The Phaserl


Are You a ‘Climate Change’ Denier? Shame, Shame.

by SGT,

The folks at Climate Name Change have a brilliant plan for all of you “climate change deniers” out there.

They are going to shame you and your elected Representatives into agreeing that any climate change on earth (previously called ‘global warming’) is due to human population growth, human industrial activity, and well, nasty humans. Not due to our ever-changing sun, or changes in our solar system. So, if you are one of those dirty, rotten humans who don’t necessarily agree with the austerity-like measures called for in current climate change ‘policy’, well, you’re just a stinky poo. And shame on you. Check out their very expensive, slickly produced shaming video. It’s a real hoot.

The nice folks at Climate Name Change write:

“Since 1954, the World Meteorological Organization has been naming extreme storms after people. But we propose a new naming system. One that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy. If you agree, sign the petition.”

If YOU agree with these folks, join the other 8,309 sheeple who signed the petition. And wake up earthlings! Remember, the only thing that will save us from ourselves at this point, is a drastic reduction in our carbon output through the gutting of industrial production, the closing of clean burning coal plants, carbon taxes paid to Al Gore and the world elite which includes the Rothschild international banking empire, and insuring that 99% of the world’s population returns to living in the dark ages, without access to affordable energy, like 17th century serfs.

Oh, and have a nice day, chumps.

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

17 comments to Are You a ‘Climate Change’ Denier? Shame, Shame.

  • vavoo

    I honestly don’t think that there are any “intelligent” climate change deniers.
    The whole discussion is about if it’s because of human activity or not.

  • Eric

    Maybe someone should ask them why they’re spraying us with toxic aerosols.

    Dane Wiggington

  • Rodster

    I say we create a NEW label. “Economic collapse deniers”. At least we have hard facts and numbers to support that’s where we are headed. 😉

  • GoodOleBoy

    What the other side says that if we disagree that we deny there is climate change. I don’t deny it, just when I look at planets throughout the galaxy experiencing similar changes common sense tells you it’s not a human specific problem. They already had to change from global warming because the evidence does not support unilateral global warming, we are experiencing weather in degrees of both hot and cold.

    We need to be worried about the monstrous amount of trash in our oceans and land, and lets not forget about all the radiation spilling out of the crisis in Fukashimia. There are environmental concerns but shutting down industry causing the deaths of millions is not the way to go. This is the Queens green policy by witch the plan to reduce the population.

    • @GoodOleBoy, there is no “other side”. The “other side” has been created by those who don’t want to address climate change. Common sense is not science, and this argument is part of the typical denier repertoire that other planets are warming. If this is happening throughout the solar system, clearly it must be the sun causing the rise in temperatures – including here on Earth. However, your idea is full of holes, because Mars and Jupiter are cooling. Without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, Earth would be cooling as well.

      Over the last fifty years, the sun has been radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities and output of the sun pretty accurately from Earth and from satellites, , so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing climate change or that other planets are warming. In addition, other planets have different atmospheres and cannot be compared to Earth with respect to climate change.

      • GoodOleBoy

        I did not say that the other planets were warming up, I said that they were experiencing simililar fluctations in tempeture. The earth is not “warming” but is having extreams of both hot and cold. The northern ice aps are melting but the southern ones are expanding. If you dont believe that, then take the fact that the earth is historicly no where near its warmest temperatures. I not saying that se dont have eecological problemsand that we shouldnt be concerned about our environment, just that facts ha e been twisted to suit political goals of the multinational elite.

  • andrew james

    Climate change proponents still fill their gas tanks with petrol. With a carbon tax the liability or cost of their personal behavior is shifted further away from them financially.

    • No, it doesn’t shift the cost of my behavior, it makes me pay for my behavior. Yes, I use gasoline, but I do drive a hybrid. I also drive less and use my heat and AC far less.

      The fact is that we do not connect the real cost of what we consume with the real cost in the world; we do not pay for our energy or anything in its true cost.

      Climate change comes with a big price tag for every country around the
      world. The 80% in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may be expensive up front, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6% of GDP. Costs from hurricane damage,
      real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs — will come with a hefty price tag. There is no desire on the part of those who understand the scientific evidence of climate change to shift costs. I personally spend more to accept the costs, such as purchasing cornstarch bags rather than plastic, purchasing recycled products, and making whatever personal changes I can to do my part.

  • Grimace

    I remember my uncle use to argue with me that they would one day charge you for air. (“think about it, if they can charge you for water, why can’t they charge you for air”)
    I always thought it was impossible, but I guess that answers that. They will charge you to breathe.

  • Nobody wants to charge you to breathe. The best option is that a tax be placed on fossil fuels, based on the CO2 content of those fuels, at the initial point of sale. Revenue from that tax could be returned to the public as a monthly or annual payment to protect households from rising costs associated with the carbon tax. A number of countries have already enacted carbon taxes.

    • SGT

      And who controls the collection and distribution of these ‘for humanity’s benefit’ carbon emissions taxes? The international banking cartel and its related, trusty, well-connected NGO’s? Good luck with that.

    • pepe

      Ok, time for the facts. How come the sciencegal and all the other reality deniers never put the actual amounts of CO2 in the air up for debate? It’s because if you look at the numbers (and numbers don’t lie) you will see how ridiculous blaming man made CO2 for global climate warming cooling changing is. Nitrogen = 78% of air, oxygen = <21% of air, argon = 1% of air. CO2 = .038% of air. All man made CO2, from cars, trucks, buses, space ships, airplanes, helicopters, motorcycles, factories, coal plants and anywhere else all of "man" creates CO2, amounts to 3% of the .038% of air or .001% of air. That means there is 1 (one) molecule of "man made" CO2 for every 90,000 molecules of air. Therefore, if we eliminate ALL human activity from the planet, ALL of it, we would be removing 1 (one) CO2 molecule from 90,000 (ninety-thousand) molecules of air. Now, let's say we remove half of all human created CO2, 1 (one) molecule out of 180,000 (one hundred and eighty-thousand). Is there anyone that thinks 1/180,000 is a significant enough amount to change the climate of the planet? If so, than your name shouldn't be sciencegal, you should change it to the name of the most famous extinct bird.

      • You forgot to mention that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect on earth. A greenhouse has a glass ceiling. The way it works is the sunlight goes right through the ceiling and heats the ground. The heated ground then by convection heats the air above it that then heats the air above that until it hits the glass ceiling. The air above the glass ceiling is separated from the air under it. Carbon dioxide is not a glass ceiling! The hotter the earth gets, the more heat escapes to our outer atmosphere.

        Another problem with the Global Warming Fraud is it violates many laws of physics. (the second law of thermodynamics for one) Cold air cannot warm up hotter air. The higher you go up into the atmosphere, the colder it gets. They would have us believe that hot air gathers higher up in the atmosphere but this is not happening. Hot air rises it doesn’t descend. They measure the ambient air temperature that is fickle and changes 10s of degrees every time the sun sets instead of the ocean which is the thermal storage of the earth. Then they torture the data until it gives them the answer they want.

        They say idiotic things like the north pole is going to be free of ice this Winter. Any idiot that has ever had a glass of ice water knows that the water temperature is the main factor in determining how quickly the ice melts not the temperature of the air. The hottest year on record (supposedly 1998) happened to be an El Nino year – coincidence. The ocean currents (thermal storage of the earth) and the sun determine our climate, the concentration of carbon dioxide has been multiple times higher than it currently is and the earth was just fine. We are in a carbon dioxide drought right now – we need more not less.

    • billybob

      Yeah sure, “revenue…could be returned.” But if history is a guide, then good luck on getting a could-be return from bureaucrats and policy scribblers. Look no further than California’s AB32 and the so-called “market” (laugh) solution of cap-and-tax to address Global Warming…er…Climate Change. And that scam doesn’t just entail fuels, but any mass CO2 producing source–and “mass” can and will be subjectively defined.

      The CO2 taxing swindle is nothing more than a freedom-destroying, bureaucratic grab at control and power…and a wider bankster scheme of further global enslavement and self enrichment.

      No doubt…carbon indulgence fees are a tax on the very air we breathe!

      The people who run things from the top believe that freedom can be owned, because they can’t think of anything that can’t be owned. That’s their view. That’s the way they see life and the world. – Jon Rappoport

      So many clueless do-gooders, God bless ’em, are frightfully and unwittingly greasing the skids to be owned…and they’re taking all of us along for the ride.

  • Brian

    Nice ad hominem commercial. Perhaps we need to also tax folks to stop the volcano’s spewing their gasses as well cause that might work.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>