Here is what the People are up against. A complete public, political, corporate, media and left-wing environmentalist strategy designed to influence common sense decisions by employing 'end of the world' fear into a brain-washing campaign over human caused Global Warming. How sinister and insulting can they possible be?Here is an example:
Polarize debate in Congress and the presidential election
"Advancing a "climate civil defense" measure will allow Hansen's standard to be showcased without requiring that Congress endorse the view, perhaps reducing the strength of opposition and, more importantly, permitting a distinction to be drawn between small-scale domestic action Congress is prepared to take and the "bright lines" scale of risk. Legislation might also be considered to create a "climate czar" post, with inter-agency authority to coordinate the agenda and allocate resources between the multiplicity of federal departments and programs that handle climate and energy policy."
"Three efforts in recent U.S. political history to introduce an issue into the presidential race are useful guides in planning how a relatively inexpensive but deft and morally charged effort might achieve outsized results by heavy investment in early primary states (a fourth possibility is a third party candidate running on a single, climate change-plank platform should not be ruled out). Combining youth engagement in the 1968 McCarthy campaign, tactical innovations in the 2000 Campaign for Safe Energy, and approaches of anti-abortion activists, particularly in 1980 and 1984, a roadmap for interjecting an moral, absolutist view into presidential elections can be developed."
For Balance, links and needed skepticism on the Truth Regarding CO2 and Climate Change Click HERE
To read the complete article on strategies to influence the American People and voting public to goose-step into the left-wing environmentalists party line Click HERE
1 comment:
wait. ok, so its possible that the environmentalists are wrong, and all the damaging things we are doing to the environment (im sure you are aware of whats going on so im not getting into it) arent actually damaging, and somehow all the scientists are actually seeing the results of a normal global climate pattern. Even if everything doesnt come out allright, and the damage that comes to us (im not saying end of the world, but just worse natural disasters like hurricanes or floods) isnt our fault, but just nature doing its thing. ok. fine. but what if we are doing something that causes harm. what if our actions are causing irreparable damage to our planet. im not trying to scare people, im asking, does it make sense that we produce as much waste as we do that takes as long as it does to break down, and then we dump it in, well, dumps, and then forget about it. and at such a rate. it cant go on forever. we will run out of places to dump our trash. where will we put it when we run out of good spots in america? are we goign to start dumping it in the oceans or somewhere in africa? we are using petroleum based products at an exorbitant rate that we cannot hope to long maintain it. Ignoring the CO2 bit, all the sulfur and other garbage we are putting in the air as a result just isn't healthy for people. When we clear-cut the forests to get as much lumber as possible, we destabilize the top layers of soil, making land-slides and other (dare i say it?) catastrophes much more than likely. Towns have been wiped out in this way. Leaving a few trees here and there isnt enough either. so do we stop using wood? it seems unlikely. but we can be more sparse when using that wood, reusing wood from other things. Use the wood in good condition for building, and use the crappy wood for burning or for the bike shed or w/e. Reduce the amount of wood being used. Use steel. I do realize you may jibe at me that steel has to be mined and then there is that can or worms, but steel is much more resilient than wood and doesnt have to be replaced as often, and can be reused much more easily.
Basically, what im trying to say is that there is a lot more to the whole "Environmentalist Wacko" outlook than "ZOMG! GLOBAL WARMING! WE R ALL GOING 2 DIEZ!!!" People look on the CO2 part with skepticism, because its such a radical and far reaching idea. i haven't looked into it enough to say for sure one way or the other, but i dont doubt its possible. at the very least, there are credible scientists on both sides with factual data to support their claims. So as for me, I ask who it is more beneficial to believe. If I go with the side that says we are responsible for Global Climate Change and that by not immediatly curbing our excessive habits we will cause this and that and the other thing, and it turns out he is wrong, oh well. so i lived a less materialistic and a more environmentally impacting life for nothing. On the other hand, if we go with the scientist that says such things are natural, man isnt causing this to happen, and our actions cannot escalate it (or at least on a scale enough to be noticeable) and it turns out that he is wrong, then it looks like we just screwed ourselves in the butt. big time.
Post a Comment