Loon-atic Mann complains that an essay by 75-year old Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise that was posted on a AmmoLand.com is a “thinly-veiled” threat.
Michael Mann accuses prominent skeptic of threatening to shoot him, other warmists
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.
I’ve already mentioned in some related thread that in the modern politically correct language, “smear” means “exposure”. “Criminal smear” (also often heard from Mann) means “damaging revelation”. The meaning of “hate” in his language is pretty much the same as in everybody else’s; of note here is that he can only invite hate (a poltically incorrect sentiment) by posing as a scientist.
What other effect did he expect? Love? Admiration? Compassion?
Those given to delusion are often paranoid.
If Mr. Arnold does pose a threat to scientists, Michael Mann is safe.
I don’t think Michael Mann realizes how useful he is to the skeptic position. He has nothing to fear.
The website is called AmmoLand. The article is scathing in its accurate depiction of Mann, Hansen and the Enablers. It is also perfectly civil in tone. Any “threat” here is as fabricated as the Schtick itself.
As a relative newcomer (3 yrs.) to studying this whole “global cooling/global warming/climate change/we’re all gonna die” debate, perhaps what stands out most to this observer is the utter duplicity and tactics used by those who would sell their souls for grant money, plum jobs in academia or government sitting behind computer screens, all-the-while throwing objective truth (in this case, science) in the trash can. The “Rules of the Game” link posted in Mr. Arnolds’ article, as published by futerra, reveals the extent of their mendacity–not unlike the following sentiments articulated by Climatology Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford and Timothy Worth of the UN Foundation:
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination . . . So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~Schneider
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing . . .” ~Wirth
http://www.green-agenda.com
In other words, it’s OK to lie, at the cost of jobs and homes and businesses in “walkable/sustainable” redevelopment zones that are the planned outcome and direct result of this nonsense. Ammoland’s graphic is spot-on–communism is environmentalism!
You mentioned “walkable/sustainable” zones. In truth, it’s simply impractical to walk far enough to save significant amounts of gasoline, air pollutants, or CO2 unless development is very dense. Dense development creates its own environmental issues, though, and it’s probably a net zero gain or loss.
MT, it’s been a while since I’ve checked up on my dated posts, but I’m glad I did in this case. Here’s a great article for you on Agenda 21, Smart Growth “walkable/sustainable” redevelopment zones. It’s found in the Journal of the American Planning Association (the primary NGO in the USA spreading the UN’s land-grabbing nonsense to local governments via “Local Agenda 21,” [next to ICLEI, that is]). I can’t believe they published it! The title of the article is “Growing Cities Sustainably,” and can be accessed at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2012.666731
An excellent preview and synopsis of the report (and a link) can be found in Charles Battig’s July 21, 2012 article “Are city planners out-SMART-ing themselves?”
http://www.cfact.org/a/2154/Are-city-planners-outSMARTing-themselves
Enjoy your next hour or so, and Lord bless.
I almost forgot. When you’re finished, compare what you’ve just read with this:
http://www.news.heartland.org/editorial/2003/11/10/ceaucescu-father-smart-growth
One of the arguments on the Left is that the Second Amendment interferes with the First Amendment. This supposedly happens because people exercising free speech naturally fear being shot by people bearing arms.
This argument is actually rather difficult to deal with. I tried. If you deny that things are really like that, the Liberal says, ‘but it does, my fear is very real’. If you push the point that the fear is unreasonable, the Liberal says, ‘you’re accusing me of paranoia and that’s an ad hominem’.
There is a good deal of truth in the corollary to the popular maxim. ‘Just because you’re being paranoid sometimes means you’re just being paranoid’.
I don’t see how that is compelling at all.
Assassination is illegal.
If someone is willing to break that law is he going to go through the legal channels to submit to background checks, magazine capacity limits, and gun bans.
The laws these people propose infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, and that’s called tyranny.
If your friend thinks it is justifiable to infringe on peoples rights to prevent violence, point out that if he were silenced there would be no chance he could inspire violence.
After all, that is the argument the left makes when it comes to speech that causes threats from terrorists. I seem to recall some stupid youtube video that was blamed for causing violence in Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan.
And if your erudite friend tries to say that is a strawman argument, tell him he’s wrong: it’s a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Oh and tell him I said he’s an idiot. That’s an ad hominem.