Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Senator Whitehouse has a conspiracy theory, about why people aren’t embracing skyrocketing energy prices and a substantially degraded quality of life.
According to Whitehouse;
Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.
Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.
The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
Senator Whitehouse doesn’t understand that there is no “denier” conspiracy.
Ordinary people like myself, are motivated to act because we are fed up with failed climate models being paraded as settled facts. We are fed up with our kids being force fed messages of hopelessness and despair, when they should be learning about the wonders of science. We are fed up with endless schoolyard bullying tactics, the gratuitous name calling, the utterly disproportionate legal threats, and wild, baseless accusations, being used to harass anyone who dares to question the credibility of the self appointed prophets of thermageddon.
Climategate email 1212063122.txt
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
I read about this yesterday and my thought was…. Why not turn this around and use RICO against the Warmists!
“…playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.”
Nope, doesn’t sound familiar at all…
Whitehouse looks like John Larroquette’s character on Night Court. And is probably just as charming.
Leftists wanting to criminalize opposition to their policies.
There is nothing new under the sun.
“Senator Whitehouse doesn’t understand that there is no “denier” conspiracy.”
These people are so convince of the righteousness of their cause, they find it impossible to believe that people can honestly oppose them.
Therefore anyone who does oppose them must be evil.
We’ve seen it over and over again.
Oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.
Oppose govt funded welfare, you want poor people to die.
Disagree with any increase in EPA authority and you want dirty air and rivers to burn.
^Oppose a quack cancer cure and you want uncle Julius to die.^
–Mencken
Not sure if this has been said but someone should look at where Whitehouse gets his funding. My bet is it’s from the middle east and/or Russia who want to stop US production of oil.
There is no one that regrets taking up smoking at 13 than I but I have to tell you big tobacco had nothing to do with it. At least as far as lying about their product. It started during the second world war with rations and stressed out young men creating a generation of Lucky Strike, Camel, and Pallmall smokers whose kids looked up to them. Que Korea and Vietnam with cigarettes still being passed out in rations and another generation of stressed out young men. The Viet vets became the Marlboro men! Nickel a pack. Kids could buy them from vending machines for a dime. And, trust me, Mom and Grandma let you know it was bad for you! The argument that “big tobacco” distortion of science had something to do with it is just stupid. They were called coffin nails in common parlance as far back as I can remember.
As far as I remember the way the story goes it was “Big Tobacco” refusing to acknowledge or report findings in their own labs that was the scandal not so much purchasing results. If anybody deserves racketeering charges it’s big green for the real suppression of science and distortion of results since Rachael Carson!
Everybody wants clean air. Everybody wants clean water. When corporations have allowed themselves to not treat cleanliness as part of the overhead they have done nothing but damage to an image of corporate responsibility that’s too bad. Let’s get over it and on with it!
Is using RICO laws under false pretenses a violation of RICO laws?
How long before Democrats accuse Republicans of violating the RICO Act by engaging in a conspiracy to defeat them and take away their right to govern? They already claim that if you don’t support their policies, you are as anti-science as Big Tobacco and Big Oil. The next step is to criminalize anyone who disagrees with them.
There’s a worse “D” word than denier.
Anyone who takes the garbage in Naomi Oreskes’ book as their message, as Whitehouse obviously does, is far far below reasonable intellectual capability.
John
John, the question becomes- is Whitehouse that stupid, or that corrupt?
Alan Robertson on June 4, 2015 at 12:12 pm
– – – – – – –
Alan Robertson,
I think he is a populist opportunist and will stoop to Oreskes’ hate (as shown in her book) when it suits him.
John
… in other words, he is that corrupt.
Alan Robertson on June 4, 2015 at 12:12 pm
– – – – – – –
Alan Robertson,
I won’t resist. At the least he is intellectually corrupt.
I would consider that there may be a cause and effect relationship between corruption and stupid. N’est ce pas?
John
John, you are too kind.
and yet big oil donates a lot of money to green endeavors.
Been an operational meteorologist for 33 years, on television for 11 years, then working independently(using my own accounts) forecasting crop yields/energy use from weather and its effects on commodity markets since 1992.
I am a skeptic that has never received a penny or been influenced one iota by anyone or anything except my first hand observations and analysis.
There are many others just like me that have formed similar opinions.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you and then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Senator – Please produce a rebuttal to Eric and ask Anthony to publish it right here out in the open, I’m certain he’ll welcome it. Produce evidence that I and others here are being “paid” by FF companies. Prove that most here are not honest rational thinkers with technical and scientific backgrounds as opposed to lawyer politicians like you who have no working concept of science at all. Tell us why we should not be be alarmed by how politics from people like you has infected and is destroying the very fabric of science, the pursuit of the truth.
Oh Geez. Your Quote: “We are fed up with our kids being force fed messages of hopelessness and despair, when they should be learning about the wonders of science.”
Actually, if you go see the Disney Movie “Tomorrowland”, which somebody was cranking about the other day in this blog, you would actually see how it was spinning positive messages and the wonders of being an engineer or scientist or inventor and that the furure is not hopeless, despite humans. Go figure… (And so what if they briefly touched on climate issues and wind turbines …about 1% of the movie content).
Part 2: Since when are energy prices skyrocketing? My power bill, natural gas bill have been stable for 5 years, and gasoline is a buck lower than a year ago, and before the “summer blend switchover” and refinery maintenence the past couple months, I piad $1.99 for gas for a couple months.
-The Optimistic Skeptic
I’m shocked, I didn’t know that they are playing Tomorrowland in public schools? But I do seem to recall that some showed “Inconvenient Truth”; (didn’t work out very well in the UK though).
Not in schools. I didn’t say that. It’s in theatres the past 3 weeks.
Well gee whiz, Eric Worrall did specify movie theaters either so I guess you will just have to call it “even”.
Now there is a good reason to do away with the electoral college.
Do away with the electoral college and you guarantee that the biggest cheater will always win.
Right now, the big city machines are able to generate enough votes to win their state, but that’s all they can win. Doesn’t matter if the win the state by 51% or 80%, all they win is that state.
Get rid of the electoral college and the dead will start voting in multiple precincts in order to generate enough votes for the Democrat to win.
A better solution is district voting, which two states at present (Nebraska and Maine, I believe) use.
In that system, the votes for each congressional district are tallied, and whoever wins the district gets one vote. The winner of the state still gets the two senatorial electoral college votes.
yes
“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.”
Sounds exactly like the activity by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I wonder if:
The secretary general of United Nations has immunity to American laws, or the pope can be excused from his contribution by being a naive believer, Rajendra Pachauri by being blinded by love, authors of the assessment reports by lack of education in scientific theory and critical thinking etc.
I can see the ads if this guy ever runs for president.
Put a Whitehouse in the Whitehouse.
But, which in which?
How about, “Witless Whitehouse for the Whitehouse”?
Sequester carbon-based life-forms. Whitehouse is considering expanding the scope of pro-choice policy, including liberal societies’ selective-child policy. If humans are the cause… It would explain the ideologically-prejudiced popularity of planned parenthood and demand for State-establishment of sacrificial rites.
That said, let’s review the characteristics of all technologies equally throughout their full life cycle from recovery to processing to distribution to operation to reclamation. The value of so-called “green” technology should be assessed without shifting and obfuscating ecological and social disruptions.
Unintentional consequences, ‘Group Madness’ – Group madness is what happens if group beliefs cannot change/do not change and cannot be criticized.
It is a fact that the cult of CAGW is a key Liberal fundamental belief. President Obama is a Liberal, President Obama is a liberal ‘Bellwether ‘. Obama stated ‘Climate Change’ is the number one (I repeat number one, number one, number one, number one, … ) greatest threat to the US and to the world.
It is a fact that CAWG cannot be defended by observations, logic, and scientific analysis. It is fact that many other key Liberal beliefs also cannot be defended by logic and reason.
The cult of Liberalism has adopted by necessity many of the propaganda techniques that were used by the Chinese officials during the ‘Cultural’ revolution, for the same logic reasons. i.e. If a group cannot defend their ‘beliefs’ with logic and reason, alternatives to logic and reason are necessary.
If a group takes the turn where group beliefs can no longer change, can no longer be questioned, that road leads to chaos, fascism, group madness. i.e. It is possible to predict what will happen to a group and a country based on past experience of other groups/countries.
When it is necessary to defend a belief that cannot be defended by logic and reason, debate must be avoided at all costs.
1) There are only two types of people in the world. Those who are Communists and those who are evil, capitalistic dogs.
2) Those who try to start a debate about any Communistic beliefs are evil, capitalistic dogs.
Right thinking people do not question the key communistic beliefs.
3) Right thinking people repeat the communism slogans in lieu of argument/discussion and to avoid argument/discussion.
(See Yu Hua’s book China in Ten Words for an extraordinary succinct summary of group madness that occurred during the Chinese ‘Cultural’ revolution.)
http://www.amazon.com/China-Ten-Words-Yu-Hua/dp/0307739791
The Liberal Paradigm/Zeitgeist
A) The Unwritten Liberal Rules
1) A good Liberal does not question key fundamental Liberal beliefs. Group support is a key Liberal tenet
.
2) The key Liberal beliefs do not change. If one Liberal belief was incorrect then many of the Liberal beliefs could be incorrect. This would create chaos. (See Liberal rule 1)
3) Those people how criticize any Liberal beliefs are bad, capitalistic dogs. See Liberal Rule 1.
P.S.
1) It is a fact that the gas CO2 is essential for life on this planet.
2) It is fact that commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing time. The optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere for plant life is around 1200 ppm.
3) It is fact that are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar cycle changes. It is fact that there are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 was high and the planet was cold and periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm.
4) It is a fact that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, not anthropogenic CO2 emission
5) It is a fact that the planet is about to abruptly cool as the solar cycle has been interrupted.
[“Right thinkning people” = Those are “Correct”, or those who are “Right”, or whose followers believe they are “right”? .mod]
In reply to:
There is an answer to your question.
Precise thought (I know precisely what I want to say and now I am looking for the words to say it) enables there to be a debate, a scientific discussion, assists in the solving of logical problems and assists in the formulation of logical public policy.
In science there are absolutes, correct and incorrect theories. What percentage of the warming in the last 150 years was due to the solar cycle changes vs the rise in atmospheric CO2? There is a precise answer to that question. Why has there been no warming for the last 18 years? What causes the cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record? What cause cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record? Those are all scientific questions, not questions concerning morality.
Logic, observation, and analysis can be used and are used to answer scientific question, to determine if a scientific theory is or is not correct.
In morality there may be a gray area. Is it blasphemous (wrong) to draw a picture of the prophet Mohammad? Is it right or wrong for a husband to have an affair or to think about a girl friend of his wife in a sexual manner?
As a consequence of the climate wars, the scientific question: ‘What percentage of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes Vs the rise in atmospheric CO2’ has from the perspective of the ‘Liberals’ become a morality question.
To present logical arguments that prove the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes rather than due to the rise in atmospheric CO2 is to be a denier, to be wrong, to be on the wrong side, to be a bad person, to be akin to a racist.
The Definition and difference of the words ‘Wrong’ and ‘Right’ Vs Definition of ‘Correct’ and ‘Incorrect’
In common speech the words right and wrong are used as a synonym for the words correct and incorrect which makes precise speech, precise thought challenging.
Wrong – 1) not in accordance with justice, law, morality, etc;
2) not in accordance with an established standard, previous arrangement, given intention
Right – 3) in accordance with justice, law, morality
It is helpful to reserve the words ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ for questions of science. You have summed a large list of numbers. Is your result correct or incorrect?
There are lots of grey areas in science, like, is “Lucy” just an ordinary ape skeleton or something that happens to be a kind of precursor to the evolution of Homo Sapiens. (the skeleton has no hands or feet so it’s a bit difficult to tell).
So assigning a TRUE or FALSE statement becomes impossible and one would have to work by assigning probabilities if one were honest, which doesn’t help book sales, funding or museum directors (so one gives the replica of the skeleton imagined hands and feet, see wikipedia for photos of those)
“In science there are absolutes, ” It’s comfortable to think that but likely unwise. I can think of many “absolutes” in science that were later modified. Best example is Newton’s law of gravity but then along came Mercury’s orbital period and Einstein.
The Senator from RI, constantly ridiculed by commercial fishermen in from the state knows its not the Big Tobacco play book, it’s the Pew Charitable Trust’s anti fishing play book.
ThePew playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.
Pew’s Conquest Of The Ocean, By David Lincoln
“This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer. When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide.”
Please read this. It’s the “Carbon” Copy that the global warming crowd has adopted.
http://fisherynation.com/pews-conquest-ocean
Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds
I bet that you could actually use RICO, per the suggestion of Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI), to go after science DENIERs in Albany where Governor Cuomo sat on a study of fracking, till he finally rejected it by DENYING the science.
Wouldn’t it be sweet irony if Whitehouse and his fellow Stalinists wound up being prosecuted on the very grounds upon which they are fraudulently attempting to persecute skeptics?
Senator Whitehouse needs to have the Spoonerism treatment, which would reveal him for the Huckster he obviously is. But hey, politics attracts such folk in much the same way as ice cream attracts wasps 🙂
And people are stupid enough to elect idiots like this to public office? Frightening.
Look at how many years Rhode Islanders actually believed Lincoln Chaffee was a republican. (Almost as bad as Pennsylvanians believing Arlen Spector was one.)