0
   

Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters

 
 
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:52 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/04/fakegate_climate_change_fanatics_wage_war_on_dissenters.html

Quote:
'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters

By Nancy J. Thorner
Why would Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and chairman of an American Geophysical Union task force on "scientific ethics and integrity," break the law to engage in a smear campaign against a small think-tank called The Heartland Institute that resulted in "Fakegate"?

As Alan Caruba related in the opening paragraph of his article published on Tuesday, April 3rd, titled "Fatetgate: The War on Science," "[g]enerations of Americans have been raised to venerate science and those who have enhanced and extended our lives through its application. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them."

The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events."

Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations. Among these scientists were such notables as Lord Monckton, special adviser to former Margaret Thatcher, and former Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Monckton and Klaus were featured guests at Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in May of 2010.

An economist by training, Klaus made the following statement in 2011:

I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion or climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tell us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.

In light of Heartland's worldwide recognition as a global warming/climate change skeptic of merit, it was only a matter of time before rage would ensue among climate alarmists to single out Heartland for discrediting and destruction.

So it was, on January 27 of this year, that Peter Gleick stole the identity of a member of Heartland's board of directors and then used that identity to steal corporate documents describing Heartland's budget, fundraising plans, and more. When those documents failed to produce a "smoking gun" -- for example, they showed that Heartland received only small amounts of funding from the Koch brothers and from fossil fuel companies -- Gleick or an ally forged a memo alleging to describe Heartland's "Global Warning Strategy."

On February 14, Gleick sent the stolen and forged documents to fifteen allies in the environmental movement and mainstream media, resulting in a wave of criticism of Heartland's supposed plans to "infiltrate schools" and "undermine" climate science. Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20, but media coverage of the event focused overwhelmingly on the false claims in the fake memo rather than on Gleick's criminal actions.

Gleick's allies immediately used the forged memo and stolen documents to target Heartland's donors and the scientists who have helped write its publications.

A group calling itself "Forecast the Facts" challenged the chairman and CEO of General Motors to defend the company's foundation's support of an organization that opposes the teaching of science in public schools.

On Friday, March 30, General Motors spokesman David Barthmuss succumbed to what amounted to bullying, confirming that the company's foundation will no longer donate to The Heartland Institute.

Regarding the loss of General Motors as a source of funding, Heartland CEO Joseph Bast had this to say: "The General Motors Foundation has been a supporter of the Heartland Institute for some 20 years. We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick."

Bast subsequently told me: "The Left has attacked our donors before, but never had a list, and never had a fake memo to use that made it sound like we were truly evil and deliberately misleading people about our program. That's what Fakegate provided...and the wacky Left let loose the hounds at "Forecast the Facts."

In the eyes of those who are global warming skeptics, Peter Gleick might be labeled as an uncouth and evil person, but not according to Paul Joseph Watson, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies. In Professor Watson's mind, Peter Gleick is the hero, while those having doubts about anthropogenic climate change are sick and in need of treatment.

Even if evil is in the eyes of the beholder, destructive policies spawned by global alarmists and environmental extremists, and from state and federal government entities, etc., cannot be permitted to stand unchallenged. In Heartland's case, there was nothing remotely scandalous in its behavior.

In an effort to move forward in a positive way from Fakegate, Bast announced on Monday, April 2, that the seventh International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Chicago on May 21-23 to demonstrate, among other reasons, that the global warming skeptics movement has not lost any momentum due to the Fakegate scandal.

(See here for the author's account of The Heartland Institute's 2010 Fourth International Climate Change Conference held in Chicago, as published at the American Thinker on May 22, 2010.)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,702 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 07:08 am
@gungasnake,
It's 'Meriokun Thumker' isn't it?

Just doing my best Ganja response.

Rap
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2012 03:22 pm
more:

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1069/follow_the_money_the_morality_of_green_funding

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 12:16 am
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 06:38 am
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 06:41 am
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 06:45 am
William Connelly (the man with the poor-man's time machine):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

A time machine is basically something which allows its owner to change history. Ensconcing oneself as a Wikipedia sys admin and removing all mention of the medieval climate optimum from upwards of 5000 wiki articles is basically a poor-man's version of a time machine.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 06:46 am
Basic clearinghouse for real info:

http://www.climategate.com
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 07:01 am
The sad news is that there are still so many saps willing to believe this bullshit (global warming).

The happy news is that Vladimir Putin, who figures to be the main hero in this whole sordid story, finally figured out that he didn't need to **** Russia's economy over a bunch of BULLSHIT, gathered Russia's top computer hackers in a room, and told them to blast their way into that East Anglia email database and spread to the four winds whatever they found there.

How many times does that make that Russia has saved us?? I mean, imagine a world in which Sweden was a major power..... Tsar Peter saved us from that.

http://estb.msn.com/i/DB/C7DD4656A35227ACA3308ED355A917.jpg

oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 02:07 am

Regarding this latest stuff from the IPCC, I listened to see if they had instituted any measures to prevent fraudulent practices like the suppression of data that "says the wrong thing".

So far as I could tell, they've just decided to pretend that the problem does not exist.

I stopped listening.


(Someone wake me up if they ever decide to produce a credible report.)
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 04:50 am
@oralloy,
They're doubling down on stupid. That is, they're trying to insist that WE'RE stupid enough to believe their ****.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:22 am
@gungasnake,
As usual, Gunga Dim doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Sweden was never a world power, and no reputable historian has ever claimed they were. But more than that, they were never a threat to the peace of Europe. Saxony, Denmark and Russia made war on Sweden--and unprovoked war. A young and naïve Petr Alexeevitch was cozened by Augustus the Strong of Saxony, who was also the elected King of Poland, and who gave the false impression that Poland would fight with them. Sweden was a major regional power, but even if Charles XII of Sweden hadn't been an idiot, Russia by itself was far more than he could handle. But he was an idiot, and having defeated the Russians at Narva, he turned aside to invade Poland and Saxony, and above all else, to hunt down Johann Patkul, which was a fatal obsession for him. His chancellor tried to make him an arbiter in European affairs, with the western powers of the eve of the War of the Spanish Succession. He didn't get much traction on that, though. After Charles marched across Poland and invaded Saxony (leaving Russia to rebuild in his rear), Marlborough went east to meet him, and having assured himself that Charels would not interfere in the west, ignored him thereafter.

Having finally run down Patkul, and having executed him, Charles then turned east to invade Russia, a campaign which he f*cked up in a spectacular fashion. The Russians did not win so much as the Swedes threw away their prospects and their army in Russia.

Sweden was never a threat to the security of Europe, and it was never a world power. The Russians didn't "save" anyone from anything.

Gunga Dim brings this sort of reliability to every subject he broaches--which is to say, no reliability at all.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:28 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
As usual, Gunga Dim doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Sweden was never a world power...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden

Quote:
In an era characterized by almost endless warfare, he led his armies as king from 1611 (at age 17) until his death in battle in 1632 while leading a charge—as Sweden rose from the status of a mere regional power and run-of-the-mill kingdom to one of the great powers of Europe and a model of early modern era government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltava
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:31 am
@gungasnake,
I don't need you to tell me about Sweden's part in the so-called Thirty Years War, nor how Charles XII screwed up the invasion of Russia. I see you have nothing to say about the fact that Sweden was not a threat to European stability, and that Denmark, Russia and Saxony made war on Sweden--a Sweden which was not threatening anyone. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's par for the course.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:33 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't need you to tell me about Sweden's part in the so-called Thirty Years War


Apparently, you do. Being a legend in your own mind isn't the same as actually being educated.

Wikipedia:

Quote:
In an era characterized by almost endless warfare, he led his armies as king from 1611 (at age 17) until his death in battle in 1632 while leading a charge—as Sweden rose from the status of a mere regional power and run-of-the-mill kingdom to one of the great powers of Europe and a model of early modern era government.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:35 am
Quote:
Within only a few years of his accession Sweden had become the largest nation in Europe after Russia and Spain. Some have called him the "father of modern warfare",[2] or the first great modern general. Under his tutelage, Sweden and the Protestant cause developed a number of excellent commanders, such as Lennart Torstensson, who would go on to defeat Sweden's enemies and expand the boundaries and the power of the empire long after Gustav Adolph's death in battle.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:39 am
What Tsar Peter saved us from:

http://www.carsdiecast.com.au/images/twd9249.jpg
All-time Ugliest car (mid 50s Volvo)

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 05:51 am
@gungasnake,
After the death of Gustav II Adolf, his toddler daughter became Queen Christina. In her name, the Swedes established a colony on the Delaware River in 1638, six years after the death of Gustav II, and when Christina was ten years old. The Dutch took it away from them in 1655. You aren't a world power if you can't defend your overseas possessions, and for all that Sweden possessed a navy, they did not possess a world class navy. You can't be a world class power without a world class navy, and Sweden didn't have that. The equation is pretty obvious, too. Ten years after the Dutch took "New Sweden" away from the Swedes, the English took "New Holland" away from them, because England was a world power, and had a world class navy.

Once again, in 1700, Sweden was a threat to noone. Once again, Denmark, Saxony and Russia made war on Sweden without provocation. Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 06:10 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You can't be a world class power without a world class navy


Genghis Khan never had a navy and neither did the CCCP in 1945.

http://www.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/history/images/maps/mongol-empire-large.gif
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 06:13 am
@gungasnake,
Ghengis Kahn's empire collapsed shortly after the death of his son Ogedei. The Soviet Union did indeed have a navy in 1945, and they quickly expanded their submarine arm. The Russian navy is older than the United States Navy by about 80 years. You can't open you mouth about history without displaying your ignorance.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 10:39:39