I think I know this LT.
or at least it sounds very familiar
hat tip to bayou renaissance man
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2017/11/first-sergeants-and-second-lieutenants.html
Turns out we have all been dead for years
Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller has researched the global destruction predictions for the last thirty years.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/after-30-years-alarmists-are-still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/
For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.
The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!
Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”
This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.
To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:
1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat
A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.
The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”
“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.
It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.
2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century
New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”
Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”
“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.
3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened
Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.
Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.
4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now
Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”
Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.
“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.
5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”
Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.
But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.
6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.
7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.
The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”
Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”
8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.
“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”
9. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
The year 2009 was a bad time for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”
Brown has been booted out of office since then.
10. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.
Well, it’s 2017 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.
11. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”
About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.
12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition
The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.
The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.
I am old enough to remember they coming ice age in the seventies. My home was to be under two miles of ice by the year 2000. And interestingly enough the solution to the coming global ice age is the same solution to the current global warming/climate change.
Mercysdad
I knew it, I just knew it
Hat tip to Bayou Renaissance Man:
Tongue in cheek, here’s one for the conspiracy theorists
Received via e-mail:
Is this a coincidence?
The year was 1947. Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, 70 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.
This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations.
However, what you may NOT known is that in the month of April, year 1948, nine months after the historic day, the following people were born:
Barack Obama Sr.
Albert A. Gore Jr.
Hillary Rodham
William J. Clinton
John F. Kerry
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
Joe Biden
This is the obvious consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses.
I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It certainly did for me.
And now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help Illegal Aliens.
I’m not going to take the time and lookup all those birthdates…but it makes sense doesn’t it?
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2017/11/tongue-in-cheek-heres-one-for.html
Professional? Athletes
i haven’t commented much on the NFL protests. But let’s look at it from an outside perspective.
the players in the NFL are professional athletes. Let’s look at the professional emphasis for a minute.
If I went to work Monday morning at an assembly plant and took a knee in protest at my machine center or press, my employment would be in jeopardy.
If the shift leader was passing out assignments in the morning and I took a knee? And demanded my “right” to do so?
If an attorney took a knee in front of a judge to protest the judicial system? Or even worse if I am a defendant and when the bailiff calls for all or rise for the Honorable so and so. If I took a knee to protest the treatment of my race in the legal system?
When a player is suited up and on the field, he is at work. He is on somebody else’s clock, being paid to perform his job. Calling my employer a slave owner Is not going to help my future contracts. And is just an attempt to gain support for my actions by making it racist. Kaepernick is untouchable not because of his trip to South America complaining about America or his press conference wearing a “Che” shirt complaining about oppression. He is untouchable because no one wants to hire an employee that makes them look bad. The call for “letting Kaep play, he has a right to further his career” forget that they are not demanding a team let him play, but that a team pay him to play. If Kaep was going to play for free, many teams would let him play.
Now, let’s emphasis the athlete in the job description.
These players are high profile athletes. Many if not most have charities and causes the promote and raise money for. Peyton Manning has a lot of children’s charities that he fronts. Richard Sherman, Eli Manning, Andrew Luck, etc. have done many good and wonderful works for people and causes. They don’t do it on the field.
A professional athlete today has a media footprint that is huge compared to the athletes of just a few years ago. Press conferences, interviews, press statements, and a giant social media presence.
That’s where you make your protests.
That’s where you make your societal statements. And advocate for your cause.
if your doing it on national broadcasts, on your employers time, in order to raise the profile and get more coverage then I would suspect it is more about you and your marketing brand and less about your issue.
Psychological tactics for avoiding accountability
From the good folks at wattsupwiththat.com
Ten Psychological Tactics for Avoiding Climate Science Accountability
According to the article, here are the “tactical tricks”:
Delegate the matter to someone else internally – diffuse it, distance yourself from it – and do everything to avoid an internal and especially an independent review.
Avoid, reword, or repackage, the issues – obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about some mistakes in the past and that you or someone could probably have done a better job on … but go no further; rationalise and/or disguise any culpability.
Focus on minor or “other” things so as to look like you are focusing on the central things, punctuating it all with the language of transparency and accountability.
Appeal to your integrity and to acting with the highest standards, without demonstrating either.
Point out your past track record. Highlight anything positive that you are doing or contributing to now.
Ask and assume that people should trust you without verification. Offer some general assurances that you have or will be looking into the matter and all is okay.
State that you are under attack or at least that you are not being treated fairly or that people just don’t understand.
Mention other peoples’ (alleged) problems, question their motives and credibility; dress someone else in your own dirty clothes, especially if they are noisome question-askers or whistleblowers.
Prop up the old boys’ leadership club, reshuffle the leadership deck if necessary yet without changing leaders or their power or how they can cover for each other in the name of “loyalty” and on behalf of the “greater good”. Try to hold out until the dust settles and the “uncomfortable” stuff hopefully goes away.
So in short, don’t really do anything with real transparency and accountability; rather, maintain your self-interests, lifestyle, affiliations, and allusions of moral congruity, even if it means recalibrating your conscience – essentially, acting corruptly via complicity, cover-ups, and cowardice.
I see so much of this in today’s headlines. Not just in climate change arguments but in nearly every political commentary.
its like politicians studied it years ago.
Weinstein scandal
from time to time there is an exposure in Hollywood or the music industry (remember Milli Vanilli)
while other’s invariably come forward and speak out about “the culture” or “the systemic problem” the result has been and will most likely be the same.
The offender is isolated, estranged, ostracized and eventually destroyed for the protection of all the others. After the blood is cleaned up with rehab and due penance has been paid, the pats on the back will begin about how the issue has been “cleaned up” and “reformed” or even “fixed”
the only problem with the system is that it’s full of people. And the inevitable consequence of so much power imbued in one or two people will result in the same depravity. Whether it be drugs, sex, or any other perversion they have a predisposition toward.
Fatty Arbuckle, Bob Crane, Colonel Parker and Elvis, Marilyn Monroe. Etc, etc
is there hope? If the draw of fame becomes less valuable than personal integrity then the teeth will be taken from the industry of movies, music, stage, ballet, and any number of other situations. But not likely.
people will be people and the price of fame, be it college grades, promotions, recording contracts, movie deals will be set by those that can and paid by those that are willing.
the problem is that some aren’t so willing. Then the line gets crossed.
Arrest them, investigate them, charge them, convict them of proven crimes, and punish them. The threat of exposure and punishment are the only constrictions on their actions.
My thoughts on the Las Vegas shooting
Let’s talk honestly about the latest mass murder that has America outraged.
the Las Vegas shooting killed fifty eight (at last count) and wounded hundreds. I don’t want to focus on the shooters motives as we don’t know them yet. The timeline of the shooting, as it is changing and so far a lot of speculation.
So the focus is on the gun. The implement used to commit the crime is the low hanging fruit of mass media at this time.
The Vegas shooting is being touted as the worst mass shooting in American history. Maybe it is, but it is not the worst mass murder in American history.
Timothy McVeigh used a Ryder truck and a load of fertilizer to kill over a hundred and twenty five. The truck driver in Nice drove a truck through a crowd (much like the concert crowd) and killed eighty nine. And of course 9/11 used loaded aircraft to kill thousands. The Ricen attack in Japan, the Anthrax mail attack, the Unabomber never shot anybody.
Has any politician called for the prosecution of Ryder for someone using their truck as a weapon to kill? Banned trucks? Background checks to buy a plane ticket?
No.
the using of a Bump Fire stock by the Las Vegas shooter is about as important and the octane rating of the Nice truck attract fuel. Or the manufacturer of the barrels that McVeigh used in Oklahoma City.
The decision to commit mass murder is the problem, not the tool used to commit the crime.
Had the Vegas killer used the slingshots made for throwing water balloons on the beach to hurl improvised explosives at the crowd been less of a crime? Should he have driven a truck through the crowd?
Not to say that the weapons used are insignificant (obviously they are not) but to focus on them is a misdirection. Many times used by the less moral of us to push an agenda that has little or nothing to do with the act itself.
The idea that the shooter would have been less effective with a normal stock on his rifle is as inane an argument as his choice of ammunition or rifle manufacturer.
The politically genius, but logically foolish, idea that a person who has made the decision, planned, and equipped himself to commit the murder of as many people as possible, would have stopped at the front door due to a sign banning guns on the premises is the height of idiocy.
Evil is in the heart of man, the weapon, tool, implement used to carry out that evil is nearly irrelevant.
Every generation has had the same arguments, going back centuries like;
The cartridge case ammunition will enable soldiers to waste ammunition.
That damn yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week (lever action)
The wheel lock is made to be easily concealed.
The Roman gladius sword is a killing blade
The iron sword is an advantage over the brass sword
The chariot, the sling, not to mention the bow and arrow at the Battle of Hastings were all criticized by the weak minded and the losing side as unfair, unsporting, uncivil. I’m sure the mounted knights didn’t like the advent of firearms either.
Will we ever know the circumstance surrounding the motivations or events leading up to the Las Vegas shooting? I hope so.
Should we legislate (“we have do do something”) based on the implement used to commit the act of mass murder? No.
Is there anything that can be done? Maybe.
Perhaps not demonizing anyone who disagrees with you over any and every topic. Grandstanding and triangulating stances on political issues, not based on truth, but sound bites and polling data. Maybe we dont need politicians, but Statesman.
Could anything have prevented this crime. Probably not, but trying to say that if your particular issue had been addressed previously that the deaths would have been fewer or the crime not committed at all and must be implemented now is disingenuous and insincere.
I pray for all the victims and families that have been affected. But please don’t make it about a political party agenda.
All I need to say
Charlottesville protesters, on both sides
I am familiar with Mas (took a course with him years ago) and I believe he hits this particular nail on the head:
HYPOCRISY in re: CHARLOTTESVILLE
Monday, August 21st, 2017
The recent violence in Charlottesville, culminating in the death of a young woman and the injuring of several more people at the hands of an apparent racist has triggered grief, outrage, tribalism and…hypocrisy.
I’ve written about American tribalism before, here. The recent Charlottesville experience splashed a huge bucket of kerosene onto that particular fire. And with it, came vast Continue reading “Charlottesville protesters, on both sides”
Michigan Foster Parents suing State for Gun Rights
As an adopted parent and a foster parent, this ticks me off.
Michigan Couples Sue Over State’s Attempt To Disarm Adoptive And Foster Parents
Most media savvy gun control advocates try to insist that nobody wants to ban guns in America and that anybody who says otherwise is either paranoid or guilty of fear-mongering.
According to a lawsuit filed in a Michigan federal court, however, anti-gun bureaucrats at the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) are subjecting gun-owing adoptive and foster parents to a stark choice: their Second Amendment rights or their kids.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include William Johnson, a disabled veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and his wife, Jill. The Johnsons were asked by the state to serve as foster parents for their grandson.
According to the complaint, when the Johnsons arrived to pick up the child at a MDHHS facility, William (a Michigan concealed carry licensee) was searched and ordered to produce his concealed carry license, even though he wasn’t carrying a gun. It also says he was told by caseworkers he would have to provide them with the serial numbers of all of his guns.
The complaint alleges that both MDHHS caseworkers and a judge involved with the placement told the Johnsons that as a condition of fostering the child, they’d have to surrender certain constitutional rights, including the right to have an accessible, loaded firearm inside or outside of their home.
The complaint quotes the judge as stating, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.” Likewise, the Johnsons claim, MDHHS caseworkers told them “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.”
Another complainant in the lawsuit is a pastor at a Baptist church, chair of a county DHHS board, a Michigan concealed carry pistol licensee, and an NRA certified range officer. His wife is a published author and librarian. They would like to foster children at their home but have refrained from doing so because of the requirement to surrender fundamental rights under the Second Amendment.
The lawsuit claims violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection and to keep and bear arms. It asks the court to permanently bar enforcement of the MDHHS anti-gun policies and to award the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs for bringing the suit.
This is hardly the first time state officials have threatened adoptive or foster parents over their possession of firearms. A similar lawsuit was filed last year in Oklahoma, and the NRA has championed legislation to prevent discrimination against lawful gun owners who wish to adopt or foster children, including in Florida, Nevada, and Texas.
It says something about gun control advocates that they will insist their agenda is necessary for the well-being of children, at the same time they will coldly rip kids from caring homes or banish students from school for purely symbolic anti-gun purposes. The sad case of the Johnsons and Masons also demonstrates how deeply entrenched anti-gun orthodoxy is in official bureaucracies, even in places – like Michigan – where lawful gun ownership is considered part of the social fabric.