Assuming "Climate Change," So What?
If you are not into my interesting prose, you can drop down to a current article or
Eventually, I want to commercialize this blog, so it will I will have to stop sticking in other sources and appear balanced, in the various meanings of the word. What Mr. Moore, below, says is what I have been unbalanced about, here, for years, but most people judge the message by who the messenger. So, few listen to me; perhaps, a comfy friend may work. The point of this blog is to NOT do that, but what the hell.
Mr. Moore, below, bailed out of Greenpeace in 1986 as the leftist took over, as they do all institutions they infect; normal people do not anticipate subversion. I saw what upset him reading cases in law school a decade before. Greenpeace just causes trouble, then whines it needs money from logic starved people. Good model.
In the 1960s the left demanded "academic freedom" staring in the, then, superb California state schools. Academia liked the sound of that, ignorant of what it was letting in. Today, Harvard is discussing banning free speech. You see, it gets in the way of academic freedom, which means Marxism and its various lures.
Gore started his prattle in the late 1980s. So much so, he actively went after his former professor (of a survey course that changed history) who disagreed with Gore on environmentalism. Fascism is the merciless joining of personal greed, lust for power, with government.
The environmental movement was addressed by the KGB generations before that (maybe, what is a generation, anyway?) A former Bulgarian operative is quoted saying KGB thought its finest moment was when it froze nuclear research and use in the U.S. Thus, making it burn carbon, which is the enemy of the environmental pretense of the left and driving up its price, so Russian could make a few trillion. Not to mind, we had plenty of good movies to watch.
History predicts that when people realize they have been played as stupid dupes, there is a violent reaction. Hope so.
I added the picture of Mr. Moore and bold quote. The old editor in me made me do it.
Oh, note the article assumes "climate change" in is headline. This is victory for PR spin to defeat logic. The concept has been planted in our heads as a starting point, which means the endpoint is meaningless, though very expensive. Most people are polite and listen or discuss rather than say, "that's stupid." Political correctness destroy logic. The control of assumptions is the leftist mantra. They understand how to control people.
On today's news, I hear testimony that "carbon pollution" is the reason climate change is causing a drought in Southern California, not northern mind you, just southern. I am glad my respiration may turn L.A. into the hick town it was. The leftists just say stupid things and the leftist media repeats the stupidity, unexamined as "news," so it becomes an assumption and we talk about rather than waving off gibberish. Anyone who addresses the assumption is a denier. Thus, all assumptions must be accepted, I suppose. American "news" is all the theater of the the assumption.
If one thinks carbon pollution is so bad, he could bury himself and sequester all that pollution. That is true social justice. QED.
Eventually, I want to commercialize this blog, so it will I will have to stop sticking in other sources and appear balanced, in the various meanings of the word. What Mr. Moore, below, says is what I have been unbalanced about, here, for years, but most people judge the message by who the messenger. So, few listen to me; perhaps, a comfy friend may work. The point of this blog is to NOT do that, but what the hell.
Mr. Moore, below, bailed out of Greenpeace in 1986 as the leftist took over, as they do all institutions they infect; normal people do not anticipate subversion. I saw what upset him reading cases in law school a decade before. Greenpeace just causes trouble, then whines it needs money from logic starved people. Good model.
In the 1960s the left demanded "academic freedom" staring in the, then, superb California state schools. Academia liked the sound of that, ignorant of what it was letting in. Today, Harvard is discussing banning free speech. You see, it gets in the way of academic freedom, which means Marxism and its various lures.
Gore started his prattle in the late 1980s. So much so, he actively went after his former professor (of a survey course that changed history) who disagreed with Gore on environmentalism. Fascism is the merciless joining of personal greed, lust for power, with government.
The environmental movement was addressed by the KGB generations before that (maybe, what is a generation, anyway?) A former Bulgarian operative is quoted saying KGB thought its finest moment was when it froze nuclear research and use in the U.S. Thus, making it burn carbon, which is the enemy of the environmental pretense of the left and driving up its price, so Russian could make a few trillion. Not to mind, we had plenty of good movies to watch.
History predicts that when people realize they have been played as stupid dupes, there is a violent reaction. Hope so.
I added the picture of Mr. Moore and bold quote. The old editor in me made me do it.
Oh, note the article assumes "climate change" in is headline. This is victory for PR spin to defeat logic. The concept has been planted in our heads as a starting point, which means the endpoint is meaningless, though very expensive. Most people are polite and listen or discuss rather than say, "that's stupid." Political correctness destroy logic. The control of assumptions is the leftist mantra. They understand how to control people.
On today's news, I hear testimony that "carbon pollution" is the reason climate change is causing a drought in Southern California, not northern mind you, just southern. I am glad my respiration may turn L.A. into the hick town it was. The leftists just say stupid things and the leftist media repeats the stupidity, unexamined as "news," so it becomes an assumption and we talk about rather than waving off gibberish. Anyone who addresses the assumption is a denier. Thus, all assumptions must be accepted, I suppose. American "news" is all the theater of the the assumption.
If one thinks carbon pollution is so bad, he could bury himself and sequester all that pollution. That is true social justice. QED.
Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change
A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the “dominant cause” of climate change.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist who was a member of Greenpeacefrom 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like Greenpeace use faulty computer models and scare tactics in further promoting a political agenda.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Mr. Moore said. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,”
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” he continued. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” he said.
Mr. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, accusing the organization of political activism.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September indicated that global surface temperatures had not increased for the past 15 years.
Labels: climate change, environmentalism, Greenpeace, KGB, Patrick Moore
posted by Gene | 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home