Skip to comments.The Warmers Strike Back
Posted on 03/17/2010 4:28:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," (March 5, 2010) tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics. "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back " Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules."
Professor Thomas Sowell's most recent book, "Intellectuals and Society," has a quote from Eric Hoffer, "One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation." Environmentalist Professor Paul Ehrlich, who's giving advice to the warmers, is an excellent example of Hoffer's observation. Ehrlich in his widely read 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," predicted, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." Ehrlich also predicted the earth's then-5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1969, Dr. Ehrlich warned Britain's Institute of Biology, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Despite these asinine predictions, Ehrlich has won no less than 16 awards, including the 1980 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award.
Stanford University professor and environmentalist activist Stephen H. Schneider is another scientist involved in the warmer retaliation. In a 1989 Discover Magazine interview, Professor Schneider said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, now president of the United Nations Foundation, in 1990 said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In National Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, "... the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
George Woodwell's, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, comments suggest that the warmers are gearing up for a big propaganda push. In one of his e-mails, Woodwell said that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He criticized Pennsylvania State University for their academic investigation of Professor Michael Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the Britain's now disgraced Climate Research Unit. Stephen Dinan's Washington Times article reports, "In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking 'an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach' but said scientists have had their 'classical reasonableness' turned against them," adding, "'We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths.'"
Fortunately, for the American people, Sen. James M. Inhofe, R- Okla., is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants have falsified data. He has identified 17 taxpayer-supported scientists who have been major players in the global warming conspiracy.
STILL AT IT: Gore points toward weather events as evidence of ‘climate change’; Strategy conference call...
God bless Sen. Inhofe. May he succeed in removing these fanatics from the government trough.
I wouldn't depend on MM to give me an accurate PH reading on my pool water.
They lost and are just embarrassing themselves if they continue. Sort of like the Nazis that continued the battle after WWII, even people that fought on your side wish you would just “go away”.
No ethics here.
Very unusual to see this sort of thing from the GW crowd. But it speaks the truth about their motivation. This is a political movement not a scientific one.
Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”
Paul Erlich is the poster child for discredited environmentalists. To have the word doctor in front of his name in light of his past documented failures is a travesty. To be teaching yutes of America under the education banner is an even greater travesty.
If anyone is unclear about the agenda of a goodly number of non profits, to gain political advantage, and clout by virtue of said status and toward federal funding as the principle source of their “income”/donations, let me be perfectly clear.
Personally, I consider, given what they have claimed is taking place using mass media deception, and using public education as their 'church', it is more like a religious movement. They are using the political to put their religious hooks into taking over the economy. They all seem to suffer the old age religion that they 'are gods', offering a fake salvation.
Paul Ehrlich, now there is a real luminary. His last name rhymes with idiot!
Jail is too good for these hoaxers.
Different rules, you mean like the truth?
More like those japs they dug out of the jungle 20 years after the war still in combat mode.
They have to keep telling themselves this, even though the only funding I can see is on the GW-Hoaxing side because they can't admit, we are just trying to put forward reasonable objections to their screaming.
I.e. bullshit uber alles, that's really fabulous...
WOW, what a freaking loon this Tim Wirth is:
“Ehrlich also predicted the earth’s then-5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025.”
If we keep electing idiots like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank etc. this could yet be the only Erlich prediction that turns out to be dead on the money. A lot of starving can go on in fifteen years.
It will be interesting to see Holder cave in and go along with Inhofe’s requests. Will we see Holdren quietly slip out the back door and be replaced with a more neutral chief science adviser. Obi from Nairobi has enough problems on his hand with health care and his dropping popularity. He may ignore the pleas of the AGW goons at this point. Then again one never knows how far these type would be willing to sacrifice themselves to their leftest causes. One thing for certain. It appears the AGW/GW chief proponents are not going to go hide in some cave at this point.
Thanks for the post. Now we see clearly how these clowns shall enter the street battle. Basically what they have mostly did all along. But now will get more outlandish if they think they sway the masses to their side.
I genuinely believe in retrospect that he was not expressing a prediction, but a hope.
“I genuinely believe in retrospect that he was not expressing a prediction, but a hope.”
You may be right, I don’t know.
tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skepticsSuch trash have no idea what "outlandishly aggressive" is -- but we all always knew such trash was partisan trash. Thanks Ernest.