Attorney Chris Horner writes in with this bombshell which shows how “evangelism” has replaced factual analysis at the EPA, which is helped along by a compliant mass media. See the attached document obtained via FOIA.
His take on it includes:
* Obtained from the ongoing “Richard Windsor” FOIA, precisely as FOIA intended this allows the American public to see what bureaucrats and, in this case, ideological activists in government say among themselves and their pressure group allies, helping us keep a proper perspective about what these same activists tell the public.
* What this memo shows is the recognition that EPA needed to move its global warming campaign away from the failed global model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their icons, that it has proved “consistently — an unpersuasive argument to make.” In it we see the birth of the breathtakingly disingenuous “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”.
It also shows the conviction that if they yell “clean air” and “children” enough they, the media and the green groups will get their way.
SPECIFICS:
Notable points consistent with what critics of this evangelism have been saying include:
– the analogy to religion and faith-based pursuit of the “mission” — “a monumental effort driven by a positive motivation” — to reach the “unchurched”, which framing they recognized “will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows internally”.
– the same is true of the candor with which the memo acknowledges Obama’s EPA would wrap [fill in the blank] agenda item in poll-tested rhetoric, to “use various hooks” — “children” naturally among their headline list, as in “highlighting the children’s health dimension to all of our major initiatives” — to try and “create a causal link” between the incoming appointees’ “mission” and the actual concerns of those impacted by the missionaries.<
[See “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”] Sure enough, with the rollout of Obama’s GHG rules in June we saw the remarkable pivot after which the “global warming” agenda was suddenly, somehow in fact about “clean air” and children struggling to breathe; the American Lung Association stood in for the old faithful alarmist groups which have squandered most of their credibility in recent years, to host the president’s announcement. Observers may have scratched their heads about that; this provides the genesis.
Elsewhere the memo acknowledges the campaign, revealed further in many other “Richard Windsor” emails, of trying to rebrand a global warming movement that is so obviously a child of affluent whites to an issue of race and “EJ” or “social justice”.
Possibly most refreshing is the acknowledgement of EPA’s symbiotic relationship with a “cadre of reporters” who EPA expects to demand an agenda — according to EPA, just like pressure groups — to which demands EPA will respond.
March 09 EPA Strategy Memo to LPJ (PDF obtained via FOIA)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The epa’s malignant hypocrisy was well exemplified when they banned the only over.the.counter asthma remedy that worked. It was called Asmanefrin and it worked in seconds, providing life-saving relief to someone suffocating from asthma. The epa banned this cheap, available, lifesaver on the grounds that the propellant might harm the ozone in antarctica.
Please observe the implied heirarchy of values. The antarctic ozone MEME trumps human life now.
So it is utter malevolent cynicism that they propose to cause much more damage to human life now – only this time they will claim asthmatic neighbors as the justification.
EPA is has become the inquisition.
“If we…make this about our neighbor with respiratory illness”
And yet it is CAGW skeptics who are accused of being anti-science.
The US has spent $TRILLIONS since the 1980’s in anti-pollution technologies and environmental rules & reg compliance costs resulting in the reduction of REAL pollutants by 50%~99% as can be shown by EPA’s air quality data:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
As this FOIA memo shows, the EPA, government hacks and the MSM fifth column are encouraged to create the narrative that US air quality is getting worse and worse, even though EPA’s very own data shows they’ve improved significantly since the 1980’s and are continuing to do so.
I bet “97%” of Americans aren’t aware of the incredible decrease in REAL US air pollution emissions since the 1980’s… Hell, in a recent survey of US high school graduates, 50% couldn’t even locate the state of New York on a US map….
Isn’t interesting that on July 02, 2013 (July 4th would have been more ironic), the Obama administration repealed the law prohibiting domestic-oriented government propaganda:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
It’s deplorable how our government and the 5th-column MSM are exploiting propaganda to achieve their CAGW agenda.
EPA has been implying that CO2 causes asthma. Any MSM reports about this???
I got to this party late, but can’t resist…
Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Not quite everyone:
not these 31,000+ qualified professionals
Or this agency: http://www.principia-scientific.org/japanese-space-agency-agrees-with-skeptics-on-climate-change.html
Or this group of nobodies that nobody ever heard of… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/seven-eminent-physicists-that-are-skeptical-of-agw/
I tend to have a bit more confidence in the above than I do in the Penn State hockey team…
There are quite a few more, but the point of this thread is about objectivity and honesty. Something as lacking at the EPA recently as it is in the character of the fictional Sir Harry, whose name you borrowed.
Bill Murphy,
Correctomundo, and welcome to the party!
“Everyone” to the alarmist crowd means the tiny subset that agrees with their Chicken Little goofiness.
It’s no wonder the alarmist clique refuses to engage in any fair, moderated debates any more. They were slaughtered so badly when they tried, that now they just depend on their clueless lemmings to carry the ball for them.
I do miss the debates, though. It was always fun watching the audience being polled before and after — and seeing how a few facts could change a lot of minds.
“not these 31,000+ qualified professionals” Debunked numerous times. Basically a bunch of random names. If you don’t believe that, I invite you to test it yourself – start googling the names randomly and see how many actual scientists you turn up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
“Or this agency: http://www.principia-scientific.org/japanese-space-agency-agrees-with-skeptics-on-climate-change.html”
That headline is untrue; it’s just something the writer made up on the basis of data the agency produced. Go to the agency site and look up what they actually have to say about AGW (hint – they accept it). I’ll help, by directing you to the paper where they discuss their mission to monitor it: http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GCOM_W/w_amsr2/GCOM_RA_3rd_Guide_AppendixC.pdf
“As mentioned in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures and widespread melting of snow and ice.. ”
Since you were ready to accept them as a valid source of information when you thought they denied climate change, I assume you are, as a critical thinker, equally ready to accept the validity of their ACTUAL view?
“Or this group of nobodies that nobody ever heard of… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/seven-eminent-physicists-that-are-skeptical-of-agw/” This is real, all these scientists have expressed some kind of skepticism about AGW. None of them it may be noted, are climate scientists.
Four of them are dead, so it’s hard to say if the increasing evidence might have altered their views at all.
Freeman Dyson, the 90 year old iconclast was quoted last year in an interview “I spend maybe 1 percent of my time on climate, and that’s the only field in which I’m opposed to the majority….What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate, and so that’s sort of a neutral position. I’m not saying the majority is necessarily wrong. I’m saying that they don’t understand what they’re seeing. It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled, so I shall remain neutral until something very different happens.”
Laughlin, also a retired physicist, commenting outside his area of expertise – some other scientist response – “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/?_r=0”
And Giaevver – yep, another retired 85 year old physicist and definitely a denier, Don’t get me wrong – my view is we can’t dismiss minds like this, but since they don’t work in the field and haven’t responded (that I’ve found) to the legitimate criticisms of their claims, I’m not going to consider them as useful sources of information on climate change.
The OISM petition started out as the Oregon Petition.
It had a lot of problems with fake names in it.
It has never regained credibility
..
To this day, there is no way to verify any of the signatories.
Quite, although if you actually read the paper you linked to, you will see it is carefully worded to be virtually completely agnostic — there is no statement anywhere advocating either a pro or con stance on the AGW issue. Rather, JAXA appears (in the paper you linked) to be a science organization doing science. To wit:
“Establish and demonstrate a global, long-term Earth-observing
system for understanding climate variability and the water-energy cycle.
Enhance the capability of climate prediction and provide information to policy
makers through process studies and model improvements in concert with climate
model research institutions.”
So may I assume you are, as a critical thinker, equally ready to accept the validity of their ACTUAL view?
More importantly, this particular thread is about politics overriding science at EPA, and by extension NOAA, NASA, BOM etc. As one of the “Seven Eminent Physicists” put it (my bold):
That is the important part. The Petition Project may be bogus, but so — clearly — is the “97%” Did HuffPo report on that?
What’s also clear is that your presence here is politically motivated, has little to do with science and everything to do with an agenda. The real science is not setteled anywhere except in certain political circles. I accept that my great grandkids *may* have to deal with a NYC under 50 meters of sea water, but my non-professional opinion is that they will more probably have to deal with a NYC under 300M of ice – again. I suggest that you and I both shut the flip up and let the science decide — without politics or agendas,
Flushman says:
…Debunked numerous times.
And your ‘source’ is Huffpo?? Get a grip. They are as scientific as PeeWee Herman. When I clicked on it, the first words that jumped out were: “denier propaganda”. That tells me that your stupid source is the true propaganda.
You clearly know nothing about the OISM Petition. Then you go on with your stupid assertions regarding Bill Murphy’s other citations:
Since you were ready to accept them as a valid source of information
And more ad hominem carp:
…yep, another retired 85 year old physicist and definitely a denier…
Ad-hom much? That 85 year old has forgotten more than you will ever be able to learn about the subject. And trying to denigrate Prof. Freeman Dyson is another loser’s tactic.
Next:
“Or this group of nobodies that nobody ever heard of…
Just because you and your ilk haven’t heard of them means exactly nothing; it just displays your ignorance.
And:
None of them it may be noted, are climate scientists….
And what are you? You’re just an ignorant pattern of pixels. Aren’t you?
Then you wrap up your ad-hom nonsense with:
definitely a denier, Don’t get me wrong…
I don’t get you wrong. I know you better than you know yourself. For a while I was willing to give you a fair chance even though others weren’t, but no more. You are just playing the man, not the ball… and what are YOUR qualifications, anyway? What’s your CV? Do you even have a CV? How are you qualifed to pass judgement on eminent scientists like Freeman Dyson, whom Dr Richard Feynman stated would have received the Nobel Prize, except for the fact that no more than three names are allowed per Nobel?
You are as religiously deluded as Algore — and just as ignorant. The past President of the National Academy of Sciences asked thousands of American scientists and engineers — every one of them with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s — to co-sign a statement regarding the upcoming Kyoto Protocol. But a zero like you, an anonymous coward as Anthony says, presumes to know enough to criticize? You don’t.
The consternation expressed by the alarmist cult over the fact that tens of thousands of scientists and engineers ridicule the repeatedly-debunked catastrophic “climate change” narrative is displayed in your ad hominem comments above. It must really suck to be put in your place by people who know the score. You know it, too, or you wouldn’t have wasted your time desperately trying to dig up the worthless opinions of like-minded fools.
I used to think you just had a different opinion, and I respected that. No more. You’re just another lemming, gobbling up the repeatedly discredited “carbon” and “climate change” nonsense.
I checked the petition, and your name is not on it.
..
Why?
I don’t see any AGW measurements.
Why not?
And don’t change the subject as usual. If you’re flushman’s pal, explain why he’s so full of carp. Taking lessons from you?
Are you qualified to sign it?
Yes.
And from the terminally ignorant:
It had a lot of problems with fake names in it. It has never regained credibility
…says the clown who never had any credibility to begin with.
Mmmmmm….I get it….now I know why you haven’t signed it.
…
You still get nothing.
If it sucked I wouldn’t keep coming back.
I really don’t think you read anything I write anyway.I didn’t criticize Dyson at all, in fact I pointed out that while he is certainly not a supporter of AGW science, he is, in his own words, on the fence. And yes, he is MUCH smarter than me.
===================================
““Or this group of nobodies that nobody ever heard of…
Just because you and your ilk haven’t heard of them means exactly nothing; it just displays your ignorance.”
I didn’t call them nobodies, the original commenter did, I just cut and pasted as a reference to my response. Keep an eye on the quotation marks.
======================================
” Then you go on with your stupid assertions regarding Bill Murphy’s other citations:
Since you were ready to accept them as a valid source of information ”
What does this mean? I disagreed with his statement that the Japanese Space Agency denied AGW, and offered proof by referring him directly to their website where it says the exact opposite. How is that a “stupid assertion”? Nothing could be more profoundly based in fact.
===========================================
“And your ‘source’ is Huffpo?? ” Surely if there’s an ad hom statement, that would be it. Knowing someone would get their panties in a bunch at the source, I invited you to check names on the petition yourself. If you can’t be bothered to do your own homework, don’t waste time criticizing those who have.
I didn’t call them nobodies, the original commenter did, I just…&blah, blah, etc.
Got your number, and all the tapdancing in the world won’t change things.
If you had commented on something based on verifiable facts I’d respect that. But your long ad hominem screed is based on the fact that there are at least 32,000 scientific skeptics of man-made global warming, and… you’ve got nothing to counter it.
Lol I suggest we agree to disagree. I respect your convictions.
“If you had commented on something based on verifiable facts I’d respect that.”
…
Too funny….you can’t verify the signatures on the OISM petition, yet you tout that on this blog all the time.
Flashman says:
I suggest we agree to disagree. I respect your convictions.
Likewise. Done deal.
Now, if the clown stops bird-dogging my posts, we could MovOn. But soxie is fixated on me, there is no doubt. He can’t help himself. That must really suck.
Willard can’t sign your OISM petition either…….too bad
Still fixated, eh, chump? Still bird-dogging.
What a pathetic life. Daddy left you “a boatload of money”, and this is what you’re doing?
Did I mention, “Pathetic”?
Tsk tsk tsk…
…
You can’t post a 20x link.
You talk about a petition that can’t be verified, nor have you signed it yourself
..
Too funny
I’m reading this as neither SHF or David Socrates can verify the signatures on the petition.
And, since they can’t, with their superior divining skills, then apparently no one can.
Well, except for those who have.
Links to principia… decrease credibility.
Links to principia diminish credibility.
Alan Robertson,
Links to Principia destroy credibility.
And to Birddog:
As you know beyond any doubt, I can post that link to CO2. It is amusing to the grown-ups here that you cannot bring yourself to agree that you were wrong.
Simply agree, and I will post it. Otherwise, go pound sand, chump.
Re: the OISM Petition, the birddog sez:
I checked the petition, and your name is not on it.
And:
To this day, there is no way to verify any of the signatories.
So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
OK, carry on bird-dogging my comments. That’s your whole life, after all, and I wouldn’t want to disrupt your total fixation on me.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
To this administration in all its agencies under the direction of the tyrant Obama nothing matters but obedience to the message that he wants of sustainability not telling anyone that it also means the destruction of the country!
What Americans probably don’t realize because it is such a part of the American culture, is that this memo reflects both the strengths and the weaknesses of the American legal and cultural system: the “quarterback”. The quarterback is the center guy whose insight determines the outcome of the game. Everyone else blocks or carries; only the quarterback determines the play. Lisa Jackson is the quarterback of the EPA here, and Obama is the quarterback of the political scene. Al Gore is a quarterback, McKibben is a lesser one but a quarterback. The American culture looks to such a guy to understand the bigger picture, not just present it to the rest of the team but inform the rest of their team what their roles are in fulfilling the picture he has determined is best.
The quarterback is the social lone hero. Without him, nothing gets done, private, selfish interests prevail and the world goes to hell in a hand-basket. Think Dirty Harry or Eisenhower on a social scene.
The strength of the quarterback system is obvious. There is a clear plan and no opponents. Everyone knows his place and gets going. The weakness is that that personality and passion are deeply embedded and not for discussion. A Bush wants This and, gadnabit, This gets done. Later an Obama-Jackson want That, and gadnabit, That gets done. There is no sense of general social direction, just the in-the-moment take of the person in control of the ball.
The celebrity DeCaprio is part of the quarterback system no less than Al Gore. And with just as much reason to be followed. It’s the job of the average American to do as he is directed, not to question how the game is being played.
The quarterback system means there are Great Leap Forwards and Great Leap Backwards. A man was put on the moon by the great quarterback Kennedy. The European economy is collapsing because of the environmental quarterbacks in Brussels, and the American energy system under attack because of the environmental quarterback in Washington. In former times the quarterback was a King, in more former times, a General. The American socio-political system is still dealing with a conceptual replacement of George III or George Washington.
So who should be the conservative”” candidate?? Name a good one…
Scott Walker
I like him so far – what is his view on energy and “climate change”?
Not sure but I will email him tonight and respond if I get a response.
Governor Walker, I think you are doing a great job.
However, I am also encouraging people to think of you as USA president or VP.
Before I continue on that, I would like some straight answers….
What are your views on energy and climate change?
PS I am the one who coined the term “cheesehead” in 1981 while at Northwestern University. No trademarks, unfortunately, lol.
Steveo aka
badger777
Sir Harry, Do we really have to remind you how many times scientists and their learned societies have been wrong, wrong, wrong. I am a scientist myself, of the biomedical type, and the only value I can see for any of the learned societies of which I am a member is to present to congress evidence of why funds spent on biomedical sciences have been of value. I have strongly objected on the few occasions when organizations of which I am a member have veered into advocacy or politics. However, it seems that organizations related to climate have somehow become involved in advocacy as a major component of their mission. Eventually, I think they will regret this. There are already many, many examples of predictions of very bad things that would happen due to climate change that have not (remembers millions of climate refugees or ice free arctic?). In any other field of science, this would lead to ostracism and loss of influence of the predictors. Yet, in climate science, they seem to only increase in control and status. This suggests to me that something other than science is inducing the responses of these organizations (maybe $$$$$$$$?).
Well said….but no doubt will fall on deaf ears with SHC. I truly believe Gore is his shining example.
This must be real – there is no way anything as absurd as “This is not about targeting Dunkin’ Donuts” could be made up.