Here is the claim :
Over the past century, the number of hurricanes that strike each year has more than doubled, and scientists blame rising sea temperatures.
Here is the reality :
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
The US had peak hurricane strikes 125 years ago, when CO2 levels where 290 ppm.
If you have to fabricate data, then your cause is just a bunch of BS. Why would anyone want to do that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFfw-HdbqmY
I’ve made this argument before at WUWT, but there is a peculiar strain of consequentialism in the left, and in environmentalists in particular, whereby the ends justify the means as long as it’s for a greater good like saving the planet.
This isn’t the only example of this tendency. Besides, it’s not a lie if you believe it…
No matter the origin of the scare, fact is that any ideology driven doctrine poses a threat to our human civilization.
This is the biggest threat I have ever seen in my life and that includes the Communists.
This is a direct result of the AGW Scam, another scam:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/09/shouting-out-loud.html
We need to stop this left/right pigeonholing and finger-pointing. Right wingnuts are just as guilty of the “ends-justifying-the-means” rationale. Example: “Collateral damage” is acceptable in the interests of national security. In other words, the lives of innocent civilians, including children, aren’t worth a damn. What matters is stopping the terr’ists hiding under the bed! How about the justifications for torture? I could go on, but I hope you see my point.
No, I’m afraid that I don’t see your point. As someone that spent 20 years in the military and worked as a targeteer, I never met anyone that casually said that collateral damage is acceptable. No military in the world works as hard as the US military to prevent innocent loss of life. That’s a simple fact.
Further, there is no appreciable difference in how this left-center administration approaches collateral damage than did the previous center-right administration. So, what is your point?
Who said anything about field soldiers? Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney certainly justified collateral damage and torture, but then they never did any military service. My point is that by typecasting a certain demographic, you are falling into the NWO divide & conquer trap of caviling about left vs right, liberal vs conservative, socialist vs capitalist, us vs them.
Having spent most of my 66 years working on environmental issues, including video production, I have seen my share of agents provocateurs—the guys that you see when the MSM covers an event. Whether it’s portraying environmentalists as combative nutjobs, or portraying 2nd Amendment defenders as, um… combative nutjobs, or discrediting AGW skeptics as nutjobs in denial, the NWO is very adept at using divisive issues to divert attention from their agenda.
Since you state authoritatively that “environmentalists in particular” will justify the means towards the desired end, may I assume that you know these people personally instead of just swallowing what the nightly news whores spoon-feed you? Perhaps you can find some common ground with them (your eco-acquaintances, not the MSM shills) in discussing the threat that the AGW hoax presents to ALL of us, regardless of political ideology. I know plenty of environmental activists who are hip to the AGW scam and are angry about it. This issue may just be the one that unites us in rising up against the globalist juggernaut that threatens to exercise dominion over the entire world.