Selective Precaution

[sunsettommy]

Very popular article at my forum.Hope it is popular here too

National Review online

June 3, 2008 6:00 AM

Selective Precaution
How does the third world insure itself against Lieberman-Warner?

By Lawrence Solomon

EXCERPT:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" hasbox="2"><TBODY hasbox="2"><TR hasbox="2"><TD vAlign=top hasbox="2">Senators Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va.) base their proposed Climate Security Act legislation on two fundamental premises: That there is a scientific consensus on global warming and that, even if the scientists are wrong and the global-warming risk never materializes, we will at least have aided the environment.

Both premises are wrong. Not just wrong. The premises could well have it exactly backwards.

First, consider the alleged scientific consensus. Nearby you’ll find the cover page from the 2006 press announcement from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body coordinating the worldwide effort to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The cover page offers this impressive claim:
2500 SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REVIEWERS
800 CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS AND
450 LEAD AUTHORS FROM
130 COUNTRIES
6 YEARS WORK
1 REPORT
2007

Impressive, isn’t it? You may be even more impressed if you see the accompanying press materials (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/ipcc-flyer-low.pdf). And you can forgive the press for being impressed, too, at the intellects assembled to establish that global warming is real and manmade. After all, 2,500 expert scientists can’t be wrong.


MORE HERE (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZiMDc3ZjIxMzEzZjE1ZTg3YzEwYmI3NTBkM2Y4OGI=)



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

Typical leftist deception. The right to me usually seems woefully slow to identify such leftist schemes and entirely too sluggish to challenge them. The right always seems a step behind, chasing after the leftist propaganda train, hoping to stop it once they catch up. Other times they seem completely unaware a train even left the station.

The political battle now being waged will ultimately be won by the side which best mass markets its ideology to the sheeple. And the left simply has a superior marketing machine.

As the article said...
That figure of 2,500 scientists received saturation media exposure, and then it was amplified by environmental groups, bloggers, and others.
I see global warming propaganda in so many things now (TV, Movies, magazines, etc.). I virtually never see any opposing viewpoint however. I recently saw some show (on the History channel I think it was) where the narrator stated something like 'as society comes to grip with the consequences of climate change.'

It was stated matter of factly. It was very subtle, but that's all it takes to make so many sheeple viewing the broadcast believers, and to have them regurgitating the BS themselves (effectively disseminating the propaganda for them).

Me thinks unless the right takes back the popular mediums, stays abreast of changing pop trends, starts finding creative new ways of injecting the judeo-Christian philosophy and founding principles into the pop culture, we will always be a step behind. And so many articles which expose the truth about GW will remain relegated to the obscurity of a few online forums and the like.

[DoctorDoom]

Unfortunately, Rush has the right's response to the AGW bullshit pegged: rather than denounce it as so much junk science, they accept the premise and then suggest different responses to it.

After the world has spent $45 TRILLION on "combatting" global climate change and it has achieved absolutely nothing other than destroying the economies of many countries, who will be held responsible?

<hr>
Nuclear power, too, is enjoying a renaissance due to carbon pricing — nuclear reactors have never been commercially viable without subsidies, and coming back now only because of a perceived carbon crisis.On that, I must disagree vigorously. Nuclear power has been viable, profitable, clean, safe and reliable for decades. The "arguments" against it make the AGW crap seem like hard science. It was paralyzed in the 70s by the same arshlochs who clamped down on oil exploration and refining, and who are wailing about AGW.