Temperature Tyrants

[Flanders]

I can understand politicians looking to pick up environmental nut-job votes, but manmade global warming has been exposed as a fraud so many times one has to ask why it is treated as a serious problem? The answer is twofold:

1. The United Nations and their agency the EPA.

EPA regulations enforce the UN’s global agenda more effectively than any other weapon in their arsenal. Enforcing Cap and Trade is one such EPA policy that came straight from UN headquarters. In addition, the EPA gives the Socialists/Communists justification for abolishing private property Rights.

Abolishing private property Rights is secondary to environmental scare tactics. Scare tactics offer the global government crowd their best hope of giving the UN taxing authority over the American people.

2. Environmental parasites already seated at the public trough.

UNFCCC is dead. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which includes Al Gore’s Kyoto Protocol.) That death is a major defeat for environmental parasites.

Unfortunately, the death of one temperature tyrant does nothing to drive away the parasites already seated at the public trough; i.e., groups funded by tax deductible advertising dollars, the education industry using tax dollars to teach environmental garbage, tens of billions of tax dollars going to scams “looking for alternative energy sources” and, of course, crapola like wind and solar power.

The entire environmental movement would never have gotten off the ground were it not for the media.

The media is an instrument of sales. Selling environmental designer-science began shortly after Rachel Carson’s novel Silent Spring was published in 1962.

novel (noun)

1. A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

2. The literary genre represented by novels.

Naturally, America’s homegrown super-salesman-cum-temperature tyrant had to take a crack at selling environmental garbage:

Global warming is a planetary emergency, climate alarmists tell us. America and the rest of the world must fundamentally alter our lifestyles and radically reduce our consumption of energy and our industrial emissions if we are to survive thermogeddon. This is science, they tell us, and the science is settled.

President Obama echoed this in his State of the Union address, pointing his bony little finger at the American people and declaring global warming a "fact" despite the evidence on the ground. If Mr. Obama is to make such a decisive statement on the accuracy of computer models, then one would suppose he was privy to precise and accurate -- and complete -- data.

February 9, 2014
Global Warming: Don't Confuse Us with the Facts
Timothy Birdnow

Blog: Global Warming: Don't Confuse Us with the Facts​

 

[Old Rocks]

Exposed where and by whom? Since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world state in their policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, seems like you need to present some proof of your whack-a-doodle claims.

Your link? A blog. How about some real research articles from peer reviewed scientfic journals?

 

[Flanders]

Exposed where and by whom?

To Old Rocks: Click on link and take your pick:

AOL Search

How about some real research articles from peer reviewed scientfic journals?

To Old Rocks: Post them yourself. Preferably in a thread of your own. Don’t expect me to do it for you.

 

[Abraham3]

Not only a whack-a-doodle, but a lazy whack-a-doodle.

 

[Flanders]

Canada is more Socialistic than the US; so this comes as a pleasant surprise:

The Canada Revenue Agency is currently conducting extensive audits on some of Canada's most prominent environmental groups to determine if they comply with guidelines that restrict political advocacy, CBC News has learned.

XXXXX​

“We’re concerned about what appears to be an increase in audits around political activity and in particular around environmental organizations,” said Marcel Lauzière, president of Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities.

XXXXX​

. . . “If I were an environmental charity using charitable money, tax-receipted money for political purposes, I would be cautious."

XXXXX​

“I am confident of a positive outcome as we take seriously our responsibility to act in compliance with the Income Tax Act and Canada Revenue Agency guidelines,” . . .

The first paragraph is a bit confusing. If it’s an environmental group everything it does is political advocacy. Environmental groups serve no other purpose.

There is no logical justification for giving charity status to any environmental group, nor should contributors be allowed to take a charitable tax deduction.

As good as the news from Canada is, I would be a lot happier if the principle of forcing one person to pay for another person’s beliefs came under attack. Nobody should be forced to fund somebody else’s beliefs. If taxpayers can be forced to fund environmental garbage it won’t be long before they are to forced to fund every religious and social belief they oppose. That’s why not a one of those environmental groups in Canada, or the US, should get a tax dollar directly or indirectly.

Those who believe manmade global warming is a serious threat should pay to promote their beliefs out of their own pocket —— not pass it off to others. That goes for the United Nations as well. American tax dollars pay UN dues and assessments. A substantial percentage of that money is spent advancing the UN’s environmental agenda even though a majority of Americans want no part of the UN or its environmental scams.

This finally excerpt is pure misdirection:

"We have an important role to play in our society and we want to play that role," said Bennett. "But we need a governing system that actually welcomes public dialogue instead of discouraging it."

7 environmental charities face Canada Revenue Agency audits
Charities fear they may lose charitable status
By Evan Solomon, Kristen Everson, CBC News Posted: Feb 06, 2014 8:55 PM ET

7 environmental charities face Canada Revenue Agency audits - Politics - CBC News​

Even after you discount the hustlers and the parasites you are left with environmental freakazoids who call for pubic dialogue under the current system because damn few would listen to their nauseating beliefs were it not for government sponsorship. And you can take this to the bank. Environmental fruit loops would not call for any kind of dialogue if they had to pay for the forum out of their own pockets.

Finally, I don’t know a lot about Canadian Socialists, but I do know that American Socialists specialize in discouraging public dialogue that might expose them for what they are.

 

[Flanders]

Not only a whack-a-doodle, but a lazy whack-a-doodle.

To Abrahan3: So which one are you?

Global warming is a both scam perpetrated by greedy opportunists like Al Gore, as well as a cult composed of those disaster-dependent ding-a-lings among us who have no incentive in life if that life is not imminently threatened by whatever the latest perceived threat may be; and lastly by a bunch of avaricious academics willing to sell their scientific souls to that big government devil for a place to nose into the trough of federal funding for research.

I'm not sure it's quite as bad as Paltridge predicts but I do know that for me, someone's scientific credentials on whatever I read from now on will be immediately met with a cynical,

"So who funded your study?"

February 10, 2014
Prostituting Science
Russ Vaughn

Blog: Prostituting Science​

 

[Old Rocks]

As evidence in a scientific discussion you bring an article from the American Thinker? Damn, man, do you realize how pathetic that is?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Exposed where and by whom? Since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world state in their policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, seems like you need to present some proof of your whack-a-doodle claims.

Your link? A blog. How about some real research articles from peer reviewed scientfic journals?

They're starting to admit that it hasn't been warming at the surface the past decade. Yes the overall energy imbalance is + at the top of the atmosphere but they can't explain where it is going. Not even them understanding the process enough to have one clear theory.