August 31, 2013
The name calling and immature propaganda is being used to motivate the public to take sides on the climate change debate.
350.org has launched a campaign to mock climate change “deniers” (CCDs) by having future hurricanes named after them.
Called Climate Name Change (CNC), the mission of the campaign is to coerce the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to alter current practices that give random names to tropical storms throughout the season.
350.org is demanding that the WMO being calling those identified storms by elected officials that have been identified as CCDs.
Cass Sunstien, former administrator for the Obama administration Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (IORA), defends the alarmists, saying: “IPCC is biased and wrong. Companies whose economic interests are at stake continue to fight against regulatory controls. The leaders of some nations think that if they acted unilaterally to reduce their emissions, they would impose significant costs on their citizens without doing much to reduce climate change. Especially in a difficult economic period, they don’t think it makes sense to act on their own.”
Sunstien acknowledges the difficulty in creating a global mandate on greenhouse gas emissions; but this could be more easily accomplished if the public were fearful of the outcome should nothing be done to mitigate the effects of climate change now.
Citing how to coerce the public, Sunstien suggests that while it is difficult to attribute climate change to natural disasters, it is important that “scientists think that climate change makes extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, substantially more likely.”
Simultaneously, Sunstein states that the creation of an “identifiable perpetrator” will guide public outrage. For example: “Warmer temperatures are a product not of any particular human being or group, but the interaction between nature and countless decisions by countless people. There are no obvious devils or demons — no individuals who intend to create the harms associated with climate change. For terrorism, a “we- they” narrative fits the facts; in the context of climate change, those who are the solution might well also be, or seem to be, the problem. In these circumstances, public outrage is much harder to fuel.”
Because humans respond quicker to immediate threats, behavioral scientists can be used to ensure that the general public “demand protection against a risk that threatens them today, tomorrow or next month.”
Last June, President Obama spoke at Georgetown University to unveil his administration’s plans to combat climate change which include regulation of coal plants, building sea walls for defense against rising sea levels, energy efficiency for residences and commercial buildings and governmental permits for energy efficiency on government owned lands.
Obama declared since Americans “across the country are already paying the price for inaction” against climate change, than preparing a carbon taxing scheme would not matter when weighed against the potentials.
The 3 part plan Obama announced was in response to the threat to American cities against the ravages of storms and droughts that have altered the landscape of our nation.
Obama exclaimed: “The question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it is too late.”
There was a call for Congress to stop supporting coal-plants abroad; with the exception of under-developed nations as long as the technologies were kept clean.
Responding to those who do not believe that human activity is the sole cause of climate change, Obama said he “doesn’t have much patience.”
Obama said: “As a president, as a father and as an American, I am here to say we need to act. I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”
The president continued: “While we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.”