In a display of political bravado, disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich today appointed former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate, challenging national Democratic leaders to reject the appointment of an African-American to the seat that propelled Barack Obama to the White House.
The defiant move tests the resolve of Senate Democrats who said they would not admit anyone appointed by Blagojevich, who is facing impeachment after being accused of trying to sell the Senate seat for personal gain. And it reveals to a nation celebrating Obama's victory the underbelly of Chicago's race-based political scene.
President-elect Obama supported the announcement by Senate Democrats that Blagojevich's appointment "will ultimately not stand."
Obama issued the following statement:
"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada now faces a difficult political situation amid uncertainties that an attempt to block Burris from taking office can withstand a legal challenge. Burris, Illinois' first statewide elected African-American, wants entry into a chamber that no longer has any blacks.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, appearing at Blagojevich's announcement at Burris' invitation, underscored the role of race in the governor's decision by using racially charged terms to defend the appointment.
"I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer," said Rush, who promised to lobby congressional leaders on Burris' behalf.
"That was excellent Bobby. Thank you," Blagojevich said to Rush. The governor then turned to reporters and said, "Feel free to castigate the appointer but don't lynch the appointer. I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing!"
While Democrats on all levels were quick to castigate the governor, who was arrested three weeks ago on allegations he tried to sell Obama's former Senate seat, they were careful not to accuse Burris of any taint associated with Blagojevich. Still, questions remained why the former three-term state comptroller and one-term attorney general, nearly 14 years removed from holding statewide elected office, would accept the appointment when others who had sought it shied away after the governor's arrest.
Burris has long sought a jump to higher office, failing in three primary bids for governor in 1994, 1998 and, in 2002 against Blagojevich, as well as campaigns for Chicago mayor in 1995 and U.S. senator in 1984. In accepting the appointment, he refused to discuss Blagojevich's alleged criminal activities or whether he believed the governor should step down.
"I am not a tool of the governor. I'm a tool of the people of Illinois," Burris told the Tribune Tuesday evening. "If I was worried about the taint [of Blagojevich], I would never have accepted that. I don't have any taint from Gov. Blagojevich."
Burris, who has always maintained an outsized political ego even larger than that required of most politicians, said he thought Blagojevich picked "the most qualified person in the state of Illinois to . . . serve out the term of Barack Obama."
Yet Burris was the second of two post-arrest finalists for Blagojevich when the governor offered him the job Sunday night. U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, a black congressman from the West Side, said he was offered the post by a Blagojevich representative a week ago and told the governor's office Friday he declined the offer.
Davis had said he would reject a Blagojevich appointment because the governor had "lost his moral authority" and would rather see "a governor who is not tainted" make the appointment. But on Tuesday, Davis said he would support Burris' selection.
Burris has given more than $20,000 to Blagojevich's campaign fund on his own and through his consulting and law firms, state campaign finance records show. Burris' consulting company received about $290,000 in state contracts with the Illinois Department of Transportation a few years ago, according to state comptroller records. Some of the clients Burris' firm lobbied for also got state business.
Blagojevich had supported efforts proposed by the leaders of the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to approve legislation that would remove the unfettered power of the governor to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat in favor of a special election. But Blagojevich said the legislature's decision not to move forward left him no choice.
"If I don't make this appointment, then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and vote in the United States Senate," Blagojevich said.
The governor called Burris an individual of "unquestioned integrity, extensive experience," adding "Please, don't allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man."
But early word about the governor's surprise move prompted U.S. Senate Democratic leaders to hold a conference call during which they decided not to seat Burris or any other Blagojevich appointee. Shortly after Blagojevich's arrest, Reid, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and the other Senate Democrats asked Blagojevich to resign and warned any appointee would not be allowed to serve.
On Tuesday, Senate Democratic leadership said "anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative" for Illinois because they "would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety."
The governor said his appointment was about Burris, not himself. While he told reporters that "I don't want to hog the limelight," Blagojevich's brazen move was very much about the governor and his future.
Blagojevich's public support has plummeted sharply, even before his arrest, but the governor still maintained sizable support from the African-American community. In dismissing the threat of Democratic U.S. senators, Blagojevich said he was "absolutely confident and certain" that Burris would be seated in the Senate and Rush said, "I don't think that anyone, any U.S. senator who's sitting the Senate right now, wants to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the U.S. Senate."
U.S. Rep. Janice Schakowsky, an Evanston Democrat and once a close Blagojevich ally, told CNN the governor's appointment was "in some ways . . . a shrewd, if not cynical move."Blagojevich's move didn't play well in Springfield either.
"I think you'll find that members of the impeachment committee will not be pleased with this development," said committee member and state Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), adding that "the timing is so wrong as to put a cloud over the appointment."
Republicans also used Blagojevich's decision to resurrect their call for a special election and to attack the state legislature's Democratic majority as enablers for allowing the governor to keep his appointment power.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
India Moves Troops Toward Shared Border of Pakistan
Pakistan said Tuesday that India had moved troops toward their shared border, following Islamabad's own redeployment of forces toward the frontier amid tensions over the Mumbai attacks.
But India's foreign minister insisted it had done nothing to escalate tensions in the region, while another Indian official denied a separate Pakistani allegation that New Delhi had activated forward air bases.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi made the claims in a televised address that included overtures toward India to resume peace talks between the nuclear-armed neighbors, who have already fought three wars in the past six decades.
"I understand India has activated their forward air bases, and I think if they are deactivated, then it will be a big positive signal," Qureshi said. "Similarly, as far as their ground forces are concerned and which have been deputed and deployed, if they are relocated to their peacetime positions, then it will also be a positive signal."
But Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said his country had not widened the diplomatic rift.
"We have not done anything which can escalate the tension between India and Pakistan," he told reporters in New Delhi. "Because from day one, I have been saying that it is not an India-Pakistan issue. This is an attack perpetrated by elements emanating from the land of Pakistan and the Pakistan government should take action against it."
Pakistan leaders have stepped up appeals for calm in the region in the past two days. The Muslim nation's powerful army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on Monday called for lowering tensions and avoiding conflict, according to a press statement.
Indian defense officials declined to answer questions about troop movements, saying Mukherjee's comments addressed the issue.
Qureshi said Pakistan favored dialogue aimed at resolving disputes such as claims on the Kashmir region.
"It has always been our desire that we sit at the negotiating table and make each other understand our point of view and carry forward the talks," he said.
Qureshi also offered to send a high-level delegation to New Delhi to help investigate the November assault in Mumbai, which killed 164 people. He insisted India had not turned over evidence backing up its claims that Pakistani militants staged the assault.
However, he noted that Indian officials had said that was because their own investigation was not over.
"And the government of Pakistan wants to assure them that when the evidence will come to us, our thinking from day one was constructive and peaceful and we will do our best to reach the bottom of the matter," Qureshi said.
Pakistan has taken some suspects into custody and cracked down on a charity alleged linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group India says was behind the Mumbai siege. India has given Pakistan a letter from the lone surviving gunman involved in the attacks, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, reportedly saying he and the nine other gunmen were Pakistani.
Pakistan has said it is examining the letter but that it has no record of Kasab as a citizen. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday on the status of the letter's examination.
In an apparent reference to the letter, Mukherjee said India has already given evidence, and will provide more.
"We have repeatedly said that 'Yes, we will give you evidence as earlier we have given you. But please act on it,'" he said.
An Indian military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, denied that key air bases had been activated. "We have not activated any of our forward air bases," he said.
Pakistani intelligence officials said last week that Pakistan is shifting thousands of troops away from its militant-infested northwest regions bordering Afghanistan and toward India. Witnesses in towns along the Indian border have reported seeing more troops than usual, but there have been no signs of a massive buildup on the Pakistani side.
___
Associated Press Writer Ashok Sharma in New Delhi contributed to this report.
But India's foreign minister insisted it had done nothing to escalate tensions in the region, while another Indian official denied a separate Pakistani allegation that New Delhi had activated forward air bases.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi made the claims in a televised address that included overtures toward India to resume peace talks between the nuclear-armed neighbors, who have already fought three wars in the past six decades.
"I understand India has activated their forward air bases, and I think if they are deactivated, then it will be a big positive signal," Qureshi said. "Similarly, as far as their ground forces are concerned and which have been deputed and deployed, if they are relocated to their peacetime positions, then it will also be a positive signal."
But Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said his country had not widened the diplomatic rift.
"We have not done anything which can escalate the tension between India and Pakistan," he told reporters in New Delhi. "Because from day one, I have been saying that it is not an India-Pakistan issue. This is an attack perpetrated by elements emanating from the land of Pakistan and the Pakistan government should take action against it."
Pakistan leaders have stepped up appeals for calm in the region in the past two days. The Muslim nation's powerful army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on Monday called for lowering tensions and avoiding conflict, according to a press statement.
Indian defense officials declined to answer questions about troop movements, saying Mukherjee's comments addressed the issue.
Qureshi said Pakistan favored dialogue aimed at resolving disputes such as claims on the Kashmir region.
"It has always been our desire that we sit at the negotiating table and make each other understand our point of view and carry forward the talks," he said.
Qureshi also offered to send a high-level delegation to New Delhi to help investigate the November assault in Mumbai, which killed 164 people. He insisted India had not turned over evidence backing up its claims that Pakistani militants staged the assault.
However, he noted that Indian officials had said that was because their own investigation was not over.
"And the government of Pakistan wants to assure them that when the evidence will come to us, our thinking from day one was constructive and peaceful and we will do our best to reach the bottom of the matter," Qureshi said.
Pakistan has taken some suspects into custody and cracked down on a charity alleged linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group India says was behind the Mumbai siege. India has given Pakistan a letter from the lone surviving gunman involved in the attacks, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, reportedly saying he and the nine other gunmen were Pakistani.
Pakistan has said it is examining the letter but that it has no record of Kasab as a citizen. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday on the status of the letter's examination.
In an apparent reference to the letter, Mukherjee said India has already given evidence, and will provide more.
"We have repeatedly said that 'Yes, we will give you evidence as earlier we have given you. But please act on it,'" he said.
An Indian military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, denied that key air bases had been activated. "We have not activated any of our forward air bases," he said.
Pakistani intelligence officials said last week that Pakistan is shifting thousands of troops away from its militant-infested northwest regions bordering Afghanistan and toward India. Witnesses in towns along the Indian border have reported seeing more troops than usual, but there have been no signs of a massive buildup on the Pakistani side.
___
Associated Press Writer Ashok Sharma in New Delhi contributed to this report.
Pakistan Closes US Supply Route to Hit Militants
Reuters - A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan welcomed the operation against the extremists, despite the suspension of the supply route.
"We are glad that they're helping clean out what they call miscreants in that area that have been attacking the supply line," said Col. Greg Julian. "Temporary closure (of the supply line) is not a problem. It's best that they conduct this operation and clear out these trouble spots."
The road through the Khyber Pass in the northwest of Pakistan has come under increasing attacks by militants seeking to squeeze Western forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.
U.S. and NATO soldiers in landlocked Afghanistan rely on the winding, mountainous route for delivery of up to 75 percent of their fuel, food and other logistical goods, which arrive in Pakistan via the port city of Karachi.
American commanders insist the attacks are not disrupting their mission in Afghanistan, but they also say they are exploring new routes. They also say they have enough supplies to last many weeks in the case the routes are blocked.
The road has been temporarily closed to traffic at least twice this year for security reasons, each time for no longer than several days.
Tariq Hayat Khan, top administration official in the Khyber area, said security forces were battling the militants using helicopter gunships and heavy artillery.
"This operation will continue until the goal is achieved, which is nothing less then the elimination of troublemakers," Khan told The Associated Press. He did not say how long the road would be closed for.
He said he had no information on any casualties.
Gunmen have staged a series of raids on truck depots near the Pakistani city of Peshawar in recent weeks, killing several guards and burning hundreds of vehicles, including dozens of U.S.-bought Humvees destined for the Afghan army.
During the summer, militants attacked and torched dozens of U.S. supply trucks on Afghanistan's main highway.
A smaller number of supplies arrive in Pakistan by a second land crossing at Chaman in the southwest. That road was open Tuesday, a witness said.
NATO says it is investigating other possible supply routes to Afghanistan — such as through central Asian states to its north. Guns and ammunition are not shipped through Pakistan.
On a normal day, some 300 trucks carrying military supplies travel up the pass. Media reports have said that truck companies are becoming increasingly unwilling to transport the goods because of the danger.
"We are glad that they're helping clean out what they call miscreants in that area that have been attacking the supply line," said Col. Greg Julian. "Temporary closure (of the supply line) is not a problem. It's best that they conduct this operation and clear out these trouble spots."
The road through the Khyber Pass in the northwest of Pakistan has come under increasing attacks by militants seeking to squeeze Western forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.
U.S. and NATO soldiers in landlocked Afghanistan rely on the winding, mountainous route for delivery of up to 75 percent of their fuel, food and other logistical goods, which arrive in Pakistan via the port city of Karachi.
American commanders insist the attacks are not disrupting their mission in Afghanistan, but they also say they are exploring new routes. They also say they have enough supplies to last many weeks in the case the routes are blocked.
The road has been temporarily closed to traffic at least twice this year for security reasons, each time for no longer than several days.
Tariq Hayat Khan, top administration official in the Khyber area, said security forces were battling the militants using helicopter gunships and heavy artillery.
"This operation will continue until the goal is achieved, which is nothing less then the elimination of troublemakers," Khan told The Associated Press. He did not say how long the road would be closed for.
He said he had no information on any casualties.
Gunmen have staged a series of raids on truck depots near the Pakistani city of Peshawar in recent weeks, killing several guards and burning hundreds of vehicles, including dozens of U.S.-bought Humvees destined for the Afghan army.
During the summer, militants attacked and torched dozens of U.S. supply trucks on Afghanistan's main highway.
A smaller number of supplies arrive in Pakistan by a second land crossing at Chaman in the southwest. That road was open Tuesday, a witness said.
NATO says it is investigating other possible supply routes to Afghanistan — such as through central Asian states to its north. Guns and ammunition are not shipped through Pakistan.
On a normal day, some 300 trucks carrying military supplies travel up the pass. Media reports have said that truck companies are becoming increasingly unwilling to transport the goods because of the danger.
Monday, December 29, 2008
American Thinker Global Warming Propaganda
August 03, 2007
By Christopher J. Alleva
I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). http://www.sej.org/ This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you're an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they'll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.
The SEJ was founded in 1989. The association is considered an indispensable resource among many reporters. The SEJ proclaims their mission to be the creation of a formal network of reporters that write about environmental issues. To that end, they maintain a website, run a listserv and send out regular email alerts to coordinate the coverage and make sure no one deviates from story template and action line. To reinforce this, they regularly conduct conferences and workshops teaching propaganda writing techniques and holding indoctrination seminars. To promote hands on discipline, they offer a "mentoring program."
In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they are the tool of Exxon Mobil. And this is journalism at its finest?
The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.
This year's annual conference is being held in the rarefied atmosphere of Stanford University. The conference agenda and featured speakers are a virtual who's who and what's what of the self -identified progressive movement: the likes of leftist radio personality Amy Goodman and the Weather Channel's chief global warming propagandist Heidi Cullen holding down the celebrity spots. The five-day conference is really a full immersion in the latest liberal tropes. To create the illusion of prestige and open debate they booked a token Republican, shelling out whatever it took to get former Secretary of State George Schultz to participate in a panel titled, "Clean, Secure & Efficient Energy: Can We Have It All?"
The panel description reflects the deeply ingrained bias of the SEJ and its members. "The race is on for commercialization of domestic fuels that shrink our carbon footprint..." From what I've seen this not a race for "commercialization" so much as a fight for government subsidies.
The conference offers several recreational field trips that would set any white liberal's hearts aflutter, including a kayak outing and a tour of California's wine country. But its not all play; to assuage their liberal guilt, they're planning an excursion to the East Bay area of Oakland and Richmond they call the "Hole in the Donut: Environmental Justice in the Heart of Ecotopia" The descriptive narrative of the trip speaks volumes.
"Amid the extraordinary wealth and environmental consciousness ringing San Francisco Bay, two communities at the center of it all wallow in poverty and pollution.
"The East Bay cities of Richmond and Oakland are the industrial entrepôts for the economy of Northern California and beyond. Both surround the massive Port of Oakland, the nation's fourth largest, which fouls water and air with toxics and exotic creatures and is suspected of causing sharply higher rates of asthma and premature death from other diseases. We'll explore the minority-majority neighborhoods that endure the ceaseless movement of trains, trucks and ships. Then we'll tour the port complex to see how goods are moved across the seas and how port officials plan to clean up their act."
(For a look at the terrible environmental injustice around the Port of Richmond, see Thomas Lifson's photos here.)
The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism.
By Christopher J. Alleva
I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). http://www.sej.org/ This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you're an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they'll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.
The SEJ was founded in 1989. The association is considered an indispensable resource among many reporters. The SEJ proclaims their mission to be the creation of a formal network of reporters that write about environmental issues. To that end, they maintain a website, run a listserv and send out regular email alerts to coordinate the coverage and make sure no one deviates from story template and action line. To reinforce this, they regularly conduct conferences and workshops teaching propaganda writing techniques and holding indoctrination seminars. To promote hands on discipline, they offer a "mentoring program."
In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they are the tool of Exxon Mobil. And this is journalism at its finest?
The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.
This year's annual conference is being held in the rarefied atmosphere of Stanford University. The conference agenda and featured speakers are a virtual who's who and what's what of the self -identified progressive movement: the likes of leftist radio personality Amy Goodman and the Weather Channel's chief global warming propagandist Heidi Cullen holding down the celebrity spots. The five-day conference is really a full immersion in the latest liberal tropes. To create the illusion of prestige and open debate they booked a token Republican, shelling out whatever it took to get former Secretary of State George Schultz to participate in a panel titled, "Clean, Secure & Efficient Energy: Can We Have It All?"
The panel description reflects the deeply ingrained bias of the SEJ and its members. "The race is on for commercialization of domestic fuels that shrink our carbon footprint..." From what I've seen this not a race for "commercialization" so much as a fight for government subsidies.
The conference offers several recreational field trips that would set any white liberal's hearts aflutter, including a kayak outing and a tour of California's wine country. But its not all play; to assuage their liberal guilt, they're planning an excursion to the East Bay area of Oakland and Richmond they call the "Hole in the Donut: Environmental Justice in the Heart of Ecotopia" The descriptive narrative of the trip speaks volumes.
"Amid the extraordinary wealth and environmental consciousness ringing San Francisco Bay, two communities at the center of it all wallow in poverty and pollution.
"The East Bay cities of Richmond and Oakland are the industrial entrepôts for the economy of Northern California and beyond. Both surround the massive Port of Oakland, the nation's fourth largest, which fouls water and air with toxics and exotic creatures and is suspected of causing sharply higher rates of asthma and premature death from other diseases. We'll explore the minority-majority neighborhoods that endure the ceaseless movement of trains, trucks and ships. Then we'll tour the port complex to see how goods are moved across the seas and how port officials plan to clean up their act."
(For a look at the terrible environmental injustice around the Port of Richmond, see Thomas Lifson's photos here.)
The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism.
Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda
Global Warming Hoax
Find out how scientists, government
are fooling the public.
www.douglassreport.comWe Can Solve It
Solutions to Global Warming Exist &
We Can Make Them Work. Learn More.
WeCanSolveIt.org
Paul Joseph Watson reports:
A retired physics professor became the latest public figure to debunk the myth of a “consensus” behind man-made global warming when he slammed big money interests for pushing climate change propaganda that was at odds with real science in a speech yesterday.
Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.
“Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming,” Hayden said. “Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda.”
Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.
“Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars,” he said, “On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing,” adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.
Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.
“We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years,” he said. “During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide.”
“About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans,” Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading.
You have to wonder what kind of return these global warming fear-mongers are expecting on their investment. World government, more taxes, or a newly created “green” industrial complex? Probably all of the above.
I can’t wait until the “War on global warming” becomes the next statist slogan.
Find out how scientists, government
are fooling the public.
www.douglassreport.comWe Can Solve It
Solutions to Global Warming Exist &
We Can Make Them Work. Learn More.
WeCanSolveIt.org
Paul Joseph Watson reports:
A retired physics professor became the latest public figure to debunk the myth of a “consensus” behind man-made global warming when he slammed big money interests for pushing climate change propaganda that was at odds with real science in a speech yesterday.
Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.
“Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming,” Hayden said. “Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda.”
Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.
“Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars,” he said, “On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing,” adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.
Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.
“We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years,” he said. “During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide.”
“About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans,” Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading.
You have to wonder what kind of return these global warming fear-mongers are expecting on their investment. World government, more taxes, or a newly created “green” industrial complex? Probably all of the above.
I can’t wait until the “War on global warming” becomes the next statist slogan.
Propaganda of Global Warming
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
The Scientists Are The Bad Guys
On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.
The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly previewed and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker declared:
“Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has parted company with reality.” (Booker, ‘A turning point in climate change,’ Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)
Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:
“If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to melting ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating film The Great Global Warming Swindle.” (Hitchens, ‘Drugs?’, Daily Mail, March 11, 2007)
Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times’ reviewer was left bewildered:
“Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe.” (’Slaughterhouse three,’ Financial Times, March 10, 2007)
The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster accompanied by dramatic captions:
"THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT.
“SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."
This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking heads:
"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. But it’s not science; it’s propaganda.”
And:
“We’re just being told lies; that’s what it comes down to.”
The commentary added to the sense of outrage: “You are being told lies.”
This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make bold statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?
The remarkable answer is provided by the film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin:
"I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.
“It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.” ('“Global Warming Is Lies” Claims Documentary,’ Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669 U&news_headline=global_warming _is_lies_ claims_documentary)
Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the film:
“The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
Wunsch comments:
"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)
We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.
Deeply Deceptive
The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world’s climate scientists are guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself the result of rising temperature.
As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.
But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)
In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.
Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”
The Ice Cores
The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present, as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)
The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,' Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10; www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.
What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)
Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’, December 3, 2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)
The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
Professor Severinghaus summarises:
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."
Durkin’s analysis, then, was way off the mark.
The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:
“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)
The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:
“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
For further help in understanding the weakness of the film’s claims, see the following resources:
Real Climate, 'Swindled',
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by Sir John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
“I Was Duped” - Déjà Vu?
Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997; www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/ 12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)
Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been misled about the programme-maker’s agenda. Responding to complaints, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented their known views". (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)
In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." (Paul McCann, ‘Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens,’ The Independent, April 2, 1998)
Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:
“I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
“At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)
In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun.
According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation:
“For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change.” (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94)
Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels’ research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels’ magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)
Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.
Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:
“I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.” (Tony Jones, ‘Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; www.abc.net.au/lateline/ content/2005/s1318067.htm)
Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:
“Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the ‘lies’ of ecofundamentalists.” (Monbiot, ‘Beware the fossil fools,’ The Guardian, April 27, 2004; http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.html)
Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US, which are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for America's gun lobby. The list goes on...
By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been included in the film:
"They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)
Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:
"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)
On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkin’s film:
“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...
“We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)
Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.
But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers” did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.
Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.
The Scientists Are The Bad Guys
On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.
The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly previewed and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker declared:
“Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has parted company with reality.” (Booker, ‘A turning point in climate change,’ Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)
Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:
“If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to melting ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating film The Great Global Warming Swindle.” (Hitchens, ‘Drugs?’, Daily Mail, March 11, 2007)
Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times’ reviewer was left bewildered:
“Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe.” (’Slaughterhouse three,’ Financial Times, March 10, 2007)
The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster accompanied by dramatic captions:
"THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT.
“SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."
This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking heads:
"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. But it’s not science; it’s propaganda.”
And:
“We’re just being told lies; that’s what it comes down to.”
The commentary added to the sense of outrage: “You are being told lies.”
This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make bold statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?
The remarkable answer is provided by the film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin:
"I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.
“It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.” ('“Global Warming Is Lies” Claims Documentary,’ Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669 U&news_headline=global_warming _is_lies_ claims_documentary)
Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the film:
“The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
Wunsch comments:
"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)
We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.
Deeply Deceptive
The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world’s climate scientists are guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself the result of rising temperature.
As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.
But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)
In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.
Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”
The Ice Cores
The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present, as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)
The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,' Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10; www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.
What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)
Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’, December 3, 2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)
The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
Professor Severinghaus summarises:
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."
Durkin’s analysis, then, was way off the mark.
The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:
“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)
The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:
“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
For further help in understanding the weakness of the film’s claims, see the following resources:
Real Climate, 'Swindled',
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by Sir John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
“I Was Duped” - Déjà Vu?
Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997; www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/ 12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)
Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been misled about the programme-maker’s agenda. Responding to complaints, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented their known views". (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)
In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." (Paul McCann, ‘Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens,’ The Independent, April 2, 1998)
Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:
“I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
“At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)
In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun.
According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation:
“For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change.” (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94)
Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels’ research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels’ magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)
Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.
Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:
“I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.” (Tony Jones, ‘Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; www.abc.net.au/lateline/ content/2005/s1318067.htm)
Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:
“Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the ‘lies’ of ecofundamentalists.” (Monbiot, ‘Beware the fossil fools,’ The Guardian, April 27, 2004; http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.html)
Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US, which are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for America's gun lobby. The list goes on...
By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been included in the film:
"They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)
Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:
"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)
On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkin’s film:
“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...
“We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)
Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.
But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers” did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.
Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.
Analysis of Gaza-Hamas v. Israel Conflict
ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Gaza Strip, Israel News
The events along the southern front which commenced at 11:30 on Saturday morning are the closest thing there is to a war between Israel and Hamas. It is difficult to ascertain (geographically) where and for how long the violence will reach before international intervention forces a halt to the hostilities. However, Israel's opening salvo is not merely another "surgical" operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Palestinian sources in Gaza report that 40 targets were destroyed in a span of three to five minutes. This was a massive attack much along the lines of what the Americans termed "shock and awe" during their invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Simultaneous, heavy bombardment of a number of targets on which Israel spent months gathering intelligence. The military "target bank" includes dozens of additional targets linked to Hamas, some of which will certainly come under attack in the coming days.
Like the U.S. assault on Iraq and the Israeli response to the abduction of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser at the outset of the Second Lebanon War (the "night of the Fajr missiles," a reference to the IAF destruction of Hezbollah's arsenal of medium-range Fajr missiles), little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians. From Israel's standpoint, Hamas, which persistently fires rockets while using the civilian population as cover, had plenty of opportunities to save face and lower their demands. In stubbornly continuing to launch rockets during the course of recent weeks, it brought this assault on itself.
Advertisement
A final decision on the precise timing of the operation was made on Saturday morning during consultations between the prime minister, the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, and army generals. The cabinet approved the assault in its last meeting on Wednesday. Since that day, the government has waited for the opportunity to strike. Apparently, an intelligence tip indicating that members of the Hamas military wing were convening for a meeting expedited the decision-making process on giving the go-ahead to act. According to initial reports from Gaza, a number of senior Hamas officials were hit, yet the scope of the harm done to the group's leadership has yet to be precisely determined. The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.
Since Saturday afternoon, the IAF has maintained a significance presence in the skies over Gaza in hopes of intercepting rocket-launching cells belonging to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But the rocket barrage which rained down on Netivot (where one Israeli was killed by a Grad rocket which directly struck a house), Ashkelon, and the communities abutting the Gaza Strip is only the appetizer. The defense establishment is girding for a daily round of rocket fire that is expected to exceed 100 projectiles, some of which are likely to reach the maximum range currently within Hamas' capability - 40 kilometers, a distance that extends to the outskirts of Be'er Sheva and Ashdod.
It would be reasonable to assume that Hamas is preparing to spring another operational surprise a la Hezbollah: from attempting to shoot down IAF aircraft to the targeting of key strategic sites, like the Ashdod port. The IDF Home Front Command has already launched a massive deployment of its forces who are tasked with instructing the residents of the Negev to remain in their homes (the urgency of the instruction is proportional to the residents' proximity to the Gaza Strip). In addition, a few hundred reservist soldiers have received call-up notices.
Israel's continued hesitation in taking action against Hamas is rooted in the trauma it suffered in the wake of the Second Lebanon War. The major x-factor, of course, is not related to the operational capabilities of the air force, but whether or not to launch a ground invasion. Will the government resolve to do so and is the IDF capable of successfully carrying out a mission which it failed to accomplish against Hezbollah? It is reasonable to assume that the picture will become more clearer within three to four days. Until then, the IAF is expected to continue its assault which will be complimented by limited activity from relatively small ground units.
As the situation appears now, Israel has assigned modest goals for itself: weakening Hamas rule in Gaza and restoring a prolonged lull along the border under terms that are more convenient for us following an internationally imposed compromise. Hamas, in its continued strikes on the Negev in recent weeks, erred in judging Israeli intentions and has been dragged into a war that it doubtful wanted. Now, Israel needs to be careful in not falling into a trap of its own.
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Gaza Strip, Israel News
The events along the southern front which commenced at 11:30 on Saturday morning are the closest thing there is to a war between Israel and Hamas. It is difficult to ascertain (geographically) where and for how long the violence will reach before international intervention forces a halt to the hostilities. However, Israel's opening salvo is not merely another "surgical" operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Palestinian sources in Gaza report that 40 targets were destroyed in a span of three to five minutes. This was a massive attack much along the lines of what the Americans termed "shock and awe" during their invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Simultaneous, heavy bombardment of a number of targets on which Israel spent months gathering intelligence. The military "target bank" includes dozens of additional targets linked to Hamas, some of which will certainly come under attack in the coming days.
Like the U.S. assault on Iraq and the Israeli response to the abduction of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser at the outset of the Second Lebanon War (the "night of the Fajr missiles," a reference to the IAF destruction of Hezbollah's arsenal of medium-range Fajr missiles), little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians. From Israel's standpoint, Hamas, which persistently fires rockets while using the civilian population as cover, had plenty of opportunities to save face and lower their demands. In stubbornly continuing to launch rockets during the course of recent weeks, it brought this assault on itself.
Advertisement
A final decision on the precise timing of the operation was made on Saturday morning during consultations between the prime minister, the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, and army generals. The cabinet approved the assault in its last meeting on Wednesday. Since that day, the government has waited for the opportunity to strike. Apparently, an intelligence tip indicating that members of the Hamas military wing were convening for a meeting expedited the decision-making process on giving the go-ahead to act. According to initial reports from Gaza, a number of senior Hamas officials were hit, yet the scope of the harm done to the group's leadership has yet to be precisely determined. The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.
Since Saturday afternoon, the IAF has maintained a significance presence in the skies over Gaza in hopes of intercepting rocket-launching cells belonging to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But the rocket barrage which rained down on Netivot (where one Israeli was killed by a Grad rocket which directly struck a house), Ashkelon, and the communities abutting the Gaza Strip is only the appetizer. The defense establishment is girding for a daily round of rocket fire that is expected to exceed 100 projectiles, some of which are likely to reach the maximum range currently within Hamas' capability - 40 kilometers, a distance that extends to the outskirts of Be'er Sheva and Ashdod.
It would be reasonable to assume that Hamas is preparing to spring another operational surprise a la Hezbollah: from attempting to shoot down IAF aircraft to the targeting of key strategic sites, like the Ashdod port. The IDF Home Front Command has already launched a massive deployment of its forces who are tasked with instructing the residents of the Negev to remain in their homes (the urgency of the instruction is proportional to the residents' proximity to the Gaza Strip). In addition, a few hundred reservist soldiers have received call-up notices.
Israel's continued hesitation in taking action against Hamas is rooted in the trauma it suffered in the wake of the Second Lebanon War. The major x-factor, of course, is not related to the operational capabilities of the air force, but whether or not to launch a ground invasion. Will the government resolve to do so and is the IDF capable of successfully carrying out a mission which it failed to accomplish against Hezbollah? It is reasonable to assume that the picture will become more clearer within three to four days. Until then, the IAF is expected to continue its assault which will be complimented by limited activity from relatively small ground units.
As the situation appears now, Israel has assigned modest goals for itself: weakening Hamas rule in Gaza and restoring a prolonged lull along the border under terms that are more convenient for us following an internationally imposed compromise. Hamas, in its continued strikes on the Negev in recent weeks, erred in judging Israeli intentions and has been dragged into a war that it doubtful wanted. Now, Israel needs to be careful in not falling into a trap of its own.
Psychiatric Opinion of Liberals
Dr. Rossiter publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'
Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Statement of Faith
Sometimes in the 1970's I tried to create a forum where those of various faiths can connect our lives somewhat like a river touches the edges of countries and villages, unrelenting in progress and richer as the sun reflects upon the faces of destiny.
This endeavor was partially realized at some of the churches in San Francisco where I attended and exhibited some of my paintings, although I was not a member of those specific churches.
Through my brief life, I have been blessed and disappointed by those of various religions; overzealous hindu landlords whose remorse was eventually equalled by efforts of reimbursement, those of the jewish religion who I once trusted and who exploited and misrepresented important issues to their own advantage, and members of other religious organizations in which I include catholics for reasons best known to myself.
To further explain and avoid misunderstanding, I tolerated the abuse of those whose folly exceeded their grace because of my belief in the basic fairness of mankind and eventually turned away from the christian school of belief of my early childhood to create, through art and music, a happy blend of trust, awareness, and a wish to seek those who are teachers through their examples of kindness and perception.
It is my hope that for every misfortune in my life, I will be blessed by fulfilled promises of faith. Evidence is overwhelming of the beauty of friendship with those who are loyal, whether angels of forgotten dreams or ministers of belief including those of every religion of which I am aware.
This endeavor was partially realized at some of the churches in San Francisco where I attended and exhibited some of my paintings, although I was not a member of those specific churches.
Through my brief life, I have been blessed and disappointed by those of various religions; overzealous hindu landlords whose remorse was eventually equalled by efforts of reimbursement, those of the jewish religion who I once trusted and who exploited and misrepresented important issues to their own advantage, and members of other religious organizations in which I include catholics for reasons best known to myself.
To further explain and avoid misunderstanding, I tolerated the abuse of those whose folly exceeded their grace because of my belief in the basic fairness of mankind and eventually turned away from the christian school of belief of my early childhood to create, through art and music, a happy blend of trust, awareness, and a wish to seek those who are teachers through their examples of kindness and perception.
It is my hope that for every misfortune in my life, I will be blessed by fulfilled promises of faith. Evidence is overwhelming of the beauty of friendship with those who are loyal, whether angels of forgotten dreams or ministers of belief including those of every religion of which I am aware.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Sovereignty of the Individual
The following is an excerpt from a speech by Frank Lloyd Wright. I do not know the exact occasion of the speech.
Culture and education are two very different things. Culture is the developing of the idea by way of itself, and education is informing, teaching, telling the individual. It is only by a natural growth that you can attain culture, but you can return from school conditioned instead of enlightened. Education today doesn't mean culture. In fact, Lewis Sullivan once stated that a highbrow was a man educated far baeyond his capacity. Education today is not even on speaking terms with what we should call culture. We need culture more and education less. We acquire it through organic architecture, a new sense of what constitutes humanity under harmonious conditions. There is a tremendous reflection.
When you reach the higher spiritual realm that we call art you begin to look for things that are creative rather than just repetitive. I think there is where you are in the realm of culture, rather than education.
Culture is not for the crowd. Culture is an individual thing. And that is what our forefathers struck when they declared that the individual is sovereign. The sovereignty of the individual. That means a certain aloneness to begin with. A certain rejection of the common man as common, but insisting on his privilege to the uncommon. And that exists in every human soul today and this is the country that declares it.
Culture and education are two very different things. Culture is the developing of the idea by way of itself, and education is informing, teaching, telling the individual. It is only by a natural growth that you can attain culture, but you can return from school conditioned instead of enlightened. Education today doesn't mean culture. In fact, Lewis Sullivan once stated that a highbrow was a man educated far baeyond his capacity. Education today is not even on speaking terms with what we should call culture. We need culture more and education less. We acquire it through organic architecture, a new sense of what constitutes humanity under harmonious conditions. There is a tremendous reflection.
When you reach the higher spiritual realm that we call art you begin to look for things that are creative rather than just repetitive. I think there is where you are in the realm of culture, rather than education.
Culture is not for the crowd. Culture is an individual thing. And that is what our forefathers struck when they declared that the individual is sovereign. The sovereignty of the individual. That means a certain aloneness to begin with. A certain rejection of the common man as common, but insisting on his privilege to the uncommon. And that exists in every human soul today and this is the country that declares it.
Simplicity
By being simple, one is sensitive to the trees, to the birds, to the mountains, to the wind, to all the things which are going on about us in the world.
Most of us live on the upper level of our consciousness, there we try to be thoughtful or intelligent, which is synonymous with being rightious; there we try to make our minds simple through compulsion, through discipline.
To be simple, in the total process of our consciousness is extremely arduous because there must be no inward reservations, there must be an eagerness to discover, to inquire into the process of our being, which means to be aware of our fears, or of our hopes, and to be free of their bondage. Only when the mind and heart are really simple are we able to solve the many problems that confront us.
Knowledge alone will not solve our problems, You may know, for example, that there is reincarnation, that there is a continuity after death. You may know, but life is not necessarily changed by your theory, information or conviction. It is much more myterious, much deeper, much more creative than that.
It is only through direct experience that our problems are solved, and to have direct experience there must be simplicity, which means there must be sensitivity. Only mind that is capable of adjusting itself to the present can meet the powerful influences and pressures constanctly placed upon us by our environment.
It is only when a mind is sensitive, alert, aware and capable of receiving that there can abe happiness. However complex our problems, we shall be able to see them in a new perspective if we approach them with simplicity.
That is why it is so important to be aware, to have the capacity to understand the process of our own thinking, to be cognizant of ourselves totally, from that there comes a simplicity, a humility which is not a virtue or a practice, but a state of becoming.
Maturity is a road, not a destination. The gate is narrow, and simplicity is the key.
Most of us live on the upper level of our consciousness, there we try to be thoughtful or intelligent, which is synonymous with being rightious; there we try to make our minds simple through compulsion, through discipline.
To be simple, in the total process of our consciousness is extremely arduous because there must be no inward reservations, there must be an eagerness to discover, to inquire into the process of our being, which means to be aware of our fears, or of our hopes, and to be free of their bondage. Only when the mind and heart are really simple are we able to solve the many problems that confront us.
Knowledge alone will not solve our problems, You may know, for example, that there is reincarnation, that there is a continuity after death. You may know, but life is not necessarily changed by your theory, information or conviction. It is much more myterious, much deeper, much more creative than that.
It is only through direct experience that our problems are solved, and to have direct experience there must be simplicity, which means there must be sensitivity. Only mind that is capable of adjusting itself to the present can meet the powerful influences and pressures constanctly placed upon us by our environment.
It is only when a mind is sensitive, alert, aware and capable of receiving that there can abe happiness. However complex our problems, we shall be able to see them in a new perspective if we approach them with simplicity.
That is why it is so important to be aware, to have the capacity to understand the process of our own thinking, to be cognizant of ourselves totally, from that there comes a simplicity, a humility which is not a virtue or a practice, but a state of becoming.
Maturity is a road, not a destination. The gate is narrow, and simplicity is the key.
The Little Red Hen
Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we will have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did, The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?", asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my unemployment insurance," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen and she did. At last it came time to bake the bread.
"That's overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how" said the duck.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits, said the pig.
"If I'm the only the helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some and demanded their share. But the litle red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits!' cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"Equal rights!" yelled the goose.
And they painted Unfair picket signs and marched around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the government agent agent came, he said, "You must not be greedy little red hen. This is the wonderful free-enterprise system. Anybody in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. I am grateful."
But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.
__________________
Bodscobel Dial,June 17, 1975
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did, The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?", asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my unemployment insurance," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen and she did. At last it came time to bake the bread.
"That's overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how" said the duck.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits, said the pig.
"If I'm the only the helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some and demanded their share. But the litle red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits!' cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"Equal rights!" yelled the goose.
And they painted Unfair picket signs and marched around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the government agent agent came, he said, "You must not be greedy little red hen. This is the wonderful free-enterprise system. Anybody in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. I am grateful."
But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.
__________________
Bodscobel Dial,June 17, 1975
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
