Skip to comments.A Totalitarian's *** *****! Anthropogenic Global Warming… aka: Climate change (in cold winters).
Posted on 06/24/2013 7:42:09 AM PDT by FiddlePig
Obama in Berlin and after the Oklahoma tornado the usual suspects are back blaming Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming aka: Climate change (AGW-CC).
What's odd (really not) is that this "crisis" like all others can only be "solved" by imposition of a socialist/fascist top-down dictatorship. Most of those loyal to the Left political spectrum seem willing to surrender their liberty, prosperity and maybe even their souls (and that of future generations) to such a dictatorship! Overlords who will ration and control ALL aspects of your soon to be grim life! (for what maybe is WRONG!). No one can escape from this tyranny because they might violate the cure for AGW/CC. Living one's life of course, puts the Earth at "risk".
Earth will essentially become a giant plantation (not unlike the Old South) with a caste system! Our autocratic rulers will dwell in the "Mansion of the Hill", us lowers in the real mud huts. Maybe well get a coupla hours of electricity a day, or maybe only a week. All energy, food, medicine and resources will be rationed from the top down (the ULTIMATE trickle down"!). There also must be total control of your reproductive system (yep, they're in your bedroom!) as unauthorized births must NOT occur. Periodic culling of "non-productive" humans (who decides that? Death Panels???) will be "executed" to prevent overpopulation... beginning with the sick, the old and possibly those who hold counter-political, moral and religious views to those who rule (aka: Masters/Owners). This utopia will be HELL on Earth for most of the population... but Earth will be "saved"! ... sounds like right outta the Book of Revelation! I prefer to take my chances with liberty and the possibility that maybe God is in control.
More at RedNeckoBlogger website!
(Excerpt) Read more at redneckoblogger.blogspot.com ...
Hmmm??? If article link doesn’t work... click here:
Why excerpt your own material?
Well here in Alaska, last winter was a month and a half longer, it was snowing in May! However it has made up for it by it being 20 degrees hotter than normal a month later.
So it is changing, both ways the same year.
I think it was called weather before the Marxist Congress.
Pretty funny. I’ve called it an envoronmentalist’s wet dream since 2008. ;-)
A good question.
What are the qualifications to be a climate scientist? Papers published? Degree major? Years in the field?
Are the qualification requirements stable or change over time?
Who sets the qualifications?
Who decides their position on the issue? Is there a degree of hedging allowed?
MSM and Science don't mix very well, yet MSM influences voters of the low information kind.
***Well here in Alaska, last winter was a month and a half longer, it was snowing in May!***
So? We had snow in May for the first time ever in Arkansas/Oklahoma.
Just pack a picnic lunch and it will rain...humans have been causing the climate to change for eons
A more motivated FReeper than I did a bit of digging, and found out that the "scientists" quoted were public policy wonks and lawyers. There was one person in the group who had a degree in something semi-related - Geology maybe - but the rest of the people were just useless eaters.
Sez me, I'll take an opinion formed from my own engineering background, and the common sense displayed by FReepers in general, over that of a bunch of lawyers.
Were it only that the media had such common sense, as well.
That number - the 97% - comes indirectly from a thesis paper a student was writing for his master degree. He sent out 10,400 surveys to folks in the field and received 3,400 replies. As part of the survey, the folks replying had to check a box indicating their vocation (meteorologist, environmental scientist, climate expert, geologist, etc.) There were about two dozen different occupations from which you could choose. Seventy-nine of the 3400 respondents checked the climate expert box and all but two of them were pro-global warming (err, climate change).
BTW the paper raised a number of valid points concerning shortcomings in the global-warming (uhh, climate change) argument. But nobody who quotes the 97% figure ever acknowledges the valid points.
Kinda my point.