Drew gave advance notice yesterday of the report released today by the Senate Environment Committee’s Minority, which brings together 650 scientists to counter the theory of global-warming catastrophism. It updates a report released last December — one that drew such venomous ad hominem toward the scientists involved that it eventually prompted a close inspection of who exactly are the so-called world’s leading scientists on the alarmist side whose prophesying must not be questioned.
After all, the alarmists asked, “since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?” You know, like UN “chief climate scientist” Raj Pachauri. Of course, he might have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. As you can see, the findings were amusing, as the gang at Climate Resistance noted in detail.
This week’s update is similarly instructive in two ways. Of course it was attacked immediately. The reason is that, without “certainty” about “urgency,” there will be debate — and, when there is debate, the alarmists will lose.
Not just fail to succeed, mind you, but their entire enterprise will be exposed and their proposal defeated, not to rear its ugly head in the same guise for quite some time. So any challenge requires a full-throated, spittle-flecked assault, but against those who dare speak, not the substance. This is the point of Red Hot Lies, and I am pleased that the alarmists have once again risen to the bait and proved my thesis.
Second, this report draws attention to those who feel the need to flip out at the first sign of this intolerable skepticism. DeSmogBlog leads the bilious torrent against scientists speaking their mind: “none of the thoroughly discredited hacks who have been so closely tied with the energy industry that their mere participation in a press release drains it of all credibility. That’s not to say that this release will turn out to be any more credible — give us time — but at least [Marc] Morano appears to be learning.”
Uh . . . “DeSmogBlog?” Actually, this is a leading alarmist organ — and their inevitable argument, which typically starts and finishes with ad hominem and promises more, is we don’t know these people so we are going to work on a smear, check back later. That’s how this industry works. First recall how the scientific source to which the media turn — in addition to Speed-Dial Jimmy Hansen — is RealClimate, a project of a green PR firm (and Mother Sheehan’s media manager), humorously created to shout down Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (and thus confirming its premise), and home-away-from-home for resident NASA alarmist Gavin Schmidt (Hansen’s spokesman), who blogs there frequently on the taxpayer’s dime.
Enjoy this excerpt from Red Hot Lies about the anti-speech crowd’s fearsome leaders (citations omitted):
Given the standard now set by the global warming industry, is it not appropriate to ponder aloud why the skeptic-smearing, ad hominem DeSmogBlog received “a huge donation” of as much as $300,00053 “to start and operate”54 the website and public relations operation? This came from the past-president of and presumably still significant stake-holder in NETeller, “a firm that desperately needs more climate scare for their waning trade of hot air (CO2 emission allowances),” as one critic has noted.55 This benevolent donor, one John Lefebvre, is also currently a guest of the federal government’s correctional officers as a consequence of certain business transactions, a fact that certainly would be of great interest had he instead cast his lot with the climate optimists.
Of course, revealing that the greens’ agenda is some big business’s agenda simply prompts name calling of a different sort by the greens: “responsible.” Besides, isn’t it far nobler to be motivated by the belief that people are pollution in addition to mere money than to be seemingly driven by financial interests alone?
DeSmogBlog, which is dedicated to claiming that climate skeptics are paid shills, happens to be run by James Hoggan and Associates, a PR agency that actually received the $300-large from the NETeller executive. His PR firm represents “alternative energy” companies, as well. Adding to the conflicts, Hoggan is also chair of the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental activist group run by a man who — ironically — calls for climate skeptics to join Lefebvre in jail. This spin machine is aimed at discrediting skeptics.
Further confusing matters, it seems that whenever those who disagree with DeSmogBlog received corporate support, it proves that their opinions are bought, as part of an industry campaign to delude you. Terence Corcoran captured their argument in the Financial Post, “It’s all a corporate scam, they claim [of the enormous ‘skeptical’ community of scientists]. ‘There are people,’ says Mr. Hoggan, a veteran self-promoting pro in the PR business, ‘mainly people who are getting paid by oil and coal interests, and [some] who are just basically ideologues, who are trying to confuse the public about climate change.’ Says Mr. Suzuki: ‘The skeptics are a small group known for their support of corporations like the fossil fuel industry. In fact, many are receiving money directly from the industry.’”
So, one’s supporters dictate one’s opinions. Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Corcoran describes Suzuki’s and Hoggan’s “slanderous campaign” as designed “to portray all who raise doubts about climate change theory — so-called skeptics — as pawns of corporate PR thugs manipulating opinion.” One of the scientists targeted by Suzuki and Hoggan writes in an e-mail that “in a further apparent further conflict of interest Hoggan’s other clients are mostly alternate energy companies who stand to gain from proving CO2 is a problem. . . .Somehow this kind of funding and duplicity is acceptable for one side but not the other — we live in an age of hypocrisy.”
Further, as Corcoran wrote in a separate piece exposing Hoggan’s racket in detail, “As an aside, the fact that BP, Shell, the nuclear industry, giant ethanol firms and others all support climate theory for their own self-interested purposes seems not to bother environmental activists. . . .How does all that work in the conflict arena?”
That’s simple. It doesn’t.
Clearly, coming in at under twenty bucks Red Hot Lies would make a lovely Christmas gift, ‘tis the season to be jolly about how sadly desperate these folks really are. While at it, we can also give thanks at our ability to add meaning to their lives.