Climate scientists have discovered a new stage in the scientific method.
1. Make observation
2. Ask a question
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Conduct experiment to test hypothesis
5. Observe results
7. Go back to step 5 and adjust data until you get the answers you want
8. Use government authority to prosecute anyone who questions your conclusions and demands
Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
If the conclusions were so self-evident, it wouldn’t be necessary to go after dissenters. There are anti-vaccination advocates throughout Hollywood and the “crunchy” parent circles, something which easily and simply does cause real, immediate harm by rendering the population more susceptible to diseases (one quick example). No one goes after them… but of course the point isn’t science for the global warmers, the point is internationalist redistribution of wealth and resources – watermelon environmentalism.
Not really sure I have much on that one. I’m sure it will turn into more lectures to Kenyans about how they should run their country.
“On one level, it’s symbolic. It also sends a signal to the global community that sexual and reproductive health and rights are a part of the global development agenda,” Serra Sippel, the center’s president, told The Associated Press. She said it follows “huge strides” made under the Obama administration on LGBT issues.
Yup, now instead of LGBT people in Iraq and Syria hanging out in the closet, they’re being thrown off of roofs. Real improvement.
Speaking at a meeting of the U.N. women’s agency Tuesday, Richard Erdman, a deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the United States would use the term “sexual rights” for those that are not legally binding.
“Sexual rights are not human rights, and they are not enshrined in international human rights law; our use of this term does not reflect a view that they are part of customary international law,” he said. “It is, however, a critical expression of our support for the rights and dignity of all individuals regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
Nevertheless, Sippel described the U.S. decision as “the United States catching up with the rest of the world.”
Not legally binding, not considered human rights, but it’s an expression of support that will agitate a lot of the rest of the world – a lot of the world that the US is not “catching up with” – because most of the world is not very LGBT friendly. Yay for the SJW finger-wagging. It will grate on allies and will not make a whit of difference to enemies.
If the objective was to protect the lives of LGBT people in other nations because it were legally binding – say, pushing for nations to not execute gays just because they’re gay – that’d be something else. Or maybe even a demand to just start with not executing women suspected of adultery, or executing rape victims as adulteresses – those would all be initiatives easy to support It would be a movement of support for human life. This is just a slow cultural leftist push designed to devalue traditional structures in other nations, to the point that maybe those pushing for it don’t know what the activists are really having them push for.
Rights don’t come from a UN declaration, either, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the statist mind.
And finally, via ZeroHedge – irony…