On Earth Day, shots fired at building housing leading climate skeptic scientists

This is totally unacceptable. A plain case of attempted intimidation. What’s the difference between this and Terrorism?

First, 5.7×28 is not a joke of a cartridge. Please see the Fort Hood shootings. It is a legitimate anti-personnel cartridge. Further, as previously noted, it is an uncommon, and relatively expensive cartridge. The two firearms I know of chambered for the round are also relatively expensive. I would be interested in the composition of the retrieved bullet fragments. If aluminum, it may well indicate an element of premeditation in seeking penetration into the building.
Second, 7 rounds hitting the same floor at 70 yards would eliminate, in my mind, any kind of drive-by approach. It would, in my mind, require an extraordinary talent to pull that off with a rifle at 15-30 mph, never mind a pistol. So either a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist with a likely stop, possible dismount.
Shooting at that range, with a rest, or prone position, it should be possible to achieve those hits on a given floor with a pistol. Off a car door, or resting on the hood or roof of a car, I’d say eminently doable. Given the relative scarcity of the P90, and desirability of easy concealment, I’d guess pistol. Knowing grouping of shots would further narrow to either P90 or pistol.
Shooting at a given floor would indicate a fairly narrow focus of resentment, in my mind. This would further narrow the pool to people with enough knowledge of staff on a given floor to target their work environment. Probably male, given the use of firearm. Unable to say more about motivation, though.
I’d say check traffic cameras, specifically look for vehicles that complete transit of the area in a significantly longer period of time, say an additional 1-2 minutes. Should narrow the pool. I’d say pedestrian or cyclist probably less likely, they’d want to clear the area quickly.
Just my speculation, a fun thought problem.

Black Psyops, cool.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
The radical, intolerant, violent Left…
“When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvment in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.”
As Marc Morano correctly notes: imagine the outrage if Michael Mann’s office was shot at during a “sceptics” march!
A disturbing development, though sadly not surprising as the radical Left elevates its violent oppression, worldwide, to any dissenting belief that doesn’t fit with its own.

Totally unacceptable.
It’s time to address Trump directly because he promised to make the USA safe again.
Just take his word on that and find the coward freak who fired the bullets.
Don’t let them get away with this.

Seven bullets fired at a building, and instantly everyone knows
a) that it was aimed at Christy or Spencer
b) that it was designed to intimidate
c) the perpetrator must be a global warming supporter
d) the perpetrator must be a left-wing ideologue
Now I don’t doubt that anyone in that building can and should be worried about “random” shootings at a building, but on the basis of the same evidence:
1. It could be a spurned lover, wife or husband
2. It could be someone who is mentally ill
3. It could be a “false flag” operation by an armed climate skeptic
4. It could be random
On the basis of evidence
i) none hit a window from 70 yards
ii) no-one saw the shooting
iii) the bullets were fired when almost nobody would have been in the building
iv) the bullets were clustered together indicating aim.
If you’re going to intimidate someone inside a building then the least you could do is make sure a) that the intended victim was in the building and b) that you hit a window not just the brickwork.
That’s the problem with climate science – everyone thinks they know something for a fact without any actual facts.
And the commenters on this blog too.