MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[daveman]

The little cowboy, and the bird flipping 2 year old are pouting today after learning that it takes education to understand science. IPCC level education. They were hoping that they could pick it up on Sesame Street or Fox News.

Tough lesson.

It's funny how you pretend you're still right after all the evidence presented that shows you're not.

You have evidence that you and Patrick have acceptable science educations?

Where?

Where's yours?

 

[bripat9643]

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here. Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name. Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.

Wrong. That's practically the definition of the Appeal to Authority. You and your sidekick PMZ are just a couple of geysers spouting one logical fallacy after another.

The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.

Of course it's circular logic. You accept the authority of the IPCC because it chooses the best climate scientists. How do you know they are the best? Because the IPCC chose them.

You can't find better entertainment than watching you two trying to commit logic.

 

[Abraham3]

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here. Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name. Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.

Wrong. That's practically the definition of the Appeal to Authority. You and your sidekick PMZ are just a couple of geysers spouting one logical fallacy after another.

The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.

Of course it's circular logic. You accept the authority of the IPCC because it chooses the best climate scientists. How do you know they are the best? Because the IPCC chose them.

You can't find better entertainment than watching you two trying to commit logic.

Then we are both entertained.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning
******************************************************

Are you able to follow that? It says that accepting the viewpoint of 97% of active climate scientists is not an appeal to authority. Published climate scientists ARE the subject matter experts, there IS a strong consensus among them and the argument is NOT deductive in structure.

The IPCC applied objective and appropriate criteria in selecting researchers. That seems obvious from the sometimes astounding number of deniers that made the cut. Your circular logic and begging the question charges would require that the IPCC used completely subjective and inappropriate criteria in their selection process. So, sorry, but no.

 

[bripat9643]

You and Dave have not exhibited a deep grasp of science in general or any specific topics that have been discussed here. Even here, you don't seem to grasp the actual definitions of the logical fallacies you name. Stating that AGW is probably correct because the vast majority of climate scientists accept it is not an appeal to authority.

Wrong. That's practically the definition of the Appeal to Authority. You and your sidekick PMZ are just a couple of geysers spouting one logical fallacy after another.

The IPCC looking for the opinion of climate experts is neither circular logic nor begging the question - even if they did fail to ask you for your opinion.

Of course it's circular logic. You accept the authority of the IPCC because it chooses the best climate scientists. How do you know they are the best? Because the IPCC chose them.

You can't find better entertainment than watching you two trying to commit logic.

Then we are both entertained.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning
******************************************************

Are you able to follow that? It says that accepting the viewpoint of 97% of active climate scientists is not an appeal to authority.

The IPCC applied objective and appropriate criteria in selecting researchers. That seems obvious from the sometimes astounding number of deniers that made the cut. Your circular logic and begging the question charges would require that the IPCC used completely subjective and inappropriate criteria in their selection process. So, sorry, but no.

That's what you get when you use Wikipedia as a reference.

There is no such thing as a valid authority in matters of absolute truth. Authorities can be wrong, and often have been. History is littered with the pronunciations of authorities who turned out to be dead wrong. I suspect some warmist cult members edited the Wiki entry to make the AGW priesthood more respectable.

BTW, there is no such thing as an "Argument from Authority." There are no valid arguments that invoke an authority as the basis for truth.

 

[daveman]

Wrong. That's practically the definition of the Appeal to Authority. You and your sidekick PMZ are just a couple of geysers spouting one logical fallacy after another.



Of course it's circular logic. You accept the authority of the IPCC because it chooses the best climate scientists. How do you know they are the best? Because the IPCC chose them.

You can't find better entertainment than watching you two trying to commit logic.

Then we are both entertained.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning
******************************************************

Are you able to follow that? It says that accepting the viewpoint of 97% of active climate scientists is not an appeal to authority.

The IPCC applied objective and appropriate criteria in selecting researchers. That seems obvious from the sometimes astounding number of deniers that made the cut. Your circular logic and begging the question charges would require that the IPCC used completely subjective and inappropriate criteria in their selection process. So, sorry, but no.

That's what you get when you use Wikipedia as a reference.

There is no such thing as a valid authority in matters of absolute truth. Authorities can be wrong, and often have been. History is littered with the pronunciations of authorities who turned out to be dead wrong. I suspect some warmist cult members edited the Wiki entry to make the AGW priesthood more respectable.

Indeed, and another editor calls them on it.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus[edit source]

There is nothing about consensus in the rules of logic! It is quite possible to argue that the consensus of acknowledged experts is wrong, and citing that a consensus exists does not constitute a logical argument! If the authority is legitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate and if the authority is illegitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate. I strongly suspect the authors of the passages about consensus in this article to be devotees of either climate change alarmism or overpopulation alarmism or both and to be attempting to write away the fallacious nature of their arguments. (which are fallacious regardless of whether or not the thing they are arguing for is true or not) Challenging the consensus of experts is how change happens and every great reformer does it! --BenMcLean (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)​

 

[bripat9643]

Then we are both entertained.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning
******************************************************

Are you able to follow that? It says that accepting the viewpoint of 97% of active climate scientists is not an appeal to authority.

The IPCC applied objective and appropriate criteria in selecting researchers. That seems obvious from the sometimes astounding number of deniers that made the cut. Your circular logic and begging the question charges would require that the IPCC used completely subjective and inappropriate criteria in their selection process. So, sorry, but no.

That's what you get when you use Wikipedia as a reference.

There is no such thing as a valid authority in matters of absolute truth. Authorities can be wrong, and often have been. History is littered with the pronunciations of authorities who turned out to be dead wrong. I suspect some warmist cult members edited the Wiki entry to make the AGW priesthood more respectable.

Indeed, and another editor calls them on it.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus[edit source]

There is nothing about consensus in the rules of logic! It is quite possible to argue that the consensus of acknowledged experts is wrong, and citing that a consensus exists does not constitute a logical argument! If the authority is legitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate and if the authority is illegitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate. I strongly suspect the authors of the passages about consensus in this article to be devotees of either climate change alarmism or overpopulation alarmism or both and to be attempting to write away the fallacious nature of their arguments. (which are fallacious regardless of whether or not the thing they are arguing for is true or not) Challenging the consensus of experts is how change happens and every great reformer does it! --BenMcLean (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)​

Here's another pertinent comment:

The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.​

 

[bripat9643]

That's what you get when you use Wikipedia as a reference.

There is no such thing as a valid authority in matters of absolute truth. Authorities can be wrong, and often have been. History is littered with the pronunciations of authorities who turned out to be dead wrong. I suspect some warmist cult members edited the Wiki entry to make the AGW priesthood more respectable.

Indeed, and another editor calls them on it.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus[edit source]

There is nothing about consensus in the rules of logic! It is quite possible to argue that the consensus of acknowledged experts is wrong, and citing that a consensus exists does not constitute a logical argument! If the authority is legitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate and if the authority is illegitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate. I strongly suspect the authors of the passages about consensus in this article to be devotees of either climate change alarmism or overpopulation alarmism or both and to be attempting to write away the fallacious nature of their arguments. (which are fallacious regardless of whether or not the thing they are arguing for is true or not) Challenging the consensus of experts is how change happens and every great reformer does it! --BenMcLean (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)​

Here's another pertinent comment:

The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.​

It sounds like this guy has been reading the posts of PMZ and Abraham

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK —Preceding​

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, in every field of endeavor, there are authorities. One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that. Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance. To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.

Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.

 

[daveman]

Clearly, in every field of endeavor, there are authorities. One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that. Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance. To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.

You keep wrongly insisting that we're getting our information from entertainers.

I get my information from scientists.

Please stop lying.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a psychologist. Undergoing years of therapy does NOT make you an expert.

Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.

Indeed.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, in every field of endeavor, there are authorities. One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that. Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance. To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.

You keep wrongly insisting that we're getting our information from entertainers.

I get my information from scientists.

Please stop lying.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a psychologist. Undergoing years of therapy does NOT make you an expert.

Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.

Indeed.

It's pretty easy to see from whom you get your science from when you post a reference, which is seldom. Those of us who know science also can clearly see that almost all of your 'evidence' comes from political sources, not scientific. Lastly there is no science that even theorizes any reaction to higher atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW.

So, once again, your lies are very apparent. You can fool yourself, but not those with applicable knowledge.

 

[daveman]

Clearly, in every field of endeavor, there are authorities. One of the biggest symptoms of DK Syndrome is the inability to recognize and accept that. Ignorance breeds ignorance of ignorance. To assume that the evangelical media political entertainers are equal in climate science to the real authorities of the IPCC requires ignorance of monumental proportions but was an easy sell by the cult leaders.

You keep wrongly insisting that we're getting our information from entertainers.

I get my information from scientists.

Please stop lying.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a psychologist. Undergoing years of therapy does NOT make you an expert.

Having a population that simple to manipulate could be the biggest threat that democracy has ever faced.

Indeed.

It's pretty easy to see from whom you get your science from when you post a reference, which is seldom. Those of us who know science also can clearly see that almost all of your 'evidence' comes from political sources, not scientific. Lastly there is no science that even theorizes any reaction to higher atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW.

So, once again, your lies are very apparent. You can fool yourself, but not those with applicable knowledge.

I cite references all the time.

But you have a pathological need to lie.

Run along, liar.

 

[bripat9643]

You keep wrongly insisting that we're getting our information from entertainers.

I get my information from scientists.

Please stop lying.

Oh, and stop pretending to be a psychologist. Undergoing years of therapy does NOT make you an expert.

Indeed.

It's pretty easy to see from whom you get your science from when you post a reference, which is seldom. Those of us who know science also can clearly see that almost all of your 'evidence' comes from political sources, not scientific. Lastly there is no science that even theorizes any reaction to higher atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW.

So, once again, your lies are very apparent. You can fool yourself, but not those with applicable knowledge.

I cite references all the time.

But you have a pathological need to lie.

Run along, liar.

Notice, once again, the he appeals to authority. He can't open his mouth without resorting to his favorite fallacy. In fact, he doesn't even recognize it as a fallacy.

 

[PMZ]

Are you still operating under the delusion that there are no authorities in the world?

If you ever need an operation, go see a plumber. Or better yet, do it yourself. Maybe you'll find something that you know how to do. Or die in the process.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example. However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of, the politics.

People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly, the organization.

And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus, if it will help their cause, than politicians.

When the "science" becomes an excuse to spend tens of trillions, for a tiny benefit, it is no longer "devoid of politics".

 

[PMZ]

One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example. However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of, the politics.

People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly, the organization.

And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus, if it will help their cause, than politicians.

When the "science" becomes an excuse to spend tens of trillions, for a tiny benefit, it is no longer "devoid of politics".

You are still consumed with the conservative notion that doing nothing costs nothing. Crazy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the things that is typically true of the science world is international cooperation devoid of politics. The IPCC is a classic example. However the difference between climate science and other science at the present time is not the science but what they're expressly charged with staying out of, the politics.

People who don't like the political implications of the science, attack, blindly, the organization.

And of course there is no group less concerned about who gets thrown under the bus, if it will help their cause, than politicians.

When the "science" becomes an excuse to spend tens of trillions, for a tiny benefit, it is no longer "devoid of politics".

You are still consumed with the conservative notion that doing nothing costs nothing. Crazy.

And you are convinced that if we let the politicians spend (or direct the spending of) tens of trillions of dollars, that we will somehow save money, avoid hot weather, avoid cold weather, avoid wet weather, avoid dry weather, avoid rough weather etc., etc., etc.
Crazy! And stupid. And really, really expensive.

 

[PMZ]

When the "science" becomes an excuse to spend tens of trillions, for a tiny benefit, it is no longer "devoid of politics".

You are still consumed with the conservative notion that doing nothing costs nothing. Crazy.

And you are convinced that if we let the politicians spend (or direct the spending of) tens of trillions of dollars, that we will somehow save money, avoid hot weather, avoid cold weather, avoid wet weather, avoid dry weather, avoid rough weather etc., etc., etc.
Crazy! And stupid. And really, really expensive.

The only thing that matters is the infrastructure of our civilization. Our farms, cities, population centers, shore homes, etc.

We located all of that stuff based on climate (most importantly water availability) and sea level.

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather.

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration.

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate. They do not have yet the ability to make long term weather predictions especially in a changing, less stable climate.

They are certain that if dumping new CO2 in the atmosphere stopped tomorrow the decline in concentration would be very slow.

As an example of the complexity: We know we are losing ice and snow mass today, every year. How many decades would that continue for if the climate warmed no more? What would sea level be at that point? What kind of urban relocation or diking would be required when and where from that sea level increase to prevent what cost storm damage?

Science is the only avenue open for making those predictions and we have a very long way to go.

But, we know fossil fuel supply is limited so sustainable energy is a requirement no matter AGW.

Bottom line. What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost?

For sure it is not ignoring the problem and future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are still consumed with the conservative notion that doing nothing costs nothing. Crazy.

And you are convinced that if we let the politicians spend (or direct the spending of) tens of trillions of dollars, that we will somehow save money, avoid hot weather, avoid cold weather, avoid wet weather, avoid dry weather, avoid rough weather etc., etc., etc.
Crazy! And stupid. And really, really expensive.

The only thing that matters is the infrastructure of our civilization. Our farms, cities, population centers, shore homes, etc.

We located all of that stuff based on climate (most importantly water availability) and sea level.

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather.

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration.

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate. They do not have yet the ability to make long term weather predictions especially in a changing, less stable climate.

They are certain that if dumping new CO2 in the atmosphere stopped tomorrow the decline in concentration would be very slow.

As an example of the complexity: We know we are losing ice and snow mass today, every year. How many decades would that continue for if the climate warmed no more? What would sea level be at that point? What kind of urban relocation or diking would be required when and where from that sea level increase to prevent what cost storm damage?

Science is the only avenue open for making those predictions and we have a very long way to go.

But, we know fossil fuel supply is limited so sustainable energy is a requirement no matter AGW.

Bottom line. What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost?

For sure it is not ignoring the problem and future.

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather.

So would natural GW.

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration.

And yet the politicians are in charge.

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate.

Assume the US doesn't spend the tens of trillions you wish, what are CO2 levels in 2080?
Assume we do, what are CO2 levels in 2080?

But, we know fossil fuel supply is limited

How many years usage do we have left?

What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost?

The rate the private market determines, without government mandates and tens of trillions in politically motivated spending.

 

[PMZ]

And you are convinced that if we let the politicians spend (or direct the spending of) tens of trillions of dollars, that we will somehow save money, avoid hot weather, avoid cold weather, avoid wet weather, avoid dry weather, avoid rough weather etc., etc., etc.
Crazy! And stupid. And really, really expensive.

The only thing that matters is the infrastructure of our civilization. Our farms, cities, population centers, shore homes, etc.

We located all of that stuff based on climate (most importantly water availability) and sea level.

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather.

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration.

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate. They do not have yet the ability to make long term weather predictions especially in a changing, less stable climate.

They are certain that if dumping new CO2 in the atmosphere stopped tomorrow the decline in concentration would be very slow.

As an example of the complexity: We know we are losing ice and snow mass today, every year. How many decades would that continue for if the climate warmed no more? What would sea level be at that point? What kind of urban relocation or diking would be required when and where from that sea level increase to prevent what cost storm damage?

Science is the only avenue open for making those predictions and we have a very long way to go.

But, we know fossil fuel supply is limited so sustainable energy is a requirement no matter AGW.

Bottom line. What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost?

For sure it is not ignoring the problem and future.

AGW causes ice melt which raises sea level. It also changes the distribution of precipitation. In other words, weather.

So would natural GW.

The IPCC is charged with the science of predicting both of those variables as a function of atmospheric green house gas concentration.

And yet the politicians are in charge.

They are certain that increased GHG concentrations warm the climate.

Assume the US doesn't spend the tens of trillions you wish, what are CO2 levels in 2080?
Assume we do, what are CO2 levels in 2080?

But, we know fossil fuel supply is limited

How many years usage do we have left?

What rate of change to sustainable energy is the lowest total cost?

The rate the private market determines, without government mandates and tens of trillions in politically motivated spending.

You seem not to understand that the difference between natural and anthropogenic GW is we control what we do. To whatever degree stopping causing the problem is cost effective, we can do it.

Whatever can be known about what we're facing will come from the IPCC, not from Rush or Glenn Beck or the boobs and boobies on Fox. Whatever we do will need years to accomplish so whatever insight or foresight we can have is worth a lot.

You also are bat blind about business. Corporations optimise only each company. Their one rule is make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is not the slightest chance in hell that thousands of companies optimizing themselves will fall into an optimized energy system.

The government has a role, private investors have a role, companies have a role, entrepreneurs have a role, the International community has a role.

No matter what Rush tells you.

 

[PMZ]

It's no wonder that conservatives avoid solving problems. They are completely ill equipped to.