Posted by sanityinjection on May 20, 2016
Remember the big pressure campaign a couple of years ago to force the NFL’s Washington Redskins to change their allegedly “offensive” name? President Obama and 50 Democratic Senators proclaimed their support for this “civil rights movement”. And then, as with so many armchair liberal cause celebres, it just seemed to disappear; the professional protesters moved on to “Black Lives Matter” and suddenly the supposed legions of mortally offended Native Americans didn’t seem like such a compelling issue.
Now comes a clue as to why the pressure campaign hasn’t been revived. A new Washington post poll of 500 Native Americans across the country indicates that 9 out of 10 are not offended by the name “Washington Redskins”. 7 out of 10 said the word “redskin” was not offensive in general, and 8 of 10 said they would not be offended if a non-Native American called them by that term. These results mirror the findings of a previous poll in 2004. Naturally, Native American “leaders” continue to reject these poll findings, as will the mostly rich, white, left-wing politicians who were the prime movers behind the whole issue. (Never mind that these same politicans spend virtually no time advocating for the things that Native Americans say they need, like decent schools.)
The whole thing would actually be comical if it weren’t for the giddy participation of the mainstream media in whipping up hysteria to aid in this phony campaign. (In this regard, kudos to the Washington Post, which remains a faint glimmer of some journalistic integrity amongst the sad detritus of formerly respectable left-wing newspapers, for publishing this poll. See also a thoughtful WashPost op-ed on the issue here.) It should be of concern that the sources from which most Americans still get their news are demonstrably more interested in pushing an ideological political agenda than in any kind of factual reporting. You need look no further than the recent New York Times attack piece against Donald Trump, which went to a great deal of effort to characterize Trump as a misogynist based on his pattern of hitting on women as a rich single man. Keep in mind this is the same publication that consistently defended Bill Clinton for sexually harrassing and having sex with women as a rich married man. See Camille Paglia’s excellent destruction of this pathetic propaganda here.
Meanwhile, if sports teams’ use of cliches offensive to Native Americans is the issue, how come there hasn’t been any fuss at all about the Cleveland Indians’ continued use of the “Chief Wahoo” logo? Why hasn’t their trademark been revoked? Answer: Because the Cleveland Indians kissed the ring: Whenever anybody complains, they hide Chief Wahoo for a while, using alternate logos and uniforms, until the subject dies down. This appeases the professional Left, because what they really want is not actual civil rights change so much as acknowledgement of their power and righteousness. Kiss their asses and they’ll let you off with a slap on the wrist; dare to suggest that the emeperor has no clothes, as Redskins owner Dan Snyder has done, and you reap the whirlwind of attacks from their subservient media allies.
The point is not that the Washington Redskins or their owner, a wealthy successful man and organization, are some kind of sob story. The point is the one made so famously by pastor Martin Niemoller. With apologies to him: “First they came for the Washington Redskins, and I said nothing, because I was not a Redskins fan.” One day it’s a sports team. The next day it’s climate change “deniers”. The target changes with the wind, but the tactics are the same. Always ask yourselves: Cui bono? (Who benefits?)
Posted in Domestic News, Politics, Sports | Tagged: Camille Paglia, Cleveland Indians, Donald Trump, hysteria, Media, media bias, Native Americans, New York Times, polls, propaganda, the Left, Washington Post, Washington Redskins | Leave a Comment »
Posted by sanityinjection on January 25, 2010
Ever since those leaked emails surfaced showing British climate scientists deliberately trying to distort data and squash criticism, it seems like more and more cracks continue to appear in the facade of global warming as “settled science”. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change has been forced to admit that one of its assertions – that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 – was not based on solid science. In fact, it was based on one media interview with one scientist, in which that scientist never even used the date 2035.
To make matters worse, it turns out the IPCC knew the item was unsubstantiated, but included it in the report deliberately to frighten Asian countries that get water from the glaciers. They deliberately ignored questions about the claim that were raised when the draft report was issued. This is really the smoking gun that proves what I have been saying all along about a hysteria lobby that is willing to say anything in order to scare people into doing their bidding.
Additionally, we now have proof that the claim that global warming will cause more frequent and stronger natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes is equally without scientific foundation. Much criticized by skeptics when it was dramatically illustrated in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, this turns out to be based on one unpublished report which specifically stated there was insufficient evidence to establish a tie to global warming. So much for rigorously peer-reviewed “settled science.”
In fact, the only “settled science” about global warming is this: Carbon dioxide is a gas which, in sufficient atmospheric quantities, can cause a “greenhouse effect” in which heat becomes trapped. There are other gases, such as methane, that have a stronger greenhouse effect.
It is a long way from that simple science to the conclusion that carbon dioxide produced by industrial sources will inevitably cause an irreversible global warming with catastrophic consequences. You have to get there by starting from a political philosophy that fossil fuels, heavy industry and people who profit from them are bad and should be punished or eliminated. Then you have to ignore the long-term climate records of the earth and evidence of the significant role played by other factors such as solar activity. Follow it up with a healthy dose of deliberate deception and you’ve got yourself a multi-million dollar advocacy industry that promises to provide employment and research grant funding for decades to come by feeding on people’s fear. Nice little recipe, indeed.
How does the story end? Same as the heterosexual AIDS epidemic. When it’s all over, no one shows a shred of remorse for having enthusiastically fed the machine, instead insisting that they were fooled just like everyone else. All the fingers point in a circle, the money gets pocketed, and in a few years there’s a new ManBearPig to start the game all over again.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: 2035, An Inconvenient Truth, carbon dioxide, climate change, global warming, greenhouse effect, Himalayan glaciers, hysteria, IPCC, ManBearPig, natural disasters, settled science | 2 Comments »
Posted by sanityinjection on November 5, 2009
I have argued many times here that the media deliberately hides the profit motive of many in the global warming hysteria industry whose jobs, government grants, or investments are financially dependent on scaring people into going green. Thus, I view it as highly significant that the New York Times – of all publications, the most rigidly supportive of the global warming agenda – has run a piece detailing the ways in which global warming prophet Al Gore stands to profit from his efforts to panic the American people into drastic action on carbon emissions.
I won’t repeat all the details here, but suffice it to say, Gore has invested heavily in businesses that would benefit from the regulatory and legislative reforms he is pushing. When questioned on the matter, Gore usually responds with anger and annoyance that his motives should be called into question.
In fairness to Gore, I do believe he is telling the truth when he says that his advocacy for action on climate change is not primarily motivated by financial gain. Gore is a fanatic, and money is not what motivates fanatics. I believe that Gore sees this issue as the centerpiece of his legacy as a public figure – he wants to be remembered forever as the man who saved the world from global warming, and that means much more to him than money.
I also agree with Gore’s insistence that he has a right to invest in anything he wants just like anybody else. What I don’t agree with, though, is that Gore has never registered as a lobbyist despite the fact that he is arguably the most visible lobbyist in America. Nor does Gore believe that he has any obligation to disclose his financial interests before telling us all about our moral duty to save the planet. These things create the appearance of impropriety, and Gore as a longtime public servant should know that the appearance of impropriety is sometimes almost as bad as actual impropriety.
I commend the New York Times for its rare decision to train its magnifying glass on one of its own sacred cows for a change. Who knows, maybe someday they will even print an objective analysis of the Obamessiah?
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Al Gore, climate change, financial disclosure, global warming, hysteria, investments, lobbyist, New York Times, profit | Leave a Comment »
Posted by sanityinjection on October 26, 2009
Amid all the discussion about climate change, one point that is made frequently by the global warming hysteria lobby is this: The earth will soon reach a “tipping point” or “point of no return”, at which time the amount of damage that has been done by man to the earth’s ability to self-regulate its climate will be beyond the possibility of repair and our planet will be irrevocably doomed.
That’s a pretty effective argument in favor of taking hasty action without thinking it through, because there’s no time. (You may recall a similar argument being used when the economic stimulus package was rammed through Congress.) This is an emergency, so just do what we tell you and don’t think, we are told.
But in fact, if you *do* stop and think, the argument makes little sense. We are being asked to simultaneously believe that 1) Man is so powerful a force for change that we can easily overwhelm ecological systems that ran for billions of years before we arrived, and 2) Man is not powerful enough a force that we can reverse the effects that we ourselves supposedly have caused.
It is in this context that I offer you the inspiring story of the resurrection of the Aral Sea. For those not well versed in geography, the Aral Sea was at one time the fourth-largest inland sea in the world, located smack in the middle of Central Asia. However, the Soviets diverted the waters that fed the sea for irrigation, creating a man-made desert and destroying the area which used to depend on fishing.
In recent years, however, part of the Sea is coming back and with it the fishing industry, thanks to a dedicated program of environmental reconstruction including water diversion. There is still a long way to go, since not all of the Sea’s neighbors are cooperating. But the instructive point is that the rate at which the damage is being reversed is faster than the rate at which it was caused. In just three years the total fish catch has risen from 52 tons to 2,000 tons!
Al Gore’s crowd will object that the example isn’t valid because the Sea never disappeared completely (only about 90% of it vanished), so it wasn’t necessary to start from scratch. True – but our climate isn’t 90% destroyed, either. They will also complain that the Aral Sea project is much too small to provide relevant lessons for global climate change. But in fact, the AP article explains how both the death of the Sea and its rebirth have had a significant effect on the local climate. And by normal standards, it’s not small – we are talking about an original sea area the size of Ireland and a surrounding climate zone bigger than that.
What I take from this is that even *if* anthropogenic causes are exacerbating global warming to a degree that will ultimately be problematic – and so far the evidence suggests otherwise – even then, the suggestion that we must hurry up and act NOW without calculating the potential impact of our actions is not supported by the actual experience we have with environmental restoration and climate change. You wouldn’t sign a contract without having read it, but they would have our legislators sign environmental legislation without undertsanding what it will do either environmentally or economically.
Ultimately, it’s independent thought, and not runaway global warming, that the hysteria lobby fears most.
Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: Aral Sea, climate change, enivronmental legislation, global warming, hysteria, point of no return, restoration, tipping point | 3 Comments »
Posted by sanityinjection on August 10, 2009
Kudos to my friend Jason over at The Western Experience for helping to put the doomsday predictions of the global warming hysteria cult into perspective. He shares with us a number of similar environmental doomsday predictions from the year 1970 that didn’t come true:
It’s not fashionable nowadays to recall that 40 years ago, a number of climate scientists were sure that the Earth was heading for a new Ice Age.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: climate change, doomsday, global warming, hysteria, ice age | 2 Comments »
Posted by sanityinjection on May 27, 2009
A quick example of how important it is to read articles concerning climate change carefully. The media is fully invested in helping to sensationalize and panic the public around the world. Thus, they do their best to make things sound as dire as possible, even when they are not.
Case in point is this article from Reuters, which reports on the possible consequences of the continued melting of the Greenland ice cap on sea levels for the northeastern cities of North America:
The key is that the sea level rise and its associated negative consequence will happen only if the Greenland ice continues to melt at present and would take place over several decades. The story doesn’t empahsize that, though. If you don’t read carefully, you might well think that Boston and New York will be underwater within years.
In fact, it is only right near the end of the story that the author rather quietly admits that the scientist who made these findings considers it possible but “unlikely” that current melt rates will continue for the next 50 years. In other words, the whole story is based on an extreme scenario rather than what the scientist actually expects to happen. Because it makes for a much more exciting story.
Which would be no big deal, if it were just one story. But what I’ve just illustrated for you has occurred over and over again at major news sources over the last several years. Most people are not going to take the time (and quite frankly, can’t be expected to) to critically analyze every news story they hear on this issue. So the drumbeat of hysteria has its desired effect: if you hear something enough, eventually you start to believe it, whether it’s true or not. Call it the “Al Gore” effect.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Al Gore effect, climate change, global warming, Greenland ice cap, hysteria, sea level rise, sensationalism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by sanityinjection on February 9, 2009
The global warming panic industry is a little bit like a stampede of animals. Once it gets going, it just rushes headlong forward, with no ability to re-assess or examine new scientific evidence, such as the confirmed cooling trend that has been observed in recent years.
I submit for your consideration two recent “news” articles. The first is from that shining example of quality journalism, the Boston Globe:
Globe “correspondent” Emily Anthes presents us with a remarkable example of cognitive dissonance – which is when you know one thing to be true but continue to behave as if it weren’t. She cites the sad example of the Australian kid who was so panicked about global warming that he refused to drink water. Now, a normal person would conclude that the poor kid was driven to hysteria by a relentless avalanche of media hype about global warming. Instead, Anthes actually argues that global warming itself is to blame, and suggests that the way to combat such psychoses is to all band together and work harder to fight global warming.
Are you kidding me?
Article number two is Agence-France-Press’ take on the wildfires raging in Victoria, Australia:
AFP manages to avoid saying that global warming *caused* the fires, which we are now learning may have been set deliberately. But the focus of the article is the insistence that global warming is making the fires worse than they normally would have been. This amazing assertion, supported by statements from panic industry professionals, comes despite facts stated right in the article: 1) Australia has a long history of really bad bushfires that are natural for the type of climate and flora that prevail there; 2) The assertion that the fires were worse than usual because of the government’s failure to properly manage the forest.
The article also says that Australia recently had a “once-in-a-century” heatwave that contributed to the extent of the fires. Well, if it’s only happened once in a century, it can’t be laid at the door of global warming. Especially since world temperatures have been *cooling* for the last several years.
The article then tells us that the number of high-risk bushfire days in Australia could *double* by 2050 – under a worst-case global warming scenario – then cites Greenpeace as if it were some sort of scientific authority on climate change.
Seems to me that the Australian bushfires aren’t burning nearly as out of control as global warming hysteria.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Australia, bushfires, climate change, Emily Anthes, global warming, hysteria, Media, panic, Victoria | Leave a Comment »