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.
davidmhoffer:
You continue to miss the entire point of me mentioning China in the first place…conveniently so I suppose. It is their ultra laissez faire system of capitalism WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, that has allowed them the screw up their environment so nicely. It seems those calling for an end to our EPA would like to take us back to a time we had such disasters as Love Canal and Times Beach? Or maybe we ought to do as some have suggested and trust that corporations, many with strong foreign ownership, are going to willingly do the right thing when it comes to the environment? Really, do you think they hold America sacred? It would suggest my friend that is you who might want to check your infantile fantasy level.
This has to be extremely well organized. My suggestion is to take all comments that Al Gore makes and label each with a number and two or three words, such as “#4 tornadoes increasing” Now let us suppose he raises 30 points. Then we would have 30 numbers and 30 sets of responses. For anyone working full time and deciding to spend an hour or two reading WUWT, it is extremely daunting to see that there are 1000 responses and you may feel you have a good idea or good web site, but you need to look at each one to see nothing is repeated. So let us assume someone has a good graphic or other website or a good rebuttal for points 4 and 16, that person would just have to look at the entries for points 4 and 16 to see if something has been said already. Alternatively, if #4 has 50 comments and #16 only has 2 comments, that would be a good and fast indication where the rebuttals are weakest and are most needed.
This also has the advantage that others can key in on their area of expertise very easily and augment or rebut comments without reading hundreds of comments they have no real interest in.
Others have offered to help in some way. I have an engineering degree from 40 years ago and will be retired by September. So I am strong in chemistry and physics but weak in biology and computers. If you think you can use me somehow, please let me know.
R Gates;
Really, do you think they hold America sacred? It would suggest my friend that is you who might want to check your infantile fantasy level.>>>
I never said a single word about what I thought the EPA should or should not do, nor did I say a single word about how corporations should or should not be regulated, or what they might or might not do in any given circumstance. You presented arguments that contradicted themselvesand/or were based on evidence that bordered on drivel.
Now you resort to “oh yeah? well do you think blah blah blah too?” How pathetic is that? Unable to defend your own drivel, you instead attack what you accuse me of thinking. In order to win an argument with me you’ve resorted to pretending to know what I think and attacking that. How old are you? Twelve?
You can’t defend your own assertions. You haven’t countered a single assertion I’ve made. All you can come up with is to put words in my mouth to belittle.
My apologies to any twelve year olds reading this, I’m sure most of you could do better.
The R Gates approach to science.
R. Gates; I can prove that man has never been to the moon, it is all a scam. The big corporations took all the money and hid it for themselves and faked the whole thing.
Sane Individual; Really? What evidence do you have?
R. Gates; Mosquitos.
Sane Individual; Huh? What do mosquitos have to do with it?
R. Gates; If they can’t even get rid of tiny little things like mosquitos, how could they possibly send a man to the moon?
Sane Individual; I see the issue here, yes it is clear to me.
R. Gates; It is? So you agree with the obvious then?
Sane Individual; No… I said I see what the issue is.
R. Gates; And? You can’t refute it, you’re not dumb enough to claim that they CAN get rid of mosquitose are you? Because that would show how stupid you are.
Sane Individual; No…that’s not it. The issue is that I am a Sane Individual. And you are not.
“pat says:
July 17, 2011 at 2:48 am
take time out for a laugh. u can’t make this up:”
Yep just like this one. Blames cats for Climate change. 🙂
Cats, Not Cars, Cause…Climate Change?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cats-not-cars-cause-climate-change/
R. Gates says:
I usually ignore your yapping, Robot gates, but did you read what you just wrote there? Really? I’m pretty sure that rates high on the stupid scale. With all due respect. ALL. Due.
A recent paper on perceptions found that head to head exchanges of facts are not productive, and only cement the views of the proponents. Exemplified by the exchanges with R.Gates, it does nothing but encourage him.
I fall for the same trap because it is fun, but does it convince anyone?
My present strategy is to comment on an article on global warming in newspapers to refute or agree, quoting or pointing out a relevant fact, and then where it is possible to rate a comment, go through the whole lot even if it is in the hundreds and rate them all according to your point of view.
It may seem tedious, but recently there seem to be far more ratings by those critical of AGW than by those sympathetic. People do listen to majorities, however unscientific.
Why not have a wiki? We just need to do it a little different than Wikipedia. Instead of allowing just anyone to sign up and edit, how about a wiki that has moderated inclusion and moderated topics? By moderated inclusion, I mean anyone can request access, but only those known to be “non-CAGWists” will be given access to modify entries.
A moderated wiki sounds easier than having someone create a monster database.
Just my 2 cents,
wermet
R. Gates says:
July 17, 2011 at 11:53 amMaybe you’d like a government that pretty much let’s companies do whatever they’d like to so long as it “grows” the economy? This has been the case in China for the past 20 years, and the consequences to China’s environment have been severe. ))
Utter rubbish. Have you ever been there RGates?? Me thinks you are another textbook traveller like a lot of your Watermelon brethren.
The Chinese have not just discovered mass production, industrialisation, overcrowding etc. They have been modifying their landscape for thousands of years. Go there, have a look, then stop your ignorant waffling.
And while your ‘touring’ check out Al Gore & Elk hills. Those native Americans love him.
regards
R. Gates is trying… in every sense of the word
Ref – Theo Goodwin says, July 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Yes! That’s perfect! Gore as Custer. Custer as Gore. That IS a real fit. Arrogant, pompous, psychotic, conniving, deceitful, selfish, manipulative, gold digging, fickle, and disingenuous, it works! Little Big Horn and Climate Reality-AGW, yes indeed, perfect match once again. I know there’s probably one or two who will think the analogy doesn’t fit because a lot of Indians (American Indians not Indias from India) support some of Gore’s Pulpit Pandering. He does use a lot of their material for his own sleezy private gain; what a con-man. Can’t find anything in it that any sane, red-blooded, real, true American (native, native born, or not) would ever object to. Thanks again!
I have managed to Google up something that echoes mightily many of R. Gates themes as espoused here and elsewhere. It may prove to be very informative.
It then discusses the many ancient pre-capitalism civilizations that eventually collapsed due to lack of sufficient environmental concern leading to ongoing catastrophic environmental destruction, starting after humanity got away from hunter-gatherer societies. Then came capitalism, influenced and shaped by religion, which has lead to ongoing catastrophic environmental destruction.
They did find a significant problem with the book, the rejection of Marxism.
Indeed, going by the work of John Bellamy Foster it is seen how capitalism cannot fix the environment, but Marxism can:
Thus in this learned obviously-well-researched book lies broad agreement with the many concerns espoused by R. Gates, mainly how capitalism given free rein will inexorably lead to environmental destruction. I will take issue with the view about religion’s ties to environmental destruction due to long being taught in church about the call to be “good stewards of the land” as mankind does not own the Earth, it is the Lord’s and we as stewards should seek to improve it, leave it better than we found it, not despoil it. Indeed, the language used, including leaving it in an improved state for future generations, directly mirrors the quoted section from Marx.
But that is but a minor quibble. I’m certain reading this enlightened tome would give me further insight into and provide evidential confirmation of R. Gates many well-reasoned viewpoints. I’m adding it to my one bucket list, the one to be followed when I need to be absolutely convinced there’s no reason to keep living at all and it’s time to move on.
Phew, got through 162 comments, even the “gated” ones. As a veteran of several computer projects, I think it prudent to implement plan B, if even on a more modest scale.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/words-of-wisdom-from-the-goracle-of-helpme/
Pointman
R. Gates:
“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.”
– Your position is interesting given that you complain at length regarding lobbyists, who naturally tend to over-represent the interests of large, mature firms. But, even assuming such “protection” succeeded in being non-prejudicial domestically, you have failed to address the fact that unless all foreign governments undertake equally costly protections, U.S. firms are placed at a competitive disadvantage by such regulation.
“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.”
– Yes, and it would be great if environmental NGO’s were not beholden to the corporate interests they sold themselves to in return for their use as proxies, but some of us live in the real world.
“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.”
– The question is WHICH business, and the issue is jobs. In order to grow, the economy must create jobs in excess of workers entering the market. Unemployed can be supported, but cannot generate economic growth. Most new jobs are created by small, growing firms. Create a situation where large firms with influence (lobbyists) protect their profits, but small firms cannot create enough new jobs, and the inevitable mathematics set in.