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.
I didn't ping ancient_geezer on this reply. We're at loggerheads often enough, and I've expressed my opinion of any citation of the OISM petition several times to him in the past. It bothers me (but also amuses me) that an article attacking critics of global warming disinformation cites perhaps the most egregious and questionable example of such disinformation as a reason not to make reasonable attempts to quell such disinformation!
Irony2.
BTW, even though sometimes I've gotten peevish (and beyond) with ancient_geezer, I respect his extensive knowledge of the issue and his normal civility in discussions.
Well, Politburo members Snowe and Rockefeller sure seem to be making veiled threats in that direction. Gore has declared the argument closed to further debate. Sounds like State sanctioned scientific Lysenkoism to me.
OK, virtual Lysenkoism. The real Lysenko had people killed for disagreeing with them.
Snowe and Rockefeller haven't called for that yet, though it makes me a little nervous that they would threaten to use their subsidy power to direct the discussion.
Gore has the bully bearing. He might take the throne if offered.
We're six years into a moderatimg trend and the band plays louder, do you think a decade will make a real difference?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752268/posts
Have any legitimate sceptics condemned or defended the Oregon Petition? It looks like fraud to me.
Again, I do agree with those that object to Snowe and Rockefeller threatening ExxonMobil. You?
You do know that this has been denied repeatedly by the signers that the petition circulator was somehow speaking for all of them.
What this lengthy and very dated press release says is that the authors consider themselves to be infallible and their list of "consensus" non-climatologically trained "experts" have purer motives than the "deniers."
I challenge you to show me where the facts as they were presented in 1998 have stayed the same since then and also to show me how many times the protocols have been adjusted against how many times the greater number of the skeptics have changed their caution that we shouldn't leap before we look, and I mean look really hard.
You have admitted more than once that there is no easy solution given even the least of the dire scenarios being created and yet you still won't allow that perhaps we should agree to quit calling names and do some serious thinking about what it is we can afford to do.
Half the loudest voices give the impression that they would be happy if half the population of the planet suddenly disappeared tomorrow to reduce the load and yet they still go about screaming that the more reticent among us should act now before some innocent people are forced to move a few feet in the next century.
There is no need to panic and no good can come from it.
I thought we weren't going to make this personal; what exactly are your credentials as a meteorologist, climatologist, etc.?
Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
LOL, you surely say that with tongue in cheek.
If not, I would certainly direct your attention to the multitude of studies of the outputs of GCMs currently in use and how much they disagree one to the others and disgree with actual the actual climate record regionally as well as globally.
In fact there is very little confirmation of the global warming models in use as "data" source for the global climate mantra.
For given input the outputs of the GCMs vary widely with the same inputs both regionally and in global aggregate measures.
Here's the way I see this coming down and it is too close to the way the so called ozone depletion debate turned out to be comfortable.
First, the media picks up on the notion that there might be some truth to the notion and then they publish every scrap of "evidence" to show that this may be indeed so.
Next, the skeptics begin to pay attention and do some research on what is known so far and make tentative statements that it may be a bit early to make drastic changes just because a few unsupported studies seem to coincide but they jump on the bandwagon of government funding for a definite analysis using the scientific method.
Then, a raft of of newly ordained "scientists" jump onto this bandwagon with brand-new, very loud drums and lead the parade.
Suddenly, the government funding kicks in and soon results are flowing like wine from a new press and we are awash in the intoxicating revelation that we may never need to be sober again if we just let the smarter scientists tend the bar.
Now, fully intoxicated with our new-found destructive power we are made to sober up just enough to regret having got drunk in the first place, so, like all good reformists, we set out to prohibit everyone from drinking the wine because, among many other things, it may be poisoned.
But, as it turns out, it wasn't the wine of knowledge but the wine of persuasion, our old friend, who takes from us our common sense and leaves us confused so that in our now un-inebriated state we will believe the guy who poisoned us in the first place.
Had we simply remained sober all along we could have sipped as we supped rather than falling into a stupor.
The wine is flowing again and this time the presses are running overtime and the poison is stronger.
"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?
I've seen the allegations as cogitator has posted it or something similar before.
The reality, as far as those participitating by actually signing the petitions has not stand up to the allegation from what I have been able to determine.
It looks like most felt they were signing a petition with which they agreed with in substance judging from the statements of the sourcewatch posting:
"Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."
Any allegation or question that might have to do with supposed sponsorship apparently had little to do with the bulk of participation in the petition, especially with NAS disclaiming any connection prior to the majority of folks apparently signing on after the NAS disclaimers, or in spite of such disclaimers as the case may be.
Course there is the possibiltiy that NAS expressly disclaiming any connections with the petition might have encourged some level of the participation and thereby affected the results somewhat ;O)
Introductory Letter: http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
Petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
Bookmark for later. Thanks for posting.
Just to narrow this down, do you reject that the authors of the "Oregon Petition" attempted to pull a fast one by enclosing what looked like a peer reviewed NAS article? Again, from Sourcewatch:
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.
Do you have a link to a rebuttal from OISM?
Any allegation or question that might have to do with supposed sponsorship apparently had little to do with the bulk of participation in the petition, especially with NAS disclaiming any connection prior to the majority of folks apparently signing on after the NAS disclaimers, or in spite of such disclaimers as the case may be.
A valid point, if the signers had heard of the NAS disclaimer. Perhaps they didn't. Do you know of a discussion of this point?
Thanks. Disregard prior post - I should have refreshed the thread.
I read the links in your #74, but they don't address the controversy. So I again refer you to my #76.
Thanks.
Just to narrow this down, do you reject that the authors of the "Oregon Petition" attempted to pull a fast one by enclosing what looked like a peer reviewed NAS article?
I've seen no evidence of such myself, just alot allegations not really supported by looking at the material published. see #74.
The material there speaks speaks for itself. and does not appear to have been changed in any material way since its inception.
About the only thing changed on that site over the years are a few comments about hoaxed signers added under the Signers of Petition Explaination page and added names of signers as far as I can determine from my own files and from such confirmation as is available from the wayback webarchive entries for it.
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.