rushmc 23 #76 March 23, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteYou must like the thought police? Ironic considering you defend laws and regulations that specifically forbid people to even mention certain things. Name one of those laws"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #77 March 23, 2015 SkyDekker Florida better hope they don't need any FEMA funding in the future... http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html Hell Lets just jail them while you are at ithttp://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers/ Is this an example you might use? Quote New Inquisition: Punish climate-change 'deniers' Calls for punitive action against those who refuse to buy environmental agenda "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #78 March 23, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteYou must like the thought police? Ironic considering you defend laws and regulations that specifically forbid people to even mention certain things. Whether it relates to Climate change or doctors asking about guns. All this speak is forbidden, because of what the thought behind it might be. But then you attack me saying I must like the thought police. You really have absolutely no clue do you? You know. I am seriously reconsidering my thinking on the doctors and guns stuff on the basis of this post. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #79 March 23, 2015 rushmc ***Florida better hope they don't need any FEMA funding in the future... http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html Hell Lets just jail them while you are at ithttp://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers/ Is this an example you might use? Quote New Inquisition: Punish climate-change 'deniers' Calls for punitive action against those who refuse to buy environmental agenda I don't worry about interest groups. I worry about the government. A couple of weeks ago when the Congressman started his subpoenas for the House Unamerican Climate Change Deniers Committee, I viewed that as a "holy shit" moment. Waiting for the "are you now or have you ever been a climate change denier" shit. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #80 March 23, 2015 Uhmmm no, nor do I really agree with the FEMA stance. Mostly it just once again highlights the fact that good and sound policy is far less important than "scoring points" these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #81 March 23, 2015 >You must like the thought police? No, that was you. The first post was concerning the thought police in Florida who are telling people in the government that they cannot discuss climate change. You supported that - and that was the only example in this thread of someone being told what to think or say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 March 23, 2015 lawrocket I don't worry about interest groups. I worry about the government. A couple of weeks ago when the Congressman started his subpoenas for the House Unamerican Climate Change Deniers Committee, I viewed that as a "holy shit" moment. Waiting for the "are you now or have you ever been a climate change denier" shit. Agreed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #83 March 23, 2015 billvon>You must like the thought police? No, that was you. The first post was concerning the thought police in Florida who are telling people in the government that they cannot discuss climate change. You supported that - and that was the only example in this thread of someone being told what to think or say. No, I did not support that I asked for more info I still feel something is missing but as it stands I agree the move against him was bs His post was about withhold gov assitance base on ones view of climate change THAT is about thought police"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #84 March 23, 2015 >No, I did not support that Ah, good! I agree. >His post was about withhold gov assitance base on ones view of climate >change. THAT is about thought police No, it is withholding funds for disaster preparation unless you have demonstrated disaster preparation plans for problems caused by (for example) rising sea levels. If you deny that rising sea levels can occur, you don't get the free money to prepare for it. Makes sense. You might someday experience something similar. You might not get fire insurance for your business unless you have a fire evacuation plan, fire extinguishers and sprinklers. If you refuse to believe that fires can occur, and thus refuse to have a fire evacuation plan, you might not get that insurance. Would you consider that "thought police?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #85 March 23, 2015 billvon >No, I did not support that Ah, good! I agree. >His post was about withhold gov assitance base on ones view of climate >change. THAT is about thought police No, it is withholding funds for disaster preparation unless you have demonstrated disaster preparation plans for problems caused by (for example) rising sea levels. If you deny that rising sea levels can occur, you don't get the free money to prepare for it. Makes sense. You might someday experience something similar. You might not get fire insurance for your business unless you have a fire evacuation plan, fire extinguishers and sprinklers. If you refuse to believe that fires can occur, and thus refuse to have a fire evacuation plan, you might not get that insurance. Would you consider that "thought police?" Preparing for a disaster is one thing Trying to mitigate AWG is another Sea levels rise and fall Temps rise and fall NO ONE was prepared for Katrina Should the govermnet withheld disaster funds because they were not prepared? Politca bs Bill and you know it but then, I never believe Bush moved Katrina towards NO I guess some do"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #86 March 23, 2015 >Preparing for a disaster is one thing . . .Trying to mitigate AWG is another Exactly! Fortunately the FEMA rules do nothing to try to mitigate AWG. >NO ONE was prepared for Katrina. Should the govermnet withheld disaster > funds because they were not prepared? Absolutely not. Fortunately this rule change does not withhold emergency funds from anyone. That being said, it sure would have helped if Louisiana and Mississippi actually _had_ a plan for the sorts of disasters that rising sea levels, coupled with a massive hurricane, could cause. This rule will encourage governors to have such plans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #87 March 23, 2015 billvon>Preparing for a disaster is one thing . . .Trying to mitigate AWG is another Exactly! Fortunately the FEMA rules do nothing to try to mitigate AWG. >NO ONE was prepared for Katrina. Should the govermnet withheld disaster > funds because they were not prepared? Absolutely not. Fortunately this rule change does not withhold emergency funds from anyone. That being said, it sure would have helped if Louisiana and Mississippi actually _had_ a plan for the sorts of disasters that rising sea levels, coupled with a massive hurricane, could cause. This rule will encourage governors to have such plans. Then the story has a bs slant to it from the beginning"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #88 March 23, 2015 And it continues . . . . ========= Fla. scientist told to remove words ‘climate change’ from study on climate change By Terrence McCoy March 10 WaPo By late January of this year, Elizabeth Radke figured she was pretty much done with Florida. She had already graduated from the University of Florida, where she had gotten her PhD in epidemiology. She had moved from the Sunshine State to the Washington area, where she took a job at Arlington County’s public health department. And a paper from her time there, which looked at how climate change in Florida had affected ciguatera — a commonly reported marine food-borne illness — was getting closer to publication. But then, on Jan. 27, a message popped into her inbox. Subject: “Paper Review.” And Radke realized she wasn’t through with Florida yet. . . . . . . . Before publication, their study needed clearance from the Health Department in Tallahassee. So Sharon Watkins, chief of the department’s Bureau of Epidemiology, marked up the paper, homing in on the phrase “climate change.” It was used four times in the 27-page paper, according to a copy provided to The Post. Each one was underlined. “Come talk to me,” Watkins wrote in the margins in an apparent reference to the first use of the term “climate change.” “Let’s discuss over the phone soon,” wrote Radke’s co-author, whom Radke asked The Post not to identify for fear of retribution. The conversations that came next, Radke said, were over the phone. Her co-author, she said, told her they had to expunge the term “climate change” from the paper, per Watkins’s directive. “We had to submit the paper to the state Department of Health for clearance, and one of the comments we got back was that we couldn’t use that phrase,” Radke said Monday evening in an interview. She said she wasn’t sure if they could even get away with using the word “climate.” She was aware of times the state had rejected it. And indeed, in e-mails Radke shared with The Post, she wondered about that very issue. If her paper couldn’t use the term “climate change,” what could they use? Was “climate” off the table? A fellow researcher, she wrote in a message with the subject “climate language,” suggested “‘long term climate variability.’ Will that fly or is the word ‘climate’ a no go?” Hours later, she wrote another e-mail. “It will be fine either way. I just went through the paper and there are only a handful of mentions.” ============ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #89 March 23, 2015 Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #90 March 23, 2015 rushmc Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Source?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #91 March 23, 2015 jakee ***Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Source? this site shoes dry?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #92 March 23, 2015 >Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Which US governmental organization prohibits the use of the word "skepticism" "doubt" or "alarmist?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #93 March 23, 2015 billvon>Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Which US governmental organization prohibits the use of the word "skepticism" "doubt" or "alarmist?" Not talking about the gov I am talking about the way alarmists treat those that disagree with them in general On the other hand, the EPA is stepping way out of line to support the alarmists. So they are using thier power against the deniers"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #94 March 23, 2015 SkyDekkerFlorida better hope they don't need any FEMA funding in the future... http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html I do find this interesting. Hasn't the denier movement been persistent in its allegations that climate change alarmism is a government gravy train? That is, if you don't support anthropogenic global warming you won't be receiving any government funds? So we can I imagine that, for example, Alabama's governor wants some funding for an electronic notification system for tornado watches. The Alabama governor says that tornadoes have happened before and will happen again and wants to aid in preparation. FEMA asks, Governor Bentley, "Hey Bob. That's a great idea that can save lives. We'd be happy to give you a few million, but you aren't blaming tornadoes on climate change. We can't have you denying climate change. So will you save lives and say that these funds are to help mitigate problems with extreme weather like tornadoes that result from man made climate change? "What do you mean no? There is no such thing as a tornado anymore. Only extreme weather caused by climate change. Yes, that storm a few years ago was extreme weather resulting from climate change. No, not just tornadoes. Well, if you want the money you have to say its climate change. Why? Because we have to keep increasing the cost of climate change in order to appeal to the minds of people. "No. It's a psychology concept called PAIN. The less enlightened have brains that haven't developed much since cavemen. In order to view something as requiring steps to fix it, we need the following: Personal - we have to show that climate change affects them. So when a person slips and falls on ice that is climate change. It will affect everybody Abrupt - People don't like abrupt changes. Google abrupt climate change. 18 years of steady temps? No. It's been a winter of sudden brutal cold! It means that we won't just ease into a new equilibrium. We'll wake up one day with fire and brimstone and life will be miserable Immoral - people don't act without good reason. It's why we've spent decades getting it into people's minds that the first world is immoral and polluting. Sure, they live longer and healthier because of carbon energy but we have to convince them that a sentient world is reacting to our SUV sins Now - think anybody will give us the power we want for a problem that only might develop in 100 years? No, they won't. This is why we have to put out the propaganda hat climate change is now. Not in the future and not even in the past. That's why the next tornado cannot be a tornado but must be climate change now. We've spent a lot of time coming up with this. If you don't want to protect your constituents against a threat to them, now, that will be a quick hammer that is due totally to their reckless use of heaters this past winter, then don't toe the line." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #95 March 23, 2015 rushmc ******Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Source? this site This site has the power to demand alterations to academic papers? That sounds kinda crazy.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #96 March 23, 2015 >Not talking about the gov Ah, so the government actively suppresses speech about climate change, but not speech about denial of climate change. Even though that was the topic of the thread, and the topic of the post you replied to. But no matter; let's see where you spin this to. >I am talking about the way alarmists treat those that disagree with them >in general About the same way you treat alarmists. So they know exactly how it feels; you have provided hundreds of posts full of condescension, scorn and abuse directed at them. >On the other hand, the EPA is stepping way out of line to support the alarmists. The EPA - the environmental protection agency - is doing its job, which is protecting the environment. If you interpret that as alarmist, I can't imagine how you see FEMA. Heck, they have 'emergency' in their NAME! How alarmist is that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #97 March 23, 2015 Of course, now that I've said that I will say that I think it is the right of the government to put any strings it wants on money it dishes out. The states can say no to it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #98 March 23, 2015 the EPA has gone beyond its legislative mandate. this will play out in court I believe"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #99 March 23, 2015 rushmc***>Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Which US governmental organization prohibits the use of the word "skepticism" "doubt" or "alarmist?" Not talking about the gov I am talking about the way alarmists treat those that disagree with them in general On the other hand, the EPA is stepping way out of line to support the alarmists. So they are using thier power against the deniers More "Through the Looking Glass" from Marc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 March 23, 2015 kallend******>Well, right or wrong, at least alarmists are getting to know how deniers are dealt with Which US governmental organization prohibits the use of the word "skepticism" "doubt" or "alarmist?" Not talking about the gov I am talking about the way alarmists treat those that disagree with them in general On the other hand, the EPA is stepping way out of line to support the alarmists. So they are using thier power against the deniers More "Through the Looking Glass" from Marc. The courts will soon show you the way grasshopper"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)