Vol: 98 Issue: 27 Friday, November 27, 2009
There is an old saying to the effect that “the best defense is a strong offense” — even when defending the indefensible.
For example, when a politician is caught red-handed in a lie, the preferred response is seldom to refute the facts in question, but rather, to argue the accuser is an even bigger liar.
Such a defense kills two birds with one stone. First, the attention is removed from the original lie. Secondly, the the politician is innoculated against further charges on the grounds “that’s already been dealt with.”
It almost always works. So it wasn’t too surprising, as I noted on Wednesday, that the evidence suggesting that the global warming crisis was a deliberate fabrication was largely ignored by the media.
Briefly, some 160 megabytes of email traffic between leading climate scientists was somehow leaked to the public. Ostensibly, the culprits were hackers that hacked into the East Anglia University’s system.
The mainstream media attempted to use the fact the emails were hacked as cover for ignoring their contents. But the usual defense strategy of attacking the accuser fell flat. How does one destroy the veracity of an anonymous hacker?
First off, it’s a hacker! So attacking his reputation is pointless, even if his identity were known, which it is not. Identifying a hacker only increases his reputation and encourages other hackers.
The media back-up strategy would have been laughable, were it not so sad. And somewhat insulting. It pretended to be hamstrung by ethical concerns regarding the use of hacked private communications.
The NYTimes, for example, had no similar qualms about using leaked top secret documents whenever its use would damage the Bush administration. Damage to national security was weighed by the Times against its own yardstick gauge of what its editors decided was the “public’s right to know.”
The UK’s Lord Lawson, an influential and noted British climate change skeptic, summarized the case for the British public.
“The integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question.”
That’s a fairly powerful statement, given all that is at stake here. Applying “the public’s right to know” as a test in this instance, one would assume that since the government was planning to invest billions in public money in a possible scam, journalistic ethics would demand the story rank as above-the-fold headline news.
But with a few notable exceptions, the media has done its level best to pretend there is no story to report.
After admitting he was “deeply shaken” by the e-mails, a Guardian columnist adds: “To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”
One wonders how much wider it would need to be?
- As far back as 1996, the hacked emails reveal, scientists who expressed doubt about the alleged scientific consensus on global warming were mocked and even exiled by scientists in positions of power and holding the majority view.
- One email suggested that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. climate science monitoring wing, include only their own views and exclude others.
- Data sharing with scientists with opposing views was also discouraged, and suppression of data which did not fit the climate change model was either manipulated until it did or excluded altogether.
- One email from Phil Jones, head of Climate Research at East Anglia U discussed “the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”
- “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone,” Jones emailed Mann.
White House Energy and Environment Commisar Carol Browner decided on her own variation of the usual strategy. Pretend it’s all part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy
“There has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything,” Browner said at the White House. “On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the word’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible. What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists.”
I noted as I’ve been following this story some of the language being used in the media to describe the two sides. It’s the same language used in religious debate. On one side are the believers, defenders, apologists or evangelists of global warming.
Al Gore’s role is often described as that of an evangelist or prophet of global warming. Then there are the True Believers, zealots like Dr. Heidi Cullen, the climate change ‘expert’ at the Weather Channel, who once called for a loyalty test among meteorologists. (Any who expressed doubt as to man-made climate change, she argued, should be stripped of their credentials.)
Global warming has its legions of defenders and apologists, most of whom are now busily engaged in redefining their doctrine to make ‘collusion’ the equivalent to ‘consensus’.
The Kansas City Star offered that exact defense in an editorial earlier this week.
The emails are part of the normal scientific discussion. There is no proof in them of a conspiracy to lie about climate change. There is no proof in them that current climate change theory is off base. In fact, they reach the opposite conclusion.
On the other side are the “skeptics” “unbelievers” “Flat-Earthers” “deniers” etc.The UK’s Lord Lawson defined climate change as a religion. When asked in what regard, Lawson replied,
“There are two things really. One is the view that man is irredeemably bad, and needs to atone for his sins by making some kind of sacrifice. When bad things happen they are somehow a judgement on mankind.”
The Bible pictures the system of the Beast during the Tribulation as resting on three pillars of control. The Antichrist holds the reins of political and economic power while the False Prophet is pictured as heading up the religious system.
It is hard to mount much of an argument against it that doesn’t sound like blind nationalism to the other side. Sometimes, it even sounds like blind nationalism to the person making the argument, given the strength of the counterclaims.
If one accepts the premise that unchecked human activity will soon destroy the planet’s ability to sustain life, then the introduction of some kind of global authority is a matter of survival.
Pretty much for the bulk of the history of Christendom, the main, if not the only, serious candidate for the role of False Prophet has been the papacy.But as we count down to the end of this present age, the field of candidates is widening.
Alternative candidates deserving of consideration to this generation are the New Age and Lord Matreya, Islamic totalitarianism, some kind of UN-mandated all-inclusive system of non-sectarian deism, none of which was even on the radar for most of the past twenty centuries.
But nothing so far has come close to equaling the potential of the Church of Climate Change. One has a hard time picturing the Vatican ordering the beheading of religious dissidents.
Not so hard to picture mass beheadings under Islam, but it is hard to see how a religious culture still stuck in the 6th century could overtake the secular West.
The New Age is too disorganized and has little to offer other than some flashback memories from Baby Boomers nostalgic for the unfulfilled potential of the Age of Aquarius. Hard picturing them ordering my decapitation for not sharing their bong.
If you believed that by sacrificing the lives of a planeload of passengers, including your own, you could save thousands of innocent lives, would you do it?
That was the impossible choice handed to Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 93. They will rightly remain forever enshrined in our collective memories for the courage of their selfless choice.
Suppose you truly believed that sacrificing national sovereignty would save the whole world from certain doom? Suppose you believed with all your heart that if the planetary population were not drastically reduced, it would result in planetary extinction?
Somehow, I have less trouble imagining a scenario involving capital punishment using clean, ecologically friendly guillotines as a method of combining the twin problems of eliminating ecological terrorism with restoring the earth’s population to ecologically sustainable levels than I do any of the alternatives.
Islam fits the death theme, while the papal scenario fits the worship theme,the New Age fits the false Christs and false prophets theme, but none of them conform to the most basic theme of all.
“For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect,”Jesus said. THIS is the main reason the papacy has stayed at the top of the list.
The elect won’t be deceived by the New Age. It isn’t Christian and even the most skilled New Age apologist couldn’t convince a Christian that it was.
The elect won’t be deceived by Islam’s claim to be the Third Testament.Islam has its own Jesus, but Islam’s Jesus is not Divine, is not the Son of God, did not die for the sins of mankind and offers no path to salvation.
The elect — or some part of them, might be deceived by a renegade Pope, but there is still the problem of the elect cheering on the execution of denominational dissidents.
But how many churches have completely given themselves over to the doctrine of man-made climate change? How many denominations have passed resolutions or encyclicals or other statements of support for the conclusions of the IPCC that energy and the environment be put under a single global authority?
How manyChristian denominations would ultimately accept the idea of eco-terrorism as being as bad or worse than political terrorism? How many would be ok with imposing capital punishment on eco-terrorism?
I have trouble picturing Islam, the Vatican, the Age of Aquarius or even some form of secular humanism deceiving the very elect.
I have trouble seeing how any of them can be integrated into any existing political and financial system, but if we’re as close to the end of this age as the signs suggest, then we should be able to see it from this side of the Tribulation.
A religion that integrates global government, global business, is based in deception, is seductive enough to win the support of some churches, advocates population reduction and equates pollution with terrorism.
To fit the mold, its adherents would be susceptible to a strong delusion so that they would believe a lie, even while knowing it is a lie because received not the love of the truth to begin with.
One cannot love the truth and political correctness — one has to choose one or the other. Integrating Christianity with climate change is an effort to choose both while loving neither.
I think we have a viable candidate.