So I'm cruising down Drudge Report this morning trying to decide what disease, pestilence and/or other natural disaster--floods, hurricanes, wild fires, or earthquake--to worry about on a rainy Spring day (oops...I forgot Tsunamis) when I came across a link to this NY Times Article which mentions that the sniveling, booger eating, pants wetting eco-friendly tree huggers are having meetings and discussions about their image with "the Public."
Seems that in spite of their best efforts at stirring up a climate controversy with "the Public", and in spite of their successful efforts to get most of the people on the
Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 1, 2009
WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Those two paragraphs, Ladies and Gentlemen, represent possibly the most profoundly true, honest group of words I've ever seen published in the NY Times on the subject of "Global Warming."
They are in fact stating what to me is the obvious truth, in as much as to date "Global Warming" has served as a cottage industry for politicians, psedo-scientists, and citizen do-gooders who don't have anything real and tangible to worry about in the world.
Shaggy haired or not, these people are generally self described liberals. They most likely are also closet socialists no matter how loudly they scream the word "progressive" at you when you call them liberal.
As to common sacrifice, they're also willing to deliver that to everyone but themselves in the form of taxes and higher energy costs, and the resulting increased cost of consumer goods, while the most visible among them--the Owl Gores of the planet--live in 40,000 square foot houses and fly in private jets from city to city and Green Event to Green Event in order to wag their green fingers at the dumb/dizzy "climate change" followers demanding support.
Thing is, if they can't get you on their eco-friendly bandwagon voluntarily, they will take the Government and force you on board by changing the law and eliminating your choices to buy or make or do things they don't agree with.
They'll sanction killing babies in the womb within the first 6 months of life, but YOU have to change the refrigerant you use in you car Air Conditioner.
And YOU can't buy heat resistant paint in California for your bar-b-que grill because the Spotted Owl or the Snail Darter might get a rash on their testicles.
Silly crap like that makes them feel like they're making a difference in the ambient temperature on May 3rd in Knoxville, Tennessee or how much rain falls on St. Simons Island in December.
And as to the "complex scientific disputes," they don't want to have any of discussion and they don't want to read reports that don't agree with what they've already decided is true.
The fact is that they are losing the discussion when it comes to the "science"--thus the reason for them referring to the ongoing process as a dispute--and thus them wanting to change the subject because...
THE DATA JUST ISN'T THERE TO SUPPORT THE LEFT'S ARGUMENTS AND CURRENT POLITICAL AGENDA.
And the computer models which they claim originally predicted and/or continue to predict significant man-made influence on the climate have proven to be flawed if not outright false. If you run the same models for fifteen years and then compare the predictions from fifteen years ago with the actual temperature today (fifteen years later) the MODELS WERE WRONG.
So why would you continue to clamor and raise heck about "Global Warming" predictions in 2010 or 2020 when today in 2009 things have gone BACKWARDS in temperature about 1 degree F?
You see, in the world of the sniveling, booger eating, pants wetting tree hugger, an issue doesn't have to make sense or have scientific data to support a given hypothesis, it just has to FEEL GOOD.
And if you can cripple American interests in the process, or at least raise some money you can take credit for handing out to people that didn't earn it both domestically or internationally, then in a liberal's mind their life has some meaning...and if they get to park their Lexus in a parking deck on Capitol Hill in DC and enjoy security provided by the Secret Service for the rest of their life in Suburban Maryland or northern Virginia all the better.
In spite of these fundamental flaws in the basis of the "Global Warming" movement, I bet that if you walk into a grade school today you'll find that EVERY SINGLE TEACHER AND NEAR 99% of the children we've handed over to the
And that, boys and girls, is just a crying shame...
No comments:
Post a Comment