Never insult a man’s religion, on pain of (career) death

This is the beginning of the heretical article that had someone screaming for the stake and some fire sticks:

Congress is considering global warming legislation to require substantial cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the inescapable byproduct of the fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — that supply 85 percent of the world’s energy. China, India, and every other developing country refuse to limit their emissions because they fear CO2 controls more than global warming. What do they know that our lawmakers don’t?

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg notes that that Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century while global GDP increased by some 1,800 percent. For the sake of argument, he says, let’s agree that all of the warming was anthropogenic — the result of economic activity. And let’s further stipulate that the warming produced no benefits, only harms. “That’s still an amazing bargain,” Goldberg remarks.

Average life expectancies doubled during the 20th century. The world’s population nearly quadrupled, yet per capita food supply substantially increased. Literacy, medicine, leisure, and “even in many respects the environment hugely improved, at least in the prosperous West.”

This suggests a thought experiment that I recently posed to Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

Suppose you had the power to travel back in time and impose carbon caps on previous generations. How much growth would we be willing to sacrifice to avoid how many tenths of a degree of warming? Would humanity be better off today if the 20th century had half as much warming — but also a half or a third or even a quarter less growth? I doubt anyone on this committee would say “yes.” A poorer planet would also be a hungrier, sicker planet. Many of us might not even be alive.

So, how much future growth are Boxer and company willing to sacrifice to mitigate future warming? That is not an idle question. Some people believe we’re now smart enough to measurably cool the planet without chilling the economy. But Europe is having a tough time (PDF) meeting its Kyoto commitments, and Kyoto would have no detectable impact on global temperature.

You can and should read the rest here.

For his calmly stated analytical efforts, the author’s article, Marlo Lewis, received the following threatening letter from the Climate Change Inquisition Institution.  Um, sorry, I mean the American Council on Renewable Energy:

Marlo –You are so full of cr*p (obscenity redacted).

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike

Michael T. Eckhart

President

American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

If climate change is your God, no rational argument will change your faith.  All that’s left is the threat of excommunication and career violence.  Pathetic.

Hat tip:  Earl

13 Responses

  1. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity.

    never tell your target that you are going after him. Professional assassinations should not be based upon intimidation. Your target should only know that he is a target when the blade is in his kidneys. Anything else is foolish and weak.

    The best defense is an unbeatable attack. Attack the source of power, for your enemy, and he will crumble. So, find the source of power for the Warmies and destroy them.

    This is of course, occuring because Bush isn’t using his powers to crackdown on petty dictators both in the world and here in the US.

  2. Is there THAT much difference between the Islamofacists, whose threat is to cut of my head if I don’t worship their God, and these global warming ninnies who threaten career extinction for not worshiping at the altar of THEIR religion? I notice that they are often using the weasle words ‘climate change’ now so they can CYA in either direction, hot or cold.

  3. Is there THAT much difference between the Islamofacists, whose threat is to cut of my head if I don’t worship their God, and these global warming ninnies who threaten career extinction for not worshiping at the altar of THEIR religion?

    Of course. One is competent (some of the time) and will do what they say and worse, the other is boasting and trying to use simple bully tricks.

  4. Hello Bookworm,

    I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Your summation at the end names a key fact about this entire Global Warming debate that not many people are willing to express. Namely, Global Warming has become a secular religion complete with its prophet (Al Gore), it’s cosmology (pagan Gaia atheism/evolution), its zealots (Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, and other actors) and its own squad of Inquisitors (ACORE and others).

    Indeed, the bellicose tone from avid true believers of Global Warming smacks more of religious zealotry (note the rising threat of eco-terrorists) than a cool scientifically reasoned conclusion. No one can honestly claim that there isn’t intense emotionalism on the part of Global Warmers. What this letter from ACORE blatantly shows is the Inquisition nature of the environmentalists.

    I recall being somewhat of a lukewarm environmentalist years ago. I joined the Sierra Club to go canvasing neighborhoods for donations. I remember being trained by this tall fellow with a closely trimmed beard who was pleasant enough. After having the door slam on us a few times, he started cussing at these folks underneath his breath.

    The door would close, sometimes abruptly, sometimes with a polite “no thank you”, and he would mumble, “F*$&ing moron. Don’t even want to hear about the environment you live in.”

    I think it is a good sign that most of the American people are cool to the idea of Global Warming. Most Americans understand that if Global Warming legislation gets passed on the national level, the American middle class will be effectively destroyed through environmental fiat.

    But let’s also take a look at the other secular religion that plagued the 20th century, Marxism. You will find that the Marxists of the 20th century— many of whom are still lodged in grade school and college level academia— have morphed in the Global Warmers of the 21st century.

    Indeed, they seem to be proposing the same kinds of things, just with a different spin. Destroy the American middle class, socialize the healthcare industry, de-mobilize the military, etc. etc. etc. It’s all the same thing as before, just repackaged and spun.

    They replaced fears of “The Bomb” with fears of a climate meltdown. As with all good mind-twisting lies, a good portion of the lie is true. We were threatened with a nuclear conflagration through the latter half of the 20th century, but the solution wasn’t to unilaterally disarm (which is another position of the Global Warmers). We are threatened with a the prospect of intense climate change in the next 20 years or so, but the cause and the solution isn’t to economically castrate ourselves.

    Slowly deliberation is what’s called for. I just hope someone at the top still has the mature, adult capacity to take a few steps back and view things with perspective and then reason from there. We as country aren’t all narcissistic children, you know.

  5. One must always keep in mind that the high priests of Global Warming — as with the High Priests of every age — have their financial livlihood heavily invested in the proposition they are preaching.

    The Roman Church collected indulgences, college professors collect grants. Al Gore owns a company that sells carbon credits and the UN wants to transfer wealth from the USA to itself. Follow the money, kids.

  6. Y – I think they will both do what they threaten. I meant that they are both bullying in the name of their religion – one just doesn’t threaten death to the unbeliever.

  7. You know it’s a religion because the guy at the Spectator is obviously trying to figure out how we might realistically get C02 emissions down. For that he is attacked.
    Not that any lefty or greeny would consider it but, a MAJOR TAX break for Corporations who use oil would bring consumption down faster than any other method.
    If Corporations that use more than 5,000 barrels a year were offered No Tax for ten years in exchange for cutting consumption by 50%, they would take the challenge. I’m betting they’d pull it off. If they did pull it off it would cost less than 30 Billion a year in lost tax revenue. A drop in the bucket compared to all these other proposals.

  8. Who’s going to enforce livestock’s cutting emissions? They’re responsible for more than cars. Even the BBC thinks so.

  9. Eckhart has answered Betty Williams’ question of how do you “kill” someone without actually stopping their heart. You destroy their carrier. Many people would cease to exist if their life’s work were denied them. Remember what happened to Salieri in the movie “Amadeus”. And no one actively attempted to crush Salieri, he was simply outshown by a much more brilliant composer.
    The idea that the Marxists have morphed into the Ecofeaks is an old one. And it has merit. It all has to do with control. Anyone who wants to control your life “for your own good” or “for the good of society” is the devil in academic robes.
    Economic expansion is the only answer to the “climate change” alleged problem because, among the other things that expansion will force to be developed, it will force us to figure out how to get off this planet.
    Al

  10. Time was, there was no Internet and no World Wide Web. Today we have these things, much to the chagrin of the crisis-mongers. Let’s use them to publicize their tactics, and trust that the rest of the American people recognize that a genuinely good cause need not be advanced via intimidation, but that a bad cause can be advanced in no other way.

  11. What an embarrassment to his own cause this fellow is. The “Harvard community” he identifies himself with must be cringing that one of their own would put this into writing. I haven’t seen the likes of it since junior high.

  12. To All Readers of this Blog:
    The correspondence between Marlo Lewis and Mike Eckhart should be taken in context. Below for your background information is the original response posted by Mr. Eckhart on July 15th on the ACORE blog.
    Thank you for reading this background material.
    Jim Pierobon & The ACORE Communications Staff
    ———————————————————————————–
    To All:
    The Competitive Enterprise Institute has made public a July 13, 2007 email that I sent to Dr. Marlo Lewis, CEI’s chief analyst on climate change. This private communication to Dr. Lewis is part of a two-year series of communications between us about CEI’s campaign to stop public policy on global warming. The campaign is led by Fred Smith, CEI’s President, and Dr. Lewis.
    I apologize to all in the public who were offended by the email, because it was not intended for public display. You could not be aware of the two-year context of it, nor the choice of words in it – words that were only significant to Dr. Lewis and myself. Now that it is in the public, however, everyone deserves to understand the context.
    Summary
    I believe that global warming is occurring. The evidence is overwhelming and persuasive both from a statistical as well as anecdotal basis. Last year, the President of the National Wildlife Federation told the story about how a multi-billion duck hunting industry in Arkansas has disappeared – the ducks only fly south to Illinois any more.
    Recently, we have learned about the acidification of the oceans and the attendant accelerated loss of coral and other marine life.
    This week, credible scientific organizations will predict that the North Pole will no longer have ice in the summer, beginning just ten years from now. Glaciers are melting. If the ice bank on Greenland melts, the seas could rise as much as 20 feet. This is serious business, affecting all.
    In my opinion, CEI, and especially Dr. Lewis, has been presenting a false prosecution — a knowingly false prosecution — of the global warming issue, to the detriment of society and the billions of people who will be affected by climate change. This should offend all who believe in integrity and honesty in public affairs.
    Dr. Lewis admitted to me two years ago that he does not necessarily believe that global warming is not happening – he is pursuing it for another reason: his philosophical opposition to big government. He has hijacked our issue to further his philosophical ideas about government. I respectfully object.
    My email to Dr. Lewis was in the context of personal combat and jousting that has been going on in the background — using his own words, as described below, to prod him out this false prosecution of global warming.
    Background
    The interchange and jousting began two years ago when Dr. Lewis and I were invited to debate the issue on E&E TV, and we had 20 minutes to talk beforehand in the green room. It was a 20-minute monologue by Dr. Lewis.
    He informed us that he is a trained professional debater from Harvard University with a PhD in Philosophy, but that he came out of the experience with the opposite philosophy of most Harvard graduates who believe that government is the solution to society’s problems. He said that he believes that it is excessive government that is the root of most problems in modern society, and that big government must be stopped. He said that one of his life’s goals is to show the Harvard crowd that they are wrong.
    He went on the say that environmentalists are, in his view, “just full of cr*p” and that they are falsely using the threat of climate change to gain control of the power of government. He said that he has a permanent dedication to destroy their careers, hence my use of the same phrases. His method, based on his training in philosophical argument, is not to attack them, but to attack their underlying assumptions, in this case the technical arguments that global warming is happening.
    I asked him, then: “so your argument against global warming is just a tactic in a larger battle you are waging against big government?” He said: “Yes, correct.”
    Dr. Lewis went on to say that he might just as easily make the argument that global warming IS happening, and that, actually, he is a bit concerned about it, but he could not let that sidetrack him from his life’s work to stop big government.
    I then asked if there was any possibility that we could talk him into joining the climate change movement and take the lead on developing non-government solutions, since he is against government solutions. He said that this was an intriguing idea, but, no, he couldn’t do it. He said that his job is not to be a consultant on solutions; his mission is to stop big government.
    We were called into the studio and I concluded by saying that I had never met such a brilliant mind that was, in my opinion, so off track on intellectual honesty, and asked if he thought it would consider it fair play if I tried to stop him as much as he is trying to stop us. He said: “fair is fair” and we went into the televised debate.
    A member of my staff was with us in the Green Room. You will see Dr. Lewis’ own words in my July 13 email.
    Subsequent Communications
    Since that first event, Dr. Lewis and Fred Smith and I have discussed on several occasions the honesty or dishonesty of hijacking the global warming issue to further their philosophy about making government smaller. I confronted Fred Smith on this in May 2006. There have been several exchanges. For example:
    On September 22, 2006, Dr. Lewis sent a campaign email saying: “I attach for your reading pleasure the latest version of my Skeptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.”
    In reply, on September 25, I wrote to Fred Smith and Marlo Lewis: “I am writing to say that I am very unhappy to see this continuing false analysis coming out of CEI, seeking to refute the issue of global warming. What concerns me is that you are credible and persuasive, hence your voice and that of CEI are having the effect of delaying a US response to the crisis. The only explanation that I can see is that you are doing this because you are paid by ExxonMobil and other clients to do so. I find this outrageous, that my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story.”
    On September 26, Dr. Lewis wrote back to me: “Talk about an inconvenient truth! How inconvenient for some people that fossil fuels played an indispensable role in ending slavery and serfdom, extending human lifespan, etc.”
    This was clearly going no where, and it rested for a while.
    Turning the Corner on the Acceptance of Global Warming
    Coincidently, however, I was informed that ExxonMobil ended its many years of funding CEI’s anti-climate campaign the following month, at the time of a speech by ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex W. Tillerson to the Boston CEO Club on November 30, 2006, in which he said:
    “While the scientific community continues this study, we should pursue public policies that start gradually and learn along the way with full recognition of the economic consequences of certain actions and we should bring all countries into the effort…We should start on a path to reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes… and understand the context of managing carbon emissions among other developing world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health. Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways.”
    The most conservative companies in the oil industry are turning the corner on the global warming issue in a thoughtful and honest way. We also are seeing the electric utility industry study the matter carefully, recognizing that the future is a carbon-constrained world and they must find practical ways of working in it. And many serious people from industry, finance, the professions, academia, commerce, the nonprofit sector and government have looked at this and concluded that we as a society must take action now, for the sake of society as we know it, and for the sake of the generations who come after us.
    The Issue Today
    In the face of this came another analysis by Dr. Lewis this past week on July 12, undermining the inconvenient and now compelling truth about global warming, and I said: ‘enough is enough.” I challenged Dr. Lewis using his own words from that Green Room conversation two years ago, and challenged him to take me on, to resolve this issue. I have challenged him to debate this out, but he refuses, instead leaking my jousting email to him.
    As to the email, there can be no excuse for it in the public’s eye, or out of the context of years of communications in the background. I apologize to all who have read it.
    To CEI, however, there can be no apology. Quite the opposite. It is time to end CEI’s disingenuous undermining of worldwide concern about global warming. To resolve this, I again challenge Dr. Lewis to a series of personal debates on global warming that would go on for a month, with daily exchanges. There would be a running public vote. We would agree to accept the vote of the American people on the debate.
    We must begin a nonpartisan, bi-partisan, and universal move forward to manage carbon in society and implement solutions in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, other non/low-carbon energy, and the management of oceans, biodiversity and forestation.
    I believe that a cleaner world will be a more productive world with more security, longer lives, broader equity, more peace, more prosperity, and greater freedom than the status quo can possibly offer. It will not be big government delivering a solution, but the entire complex of government, the private sector and civil society adapting to a better path.
    I believe that an open debate on these issues will reveal the truth of the matter. I call Dr. Lewis out of his analytic hideaway at CEI.
    I will be happy to debate this out with Dr. Lewis and seek an answer, and again apologize to everyone for having the private email communication leaked to the press, distracting everyone from the serious matters at hand.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Michael T. Eckhart
    July 15, 2007

  13. Jeez, louise. Can nobody find original propaganda techniques anymore? I’m getting sick and tired of seeing transparent ploys.

    At least the Islamic Jihad had something new under the sun once awhile.

    It will not be big government delivering a solution, but the entire complex of government, the private sector and civil society adapting to a better path.

    Seriously, that might work on Leftists and slaves of history, but to those in the know, it is entirely transparent.

    again apologize to everyone for having the private email communication leaked to the press, distracting everyone from the serious matters at hand

    Classic. Apologize for not what was in the letter, but the fact that anyone ever saw it in the first place.

    I challenged Dr. Lewis using his own words from that Green Room conversation two years ago, and challenged him to take me on, to resolve this issue. I have challenged him to debate this out, but he refuses, instead leaking my jousting email to him.

    Here’s some advice to folks based upon what Sun Tzu said. Don’t fall into the enemy’s trap by walking into a battle in which the enemy has chosen the terrain for. Bad idea.

    No wonder the Soviets had these sort of folks on the purge list; it must have offended their professionalism constantly to see such folks run around.

    Still, if Bush came around and personally posted rebuttals to Leftist attacks, it would certainly be better than what went on before. Which kind of shows how deep he is in the pit if even this kind of stuff looks better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: