It's all a lie: Copenhagen, Gore, Obama

When President Obama shows up in Copenhagen to take part in the greatest fraud perpetrated worldwide in the modern era, there is only one thing you need to know. It is all a lie.

It was a lie from the first moment a scientist like James Hansen told Congress on June 23, 1988 that the planet was going to be roasted by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and it was a lie when Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" and there were still more lies in his Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

A British court banned the documentary from being shown in their schools unless a long list of disclaimers was read to the students before his lies were inflicted on them. American students were not so fortunate. Indeed, as I have said many times before, global warming has been a form of child abuse, causing needless anxiety and fear for countless children on whom it was inflicted.

But how could such a lie be perpetrated on such a vast stage and for so long? My answer to you is "the Soviet Union." From its inception in 1917 when the czarist monarchy was overthrown and Marxist theory, Communism, was imposed on Russia, whole generations were forced to suffer under this huge lie that the state would provide everything for everybody.

It is such a popular lie that it has been resurrected in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It returned the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua. In the last century, millions died under the Communist banner, but that lie never seems to die.

Little wonder then that, when Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's communist dictator addressed the conference, Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald-Sun reported that he received "a rousing round of applause." He was followed by Zimbabwe's despicable president, Robert Mugabe, who decried "these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions."

A conference that celebrates such communist blather betrays its true intent. No American President should participate in such a naked display of contempt for capitalism unless of course he shares it

A really Big Lie told often enough acquires the verisimilitude of truth. Global warming, however, was dependent on a different kind of truth, one subject to vigorous review and challenge; it is scientific truth and no matter how many lies were told by the global warming scientists, there were others who stood their ground and challenged them.

By itself, the Big Lie cannot exist solely in a political framework like the United Nations or any one of the nations, including our own, that wasted billions based on it. It has to have the support of the media, both our own and those around the world.

Journalists are not scientists and they are subject to what scientists tell them unless they do some fairly easy investigation of their own. They didn't! Instead, journalists at influential newspapers like The New York Times repeated and amplified every global warming lie and they continue to this day.

The true science, not the stuff conjured up on computer models, always refuted the global warming theory. That's because it was widely known to honest climatologists, meteorologists, and others. It was always known that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a miniscule part of the Earth's atmosphere, barely 0.038 percent. Of that amount, man-made CO2 emissions constitute less than 0.00022 percent! Some will argue these figures, but they always remain within these very tiny parameters.

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming or as it is now called, climate change.

Nor has the Earth been rapidly warming. The last warming cycle began around 1850 as a respond to a Little Ice Age that began in 1300. The Earth warmed about one degree Fahrenheit. By 1998, it began to cool again!

So, when President Obama shows up in Copenhagen to attend the liar's competition called the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP-15, anything and everything he says about global warming, fossil fuels, CO2, et cetera, will be a lie.

Al Gore has been at the conference and managed to stumble around like a punch-drunk boxer saying really stupid things like the Arctic will completely melt away any day now or that the center of the Earth is millions of degrees hot. But Gore is a stranger to the truth because, as you may recall, he's a politician who served in Congress and as Vice President.

If George W. Bush is remembered for anything, it will be that he saved the nation from a "President Gore." Despite Bush's poll numbers when he left office, President Obama has accomplished one extraordinary thing; he has made people think more kindly of Bush.

At the heart of the Big Lie is, of course, MONEY! There are millions to be made selling bogus "carbon credits" for the use of energy. That's what Obama's "Cap-and-Trade" scam is all about.

Billions were wasted on "climate research" over the past twenty years and now they are being wasted on "clean energy" research which we're told is needed to replace "dirty" fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. It too is all a lie.

Solar and wind power can never and will never replace or even rival the power that so-called fossil fuels provide. Combined, solar and wind provide barely one percent of all the electricity used daily in the nation. Biofuels are another bad idea.

Listen, if you can, to Obama delivering yet another of his speeches in Copenhagen, barely getting his breath back after his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, and remember, he is lying.

Billions were wasted on "climate research" over the past twenty years and now they are being wasted on "clean energy" research which we're told is needed to replace "dirty" fuels like coal, oil and [even!] natural gas. It too is all a lie. . . . By itself, the Big Lie cannot exist solely in a political framework like the United Nations or any one of the nations, including our own, that wasted billions based on it. It has to have the support of the media, both our own and those around the world. Journalists are not scientists and they are subject to what scientists tell them unless they do some fairly easy investigation of their own. They didn't! . . . The true science, not the stuff conjured up on computer models, always refuted the global warming theory. That's because it was widely known to honest climatologists, meteorologists, and others. It was always known that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a miniscule part of the Earth's atmosphere, barely 0.038 percent. Of that amount, man-made CO2 emissions constitute less than 0.00022 percent! Some will argue these figures, but they always remain within these very tiny parameters. . . . At the heart of the Big Lie is, of course, MONEY! There are millions to be made selling bogus "carbon credits" for the use of energy. That's what Obama's "Cap-and-Trade" scam is all about.
. . . Instead [of doing a rudimentary investigation of their own], journalists at influential newspapers like The New York Times repeated and amplified every global warming lie and they continue to this day.
The point, surely, is that no big lie can possibly exist without the complicity of journalism - and the fact is that, in historical terms, big lies are actually a commonplace. We have all seen big lies, fairly recently. A fairly minor one, in terms of total impact on society, is the March 13, 2006 "rape" of Crystal Mangum. The publicly available information fairly screamed that "the media" were conducting a kangaroo court - but even after the April 11, 2007, declaration by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper that the three players not only couldn't be proven guilty but actually were innocent, the media admitted to no shame at having promoted a fraud for almost a year.
The fact that it is a commonplace for journalism to promote fraud indicates a systemic failure of accountability within "the press." It will be asked, "Don't you believe in freedom of the press?" And I reply, "Yes - I think we should try it again." Prior to the 1848 founding of the Associated Press, newspapers were mostly weeklies which, lacking a font of news from distant sites to which only printers were privy, were as much about the opinions of the individual printers as they were about news. The opinions of the printers were naturally diverse, so the various printers held each other accountable.
The serpent in this garden of Eden was the association of those printers via the mechanism of the AP. Members of the AP paid handsomely for the cornucopia of news gushing from "the wire," and they had to have value from it. To obtain the benefit of "the wire," they had to promote the wire - they needed their customers to believe the stories they got from it. Suddenly, then, all journalists - not just the employees of the newspaper you were reading, but all journalists - were presented as being "objective." But the price of any serious attempt at objectivity is to have the humility to scrutinize one's own motives. In that respect, "objective journalism" doesn't even seriously try to be objective. Why should it do so, when it is a unified entity which has no effective competition? Why shouldn't it perpetrate "big lies" whenever that suits its convenience?
According to 4 Advances that Set News Back, SCOTUS in 1945 held that the AP was a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1945 it was difficult to see how the country would do without the AP newswire. In the twenty first century Internet era, the idea that the data transmission bandwidth economies of the AP make it "too big to fail" is ludicrous. However, merely breaking the AP up in some way would not change the actual problem. The actual problem is the public's belief in the objectivity of journalism. That belief, the result of a century and a half of propaganda, is by now a cultural phenomenon.
That belief could easily outlive the AP. After all, AP journalism no longer enjoys the monopoly on propaganda media which it once enjoyed. Not only are web sites like FR accessible to the entire literate population, there are radio programs like Rush Limbaugh's which are entertaining and don't even require the ability to read to enjoy them. And yet the cultural memory of the "objective journalism" propaganda looms over the public discourse. The conceit of journalistic objectivity must be reduced to an object of ridicule, a byword for fraud. How that is to be done, other than by the methods we are already trying, is a puzzlement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.