Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Lefts Climate Change Lies are Found in Their Solutions
Dignitas News Service ^ | June 9, 2014 | Paul M Winters

Posted on 06/09/2014 11:26:19 AM PDT by dignitasnews

climate change

There is possibly no other issue of our age that is filled with as much confusion, rhetoric and hyperbole as the subject of global warming, climate, weather, or whatever this weeks designated term may be. And while there is evidence to suggest that human beings have impact on the earths atmosphere at some level, as does nearly every living things, it is the level and danger posed to humanity which is at dispute and the demagoguery employed by the left for political and financial gain. The most egregious of lies on the subject of man-made climate change is that their proposed solutions should be far more radical if indeed the consequences of the modern human lifestyle matched the rhetoric of the left.

During a meeting with reporters last week organized by the Christian Science Monitor, former Obama chief of staff and current EPA point-man John Podesta declared that climate change posed and "almost existential threat" and that recent EPA carbon emission proposals are designed to avert such an apocalyptic danger. In using the language of "existential threat" Podesta is echoing the left-wing rhetoric and insisting that unless we agree to "measured" regulations on industry and commerce contributing to changes in our climate then we as human beings are doomed.

The scientific community has yet to provide definitive study or even declaration of man's role in changing weather patterns and climate fluctuation, preferring to use terms such as "possible" and "very likely." Let us forget for a moment that 31,487 American scientists (9,029 of which hold PhD's) have signed a petition to voice their disagreement with the Kyoto Agreement and indulge Podesta and left-wing Democrat claims that the very existence of mankind is risking extinction.

If this were really the case, would we need not go much further than simply curbing emissions? Wouldn't we, in order to ourselves from our own destruction need to revert to a pre-Industrial Age existence? If mankind's lifestyle over the past century or so is cause for a "radical" change in our climate, would not scientists and certainly the left who has usurped the issue, be calling for a more radical solution to avert this "existential threat?"

While there is little logic to be found in the climate change discussion once laymen get involved, it would stand to reason that given the massive increase in global population, an increase whose rates are not going to slow anytime soon, that anything short of cutting us off from all carbon emitting technology, outside of fire, would be the only logical solution. If the scientific community shared the views of Podesta, the Democratic Party and the environmentalists in the United States and Europe, it would seem they would be rushing en masse to every podium and media microphone they could find to alert us of this tragedy.

If indeed the left-wing memes on climate change were not lies designed to increase political power and provide financial windfalls to environmental groups and the "Green" industry so many of them are vested in, simply curbing emissions would not be enough. A full elimination of all but the absolute necessities would be the proposals being discussed.

If Progressives had either the evidence or simply the heartfelt belief that we were indeed facing an existential threat from man-made causes of climate change, there would seem to be only two courses of action we could take, the aforementioned return to an agrarian economy and lifestyle or a radical world-wide effort to speed our the space race, to find a suitable planet to and the means to colonize it before our time is up.

But as is the case with the EPA, environmental NGO's and those hoping to reap billions from solar power, John Podesta is careful to add the key word in his statements, almost. Almost, maybe, evidence possibly suggests, etc is the cornerstone of the environmental lobby and nearly every successful snake-oil salesman. When preaching to the choir, these words go unheard, while the remainder is then adopted as fact and repeated by the useful idiots of the left, who are then able to rattle of these so-called "facts" and mock anyone who dares interject an opposing opinion, after all, they "heard" the "hard science" from an indisputable source.

In my early professional career of sales we called this selling the "sizzle not the steak." During a pitch you are taught to use words effectively, doing just enough to cover oneself from claims of misrepresentation while highlighted "potential" benefits and value to inspire a psychological condition in the prospect conducive to closing the sale.

A background in sales management is very helpful when assessing the sincerity and motives of politicians. In the same discussion, Podesta attacks a study issued by the Chamber of Commerce relating to economic impacts of the Obama Administration's carbon reduction strategy. It is first important to note that the Chamber made clear their estimates were based on previously stated goals of the Administration, including US chief climate negotiator Todd Sterns comments during the Copenhagen climate discussions, in which he stated:

“We have – as I’m sure you’re all aware – articulated a U.S. target within the last couple weeks of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. And that ramps up – that’s part of an overall legislative package that goes out to 2050. Just to give you an example, by 2025 the reduction would be about 30% below 2005, and 42% by 2030.”

Whereas the focus of the study stressed these levels, the EPA then made a departure from the 42% number, settling at a goal of 30% by 2030, which would obviously alter the economic impact, under any methodology. Keep that in mind as you watch John Podesta's reaction. At the conclusion, I will lend you my "Sales Director" ear and we will assess Podesta's sales techniques and performance from that viewpoint. This "ear" is one developed from years of monitoring and assessing every level of sales professional, including the novice, the seasoned vet, the sincere and the nefarious.With that, let us "monitor the call:"

ChristianScienceMonitor (via YouTube)

Note his strong opening, the conviction and confidence in his voice. He opens up strong, as any good salesman should, seizing "command of the call." He claims that the estimates at potential job loss have been "largely debunked" but fails to mention by whom, then uses the administrations own shift in stated goal (from the 42% to the 30%) to discredit the findings, knowing full well that the Chamber's study was done on the very numbers Obama and staff have consistently repeated during his tenure. throws in some hyperbole (using "fantasy") to attack the competition, then doubles down on the "debunked" claim, again failing to mention the "independent experts" he cites. Next he provides his disclaimer, where he clumsily attempts to dismiss the fact that some job losses will occur. Note the change in cadence. Note also that he stumbles and stutters a bit as he is forced to acknowledge that industries and American workers will of course be displaced by such actions. He then prepares for future Obama Administration agenda and talking points by placing the future onus of negative consequences on congress. He recovers from this by closing strong, reverting back to hyperbole and misrepresenting previous studies of economic impact on left-wing regulatory initiatives. Throws out the word "fantasy" and one again discredits the Chamber study, knowing full well the facts, timing and circumstances behind it.

As we rate this "sales call" all-in-all not bad. To the untrained ear certainly pretty compelling. But if one is assessing this from the sales management viewpoint representing a reputable company, we can pick apart this pitch for its many flaws and might suggest that he seek employment down the street at a Timeshare company or Merchant Services broker....or at his local Democratic Party headquarters. Of course the mainstream "old" media has run with this, accepting Podesta's claims without question, abandoning as they so often do any journalistic obligation to present conflicting facts. And the minions of liberals who long-ago abandoned their 1960's counter-culture credo to always question authority and evolved into the political equivalent of the Orwell cart-horse "Boxer" in the 21st century, they will dare not question their beloved leaders and will repeat all as if indisputable fact. For those of us on the right, we have neither that luxury of sycophantic desire, thus we must reply on facts. For those interested in such things, full detail of the Chamber of Commerce study as well as their methodology can be found on their website.

climate change Aftermath of San Francisco Earth Day festivities April 2014.

If the left were to treat the issue honestly, we could find common cause to better tackle legitimate aspects of environmental concerns. Regardless of political affiliation, we all have a stake and interest in reasonable and responsible solutions for reducing pollution, ensuring clean water, clean air and energy efficiency. While the aforementioned intellectually lazy and ever-loyal liberal minions are incapable of questioning their Progressive masters, we however have seen far too many statements of hyperbole, supposition and out-and-out lies from the environmental lobby, as well as the billions of dollars enviro-huskers have reaped from "sky is falling" rhetoric that we are forced to play the role of "science denier." As is the case with nearly every proposal and ideological goal of the Progressive-left, they are propagated with a mixture of fear and deceit. In the case of climate change, the ultimate fear tactic, our very existence (almost), to perpetuate lies whose solutions themselves would only serve to delay our alleged doom.

By Paul M Winters Editor in Chief, Dignitas News Service


ChamberOfCommerce ChristianScienceMonitor (via YouTube) EnvironmentalProtectionAgency UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme WallStJournal OpenSourceSystems DallasMorningNews EuropeanCommission PetitionProject

TOPICS: Government; Politics; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: chamberofcommerce; climatechange; epa; globalwarming

1 posted on 06/09/2014 11:26:19 AM PDT by dignitasnews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dignitasnews
Big government is a solution in search of a problem.
2 posted on 06/09/2014 11:42:19 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excellence


3 posted on 06/09/2014 11:46:24 AM PDT by Excellence (Marine mom since April 11, 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Well said.

4 posted on 06/09/2014 11:47:05 AM PDT by dignitasnews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dignitasnews


Anyone with common sense can see this. Earth’s climate is sooooooo complicated that it can only be regulated by God Himself. How arrogant these people are that they think puny man can impact the climate in a global way.

Have a look at global ocean currents (a major factor in climate). Does this look like anything man could regulate?

It’s not just complexity, it’s SCALE. The earth is HUGH! Man is small. No matter what we do, we can not affect global climate because of the scale required to do it. It’s just too big.

Cause and effect. Any change we could make wouldn’t happen in a vacuum. There would be a corresponding effect that we couldn’t predict. It might be catastrophic.

“Don’t Fool with Mother Nature” (actually “Father God”)

Computer models = fake science.

Actual measurements over time = science.

5 posted on 06/09/2014 12:06:16 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman


And the purpose of this hoax is...

Subject: Sustainable Development/Agenda21, Degrowing the American economy

1st qtr, 2014 U.S. economic growth was at .01% or less indicating that the economic goal of “Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” as adopted by the U.S. has largely been met. This also fulfills the machiavellian wish of Maurice Strong, UN Chairman of UNCED aka The Rio Earth Summit where in 1992 he articulated the intentions of the “Plan for the 21st Century- Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” by saying this in regard to our “unsustainable” high consumption of natural resources which is, according to them destroying the Earth; “...isn’t it our responsibility to bring about the collapse of the industrialized countries?” Now, to become truly as “Sustainable” as perhaps Bangladesh, more vital work is quickly needed to further collapse and “Degrow” the economy. This will be accomplished with draconian restrictions on business and energy use which will be mandated by arbitrary regulations spawned from the bogus hype to save the planet from the dread effects of antropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption.

Club for Degrowth » Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity
Club for Degrowth » Moving Toward Sustainable Prospe...
Fortunately when compared with try contacting viagra thailand viagra thailand a bunch of unwelcome surprises.Stop worrying about being financially a plan order gene...
View on
Preview by Yahoo

John Holdren calls for “de-growing” the economy;

6 posted on 06/09/2014 12:29:06 PM PDT by Captain7seas (Beware of "enviromentalist" bearing gifts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

You hit the nail on the head “Anyone with common sense..” fortunately for Progressive politicians and hucksters, their constituents abandoned that long ago.

7 posted on 06/09/2014 12:30:03 PM PDT by dignitasnews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod


8 posted on 06/09/2014 12:31:40 PM PDT by sauropod (Fat Bottomed Girl: "What difference, at this point, does it make?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dignitasnews

The Climate Change solutions offered to us are many billions of times worse than even the worst possible scenario that MIGHT happen if the hoax was true.

9 posted on 06/09/2014 3:12:42 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


10 posted on 06/09/2014 11:26:30 PM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson