Friday, November 27, 2009

Risk Assessment

Which threat is real?

a) This one...

or

b) This one?

Let me say I think that a) is an immediate threat. We should do everything in our power to stop any pandering to anyone who believes that they can control the climate.

Then let me say that the real threat is the pandering which appears to be occurring as far as b) is concerned. Note the victim statements from the professional victims...

5 comments:

Egg said...

Colvin* looks like he's been on the same bloaty diet as his predecessor, SnowConeTone ... prediction: the effects of heart disease are more imminent for him than those of alleged AGW ...

*Another from Aunty's stable of rabid Lefty male poms, FFS ...

RebeccaH said...

And they warn if it passes it may have exactly that radicalizing effect people say they are trying to contain as the young feel alienated and angry.

This is another way of saying: "We are the religion of peace. Give us what we want or we will kill you."

kae said...

Well, Egg, a Colvin explosion may produce a few Kelvins - so that will add to AGW, huh?

Hi RebeccaH
That is exactly the part which made me fume. We have invented all these new words to use when describing the supposed habits and predelections of the ROP.

Radicalising? Bullshit. They're already radicalised/fanatical. On a hair-trigger to hell, which is where they'd rather be.

Carpe Jugulum said...

Yep, i'm with RebeccahH on this.

why do these people, when faced with something the general community finds objectionable roll out the "you're doing this because you're Islamophobes, racists or [Insert victim statement of choice]" .

kae said...

Because it's "tried and true", Carpe.

It works.