Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
After the tragic events in Maryland on Wednesday of this week, where a man took three hostages and tried to make The Discovery Channel a vehicle for publishing his manifesto, there have been accusations and counter accusations in the global warming world about taking advantage of this to advance political goals.
In particular, Joe Romm of Climate Progress harshly criticized Anthony Watts for the title of his blog post alerting readers to the situation. Personally, I think Anthony’s choice was mistaken, but not malicious–I’ve made worse editorial decisions myself.
And this may be one of them. The deluge of catastrophic predictions regarding global warming and its consequences have reached almost everyone on the planet, and perhaps unintentionally have replaced Cold War bomb scares as the primary source of doomsaying.
The messages are well-thought out and prepared by professional communicators, with disturbing and graphic images of a post-apocalyptic scenario lifted from Mad Max, and with about as much connection to reality.
In March of this year, a couple in Argentina shot their two children before committing suicide over fears of global warming. On Wednesday, in Maryland, James Lee apparently committed ‘suicide by cop’ after taking three hostages in an attempt to force the Discovery Channel to alter its programming to suit his fears over the environment.
At what point will we call to account those who have preached ‘the end of the earth as we know it’ to countless people? How many people will be driven to desperation by those who distort the science?
The IPCC’s AR4, published in 2007, painted a future with global warming as a serious, multinational problem that we should face together. You may agree or disagree with their findings–I agree with most of it, not all.
But nowhere does the work of thousands of scientists in peer-reviewed literature say that we are doomed, that civilization is at risk, that there is no future for us.
That falls to several groups of committed lobbyists, scientists, environmentalists and politicians who began saying the IPCC report was too conservative almost the day it was published. The evidence they bring forward for that claim is nowhere near as robust as the science referenced by the IPCC.
They are scaring people to death. How many more lives will be blighted or destroyed before they understand that their propaganda has real world effects?
It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Mr. Lee–he took hostages, threatened to detonate an explosive device, and pretty much guaranteed his fate. And his worries weren’t confined to global warming. He was equally concerned with overpopulation, another scare story put out by some of the same people pumping hysteria over global warming.
At any rate, what these people are doing is despicable, if not murderous.
Sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet. Or 10. Or five. There is not going to be a climatic tipping point that pushes our planet into a spiral of ever-increasing temperatures. Global warming is not going to cause the extinction of half the species on this planet, or even 1%.
And it is long past time that respected members of the scientific community publicly acknowledge those facts and helped bring this debate back within the realm of reality.
My father met Jim Jones briefly before he moved to Guyana with his flock, and described him as intelligent and persuasive, able to talk reasonably about a multitude of subjects. We don’t need more smooth talkers preaching the language of despair. We can now see the results. In their zeal to communicate their fears of the effects of global warming that go far beyond the predictions of mainstream science, those who Anthony called ‘warmistas’ in his blog title and who I call alarmists and sometimes hysterics have created a library of disturbing words and images that can influence the vulnerable.
Are these people responsible for the tragedies in Argentina and Maryland? No. But did they act responsibly, caveating their predictions as personal fears instead of the verdict of science. No. They were trying to scare you. They succeeded too well.
It’s time to stop the hysteria.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 220-701 online training program is the best way to prepare for 640-863 exam. Get we offer best quality 646-364 dumps to help you maximize success chances.
In previous times, intellectuals argued over how many angels could dance on the head of pin.
In our era, our intellectuals argue over minor changes in the planet’s atmosphere and invent dancing angels of positive feedback that are used to create fear and hysteria, to convince people to comply with the mass message, to embrace what that don’t understand and to despise any thought process or conclusion that isn’t like theirs, isn’t in compliance with “the concensus”.
So very fascist of these fools.
Actually, the topic of population control has largely escaped the spotlight.
While a report was recently published that said LED bulbs won’t save the environment as much as behavior and usage changes will, the topic of population control (having less polluters) has never really been discussed, except on right-wing fringe blogs. And we all know how far that credibility will go.
The lunatic did hit the nail on the head, that more people = more pollution. We see these issues creeping in, but not in the open yet when we talk about the organic movement, GMO, and “sustainable farming”. The most effective method is, and always was, to control population. We’ve been dong it naturally because as the WHO found, the more educated your society, the lower the birth rate. People choose themselves rather than having kids. 0-1 kids = reduction, 2 kids = replacement >2 kids = increase. As America gets poorer (and more educated) more parents are electing to only have to provide for 1 child instead of two.
But we must feed, clothe, and provide for the ones that are born. Looking at your pollution footprint is easy if you don’t exist. Looking at it is hard of you do.
“You hit it right on the head, and at least half of us Americans are willing participants.”
Otherwise known as “useful idiots”.
roger says:
September 2, 2010 at 8:49 am
we are safe in the knowledge that this is yet another tax raising scam and ultimately for the benefit of politicians’ post retirement opportunities. And that is the definitive answer.
AGW is probably a little more complex in the context of Peak Oil… it is about getting the sheeple to voluntarily embrace “fuel poverty” for the greater good without realising they are also embracing “economic poverty” and “travel poverty” as energy prices escalate due to taxes and shortages.
However, the really sad part is that Peak Oil (just like AGW) is based upon “settled science” that simply is not settled.
There does not seem to be much doubt that Coal is a fossil fuel because it contains fossils. But when it comes to Oil and Gas there is a distinct lack of direct evidence that these natural resources have any connection with fossils… although the presence of the kerogen marker has been used to argue that algae is the primary source of oil… which gives a nice twist to the argument because oil would then be, literally, the product of a Green (and slimy) Planet.
The Abiogenic oil hypothesis is frequently ridiculed… in a similar manner to AGW “deniers”… but in a similar manner the science is not settled.
Tom Fuller did not touch on the role of the news media wrt past and current hysterias.
Hasn’t the track record of the media been that they provide a positive feedback role? The news media, in other words, fanned the flames.
Also, when the hysteria starts to decline, doesn’t the news media typically switch and ride on the rising wave of the skeptics who were critical of the initial hysteria?
Perhaps this is another post for later.
John
Why do that? It’s so profitable to scam people, especially when they don’t know science or math. Pretty charts drawn up by computers pretending to portray something frightening is all you need.
johnnythelowery says:
September 2, 2010 at 9:47 am
_________________
Interesting. I am pro nuclear and live near a nuclear plant. I would love to see this new technology take off.
Your comment had:
“The US allowed its nuclear industry to stagnate after Three Mile Island in 1979. Anti-nuclear neorosis is at last ebbing.”
Seems that at least some of the nuclear protesters were paid to protest. I saw the $10/hr ads in the Boston Globe in 1983 when I was job hunting. There is also some indications the Three Mile Island accident was sabotage. And of course there are Maurice Strong and the Greenpeace ties to the Rockefeller foundations and Big Oil. I am not sure “big Oil” viewed nuclear as a rival to be sabotaged but they were certainly aware of it and already looking into the “Public Health Aspects” as early as 1956.
Rockefeller Foundation Annual report – 1957
Public Health Aspects of Nuclear Energy
” In its Annual Report for 1956 The Rockefeller Foundation announced that an “important area of Foundation concern with the nuclear age might be called the public health of nuclear energy, broadly conceived.” “Man is now capable,” the Report continued, “of adding significantly and dangerously by his own actions to the inescapable natural radiation already present in his environment….”
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 9:59 am
“Who preaches hysteria?
It’s Fox News that preaches hysteria. Fox News sends back half of the fellow citizens to the medieval ages.”
=========================================================
Paul, I’ve read and re-read your post and I’m still wondering what the heck it means. Half the fellow citizens back to medieval ages? Huh?
*yawn*
Joe Romm’s efforts to ride Anthony’s posts to fame and fortune are educational and entertaining as Max Schadenfreude.
When every second-hander climbs on for a free ride, pretending to be tour guide, not so much.
The bay area is supposed to be full of people sophisticated enough to recognize whose party they are attending and know how to work it, not buzz-kill it.
If you shout fire in a crowded theatre, you are most definitely responsible for the people who get trampled.
Micheal Tobias has criticized journo’s for publishing “balanced stories.”
looks like someone took his argument seriously.
FergalR says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:54 am
phlogiston says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:21 am
……………
———————–
The quote was from the post. I’m pretty sure Japanese kamikaze pilots were as sane as any of us, took their responsibilities more seriously than any of us and in the culture of the time and place were saner than most of us.
They were indoctrinated to sacrifice their lives for an ideal.
You can indoctrinate sane people into killing themselves for an ideal.
_____________________________________________________________________
Isn’t that what Soldiers and War is all about? Indoctrinating sane people into killing because of an ideal??
There is a brilliant article in Norwegian journal Samtiden about the “new religion”. A short version is present in Dagbladet:
The new doomsday prophets
http://translate.google.no/translate?prev=no&hl=en&u=http://db.no/a/13179229/
It is extremely well written with outstanding logic and insight due to the authors own experience with doomsday predictions that never came true.
GAIL:
Thanks for your note. Must correct my posting as i said Obortion (As in O’bortion) What i meant was Abortion.
They don’t scare me – but they make me puke.
Gail: Interesting, the tie between Rockefeller and big oil and their view of the nuclear industry. Perhaps the nuclear industry should be militarized or nationalized, and thousands built on the defunct airfields dotting the country built for the cold war, running on Thorium.
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 9:59 am
“Who preaches hysteria?
It’s Fox News that preaches hysteria. Fox News sends back half of the fellow citizens to the medieval ages.”
_________________________________
HUH????
It is the belief in CAGW that advocates returning to the medieval ages – that is no cheap form of energy and no nasty chemicals.
Obama’s Science Czar, John P. Holdren, stated it very clearly in his book.
” In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
…He also co-authored a passage that said: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”
SOURCE: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
It is pretty clear this is not Fox news talking but the “left” who do not consider people “human” unless ” given the essential early socializing experiences”
As one of these wonderful “progressives” in Cambridge MA shouted in my face “We are going to kill people like you when we take over!”
I am no fan of the extreme right either but you can not lay any of this at their door.
Malaga View says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:04 am
“But when it comes to Oil and Gas there is a distinct lack of direct evidence that these natural resources have any connection with fossils… although the presence of the kerogen marker has been used to argue that algae is the primary source of oil… which gives a nice twist to the argument because oil would then be, literally, the product of a Green (and slimy) Planet.
The Abiogenic oil hypothesis is frequently ridiculed… in a similar manner to AGW “deniers”… but in a similar manner the science is not settled.”
Funny, apparently the science isn’t settled on this. I found an article that says most scientists agree that diatoms is where oil comes from. In case you haven’t read this, an old article is an interesting, quick read.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html
It’s always amazing how many people are ready to drink the Jim Jones “Kool-Aid”
You can’t blame this all on the media. The scientists who can’t successfully falsify the null hypothesis of climate change must shoulder some of the blame too. As must the politicians who do not care about what is happening, but see a new opportunity to create a global carbon currency as a precursor to the formation of a non-elected world government.
The conjecture of CAGW has become a religion with wide extremes of belief. No surprise that a few of the followers will become radicalised and want to take direct action in support of their misguided goals.
It is not that the “Science is settled” but “Comedy is settled” and all clowns known.
They have superseded reality with their post-normality behaviour. Many of you perhaps ignore it, but they call themselves the “White brotherhood” whose purpose is the nothing else but improvement of humanity; however they forgot to begin with themselves, as they qualify themselves as perfect. (Though we have serious doubts after knowing some specimens)
The NEA does have Saul Alinsky’s books on its website for recommended reading.
—————————–
tonyb,
You are accurate about the current society/culture creating more nihilists. I think it is being done to the young by the activism of the mainstream ideological environmentalists.
The mainstream ideological environmentalists are nihilists by happenstance, not by any intention to become nihilists. They are nihilists because of what they think about the environment and mankind, not because they have thought out and conciously accept the philosophical basis/tenets of nihilism.
That is good news. Because if we successfully counter, for instance, CAGW or any other of their apocalyptic themes, we make the possibility of creating more nihilists less likely.
John
stevengoddard says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:16 am
If you shout fire in a crowded theatre, you are most definitely responsible for the people who get trampled.
The scenarios aren’t equivalent. The crowded room has way less alternatives. Free people have lots of alternatives, and CHOOSE to take the false claims seriously.
I ask you. Who is more dangerous? The angry kid in the Greenpeace video? The over the edge true believer who straps a bomb on? Or a powerful and wealthy politician (elected or otherwise, past or present ) who uses “Green” to gain and retain power and manipulate the masses? Or is it the admen who change labels on their products?