One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Bill Nye seals up the semantics of ‘g****l w*****g’ and ‘c*****e c****e’
Feb 19, 2015 08:09:08   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
February 18, 2015 by Ben Bullard
Bill Nye, who is literally a “science guy” with a mechanical engineering degree and not a research scientist with any postgraduate study under his belt, has devised a way to pretty much be right all the time when speaking about weather phenomena that deviate from historical norms: just say wh**ever’s applicable to help you bolster your case.

Nye was amazingly t***sparent about the importance of framing the g****l w*****g (or c*****e c****e, or wh**ever it’s called at this moment) agenda with context-appropriate language in a recent interview on MSNBC.

Nye admonished Joy Reid, his sympathetic interlocutor, on the semantic difference between “g****l w*****g” and “c*****e c****e” with a simple, easy-to-remember tip: only say “g****l w*****g” if you’re talking about a weather incident that involves, y’know, warmth. If you’re just talking about crazy weather in general, say “c*****e c****e.” In either case, the integrity of your agenda won’t be c*********d, he explained.

“No, no; let’s not confuse or interchange ‘c*****e c****e’ with ‘g****l w*****g,'” he instructed. “Global [warming means] the world is getting warmer; there is more carbon holding in more heat.

“When the c*****e c****es, some places get colder. And the thing that’s really consistent with c*****e c****e models is this variance where it’s cold, it’s warm, it’s cold, it’s warm.

“And, so, what I would hope for — my dream, Joy — is that you all, you and the news business, would just say the word ‘c*****e c****e.'”

That’s pretty bulletproof, really. Following that rule would create a linguistic closed system so perfect that no amount of objection over the semantics of anthropogenic g****l w*****g (AGW) could thwart it. After all, everybody agrees that the c*****e c****es, even if they don’t agree on which way it’s actually trending, whether “weather” is a component of “climate” or why any of the changes are occurring.

When you speak on behalf of taking action to halt “c*****e c****e,” using the science guy’s logic, you’re free to take your argument in whichever direction suits your emotional purpose, because you’re asking everyone who’s listening to simply follow a moving target.

The cherry on top is that you, the g****l w*****g…er c*****e c****e evangelist, get to move the target as you see fit.

Reply
Feb 19, 2015 08:33:22   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
mwdegutis wrote:
February 18, 2015 by Ben Bullard
Bill Nye, who is literally a “science guy” with a mechanical engineering degree and not a research scientist with any postgraduate study under his belt, has devised a way to pretty much be right all the time when speaking about weather phenomena that deviate from historical norms: just say wh**ever’s applicable to help you bolster your case.

Nye was amazingly t***sparent about the importance of framing the g****l w*****g (or c*****e c****e, or wh**ever it’s called at this moment) agenda with context-appropriate language in a recent interview on MSNBC.

Nye admonished Joy Reid, his sympathetic interlocutor, on the semantic difference between “g****l w*****g” and “c*****e c****e” with a simple, easy-to-remember tip: only say “g****l w*****g” if you’re talking about a weather incident that involves, y’know, warmth. If you’re just talking about crazy weather in general, say “c*****e c****e.” In either case, the integrity of your agenda won’t be c*********d, he explained.

“No, no; let’s not confuse or interchange ‘c*****e c****e’ with ‘g****l w*****g,'” he instructed. “Global [warming means] the world is getting warmer; there is more carbon holding in more heat.

“When the c*****e c****es, some places get colder. And the thing that’s really consistent with c*****e c****e models is this variance where it’s cold, it’s warm, it’s cold, it’s warm.

“And, so, what I would hope for — my dream, Joy — is that you all, you and the news business, would just say the word ‘c*****e c****e.'”

That’s pretty bulletproof, really. Following that rule would create a linguistic closed system so perfect that no amount of objection over the semantics of anthropogenic g****l w*****g (AGW) could thwart it. After all, everybody agrees that the c*****e c****es, even if they don’t agree on which way it’s actually trending, whether “weather” is a component of “climate” or why any of the changes are occurring.

When you speak on behalf of taking action to halt “c*****e c****e,” using the science guy’s logic, you’re free to take your argument in whichever direction suits your emotional purpose, because you’re asking everyone who’s listening to simply follow a moving target.

The cherry on top is that you, the g****l w*****g…er c*****e c****e evangelist, get to move the target as you see fit.
i February 18, 2015 by Ben Bullard /i br Bill Ny... (show quote)








It's rather like liberal progressive ideology and Islam, mdegutis, t***h has NOTHING to do with "FORWARDIND" [wh**ever] agenda. "WE" used to call [it] lying, and THAT was conveniently changed to "Machiavellian," and now again conveniently changed to "Taqiyya." Never forget that "FOREWARD," was the progressive mantra for - everything. Just "move on" [.org]. Don't look back. Old news.

Currently, as liberal progressives are never held responsible for [their] absurd and obnoxious "single party" c*******t ideology, and usually when caught the customary "we'll get to the bottom of this" echoes into eternity. Then, after the fanfare dismissal, big promotions are tucked-away behind the opaque "t***sparency" of liberal progressive "governance;" or c*******t NGO's.

Big pay raises are the stepping-stones of loyal "red-diaper" c*******t deception and deceit in OUR Western civilizations, and organizations like "TIDES" Foundation [Soros] washes-away any c*******t residue that may alert a damaging patriotic American response.

Reply
Feb 19, 2015 08:52:16   #
Brucey Loc: USA
 
mwdegutis wrote:
February 18, 2015 by Ben Bullard
Bill Nye, who is literally a “science guy” with a mechanical engineering degree and not a research scientist with any postgraduate study under his belt, has devised a way to pretty much be right all the time when speaking about weather phenomena that deviate from historical norms: just say wh**ever’s applicable to help you bolster your case.

Nye was amazingly t***sparent about the importance of framing the g****l w*****g (or c*****e c****e, or wh**ever it’s called at this moment) agenda with context-appropriate language in a recent interview on MSNBC.

Nye admonished Joy Reid, his sympathetic interlocutor, on the semantic difference between “g****l w*****g” and “c*****e c****e” with a simple, easy-to-remember tip: only say “g****l w*****g” if you’re talking about a weather incident that involves, y’know, warmth. If you’re just talking about crazy weather in general, say “c*****e c****e.” In either case, the integrity of your agenda won’t be c*********d, he explained.

“No, no; let’s not confuse or interchange ‘c*****e c****e’ with ‘g****l w*****g,'” he instructed. “Global [warming means] the world is getting warmer; there is more carbon holding in more heat.

“When the c*****e c****es, some places get colder. And the thing that’s really consistent with c*****e c****e models is this variance where it’s cold, it’s warm, it’s cold, it’s warm.

“And, so, what I would hope for — my dream, Joy — is that you all, you and the news business, would just say the word ‘c*****e c****e.'”

That’s pretty bulletproof, really. Following that rule would create a linguistic closed system so perfect that no amount of objection over the semantics of anthropogenic g****l w*****g (AGW) could thwart it. After all, everybody agrees that the c*****e c****es, even if they don’t agree on which way it’s actually trending, whether “weather” is a component of “climate” or why any of the changes are occurring.

When you speak on behalf of taking action to halt “c*****e c****e,” using the science guy’s logic, you’re free to take your argument in whichever direction suits your emotional purpose, because you’re asking everyone who’s listening to simply follow a moving target.

The cherry on top is that you, the g****l w*****g…er c*****e c****e evangelist, get to move the target as you see fit.
i February 18, 2015 by Ben Bullard /i br Bill Ny... (show quote)



I like this mans definitions. I do not believe that we "human beings are directly responsible.
Yes the weather may be getting a millionth of a degree a year, but why focus the reasons on people. What about all the other factors that could affect our temperature on this globe.
How about:
Earthquakes releasing more heat in 10 seconds than a hundred years of driving carbon fueled vehicles. Can you imagine the heat generated by just two plates the size of Nebraska sliding together under trillions of pounds of pressure. This is happening dozens of times daily around this globe.
What about volcanoes? How many trillions of degrees of heat are released by just one eruption? How much carbon is released in this eruption?
Animals, what about them? The do produce methane gass. Is that our fault?
No one of the above have anything to do with man, yet they happen. These things are acts of God. He is in control of all things. Nothing happens on this earth or in it that he is not aware of.
There is more oil released by volcanoes, earthquakes, than we will ever know. Yes glaciers are melting, but they have been melting for thousands of years. Remember the ice age scientists tell us about, well that's gone. There were not any cars or people heating with f****l f**ls back then. What happened. Oh I know, the great woolly behemouths must have had excess methane.
Come on people. Are you totally ignorant or do you like to be led around by the nose by politicians who want to control your every thought.

Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2015 10:02:57   #
bdamage Loc: My Bunker
 
I presented my beliefs on this continual h**x on another thread and posted this:

The G****l W*****g / C*****e C****e S**m
Written by Leigh Haugen, guest post on 03 October 2014

The other side of the C*****e C****e story that they so desperately want to hide...
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-global-warming-c*****e-c****e-s**m.html

Let's Tax the Climate Alarm Industry
Tuesday, 02 Sep 2014 10:13 AM
By Larry Bell

Royal Society of Chemistry Fellow Dr. Leslie Woodcock observes that green lobbies use unwarranted climate alarm to support a very costly do-good industry. He recently told Britain’s Yorkshire Evening Post, “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interests, they will tell you there is nothing in g****l w*****g. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”

Yes, lots of money. Those many billions fund the growth of government regulatory agencies that depend upon public fear; university departments that bend objectivity to secure research grants; activist environmental groups that rely upon crisis-premised donations to support lobbying and media programs; anti-fossil — alternative energy — lobbies seeking special subsidies; and a wide host of politicians, prophets and profiteers who cash in on save the world hype, to fill campaign coffers and personal bank accounts.

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/C*****e-C****e/2014/09/02/id/592051/

nwtk2007 responded with this:
[quote]
"What a bunch of conspiracy horsey poo! Watch out for them lizard people too!! Of course, if you believe the bible mythology you'll believe just about anything. "Do good" industry? Im sure god loves the way conseevatives want to pollute and dirty up his good earth. Oil companies too. LOL!!!! Beware dude, the matrix has you." [quote]

I invited him to join the discussion here.
Anyone seen him?
Neither have I.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.