Sunday, March 30, 2008

H.S. For Sunday 033008

Global Warming Offensive?

Hey folks,

The Chicken Little Crowd are getting desperate no. I posted back on Monday the 24th “Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans. I pointed out that they are getting desperate and are now releasing talking points and arguments for their little group of Sheeple to use when addressing the “Deniers.”

• They think others similar to themselves are jumping on the green bandwagon.

• They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

• They feel able to make a difference by taking concrete steps.

• They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life.

"This is to good folks. They are TELLING the rest in the movement. Here are the talking points. Read this again. You have to convince people that they are not just sheeple. That everyone is doing it, so they should too. Make sure you give them a pat on the back when they do. Make them feel that they are now a good person. That they matter. That they are heroes for doing this. They also have to believe that THEY can solve it. Don't be going around telling them that there is no hope. Make sure they know 'we can do it.' If all else fails, tell them their kids are going to DIE. That they will blame them for not doing anything about it. Scare them into submission if need be.

What if the people ask for proof? Just tell them that all the Scientist agree that it is real, and they are smarter then them, so they need just accept it. Any Scientists that say it's not real are just kooks, or bought off by big oil.

This is the very definition of Scaryence. Scare Science. Don't forget, if all else fails, the KIDS. Bring up the kids. "

Now we learn that some are urging the UN Security Council to preemptively strike at the “Deniers” This really is funny. It also shows how desperate they are becoming. According to The Christian Science Monitor CSM - The Security Council must act preemptively – on climate change By Gregory Meeks and Michael Shank Mon Mar 24, 4:00 AM ET

The United Nations tackled the task of troubleshooting climate change last month. Between holding special General Assembly meetings at headquarters in New York, bringing 100 environmental ministers to Monaco in the largest meeting of ministers since Bali, and launching a Climate Neutral Network to highlight best practices in tackling global warming, the UN appears to be doing what it can to ensure that climate change does not fall off the political radar. Yet, it still isn't enough. A concerted international strategy, on a par with the seriousness and scope of an UN Security Council resolution, is what's needed to counter this climate crisis.

What was the result of this last chance to save the planet? Remember? They agreed to talk more about it, in a year or two. {Laughing}

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was right in comparing the effects of climate change to the effects of war, given the potential level of human and environmental devastation potentially wrought by rising sea levels and increasingly catastrophic weather conditions. Philanthropist Sir Richard Branson, who keynoted UN General Assembly deliberations on climate change, was correct to call for a “war room” to adequately respond to a rapidly warming planet.

These people are sick. Greedy, and sick. If they actually believe this. They don’t. But if they did, it would be sad. All together now folks, money, power, and control. Notice the usual wording here? “environmental devastation potentially wrought by rising sea levels and increasingly catastrophic weather conditions.” Not DEFINITELY. But POTENTIALLY. How about nothing is going to happen? {Smile}

Both leaders recognize the need for serious strategy and the comparisons to war were not casually made. The threat to international peace and security calls upon nothing less than the purview of the UN Security Council.

Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council maintains the right to identify threats to international peace and security and to devise means to counter these threats. The potential impact of that on climate change is substantial: the Security Council's toolbox includes the capacity to cap greenhouse-gas emissions on every country and sanction those who fail to comply. Both a carbon tax, as well as a carbon-trading scheme, could incentivize countries to reduce emissions below even capped levels.

People are not listening. WE WILL FORCE THEM TO. Although we cannot PROVE any of this. Idiots.

It is a moral imperative that the Security Council acts quickly. While island nations like Palau and the Maldives stand to face warlike scenarios sooner than the Security Council's five permanent (P5) members – China, Russia, United States, Britain, and France are not immune. Moreover, the culpability of the P5's populaces in contributing to climate change must be recognized. China and the US rank as the world's top two greenhouse-gas emitters.

They want the UN to go to WAR with America and China. {Laughing} War to save the planet from you evil Americans.

Not surprisingly, this may well account for the Security Council's reluctance to tackle climate change with carbon caps and concomitant sanctions. The P5 has a hard enough time wrestling with resolutions that put parameters on their own political prowess. To expect them to write a resolution that restricts their right to pollute may be unrealistic. But the alternatives to inaction on this issue are dire.

No they are not DIRE. THERE IS NO THREAT

Disappearing Pacific islands, due to rising sea levels, are projected for within our lifetime. Catastrophic weather conditions accosting the coastal regions of China, the US, and the UK, once mere prediction, are already taking place. Conflicts escalating over depleted natural resources, due to disrupted and rising temperatures, are already occurring. The planet may not wait patiently until the Security Council overcomes its propensity for political pandering.

That entire sentence is bunk. Where are Islands disappearing and what is the PROVABLE link to Man-made Global Warming? Conflicts over depleted natural resources? Where? What about the conflicts that are happening because people can not longer afford corn and wheat? Because they are being used to the growing failure of Ethanol? Are the tempts STILL Rising? PROVE IT Just more Scaryence folks. NOT ONE WORD of the above paragraph is true.

Unless we act now, and with formidable preemptive force, more of this is what could face the international community. Transcending the Security Council's usual scope of nation-state conflicts, climate change-related conflict will affect all of us – with particular devastation to developing countries not represented by the P5. Thus it is incumbent upon the Security Council, which has a responsibility to protect weaker member states, to step up and save the world.

These people are nuts folks.

A global threat requires global commitment. And that commitment can be best coordinated in the Security Council.

Representative Gregory Meeks (D) of N.Y. is vicechair of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment. Michael Shank is the government relations adviser at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Both of THESE people are nuts. But then again, I’m just a denier. {Laughing} HEY, that’s what Father Al says. He says I believe in the flat Earth. Check out this VIDEO.

Wrong Father AL. The movement is growing. More and more people are seeing you as the hypocrite you are. More and more Scientists are calling GW what it is. An unproven scam. Now the Chicken Little Crowd wants to declare WAR on you if you are intelligent enough to actually THINK about the FACTS and REAL Science. They do not care anymore about convincing you that Man-made Global Warming is real. They are getting desperate now because they can’t convince you. So NOW they want to force you. Unbelievable.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans
CSM - The Security Council must act preemptively – on climate change
Al Gore on 60 Minutes

No comments: