Interesting: The Same People Pushing Climate Change Also Want To Legalize Pot
Wait a second, some of you may be saying, that Tim Murray snowstorm was in October, so how can it be global warming? If anything, it’s global cooling.
Which is why the moonbats changed the name. The latest iteration is “climate catastrophe.” You remember the movie “Apocalypse Now”? Climate catastrophe is Apocalypse Down the Road.
So the way it works now is, if it’s hot, it’s climate catastrophe. If it’s cold, it’s climate catastrophe. If it rains a lot, or if it’s not raining – well, you get the picture.
Why do you think the same moonbats pushing climate catastrophe also want to legalize pot? It’s a lot easier to put this three-card monte game over on couch potatoes who are so stoned they can’t remember what happened 10 minutes ago.
Come to think of it, they sound a lot like Deval’s voters.
Now, not all who want to legalize pot are climate hysterics. Certainly, there are some Libertarians who advocate legalizing pot (and most drugs). There are some, like myself, who couldn’t care less one way or the other about legalizing pot. Yet, it is certainly liberals who are pushing hard to legalize it. But, really, the main point is that Warmists have determined that everything is “climate change”. Man caused. Because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle to work instead of biking 20 miles. And forgot to unplug every appliance at home. And used hair spray. And took a 5 minute shower. Used more than 2 pieces of toilet paper. Your fault. Not the fault of Warmists who do the same, because they “spread awareness”. Your fault that there was a big snowstorm in October.
Interestingly, these same leftists are pitching a fit over the use of electronic cigarettes at the Golden Globes, like they did with cigarettes. Yet, they want pot to be legal. Which is weird, because people get the munchies while stoned. And want food like pizza. Which makes people fat. And fat people are Bad for “climate change”.
Wayne Lusvardi writes
The term (climate change) is used with such vagueness that it could never be used in a scientific experiment to meet Karl Popper’s test of falsifiability. The term has been made so politically correct that it has become Orwellian doublespeak.
Climate change has little to do with science and the scientific method. It provides for no falsifiability. It is circular logic. Ask any Warmist what conditions would disprove “climate change”. So far, they haven’t provided specific conditions. Wayne goes on to fully define “climate change”
Karl Marx was right about one observation. People use ideologies as covers for economic conflicts, although such conflicts are not the sole driving force of history.
Climate change is an ideology in a trade war between a cartel of basin topography states with smoggy cities that don’t want to depend on imported fossil fuel and electricity and plains states that rely on indigenous abundant fossil fuels and can export it to basin states.
“Climate change,” unpacked, is an ideological smokescreen from the reality of this trade war and used to gain political legitimacy for uneconomic alternative energy.
I’m not sure I fully agree with his conclusion as such, but it is true that “climate change” is a trade war between the Left and Right, with the left using the notion of Hotcoldwetdry to institute hardcore Progressive (nice fascism) economic, political, and social ideals on Everyone Else. Not on themselves, of course.
Because you haven’t been exposed enough to the so-called science of anthropogenic global warming, er, climate change, er, climate crisis,
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham
Is there nothing that AGW doesn’t effect? Here’s a question for all you Freakonomic’s fans out there: what do this