A Facebook Rant about Guns and Global Warming

This was a rant in response to the pic down below to one of my relatives...who stated the global temperature had risen 10c this year...

Side point, there is debate if this year's temperate is 10 degrees warmer. There is also debate about how much of climate change (note I didn't say global warming) is due to man made activity, and if it is to what extent. There is no debate that pollution is bad. While everyone is talking about trying to bring some sort of carbon tax into play that is really just a scam that will enrich the usual political/corporate mafia we are for the most part ignoring seriously real ecological catastrophes, like dumping plastics into the ocean and Fukushima. As to guns, one gun death is a tragedy, 30,000 gun deaths is an epidemic. Using your above logic we should be targeting sugar and automobiles which kill way more per year than firearms do, but interestingly few post about those. But I would also like to remind people that these are macro figures in a nation of 313 million people, and how was that magic number calculated? I'm not questioning the number's rough level of accuracy, just what qualifies as gun deaths. Gang on gang violence, defense of home invasions, accidents, what? I'm assuming all...which makes that number less meaningful. And lastly, my biggest point. It would be naive to assume that that corrupt millionaires in both political parties have our best interest in these two areas at heart when they consistently sell out the American people at every turn. You think anthropomorphic climate change, real, imagined, or in the process of being understood, would magically not be used by politicians with nefarious ends to further hidden agendas? Every other issue is...but yet we are expected to automatically believe in the moral purity of those who propose draconian and fascist measures to help prevent climate change...sorry if I'm skeptical. Also those 30,000ish gun deaths, I've studied the numbers some. Less than 500 of those deaths come from the types of weapons (assault rifles) that the government continues to try to ban. Criminals often go for smaller weapons that they conceal more easily. Some other things to ponder...since the UK and Australia banned guns the murder rate went down, but evidence is that it is creeping up again. Also rape, robbery, and other violent crime rates went way up...a correlation? I don't know but the link should be explored regardless of political convenience. There are millions of firearms in possession of the public, these will not magically disappear when laws are passed to ban them and these guns will remain in criminal hands indefinitely, unless you want to create an uber police state to "keep us all safe" which would essentially end American freedom. But that is in process. For some good reads check out The club of Rome and eugenics / depopulation quotes. I'm a conspiracy theorist sure, but out of the mouths of those who the public trusts to deal with guns and climate change comes some very, very interesting quotes for those willing to listen...

Just say'en. I don't know what the answers are (I would agree that arming teachers is a way less than optimal solution...though the "receive the first bullet" logic applies to any known armed person on campus if they are known and if the attackers are methodical psychopaths). I just wish people would stay skeptical. Everyone acknowledges that the federal government has some serious issues with being captured by special interest (banksters, trans-national corporations, radical ideological fringes), but yet many argue that we need to give the federal government constantly more power to deal with problems. I'm not sure given the current state of things that is wise. Especially knowing history. And especially when most of the proposed solutions involve giving up more and more personal freedoms for promised returns that may or may not materialize that are also often littered with unforeseen or quietly down-played consequences. Perhaps the first place to start is to try to get honest people to represent us in office. It doesn't matter what ideology they are, as long as they tell the truth, have all their cards on the table, and have a minimal level of corruption (I'm too jaded to think zero corruption is possible). Having conversations about all the issues that society faces is good and I welcome them. There should be no sacred cows... Just the potential solutions I'm seeing that are getting the most political traction as well as the groups behind said solutions make me shutter...

Global Warming Rant

This was taken from a Google+ debate I was having.

First it was global cooling in the 70ies, a new ice age was going to get us.  Then it was global warming, we are all going to cook off.  Then it became climate change, and now "Global Climate Destablization issues".  And those on the enlightened left, like , are here to listen and weigh the evidence carefully by not looking at any evidence that doesn't jive with a preconceived outcome all the while weeping for humanity.  Humanity is lucky to have such guardians. 

Also let's take on 's understanding of the Founding Fathers.  Many of them came from state's where you had to swear allegiance to God in order to have office, http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/167/Delaware_Constitution_of_1776_1.html the the primary textbook at the time was the Bible http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/evolving_classroom/books.html .  I'm not advocating that, but you don't get a pass to spin history to meet a foundation delusion that supports a false ideology.  You accuse me of it, surely you do not wish to do the same.

And to why a lot of the "denial" information comes through conspiracy sites might have to do with things like this- http://goo.gl/Jfi7Gi Think that the fact of a scientific expedition to Antarctica to investigate claims of vanishing ice getting stuck in ice on the way there some in the public might find interesting?  But on
these issues there is essentially soft censorship...we can't have the prolies getting their little minds confused and asking questions of the conclusions of their betters.

First, there are a variety of issues here.  Climate change obviously happens, it has been happening sense the earth's existence, and will continue to happen.No one is debating that.  What is being debated is if human economic activity has an impact on climate change and to what degree.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/  Also being debated is if man caused climate change, significant or imagined, is being used as a political football to promote a  political agenda that has nothing to do with climate change...aka "The Conspiracy".

On the conspiracy side of things, here is a link with a few interesting quotes that can start as a bread crumb for research if you are interested- http://toryaardvark.com/2012/08/07/the-real-green-agenda/ .  Funny how many of the elite even openly acknowledge a greater plan for a global government http://twitpic.com/dndafn .  I will say this, I'm extremely disappointed with many of you who just can't grasp that everyone involved in "climate research" might not have pure motives.  Climate change is potentially a huge issue, and many have dog piled on for funding and advancement of agendas.  If you take nothing away from this "denier", take away skepticism for the true motives of politicians, both the ones that say things that you like and the ones that don't.  One example http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55022  Also do me a favor, quit relying on politicians who talk about saving the world all the while taking campaign contributions from the very corporations most at fault for pollution and exploitation.  You might want to think that one through. We could get more into how the full frontal approach didn't work, so the green agenda was slid in the backdoor through education, Agenda 21 and other "sustainable" development programs, but there is plenty of documentation of that, use google.  Also almost every treaty or solution to "helping against global warming"
originate from shadowy think tanks like the Club of Rome their three sister organizations and those solutions again almost always involves giving up national sovereignty to a global body of unelected and unaccountable technocrats.  Is that the only way to deal with things?

As to proving global warming or climate change or climate instability is or is not happening because of man's activity a few comments.  First, a lot of sketch has been proven on the part of some of those who are pushing anthropomorphic climate change.  First there was the hacked emails and the hockey stick.  Then
there was the satellite positioning to get the warmest data.  Then there are all the various computer models that failed over the years, the predictions that never came to pass.  On the first link I posted on this threat it led to hundreds of links showing problematic AGW "science".  A key issue should be is the trust
worthiness of the science presented.  There are problems.  The fact that so many are willing to attack anyone who points out any of these problems reveals an almost religious attachment to the "truth" of AGW and religious defenses of it against those who threaten the dogma.  You may not agree with me, but I invite you to become more skeptical and open minded.

Another problem is the guardians of information that many of you consider authoritative are controlled. http://www.cairco.org/news/media-owned-six-corporations  There is no fourth estate anymore Lastly, While everyone is focusing on the theology of anthropomorphic global warming, real ecological disasters such as plastics polluting the ocean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SO89Bj2Fvc and Fukushima radiating the world http://nodisinfo.com/Home/holy-fukushima-radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing-north-americans/ http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-05-29/%E2%80%9Cabsolutely-every-one%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-15-out-15-%E2%80%93-bluefin-tuna-tested-california-waters-co are left unattended.