Re: “It will continue to build, just be repackaged slightly.”

Some readers here might be familiar with the program “Abundant Life” on the Catholic channel, EWTN. Last week the hostess did a two-part series called “Selling the Culture”. Part 1 was how the use of Marketing Techniques is being used to get Americans to accept Leftist ideas; Part 2 was about the use of Semantic Gymnastics to avoid peoples’ negative beliefs about those ideas. She made a most profound statement in Part 2: “Man was made in the image and likeness of God; God likes to create, so man likes to create. How does God create? Through His word. Man likewise has the power to create through his word, but what does he do? Through the distortion of words, he creates Evil.”

From Obama’ State of the Union address last night: “Even if you doubt the evidence [about “Climate Change”], providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future,”

From my essay above:

[W]hat happens to the momentum that was building for “world wide action” to stem this growing [Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change] GCWCC crisis [when this fraud is finally exposed]?

Well, nothing. It will continue to build, just be repackaged slightly. Instead of Climate Change in all its iterations, a new mantra will emerge: we need to address the impending Global Environmental Health Crisis!

Any effort to fundamentally transform a society must involve the entire planet, so calling the crisis “Global” is a given. The real interesting sleight of hand will be the next word in this phrase, “Environmental.”

The foundation for this has already been laid. When the earth actually started to cool these last 10 years or so — and the dire predictions of global climate catastrophe didn’t appear even though the essential fixes to correct the problems were not put into practice — the GCWCC Hysterics began to subtly mix their metaphors. We began to hear about “pollution” in association with climate change. Cap and Trade would help clean up the planet. Driving smaller cars not only meant less harmful exhaust polluting the atmosphere, but you needed to be smaller to fit into these new vehicles comfortably. Regulating transfats, taxing soft drinks, and promoting a healthier lifestyle were all part of the magic to save the planet.

So what if reducing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn’t really impact the climate the way we originally thought? It makes the air cleaner. And besides, going green is the more responsible way to act anyway. Is a Western lifestyle with its reliance on big houses, big cars, fast food, and red meat good for us anyway? Wouldn’t we all be better off if we changed our ways? Okay, sure, maybe the sun and the natural cycles of the Earth have more to do with the planet’s climate than SUVs and factories, but being overweight can kill you. You need to change for the sake of the planet, and your own good. …

Imagine if you will the case that Obama and friends think its a scam just like we do. That’d be a tricky situation for them wouldn’t it, especially with such a large supporting group still insisting on it. Perhaps they consider it a better political and economic move to let the climate fever die down gradually and then pull support for it once popularity really crashes.

Somehow the excuses of the men accused in the scandal, “prove” that its much ado about nothing. It’s like asking Bernie Madoff, “Bernie are you operating a Ponzie scheme”, “no, everything has been taken out of context” And then they say, “ok guess there’s no problem here.” The amazing thing is the press will actually cite Mann, and RealClimate (run by Mann and friends) to show that there’s nothing amiss.

The blatant whitewash is certainly the second scandal.

any leftist who can prove to me there was such a context in which Nixon was not actually inquiring about an ongoing cover up, I will send to that leftist a money order of
$ 10,000 within 24 hours

Same offer for proving to me how ” Hide the decline” can be put in a context where it means ” let’s NOT hide the decline” (in temperature )

any leftist who can prove to me that climate scientists do not mean hide the decline ( in temperature )when they say in multiple emails ” hide the decline” (in temperature) while they are working on temperature data which thay have either doctored or destroyed because it does not show a rise in temperature will aslo receive a money order of $10,000 from me within 24 hours.

If you want to practice you ” out of context skills” here are a few other quotes which you can try and put in a context that reverses the meaning of what is being said, or that means something else than what is being said,

“Canada is spelled C a n a d a”

” 3 leftists riding in a Prius is one less leftist than 2 leftists riding in Prius”

” a square has 4 sides but a cube has six sides ”

Go ahead!!!
put those in a context where they mean something else!!!
or where they mean the OPPOSITE of the quote!!!

common!! do it!!!

I can’t wait to send you my hard earned cash !!!

Have a nice hide-the-decline-in-temperature day!

Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Widely available data, existing in the public view for years, is now disappearing from public view.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/

Re: “For starters there’s the pebble bed technology. … Then there’s the ITER/Z-Axis Accelerator…”

For centuries, the Arabs were smack in the middle of the trade routes between East and West and extracted a toll for permission to cross their lands. Columbus sought a Westward route to bypass this toll. As a result, Arabs were cut out of the West’s economic progress until the oil age. We know the rest of that story.

Regardless of any new technology, it seems that if history is any guide, God will make sure the Arabs will be a key player in it to demand their “fair” share. Perhaps the pebbles will be of the sort found only in the Middle East.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/14/the-wisdom-of-crowds-sarah-palin-and-climategate/

Seems to me, a non-scientist but not a scientific illiterate, that the current Copenhagen Conference is easy to understand, both for intelligent non-scientists as well as for not-really-interested dummkopfs: it’s all governance, all the time. It don’t need no stinkin’ scientists. And the scientists who are there just need to know how to shut off mikes & call the gendarmes when inconvenient truths are brought up by “skeptics” who must be personally destroyed in the harshest terms possible.

It’s the politics, stupid, the economic politics, that is, which is being urged by economic illiterates who call their critics scientific illiterates: government control, confiscatory taxes, punishing regs, & government redistribution of the “ill-begotten wealth of the Western World” (a) to the rest of the world who are poor because we are rich & (b) to Western World charlatans for their allegedly green businesses.

Newsflash to scientists & those of a scientific bent: politics & critical thinking about science are not always reconcilable.

Newsflash to economically-illiterate scientists: Google “cost-benefit analysis”.

BTW, a rather fair & balanced (to coin a phrase) analysis in the NYT Opinionator Blog, yes the NYT:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/global-warmings-cold-shoulder/