Activist Hubris: "We've basically got the whole world organised"

By Thomas Richard
I always find it interesting when activists and dissidents have neither formal scientific education, nor degrees in the exacting field of climatology. What they do have is a creepy, devoted following willing to do whatever they ask. Especially if that group believes only they can save the Earth. Enter Jim McKibben. He’s the idea guy behind and is little more than an “American environmentalist and writer” who preys upon the uninformed and the easily influenced. In short, he targets the youth of the world who don’t have the the requisite experience to spot a charlatan. McKibben lectures his impressionable followers on what he considers safe levels of carbon dioxide, then footnotes it all with end-of-the-world prognostications. Ibid, repeat. Even more worrying is that he specifically targets the world’s youth, exacerbating this group’s natural tendency to making risky chances, protest unconditionally, challenge authority, and place unconditional faith in a higher power. No, not God. McKibben.

…analysts and activists detect a groundswell of anger, channelled through the Internet and voiced especially by the young, demanding action on global warming. [source]

Happy with his grassroots organization, McKibbin boasts that his rank and file apostles are both educated and religious:

“It has worked beyond our wildest expectations,” McKibben told AFP. “We’ve basically got the whole world organised, much of it for the first time. October 24 is going to be, by a very large margin, the most widespread day of environmental action ever.” Two demographic profiles dominate among‘s rank-and-file, McKibben said: educated youth and people linked by religion. “I was aware of climate change but didn’t know what I could do,” Gan Pei Ling, 22, a student at Tunku Abdul Rahman University in Malaysia, said this month at climate talks in Bangkok, where she had come to lobby negotiators. Meeting a small node of activists in Malaysia gave her the courage to speak out, and put her in touch with like-minded young people across Asia and beyond. Gan Pei Ling and hundreds of other 20-something activists who converged on Bangkok — many sporting T-shirts asking “How Old Will You Be in 2050?” — see global warming as an injustice toward the poor and the young. “Older people don’t seem to care,” said Lokendra Shrestha, a 28-year-old sociology student from Nepal, where vanishing glaciers threaten much of Asia’s water supply.

And for those who still doubt that global warming is NOT a religion, here’s a little perspective and some direct quotes:

Religion is also emerging as a lightning rod. “Climate has risen up massively as an issue of concern in religious communities,” said Stuart Scott, a former statistics professor from Hawaii who has crisscrossed the globe garnering support for his . His cause got a big boost when the declaration was included in an ecumenical ceremony at the UN Nations last month ahead of the world’s first climate summit. “It would be a huge mobilising force if people started to frame the issue of climate change in religious terms,” noted Newell.

Peter Newell, with a simpatico relationship to McKibbin, is a professor at the University of East Anglia in England. He also believes that anarchy begins at home:

“As evidence mounts of the severity of the threat, civil society groups will be fuelled by the urgency of acting now to avoid the worse consequences of a problem for which future generations will surely hold us accountable…We can expect the continued and expanded use of all resources available to them — legal and non-legal, constructive and coercive, national, regional and international.”

A rule of war is turning the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable and convincing them your cause is right. It’s about creating apostates of rational thinking. It’s teaching the young that the science is settled, the debates are over, and the only thing left to do is convince more people the end is nigh. In modern societies, we call this a cult.Source

Alarmist of the Week: Bill Maher

By Thomas Richard

As part of a new weekly offering, Climate Change Fraud will be awarding the dubious honor of “Alarmist of the Week” to the one person or organization that symbolizes everything that’s wrong in the climate debate. This person or organization will have either spoken outright lies, half-truths, maligned other scientists, or used ad hominem attacks to further the cries of climate alarmism.

This week’s winner is the Chicken Little of Global Warming alarmists. Week after week on his show Real Time, he either devotes entire segments to worn-out ‘facts’ that even the IPCC has repudiated, or manages to squeeze in a bit of name-calling that makes little or no sense.

The good news is that Real Time is on HBO, so his viewership is extremely limited as compared to a network/cable channel. This week he said climate change skeptics are “so stupid they make me question evolution.” (see video) And for those who don’t remember, Maher also said the 9/11 terrorists were not cowardly. “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”Source

Newsweek, Murdoch, and the Politics of Wordplay

By Thomas Richard In the current issue of Newsweek dated Sept. 28, 2009, it kicks off it’s greenest companies in America—in an apparent attempt to apply green guilt to those who don’t make the top 100—with a quote by Rupert Murdoch.

I have to admit that until recently I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. But I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.

I was curious about the quote, and did a little Googling. Turns out the quote is anything but recent. It is from 3 years ago, November 2006 to be precise. And in typical Newsweek fashion, they left out the quote date, circumstances, and the rest of what he had to say on the subject:

How much of it is warming due to human error is open to debate.

For regular readers of Newsweek (we know you are out there!), this is part and parcel in its attempts to misdirect the public. Many fence-sitters and AGW believers in 2006 are now skeptics. Is Murdoch a believer, lukewarmer, or skeptic? I don’t know. And apparently Newsweek doesn’t either. One thing is telling: Murdoch’s News Corp. came in at 270 out of 500 companies ranked.Source

Smithsonian Natural History Museum: Global Cooling Exhibit Under Attack

By Thomas Richard
While global warming alarmists are rather miffed that this display is still being shown, it’s a good lesson in the absurdity of basing policy on the fad du jour. Everything in the display is actually correct, but that isn’t stopping the ‘treehuggers’ from wondering why it’s even visible to the public, since the man-made global warming hoax should be the ONLY focus at the museum. UPDATE: This display might get the politically-driven ax very soon.Source

SF Examiner Columnist Cajoled into Redacting Own Article after EPA Responds to Criticism They Suppressed Information

By Tom Richard, Climate Change Fraud
epa_logo_1 Thomas Fuller, noted global warming critic (not skeptic) and a “Lib Dem”, whose philosophy is that alarmists are making a climate-change mountain out of a spring-shower molehill, published an article yesterday that apparently got the EPA’s dander up. The article, first reported by CEI, revealed how the EPA was suppressing “relevant evidence when considering whether or not to classify CO2 as a pollutant.” This is not surprising since the EPA is a political organization, its leader is appointed by the President, and they generally fall in line behind the administration’s agenda. In this case, the cap and trade tax. But to make the cap and trade tax easier for Congress to swallow, the EPA needed to relegate it as a pollutant. After Fuller called the EPA (by phone, no less!), they responded that the “suppressed evidence” was published on at least four occasions. They then go on to say they are trying to find out how to publish it. Yes, you read that correctly. The spin is in. Sadly, Fuller is one of the more common-sense voices in the global warming debate. Fuller, probably not familiar with the machinations of Washington, D.C., politics, was led down the road the EPA built just for him. And follow he did. He updates his article by not only redacting the entire piece, but chastising the CEI for making much ado about nothing.

I must say this does not sound like the big deal the CEI made of it, and I must particularly note how responsive and open the people I dealt with at the EPA were…If CEI did indeed play games with the skeptic community and we journalists covering that community, it will be their credibility in tatters.

Below you’ll find the EPA’s email response to Fuller that he also published, and in his own words, you can “draw your own conclusions.”

“This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this instance, certain opinions were expressed by an individual who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.” – EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy

The following is from user ‘Anonymous’ that was posted in the comment section after Fuller’s self-inflicted muzzling:

I work at EPA, I know the facts of what happened, the EPA is trying to spin its way out of this. McGartland put a muzzle on Dr. Carlin and he was instructed to by still senior officials. The facts will eventually come out, and they will not be pretty. I’d love to give my name, but I don’t want to have happen to me what has happened to Dr. Carlin.


The Sky Isn’t Falling [and it never was]

By Thomas Richard
Fareed Zakaria, in the latest issue of Newsweek, wonders how the media, researchers, and scientists got it all so very wrong on the extent of a swine flu pandemic that was to infect ‘millions’ and cause untoward worldwide damage:

Three weeks ago the World Health Organization declared a health emergency, warning countries to “prepare for a pandemic” and said that the only question was the extent of worldwide damage. Senior officials prophesied that millions could be infected by the disease. But as of last week, the WHO had confirmed only 4,800 cases of swine flu, with 61 people having died of it. Obviously, these low numbers are a pleasant surprise, but it does make one wonder, what did we get wrong?

He has his theories on how this issue garnered so much media attention, and posits:

Once we see a problem, we can describe it in great detail, extrapolating all its possible consequences….They [the researchers] described—and the media reported—what would happen if it went unchecked.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the exact same scenario happened with so-called man-made global warming. With one important difference. A lot of money is being made from the climate change scare. Some have estimated it to be in the trillions. There is no doubt it’s in the billions. A swine flu vaccine is $10 (once created) and even free depending on your health plan. You can’t build a cottage industry around a summer flu. You can build one around something you can’t prove is happening, is still a theory, and can be blamed for every one of mankind’s ills. Zakaria wraps up his take-the-media-to-the-woodshed commentary by reminding readers that history is our greatest teacher when it comes to media scare tactics:

We have learned from history and built some reasonably effective mechanisms to handle crises. Does that mean we shouldn’t panic? Yes, except that it is the sense of urgency that makes people act—even overreact—and ensures that a crisis doesn’t mutate into a disaster.

As the Waxman-Markey climate tax bill heads to the senate and ultimately to Obama, as mileage standards bring us closer to less-safe cars, and green groups use CO2 rulings to further their own agendas, perhaps those same folks in the media who continue spreading unnecessary panic will take a moment and learn from history. Before the non-existent crisis that is global warming leads us further to economic disaster.Source