With a hat tip to Walter Williams for the heads up, from Senator James Inhofe's blog...

Quote:

---

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“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."

In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.

After Senator Inhofe read Eckhart's comments, Johnson vowed to launch a probe concerning the threatening e-mail. Johnson responded to Inhofe saying, “I was not aware of this quote.” He continued, “Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors.” Johnson then added, “This is an area I will look into for the record.” (See YouTube video of exchange between Senator Inhofe and Johnson)

Senator Inhofe replied, “I would like to have you look into this and make an evaluation, talk it over with your people and see if it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement.”

Following the hearing, Senator Inhofe announced that he will be sending letters to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and EPA, urging them to “reconsider their membership in ACORE.”

Full Text of Eckhart’s July 13, 2007 e-mail to CEI’s Lewis:

Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

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)

---

As Williams points out this is nothing new - but it is getting clearer that behind this whole climate change 'crisis' is an agenda to be furthered at all cost, much like the left's obsession with destroying president Bush. Is the world going to hand their fate over to a group of people that hypocritically rage at the thought of Bush silencing dissent, while not only using the same tactic they profess to abhor, but threaten dissenters with everything from destroying careers to Nuremberg style trials?

Seems to me that "liberals" continue to show that they aren't really liberal about anything. This is a clear case of attempting to silence disent with the liberal political agenda. And that is all that the global warming ruse is... a political ruse to push a political agenda.

Elliot

Steve

There is a full court press to discredit the "deniers" . Can you believe that the global warming propagandists would use such a phrase as "Global Warming Deniers " knowing the intentional image it invokes ? But it is true. This weeks snoozeweek has it as a cover story .

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/S...r.standard.jpg

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com

According to the essay there is a high-powered and well-financed "doubters' campaign" to paint climate change environmentalism as a hoax.

Quote:

---

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

---

So if you are a skeptic to consensus science you are branded a heretic . We have gone full circle here with science taking on the role that was religions in the dark ages. Testing contradictory theories is the heart of science, isn't it?. I guess not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is a full court press to discredit the "deniers" . Can you believe that the global warming propagandists would use such a phrase as "Global Warming Deniers " knowing the intentional image it invokes ? But it is true. This weeks snoozeweek has it as a cover story .

---

Full court press my arse, that's putting it mildly. When you have people threatening Nuremberg trials, labeling skeptics as traitors, bastards, and "climate criminals", silencing dissent, threatening careers and using terms like "Climate Genocide" and "terracide", that's an all-out assault. And Newsweek seems to be surprised that climate change skeptics "hate being called deniers."

Quote:

---

So if you are a skeptic to consensus science you are branded a heretic . We have gone full circle here with science taking on the role that was religions in the dark ages. Testing contradictory theories is the heart of science, isn't it?. I guess not.

---

Great point, tom. Did you notice these hypocrites that whine about "corporate toadies" and other "deniers" while offering "unequivocal" conclusions from a report by scientists and "green groups and businesses in 40 countries"? Apparently as long as you're a "green group" and a sympathetic business, your scientific opinion counts.

One more thing, you know this had to happen... did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?

Lol I guess the bash Bushers ran out of steam so the followers of the Goracle are next in line . I guess it had nothing to do with a basic design flaw or the fact that it was being weighed down by construction equipment ?

Reports: Design flaw caused Minneapolis, Minnesota bridge to collapse

Steve

The editor of Newsweek felt it necessary to write a column of his own defending the hatchet job on the cover .

The Editor's Desk - Letters & Live Talk - MSNBC.com


He says :

Quote:

---

Our story is not a piece of lefty cant

---

. Lolololol
Such a "mainstream " magazine should not have to make such a defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Steve

The editor of Newsweek felt it necessary to write a column of his own defending the hatchet job on the cover .

---

Geez, and he can say "our story is not a piece of lefty cant" with a straight face while chastising Rush Limbaugh? LOLOLOL!

Quote:

---

But Sharon is saying that to reflexively deny the scientific consensus does a disservice to the debate, which is shortchanged and circumscribed when Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners, as he did earlier this year, that "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It's just all part of the hoax."

---

Everything he said in his carefully worded column just shows how dishonest and/or out of touch these people are. He has it all backwards, those of us who legitimately question the 'consensus' are not "reflexively" denying climate change, while they probably need a good dose of glucosamine for their knees after all the jerking they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Such a "mainstream " magazine should not have to make such a defense.

---

Thanks for the Spectator tip. This point is overlooked all too often:

Quote:

---

The truth is, read any legitimate scientific study on climate -- including IPCC's -- that suggests human influence is the dominant cause for global warming, and you will discover dozens of qualifiers like "could," "possibly," "potentially," and "may." For all the certainty and consensus that global warming fear-mongers assert, those sound a lot like weasel words.

When taking that into consideration, you realize that both camps are in the "maybe" category on climate change. It's just a matter of degrees (there's a fortunate pun). But the consensus claimers are all too happy to let the allegation "they deny the science of global warming" to stand alone, making the undiscerning believe that global warming skeptics reject the clear evidence that the earth is warming. Both sides generally agree that the planet has increased in temperature by one degree in the past 100 years; the so-called "deniers" simply question the cause and whether there is a need for the costly remedies that the green groups want.

---

Yeah, I'm ready to cede my lifestyle, my rights and my finances on the basis of "maybe." Aren't you? And then there's this (not to mention the money driving the consensus):

Quote:

---

The intellect and credentials of the doubters are irrelevant in Newsweek's eyes.

---

Exactly. If you're a skeptic you must have gotten your degree out of a box of Cheerios.

I just sent a letter to Newsweek about this. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

---

Mr. Meacham,

You stated in your “Editor's Desk” article defending the August 13 cover story attacking the “global warming denial machine” that “Our story is not a piece of lefty cant. You further stated that ”Honest, well-meaning people can disagree about what we should do about climate change, but it is increasingly difficult to maintain that the problem simply does not exist, or is a minor threat.”

Really? On what basis do you make this claim?

Here are the average temperatures for Albany, NY for the month of April from 1946 to 2006. Please tell me if you can find any sort of pattern to the temperatures.

(temperatures listed, scatter graph added)

The temperatures are pretty well scattered, showing no pattern of either increase or decrease over the 60-year period in question.

I can perform this exercise for any month and any city in the entire world, with similar results showing a similar pattern… which is to say none at all.

So, I must again ask you, on what basis are you making the claim that there is no evidence to back up the critics of the “global warming” theory?

When people say that there is “incontrovertible evidence” of global warming, and if I look through the same evidence as them and can't draw the same conclusions they do, I have to wonder why that is. As an investigative journalist, you should be asking the same thing, not merely repeating the idea global warming is a “fact” that can't be denied. Because if YOU, an investigative reporter, can't find the pattern of global warming, then probably neither can those who claim the evidence is “incontrovertible”. Which means it isn't incontrovertible, doesn't it?

This would further indicate that your article is indeed “liberal cant”, as you so eloquently put it, whether intentional or not.

---

We'll see if it does any good. I'm not holding my breath.

I feel like I'm stepping into fantasy land here, so I'll jump in and get out real quick!!

Climate crisis, or whatever name one wants to give it, is accepted now. It is reality. The only people who are writing against it are those who are **paid-off** to do so, or people who will soon be wearing tin hats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I feel like I'm stepping into fantasy land here, so I'll jump in and get out real quick!!

---

Choux, how arrogant, dismissive and insulting of you.

Quote:

---

Climate crisis, or whatever name one wants to give it, is accepted now. It is reality.

---

Do you always unquestioningly accept what you're told? If so, how sad.

Quote:

---

The only people who are writing against it are those who are **paid-off** to do so, or people who will soon be wearing tin hats.

---

LOLOL, how quaint that someone who thinks 'accepted' consensus = reality would suggest that those who dare buck the consensus with facts need a tinfoil hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I feel like I'm stepping into fantasy land here, so I'll jump in and get out real quick!!!

Climate crisis, or whatever name one wants to give it, is accepted now. It is reality. The only people who are writing against it are those who are **paid-off** to do so, or people who will soon be wearing tin hats.

---

Accepted by whom? Reality on what planet? There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the global warming theorists. It certainly isn't accepted by them. And the fact that they are shouted down as opposed to the global warming theorists actually bothering to answer their concerns makes it pretty clear that the global warming theorists are the ones wearing the tinfoil hats.

Attachment 4143

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Accepted by whom? Reality on what planet? There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the global warming theorists. It certainly isn't accepted by them. And the fact that they are shouted down as opposed to the global warming theorists actually bothering to answer their concerns makes it pretty clear that the global warming theorists are the ones wearing the tinfoil hats.

---

Elliot, here's their proof for global warming:

http://www.ipsosacto.com/files/image...al-warming.jpg

Wish I was getting some of that pay off .
Last week I was hiking on a glacier and
Yes it has receded somewhat in a pretty
Consistent manner since the last ice age.
But when you are next to a wall of ice over
150 feet in height ,a mile wide and stretching
Back as far as the eye can see .
It is hard to imagine the planet is in terrible danger.

http://www.discoverak.com/images/Glacier.jpg

Sorry, dudes, welcome to 2007. Climate crisis is accepted fact now.

You can post all the childish photos you want to post, but that will NEVER CHANGE the fact that Americans believe the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists, not the renegade opinions of the few politicians and scientists WHO ARE PAID OFF, and the tin hat crowd which you have so kindly shown yourself to be here today. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Sorry, dudes, welcome to 2007. Climate crisis is accepted fact now.

You can post all the childish photos you want to post, but that will NEVER CHANGE the fact that Americans believe the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists, not the renegade opinions of the few politicians and scientists WHO ARE PAID OFF, and the tin hat crowd which you have so kindly shown yourself to be here today. :)

---

Actually I’m with you on this Choux; although the panic that some are experiencing I believe is silly. Major climatic changes are inevitable, but like evolution has always been, it will be gradual enough for immigration to flow with it.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wish I was getting some of that pay off .
Last week I was hiking on a glacier and
yes it has receded somewhat in a pretty
consistent manner since the last ice age.
But when you are next to a wall of ice over
150 feet in height ,a mile wide and stretching
back as far as the eye can see .
It is hard to imagine the planet is in terrible danger.

---

That's a lot of ice. Did you enjoy your cruise, get to brush arms with NR people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Sorry, dudes, welcome to 2007. Climate crisis is accepted fact now.

---

Before Copernicus, it was "accepted fact" that the sun revolved around the Earth. They were wrong.

Before Gallileo, it was "accepted fact" that the world was flat. They were wrong.

Before Newton, it was "accepted fact" that smaller and lighter objects fall slower than bigger and heavier objects. They were wrong.

Before Reagan, it was "accepted fact" that higher taxes meant higher income for the government. They were wrong.

And in the 1970s, it was "accepted fact" that global cooling was a disaster in the making. In particular, Newsweek, the source of the article cited in this string, pushed that flawed "fact" in one of its cover stories... a fact which is still a source of embarrassment to Newsweek's editor. They were wrong.

The majority of the world still believes in the "G-dAlmighty" that you decry as "accepted fact". According to you, they are wrong.

Since when does "accepted fact" determine what is actually correct? The words "accepted fact" and "consensus opinion" are just ways of being wrong with authority. Id rather have something be scientifically proven than have it as "accepted fact". And so far, it just isn't.

Quote:

---

You can post all the childish photos you want to post, but that will NEVER CHANGE the fact that Americans believe the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists, not the renegade opinions of the few politicians and scientists WHO ARE PAID OFF, and the tin hat crowd which you have so kindly shown yourself to be here today. :)

---

Yeah... and a majority of Americans voted for Carter too. That doesn't mean they were right. And when they realized their mistake, they corrected it by voting for Reagan twice, and putting the Republican party in charge of Congress. Majority opinions are another good way of being wrong with authority.

Show me PROOF. Show me any place in the world where temperatures have shown an increasing trend over the past 60 years. Just one place will do. (Here's a hint, Chou: no such place exists. I've done the research. I've actually gone back to the publicly available temperature records for the largest cities in the world, in every continent, and graphed the records. There is no pattern for any of them. Some years are hot, others are cold. In years where temperatures rise in one area, they fall in another. No pattern of rising temperatures exists.)

And what does the "accepted fact" say is the optimal temperature of the planet? How do we know that the higher temperatures we are moving toward aren't actually better for the environment than the current temperatures? Nobody has ever answered this question. Heck, I can't see any report in which the "overwhelming number of scientists" have asked this question. In fact, I have never heard this question asked by even ONE scientist, much less have it answered by the "overwhelming number of scientists". So even if global warming is taking place, which is hardly "settled science", how do we know that it is a bad thing? Even the scientists you cite haven't addressed this question.

And it's funny that you claim that the global warming critics are the ones being paid off, when it is clear that the UN paid off the scientists who put out the reports that "confirmed" global warming, and fired the scientists on the board who disagreed with the report. So WHO, exactly, is getting paid off? And strangely enough, even after setting things up so that everyone involved in the report had already come to the preconceived conclusion that global warming is real, the report noted that global warming is not as bad as the report they put out in 2005 predicted.

Try again, Chou. Try thinking for yourself. Go out and find the data, read it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Don't rely on others to make decisions for you. You are supposed to be an adult, not a child. Make your own decisions instead of accepting "consensus opinions" of unnamed scientists. Use your brain, rusty as it is, instead of relying on others to do the work for you. The information is publicly available via the internet. Spend the time and effort to learn the facts for yourself.

Or remain ignorant and take other peoples' word for it like a little child and ridicule anyone who doesn't go along with what Big Brother claims is the "truth".

Your choice.

Elliot

Talked to a couple of the people who signed up for the cruise;they were having a great time , but the panelists tended to slip away to private places when they weren't conducting forum discussions. I did see Kate O'Beirne and Ambassador Bolton but did not attempt to introduce myself. At one point I was told by someone I should just go to one of the panel discussions but my agenda was pretty full.

I told them that if the ship leaves from NY I would consider attending a NR cruise in the future ;otherwise I do not think I'll be cruising again . The next time I go to Alaska I would prefer to do some camping . Otherwise the whole cruise scene is not my thing. You could be seduced to spend a lot of extra money especially with the on board casinos.

Had a great day salmon fishing . I caught 7 pink salmon . I arranged to have 1/2 of them smoked and the rest cut into 1 lb fillets .

The glacier hike is a must thing to do if you go. A helicopter took us to a hiking camp and after we put on helmet and ice cleats we hiked around for about 2 hours. It was like I was on another planet. We came across folks who were scaling a 75 ft. ice wall a bit above my ability but did go into ice caves that we crawled into .

What was amazing to me is that the coastal area I saw was just an extremely small pice of the state. I asked some locals about ANWAR and they are of the opinion that although the area looks so vast in the propaganda against exploring there ,in fact it is just a tiny section of the state that they don't believe there would be a large impact on the scenic beauty if the section proposed was set aside for drilling .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Sorry, dudes, welcome to 2007. Climate crisis is accepted fact now.

---

That's the thing Choux, not one of us has denied the reality of climate change. Like tom said, "The only constant is change." Might as well make a bumper sticker out of it, Climate change happens. What is in question is, is it man made, can we do anything about it, and what EXACTLY is going to happen in the next 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years? How can anyone know that?

Are you willing to surrender rights, lifestyle, your financial future, our sovereignty on if, maybe, could, possibly, potentially, and may? I'm not, and yet the same people that whine incessantly about Bush destroying our rights are perfectly willing to hand them over for us in the name of environmentalism.

These same people mock evangelical conservatives (FundiEvs for you) for their reliance on faith - things you cannot see - while placing their own faith in 'computer models.' They can't figure out the weather an hour ahead of time with all their computer models, why would anyone put their faith in computer models concerning climate change? Last year, NOAA predicted 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes. How many did we have? None, zero, nada. Just yesterday NOAA slightly downgraded their predictions for this season. If conditions were "ripe" for above normal activity and we had none, what exactly does "ripe conditions" mean? It means we don't know what to expect because things change.

Quote:

---

You can post all the childish photos you want to post, but that will NEVER CHANGE the fact that Americans believe the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists, not the renegade opinions of the few politicians and scientists WHO ARE PAID OFF, and the tin hat crowd which you have so kindly shown yourself to be here today. :)

---

Do you have anything of substance to support your case, or are you just going to keep repeating the same nonsense over and over?