Posted on 02/24/2008 7:55:26 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.
An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making a big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.
Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.
And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.
Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.
General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.
The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I -- and others in senior management -- believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.
We're going forward with these programs because it makes good sense to do so — common sense. If it’s doable, why wouldn’t we do it? It would lead to nothing but good things: energy independence, lower emissions, and better air. Isn’t that what we all want?
As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that’s what people ought to be focusing on.
Help. Ping.
...thank, for the post. :^/
It’s absolutely unbelievable the way the libs froth at the mouth when someone dares to disagree with Al Gore.
The “Global Warming” industry is one of the things they created and are maintaining for him to make up for his loss in 2000. Along with giving him the Oscar and the Nobel.
It’s the longest, most expensive, pity party of all time. These people are certifiable.
More:
A court case was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal.
The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Algore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Algore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. The provisions read as follows:
406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid …the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.
407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...: :
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once thatit was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan ... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [snipped]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website..... it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."
Great stuff. Help Bob out on his blog. The brainwashed eco wackos are on him like Mike Tyson on a beauty pageant contestant.
Please go there and help him out.
However, there is more at work. Sun activity is at epochal lows, apparently matching the activity levels of the Little Ice Age.
Bottom line: don't bet against "Global Cooling" just yet. The left has brilliantly combined two separate phenomena" Pollution and Climate Change. Done deal, even though scientifically speaking no one can say if or what one has to do with the other. Simply a brilliant piece of left-wing theater.
McCain actually said something intelligent about this. He indicated that we should maintain stringent pollution controls and continue to realize that climate change may well be out of our hands.
No reason why we should have to deal with China and India's massive pollutants, but the crap, obnoxious as it is (kind of like Pittsburgh in the bad old days when it was a thriving iron and steel town)has got nothing to do with melting glaciers, sunspots, or undersea volcanos, or El Niño.
McCain ought to have “something intelligent to say” about AlGore’s scam, he knows all about Enron and what they were all trying to do.
Enron Gave Big Bucks to Democrats, Backed ‘Global Warming’ Scam
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Thursday, Jan. 17, 2002
Scandal-plagued Enron Corp., cited by Democrats as a big giver to President Bush and the GOP, gave a cool $420,000 to Democrats when the corporation was desperate to get the Clinton administration’s help in having the potentially disastrous Kyoto treaty made the law of the land.
Senate ratification of the treaty, which foes explained would have cost the U.S. billions and had a deadly effect on the U.S. economy, would have been a bonanza for Enron.
What’s Good for Enron Isn’t Good for America
According to Washington Times reporter Jerry Seper, a December 1997 private internal memo written by Enron executive John Palmisano said the treaty would be “good for Enron stock!!”
“The memo said the Kyoto treaty - later signed by Mr. Clinton and leaders of 166 other countries, but never ratified by the Senate - ‘would do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.’”
Easy Access to Clinton and Gore
Writing in Wednesday’s Times, Seper reports, “Federal and confidential corporate records show that after donating thousands of dollars in soft money and PAC donations beginning in 1995, Enron received easy access to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.”
Seper revealed that Clinton’s Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency “often made themselves available for Enron executives to discuss the firm’s needs, according to records, even arranging for meetings with key congressional staffers.”
Enron’s drive to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified continued even after the Senate voted 95-0 to set restrictions on any climate negotiations. The Senate resolution warned U.S. diplomats against negotiating any climate treaty in which less developed nations such as communist China would have fewer restrictions imposed on them than the U.S. and other developed countries.
That vote gave clear warning that the Senate would never ratify the treaty, costing Enron potential profits in the billions. As a result, Enron used its open door to the Clinton White House to lobby hard for a treaty that would give it the ability to buy and sell trading credits to emit carbon dioxide as part of a strategy to reduce “greenhouse gases.”
Under the system pushed by Enron, new investments in gas-fired plants and pipelines would be expanded and coal-fired power plants, which emit more carbon dioxide, would be curtailed. Seper noted, “Natural gas, electricity and their delivery systems constitute Enron’s major businesses.”
During a White House meeting in July 1997, Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay prodded Clinton and Gore to support a “market-based” approach to what he described as the problem of “global warming,” a theory discredited by a majority of the world’s climatologists.
In the face of Senate hostility to the Kyoto accords, Enron continued to urge the Clinton administration to seek a “restructuring” of the treaty that would have been a “first step to solving the problems of global climate change.” Seper notes that the company “sought laws that would have favored Enron’s natural gas inventory and reduced competition from coal.”
On Feb. 20, 1998, during a meeting with Energy Secretary Federico Pena, Lay “encouraged the Clinton administration to seek electricity legislation favored by Enron,” outlining for the secretary what the company believed were the “important” pending legislative concerns.
“Today’s meeting between Ken Lay and Energy Secretary Federico Pena to discuss electricity legislation went very well,” said a memo written by Jeff Keller, the company’s Washington governmental affairs chief.
“Secretary Pena indicated that the White House proposed bill is ‘on the president’s desk,’ and that Clinton could be convinced to release the White House proposal in the next few days,” Keller wrote. “He suggested that President Clinton might be motivated by some key contacts from important constituents.”
The records showed that Lay took that advice and sent a letter to Clinton that day, asking him to “move this matter forward.”
Seper writes that Clinton administration officials have denied any wrongdoing, saying they were only responding to constituent requests.
Hypocrisy Alert
But while such Democrats as Rep. Henry Waxman of California attempt to create suspicion that Enron’s contributions to President Bush and other Republicans gave the company undue influence with the administration without a scintilla of evidence to back up their imaginings, more real proof of the cozy ties between Enron and the Clinton administration continues to unfold.
Seper recalls, for example that, the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India in 1994.
Wrote Seper: “Mr. Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. ‘Mack’ McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal.
“Mr. McLarty - who later became a paid Enron director - spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron’s project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party.”
More
2002 http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_04/various-enron.html
Enron chairman Kenneth Lay met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office in 1997, prior to the Kyoto energy conference, according to the Washington Times of Jan. 16. The apparent purpose was for Clinton and Gore to get an agreement from Enron that it would support the draconian regulations and higher costs on the industry that would emerge from the conference, in exchange for government guarantees and taxpayer subsidies. This would expand the government’s power within the industry and guarantee handsome political contributions for the Democrats.
Enron would not disappoint. It became the poster corporation for the junk science of global warming, and supported the industry-killing Kyoto Protocol. Enron probably believed that promised taxpayer payouts would make up for its losses in support of unproductive, but politically correct, energy initiatives.
The U.S. Senate, however, recognizing Kyoto’s negative impact on the economy at large, foiled Clinton-Gore plans by voting 95-0 to trash the unfair and inequitable Protocol. The Senate action wouldn’t stop Enron, however, from attempting to become the corporation of choice for the Clinton-Gore globalization agenda.
One source has stated that at Hillary Clinton’s prodding, seats were allotted on government trade mission flights to $50,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) donors. Documents related to the practice were later subpoenaed, but were reportedly shredded, Enron-style.
Nevertheless, Enron was apparently there with checkbook in hand for the coveted seats. In 1994, chairman Lay accompanied Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on a trade mission to India.
An Export-Import bank $302 million loan to build an Enron-controlled Indian plant soon followed. The DNC received a $100,000 check from Enron just four days before India approved the power plant project. Another $100,000 Enron check followed in 1995.
Clinton had instructed his chief of staff to help Enron obtain the power plant construction contract in India, and Enron received $398 million in taxpayer assistance. Another $100,000 Enron donation to the DNC in 1996 may have resulted in Regulatory Commission rulings favorable to the firm.
Federal and confidential corporate records show that Enron donated thousands in political soft money beginning in 1995, according to Jerry Seper and the Times. Seper further reports that Clinton energy and EPA officials often made themselves available for Enron executives.
A December 1997 Enron memo emphasizes that approval of the Kyoto Protocol would be good for Enron stock. In 1998, Enron called for “restructuring” of legislation to deal with “the problems of global climate change.” Never mind that there was growing skepticism about the seriousness of global warming.
Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is heading the Senate investigation of Enron, has benefited from $250,000 given to his political causes by firms with Enron ties, but has not recused himself. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin now runs Citibank, which is owed $800 million by Enron. Rubin called the Bush Treasury Department to seek an Enron bailout and was turned down cold.
So this is the Enron record: They sold out their own stock-holding employees, bought big into the global warming myth to get government handouts, banked on the Kyoto Protocol becoming law even after being drubbed in the Senate, and gave most of their money to Republicans when they were getting all that favoritism and assistance from the Democrats.
Thanks for the link.
I Wrote him a strong note of support. We desperately need leaders like him that haven’t been castrated by the PC crowd!!!
I wonder if the judge’s order has been carried out....
I wouldn’t bet on it. There would have to be an unbiased overseer standing over every “teacher” to make sure of it.
The important thing is that It is now a matter of record that the court found Algore’s film to be political propaganda full of scientific errors (38 in all - only 9 of which were focused on for the sake of brevity), and the Judge specifically said that science was used in the hands of a talented politician (Algore) to promote costly partisan political “solutions”.....etc., to little children.
Despicable. And that goes for the “liars for Jesus” who continue to help him promote his political agenda, too.
For those who think The Teachers and scientists offer the best argument as to why one should “believe” in Global Warming, (like this teacher)...
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/high-school-teacher-spreads-the-word-on-climate-change.html
And if you agree, which some of you will… think about the rest of this email, and then forward to anyone who believes man is the cause global warming and yet, couldn’t care less about knowing who God is…
Here is a “better version of Greg Craven’s GRID, Adding God into the equation...
Does God/Creator Exist
Is Jesus the Son of God
NO - FALSE
Nothing lost, except Misplaced faith
NO - TRUE
Wow, a winner, but then if not God/Creator, life is meaningless anyway
OR
YES - FALSE
Nothing lost, except Misplaced faith Big smiley face
YES - TRUE (and here’s the big one) Personal Disaster beyond the scale of global warming - In Good Shape - Big smiley
This is absolutely fantastic.... I couldn’t have said it better myself, ESPECIALLY if you replace “global warming” with “God or Jesus Christ”.
Please, use the same “argument” whether God exists, or whether Jesus Christ is the son of God...
The EXACT same conclusion (and this teacher’s evangelism) is EXACTLY why you should look at the truth about whether your “our physical life” is important, or whether YOUR eternal life should be of more concern.
You see, what this “logical” so called intelligent educator doesn’t want to include, is a simple additional conclusion. What if God exists, and ONLY Prayer is what GOD WANTS us to do in order to stop Global warming… kind of changes the whole “response”. Greg’s website is typical of the “anti-God” environment in our educations system.
Having said that, there isn’t anything WRONG WITH TRYING TO FIX IT, ESPECIALLY IF THE “FIX” IS SMART. It doesn’t hurt to do “rational” things. The question that this is really all about, what do we do, who benefits, who get’s the money and most important, where is God in all this global warming mania…
But the real issue, is why does this guy, Greg Cravens, want to bet EVERYTHING that God has nothing to do with it… isn’t that FOOLISH? You should send these videos plus the above “Does God exist Grid” (after a little more work) to everyone, just like he suggests… what do you think?
God Bless, From the “Light of the World”, to “More than a Conqueror”, Alan
http://www.mychristianidentity.com/wst_page5.html
Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me.
And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf.
“What you do is not who you are! On this earth you will become what you think;
however, who you are is who God says you are, no matter what you think! “...
W A Gluck, January 2006
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.