Climate Change Champions: Threats, Lies and Gobbledygook
It is a dogma of the Democrat religion that “Climate Change,” better known as “Global Warming” when the weather’s hot, is the biggest, baddest threat the human race has ever seen, and vast new powers must be granted to the government, huge new taxes levied, and basic liberties curtailed in order to Save the Planet.
They’ve been preaching this for years now, and they still can’t seal the deal.
In the month of March, so far, we have seen three different strategies for driving the Climate Change stake into America’s heart.
Just last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, so aptly named, told Congress that yeah, sure, you bet the Justice Dept. has been exploring the feasibility to prosecuting “Climate Change deniers” is if they were criminals.
Here she is blazing new trails in the abolition of the First Amendment. Obviously, it’s impractical to ask Congress to outlaw a particular opinion. But by treating anyone who disputes Climate Change as a threat to the public health and safety—hey, we’re saving the planet here!—there may be, Ms. Lynch suggests, statutes such as the RICO Act (intended for the suppression of organized crime) that just might be flexible enough to allow liberals to stamp out dissent from their favorite “scientific” opinion.
For a good illustration of the word “instantaneous,” see how long it takes a liberal, whenever you try to debate him on the subject, to come out with “97% of scientists agree there’s Man-Made Climate Change—and that’s a consensus!”
Well, gee, how hard is it to get a consensus, when you threaten to prosecute anyone who disagrees? I mean, government action, potentially resulting in a prison sentence, is just bound to be more effective than the threats they’ve had to be content to use so far. We’ll cut off your funding, we’ll get your kids blacklisted from all the best colleges, we’ll assassinate your character in the media, etc.—all pretty small potatoes, compared to three or four years in the big house.
Meanwhile, in case the threat of prosecution fizzles out, there’s always lying.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, an agency of the U.S. government, has once again been caught fudging and finagling temperature readings to prop up otherwise unsupportable claims of Global Warming. There are several ways of doing this, and NOAA knows them all. The end result is phony figures.
One wonders how many times “climate scientists” have to be caught doing this before the private jet crowd disowns them as an embarrassment.
If the threats don’t scare anyone, and the lies don’t convince anyone, then out comes the secret weapon: pure, unadulterated crapola.
The National Science Foundation recently paid more than $400,000 to some nutty professor at Oregon State for a “peer-reviewed scientific paper” he wrote on applying “a feminist political ecology” and a “feminist postcolonial approach” to the study of glacial melting.
Now they’ve got us wondering whether science is even science anymore, or has just been melted down into pure humbug. “Feminist political ecology.” “A feminist postcolonial approach.” Do those words mean anything? Could they possibly have anything at all to do with a serious study of glacial melting? Well, the National Science Foundation paid 400,000 smackers for it, so clearly they want us to think it’s science.
Oh, what won’t they do to get their carbon tax! What wouldn’t they do, to get the power to turn off our electricity at 8 p.m., take away our air conditioners and cars, and cram us into crowded, cranky buses whenever we want to go anywhere?
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.