June 2, 2015 UPDATE: Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, wants to prosecute Global Warming Skeptics!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html
Liberals Call for Jail Time for “Global Warming Dissenters”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html
Liberals Call for Jail Time for “Global Warming Dissenters”
By Terri Lynn
Just
recently, Lawrence Torecello, Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of
Technology writing for The Conversation, a publication geared to academia,
wrote that global warming dissenters should be arrested. He stated “We have
good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and
morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend
to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a
sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific
consensus.” Torcello goes on to say, "We must make the critical
distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding
of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to
develop and voice informed opinions."
I am a Dissenter
A few years ago, I returned to school, and
our science professor assigned us a “mandatory” paper on Global Warming. As a
Global warming supporter and staunch liberal, she set the topics and guidelines
that were to mandatorily be covered within the paper. In reality, it was
nothing more than a liberal professor with a clandestine agenda to indoctrinate
an impressionable group of 20 year olds to the liberal ideologies and agenda,en
masse.
Well, I was the lone conservative in the
class, “the troublemaker”, the one who challenged every topic that arouse in
the class. But I was informed. So when she assigned the paper, up goes my hand,
as expected, as done countless times before, and I asked, “ Can I make this
global warming paper a political paper?” I was already writing for the school
newspaper in a weekly political column and gaining a reputation, and she had
commented on some of my articles in class.
After I asked the question, she retorted,
“As long as you can hit all of the required points outlined in the assignment.
The required subject matter that she wanted “substantiated included the
following:
·
What is Global Warming
·
The causes of Global Warming
·
The
effects of Global Warming on Sea Levels
·
Extreme
Weather
·
Melting
Glaciers
·
Species
Extinction
·
What
we can do to reverse Global Warming
Well, a few weeks later, every one was
turning in their papers, and most of the others papers were 3 to 4 pages, ALL
supporting Global Warming. Well, the rebel that I am turned my twelve page paper
in. As I did so, she glanced over my paper, and in shock, said "in ALL THE
YEARS she had assigned that paper...THAT NO ONE had ever turned it into a
political paper". However, she said that I covered all the topics, and I
supported my points, so she had to grade it on that, and I made a 100% refuting
a LIBERAL science professor! Should I now tremble in fear of being
imprisoned? I say in jest, but perhaps reality in the near future.
My Refuting Global
Warming
Introduction
Never in the
political, social, industrial, or scientific arena’s has there been a more
hotly debated issue than there has been in regard to the issue of global
warming. It is truly a partisan and polarizing issue. Perhaps, the only area in
which Conservatives are truly liberal on is the environment, and the only issue
in which Liberals are truly conservative. To solve a world issue there has to
be a general public understanding and consensus, which on this issue there is,
certainly not.
In
1988, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), recognized the problem
of global climate change along with the World Meteorological Reorganization (WMO)
and established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The role
of this entity is to assess on a “comprehensive, objective, open and
transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information
relevant to climate change. This group reviews the potential impacts of human-
induced contributors to climate change and considers options for adaptation and
mitigation. However, the IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor
climate related data or other relevant parameters. The IPCC bases its
assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/ technical
literature. However, even with the establishment of this overseeing world
body, a general consensus concerning this issue has not been established.
I. Global Warming (GW)
The commonly accepted belief of Global Warming established by The
International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) is that Global Warming is the
increase in the average temperature of the Earths’s near surface air and oceans
attributed to an observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations. The proposition is that increasing global temperatures will
cause sea levels to rise, and increase the intensity of extreme weather events,
and change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other concerns associated
to Global Warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat,
species extinction and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. The
“greenhouse effect” keeps the earth warm and habitable; without it, the earth’s
surface would be about 60 degrees Fahrenheit colder on average. Since the
average temperature of the earth is about 45 degrees Fahrenheit, the natural
greenhouse effect is clearly a good thing. But the enhanced greenhouse effect
means even more of the sun’s heat is trapped, causing global temperatures to
rise. Scientists who support Global Warming refer to what has been
happening in the earth’s atmosphere over the past century as the “enhanced
greenhouse effect.”
II. The causes of Global Warming (GW)
No one knows precisely what is the cause of Global Warming
(GW), but there are a lot of speculations and assumptions. Environmentalists
present to the Populus what conservatives refer to as ‘faulty science’, and are
met with frigid responses from the Conservatives. The poor blame the rich man’s
lavish lifestyle as contributing to the Green House effect, Liberals blame
conservatives for their flippant disregard of the issue. Hollywood
True
proponents of Global Warming claim that this warming is largely the result of
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human
activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and
changes in land use, such as deforestation. They claim that continuation of
historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional
warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global
increase of 2.5ºF to 10.4ºF by 2100, with warming in the U.S. expected to
be even higher. The presumption is that this warming will have real
consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will
also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas
and increase beach erosion and flooding from coastal storms, changes in
precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to
biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health.
III. Scientific Dissenters.
In spite of all of the IPCC reports, there are numerous world renowned
scientific minds, once supporters of Global Warming who are now
dissenters, who believe that Global Warming is a misnomer. Amongst the
dissenters, however, the claim is that there has been a media black out of
world renowned scientists who do not adhere to the internationally
accepted position of global warming. Some have referred to the scientific
divide on the issue as the “Split Forecast”.
While doing my research on scientific dissenters, the numbers of scientists
staggered me
—17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two
thirds with advanced degrees, are against the Kyoto Agreement. The
Heidelberg Appeal—which states that there is no scientific evidence for
man-made global warming, has been signed by over 4,000 scientists from around
the world since the petition’s inception. And all of the scientists were in
total agreement: the Kyoto Protocol was complete fiction. Including One
of the most decorated French geophysicists, Claude Allegre. Allegre, a former
government official and an active member of the French Socialist Party,
has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a
climate skeptic.
The
reasons for this dissent amongst scientists varies.
￢ Some scientists believe global warming is
not occurring at all
￢ Some scientist believe the accuracy of
IPCC climate projections is inadequate
￢ Some scientist believe global warming is
primarily caused by natural processes
￢ Some scientists believe the cause of
global warming is unknown
￢ Some scientists believe that global
warming will benefit human society
IV. The effects of Global
Warming on Sea level
It has been speculated that increasing global temperatures
will cause the sea levels to rise. Greeners claim that warmer temperatures are
expected to raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain
glaciers, and melting parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Warmer temperatures
also increase precipitation.
Greener’s surmise that Sea-level rise can be a product of
Global Warming through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans
warm, and melting of ice over land. Global warming is predicted to cause
significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century. In
2001, the (IPCC)'s Third Assessment Report predicted that by 2100 GW will lead
to a sea level rise of 9 to 88 cm. At that time no significant acceleration in
the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century had been detected.
V. Extremes in Weather
According to supporters of the Global Warming school of thought, greater
numbers of heat waves but fewer periods of extreme cold are likely consequences
of a warmer atmosphere. The climatological record of the past several decades
offers evidence for these trends. While most recent winters in North America
and Asia have been milder than average, a
number of countries have experienced record heat waves. Over 500 people died in
Chicago , Illinois ,
U.S.A.
Supporters of (GW) believe that an increase in the
frequency or intensity of floods would be catastrophic in several places around
the world. They believe that no country is more vulnerable than Bangladesh Brahmaputra Rivers Bangladesh China and Vietnam
VI. Melting Glaciers
Scientific dissenters dispute that Glaciers are melting.A 2005 study by a
scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the
interior of Greenland is gaining ice. Also,
according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the
media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the
1930’s than today. There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed
literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder
and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters
found that the sun responsible for up to 50% of 20th- century warming.
Dissenters claim that Snow cover has increased in Eurasia
between 1936 and 2004, whereas models predict a decline. Ref.: Groisman, P.Y.,
R.W. Knight, V.N. Razuvaev, O.N. Bulygina, and T.R. Karl, 2006. State of the
ground: Climatology and changes during the past 69 years over northern Eurasia for a rarely used measure of snow cover and
frozen land. Journal of Climate, 19, 4933-4955. They also claim that the
amount of Antarctic ice is increasing. Ref.: Wingham, D.J., A. Shepherd, A.
Muir, and G.J. Marshall. 2006: Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 364, 1627-1635.
VII. Species Extinction
According to a National Geographic article written by John Roach,
By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species; Mr. Roach believes that by 2050,
rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced rising temperatures exacerbated
by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could
send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the
road to extinction, according to a recent study. He reported that according to
Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University
of Leeds in the United Kingdom Australia
to South Africa
Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears
to have made relatively little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled
professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological diversity,
and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat."
VIII. Things we can do to reverse Global Warming
The United Nations addressed this issue by The Kyoto Protocol. It
is a global agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), negotiated in Kyoto ,
Japan
■ Purchase environmentally friendly
products
■ Honor Arbor day. Plant Trees
■ Recycle
■ Enforce Industrial Compliance
■ Engage in conversation that include all
view points
■ “Think Globally. Act Locally”
IX. Industrial Compliance
International energy companies are now facing unprecedented pressure to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions. Nations implementing the Kyoto Protocol are committed to significant reductions. Industries are being forced into compliance, and reprimanded and even threatened. On October 30, 2006 the headlines read,
“ROCKEFELLER AND SNOWE DEMAND THAT EXXON MOBIL
END FUNDING OF CAMPAIGN THAT DENIES GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE”
Senators Demand that the World’s Largest Oil
Maker Make Public Its History of Funding Climate Change “Skeptics” October 30,
2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an effort to call attention
to the detrimental effects of industry-funded, so-called “research” in the
debate on global climate change, Senators John (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) today called on the world’s largest oil company to end its
funding of a climate change denial campaign. Rockefeller and Snowe’s effort
would also reassert the leading role of the United States
Rockefeller and Snowe said that ExxonMobil’s
extensive funding of an “echo chamber” of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had
unfortunately succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific
community’s virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects of global
warming. This ongoing “debate” has also damaged America
“American companies have every right to engage in
important public debates, but these discussions should neither serve as a
license to obscure credible data and research nor impede domestic and
international actions based on that data,” said Rockefeller. “Climate change is
one of the most serious environmental and economic issues facing the United States
“The institutions that ExxonMobil is supporting
are producing very questionable data. The company’s support for a small, but
influential, group of climate skeptics has damaged the United States
“ExxonMobil - which recorded $10.5 billion in
third quarter profits this year – has an obligation and a responsibility to the
global community to refrain from lending their support, financial and
otherwise, to bogus, non substantiated articles and publications on climate
change that serve only to cloud the important global debate of rigorous
peer-reviewed research and writings,” Senator Snowe said. “The efforts of those
supported by ExxonMobil foster the false belief among the international
community that the United States is insensitive to global warming and unwilling
to engage in forthright discussion on what many consider to be one of the most
important economic and environmental issues of the 21st century.”
“Rather than continue to damage our credibility
abroad, I urge ExxonMobil, under its new leadership, to work with those of us
in Congress who are committed to moving our nation back to the negotiating
table and leading the way toward greater energy efficiencies, and clean
alternative and renewable fuels. ExxonMobil has the tremendous opportunity to
employ its significant resources and assist the United States
According to reports, in 2004 alone, ExxonMobil
was the primary funder of more than 29 climate change denial front groups.
Since the late 1990s, ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million on a strategy
of “information laundering,” enabling a small number of professional skeptics,
working through so-called scientific organizations, to funnel their viewpoints
through non-peer-reviewed websites, such as www.techcentralstation.com.
“Climate change denial has been so effective
because the ‘denial community’ has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded
language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty,”
Rockefeller and Snowe wrote ExxonMobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex
Tillerson. “ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this scientific data debate
and support of global warming deniers.”
Rockefeller and Snowe insisted that ExxonMobil
end its funding of the climate change denial campaign by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI) and other organizations with similar purposes. The
two Senators also encouraged ExxonMobil and Tillerson to make its history of
funding public and acknowledge the dangers and realities of climate change. Finally,
Rockefeller and Snowe suggested that Tillerson, as the company’s new CEO, has a
unique opportunity to change the culture of the company: “You will become the
public face of an undisputed leader in the world energy industry and a company
that plays a vital role in our national economy. As that public face, you will
have the ability and responsibility to lead ExxonMobil toward its rightful
place as a good corporate and global citizen.”
The entire letter is attached.
October 27, 2006
Mr. Rex W. Tillerson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ExxonMobil Corporation
Dear Mr. Tillerson:
Allow us to take this opportunity to congratulate
you on your first year as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
ExxonMobil Corporation. You will become the public face of an undisputed leader
in the world energy industry, and a company that plays a vital role in our
national economy. As that public face, you will have the ability and
responsibility to lead ExxonMobil toward its rightful place as a good corporate
and global citizen.
We are writing to appeal to your sense of
stewardship of that corporate citizenship as U.S.
Senators concerned about the credibility of the United States
Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign
policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy
carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States
While ExxonMobil’s activity in this area is
well-documented, we are somewhat encouraged by developments that have come to
light during your brief tenure. We fervently hope that reports that ExxonMobil
intends to end its funding of the climate change denial campaign of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are true. Similarly, we have seen press
reports that your British subsidiary has told the Royal Society, Great Britain
ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the
credibility and stature of the United
States
Climate change denial has been so effective
because the “denial community” has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded
language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty.
Mainstream media outlets, attacked for being biased, help lend credence to
skeptics’ views, regardless of their scientific integrity, by giving them
relatively equal standing with legitimate scientists. ExxonMobil is responsible
for much of this bogus scientific “debate” and the demand for what the deniers
cynically refer to as “sound science.”
A study to be released in November by an American
scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than
29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone. Besides a shared goal,
these groups often featured common staffs and board members. The study will
estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s
on a strategy of “information laundering,” or enabling a small number of
professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to
funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central
Station. The Internet has provided ExxonMobil the means to wreak its havoc on U.S.
Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by
ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed
miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific
community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully
crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the
problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and
inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has
developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research
and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every
country on the globe.
Where most scientists’ dispassionate review of
the facts has moved past acknowledgement to mitigation strategies, ExxonMobil’s
contribution the overall politicization of science has merely bolstered the views
of U.S.
In light of the adverse impacts still resulting
from your corporation’s activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any
further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has
contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial
myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve
the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States United States
Each of us is committed to seeing the United States
Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller IV
X. Global Warming and Domestic Policy Debate
An
article published by Ruthland Herald and reprinted on the website of Cooler
Heads Digest, entitled, “The new Green Regime” reveals the Global Warming is
truly a hot
topic:
November 8, 2007 By
John McClaughry
|
||
The report of the
Governor's Commission on Climate Change calls upon the governor, the
Legislature and all Vermonters to make sweeping changes in the way Vermonters
live. Not coincidentally, it recommends adoption of virtually the entire
agenda of the state's environmental movement dating back to 1970.
The foundation of this sweeping program is the supposed Menace of Global Warming, the result of — so the report eagerly assumes — the human-caused emission of greenhouse gases. Declares the report, smugly: "The time for debate over the realities of global climate change is over." This alarming pronouncement reflects a deeply ingrained Green Theology that unshakably believes that selfish, greedy consumption-crazed humankind is turning the planet into a steaming hothouse, to avert which our governments must force us to make painful and costly sacrifices. If Vermonters were the primary cause of the planet's ills, it might make some sense to force us to mend our ways. But we aren't. In fact, Long before they discovered the Menace of Global Warming, But after that, the more controversial goal was land use control. The Perfect Little State, they said, must have a The first attempt at enacting such a plan was beaten down after a four-year battle ending in 1976. A second attempt produced Act 200 in 1988, which by the mid-1990s had effectively expired. Always there were proposals for preserving "historical settlement patterns" — "development centers" with "traditional downtowns" — as the alternative to the evils of "sprawl." In every land use battle, the enviros heaped scorn on the human right of private property ownership. They view it as an obsolete relic of Dark Age selfishness and an unjustifiable nuisance to public-spirited planners. Now the enviro land use control agenda is back again. In the name of fighting greenhouse gas emissions, the climate change report urges high-density development centers surrounded by CO2-absorbing pastoral landscapes and connected by public bus and rail transportation. To suppress greenhouse gas emissions by private vehicles, the report favors "feebates" (penalty taxes) on low-miles-per-gallon cars, vans and trucks, and a percentage-based sales tax to make motor fuel more expensive. One might favor that latter proposal to raise funds to rebuild The report urges that state government assess itself a carbon offset fee for having a "carbon footprint." Thus not only would taxpayers pay for the state highway crews to plow the roads and state police to patrol them, but they would also pay additional taxes to the state to subsidize favored renewable energy producers. Wind turbines are mentioned. The report advocates the creation of a "vigorous, proactive, public/private partnership" to promote "enormous, systemic and long-term cultural, cross-generational change in our awareness and behavior through the efforts of our formalized K-12 public and private school systems." (Whew!) Cynics will doubtless refer to this as the "Green Madrassa" proposal, whereby our environmentally certified schoolteachers are instructed to fill up their pupils with certified Green Theology. To direct and supervise these momentous changes, the report advocates creation of another public/private partnership to be called the There are, admittedly, some things in the report well worth doing, whether or not The enviros insist that the greatest challenge facing |
||
I. Congressional Debates
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, commented recently on the media’s unfounded global
warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is
shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have
doomed the planet. The American people are fed up with media for promoting
the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific
‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow
created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy
Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global
warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized
that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling
credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their
science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it
becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful
Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. “The
mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists
who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from
the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate
alarmism fades and the skepticism grows.”
However, on November 5,
Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY) unveiled her presidential campaign’s plan to
fight global warming. About the economics of climate mitigation policy, Senator
Clinton said. “The climate crisis is one of the greatest economic opportunities
in the history of this country.” On that same subject, the Congressional Budget
Office, she said, "Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2
emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face higher prices for
products such as electricity and gasoline." And so the debate continues,
as Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, and liberals, are all at odds on the
issue.
XII. Conclusion
Based upon my research and understanding of the issue and the great divide that
this issue has created in the public, in Congress and in Science, diplomacy is
key. Perhaps, the International Panel on climate control (IPCC) will broaden
and allow specialists from all backgrounds, secular and Christian, liberal and
conservatives, to partake in the discussions and engage a civil, round table
discussion and allow the exchange of ideas from all ideologies and
perspectives. We should no longer fear each other or the discussion of the
issue. However, if evolution is a truth, than perhaps nature, through Global Warming,
is undergoing a natural process, necessary to arise to the next level of the
evolutionary process, and we should not interfere. If evolution is true, and
would we humans could have witnessed monkeys becoming human’s would we have
been up in arms to prevent the monkey’s from changing? Perhaps it is necessary
for the climate to change to allow the living creatures that are meant to be
here to remain, and those that should not be here, the earth is purging. In
conclusion, whatever the cause, source or contributors to Global Warming be
they man made natural a combination neither, bi partisan diplomacy needs
to be used to address the issue.
In the end, regardless of the side of the political aisle you are on, cooler heads will prevail.
