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.
There's a lot of power at stake. If this is true, or accepted as true, and we decide to take the corrective action they want, it vests a trmendous amound of power in individuals who get their rocks off telling people what to do. Also, they want most of the reductions in emissions from the places that make them most efficiently already, the US. This is very appealing to people who hate business and/or hate the US. This is one way you can see their hypocrisy for yourself; the exemption of countries that pollute so much more egregiously than the ones where they want to reduce emissions.
How are they accomplishing this feat of mass manipulation?
Some Nazi, Goebbels or maybe Hitler himself said "If you tell people something often enough and long enough, they will believe it." The pro crowd, as the article notes, has an almost complete lock on favorable or at least unbiased media coverage, so this is what people are told, almost exclusively. Also, I think people have a bias toward believing scares, despite the lessons of history, even that of their own lives.
I'm one of the few "believers" in GW here, at least to a certain extent, however, this silencing of the opposition is quite creepy..
Exactly. That fuels my skepticism more than any specific scientific evidence against anthropogenic GW. They're not behaving like people do when they have obvious truth on their side. There are what seem to me, an ignorant but intelligent layman on climate, reasonable questions, and they won't answer them. They want to demonize even discussing the issue objectively, which leads me to wonder why they're so worried. It reminds me of the Wisard of OZ "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain..."
Actually, if Gore is the one talking, he may have a point about the man behind the curtain being irrelevant. It's probably x42 getting an emergency hummer.
Good point. I wonder if Al Gore would recognize the reference if he was called a Lysenkoist.
Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
Global warming is about bring capitalism to it's knees.
Global Warming justifies the Left's romance with power. Leftism attracts people (think Hillary) who like to tell other people what to do. Since almost everyone has given up on State control of the economy, at least on economic grounds, environmentalism is the one remaining pretext.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H. L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H. L. Mencken
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,"
Have you seen this allegation, ancient geezer?
Don't know. Has he called for criminalizing climate skeptics?
When you find yourself arguing with zealots, it helps to leave logic out of the discussion and go straight to motive.
Disengenuous; how long do you suppose would it take for a dedicated decrease in global temperatures detectable at all levels before somebody was able to convince the crusaders that they just may be wrong?
1998 seems to be a peak year in the agreed upon warming trend and since then we have been a bit cooler and then a bit closer to warmer and back and forth for almost nine years now and the band plays on.
There is a political paradigm being created right now and some really big players want to cash in while the fervor is fully pitched; nothing short of Hell freezing over will shut these folks up.
Rowland and Cicerone are the two biggest publicity hounds in the entire scientific community.
Neither of them has been a practicing meteorologist since 1985, they have been on the rubber chicken circuit.
Give us the source on that, okay?
I know Singer well enough from phone conversations if he was in disagreement with his position then that he would publically change it now.
Cogitator needs to show us where he got this and where it was published (peer-review?) before we go off on posters.
Don't you mean post 38?
And to follow on cogitator's question at the end of post 38, why take seriously a petition with such poor quality control?
p
Cogitator provided a link. Why would the allegation need peer review? But you raise a legitimate concern, OP, if you question the authenticity of the NAS Council statement.
I've tried finding the NAS Council statement, denouncing the Oregon petition, from the NAS itself. But its search engine didn't help, and Googling doesn't help. Perhaps poor keywords.
On the other hand, I haven't Googled any rebuttals to the (alleged) NAS slam of the Oregon Petition, so...?
BTW, I didn't "go off" on ancient_geezer. I just asked for his comment
I'd say about a decade, because the warming trend is so pronounced now. 3-4 year trends aren't enough.
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.