Guest whatever by David Middleton
The New Language of Climate Change
Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers.
By BRYAN BENDER January 27, 2019
PHOENIX—Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.
That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.
[…]
That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists…
[…]
The hope is to persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects—as well as the people who vote for them—that something needs to be done or their own livelihoods and health will be at stake.
The new language taking root is meant to instill this sense of urgency about what is happening in ways to which everyday citizens can relate—without directly blaming it on human activity…
[…]
“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,” Bernadette Woods Placky, an Emmy award-winning meteorologist who directs the Climate Matters program at Climate Central, told me.
[…]
“They see it firsthand,” Robert Mark Simpson, a professor of geography at the University of Tennessee at Martin, told me. “There is a sort of acknowledgment that the climate is changing. They just don’t think humans are that impactful. [They think blaming humans is] a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. economy.”
[…]
I asked Grandy that question. He believes recognition is just Step One and hopes that once doubters see climate change as the dire threat it is, it will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.
After all, he said, climate change “is happening whether they like it or not. If they ignore it, it is still going to happen.”
I’m not sure if I excerpted the dumbest or least dumbest bits of this article. There’s not much dynamic range between the dumbest and least dumbest bits.
I got a big kick out of this… “Scientists *and* meteorologists”… Aren’t meteorologists scientists? I’m pretty sure they are, except for the meteorologists quoted in this article.
Then there’s this… “avoiding the phrase ‘climate change’”… Weren’t these same people vilifying President Trump and several Republican governors for doing exactly that? Avoiding the phrase “climate change”???
“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that”… WTF??? We’ve been telling you that for decades…
“[They think blaming humans is] a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. economy”… Nonsense! It’s a conspiracy to overthrow all capitalist economies, not just the U.S. …
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
Do these “scientists and meteorologists” really think that all they need to do is to redefine the language?
This one is priceless…
“[I]t will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.”
— Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist for the CBS affiliate in Columbia, S.C.
Hey Jimbo! How did you get from Columbia SC to Phoenix AZ? Did you walk? Did you ride a bicycle? Did you drive a 100% electric vehicle, powered by 100% Unicorn farts?
Regarding phasing out fossil fuels…
Phasing out fossil fuels?
Some call it socialism.
Others call it a cognitive disorder.
About the only thing they haven’t tried is the TRUTH…but that would hurt their cause
Not “cognitive” but far more basic. “Catastrophism” in any guise is a psychogenic debility, manifest not merely as an intellectual but a moral and thereby spiritually self-destructive tropism. Whatever their ostensible metier, ie. whatever excuses color doom-sayers’ antinomian ends-over-means, results are ever and everywhere the same.
Rather than indulge rank speculation, demonize your ‘orrible opponents, we recommend Will James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience” (Gifford lectures, delivered in Edinburgh 1901 – ’02), particularly the early 16th Century Anabaptists of Munster. Hung in iron cages from Munster’s cathedral tower, let the three leaders’ fate be a caution to us all. By the way, half a millennium later the cages are still there.
not unlike Global Warming that is a word that is now verboten! But at least they are now willing to inform us that all we have to do is “phase out” burning fossil fuel. That means fossil fuels for me [elites and the bureaucrats who do their bidding] but not for thee – peons.
Unfortunately 90% of 21st century public school graduates have no idea what that will do to the quality of their life. “Yeah! lets ban fossil fuel! We are saving the Planet. What do you mean we need to chop more wood to get warm. Somebody turn up the thermostat.”
My son (in high school) sometimes engages the alarmists when they are planning to stop all usage of fossil fuels.
He has repeatedly been told, (to paraphrase) “Why should we use polluting fossil fuels when we could just use electricity?”
You cannot debate people at that level of ignorance and indoctrination.
Q: What did Communists use to light their houses before Candles?
A: Electricity
He should lead them to the nearest trash receptacle and tell them “you want to stop using fossil fuels, then start here by tossing out your fossil fuel made smartphone (and anything else made using plastic that they have on them) and other electronic devices.” then tell them to “strip off any cloths made from polyester, nylon or other petroleum derives artificial fibers and toss those as well”
For sure, 100% of the people who call for socialism, also call for the move away from fossil fuels.
I’ll bet you that global cooling, not the global warming, if ever comes around it will be far worse than socialism/quasi-communism I lived in.
real name: Communism
Don’t sugar coat it.
Is it time for that classic song “Amazing Ice” just yet, or should we wait a bit?
“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,”
This is what the controversy is all about. Sure, the effect is finite, but the controversy is about how large that effect is. The IPCC claims it’s so large that a climate catastrophe will result, while the skeptics assert an effect less than the lower bound below which the IPCC even considers that no action would be necessary (this was actually the criteria for how the IPCC came up with its lower limit). Since there’s no overlap in the estimates from either side, the controversy will not go away until the laws of physics falsify one position or the other. To be sure, the laws of physics unambiguously falsify the entire range of the IPCC’s ECS, so the solution is to restore the rules of science to climate science and climate alarmism will go the way of an Earth-centric Universe and the skeptics will prevail.
Definitely. CAGW comprises four words, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Even if it is AGW, it almost certainly is not catastrophic. And if there is global warming, the evidence that it is anthropogenic is ambiguous at best.
Logically, it doesn’t make any difference if warming is due to mankind or natural forces. If it’s going to be destructive, AND IF we can do something about it, SUCH THAT the expected benefits or our actions exceed the expected costs, then why wouldn’t we take action? Under those conditions, what difference does it make if mankind were the proximate cause or if it was 99% natural?
Conversely, if warming is going to be destructive, if there is nothing we can do about, then again it does not matter if we are the proximate cause or not. For any proposed course of action, if the expected costs exceed the expected benefits, then we should not take action.
The “A” in CAGW is not relevant.
Steve O,
Whether the A is relevant is crucial to the remedy. If it doesn’t and we waste trillions moving away from fossil fuels, we will have spent money on ineffective mitigation that would have been better spent on preparation.
Always assuming that there actually is an warming. All the warming I have seen this century has come from data rewriting by NOAA and the BOM.
Hivemind, just ask a Historian. The last Ice Fair on the Thames was in 1825 and a huge number of other recorded instances means that we can categorically say that the Earth has warmed.
Might be a poor example there, JohnB.
Two things that help ice form.
1 – being really cold
2 – the water being stationary
One of the things that helped provide the correct environment for a frozen Thames was that the bridges of that era were multi span and had a significant effect of the speed of the water flow.
When the bridges were replaced with newer designs with wider spans they helped increase the flow of the river.
So in short Frost Fairs (or whatever they liked to call them) are probably not the debate ending examples you are looking for.
Craig from Oz. Not a lot of frozen rivers down there eh? Fast flowing rivers freeze over every winter in Canuckistan and when it is really cold all forms of water including very fast flowing streams freeze over and often to the very bottom. If bridge supports appreciably slowed the flow of the whole channel of the Thames then the volume of the river would have increased correspondingly and the Thames would have been much wider with stone bridges than it is now. What really happens is that pillars cause a small drop in water elevation downstream and a small increase in river elevation ahead of the pillars which causes an increase in the flow rate between the pillars but short distances from the bridge the river level and flow rate are unaffected. If bridges caused a substantial elevation differential then the water velocity between pillars would increase to the point that even a weak stone river bed between pillars, let alone a silt bed, would be eroded. I guess Australia is so flat and dry that there is not much chance to observe rivers, and even less to observe frozen ones.
co2isnotevil:
“…waste trillions moving away from fossil fuel …”
I suspect that much of the impetus for all the fooforaw about climate change comes from those who stand to benefit from those trillions. Estimates of the amount necessary to completely ‘decarbonize’ the world (i.e. cover everything in windmills and solar panels) ranges up to the hundred trillion dollar mark. With money like that sloshing around, some people are going to get very, very rich.
It would be interesting to see if any of the three trillion that has been spent to date has found its way into the pockets of the leading lights in the American Meteorological Society.
That is the problem and what SteveO avoids. It is that point they invoke socialism that is the most moral and corrupt political system that exists as a remedy and that political system has failed everytime because it fails basic morality.
The moral problem in socialism is most micro transactions between two parties involves at least one of the party losing out, they have to use hope as a basis. Compare that to capitialism where in any micro transactions between two parties both parties must benefit from the transaction or it would not happen.
So it transpires in socialism that the only people that gain something are those who have little to offer by way of micro transactions and that is people who have little to offer society everyone else is losing. In capitialism those who have little to offer by way of micro transactions are disadvantaged but they are the ones with the problems and what needs to be fixed or have support to improve.
Truly, if the ‘A’ isn’t valid, then any funds wasted on CO2 reduction are funds that could have been used for mitigation or adaptation.
If humans are not the cause we will not be able to do anything to be the cure.
SR
Woo-hoo! Steve Reddish, you win the Interwebz for today!!! 😉
ergo:
We know that crime is more rampant in specific neighborhoods, so why don’t we just arrest everyone in those neighborhoods just to be safe.
Logically, it doesn’t make any difference if warming is due to mankind or natural forces. If it’s going to be destructive
Sorry steve but it make *all* the difference. If man caused it than man can do something about it (namely, stop doing whatever it was they did). If it’s natural, that means man didn’t cause it and thus can’t do anything to stop it (man does not command nature), the best man can do in that case it to adapt to it when the time comes as needed.
While two sides with non-overlapping estimates may be most vocal, there are positions in between, and I think it is plausible that they will shown to be most adequate.
This would mean that there is likely a warming trend of a bit more than 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. No catastrophe is imminent, and so far, the advantages have probably outweighed the disadvantages (especially if global greening due to CO2 is taken into account), but in the long run, some measures for limiting emissions are probably advisable – no hasty, radical measures for decarbonization that are dictated by panic and fear of catastrophe, but moderate policies that use technical progress.
Adrian E.
Except that the entire range of the IPCC’s ECS can be falsified which precludes any possible overlap that’s also consistent with the known laws of physics. None the less, incremental CO2 does have an effect, but this effect is demonstrably less than the lower limit presumed by the IPCC. In fact, even the COE constrained theoretical upped bound of 2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponds to only about 0.35C per W/m^2 which is already less than the IPCC’s presumed lower limit of about 0.4C per W/m^2.
Ma’ Gaia
Are there “alternative” (non-fossil fuel) sources of energy that are “suitable for purpose?” Do you know anyone who is opposed to using any “alternative” fuel that is “suitable for purpose.” Does anyone really care if the Koch brothers should be made paupers because the sources of their wealth have been made obsolete and/or anachronistic by advances in technology?
A quick note to the warmistas: Go to work, develop something workable than bring it to the already existing massive worldwide market. The market awaits your move.
This reminds me of Obama musing that the reason why people didn’t like ObamaCare was because he hadn’t been giving enough speeches on the topic.
I’m tempted to suggest adding “Known Unknowns” to your list of terms as we do not have an exact knowledge of CO2 /climate sensitivity, except that it keeps creeping closer and closer to so small a number that before long it may be possible to suggest it is meaningless compared to other factors.
Changing words to frighten the children is not going to cut it for the scare-mongers anymore, it has been done to death and coming up with climate cancer (!) will just expose them as idiotic. As it is, most rational people look at the real world and roll their eyes or laugh at global warming. They have simply failed to understand that they can keep screaming hysterically, but more and more people no longer believe doom is arriving, tomorrow or in twelve years time. You blew it with all the lies guys!
Moderately (if I may!?):
‘coming up with climate cancer will just expose them as idiotic’ – well, maybe.
But Climatic Coronary [perhaps] might just do it!
Mods – /Sarc
Auto
Let’s just say ” climate farct”.
Should keep everyone happy.
On the left, it is never a case of their message being bad, it is always the fault of the messaging. I am reminded of the phrase, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
“[I]t will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.”
Yeah, ’cause all those fossil fuels are burning themselves and it doesn’t matter if it’s “humans or not.”
“…persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies…”
These are “top scientists” who think this is what is happening. A small, powerful minority. Feel my power!!!
I’m supposed to trust that THESE savants have successfully modeled the global climate and deserve our trust to make policy that will cost tens of trillions of dollars, and they can’t even figure out the basics of their opposition.
We have top men working on it.
Indiana Jones: “Who??”
G-man” Top. Men.”
Brilliant! 👍
Around 1000 people move to Florida…every day
“the small but powerful minority “
Isn’t that supposed to already be underwater? They must be unfortunate migrants with no where else to go. We should bail them out with a good gov. program so they can move to mountainous areas of Alaska and Canada.
And my area is getting over run. They just keep building. And now, the Atlanta Braves will be holding spring training here. I guess I gotta go somewhere else.
You mean go to G’s waiting room, where more than 1k pass to the next room every day.
I’m still curious to know more about the
I will certainly vote for them if somebody tells me who they are and when the election is.
Fact is, we were hearing this kind of twaddle long before Trump was elected.
I think the truth these people fail to take on board is that they are asking for policies that are so economically damaging and harmful to human lives that, when push comes to shove, most political leaders still balk at the idea of trying to implement them. These same politicians will say all the right words to try and keep the green crazies on board, and throw them some (very expensive) bones, but they still usually recognize political and economic suicide when they see it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there SOME point during Obama’s 8 years that the Democrats controlled all three branches of government… and all the deep state, the media, the schools and pretty much every other major organization short of the NBA?
So why didn’t they do anything important back then?
~¿~
THEY DID!
“In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its science-based finding that the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare. The “Endangerment Finding” reflects the overwhelming scientific evidence on the causes and impacts of climate change. It was made after a thorough rulemaking process considering thousands of public comments, and was upheld by the federal courts.
The Endangerment Finding requires the EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and four other heat-trapping air pollutants from vehicles, power plants, and other industries. The EPA’s Endangerment Finding followed the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA holding that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. This law, the Court held, obligates the EPA to curb pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, including by contributing to climate change.”
THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
Yes, they even had a super-majority of 60 in the Senate and so were not hamstrung by filibuster rules. They could have passed anything that they wanted.
Clearly you underestimate the power of the NBA in American policy making.
/snark 😀
(well either the NBA or Tony Abbott. Australian media KNOW he is to blame for everything)
“The old lies haven’t worked, so we need to invent new, more creative ways of lying”. The Climate Propagandists still think it’s all about “communication”. Hilarious.
“When the body was first created, all the parts wanted to be Boss. The brain said, “I should be Boss because I control all of the body’s responses and functions.”
The feet said, “We should be Boss since we carry the brain about and get him to where he wants to go.”
The hands said, “We should be the Boss because we do all the work and earn all the money.”
Finally, the azzhole spoke up. All the parts laughed at the idea of the azzhole being the Boss. So, the azzhole went on strike, blocked itself up and refused to work.
Within a short time, the eyes became crossed, the hands clenched, the feet twitched, the heart and lungs began to panic, and the brain fevered. Eventually, they all decided that the azzhole should be the Boss, so the motion was passed. All the other parts did all the work while the Boss just sat and passed out the sh&$!”
This seems appropriate to the idea of AMS setting public policy
I like this.
Currently my azzhole dictates my lifestyle. It has a mind of its own not to be challenged and I nip around it’s requirements often quite efficiently, but not always.
Admittedly this is due to previous ops. and current chemo. All I have to do is maintain my sanity – flailing the air, just as I do with the political effluent we are now being subjected to.
Sometimes I think that so called manipulated democracy is the azzhole of sensible decision making.
Very sorry for your troubles.
Unfortunately the proposed cure for Atmosphere Cancer is Economic Chemotherapy.
+42 x 1042
True.
This is fun. Predicting the future based on mass psychology of liberal fads and the engineering/economic implications of spending billions and billions on schemes that do not work and taxing the heck out of energy.
Before there is actual death, there will be push back. There is a race to see which state will reach the end of their electives’ support for the green scams.
CAGW the idea, is popular as there are no competing crises and planetary temperature increased prior to the plateau.
“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,”
=======?
This is one of the stupidest quotes I’ve read in some time, and that includes some pretty stiff competition.
How will cutting out fossil fuels have prevented the romans warming or the medieval warming or the little ice age?
The point is it would have made no difference and no one can be sure that the current warming is the product of human co2.
Especially since temperatures levelled just as China’s co2 spiked upwards. We may well be shooting ourselves in the foot, only to find well have to go on a 100 mile forced march to save ourselves from being overrun by mother nature.
So they are telling us it may or may not be human caused, but their solution tells a different tail:
“. . . the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint”
What are we going to do to save our unborn decedents from climate “whatever” if it is not human caused? After all, we care so much for them. We could abort them (that may be telling as to how much we care for our unborn decedents).
Whatever the new language intends, it doesn’t change the facts. So or so, it hides the truth.
I’d like to hear someone telling me about the effects that ‘whatever we call it’ is having locally. Having been in Norfolk over 60 years there aren’t many weather variations I haven’t seen before. The biggest change is all those wind farms off the coast.
The hope is to persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects…
Pure projection once again. The small minority is the alarmists themselves, but from their ivory tower echo chamber they only hear their own synchronized cries. Poll after poll puts climate change dead last in the minds of the rest of humanity.
It’s dead Jim.
But their minds are superior, therefor only their minds have a say.
Hubris? or stupidity? tough call I think.
Hubris and stupidity, driven by arrogance and bigotry.
So this is how clueless they are, not only about the science, but about the past decade of current events. They already abandoned the scientific language and debate, this is just them coming to grips with that reality in their own delusional way.
“After all, he said, climate change “is happening whether they like it or not. If they ignore it, it is still going to happen.””
Well…yes!
…but they will never notice it happening as it occurs so slowly
I noticed that too. He’s not helping his argument. There should be an addition there that it is good for us and yes, (no matter how many times they try and con us), we are an insignificant part of it. It is an extremely gradual natural event that most life will adapt to and actually thrive off it. The problem for him is, good news doesn’t allow for massive funds to be allocated for fighting it. Actually having to work for a living is a scary concept to many.
Look at the ice core records, or historical records. “Gradual” is not a word that can be applied to most climate change.
The belief that climate only changes slowly is why the alarmists are alarmed. IF climate only changes slowly then a more rapid change demands that an external driver be involved. However if natural change is rapid (as the records show) then even rapid change is normal and not to be concerned about, just dealt with.
Or used to delude the masses to accept their “solutions”.
By the time the masses realize those “solution” haven’t changed anything, the masses will have been stripped of their rights and ability to change anything.
Yup.
Precisely the phrase I was going to comment on:
Once again the alarmists strive to imply that “skeptics” (or now more commonly and spin-doctorally referred to today as “denialists”)
are ignoring (or denying) the fact that the climate is changing, that they don’t believe it’s happening…
Such predictable, cynical, propagandistic, manipulative twisting of reality…
and it works.
So now it is to be caused Ä Cancer of the atmosphere” Very well so be it, although I thought that the vast seas also had something to do with the weather come climate.
So how do we treat Cancer, why one way is by radiation theraphy. So lets go Nuclear, problem solved.
MJE
Climate change is not a cancer of the Earth, it is what a healthy Earth does all the time, naturally. If climate stopped changing, I would be worried that there really was a problem.
There is a good reason why we view alarmists as the proselytes of Chicken Little.
“Climate Change,” or “climate change”, or “climate changes,” or “changing climate” are all simply a slick Marketing 101 messaging strategy. Any lucid conversation that starts out to discuss climate change, the conversants must identify and define the terms to be used, this most assuredly includes “climate change”. Otherwise everyone is doing exactly what the Climate Hustlers intend, that is talking past each other to reach an ignorant viewing audience with a marketing message: “Don’t look stupid, buy our product and stay quiet.”
Every computer program starts out telling by the defining what the variables are to come later, defining the data structures to be used, before they are used, and setting data types such string length, integer, floating point, etc.
Every engineering problem I ever solved for a class or program started out with a “Given” block to show what was assumed or given constants (or physical parameters like Young’s Modulus of the steel to be used, etc) before the question or problem was attacked on paper. Essential so that another engineer who looks at it (the instructor usually) knows what is assumed, and what is to be found/solved from that.
Climate Change has so many different definitions, used in so many different contexts, the slicker climate hustlers slip and slide between “climate change” and “changing climate” meanings in mid-conversation or mid-paragraph. Al Gore is famous for this.
So much of the climate deception in the marketing of Climate Change is based on interchangeable definitions depending on the target audience. Too often, people do not want to appear dumb, so they do not demand the speaker or writer define their terms as everyone else is nodding approvingly at a the bias confirmation they are hearing. Too many ignorant reporters simply write articles filled with the use of the term “climate change” like everyone just assumes what it means to them. I think it likely most reporters do not know there are many differing technical definitions of that term as well as the non-technical context such as simply “climate change” = “climate changes” = “changes in climate”, where the operative word “change” slips back and forth between being a noun or a verb by the climate hustlers.
Because of this easy marketing deception with the term “climate change,” I doubt the Climate Hustlers will ever abandon it for something that’ll make most people’s eyes roll, like “Climate Cancer” or “Climate Weirding.” There simply is too much utility in keeping the climate change hustle going with the obfuscation of the meaning of the terms.
Ugh, I forgot to put in the “end bold” mark-up code between “mid-paragrph” and “Al Gore.”
Agreed:
However, the other factor that is a partner to this observation is that those arguing a position start with some assumption they believe is unquestionable and from there argue conclusions. Obviously if the starting assumption in an “if then” statement is false, then so is the conclusion (Duh!)
This article glosses over the biggest false assumption, universally used by alarmists, as well as scientists in related fields who base their papers on this false belief:
There needs to be a massive push by both ordinary skeptics as well as people of significant influence (e.g. POTUS) to shout NO, IT’S NOT UNUSUAL!!! and back it up with hard data from real scientists like Drs Spencer, Christie and Pielke.
The theme music for our pushback could be Tom Jones’ pop song “It’s Not Unusual”.
Progressivism is the Cancer – a brain cancer that erodes cognitive higher reasoning functions of the neocortex, while leaving the mouth and writing skills still connected to the Limbic (emotional) system functions. Outwardly, this manifests as mental illness.
I absolutely love all kinds of alternative, non-fossil fuel sources of energy that don’t result in the emission of CO2 when they are being used. Luv em luv em luv em. And I think it is a cryin’ damned shame that the laws of physics are such that none of the alternative sources are sustainable or ‘suitable for purpose” for anyone other than Alice (and maybe other fantasizers).
Fission fits the bill now and fusion is the energy source of the future. The big problem with reducing CO2 is the impact on agriculture. Ironically, when we eventually run out of fossil fuels, we will need to burn limestone to keep agriculture from crashing.
I want to add a name to your list:
Atmospheric Repression
Oh heck, let’s do some more:
Atmospheric Rape
Atmospheric Marginalization
Atmospheric Racism
Atmospheric Injustice
Atmospheric Bullying
How about Atmospheric Psychological Maiming in honor of Lewandowski
The Intersectionality of Atmospheric Repression !
What ever that means …
good work! no babble speak is complete without intersectionality
Does it mean demanding a …
Sustainable Atmosphere
??
(can I claim a green vest now?)
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
“The mercy of the wicked is cruel.” -Solomon
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
-François-Marie Arouet
my thought exactly!
Excellent quote. Send it to the Democrats and suggest it is used as their banner at the next convention. Maybe add the strap line, “Come join the Democrats”
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” – Voltaire
My favourite comment of Alexander Solzhenitsyn is: “All men are born with different capabilities; those who are free are not equal; those who are equal are not free”.
Yet socialists would insist that we conform – in thought and deed – except themselves.
Focus on how “unusual” things are, and what’s it’s costing communities.
Yeah, this will work. It’s like stupidity and cluelessness are chronic diseases that only get worse over time.. It’s honestly quite amusing.
pokerguy