illiterate manner (which is why I think the quote is ironic).

A few examples:

1) Tyson's quote regarding science and truth, "The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it." Such a statement is radically scientifically illiterate. The most we can say about science and truth is that the method is true. Yet, even plenty of scientists question that. It's a dangerous statement to make, in the manner in which Tyson made it, because it could be perceived by many to imply that the conclusions of science are true, so we ought just put all our faith in what the scientists of the day tell us. That is dangerous and unscientific.

2) Tyson's recurring statement about us and stardust bugs me. Yes, I know, all matter comes from the Big Bang, and the gases and what not from various supernovas, so, yes, in a sense, we are all stardust. Yet, in stating that everything is stardust, we are essentially also stating that nothing is stardust. Identification is, in part, distinction from others. But, if everything is stardust, then there exists nothing to identify as stardust. Hell, if you want to claim that since we can trace our roots back to stardust, thus we are all made of stardust, well, we can also trace existence back to a singularity, thus we are all made of a singularity. It's just trivial and stupid.

It is good that Tyson wants to engage the masses and inspire in them an urge to learn more about science, but I never understand why pop-scientists, pop-psychologists, pop-philosophers, etc., feel the need to make stupid statements to the masses. I'd rather he take his talents, his charisma, and his ability to engage in scientific discourse and spend his time enunciating contrary arguments, showing where such arguments conflict with different scientific methods and arguments, and giving reasons why we ought to favor the scientific methods.

I thought you meant how they both look stupid and could be mistaken for carnies.

 

[FLVOL_79]

View attachment 76447
Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in second figure.


View attachment 76448

The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature. The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.

If Bart and Al were living 125,000 years ago they'd be running around the camp fires nagging everyone to put their fires out or face the consequences.

In before Bart calls your post irrelevant.

But its nice to see what most know, the earth has cycles.

 

[BartW]

Sure, the models correctly predicted a lot of things. None predicted a 20-year pause in surface temperatures, only 2 percent predicted a 15-year pause. That means there is a problem with the models, though it doesn't necessarily debunk climate change. Only a zealot would say the models are fine if over a 25, year period they failed to explain a significant climate phenomenon during 15 of those years.

Science ought to avoid zealousness at all costs.

Source?

Climate models don’t “predict pauses” at all. Models run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties. There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as ENSO, PDO, THC and general fluid turbulence, but they don’t have the long-term influence of the greenhouse effect. That’s why you can’t even talk about climate trends without considering at least a 30 year period. If the slowdown were to continue for another decade or so, then yes there would be a lot of re-evaluating to do. But at this point, “the pause” is nothing out of the ordinary. Observations are still within IPCC projections.

One of the skeptics in the official thread posted some work from the UK Met Office that showed that, on average, such a pause should happen twice per century. It also showed that all climate indicators besides surface temperature show global warming continues unabated. I’m really not sure why the skeptic posted it. I think he just saw the word “pause” in the title and posted it without reading (an annoyingly common occurrence).

You didn’t answer any of my questions, but I’ll just repeat this one. Even if the trend picks back up, you think we should wait until at least 2050 no matter what?

 

[BartW]

You just lost ANY credit you may have gained......ever.

If Bart and Al were living 125,000 years ago they'd be running around the camp fires nagging everyone to put their fires out or face the consequences.

P.S.-I think we've been lucky to live in the warm period we live in. Our posterity won't be so lucky. When the planet is about 6 degrees cooler it's going to suck.

You denialist you!

In before Bart calls your post irrelevant.

But its nice to see what most know, the earth has cycles.

:snoring:

You guys seriously suck at science. Sandvol, how many times have I had to tell you that scientists don’t like you and your ‘skeptic’ sites misrepresenting their work? I won’t even dignify your copypastes with a rebuttal. You never answer them anyway.

That’s the annoying thing about “debating” ‘skeptics’. They have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they’re only limited by their imagination while we’re limited by things like logic and data.

I’ll keep my 97%, you keep your 3%. Fix yourself a nice tobacco-DDT-asbestos cancerwich and kick back with a cold one while you watch the world burn. Fred Singer says nothing bad will happen and he’s never been wrong before, right?

 

[Sandvol]

Source?

Climate models don’t “predict pauses” at all. Models run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties. There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as ENSO, PDO, THC and general fluid turbulence, but they don’t have the long-term influence of the greenhouse effect. That’s why you can’t even talk about climate trends without considering at least a 30 year period. If the slowdown were to continue for another decade or so, then yes there would be a lot of re-evaluating to do. But at this point, “the pause” is nothing out of the ordinary. Observations are still within IPCC projections.

One of the skeptics in the official thread posted some work from the UK Met Office that showed that, on average, such a pause should happen twice per century. It also showed that all climate indicators besides surface temperature show global warming continues unabated. I’m really not sure why the skeptic posted it. I think he just saw the word “pause” in the title and posted it without reading (an annoyingly common occurrence).

You didn’t answer any of my questions, but I’ll just repeat this one. Even if the trend picks back up, you think we should wait until at least 2050 no matter what?

The trend might pick back up but then it will turn back down and there is nothing under the Sun we can do about it.

 

[BartW]

The trend might pick back up but then it will turn back down and there is nothing under the Sun we can do about it.

Do you really not see how dumb your arguments are?

 

[Sandvol]

:snoring:

You guys seriously suck at science. Sandvol, how many times have I had to tell you that scientists don’t like you and your ‘skeptic’ sites misrepresenting their work? I won’t even dignify your copypastes with a rebuttal. You never answer them anyway.

That’s the annoying thing about “debating” ‘skeptics’. They have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they’re only limited by their imagination while we’re limited by things like logic and data.

I’ll keep my 97%, you keep your 3%. Fix yourself a nice tobacco-DDT-asbestos cancerwich and kick back with a cold one while you watch the world burn. Fred Singer says nothing bad will happen and he’s never been wrong before, right?

Your rebuttals aren't rebuttals. You operate in a delusional fantasy world that only you and your ilk understand.

 

[BartW]

Your rebuttals aren't rebuttals. You operate in a delusional fantasy world that only you and your ilk understand.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you really not see how dumb your arguments are?

Do you ever use any other website besides that skeptical science?

And in reference to your cute pictures, you ever believe for one second that you could be wrong?

 

[BartW]

Do you ever use any other website besides that skeptical science?

And in reference to your cute pictures, you ever believe for one second that you could be wrong?

Depends on what you mean. I think those pictures are an accurate portrayal of how denialists cherry-pick data, if that's what you're asking. I mean the 'skeptic' blogosphere really claims the 2013 ice extent indicates recovery (VICTORYLOL!). How deluded do you have to be?

If you’re talking about global warming in general: of course I know I could be wrong, I just see it as very unlikely. Not only is the science incredibly robust, but the fact that professional 'skeptics' resort to such obvious bullsh!ttery definitely reinforces my belief. And there’s so much of it out there compared to equivalent alarmism. Another indicator that it’s a political controversy and not a scientific one, is that the single greatest predictor of global warming rejection by far is a rigid libertarian outlook. The whole movement reeks of tobacco.

To your first question: I try to link the original literature when it’s available. As far as blogs go I like Skeptical Science, Realclimate, and Scienceblogs. I also like the journals The Guardian and The Conversation. Rationalwiki and to a lesser extent Sourcewatch are good for exposing serial disinformers. And then I’ll post anything relevant that pops up on the science news feeds I follow. Skeptical science is probably my favorite climate-specific site; I like its layout and graphics, and it’s a convenient reference for the lamer myths. But I doubt more than 20% of my links go there.

Lately I’ve grown fond of Rationalwiki. I get a kick out of their snide humor. The Anti-Environmentalism page I posted earlier cracked me up. Such a perfect description of the Sandvols' stereotyping:

Stereotyping

• Conflating actual environmental problems with the nature woo peddled by some environmental groups (e.g., aspartame scares, rejection of GM crops as "Frankenfoods").

• Conflating all environmentalists with dirty effin' hippies, Luddites, or hard greens like Pentti Linkola. This generally involves representing them as a "Gaia worshiping cult" or representing environmentalism as a "secular religion." This tactic works especially well for propagandizing to the Religious Right and social conservatives, as environmental concerns can be portrayed as a bogeyman that will supplant Christianity. This can also play on the belief that gawd will save us from environmental disaster or that the end is nigh. (Creationist propaganda organs like the Discovery Institute have also hopped on board the climate denial bandwagon, which should tell you something.)

• Dismissing environmentalism as a socialist movement in disguise — "red greens" or "watermelons", who supposedly use environmentalism as a cloak to render anti-capitalist sentiments more palatable.[7][8] (The film The Great Global Warming Swindle leans heavily on this stereotype.)

• Representing conservation as merely leftist ideology (breaking irony meters for those who remember who instituted the Environmental Protection Agency). This involves conflating ideologies like eco-socialism with environmentalism as a whole — environmentalism equals socialism, communism, Marxism, etc. This also helps to appeal to conservatives who enjoy hippie-punching and old farts that forgot the Cold War ended 20 years ago.

• Attempting to tie environmental advocates to some evil plot by ecoterrorist outfits. Yes, terrorism-baiting even has a play here.

• Any environmental regulations will most assuredly destroy the economy forever. Wonder what a significant amount of economists think about a carbon tax.[9]

• Painting environmentalists as evil misanthropes and "environmental classists." Apparently, they are also all busy-bodies who just want to micromanage your life.[10]

• Common snarl words: Alarmist, eco-fascism, eco-imperialism, eco-Marxism, enviro-Nazi, enviro-weenie, warmist, watermelon (characterizing an environmentalist as having ulterior political motives; a watermelon is green on the outside but red on the inside).

Lost it there

 

[therealUT]

Source?

Climate models don’t “predict pauses” at all. Models run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties. There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as ENSO, PDO, THC and general fluid turbulence, but they don’t have the long-term influence of the greenhouse effect. That’s why you can’t even talk about climate trends without considering at least a 30 year period. If the slowdown were to continue for another decade or so, then yes there would be a lot of re-evaluating to do. But at this point, “the pause” is nothing out of the ordinary. Observations are still within IPCC projections.

One of the skeptics in the official thread posted some work from the UK Met Office that showed that, on average, such a pause should happen twice per century. It also showed that all climate indicators besides surface temperature show global warming continues unabated. I’m really not sure why the skeptic posted it. I think he just saw the word “pause” in the title and posted it without reading (an annoyingly common occurrence).

You didn’t answer any of my questions, but I’ll just repeat this one. Even if the trend picks back up, you think we should wait until at least 2050 no matter what?

Von Storch, for one. And, yes, climate models do serve a predictive function. You cannot deny such an assertion and then claim that we ought to pay attention to what climate science projections, based on models, say about the year 2100, 2500, 3000, etc. If you deny that climate models serve a predictive function, you deny any reasonable beliefs about the future of climate change.

Have you read the Oppenheim paper?

Yes, even if the models had precisely and accurately predicted the past 25 years we ought to hold off to ensure a large enough sample size, as well as intergenerational discourse and criticism. As it is, models don't show the pause (well, 98 percent of them don't), so they are in error for a large portion of the time span (greater than 2/3) on a significant matter.

Why should we put faith in the same system which tells us increased CO2 emissions (of which their has been a great increase over the past 15 years) leads to higher surface temperatures that tells us the other indicators will also lead to massive climate change?

Have you ever zeroed a rifle?

 

[therealUT]

By the way, Bart, your comment regarding the Met Office Report is asinine, if you think it supports your stance (as I take it, act now and do not wait for confirmed observations).

First, the Met Office report states that 10-year pauses are to be expected once a century, but not 20-year pauses. This is explained in the graphs, using a large temperature increase of 0.2C, and using only a single model (one of the few models that does suggest 15-year pauses of surface temperatures are possible).

Second, the Met Office report states that only on models in which the rate of climate change is low (so, not the most dire predictions, but the low and moderate predictions) should we expect 15-year pauses. Of course, throughout the document, like all other climate change documents, the qualifications are everywhere. "Well, it's likely" "not likely" "we must understand that we cannot fully trust these measurements" "we don't know how unusual this is", etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Third, and most importantly, "It is only with averaging periods of 30-years or longer that climate change can be detected robustly." Again, since models are not verified by the past, but by the future (I can explain the past in terms of Thor's wrath if I so feel like it), then to average 30-year periods takes at least 30 years. The first 30-year period ends in about four years, and the average for this period will actually tell against the models. So, yeah, we probably ought to wait another 30 years.

 

[Sandvol]

Do you ever use any other website besides that skeptical science?

And in reference to your cute pictures, you ever believe for one second that you could be wrong?

I get frustrated when I see people ask Bart these types of questions. Bart isn't concerned about being right or wrong but achieving his objective. Do you really think he is concerned about global warming just like statists were concerned about people who didn't have health care? Liberal statists' objective is the complete and utter destruction of the free market capitalist system so they can then build their utopian society. And, they are almost there. You need to read the book Ameritopia by Mark Levin.

 

[Grand Vol]

I get frustrated when I see people ask Bart these types of questions. Bart isn't concerned about being right or wrong but achieving his objective. Do you really think he is concerned about global warming just like statists were concerned about people who didn't have health care? Liberal statists' objective is the complete and utter destruction of the free market capitalist system so they can then build their utopian society. And, they are almost there. You need to read the book Ameritopia by Mark Levin.

My mistake.

I like Levin, might have to check out the book.