Story submitted by Stephen Rasey
On July 12, I wrote a comment cautioning not to underestimate the Gore Climate Reality event scheduled for Sept. 14, 2011. Mixing metaphors, I said that this was an “All In” bet and that this was Gore’s D-Day.
Pickett’s Charge from a position on the Confederate line looking toward the Union lines, Ziegler’s Grove on the left, clump of trees on right, painting by Edwin Forbes via Wikipedia
A better analogy is that this is Gettysburg, July 3, 1863. Al Gore’s Climate Reality is “Pickett’s Charge”: thousands of troops, marching in formation in the open field, supported by the artillery of the internet and mass media, bent on destroying the deniers that stand in the way of themselves and Washington D.C.
Today we are engaged in a great Civil War of testing whether our nation, or any nation, conceived in liberty and individual freedom, can long endure the calls to “save the planet” through strong government and world government to better control the use of energy, land, and air by constraining the freedom of its subjects.
Back in late-June 1863, Robert E. Lee carried with him knowledge of a letter from Jefferson Davis dictating terms of peace to Lincoln. It was Lee’s strategy to bring the Union Army of the Potomac into the open, destroy it, and then march on Washington. The Letter would be delivered to Lincoln and hopefully end the war.
Today, Al Gore carries with him the plans for the IPCC Rio+20 Sustainability Agenda. The “Climate Reality” Charge is to bring “denier’s” out into the open, destroy them, and carry the momentum into Rio meetings in June 2012 and Washington for the Nov 2012 elections. The green energy carpetbaggers are already among us. After a Rio recharged by a Gore victory, there will simply be more of them acting without restraint.
The critical question is, “Is there a strong enough opposition standing between the Charge and Washington, D.C.?”
Today, my answer is, “No, the skeptic’s are not yet strong enough.” Skeptics are more of a disorganized guerrilla force of sharp-shooters. (Of course, I could be completely wrong and I’m just blowing the cover of an entrenched ambush.)
I do not think skeptics can field an army; it is not in our individualistic nature. But that does not mean we cannot prepare the battlefield. We know from which direction they will come. We know the type of ammunition they use – much of it is blanks – false, misleading statement, but full of fire, smoke, and noise. The skeptics artillery of web sites can be zeroed-in. Counter their arguments before they have the opportunity to fire theirs. We can field forward observers, and squads armed with facts and backup.
We must make it obvious to all observers the skeptics’ side in the climate debate is fighting against slavery of billions of people. I’m willing to help as a defender of freedom. It will take some organization.
Who are our, Buford, Reynolds, Chamberlin, and Hancock?
In what may be a related action, Anthony Watts has asked readers to find quotes for “ice free Arctic by the year xxxx”. This is the kind of preparing the ground and zero-in we need to do now in advance of September.
We know who the CAGW leaders will be. Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years. Create an index by name with pages listing those statement with links to the source. Keep it factual. Let their own words come back to haunt them.
We know the basics of their arguments and lines of “evidence”. Cross reference each of the statements above with the type of evidence.
How can we efficiently do this without a Wiki? A Wiki would only be vandalized. We also want an efficient division of labor. I don’t suggest we eliminate duplication, but let’s avoid quadruplication. Somewhere we should start a list of the Whos and Whats to research. Volunteers can comment that they are searching sources X over dates Y-Z and will report back in 48 hrs. Someone will have to organize it.
In the responses to Anthony’s plea for help, many people provided links without helpful context and additional information about Who, When, What and Where. We can do better. But the response has been helpful showing that Anthony (and other moderators) could delegate research work to the readership of the blog and they can do more target location and synthesis.
Is there a simple six column Excel format OR six element Text format we could use to make a table driven content page work?
Person, Topic, Date, Link, Quote, Comment and Context
Or
[P] Person(s)
[T] Topic
[D] Date
[L] Link
[Q] Quote
[C] Comment
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_Jim says:
July 17, 2011 at 1:37 pm
R. Gates says on July 17, 2011 at 11:53 am
So you believe a country run by the Corporate elite would have your best interests at heart?
Simpleton, NOBODY wants dirty air or dirty water. Those ‘corporate elites’ have to breathe, bathe and drink water too.
Extrapolating the past into the future belies your narrow perspective; we are no longer using tube-powered IBM mainframs to perform payroll calculations …
___
Thanks for the personal attack. But keeping to the issue: If nobody wants them, then why is the environment so destroyed when there aren’t any government controls?
It is you, I fear who are simplifying the way the world is. With the age of large multi-national corporations with lots of foreign ownership, many of the corporate owners don’t even live in this country, as foreign ownership has expanded greatly over the years (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/27/us-companies-ownership-usa-idUSN2744743020080827) . If they can find a place to build with less government regulation on their potential pollution causing activities, they’ll do it. Anything for profits. Or, if corporate owner are American citizens, they’ll live far from where their potential pollution causing activities are…most likely behind their walled communities, in their nicely manicured, and separate little utopias.
You give far too much credit to the powerful and primary need of companies to make profits, with concern for the environment among most (but certainly not all) companies not high on the list of priorities. China, and all its pollution woes is a perfect example of what happens when all government control is taken away and profits and growth become the only imperative. Do you not think the Chinese would want to breathe clean air and have clean water to drink? Sorry, but the demand for profits trumps all in the world of complete unrestricted capitalism with no government controls.
I don’t know what the situation is now, but this is what South Africa was Gored by a decade ago.
http://www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/archives/30-Letter-to-Al-Gore-End-Pressure-on-South-Africa.html
A database of all the exaggerations, errors and false prophesies on its own will do no good. No matter how extensive and thorough and rigorous, it will be dismissed as having been compiled by serial deniers funded by big oil. Getting a fair hearing in the MSM will be impossible. It the coming battle the alarmists have decided the field of battle and have impenetrable armour.
To be brief, there needs to be two analogies brought to the fore.
First is the legal analogy. If there is a case for CAGW, it must be demonstrated by primary, empirical evidence. That evidence must be tested by opponents. It is not the bits, that may be true – like lots more CO2 will cause some warming. But that there is sufficient CO2 to cause some warming, which will be magnified by positive feedbacks to cause even greater warming, and this substantive warming will destabilize the planet weather systems in a highly negative way. The counter-argument is two-fold – that many of dire, immediate, forecasts have been highly exaggerated and more importantly, the compound uncertainties that have been vastly underestimated. That the case is weak is shown by the prominence given to what is hearsay evidence, such as the consensus, or the proclamations of groups of scientists, or to the image of the hockey stick. In some cases, it has been tantamount to jury-tampering.
Second is the medical analogy. A medical doctor, in proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, should at last have a strong professionally-based expectation that post treatment the patient will be better off than if nothing was done. The very qualities that make politicians electable – of being able to make build coalitions by fudging, projecting an image, and undermining the opponents by polarizing views – make them patently unfit for driving through and micro-managing effective policy to reduce CO2. They will of necessity overstate the benefits and massively understate the costs, whether financial or in human suffering. They will not admit that the problem is beyond their capabilities, nor that errors had been made. The problem is even worse in powerful dictatorships than democracies.
I have tried to suggest a method (for those who are familiar with microeconomics) the IPCC/Stern case for containing CO2 here.
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-1-of-4/
Also, why there is no effective, global political solution possible.
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/climate-change-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4-the-mitigation-curve/
What is missing is why the costs of global warming have been grossly exaggerated.
If you want to stop a professional army with a disorganized band of sharpshooters, then perhaps Saratoga is a better model than Gettysburg.
davidmhoffer says:
July 17, 2011 at 2:33 pm
R Gates wants to argue that large corporations already control almost everything that goes on in Washington and in the next breath asserts that the only reason those same corporations aren’t running rampant over the environment in the pursuit of their one and only goal (profits) is the strict control the government has over them. Oddly, they have all that control yet can’t use it to achieve their only goal. Do you even listen to yourself R Gates?
_____
Do you understand the battles that are constantly going on in Washington? Multiple groups with multiple agendas are constantly battling for control? These battles rarely have anything to do with what the “people” want or need, but more to do with the control of money and power. Some of these groups are corporations, whose goal is to create a legislative environment that favors maximizing their profits. They represent a huge cross-section of the business sectors, from corporate farming and telecommunications, to big pharmaceuticals to oil and military contractors. They pay lobbyists (many of whom were former senators and members of congress) big money to push their legislative agendas. There are about 10 lobbyists for every senator and congress person in Washington, and, in a very real sense, the majority of our laws are crafted by these lobbyists to position their companies or industries.
It was during those “radical” 1960’s that a popular movement arose to do something about the dirty water and air that America was breathing, and drinking, and bathing in. 1060’s Books like “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson, in which she outlined the dangers of chemical such as DDT, created public awareness that all was not well with the environment in America. Industry groups of course opposed any sort of new regulatory agency to oversee pollution control, but under a lot of public pressure, and not wanting yet another reason for social unrest (he had the Vietnam war on his hands after all) Richard Nixon reluctantly signed into the law the creation of the EPA in 1970.
But let’s be clear here, many companies despise the EPA and would love to see it abolished, and it seems they can get thousands of unwitting minions to spread this message around under the pretense of “Big Government hurts business”. What they are really meaning of course is that those pesky environment regulations cut into our profits.
So yes, there is still some areas that big business has not been able to completely control in Washington, with the EPA being one of the last big ones, as there are honest government employees who continue to carry out the protection of our air, water, and soil. It is not surprising then that the EPA has become the focus and symbol of “big government red tape” among those who wittingly or unwittingly carry out the agendas of big business. So you can be sure that it is not for a lack of trying to get rid of these laws by big corporations, and you can be sure that in some areas of regulation, it is a matter of tolerating these regulations, and allowing this little victory for the common folk and the environment, so long as they can win big and control the larger financial picture.
There already is a backlash against the AGW crowd like Al Gore. It’s incorporated in the TEA Party movement. No new taxes and shrinking government are their goal, a goal, which if accomplished, will go a long way towards thwarting the warmists.
“Climate Reality” should read “Climate Unreality” or better “Climate Surrealism” I think.
I’ll not comment any further than to observe (to continue the original analogy) that the bugle has sounded and the troops have rallied round the Colours. Each eager member of the Force of Opposition has a different idea as to how the forthcoming battle should be fought.
What is needed now is a Leader able to synthesise from this mass of good ideas the strategy of defence and to appoint Lieutenants capable of taking this strategy and applying it in tactical situations without over-stepping the bounds of the original strategy. The next requirement is a body of troops willing, capable and able to take those tactical plans formulated within the agreed strategic parameters, and to put them into concrete action.
This scheme has worked military wonders, it should give the same benefits to those opposing the Gorean onslaught.
Might I nominate Citizen A. Watts as our General, his tried and trusted Moderators as his Lieutenants and, on behalf of the global band of WUWTers, volunteer our services in this Cause?
Ask what you will and we will strive to fulfil.
R. Gates @3:55PM
I’m not going to bother responding to your diatribe. You’re original statement was a complete contradiction of itself, and you can go into as much detail as you want, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time no matter how many words you use.
As for your attempt to use China as some sort of example of the evils of large corporations, please, just stop. China is a dictatorship, their entire government system is corrupt from top to bottom, and the environmental problems they have are a direct result of government mandated economic growth at all costs. Drawing a parallel to democracy and free markets is ridiculous.
If you don’t like being accused of being a simpleton, then stop behaving like one.
Quoted by Girma on July 17, 2011 at 5:22 am:
Then it’s about marketing and clever repackaging. I am one of many men who have been sent out to purchase “feminine hygiene products.” Sell the product to the direct buyer. How many men wouldn’t be willing to pay a mere dollar more to head to the First Aid aisle instead and buy a plain-looking box of “insertable sterile absorbent periodic hemorrhaging control devices”? (Don’t worry about complaints from the “eventual consumer” as under the concealing overwrap is a normal box of a brand-name product. Guys, don’t forget to unwrap before bringing them in the house.)
R Gates, your argument is wishful thinking or a weed-hazed, Forrest Gump fog.
The problem with the musings of “R. Gates” is that he only looks at one side of a coin. Yes, corporations will do whatever they can to protect their profits, and Yes, there is less noticable pollution than in the past, but this has not been without cost. Even the benefits are questionable. As AW pointed out elsewhere, the rate of asthma has actually INcreased. Many Americans can afford fewer products manufactured in the U.S., partly because the environmental laws have put domestic manufacturers at a competetive disadvantage to foreign firms. The environmentalists’ solution to this would, of course, be one-world government, but there is no guarantee that “our” standards would be elected by such a government. Many African countries would probably like access to DDT.
“R’s” alignment of “Big Government hurts business,” and “pesky regulations cut into profits,” actually addresses two separate problems. “Big Government” hurts business (of any size) because it sucks wind out of economic sails, through inflation, deflation, and/or the cost of paying interest on the public debt. “Pesky regulations” is another matter. Government can favor small, growing companies, or large companies looking to protect what they have. It cannot do both. If it chooses the latter, then the small companies which create most new jobs choke, economic growth declines, and a self-defeating pattern sets in.
Comparison of miliary confrontation (Gettysburg) to climate related intellectual/scientic confrontation has limited use, but I appreciate Stephen Rasey’s caution about not underestimating the September Gore media blitz.
I think the Gore event will be conducted with the help of expensive PR consultants (covert).
Some independent/skeptical efforts to out think their protagonists could be useful irrespective of the September Gore events.
John
davidmhoffer says:
July 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm
R. Gates @3:55PM
I’m not going to bother responding to your diatribe. You’re original statement was a complete contradiction of itself, and you can go into as much detail as you want, but you can’t suck and blow at the same time no matter how many words you use.
As for your attempt to use China as some sort of example of the evils of large corporations, please, just stop. China is a dictatorship, their entire government system is corrupt from top to bottom, and the environmental problems they have are a direct result of government mandated economic growth at all costs. Drawing a parallel to democracy and free markets is ridiculous.
If you don’t like being accused of being a simpleton, then stop behaving like one.
——–
You apparently would rather issue personal attacks on me rather than address real issues. China’s embrace of capitalism is nothing short of amazing, and this “dictatorship” as you call their central government, has a very hands-off approach to many facets of how businesses go about being profitable. In doing so they’ve created a middle class that is larger than the entire population of the U.S. The downside has been the destruction of their environment. Before you call me more names, you might want to take some time getting educated about issues of which you speak.
R Gates, re: China
I’m sure my brother who lives in Shanghai would love to chime in here, but it seems that the government controls his Internet service and restricts some of the things he’d like to say… Or watch… Or read…
“If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then extensive-but-incomplete knowledge is a constant torment.”
R. Gates, you’re probably somewhere in-between. It will be some kind of miracle if you ever approach any level of correct data analysis in your lifetime.
So, generously, I’m gonna go with “pretend left wing, expert scientist dinner party raconteur”, but “simpleton” works, too.
Haven’t had time to read all the Comments, but one point:
The AGW catastrophists will be defeated when a few prominent scientists and political leaders, those with enough celebrity to demand media attention, stand up and denounce the ‘global warming’ conjecture and the policies advanced to deal with it as an out-and-out fraud.
/Mr Lynn
R. Gates said:
This is true, and ignore it at your peril. Because I believe Al Gore is an idiot, I have little doubt that he’s just not smart enough to be doing what he is doing purely for financial gain. He’s just not. He is, however, apparently a true believer in relieving people of their money so they can’t spend it to pollute. If a bit of it comes his way, well, that’s just fine, since he’s doing what he does for a NOBLE PURPOSE.
I just got back from a week in Vancouver, British Columbia, the Canadian equivalent to California. I was amazed at some of what I saw. Now I know why I see so few “hybrids” or Prius type vehicles in Alberta… they’re next door in B.C. You can’t idle your car for very long. They have banks of “eco-friendly vehicle” parking spots tying up the spaces beside the handicap spots (interestingly, I never saw a car parked in any of those spaces). Now, if they really wanted to reduce fuel consumption, they’d be better off fixing their insane roads in Vancouver. These people truly believe they are saving the planet. One slow-moving tying-up-the-freeway vehicle at a time. They put a carpool lane all through the main road in Kelowna.. a fairly small town that has absolutely no need for such a thing. Everywhere I looked I saw overt and subtle “green” messages. Billboards. Ads on the radio. It’s a continuous onslaught that I’m sure residents of the province are almost unaware of.
These are the dimwits that voluntarily enacted a carbon tax.
After a week there, I began to believe that the B.C. license plate was almost equivalent to a warning to others of diminished IQ.
Jeff says:
“Government can favor small, growing companies, or large companies looking to protect what they have. It cannot do both.”
____
Completely erroneous. There is no logical reason that federal, state, and local governments can’t be pro-business without prejudice as to the size of the businesses they encourage while at the same time still protecting the environment from exploitative practices that degrade ecosystems. It simply takes wise and dedicated leaders who have the best interests of the community in mind as opposed to being beholden to those who may have paid for their outrageously expensive election campaigns.
As it turns out, those who complain that government is “in the way” of allowing businesses to be profitable are simply playing into the hands of businesses who’d like to get this notion instilled in the minds of simple-minded voters. It seems to be working with a certain segment of the voting population.
Sean Peake says:
July 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm
R Gates, re: China
I’m sure my brother who lives in Shanghai would love to chime in here, but it seems that the government controls his Internet service and restricts some of the things he’d like to say… Or watch… Or read…
_____
Personal freedoms are entirely separate issue from China’s embrace of capitalism. You are confusing political systems with economic ones. There are many private individuals in China who’ve gotten tremendously wealthy from China’s embrace of capitalism. The fact that they have a much more restrictive society in terms of political and personal freedoms hasn’t prevented many millions of Chinese from working hard to better their lot in life by riding on the back of the capitalistic wave. Working hard to better your lot in life is the hallmark of capitalism and is a fundamental human desire…something of course even Ayn Rand could appreciate.
We in the U.S. should appreciate the growing wealth of China. Without them loaning us money by buying our debt, we couldn’t have funded our excessively large military establishment. Now of course, it’s time to pay the piper.
R.Gates, kudos for your tenacity around here. Straight up. Do you not see the hypocrisy in Mr. Gore’s “do as I say, not as I do” approach, especially considering he stands to benefit financially if people believe him? Same for government. Aren’t you concerned that big brother is drooling over this, too? With ZERO benefit to the environment. From where I sit, none of these factions ( IPCC included) are interested in anything to do with “saving the environment”.
R. Gates;
You apparently would rather issue personal attacks on me rather than address real issues. China’s embrace of capitalism is nothing short of amazing, and this “dictatorship” as you call their central government, has a very hands-off approach to many facets of how businesses go about being profitable.>>>
No, I’d rather not issue personal attacks. I’d much rather have a frank discussion of the facts with someone who doesn’t suck and blow at the same time and shoots off his mouth about things he suggests are true that just a few minutes of research shows are bullsh*t. What do you know about business is China? Ever done any? I provisioned all the hardware for the very first stock exchange in China including getting the US Government exemptions required to ship high technology to Denied Parties List countries, and explicit instructions from “officials” that under no circumstances would any bribing of customs officials or other officials to get the equipment across their borders be permitted. Then they wired an extra $100,000 over the purchase price along with instructions about who “not” to bribe and “how much not to bribe them”.
You think they’re “hands off”? Tell that to the millions of peasant farmers who have been forced from their ancestral homes BY GOVERNMENT TROOPS and forced into cities built by “hands off” corporations while their land is turned over to “hands off” corporations for other development. Tell that to the Fallon Gong, provided there’s any of them left after being slaughtered to make way for “hands off” corporations. Tell that to the poor SOB that Google ratted on to the Chinese government in return for being allowed to do business in China. In fact, why don’t you drop into China, grab yourself a seat in an internet cafe, and start blogging about all the harm to the environment that specific Chinese “hands off” corporations are doing.
your blogging will be short lived, and you’ll not likely meet anyone from any of those corporations you are criticizing. you’ll get to meet some very nice policemen from that very nice “hands off” government, and should you be lucky enough to survive their very nice interrogation, you might get to meet the guy who Google screwed over in the cell next to yours.
Now grow up and stop spouting infantile nonsense, or stop complaining when you get called on it.
Pascvaks says:
July 17, 2011 at 6:25 am
How about instead of Gettysburg we substitute Custer’s Last Stand, with Gore as Custer of course. Yeah, I know it shows great disrespect to Custer but the situation reflects Gore’s situation rather well. Everyone should know that Custer foolishly charged into his Last Stand, so it could have been called Custer’s Last Charge.
philincalifornia says:
July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then extensive-but-incomplete knowledge is a constant torment.”
R. Gates, you’re probably somewhere in-between. It will be some kind of miracle if you ever approach any level of correct data analysis in your lifetime.
______
Then I must be experiencing daily “miracles”.
My ability to synthesize large amounts of information,draw accurate and clear analysis from it, and recommend effective courses of action, have served me quite well, thank you.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Pascvaks says:
July 17, 2011 at 6:25 am
How about instead of Gettysburg we substitute Custer’s Last Stand, with Gore as Custer of course. Yeah, I know it shows great disrespect to Custer but the situation reflects Gore’s situation rather well. Everyone should know that Custer foolishly charged into his Last Stand, so it could have been called Custer’s Last Charge.
____
Actually, it shows great disrespect to Native Americans to equate them with skeptics, especially considering their strong environmental roots.