Articles Tagged "Roger F. Gay"

I was disappointed upon seeing a Global Warming “science” pitch recently published in Politico. Cold shoulder for climate change was written by sports writer turned outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter turned environmental journalist Darren Samuelsohn.

I won't pick apart details of the entire article. It's based on the old propaganda template: warmers are scientists, skeptics are right-wing ideologues. No mention of the much larger number of professional scientists and engineers who have gone from skeptical to calling the whole thing a fraud. In Samuelsohn's world, warmers and their climate theories have been “exonerated” and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is slated to rise in public status again.

Sameulsohn's background – about as far from scientifically educated as possible – is rather typical for environmental journalists. The rank and file tend to drive the ad nauseam element of Global Warming Propaganda - the endless repetition of an idea in the hope that it will begin to be taken as the truth. What else are they qualified to do? We can kind-of understand this serving up of a previous season's warmed over nonsense by someone without enough knowledge to be embarrassed by it. It's a living, right?

As part of my continuing effort to develop credentials as an environmental journalist, I offer you this sensational breaking world exclusive. (Previous EJ article.)

It’s the perfect solution to everything. It’s said to represent the keenest investment ever in the future of personkind ever conceived. It will at once solve the climate change problem, provide a virtually unlimited natural energy source, relieve over-population, create jobs and boost economic growth, stimulate futuristic research and development, and initiate a new age of political prosperity and world peace.

I’m serious. It’s really really scientific. All we need to do is spit the Earth, right down the middle.

CO2 driven climate change: No problem. If you divide the Earth in half, you basically get two planets. There’s twice the space for the CO2, thus lowering its concentration to half what it is now.

Confronting your own false beliefs can be a daunting task, even more so when coupled with an overwhelming level of corruption in the world around you, steering you the wrong way. Coming to grips with the latter can end your days of innocence about mass media and politics.

For years now, people around the world have been pummeled with false information about global warming. Politicians and special interest groups have issued “dire warnings.” Al Gore predicts deadly weather. Government reports, United Nations committees, Oscar award, Nobel Peace prizes, and what about that supposed “scientific consensus” all pointing to catastrophic climate change caused by human activity?

People have a need to make logical sense of the world around them. And for the uninitiated, such long term pressure to accept the global warming hoax as “truth” doesn’t seem to make sense unless it is true. In the absence of knowledge, it is easy to naturally sense, as some of us put it, that repetition must equal truth – a kind of assessment process based on statistical consensus. The more you hear a thing, the more it seems to be supported. If a majority believes it, then it is more likely to be true than if it is a minority opinion.

Big Lie politics includes typical patterns of behavior. One very good way to help make sense of this world, to understand and protect yourself against it in the future, is to become familiar with common propaganda techniques. Study the common techniques defined below and see how many you recognize in catastrophic, man-made global warming propaganda.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, the old saying goes. But warmers are adding a new twist. Join 'em in order to beat 'em.

I've seen the story too many times now to think it's a fluke of bad writing, which often happens when non-scientist like most “environmental journalists” write about science. It's clearly emerging as a “talking point.”

Warmers knew they were licked. For months they've talked about changing their PR strategy, even looking to fund professional consultants to get the spin just right. With all the speed of a click of an energy saving switch, they've been transformed from lying, stealing, fist shaking frauds to the most honest and reasonable people you could ever meet. Just like us – regular people – they are now avowed skeptics, just the thing that real science is made of, just one of those things that was missing from their arguments, just one of those things that broadcast their lack of credibility.

An opinion piece in The Australian, titled Warming to the facts on climate, repeats what I expect will become more familiar to everyone. Start with a teaser;

For too many years, we’ve had to put up with dishonest, idiotic, and sometimes insane ramblings from the left on the subject of “climate change.” As Al Gore proclaimed, it’s not over yet. But it’s certainly much closer to being shrugged off with mocking laughter than it was a year ago. (In fact, I’ve been doing it for some months now.)

A critical load bearing card in their propaganda house was the claim that it is a scientifically established fact that modern human existence is leading quickly to catastrophe. The unmerciful and unyielding science god of the atheists had spoken and could not be denied. A holy war commenced.

While the inner circle may make the history books for cashing in on one of the biggest cons in political history; the small but determined rank and file of the warmers’ movement amounted to a shabby collection of green entrepreneurs, professional activists and con artists, professional artists looking for attention, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, academics hoping to take advantage of funding opportunities, and some bored teenagers out for a Beavis and Butthead afternoon.

As I mentioned in Al Gore Appears–Note to Warmers: No More Do-Overs!:

If at first they don’t succeed then they will deny and lie again! And that goes for the second time, the third, the fourth …. You get it – as never-ending as Florida recounts; it goes on and on until responsible people step in and put a stop to it.

From the ardent Internet believer in global warming “theory” who can’t provide any real scientific evidence, to the East Anglia researchers who insist that Climategate is merely a misunderstanding, to IPCC defenders who claim their reports are only in error by a few insignificant typos, to Al Gore still battling the imminent destruction of planet Earth by the evil “global warming pollutants,” there can never be too many chances to ignore defeat and start all over again – from the beginning.

OK … now … certainly if you’ve tried to follow the warmers arguments at all, you remember the claim of a “scientific consensus.” It was showcased in Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. Supposedly, all credible scientists were absolutely certain that the things he said in his movie were true; just as surely as gravity exists and the earth is round.

It’s part of the basic propaganda formula. Claiming that everyone who’s anyone believes … is sometimes called the bandwagon technique. In this case, the “everyone” refers to scientists, and that adds an appeal to authority, another propaganda ploy. (related article on these techniques and others) Al Gore was very direct. “This isn’t me claiming these things,” he insisted. (I’m not going to watch the movie again to make sure I have this word for word, but it’s accurate.) “These are scientists.” And he went on to quote figures from a published article on how many articles had been published that referred to global warming.

Click source to read FULL report from Roger F. Gay

As CNN explains it; “An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked “Climategate” e-mails found no evidence to question the “rigor and honesty” of scientists involved.” That seems to be the general conclusion offered by Muir Russell, chairman of the select group of political insiders who conducted the review.

The review focused on “the behaviors of the scientists in the climatic research unit in the University of East Anglia,” which was at the center of the Climategate scandal. Russell provided a carefully worded public statement on the review.

“Those behaviors have been commented on in the light of a release – an improper release of emails in the autumn of 2009, not long before the Copenhagen conference. We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists. And that’s a comment about the processes that they went through to produce their work, to handle their data, to have their work peer-reviewed, and so on. A lot of what they do makes a big impact on the advice that goes to policy-makers, both domestically and internationally, and we concluded similarly that these behaviors that were the subject of criticism had not affected the impact on the policy advice. What we did however conclude was that they had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data they were processing, about the stations they were analyzing, and so on. And we’ve made a number of recommendations both for them and for the University of East Anglia in terms of how it manages its freedom of information process, and how it manages its risk process.”

Far-left advocacy group Greenpeace receives large donations from rich and powerful people, enough to drown the entire notion of political independence and non-partisanship. The mechanism of receiving funding – through foundations – is the same as the opposition “right wing” organizations that it criticizes for funding bias.

Greenpeace is an international conglomerate, composed of corporations in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Included among Greenpeace’s largest corporate donors are the Rockefeller brothers, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, and the Macarthurs; as well as a long list of foundations with left-leaning gifting bias.

Since people on the left are generally unfamiliar with religious thought, my guess is that the Greenpeace propagandists are unfamiliar with the rules on casting the first stone. The group’s recent libelous attack against the Koch brothers appears to have had a dual purpose; both obviously connected to the exposure of the global warming scam.

We have been awestruck by the audacity of the global warming scam. If taken to fruition, it will destroy freedom and democracy, devastate the economies of the modern world, and concentrate unimaginable power and wealth in the hands of a small international group of politically connected criminals.

Organized through the United Nations, scientific research and education related to weather came nearly to an end. A handful of people controlled reports from a UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These reports were used to plant extraordinary and scientifically unfounded predictions about catastrophic global warming caused by human existence. Left leaning journalists, including a new core of “environmental journalists” jumped at the chance to declare that humans are bad and more government power is an urgent necessity.

Financing of science and education through governments aimed directly at pushing the political agenda, with IPCC reports as the excuse. Skeptics were ostracized while thousands of scientists were paid to include global warming fears in published works. Suddenly, there were claims that every scary thing imaginable was being caused by or would be caused by man-made global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore, claiming “scientific consensus,” exaggerated the IPCC claims in a powerfully promoted propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth, which made its way into many class rooms to frighten young children. By the mid-2000s, many people believed that global warming might be something to fear and that government action might be prudent.

It was time for “business as usual.” Threats from politicians to industry became credible. Barack Obama for example, directly threatened to put the coal industry out of business. Threats of sky-rocketing taxes and operating costs put business globally on the defensive. Woe unto those who didn’t get into the game. Lobbying activity sky-rocketed.

Click source to read FULL report from Roger F. Gay

Inspired for the most part by an article written by Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample, some by an article by Pulitzer Prize op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times, as well as others I’ve read over the past couple of years, I decided to try my hand at environmental journalism. Feel free to leave a comment to let me know how I’m doing. Just remember – it’s all about science.

The most exalted of the world’s eminent scientists – ever – are predicting a new warm period set to begin in the very near future, which could increase the the earth’s temperature by as much as 60-70 degrees Celsius in some places. That’s 120-140 degrees Fahrenheit. It has been confirmed by really advanced super-computer models written by the world’s most intelligent people that, should this take place, and there’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the minds of all reasonable people everywhere – at least the smart and scientific ones – that it will, vast amounts of ice and snow will melt quickly, creating a huge volume of run-off water that will overwhelm rivers and streams creating local flooding before eventually raising the levels of lakes and oceans. Much of the ice currently covering small lakes will also disappear.