Global Warming Causes Hudson River Ditching, or Is It Radical Environmentlalists Who Have Blood On Their Hands?

"Birds are a growing problem for airports, as habitat estruction and climate change have affected migratory bird patterns." This came from a mainstream media "news" source after the Hudson River ditching. I promise you I could not make this up, although I failed to note carefully the source (I remember it as the despicable AP, but I could be simply letting all of the terrible AP stories of a similar, or worse, kind influence my memory here). I don't have enough imagination to make up something this fraudlent. "Fraudulent--evil is the word--I said and "fraudulent" I mean. First, there is no evidence that birds are a "growing problem" (as distinguished from a continuing one) for American airports. The "journalists"/environmentalists behind this fraudulent story simply made that up. Secodn, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that "climate change" has changed the migratory patterns of birds to route them over airports (or at all, for that matter). They made that one up too. Oh, I have no doubt that migratory patterns of birds change, but the idea that greenhouse gases have had any effect on that over the last 30 years--especailly specifically threatening airports--is absurd. It is typical of the "science" behind the RELIGION of "climate change" (formerly known as "global warming", before the world stopped warming, and removed all evidence that was the sole basis for the theory in the first place). Third, why would "habitat destruction" cause birds to specificallly go to airports. Yep. it is the other way around. If there are so many birds around that they are ending up competing with jets at airports, does that not indicate that birds are increasing. Sure it does (if you accept the idea that birds are increasing around airports, for which there is no "scientific" evidence). It is true. There is an argument that environmentalists are behind that Hudson Rive ditching, because they have helped birds to multiple out of control. We need more nungers. Seriously, environmentalists routinely fight effective measures to limit this sort of danger (such as by effectively killing/driving birds away from airports or removing brush buildup to limit the damage from California type wildfires). Do you think I am being too "harsh" by blaming environmentalists for the birds that brought the plane down into the Hudson River? Consider what environmentalists are blaming ME for, with less justice!!!! I don't turn the other cheek. I tell it like it is. Environmentalists have blood on their hands, and they are trying to have much more in pushing "global warming" absurdities. The campaign against DDT, and similar insect pesticides, has killed millioins of people from malaria (mosquito netting--see prior archive blog entry ridiculing our aid in providing mosquito netting for children in Tanzania, as distinguished from the probable good DDT could have done). Even the leftist U.N. accused "global warming" priests of killing millions with world hunger by diverting food resources to biofuels--in the face of pretty conclusive evidence that biofuels are pretty much a fraud in "helping" the level of greenhouse gases). Not satisfied, these environmentalists, with blood on their hands, are trying for more by destroying the economy in this country (and around the world) with fraudulent measures to "stop" "global warming", as ice floats in the Hudson River and this country is experiencing record cold temperatures in many places ("record" since 1884, in some cases). Let me be as blunt as I can (and you should know by now I can be very blunt): Any "scientist" who supports the kind of "global warming" fraud represented by this guff on "migratory birds" is not better than an astrologer or an alchemist. Such a scientist is a charlatan using his or her "position" to advance a political religion, when the "science" does not support any of this stuff. The "climate change" (note the political change in wording again) RELIGION long ago left the "science" behind in favor of religious faith. The "science" was never very impressive, but there was some. But the religion/political movement no longer has any moorings in what "science" there was, which is what happens when you USE science to advance a politcal cause (leftism, in this case). I repeat: These people have blood on their hands, and they are going for more. Scientists who prostitute science (a skeptical PROCESS rather than a religion) for political purposes deserve nothing but contempt. They have blood on thei hands as well, and are trying for more.