Azalin Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warming projections Using a bunch of frighteningly high numbers he simply, but solemnly pulled out his own backside, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US. fixed.
KD in CA Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Climate Change Will Cause Rape and Murder and Assault and Robbery and Larceny and Make People Steal Your Car This, from Mother Jones, is what people who are losing the argument look like: Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099 Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other. That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes. “Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.” Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US. Does this mean when future liberal Presidents get idiotic global warming legislation passed they'll be able to claim they "saved X thousands of rapes and murderers"?
Azalin Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Does this mean when future liberal Presidents get idiotic global warming legislation passed they'll be able to claim they "saved X thousands of rapes and murderers"? nice! you're beating them to their own propaganda!
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Does this mean when future liberal Presidents get idiotic global warming legislation passed they'll be able to claim they "saved X thousands of rapes and murderers"? No, no, no, that's not how it works. "Preventing" something doesn't get you votes. You have to create a class of victims, then make a statement that appeals to them. So more like "We would have saved X thousand of rape victims if Republicans hadn't obstructed cap-and-trade in their War on Women."
Tiberius Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/automobiles/for-cars-aluminum-is-a-back-to-the-future-metal.html?_r=0 Interesting article on how environmental policy is forcing Surinamese to innovate and create lighter more fuel efficient cars
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.nytimes.c...metal.html?_r=0 Interesting article on how environmental policy is forcing Surinamese to innovate and create lighter more fuel efficient cars
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 The relevance of that article is matched only by his exceptional understanding of it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/27/yellen-senate-monetary-policy-testimony/5860137/ Now it is the hard, cold winter that has slowed the ecomomy... Oh my! Can't win with this crowd.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 28, 2014 Author Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Krauthammer is a hack...pointing out the religious behavior of the Global Warming people. dev/null began the "Heretics! Burn them!" thing 8 years ago. Once again, PPP is ahead of the curve. Oh and: Environtologist. Charles the Hammer ain't got schit on me either. Actually it's been a very warm winter here in CA. Really. Using San Francisco weather as an indication of anything other than: "WTF is going on here? How did it get this cold? 50? It was F'ing 70 degrees 2 damn hours ago"? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Meh. We've seen conner post. http://www.nytimes.c...metal.html?_r=0 Interesting article on how environmental policy is forcing Surinamese to innovate and create lighter more fuel efficient cars Ah yes, the NYT. The very same people who shut down their Global Warming desk last year. That's some interesting behavior there, isn't it? Ask yourself: why would the biggest left-biased paper in the world do that? Think it's because they know a losing political issue when they see one? Think it's because they knew that they couldn't afford to lose on AGW and Obamacare? Funny how they thought Obamacare was the better bet, isn't it? Edited February 28, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Tiberius Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Ah yes, the NYT. The very same people who shut down their Global Warming desk last year. That's some interesting behavior there, isn't it? Ask yourself: why would the biggest left-biased paper in the world do that? Think it's because they know a losing political issue when they see one? Think it's because they knew that they couldn't afford to lose on AGW and Obamacare? Funny how they thought Obamacare was the better bet, isn't it? No big deal, the people kept their jobs and moved to other departments to cover environment from other angles. Newsflash, the environment isnt going anywhere. Neither is Obamacare!
TH3 Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 No, no, no, that's not how it works. "Preventing" something doesn't get you votes. You have to create a class of victims, then make a statement that appeals to them. So more like "We would have saved X thousand of rape victims if Republicans hadn't obstructed cap-and-trade in their War on Women." Like the religiously oppressed?
B-Man Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Well, this is good news, if true: The Hill: Feds take step toward Atlantic offshore drilling. “The Obama Administration's Interior Department is laying the ground for possible oil-and-gas development in the Atlantic. The department released its environment review on Thursday, detailing safeguards contractors that conduct seismic surveying — which includes air gun tests — would need to follow. If the process continues without delay, the release of the environmental review would set Interior on a five-year planning process that would open up the Atlantic to development for 2017 and 2022.” Mississippi, Louisiana getting in on the shale boom action Progressives not quite ready to let that Keystone XL “conflict of interest” thing go yet .
OCinBuffalo Posted March 1, 2014 Author Posted March 1, 2014 No big deal, the people kept their jobs and moved to other departments to cover environment from other angles. Newsflash, the environment isnt going anywhere. Neither is Obamacare! Yeah, I'm sure it all came down to deployment of resources, and boy, if they could've kept that desk going, the motivation was there, but the $ was not. Right. It's all the fault of the news consumer. Us dumbasses just refuse to appreciate the ballet. Oh, I hope Obamacare stays! Are you retarded? This is the ULTIMATE gift that keeps on giving. I fully expect to pound your junk into the dirt, for years, using Obamacare, The Liberal Cleaver. Hint: the smart move would be to listen to Sen. Manchin, and just delay the entire thing until after 2016. Or, to IMMEDIATELY take the high ground, admit the fail, and beat the Republicans to the negotiating table to "fix" the fail. This way you look both reasonable, and caring, and the MSM would gladly sing your (phony) praises. But, your ego, and every other (*^*&%^$^#liberal's ego, will prevent the smart thing from being done. You will chose stupid. And, yes, that means Obamacare isn't going anywhere. Hilarious for me, and good for the country, as your demoralized base won't show up in 2014, and, won't show up in 2016 either. Don't bother with the Hillary/Women = Obama/Minorities turnout argument: you lied to women about health care. What's your experience with getting caught telling a woman a huge lie? Do they tend to forget about it, ever, never mind 3 years later?
OCinBuffalo Posted March 2, 2014 Author Posted March 2, 2014 Here's how you know the thing is broken, and never coming back: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026804579411021545493020 But engineering and venture capital (Mr. Steyer's job until he retired a year ago) are hard work and require personal resilience, while the pleasure of climate warriorhood is sitting at your little blog and picturing yourself a moral hero whose opponents deserve to be silenced if not exterminated. In our time, climate activism has devolved into self-medication for the moderately mentally ill (and who's to say this is not a useful service). Anyone genuinely concerned about the climate future might do better to get an engineering or finance degree. That's it. This is in the Wall Street Journal...not "crazy right wing guy's blog". Why does that matter? This guy isn't afraid. Nobody is afraid. Certainly no one is afraid of these "moral hero"s anymore. The PR war has been lost, becase nobody fears the consequences of being called a "denier", by people who have no credibility. Why does that matter? Ah....Remember the OP of this thing? Read: http://www.spiegel.d...ments-box-pager This is from the Germans, of all people. I particuarly like the fact that the attitude is on full display: "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic." And that's the problem for the left: sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable. All you will succeed in doing now? Futher damaging your credibility. In closing, the title of this thread was: Setting up the AGW lies to come...well? Nobody is afraid of whatever you say, because nobody cares, because everybody knows about the lies. I'm tempted to close this thread right here and now. What else is there to say?
TH3 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic." And that's the problem for the left: and the right sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable... Pulease Listen to any right winger....I will help you out: 1. Obama is a socialist and the US will not survive his Presidency 2. War on Christmas, religion. 3. The end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet will be the end of the Republic. 4. Blah blah blah
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic." And that's the problem for the left: and the right sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable... Pulease Listen to any right winger....I will help you out: 1. Obama is a socialist and the US will not survive his Presidency 2. War on Christmas, religion. 3. The end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet will be the end of the Republic. 4. Blah blah blah You forgot "death panels."
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 But Al Gore said the arctic would be ice free in 2013! I think I see a passage... It is called: "The Gore Bull Passage"
OCinBuffalo Posted March 4, 2014 Author Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic." And that's the problem for the left: and the right sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable... Pulease Listen to any right winger....I will help you out: 1. Obama is a socialist and the US will not survive his Presidency 2. War on Christmas, religion. 3. The end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet will be the end of the Republic. 4. Blah blah blah So now it's any port in the storm for you, huh? War on Christmas? Jesus F'ing Christ. What does your post have to do with the, now, fact, that nobody cares, never mind is afraid of being a social/intellectual/political pariah... ....when you call them a Climate Change "denier"? You want to start a thread about right-wing scare tactics, go right ahead. But, that's got nothing to do with this thread. This thread = the liars have been exposed, and, nobody is afraid of being called anything...by proven liars. Your bringing up non sequitors to this argument merely proves that you know what I am saying is true...so now it's on to something else for you. Any port in the storm is right. Edited March 4, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic." And that's the problem for the left: and the right sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable... Pulease Listen to any right winger....I will help you out: 1. Obama is a socialist and the US will not survive his Presidency 2. War on Christmas, religion. 3. The end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet will be the end of the Republic. 4. Blah blah blah I don't recall anyone saying the end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet [what ever the hell that means] will be the end of the republic. But you say so so it must be right. But you seem like the type who would hide under the bed and call 911 so I guess self defense is not important to you.
Recommended Posts