Climate Change Terrorism

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

Interesting. No witnesses. In a state where getting hold of a gun is as easy as buying candy. But you're pretty sure it was a climate change alarmist. I don't know, might have been a Syrian refugee, given the odds. Maybe it was a disgruntled North Korean. Or maybe one of the center's employees gone postal. Or, perhaps, it was a shooting prompted by the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. Perhaps the shooter belonged to Paul Pressler's Texas Regulars and made a phone call to Trey Gowdy's church secretary at First Baptist Church of Spartanburg, SC.

[David Flick]

[Jim]

The idiotic “97% consensus” remains the holy grail of the alarmists, notwithstanding the fraud connected to it when in 2009 a handful of the “weather devout” without even enough common sense or technical cognizance to realize that smart middle-schoolers can ferret out condemning emails exposed their crooked cooking of the books (UN-sponsored, of course) in order to codify what has been the silliest hoax of the century thus far. The idea that mere man can stay/manipulate the natural forces endemic to what God created is so arrogant as to be totally beyond belief. Man hasn’t even discovered how to create a blade of grass, much less control the climate controlling its growth.

[David Flick]

.
. UPDATE: University of Alabama Hhntsville Police have identified the shooting as

Do I believe the it was a "random shooting." NO.

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

Someone fires a couple of shots at a window on the campus of UAH, and denialists label it "climate change terrorism," clinging to those bullet holes as if they were the only shred of evidence and credibility of their perspective. Well, when your argument doesn't hold water, you grasp at whatever straw you can find.

[KeithE]

I guess I missed this on local news and and the ever amplifying BartBreit which led to David’s blogpost (above).

Have not reached the same conclusion (as Spencer, BreitBart, and Flick) that these shots was the work of a disgruntled earth defender. But that could very well be right.

The was at the US Space and Rocket Center area on Saturday about 1 mile away from the locations of the shots. The March may very well have gone by the National Science Space and Technology Center (NSSTC) (on the corner of Sparkman Drive and Bradford Drive), I do not know.

The building in question was originally built for Teledyne Brown Engineering (“Building 7") circa 1990 who leased it as office space. I worked at TBE from 1979-1999 and often visited that building but sat in adjacent buildings ("Building 1” or "Building 6”). Since about 2000 the NSSTC building has been leased by a UAH/NASA consortium and houses several UAH/NASA entities - the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) being one. Dr. John Christy is the head of the ESSC and Dr. Roy Spencer works there. There is a cute (tornado shaped) building (Called SWIRRL- Severe Weather Institute Radar and Lightning Laboratories) behind Building 7 which houses several of the ESSC personnel. Quite a scientific center (most not nearly as controversial as Christy or Spencer).

If I hear any other news, I’ll let BaptistLife know. Right now (Monday morning) the local news outlets have nothing beyond the David posted above.

[JE Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[JE Pettibone]

[JE Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

I haven't seen anything to link these gunshots to anything related to the climate, changing or not, alarming or not. For all I know the shooter was one of Obama's daughters, and she did it to see whether her new gun worked.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

It's hard to comment and not see this thread as amusing. The fact that a bullet hole in the window of a relatively obscure building in Alabama can somehow be turned into "climate change terrorism" is laughable, not to mention the fact that the shooter hasn't been identified so motives aren't known. Even if the shooter and his or her motives were known, it's hard to call this "terrorism," and even if it were, it has no bearing on the debate itself. It's diversion, what you do when the facts don't support your argument, so you divert attention to something else.

I don't see anything that rises to the level of terrorism coming from those who believe climate change is real. Sure, there's a lot of frustration, given the volume of money that flows from the corporate world and pays for the phony "science" with the sole aim of exploitation of the environment to make money, and avoid having to spend it on keeping things clean. But "climate change terrorism?"

I'm still pretty sure that Paul Pressler, the Texas Regulars, Molly Worthen, Trey Gowdy, First Baptist Church of Spartanburg, SC and the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC led to the bullet hole in the window. It's at least a more plausible explanation, worthy of a golden spur.

[KeithE]

[Jim]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

inept, corrupt, dishonest, arrogant, and aristocratic President in history.

How many ways to explain Obama? Inept—Libya, days not weeks but the slaughter lasted 7 months; corrupt—billions to fiend’s solar-panel company that went belly-up; dishonest—telling their mourners that poor souls in Benghazi killed by “protesters” responding to movie about Mohammad they never saw; arrogant—“police act stupidly;” aristocratic—three AF planes to NYC for he and Michelle to have a night on the town.

Think of Inspector Clouseau (Pink Panther) and you get Obama, the bumbler.

[Jim]

Credit Nye-the-science-guy, currently saving the world, for the latest wrinkle in climate-change terrorism, namely, having too many children, especially in developed countries. One of his colleagues (Netflix) mentioned that better-off kids use 160 times more of the world’s resources (causing global warming) than a worse-off kid somewhere, probably in Africa. So, Nye asks, “Should parents be penalized for having ‘extra’ children,” though apparently no one knows what an extra child is except perhaps the Chinese, who, nevertheless, have just discovered the error of their ways and now approve of, actually promote, the act of having more girls or at least more babies, with a plurality of females. This brings up the whole nasty matter of eugenics, a popular worldwide concern in the first half of last century. Indeed, thousands of American citizens were sterilized in some states in which this was according to laws designed to “weed out” not Hillary’s deplorables but society’s inferiors…physically, mentally, etc. This was great stuff during the democrat Woodrow Wilson’s administrations but the movement lasted through the 30s-40s, when Hitler’s take on the subject was developed into action affecting millions. There were even three international congresses on the subject, with the hands of the U.S. as bloody as others, though not on the same scale. The suggestion, of course, is designed to wipe out the evil white race (those rich devils) in favor of ballooning other races, many if not most of which can’t even feed themselves. The tragedy is that the “progressives” (the Wilson/Obama/Hillary crowd) actually believe this garbage, though have enough sense to keep quiet.

[Haruo]