I’ve taken a couple of trips to the Twin Cities lately. For those of you unfamiliar with our Minnesota lingo, the term ‘Twin Cities’ refers to Minneapolis and St. Paul, which are joined at the hip physically, but have distinct personalities.
On I-94, going south, I saw a billboard near Rogers. It’s a simple billboard, with a picture of Al Gore and the words: “an inconvenient truth: Gore Lies, Gets Nobel Prize?” The billboard is sponsored by GlobalClimateScam.com. I suppose they think the question mark gets them off the hook for libel.
When I see something this blatantly accusatory, I’ve got to know who is behind it. So, when I got home, I looked up GlobalClimateScam.com. The purpose of the group is to debunk the role human activity plays in global warming. From the group’s About page:
“Mankind has a moral obligation to be a responsible steward of God’s creation for the good of future generations. Protecting and preserving our earth’s ecosystems must remain a high priority for citizens of every nation.
“However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
“Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change.”
Note the use of the words ‘mankind’ and ‘God’ and the complete absolution of human beings for causing global warming. Sounds awfully neo-conservative to me. I dug a little further, noting that GlobalClimateScam.com was sponsored by the Minnesota Majority. Upon arriving at Minnesota Majority’s home page, I discovered that their tagline is “Standing Together for Traditional Values.”
The term ‘traditional values’ is typical neo-con jargon and means that the group is all for legislating how people live their private lives (i.e. no abortions ever! no gay marriage ever! follow our Christian religion and the morals we set forth always!), while at the same time claiming they want government out of our lives. They want to allow the free market to reign unchecked and if you’re not wealthy, well then, it’s your own damn fault. It’s the whole “pull yourself up by your bootstraps and agree with my way of thinking, but I’m not going to give you any boots” philosophy. (Check out the site’s drop-down menu under Our Principles for the full screed.)
Funny thing, that. I’m a Minnesotan, but I’m not a part of their majority. I disagree with the Minnesota Majority on pretty much everything they stand for. While it might be understandable that this li’l ol’ fish might fall into a minority of thought in the state, why is it that our state consistently seems to be a blend of both liberal and conservative values, as seen in the way we elect our government officials? Could it be that we have two majorities?
Beware of who you allow to speak for you. Now, the Freedom of Speech right the Minnesota Majority supports is something I can ascribe to (although I’m pretty sure the group is not going to like what I have to say).
As for the idea that human beings have nothing to do with global warming, I think I’ll listen to the ice core samples scientists have pulled out of the Antarctic that show elevated levels of carbon dioxide trapped in the ice at the point that the American Industrial Revolution started.
With frosted fins,
Phineas F. A. Pickerel
March 11, 2008 at 11:15 am
Dear Mr. Pickerel,
I volunteer for http://www.Global ClimateScam.com and was involved in helping develop the billboard campaign. Thank you for bringing our website to the attention of your readers.
Nowhere do we suggest that man has no impact on the environment. We simply point out that the global warming hysteria is long on emotion and painfully short on proven science. We’re all for taking care of the environment, just not on the agenda of the left.
Our Governor hired an advocacy group to be Minnesota’s official consultant on climate change. That’s what caused us to activate. The hope is to have more public conversation about the environment, not less. This advocacy group hired by the Governor stated clearly that no debate on climate science would be allowed. Had the Family Council been hired to officially advise the state on reproduction, or had the Heritage Foundation been hired to officially advise on our schools, you and your “progressive” friends may have had a similar reaction to ours.
I personally don’t have any problem with your point of view. In fact, I would fight for your right to express it. I find it curious that you have a problem with my point of view, and that my position is the one you consider to be closed-minded.
Nature clearly produces the greatest contribution to climate change. To deny that fact seems a bit fishy. Spend some more time at our site and let us know if you don’t see the merit in our endeavor. While we doubt that we will win you over to our point of view we certainly welcome your criticism.
March 12, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Drew – It’s obvious you’re a writer and you understand the impact of words. When you choose words such as “lies,” “hysteria,” “alarmist,” and “scam,” all emotional words, plus put the word “progressive” in quotes as though it’s a dirty word, it appears as though you are attempting to raise the hackles of those who at first blush may seem to disagree with you. If you had decided to use less divisive terms, the discussion would not turn immediately rancorous (and I would not appear to be so closed-minded).
I’d like to point out that I did not say nature had nothing to do with climate change. I’m of the opinion that we don’t completely know all of the causes of global warming, but that human beings certainly are a contributing factor. That said, the only part of the equation human beings can try to control is the part that we played a role in creating. That doesn’t make me hysterical or alarmist; it makes me a realist.
I also believe, as your site points out, that the market is one of the best ways to foster change in the behavior of consumers in terms of creating a more “green” environment. If consumers clamor for green technology, then business is the quickest and most efficient means of providing it. (Kind of sounds like I agree with you on a few points, doesn’t it?)
That said, while the Global Climate Scam website purports that the media, academia, and special interest groups “stand to profit from their “doom and gloom” pandemonium,” perhaps it’s their “doom and gloom” pandemonium” and Al Gore’s supposed “lies” that are creating new opportunities in the market. Consumers tend to like to take the easy way out and often need some serious motivation to change. Whether global warming is really the core issue, or merely the impetus, finding alternative energy sources and living more gently upon this earth are simply good things to do – good for us and good for business.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
March 14, 2008 at 9:38 am
Words definitely matter. I wouldn’t pretend to tell you what words to use or avoid using. Likewise, I would appreciate your respect for my right to free speech, to use the words I choose to use. Fair enough?
My intent is to draw attention to an issue that will only benefit by more public discussion, debate and discernment. The global warming hysteria people are the ones who set forth thr rule that “debate of the science ist verbooten”. That’s precisely why I engaged in the issue. To bring more attention to the issue.
I doubt you think we should blindly support the recommendations made by a corrupt advisory task force process.
I certainly agree that finding alternative energy resources and living more gently on this planet are worthy pursuits and perhaps good for business. But if the green initiative is managed by government and funded largely by taxpayer dollars the “free market” will not have an opportunity to work. It will amount to just another special interest extortion of taxpayer money like what we just saw in the transportation debacle, and will see soon in the forthcoming health care debacle.
We’ve spent a fortune in our schools indoctrinating a generation with regard to the climate scam. It’s about time we become more circumspect and develop environmental initiatives based on vetted facts and economically sustainable free market solutions. In that regard, I couldn’t agree with you more.
What part of the statement quoted below from our website,that you cited in your original post villifying MNMajority, do you disagree with?
“Mankind has a moral obligation to be a responsible steward of God’s creation for the good of future generations. Protecting and preserving our earth’s ecosystems must remain a high priority for citizens of every nation.
“However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
“Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change.”
Your original post is perplexing. What do you consider to be the definition of a neo-con? And how do you know enough about me personally or anyone at MNMajority.org to suggest that we are all for legislating how people live?
Is it unacceptable that most of us believe deeply that all life is sacred? Is it unacceptable for people to believe that marriage is solely intended to be between a man and a woman? Is faith in God such a reprehensible offense to the progressive mindset you appear to claim.
How are your rights to your opinions somehow superior to my right to my opinion. I happen to respect your opinion although I clearly disagree with it in many areas.
You will either conclude that our effort to drive more public discussion about the climate issue either adds or detracts from our collective representative process. I happen to think the presense of dissent is a good thing.
If you would like to attack us perhaps you would consider using facts instead of obtuse emotional claims. That way we can have a constructive discussion and perhaps do something good for our society as a result.
March 14, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“If you would like to attack us perhaps you would consider using facts instead of obtuse emotional claims”.
“…global warming hysteria people…”
“…a corrupt advisory task force process”.
“…special interest extortion…”
“…indoctrinating a generation with regard to the climate scam”.
“…alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.”
Hysteria, corrupt, extortion, indoctrinating, scam, alarmist agenda, “evangelists”. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice and present some facts instead of “obtuse emotional claims”.
As to this….
“Is it unacceptable that most of us believe deeply that all life is sacred? Is it unacceptable for people to believe that marriage is solely intended to be between a man and a woman? Is faith in God such a reprehensible offense to the progressive mindset you appear to claim”.
No, it is not unacceptable that you believe all life is sacred. No, your beliefs about marriage are not unacceptable so long as you do not legislate that everyone must adhere to your beliefs. I personally do not believe that marriage is solely intended to be between a man and a woman and neither does my church. Marriages performed in our church should have the same legal recognition as those performed in yours. If you do not support same sex marriages……don’t perform them in your church. Just don’t try to use the power of the state to limit our free religious expression. When the state gives preferential consideration to the unions performed in accordance with some religious traditions and rejects those of others, the state limits the ability of the marginalized ordained clergy to freely and fully express their faith. As to your last question……Ann Coulter is wrong; not all liberals are Godless.
April 23, 2008 at 3:16 am
I looked at that ice core article you referenced. You said that the elevated CO2 levels occurred at the point of the Industrial Revolution, but the article states that the elevated levels began 200 yrs ago. If the Industrial Revolution began around 1900, that leaves 100 years unaccounted for. Are you saying that the rise from 1800-1900 was started from campfires? The article also says ‘the increase in CO2 will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous’, and ‘human activity has increased CO2 to well outside the natural range’. The scientist sounded quite sure of himself didn’t he? Beware, he might be looking for research money.
Some scientists suggest that CO2 rises as a result of global warming from such sources as increased solar activity and earth’s cyclical axis wobbling. That is why globalclimatescam.com exists. Maybe you should read it more in depth instead of trying to pigeon hole the authors as neo-con evangelicals. If you want a lesson in sea level changes (the mother of all global warming alarmism), you should read an interview of Dr. Nils-Axel Morner from June 22, 2007. He is from Sweden and as far as I know, not a neo-con.
Just for the record, I am non-religious, not a neo-con, and can give two shits whether a couple guys get married.
April 23, 2008 at 3:21 am
I looked at that ice core article you referenced. You said that the elevated CO2 levels occurred at the point of the Industrial Revolution, but the article states that the elevated levels began 200 yrs ago. If the Industrial Revolution began around 1900, that leaves 100 years unaccounted for. Are you saying that the rise from 1800-1900 was started from campfires? The article also says ‘the increase in CO2 will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous’, and ‘human activity has increased CO2 to well outside the natural range’. The scientist sounded quite sure of himself didn’t he? Beware, he might be looking for research money.
Some scientists suggest that CO2 rises as a result of global warming from such sources as increased solar activity and earth’s cyclical axis wobbling. That is why globalclimatescam.com exists. Maybe you should read it more in depth instead of trying to pigeon hole the authors as neo-con evangelicals. If you want a lesson in sea level changes (the mother of all global warming alarmism), you should read an interview of Dr. Nils-Axel Morner from June 22, 2007. He is from Sweden and as far as I know, not a neo-con.
Just for the record, I am non-religious, not a neo-con, and couldn’t care less whether a couple guys get married.
April 23, 2008 at 3:22 am
Sorry, I tried to get rid of my swear word at the end.
April 23, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Just for the record, Brett, if you do a quick search on Google, you’ll find that the Industrial Revolution started as early as approximately 1750, so the missing hundred years are not missing at all. The Industrial Revolution didn’t start all at once, but spread out from Britain. The same spreading effect would have occurred in the United States, with most of the industry starting on the east coast and spreading west. In Minnesota, the Industrial Revolution was in full swing by the 1880s. Links:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_industrial_revolution_begin
http://www.ecology.com/archived-links/industrial-revolution/index.html
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/core4-8.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
You know what, I don’t want to apologize for having called out the fact that GlobalClimateScam.com is backed by a group that espouses neo-con values. If someone attempts to shut down conversation on something as important as global warming by setting up rules (i.e. let’s not make this an emotional argument) and then goes ahead and breaks the very rules they expect others to follow, that’s a recipe for attempting to manipulate the argument for personal gain and I won’t stand for it. If someone wants to have a sensible conversation about the many possible contributing factors to global warming, including both human-based causes and natural climate fluctuation, I’m all ears.
Just for the record, I’m agnostic, socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed the right to get married only in the churches that allow for same-sex marriages and that the government should only be in the business of civil unions, so that legal and health care and other benefits can be assigned to whatever partner one chooses.
April 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Point taken on the time period of the Industrial Revolution. However, I find it hard to believe that humans during the first hundred years of the Industrial Revolution created such a dramatic increase in CO2 emmissions.
I also agree with your statement that emotional arguments should be avoided in a scientific topic, but it happens on both sides. As an example, the article you referenced used a couple absolute statements that I think a people should be aware of. Advocates of global warming claim that skeptics are all paid off by the oil industry but we never hear what kind of money is being exchanged for supporting the global warming cause. Money will always confuse the issue and it is sad that we will never get a straight answer from the supposedly objective scientific community.
April 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The term “neo-con” really gets tossed around a lot by people who don’t seem to understand it’s definition. Minnesota Majority is, in the “conservative” spectrum, the polar opposite of “neo-conservatism.” We advocate on issues from a traditional conservatism perspective.
April 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm
[...] mother nature, polar icecaps, water shortages | Recently, Brett left a comment under my Which Majority? post that makes a good point. The discussion was about global warming / global climate change and [...]
July 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
Everyone has a right to speak his or her mind. In the open debate for the long-term benefits for the majority of Americans, everyone can understand the majority can represent for at least 90% of the voices of people in a certain area; on the scientific frontiers, most of all statistics reports, researches, surveys, and influences for the term of Global warming are categorized from different aspects to make a conclusion of what causes have been and what causes are hypotheses. Ozone layer, ecosystem changes, changed earth surfaces, and a lot of features, we should put all on a table of what have stood behind the phenomenon of Global warming. I don’t need to bring the details of those changes by human beings for hundreds of years, but we know everything plays a role of a variable in the whole system of environment. Each variable changes, and immediately it leaves an impact to other variables, and the result is something new or unknown must happen.
There are two groups who have opposite opinions on global warming. For economics purposes, global warming can separate the developed world and developing world wider; while for consumers’ benefits, the companies who have quickly applied green technology will move forward and take a significant market in upcoming years; finally, for politics accents, each political party can get citizens’ votes in its agenda. For the environment aspect, scientists, environmentalists, and staffs have more jobs to keep their projects going on to compensate on what human beings consume or took from the environment. We don’t have enough funds and technology to build simulators of nature in each research for our intended goals; but one thing we must believe Global warming is obviously so that each person, no matter his or her religion and political viewpoint, has to do one responsible of reducing greenhouse gases, increasing recycled materials in manufacturing processes, wisely using energy at home, and in public places. Freedom is totally different in a meaning of responsibility. You have a right to do your will, but that will can’t hurt other people, and harm environment directly and indirectly.