The Right's great global warning swindle

[angra]

The recent survey published in the journal Environmental Research Letters reveals just how successful the Right's campaign against AGW has been in promoting denialist propaganda in stark contrast to the views of scientists.

Over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers were reviewed which shows that 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made. They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results.


But the Right and industry groups with a vested interest in downplaying AGW have mounted a fierce campaign against the science. Bolt dismisses it as mere "activisim". Abbott is famous for having declared that 'climate change is crap'.

A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised US Republicans, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming.

The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance," the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

Yeah, righto.

Steve Kates says Barack Obama will be impeached.

Big call, but then you read the Wall Street Journal’s latest on the IRS scandal:

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. “He put a target on our backs, and he’s now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?” asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

Frank (apparently) runs a pyramid scheme, and he has had some run-ins with the authorities in the past. He didn't just arrive on the radar of those hateful leftists in 2012.

The timing is very odd, I agree. It would be appropriate for an inquiry to investigate why those particular decisions were made, and by whom. But folks need to remember - that's how the US system works. It's a bit broken. The question of whether a particular financial arrangement is "legal" is moot - what really matters is its chance of withstanding an audit.

But it would be insane for obama, or anyone who answered to him, to even consider using the IRS or labour department to attack somebody like that during an election campaign. It WILL get out and, as folks are finding out now, there will be nowhere for them to hide if congress gets involved. This is the thing that all sensible public servants eventually figure out - even if your boss makes you do something political, it's still you who gets strung up.

But it is entirely possible that some "entrepreneurs" decided to take an interest for themselves. That would be an abuse of power, and it should be investigated.

What that WSJ article doesn't tell you is that the audit actually saved vandersloot money. That "sizable refund" he's waiting for - that's a refund that the IRS found for him by recommending changes. They turned up and gave him money, in other words. Not exactly a hit-job. And when he says that the coverage hurt his business ... well, that's not what he was saying at the time - back then he was saying the coverage actually helped his business.

So what nefarious things did obama's campaign say about this poor man?

Frank Vandersloot: Frank Vandersloot is the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and, through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future. He is also a “litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement” who “spent big” on ads in an “ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children.”

Wow - release the HOUNDS! That's pretty tame, actually. Go check out his wiki page for the real stuff. What the labour department turned up asking about was pretty specific ... and I don't see it pointed to in that comment anywhere.

But Strassel isn't saying the obama actually MADE this happen. Or even ASKED for it to happen. Nope .... he used MIND power. Just the mere fact that he mentioned vandersloot on his campaign site was enough to inform the vast, well-disciplined armies of government that they should ATTACK!

Ok. So why wasn't everyone else on the list attacked? Why just him? Vandersloot darkly suggests that he wasn't "the only one", but there's a sad lack of evidence for that.

Get a grip, strassel. Get a grip, andrew. If you think this is linked to obama, prove it. And if you think THIS is impeachable, you'd be amazed by some of the stuff the last guy did.

Obama might be impeached, it's possible. But it won't be over benghazi (my prediction - benghazi will be done as a story by the end of next week), it won't be over any of the IRS revelations we've just heard and it's definitely not going to be over the AP phone taps. So keep spinning, folks - you need to keep this guy busy until after those mid-terms.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

"A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002"

It's interesting the way projection works. Back when the ACORN scandal was still being peddled, all the little wingnuts were banging on about "rules for radicals" by saul alinsky, and painting obama and ayers as svengalis with scary alinsky powers. I used to post at PJM a fair bit, and had a lot of fun debunking threads by pointing out inconvenient facts (it was a target-rich environment, inhabited by very, very stupid people). I was regularly accused of being "an alinskyite", which appeared to be enough of an accusation for people to declare that I should no longer be engaged with, and preferably banned - an "alinskyite" is a terrible thing, it seems.

It was only quite recently that I found out that the o'keefe slimeball and his various lying-scumbag creepoid mates have actually cited that very book as their inspiration, their actual reason for choosing to become activists. So while wingnuts were accusing baffled leftists of being alinsky droids, they themselves were buying up copies of the book and making plans. Can the right actually get any lower than that? I mean, sure - project your failings onto others once you've become uncomfortable about having them, but to do it while they're actually, consciously and deliberately CULTIVATING those failings? Wow.