Fax to President Obama, U.S. Senators & House of Representatives
The Above copy Fax was sent to President Obama, U.S. Senators & U.S. House of Representatives by Bob Ashworth, take a look at the reply from the WHITE HOUSE in the PDF download
H/T: ClimateRealists.com
By Elizabeth Bury How do you like the government agency that makes official climate predictions, and pushes industry and local government to act on “climate change” to be headed up by a green alarmist and activist? It’s well known that in the USA the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is headed up by the climate alarmist and activist James Hansen, who encourages criminal misdemeanours in USA and criminal damage in UK. But what of the UK? The situation is even worse. The UK Meteorological Office, whose Hadley Centre runs the IPCC scientific assessment (“Working Group 1”), is now a department of the UK Ministry of Defence. And its Chairman is none other than Robert Napier, a green activist and alarmist with tentacles into some of the world’s most powerful drivers of climate alarmism and social control. Not only is he the chairman of the Met office, but Napier is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation; he is Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’ as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda; he is Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda; and he is Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards. Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world; a Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda; and a Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda. This web of organizations over which Napier exercises influence means that Napier is responsible for the generation of climate alarmism, input into the IPCC reports, powerful secular and religious eco advocacy, directing of investments exceeding $55 trillion towards the Green agenda, monitoring of eco compliance, manipulating government fiscal policy towards green taxes, and control of the built environment towards the green agenda. Napier is an eco-imperialist, and for him and his cronies it’s all about total social control for the green agenda – controlling all bases: investment, building, land, religion, government, taxes, propaganda, advocacy, monitoring, climate science and data. In this post we will flesh out the activities of some of these organizations, but is it not clear that there are some unseemly conflicts of interest here? How can someone with so many vested interests to manipulate society be appointed to head up the Met office, which is supposed to be doing objective scientific work? Why hasn’t the media kicked up a stink about this? Is it any wonder that the Met Office is now at the forefront of climate change propaganda in the UK, especially with their report claiming to be able to predict climate within a 25km grid out to the end of the century – with the barely disguised threat that if local governments and industry don’t march to their tune then there could be serious legal remedies down the line? Is it any wonder that Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist, has been nobbled into supporting this eco nonsense? Let us look at some of these organizations. The Climate Group is a very powerful – perhaps the most powerful – lobby group for the Green agenda. As they say,
we’ve created a coalition of governments and the world’s most influential businesses…Through this coalition, we’re helping to set the targets, create the policies, build the confidence, and generate the political willpower needed to make the changes the world requires…
But it also extends down to the humble consumer:
Together is The Climate Group’s consumer engagement campaign. First launched in the UK in April 2007, the campaign is the country’s leading climate change campaign.
The Climate Group has the following principles:
We believe…climate change is an urgent problem that requires an internationally coordinated, collaborative response directed at substantially reducing global GHG emissions…We will therefore strive…To achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions…exploring mechanisms such as emissions trading, policies and laws to facilitate this.
The WWF is one of the most strident of malthusian organizations, which, under the guise of conservation, has stolen vast areas of the globe from native inhabitants, and has policies of depopulation. Some have claimed its policies amount to genocide. Its public image about saving animals, right down to its panda logo, is a front and a decoy. Its first president, a former Nazi Stormtrooper and member of the SS, loved to go big game hunting in Africa. WWF transferred huge sums of money to bankroll a private army of mercenaries, who trained UNITA and Renamo guerillas in their nature reserves, carried out assassinations, and infiltrated and became deeply involved in the illegal ivory trade. Dr Arne Schiotz, a WWF director, has stated
…we have reached the end of the era of projects whose environmental consequences we do not know…do we have space on Earth for villages, for so many villages? Or the huge population of Mexico?..We and the International Planned Parenthood Federation do the same thing…a supranational intervention into the policies of nation-states.
A former WWF-UK chairman Sir Peter Scott added
All development aid should be made dependent on the existence of strong family planning programs in the countries concerned. We must make aid conditional on population policy.
The WWF claims that the earth is well past the point of being able to sustain the current human population, and that the IPCC reports on climate change are too tame. You can see an alarmist presentation by Robert Napier himself here In this presentation Napier states that “Climate change (‘chaos’) is today’s greatest global threat –worse than terrorism”. He trots out the usual propaganda: “Sea levels are rising – island communities are preparing for evacuation; Warming seas are bleaching and killing coral reefs; Violent weather and flood damage increased 400% over the past 10 years etc”. We’ve heard it all before, and it’s all lies. No sooner had the alarmist IPCC Fourth Assessment report come out in 2007 but the WWF went into warp factor overdrive that it was already out of date and that the earth was at the point of no return:
Since the publication of this key report, scientific research on climate change and its impacts has continued and new studies are revealing that global warming is accelerating, at times far beyond forecasts outlined in earlier studies included the Fourth Assessment Report. New numerical modelling studies also provide more detailed indications of the impacts to come if warming continues. Indeed important aspects of climate change seem to have been underestimated and the impacts are being felt sooner. For example, early signs of change suggest that the less than 1°C of global warming that the world has experienced to date may have already triggered the first tipping point of the Earth’s climate system – the disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. This process could open the gates to rapid and abrupt climate change, rather than the gradual changes that have been forecast so far. The implication of this recent evidence is that our mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change need to be even more rapid and ambitious.
Readers of this blog will know that such claims are not only outright falsehoods, but exceptionally irresponsible. The focus of the Green Fiscal Commission is, in its own words, the “greening of the UK tax system”.
…it will involve a substantial tax shift, such that, for example, 20 per cent of tax revenues come from green taxes by 2020.
The objective of the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC) is to prepare the ground for a significant programme of green fiscal reform in the UK…The GFC will achieve this through…research on the options for environmental tax reform in the UK and assessment of the social, environmental and economic implications of these proposals…Use of media and other communication activities to raise awareness and understanding of the options for environmental tax reform and stimulate public and political debate on them.
In its report of June 2009, Public Opinion on a Green Tax Shift, it showed how public opinion could be manipulated to accept Green taxes and totalitarianism by playing up climate change issues
In this regard, it should be stressed that people accepted the principle of a green tax shift. There was a view that if there is a need for radical action to address climate change then strong leadership will be required to implement it.
….people were concerned that many of the interventions were…impacting on personal freedoms…A focus on incentives…as well as penalties, will be needed if public acceptability of green taxes is to increase.
In the paper Greening the Treasury Paul Boateng, MP, who became Chief Secretary to the Treasury, explains how he was influenced by Napier to adopt and push Green fiscal policies. He wrote:
I met recently with representatives of WWF and I was struck by the contribution of its Chief Executive, Robert Napier, to Green Alliance’s open letter to the Prime Minister. He said ‘joined up policy-making is every environmentalist’s dream’…control over tax and spending gives us a powerful tool for joining up policies…we can ensure that all government spending supports the principle of green government.
The Carbon Disclosure Project holds the world’s largest database of corporate climate change information. This information is used financially to skew the market towards those who adopt the Green agenda, both in terms of investments and trade. Governments and companies are induced to work only with companies with sufficiently Green credentials. The CDP represents 475 institutional investors, with a combined $55 trillion under management.
The CDP initiative…provides investors with a unique analysis of how the world’s largest companies are responding to the challenge of climate change.
Its first Public Procurement report released today reveals the power of the public sector to use procurement to transform the UK to a low carbon economy. Central and local government has collaborated through CDP to encourage its suppliers to measure, manage and report their greenhouse gas emissions, climate change related risks and opportunities and information on associated management strategy.
CDP claims this provides a clear message to suppliers to the UK public sector that action on climate change has become a necessary part of business. The public sector has considerable purchasing power. In the UK, public procurement amounts to £150 billion per annum with about £60 billion spent on goods and services by central government and the wider public sector spending a further £90 billion. In the EU as a whole, the public budget amounts to about 16% of total GDP.
Napier endorsed the book Buying for the Future by Kevin Lyons, supported by WWF, which taught how to enforce the Green agenda through the supply chain. Napier contributed the foreword to the book Capital Market Campaigning in which he wrote
Since I became Chief Executive of WWF-UK in 1999, I have been a strong advocate of capital market campaigning. My personal involvement in the Carbon Disclosure Project enabled me to see at first hand its considerable success in harnessing the influence of investors and increasing the disclosure of climate change emissions by listed companies…But do NGO’s have a legitimate role to play in the capital market? Of course they do…WWF will continue to intervene in the capital market…
Napier spoke at the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change in 2003 (“Profiting from a low carbon economy”) and the official report states:
Robert Napier, Chief Executive Officer, WWF-UK, also drove home the point that investors must ask companies how they are responding to the risks of climate change.
The World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme, which led to the setting up of the IPCC. It is afforded diplomatic privileges and immunities from the UK government. UNEP are starting to sound very Orwellian, warning of legal action against institutional investors and asset managers if they do not direct all their funds into supporting the eco agenda. Here are the chilling threats:
§ Investment consultants and asset managers have a duty to proactively raise ESG [environmental, social and governance] issues within their advice and services to institutional investors—and that an investment option that takes into account ESG issues should be the default position. Global capital market policymakers should also make this duty clear. § ESG issues must be embedded in the legal contracts between institutional investors and their asset managers to hold asset managers to account, and that ESG issues should be included in the periodic reporting by asset managers. Equally, the performance of asset managers should be assessed on a longer-term basis and linked to long-term incentives. § Institutional investors will increasingly come to understand the financial materiality of ESG issues and the systemic risk it poses, and the profound long-term costs of unsustainable development and its consequent impacts on the long-term value of their investment portfolios.
Of course, you must access the Carbon Disclosure Project to find out where the money should be directed. If not, you’ll get sued: Here are the details straight from UNEP:
UNEP-Supported Report Says Ignoring Environmental, Social and Governance Issues May Open Door to Court Cases The case, outlined in a new report with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), underlines how the world’s largest institutional investors-such as pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, mutual funds and foundations-have a central role in assisting the transition to a low carbon and resource efficient Green Economy. Indeed, the report says that professional investment advisors and service providers—such as investment consultants and asset managers—to institutional investors may have a far greater legal obligation to incorporate ESG issues into their investment services or face “a very real risk that they will be sued for negligence” if they do not.
The Alliance of Religions and Conservation is mainly bankrolled by WWF, the World Bank and MOA International, and aims to push the major world religions into designating vast tracts of land as ‘sacred’ so that no development can take place on them, make its properties useful for the advancement of the Green agenda, as well as directing the investments of the religions (who hold substantial assets) into the eco direction. It aims to infuse ‘Green’ values into religion, to galvanize vast numbers into supporting the Green agenda, and is working with the UN to push ecotheology. In its own words,
ARC is a secular body that helps the major religions of the world to develop their own environmental programmes…We help the religions link with key environmental organisations – creating powerful alliances…
A brochure can be found here In the 2006/7 Annual Report of the Met Office, printed on June 13, 2008, Napier declared
During the last year I have been impressed, but not surprised, by our accurate forecasts…for the…season ahead.
Considering the lamentable performance of the Met office at being able to make seasonal forecasts, this comment, if nothing else, betrays just how benighted people end up when they make it their business to peddle lies for profit.Source
Why Has Global Warming Alarmism Failed With Public? Perhaps Using Lies, Distortion & Fraud To Scare People Is Bad Strategy.
By Kevin Libin, National Post
Though a striking number of prominent scientists have recently recanted their initial belief in manmade global warming, joining an already robust community of distinguished skeptics, those who continue to advance the theory could be their own worst enemy. Whatever the truth is about anthropogenic climate change — the contention that carbon dioxide emitted by human industrial activity — the tendency among some climate-change believers to embellish the effects of planetary warming has only served to undermine their credibility in the eyes of the public and, less so, the media. For years, global warming advocates held up every calving ice shelf, failed crop or natural disaster as proof of a dawning warming apocalypse; whether it was too much rain, or not enough — either way, it was abnormal, and the fault of Big Oil and anyone questioning that, labeled a “denier.” As Vicky Pope, a senior British climatologist, citing overblown claims of rapid melting of arctic sea ice, and the ice sheet around Greenland, bemoaned earlier this year, for scientists, “overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.”
But probably nothing could damage the credibility of climate change believers than the recent revelation by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that it has lost or destroyed all the original data used to construct historic global temperature records. The CRU, at the University of East Anglia in the UK, which has been using information collected from weather stations across the globe for decades, is probably the most widely cited source worldwide for those mounting a case that the earth has exhibited an inexorable warming trend: its website boasts that CRU’s research has “set the agenda for the major research effort in, and political preoccupation with, climate research.” The critical raw climate data responsible, which scientists of all climate-creeds have a natural interest in, is now gone, apparently, forever. With the exception of a handful of countries that the CRU has agreements with to sell its data, all that remains for the bulk of the statistics are “value added” versions, which is to say, consolidated, homogenized data. Actually, the CRU says it doesn’t even have all the data for countries it has data-sharing agreements with. “We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s,” the CRU writes in a rather embarrassing explanation for all this posted on its website.
The Unit makes this admission now, coincidentally, as it faced a flurry of requests, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, to make available its data to interested researchers. The CRU, it seems, had not been much in a sharing mood prior to that. UK’s register reports that Professor Phil Jones, the fellow in charge of maintaining the CRU data set, told an Australian researcher a few years back that he refused to publicly share his statistics. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” The idea that scientific progress rests completely on the constant testing and retesting, verifying and refuting, of studies, seems not to be shared by Mr. Jones, even though this particular data set had massive implications for policymaking in pretty well every country on the planet. Unfortunately for him, as part of a publicly managed and funded organization, his group was nonetheless subject to transparency laws, and so, when researchers sought to shake the data loose without his consent, it had mysteriously vanished. “We have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value,” they explained in coming up dry for the FOI requests. As Stephen McIntyre, the Canadian economist famous for his addiction to poring through volumes of mind-numbing climate statistics, and occasionally finding errors (as he did, with Ross McKitrick, in deconstructing and undermining the famous “hockey stick” graph), writes on his Climate Audit blog, it appears that the impoverished CRU even lacked filing cabinets in which to store its records.
With access only to “homogenized” consolidated data, there is no way for researchers — skeptical or believers — to verify or refute the original statistics or calculations behind the CRU’s widely relied-upon weather information. The data could be accurate, or not. It could be that temperatures haven’t been warming at the rate the CRU claims, or it could be that they’re warming faster, perhaps arguing for an even direr situation for the planet. Nor can the raw data be run through different modeling programs in order to corroborate conclusions, or question them. The science is permanently frozen into the CRU’s original grid, and we are, evidently, forced to assume everything is perfectly accurate, a relatively rare thing in complex statistical calculations compiled over decades.
Which is why Mr. McIntyre (who has also found evidence that could, maybe, suggest that the CRU has been deleting important data files from its servers) isn’t the only one incredulous and indignant over the CRU’s missing records. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Science and Technology Policy Research is a firm believer in global warming. But even he calls this a “big” “misstep,” writing on his blog that “just because climate change is important and because there are opponents to action that will seize upon whatever they can to make their arguments, does not justify overlooking or defending this degree of scientific sloppiness and ineptitude.” Scientists of all climate creeds know that access to basic data is critical to keeping research credible. Of course, the CRU is only one of a couple key organizations whose research based on historical weather data is used to support global warming theory. Given that the Unit has admitted now that it cannot fully substantiate its work, it raises the uncomfortable question of whether CRU’s historic climate research should be used any longer at all.
Source via C3 Headlines
Yet another new climate realist documentary is about to be released! This one is brought to you by the Cascade Policy Institute to help fight Obama’s cap-and-tax scheme.
An epic debate is soon to begin in the U.S. Senate. The proposed Cap-and-Trade legislation would have a far-reaching impact on your standard of living and give government a portal into every aspect of your life. The affordable, dependable and abundant energy upon which any great civilization is built is about to be rationed. Please make the time to view this short video trailer and share it with your friends.
Via email
Not Evil Just Wrong is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don’t want you to see. It reveals the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria.
Make it your very own Cinematic Tea Party Hollywood doesn’t want you to see Not Evil Just Wrong. But we’ve decided to by-pass Hollywood. We’re throwing the world’s largest simultaneous film premiere party in history. How? By having the parties simultaneously occur worldwide on October 18th at 8 pm EST. Who’s invited: You, your family, your friends, people who’ll absolutely love and people who’ll absolutely hate the documentary and therefore must see it. When: October 18th, 2009 Time: 8pm EST, 7pm CST, 6pm MST, 5pm PST Location: Your home, community center, church or wherever you and your friends and family normally gather. What you have to do: Once you receive your premiere pack you are honor bound not to press the play button until 8pm EST on Oct 18 – we want everyone watching the film at the same time so we have a shot at breaking the World Record for largest ever simultaneous movie premiere. At 8pm, you will be part of a national movement watching the most important and most controversial film of the year. Hosting essentials: We’ll send along a premier party package. Our party packs contain everything you need to transform your home for this cinematic tea party. Each pack contains a film poster, invitations, a DVD of Not Evil Just Wrong and your very own piece of red carpet that you can roll out for your friends. But we’re counting on you to bring the popcorn, put the poster on your front door, and roll out that red carpet. Be part of a World Record at home with friends on October 18 with this red carpet Premiere Party Pack…CLICK HERE!
NOT EVIL UPDATE – August 25, 2009
We made an online splash last week with our exclusive report about Greenpeace’s outgoing leader being caught in a lie about melting Arctic ice. The story damaged Greenpeace’s reputation and forced the group into a rare retreat and “clarification” on its Web site.
In July, Greenpeace published a story that said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2030, but executive director Gerd Leipold admitted that was a mistake when pressed by Stephen Sackur of BBC. “I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said on BBC’s “Hardtalk.”
Greenpeace issued its clarification after the blogosphere exploded with the news. The pro-environmental blog at the left-wing Guardian newspaper acknowledged that “Greenpeace will be bruised by this furor” because of the group’s admission that it intentionally emotionalizes issues to sway public opinion.
Blogs at The New York Times, the Telegraph and Canada Free Press also touted our exclusive. The Telegraph called the BBC clip embedded in our story “a deliciously watchable video of Gerd Leipold … squirming like a stuck pig.”
Our revelation about Leipold’s admission inspired editorials in Investor’s Business Daily and the Kansas City Star. IBD cited the news as the latest piece of evidence that environmentalists are “willing to bend the truth in order to draw attention to the cause,” and the Star opined that “people like Leipold embody environmentalism’s crabbed vision and subtle authoritarianism.”
The interest in our story proves that people don’t want that kind of authoritarianism. Our video clip of Leipold on YouTube quickly went viral and has been viewed more than 50,000 times. YouTube itself praised the video as “a fantastic watch” on its Citizentube blog.
Major blogs like Big Hollywood, Instapundit, Hot Air, and the blogs of Fox News’ Sean Hannity and current Times best-selling author Michelle Malkin also praised the story for shining a light on Greenpeace’s scare tactics.
The coverage has exposed hundreds of thousands of people to one small kernel of truth about global warming hysteria, but that’s just a start. All of those people, and millions more, need to see “Not Evil Just Wrong” to absorb the depth of the deception by radical environmentalists.
That’s the last thing Greenpeace wants, which explains why the group tried to spin last week’s revelation by orchestrating a fake, online grassroots campaign. We can’t let them win, and you can help us fight the ongoing global warming alarmism in a couple of ways: 1) Become an affiliate and earn cash by selling the film on your Web site; and 2) host a premiere party in your home on Oct. 18 and be a part of America’s first and best cinematic tea party.
We continue working toward the premiere by promoting the film at every opportunity. Last week, we gave a sneak screening to select bloggers and journalists in Washington at the office of Americans for Tax Reform.
Phelim made the following radio appearances: “Clash Radio,” a nationally syndicated program of the Information Radio Network; “The Phil Valentine Show” in Tennessee; “The Don Kroah Show” in Arlington, Va.; “Mornings with Ray Dunaway” in Farmington, Conn.; “The Chuck Wilder Show” in Chino, Calif.; and “Take AIM,” the weekly BlogTalkRadio show of Accuracy In Media.
Phelim started this week with back-to-back radio appearances. On Sunday, he was a guest on the nationally syndicated “The Source with Paul Anderson,” and he talked about global warming hysteria on “Richmond’s Morning News with Jimmy Barrett” on Monday.
Please help us keep the momentum going by promoting the film on your Web sites and making plans to join us in the largest-ever simultaneous movie premiere on Oct. 18. Please also forward this e-mail to your friends and family.
We need your support to awaken the world to the devastating consequences of global warming hysteria! -Ann & Phelim
NOT EVIL UPDATE – September 1, 2009
America’s cinematic tea party is now less than 50 days away! Come Oct. 18, patriots from sea to shining sea will be watching as we expose the true cost of global warming hysteria with the premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong.
The rush to premiere day gave us an emotional rush last week as we recorded the directors’ commentary. Production manager Magda joined us in the studio to tell the true behind-the-scenes story of the making of Not Evil Just Wrong. Reliving the film reminded us just how important it is to tell this story. The American Dream is at stake for millions of families! Radical environmentalists have buried the truth under mounds of flawed science and alarmism, but Americans are awakening as they hear the truth. They’re hungry for facts, not the distortions of groups like Greenpeace. We mentioned in last week’s letter the phenomenal outcry against Greenpeace after we exposed the group’s lie about melting Arctic ice and forced Greenpeace into a rare “clarification.” People are still talking about that retreat, which has been seen more than 56,000 times on YouTube!
The Pittsburgh Tribune penned a biting editorial last week under the headline “Greenpeace Exposed.” The paper cited the lie we exposed as proof that “Greenpeace twists the truth to further its eco-wacko agenda.” It also said the news shows the general “dubiousness of global warming alarmists’ credibility and the reprehensibility of their tactics.” The Washington Examiner also cited our report about Greenpeace’s in an editorial urging the Senate to reject “cap and trade” legislation that would cripple an American economy already mired in recession. Senators “should take a hard look at the pronouncements of Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups, and separate the propaganda from the facts,” the paper said.
Separating propaganda from facts — now there’s an idea that never occurs to environmentalists. But we’re thrilled when open-minded people are willing to do it, like the organizers of “Climate Week” at the University of York in the United Kingdom. They’ve added a screening of Not Evil Just Wrong to their agenda for Oct. 28, days after our historic U.S. premiere.
The more, the merrier, we say. We want an open and honest debate about global warming. But the other side keeps spouting nonsense about mutants, ice-cube bunkers and most of North America being underwater like they did in an ad replayed at Friday’s Social Good Conference. Go watch that extreme fiction on our blog so you can see what we’re up against.
We’re constantly airing the truth here in America. We scored several radio interviews last week, including appearances on: the nationally syndicated “Korelin Economics Report“; “News And Views” on the Information Radio Network; “Pintek Tonight” in Pittsburgh; Brandywine Radio in Pennsylvania; “Let’s Talk, With Lee And Terry Frank” in Knoxville, Tenn.; “Life Line” in San Francisco; “Tru News” in Texas; and “Money And More” on WYLL-AM in Naperville, Ill.
Americans for Tax Reform also plugged Not Evil Just Wrong on its blog after our screening there for bloggers and journalists. “The film shows the other side of the scientific debate [about global warming], the side that doesn’t exist according to the global warming extremists,” ATR said.
We’ll keep telling that truth about global warming hysteria, but we need your help. Please promote our film on your Web sites and make plans now to join us in the largest-ever simultaneous movie premiere on Oct. 18. You have less than 50 days to get your piece of red carpet so you can give your neighbors a taste of Hollywood!
-Ann & Phelim
NOT EVIL UPDATE – September 15, 2009
The Not Evil Just Wrong team was out in full force at Freedom Plaza early Saturday to promote the film. We weren’t there long before we had to haul our table and display to Capitol Hill. We chatted up the crowd all day and met fans from across the country, including one couple all the way from Orange County, Calif., that can’t wait for premiere night. One man from Delaware is so excited about the movie that he volunteered to help distribute fliers once he found us. And we overheard another man repeating our Web address by phone to someone back home.
We learned one thing real fast about the protesters: They don’t like Al Gore. People snapped up the “NoMoreGore.com” signs we debuted at the rally. The Web site got some airtime on MSNBC while we were at Freedom Plaza. See how many times you spot this sign in this segment.
Saturday’s rally followed our Friday appearance on the nationally syndicated “G. Gordon Liddy Show,” where we alerted listeners to the scary “green future” that awaits America if the country adopts a European-style “cap and trade” system.
Our other radio appearances last week included “55 Feedback” in Wisconsin and “Reality Check” in Florida. We kicked off this week with Monday appearances on “Zeb at the Ranch” in Idaho and “Up Front with Vicki McKenna” in Wisconsin. We also talked with a Washington Times reporter. We’re airing the message of Not Evil Just Wrong from coast to coast! We’re also writing for our blog. We took American educators to task twice last week for pushing global warming propaganda instead of teaching facts to the children.
The first occasion came on the day of President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren. Parents were right to be nervous about it because public schools have become ideological hatcheries for liberals. In addition to posting proof from Northern Ireland as reported in our movie, we dug up plenty of fresh evidence of global warming hysteria in American schools.
The impact of environmental scare tactics reaches beyond schools. In the case of the pesticide DDT, the tactics had deadly costs. That’s why no one should trust an elitist crew of “climate champions” like those being recruited by the World Wide Fund for Nature. Please read the blog posts linked above and get as upset as we are about global warming hysteria. Then help us get America psyched and ready to fight the alarmism. Thanks for your support!
-Ann & Phelim
By Paul Taylor, LA Ecopolitics Examiner
Environmentalists have been coaxing us for years to donate to their eco-nonprofits, and to pay more for green products and services. There has been a massive global expansion in green marketing. Green marketers have developed slick schemes to sell an avalanche of green and eco-friendly products. These marketing tactics emphasize an immediate and emotionally-compelling environmental benefit — often when the claimed benefit is unproven. The US Federal Trade Commission regulates claims made in advertisements for all products and services — including environmental product and service advertisements.
Corporate marketeers have “greened” every product, service and advertising tag line. Surveys last year of large US retailers found more than 1,700 products boasting of green credentials or environmental benefits — most at higher cost, with unproven benefits.
Source
By Cory de Vera, News-Leader
Those convinced that the earth is warming — and that such warming is going to trigger catastrophic disasters — have jumped on to the latest eco-scare that just isn’t backed by science, said Marc Morano (pictured) who runs a Web site called Climate Depot.
Morano was among the speakers Thursday at a one-day conference called “Debunking Climate Change Myths” in Springfield.About 150 attended the conference, presented by a group called “Scientists for Truth.” Attendees included high school students, local politicians and others.On ClimateDepot.com, Morano links to news stories about climate change, as well as providing his own thoughts on the issue.In his speech, he said those who believe in global warming and its dangers also post messages — noting the different sides of the debate may not get along.”But at least they are fighting, they are engaging each other,” he said.While other speakers at the event presented scientific critiques, Morano offered quotes he’s collected from various news sources, politicians and scientists.In 1975, for instance, Newsweek Magazine sounded alarms over climactic change. But the difference was writers were warning of an impending ice age, he said.In the 1980s and the 90s, the popular eco-cause became saving the Amazon Rainforests, a topic Morano made a documentary about in 2000.But, Morano pointed out that even the New York Times reported that for every acre of rain forest being cut, 50 are growing back.Until March, Morano worked for the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works committee, where he wrote a dissenting report that 700 scientists signed.He said more scientists and others who previously supported a belief in catastrophic climate change are looking at data and challenging conventional wisdom.However, he expressed amazement that more aren’t challenging statements made from supporters like Nobel Prize winning economist Thomas Schelling.According to Morano, Schelling was quoted in The Atlantic as wishing for natural disasters: “I sometimes wish we could have over the next five or 10 years a lot of horrid things happening, you know, like tornados in the Mid west and so forth. That would get people concerned about climate change.”
Morano called characterized such statement as insane. “A man who can’t convince people on the science because the science isn’t there, so he’s now wishing for death, destruction on people through tornados,” he said.Morano predicted that the next “eco-fears” will include a so-called oxygen crisis — a crisis caused by a shrinking supply of oxygen on earth — and a crisis of plastic waste.Laure David, producer of Al Gore’s film on global warming, has been trying to draw attention to the issue of plastic waste, calling it “in some ways more alarming” for humans than global warming, Morano said.The conference was organized by Ron Boyer, who runs a consulting firm. He also sits on the Missouri Air Conservation Commission — though the conference was not connected to the commission.Boyer said he wanted to hold the conference because he was tired of hearing that the debate on climate change is over.”That’s not how science works. Science continues to examine,” said Boyer, who has an undergraduate degree in chemistry.Boyer said future conferences will depend on whether or not the Senate passes the Cap and Trade legislation.”If they do pass it, the debate is over because it will be a done deal,” said Boyer.But, he said, if it doesn’t pass this year there will be a chance to continue debating the science another year.John Lilly, a medical doctor and Willard school board member, said he attended the conference because he wanted to support the scientists who are trying to debunk global warming.”Those who support global warming do it for political reasons rather than actual scientific reasons,” he said.
Source
An email from Dr. John Lewis, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program, Duke University
I call your attention to a new volume, “Natural Resources, the Environment, and Human Welfare,” edited by Ellen Fraenkel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr. and Jeffrey Paul (Cambridge, 2009). This is the book version of the journal “Social Philosophy and Policy” 26.2 (Summer 2009) dedicated to “The Environment: Philosophy and Policy.” This highly regarded publication is aimed at readers in the fields of the social sciences, as well as philosophy, public policy and law. See here
My own article, “History, Politics, and Claims of Man-made Global Warming” challenges readers to consider a broad view of the natural history of the earth, the voices of scientists who do not accept the truth of an imminent climate disaster, and the dangerous political consensus that threatens us with a disaster of our own making. My article follows one by Michael Mann, “Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a Serious Threat to Our Welfare and Environment?” Reading the two articles in series offers readers a chance to evaluate the positions of a scientist who agrees with the climate disaster claims and thinks that aggressive political action is required, and a non-scientist who thinks that the political disaster we are creating far outstrips any human impact on the environment.
A sample from my article:
“Among people who are in the position to create and enforce government policies, however, there is a consensus that human responsibility for global warming is a settled issue, and that the task now is to implement the laws required to atone for that responsibility. This political consensus is a dangerous thing, because the remedies being proposed to mitigate the AGW predictions are breathtaking in their scope, and will have negative consequences for billions of people. This conclusion is not a matter of hypothetical computer modeling, conjecture, or percentages on a graph. The governmental actions being planned now are on a scale commensurate with socialist planned economies, and would place the very heart of industrial society-the motive power that keeps its industry beating-under the control of a labyrinthine maze of all-powerful government bureaucracies. Should these proposals be adopted, the people of the industrialized nations will be subjected to controls over minutiae of daily life on a level previously thought intolerable. It behooves policy planners, scientists and citizens alike to grasp the consequences of such policies, while they consider the shaky, disputed scientific grounds on which the calls for action are based. . . .
“The purpose of this essay is to bring into focus two crucial aspects of this issue. The first is to present a basic outline of natural history as an historical context for the AGW claims, along with the evaluations of top-rank scientists who do not accept those claims. The second is to illuminate some of the regulatory proposals that these claims have engendered, as well as the economic, political, and moral meaning of these proposals. The specific focus here will be on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 11, 2008, along with a brief summation of its background in American and international political action. This examination should assist non-scientists in forming judgments about whether claims of man-made global climate disaster are strong enough to warrant these radical, irreversible government actions.”
By Frank J. Tipler, Physicist
