April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
Taking a look, it’s pretty typical. Per Discovery Magazine’s longtime promoter of the warmist creed, Chirs Mooney:
[T]he panelists-and especially Christopher Horner-were quite affirmative that the real reason that we, the “left,” want to restrict greenhouse gas emissions is that we want to hobble economies, redistribute wealth, and restrict individual freedoms.
“You can believe this is about the climate, and many people do,” said Horner. “But it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner went on to argue that “it’s probably about what they’ve claimed they really want.” For many “luminaries” of the environment movement, Horner continued, “economic growth is not the cure, it’s the disease.”
All true, if truer with context studiously omitted. The latter was a well-known quote from green movement godfather Maurice Strong. Which, as you read, went unnoted. It really was my idea that this, not some climate healing, is their idea, you know.
Still, in my talk, which Mooney indicates he watched and at least does provide a link to, I quoted the following:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”… No. Climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth….” — IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author if WG3, “Green Jobs”
“It is an economic restructuring bill for the global economy. We should not pretend that it isn’t.” - David Foster, Blue-Green Alliance spokesman
“The slogan of ‘green jobs’ is the banner under which all of the pro-democracy forces can gather for the next big assaults.” Erstwhile Team Obama green hero Van Jones
There’s no shortage of such claims, but all are apparently too inconvenient to try and explain away, rationalize, or argue as simply random fringe remarks by inconsequential actors. Though I did ask in my talk, why should we conclude that they are all lying in these moments of candor? Not a word addressing this from Mooney or his interlocutor in the comments who simply states that pointing these assertions out is “propaganda”. Mmmm.
Oh. And I noted that nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone, detectably impact the climate.
Ergo, you can believe it’s about the climate. If you need that. It provides a comfy blanket of affirmation to many, shivering with their worldview so widely discredited. It just isn’t a reasonable belief. For the reasons stated.
And I of course wrote a book detailing it. In their own words. And one must admit, they do a terrific job of ‘propagandizing’ for us. And all of which Mooney wisely if typically chooses not to address: it’s their words that make this inescapable. As well as the ‘consensus’ of no impact.
This is done in the name of what, again?
Will the temperature be any different after your plan?
So, what’s it about?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online