An actual email from the “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any anti-science organization?” department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.
Friend —
It’s tough out there for climate change deniers.
One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.
They’re still grasping at myths and conspiracy theories, but deniers are on the run.
Let’s keep them there — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers.
In reality, the debate on the basics is over.
Not only do 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, but new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now.
Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast, and we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.
Instead, what you hear from climate change deniers are mostly excuses for not taking action. Some have hidden behind foreign countries, saying America can’t or shouldn’t lead on climate until someone else goes first.
Let’s set aside for a minute that this isn’t actually how we solve global problems. The fact is, President Obama is leading internationally through agreements with China and India to cut carbon pollution and expand the use of clean energy. (So there goes that denier talking point…)
Another thing you might hear from a denier is that we simply can’t get serious about cutting carbon pollution without destroying the economy. That’s just false. For example, the climate and public health benefits from President Obama’s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.
Maybe deniers doubt we have the will and ingenuity to take such a huge problem on. Well, the American people are proving them wrong: Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power. Hundreds of thousands of Americans work in clean energy today.
The arguments from deniers are getting more and more ludicrous.
We have the facts on our side — and we have to drive that message home. Because as long as deniers and polluters are blocking progress, we’re not doing all we can to combat climate change.
Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers:
http://my.barackobama.com/Expose-Climate-Change-Deniers
Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Frishberg
Senior Climate Advisor
Organizing for Action
[h/t to: TheLastDemocrat]
“Some have hidden behind foreign countries,” where they were overcome by the missing heat.
Holy Crap!!! Talk about denial. Unfreakinbelievable.
What a bunch of liars.
rgbatduke February 20, 2015 at 1:34 pm
“Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power…”
“Despite billions spent in investments over decades, solar energy will only make up 0.6 percent of total electricity generation in the United States, according to a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).”
From link in
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/we-dont-need-no-497.html#comments
“Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power…”
To me if you start with zero and multiply it with 10 it is still zero. Okay I’ll give the benefit of doubt if you start with 0.001% and multiply it by ten what do you get??
Wow. Desperation at it’s finest. This will turn out to be the best thing ever. An ultimatum of epic proportions. I think you fine group of open minded, level headed, rag tag, logical cross section of humanity may have finally won. I can hardly wait to see the backlash this is going to bring.
I wonder when the crime stopper video’s will start. Hey… A quick 50 bucks.
“One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.”
Uh…no, unless you meant to say the climate alarmist’s arguments.
“In reality, the debate on the basics is over.”
Agree, the debate on the basics is over. CO2 cannot cause the kind of temperature response claimed by alarmists.
“we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.”
Agreed that billions are being wasted – just not on climate related disaster relief.
This kind of nonsense really gets me wondering how much money the organizers are being paid.
“we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.”
You are right Ivan I’ll give you that, Most “climate related disasters ” are created by climate. Your spending of billions of dollars were created by taxpayers.
Friday Funny?
“drive that message home” sounds like forced brain washing. Not funny.
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . . . your missive resonates with despair as if from the fallen climate alarm fortress of
ObamaOreskes**‘Ozymandias’. The following poem paints a verbal picture of the obvious fate of the fortress of climate alarm.** Oreske’s book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ has strangely close parallels to Ivan’s missive
John
They haven’t answered this argument:
Plants/plankton use photosynthesis to turn CO2 & sunlight into food. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist absent Carbon Dioxide. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitude; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall and save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile and life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.
By Occupy Wall Street standards, CAGW folks are plant-starving, Gaia-hating baby killers.
Thought y’all might like this..
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QhqwYcSbH7k/VOew2yJAXeI/AAAAAAAARUE/1hUeVxX-WMc/s1600/image001.jpg
I hear-bye nominate Ivan Frishberg, for the prestigious:
GutterSnipe of the Year Award, for his morally bankrupt methods, at separating fools from their money.
Well I’m a d nier. Proud of it too. I deny false science paraded and touted as “the consensus” and that the debate is over. They wish.
Actually, yes, I am. I’m still a registered Democrat.
lol, James. Working on the inside are you? Heh.
The extraordinary thing about this email is that it hardly attempts to give reasons we should believe in AGW, with the exception of one sentence “Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast……”. Nowhere does not say the temperature of the earth is rising or ice caps are melting. (It is as if the writer knows these arguments are so far fetched that he cannot use them any more).
Having pretty much failed to make the argument for why we should believe in AGW the writer goes on to tell us the politicians are fixing the problem, as if this political activity was the clinching evidence that teh science is correct. I suppose the logic is that if there was no science to back up the theory of AGW the politicians would not be fixing it, but the word politician tells us that politicians do things for political reasons, so how can their activity be evidence that the things they doing are based on scientific evidence?
His political peg conveniently fits his political hole. He knows of nothing else.
Send us money or the puppies get it!
Is this another morph of CAGW language as the usual mantra is “The debate is over”.
There has been much made about the LACK of debate and that science is never static, therefore debate should be the norm. Could this be a deliberate attempt to have people believe that the ‘basics’ no longer requires debate, with the presumption that the basics confirm CAGW? The ‘debate’ is merely between the scientists over detail while the populace can get one with ‘fixing’ the problem.
The basics to me are: the size and type of the star that a given planet orbits, the size and composition of the planet, the distance from the star and orbital eccentricities of the planet, and the energy that star is emitting at any given wavelength. The climatic feedbacks, then, include the makeup of the atmosphere and hydrology (if any) of the planet and it’s tectonic characteristics, along with the combined albedo of all surface features. This could hardly be settled from what I’ve seen presented.
On further thought, I’d have to admit the magnetic field of the planet is another important feedback feature, highly dependent upon the composition and temperature of the core.
The news of the cold weather enveloping the greater part of the north-eastern US for the last week or so has not been readily found on major on-line news sites of entities such as NY Times and LA Times; it is found only occasionally on the BBC and CNN; the ABC website is the best by far. I have yet to find a mention in the Age in Australia. It’s a strange contrast to the latest news that ‘2014 was warmest year on record’ (by a full 0.01degrees, with silence on the plus or minus 0.005 degrees). It looks like deception by omission.
Don Newkirk, U.S. Armed Forces Officers do not “swear to obey the POTUS”. Only the enlisted swear to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”. Instead officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Here is the Army Officer oath in full below:
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html
” I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”
So will the army now stand by their oath & rise up to throw out the domestic enemies currently in Washington DC ???
So revolution/civil war is what you seek? It has happened before of course. The US Army, Navy, and USMC are all older than the Constitution they defend.
Birthday US Army 14, June 1775
Birthday US Navy 13, October 1775
Birthday USMC 10, November 1775
Date the US Constitution came into effect March 4, 1789
In the end we may suffer a revolution but I suspect it will not be from our Military but one in which the states begin to split off. Though I’m not much of a fan of Ron Paul I believe his scenario of states ignoring Federal Law, essentially an insurrection based on the idea of states rights, is probably the most likely way the revolution.Civil War will begin. To begin such a course will of course require popularity with a significant majority in the states that follow such a path and thus be sustained. And all the would be Kings horses and all the would be Kings men, including those that consider themselves to be in the 4th branch of government, will not be able to stop it. From there the least bloody result would be an agreement for a new Constitutional Convention but I am highly doubtful that course will be taken because the division, our differences in the vision of what this nation was and is to be, between the people is so broad. Where it goes from there? Who knows?
So, Obama and this eco-apparatchik are unable to differentiate between those few who are climate change denier and those who are denier of dangerous human caused climate change.It is not the same thing.
Oh, and we are to believe that CO2 is the main cause of asthma?
Dumbing down of America, and it goes all the way up to the president!
If you read this Obama, enjoy the snow!
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . . . so do you recommend to your ‘friend[s]’ who are opponents of the skeptics (skeptics who are critical of your unscientific view that the ‘debate-is-over-on-climate’) should make significant investments in companies that will make the needed black helicopters to enforce the veiled threat in your email missive?
John
I see they’ve dropped the lie that 97% believe CC is real AND DANGEROUS as even the Cook hoax paper didn’t comment on perceived severity.
So yes, 97% of everyone whether on the gravy train or not believe a part of the imperceptible post 1950 warming includes a fraction due to CO2.
Dear Ivan Frishberg
Senior Climate Advisor
Organizing for Action
Hey Ivan, here I am, come and find me (hint call the NSA first, do not call your ISP they are too busy figuring out how to circumvent the new FCC rules).
Heck, the thought that a goverment that sent out ~800,000 wrong “tax forms” to a subsidized health insurance customer base of ~ 10,000,000 (an error rate of 8%) can make the interwebs “neutral”, or “control” the climate is the biggest laugh of all…..
So Ivan, when will I see my lawn again ? April, May, June of 2015, or the year 2073 ?
Any more “Global Warming” and my parrot is going to start making that squeaky sound that really cold snow makes when you walk on it….
Take care Ivan, try to stay warm, maybe hyperventilating about Republicans might help….
Cheers, KevinK
“Climate change deniers” are heretics. You have to realize we are not dealing with science here, only the imitation of science. The hypothetical idea of “global warming” was seized up by socialist globalists, like Margaret Meade and Maurice Strong, in the 1970s, as the most plausible fiction to create the illusion of a world-wide problem that would take a “global governance” (Algore’s term) to solve. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, creating a movement of True Believers, in the academies, the universities, the media, and government, of which the President and his advisors are fervent advocates.
At this point the Climatist True Believers in power are constrained by the American Constitution from taking the kind of measures the Church used to use on heretics, or the Soviets on those who denied the validity of Dialectical Materialism. But even America is not immune from fanaticism of those in power. When Mr. Frishberg writes, “Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers,” that is a threat. And threats from the highest reaches of political power should not be taken lightly. Don’t let them get control of the Internet.
/Mr Lynn
Paris 2015
― Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities