Posted on 12/20/2006 7:46:46 PM PST by ancient_geezer
by Tom DeWeese (December 19, 2006)
Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think or act independently--only state-approved human responses are acceptable. To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally to ones destruction.
That’s the kind of world apparently desired by the global warming Chicken Littles. It seems they are prepared to do anything to achieve it. Case in point is an outrageous letter to ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson on October 27, 2006. The letter was sent by two United States Senators, Olympia Snowe (R-MA), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
The letter derides Exxon for helping to fund global warming “deniers,” (a term the global warming crowd is using more and more these days to try to draw a parallel with those who deny the Holocaust):
“We are convinced that ExxonMobil’s longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.”
The letter goes on to say, “ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years.”
The mention of the tobacco industry is not just a randomly chosen analogy. It’s a threat that Exxon could face the same government attack on its very existence if it doesn’t play ball. Threats of a “wind fall profits” tax and increased regulation being just a couple of the weapons in the government’s arsenal.
The letter concludes, saying, “We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign…”
As incredible as the letter may seem, one must pause to understand the “new think” being foisted on our society. In the August, 2006 issue of The DeWeese Report, (Vol.12, Issue 7), I reported on the root of the new edicts on thinking, called “globally acceptable truth.” This is not just an Ivory Tower intellectual exercise. Those who practice it believe the only way we can have a well-ordered society is for everyone to think and act in unison. Those who break the rules and think for themselves or take action contrary to the “consensus” are evil.
This idea is not just the silly ranting of a few lunatics. It is being accepted as the proper focus for major policy matters from Congress and the news media.
The main source of such thinking seems to come from the Eden Institute, operating out of New York and with close ties to the UN. The official use of globally acceptable truth is best described in a letter to the Eden Institute from Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary General of the UN. He wrote, “I am referring to the need to establish a body of objective, globally acceptable information to serve as a foundation for global education…Its (Eden Project) formula for identifying universally acceptable objective data is truly unique. It achieves this distinction by establishing a global standard for inquiry.”
Translation: We will decide what is truth and all new information or scientific discovery will be judged on whether it matches this “globally acceptable” truth.
The last time human kind was strapped into such a mental straight jacket was during the Inquisition of the Dark Ages. The period was called the Dark Ages because it was an era of ignorance, superstition and social chaos and repression. Anyone caught questioning the doctrine or power of the church was labeled a heretic and found his or her way to the rack or into the middle of a fire while tied to a stake. The church, of course, was practicing its own brand of globally acceptable truth.
Today, the new heretics to the religion of global warming are those who question whether scientific facts support the dire warnings that are screaming from the newspaper headlines and from environmental groups’ press releases.
The letter to ExxonMobile from Rockefeller and Snowe is but one example of the dire tactics being used to stifle any debate on the subject. Just recently, the Attorney General of California filed suit against the world’s three biggest care manufacturers for their complicity in creating CO2 emissions. As part of the discovery for the suit, the Attorney General demanded copies of any correspondence between the automakers and so-called “skeptics” of climate change. Message: you can’t even talk to these people! 2006 has seen the church of global warming go into near panic at any sign of heretical behavior.
It’s absolutely incredible to see such panic, considering the global warming mantra is near universal. There are over 12,000 environmental groups in the country controlling over $20 billion in assets, all unified in spreading the climate change gospel. On top of their vast holdings, many of those same groups receive federal grants for “studies” and “reports” on their climate change findings.
Added to that substantial fire power is a willing news media which offers magazine cover photos of melting ice caps; and the efforts of the movie and television industry which lets no opportunity get by without some reference to global warming. Al Gore’s own documentary has been in theaters around the nation for months. He is the guest on talk shows nearly every week.
The catastrophic global warming message is literally everywhere. It indoctrinates our children in the classroom. It flows from the advertising messages of corporations, in their corporate social responsible ad to sell their environmentally-responsible products (for which research and development was probably paid for with federal tax dollars). Huge numbers of Hollywood stars and international political leaders have endorsed the mantra of the church of global warming. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent to influence literally every corner of the earth to accept global warming as a fact.
Countering this massive onslaught of globally acceptable climate change “truth” is a tiny, dedicated band of scientists, political leaders and non-profits that are seeking the truth. Their assets are literally in the low millions of dollars -- simply a drop in the bucket when compared to the war chest of the climate change church. They don’t have the media’s attention. They don’t have the ability to issue massive grants. Hollywood certainly isn’t making movies to promote the “skeptics” point of view. And the federal government isn’t allowing the contrary opinions in many classrooms.
So, with so much incredible fire power covering every possible exit, one must ask the logical question: why are the climate change crowd so scared of a few renegade groups and their measly few million dollars? The fact is, the “skeptics” are having such an impact on the debate because they are telling the truth. The Church of Global Warming is wrong!
As George Orwell once wrote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” There is no greater hero in the revolution for climate change truth than Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He has truly demonstrated the power one honest individual can wield.
Earlier this year (2006) Sen. Inhofe gave two explosive speeches on the floor of the Senate in which he attacked and exposed the unfounded claims and scare tactics being employed by the Global Warming crowd. The speeches were literally unprecedented in the decades-long climate change debate. And their effect was like a lightning bolt. Almost immediately some scientists began coming out of hiding to side with the Senator.
On December 6th, just as the Rockefeller/Snowe letter was being exposed across the Internet, Inhofe held a hearing on Capitol Hill exposing the “alarmist media.” Said Inhofe, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.” His attacks have already forced 60 Minutes, CNN and other major media to at least give lip service to the “skeptic” point of view. More importantly, the Senator’s efforts are putting the Global Warming crowd into near cardiac arrest.
It is important to note that the so-called “Skeptics” include Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard; Claude Allegre, one of the most decorated French geophysicists; Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia: Dr. Fred Singer; Professor Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Australia; 85 scientists and climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzeg Declaration which called drastic climate controls “ill-advised, lacking credible support from the underlying science; 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in climate study who signed a petition issued by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying there is no evidence green house gasses cause global warming; and the 4,000 scientists and leaders from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal calling greenhouse global warming theories “highly uncertainly scientific theories.”
These are but a few of the highly qualified “skeptics” derided by Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe and Al Gore whom, they say, should not be given a voice on the issue.
There are lots of lies surrounding the Global Warming mantra. The biggest one claims there is “consensus” among scientists that human-caused global warming is a fact. There is no such consensus. Human survival demands that we listen to the “Skeptics” before they are burned at the stake by Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe.
And you can probably hold you own in a good game of poker, but that doesn't make you the arbiter of truth or the search for it.
What we're talking about here is wholesale change in the lifestyle and behaviour of the entire advanced world because some ninnies believe that a few million scrawny little lifeforms can do what 5 billion years of natural disasters have failed to do, namely, the destruction of our host planet - according to the crowd you prefer to run with, our welcome is over and the planet now needs to shrug off its peskiest parasites before it careers into the sun.
Well, we disagree. For Congress to make proper policy decisions requires an informed electorate. A misinformed electorate may request that their Congressional representatives vote one way on a particular issue, whereas if they had been correctly informed, they would request a different vote.
I happened to see a piece on Headline News last night that was chilling. It was about how the Muslim media (particularly in Iran) manipulates public opinion. They said things like "Coca-Cola is contributing billions for the overthrow of Iran", Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Save Israel" -- stunning. The people who receive this unfiltered propaganda clearly have mistaken, widely mistaken view(s) about the West and the U.S., because they have been so misinformed and manipulated. Do we condone what the government run media is doing? I hope not.
Should I (or we) condone the deliberate conveyance of inaccurate information as fact, particularly if important policy decisions are at stake? I don't.
If ExxonMobil funded actual research that might investigate some of the wobbly pillars of AGW theory, I'd have little problem with that. What I have a problem with is ExxonMobil funding thinktanks who have employees who write inaccurate disinformation pieces like the one that kicked off this thread. That makes no contribution to science and it only serves to confuse the public on an issue that's already confusing enough.
So I don't have a problem with Snowe and Rockefeller having the same problem with ExxonMobil that I do. I got sick and tired of the "satellites don't show warming" argument six years ago, when they were showing warming and reanalysis shows more warming. How many years did it take to clear that one out of the public mind? (and due to the persistence of Web memory, it's still out there).
You, your; aargh! Shouldn't try to type when I'm eating a deli chicken sandwich that tastes like cardboard.
Sociology?
Not really. This was in response to your concern about the destruction of the planet. The planet and life on it will persist in some form for many millenia to come. But I think for many reasons -- including environmental stress -- human civilization will be challenged significantly this century. I wish I could figure out how to live to 2100 to see what happens.
Those most determined to frighten you into precipitous action are counting on the very fact that you won't.
Because it was in PNAS format, it looked like a peer-reviewed article. Did they intend for readers to take it seriously? Probably.
And the idea that a former President of the NAS is not supposed to present his credentials is absurd.
Sure he can; but the scientists objected to the potential for misperception of a link to NAS.
The article is NOT skewed. It is very well referenced. It may appear skewed to someone who reads it with a pre-skewed point of view.
OK, remove "skewed", insert "wildly wrong". And refer to:
Rabett Run, post entitled "Gift for John H.".
"A lot of the signers may have just read the first paragraph and signed it." Do you have a reference to back up this statement????
No. I looked at the petition and made a personal observation. The first paragraph of the petition is reasonable. The second is not (in my opinion). Signers could certainly agree with the first paragraph and not the second, and still sign it because they agree with the first paragraph.
No, I don't condone what the government run media does in Iran.
I see two solutions to that. One: end the censorship in Iran of free speech so government lies can get disputed. Two: end government media in Iran and everywhere else.
Your example supports my argument for government not limiting discussion.
Should I (or we) condone the deliberate conveyance of inaccurate information as fact, particularly if important policy decisions are at stake? I don't.
Neither do I, but I don't want laws saying "If we're really sure we're right, we can force our opponents to shut up and admit their error". Sounds like Iran or any commie country.
So I don't have a problem with Snowe and Rockefeller having the same problem with ExxonMobil that I do. I got sick and tired of the "satellites don't show warming" argument six years ago, when they were showing warming and reanalysis shows more warming. How many years did it take to clear that one out of the public mind? (and due to the persistence of Web memory, it's still out there).
If Snowe and Rockefeller have a problem with "satellites don't show warming", then let them explain why they have a problem. Let them debate the advocates of error, or summon experts to do same.
AL Gore Global Warming BS doink for later.
It was an introductory survey science course for liberal arts majors, in fact. The "especially at Harvard" qualifier indicates that you have never really known anyone who graduated from Harvard.
I am about Al Gore's age, and guys I went to high school with would not even have bothered to apply to Harvard with SATs below 1400. (I knew one kid, a Columbian immigrant who didn't get into Columbia, friggin' worthless Columbia, with SATs above 1400.) Since it was the only college he applied to, one is tempted to believe that the fix was in.
Approximately one in sixty people of the population have an IQ of 133 or above. In my high school class of 440 people you'd expect about seven people to have higher IQ's. My high school was a selective Catholic high school. The lower cut off IQ was about 100, so in my graduating class of 440, there were probably around 14 people with higher IQs. None of them applied to Harvard.
bttt
Doesn't anybody have an editor anymore?
I learned a long time ago that a clever debater can win a debate and still be wrong. (Ever hear of Duane Gish?) That's what this discussion is about: an honest and accurate presentation of facts, or skewed, biased, and polished presentations intended primarily to influence public opinion, accuracy be d*mned.
The press release disclaimer was due to the format and the association of the petition with Seitz, past NAS president.
And you sent me to "Rabett Run" and you try to pass yourself as impartial???
I sent the link because it had a discussion of the errors in the article. It's the information that matters, not the source. Because I concentrate on the information, I can ignore the associated slant of the language.
I just googled him. Wikipedia says he ignores data that contradicts his Creationism, gives some detail, and lists experts and links if one want more information. So?
Sounds like he "wins" debates only with true believers.
Clever debaters have their tactics, but Wikipedia and others can reveal their tricks.
That's what this discussion is about: an honest and accurate presentation of facts, or skewed, biased, and polished presentations intended primarily to influence public opinion, accuracy be d*mned.
I see no way to legislate against deceit as opposed to sincere error.
Just the opposite. When senators demand that citizens submit, even in their speech, to the truth of the day, then politics prevails over discussion. That includes honest discussion.
Senators don't need to limit their discussion to debate. They can request testimony, both written and oral. They can sit opposing experts at the same table and ask questions.
Ultimately they have to pick a side, but they don't to need censor the opposition.
Earth's Climate Changes in Tune with Eccentric Orbital Rhythms
Scientific American.com | December 22, 2006 | By David Biello
Posted on 12/22/2006 2:53:58 PM EST by aculeus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1757447/posts
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.