The Green Agenda

[lukin]

The book "Green Hell" by Steven Milloy does a great job of explaining the goal of green activists. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what is really happening with all this eco-propaganda we are continually fed.

[waldo]

The book "Green Hell" by Steven Milloy does a great job of explaining the goal of green activists. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what is really happening with all this eco-propaganda we are continually fed.

speaking of agendas, yours seems perfectly clear

perhaps we should set a few points of reference - hey?

sourcewatch on Steven Milloy

disinformation database entry for Steven Milloy

carry on

[lukin]

speaking of agendas, yours seems perfectly clear

perhaps we should set a few points of reference - hey?

sourcewatch on Steven Milloy

disinformation database entry for Steven Milloy

carry on

When a person exposes the greens for what they really are, then they're bound to be the victim of gutter sniping. Greens complain about big-oil, however the greens are out to make big bucks at the expense of the average citizen.

[waldo]

When a person exposes the greens for what they really are, then they're bound to be the victim of gutter sniping. Greens complain about big-oil, however the greens are out to make big bucks at the expense of the average citizen.

gutter sniping? Milloy's history, background and affiliations speak for themselves... pointing them out is simply factual accounting - hardly sniping (from wherever).

I don't necessarily doubt you could actually find (rather label) some example to fall into your "agenda", but you seem content to simply drop a name/book reference... and to make grandiose statements without qualification.

[Pliny]

speaking of agendas, yours seems perfectly clear

perhaps we should set a few points of reference - hey?

carry on

Milloy may have an agenda but you cannot deny yours.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/12-center-for-media--democracy

http://www.desoggybog.com/

I suppose we could trace back all your sources to George Soros, eh Waldo?

[waldo]

Milloy may have an agenda but you cannot deny yours.

I suppose we could trace back all your sources to George Soros, eh Waldo?

don't forsake the "pope", Pliny!

after a cursory look, I'm quite impressed that your linked satire site rails against DeSmogBlog... on free speech grounds! I mean, really... c'mon... how dare they track/tally/account the actions and associations - that's just not right, dammit!

[Shakeyhands]

I was sure this thread was going to be a racist rail against green skinned people...

[Pliny]

don't forsake the "pope", Pliny!

If Al Gore is the Pope, then who would George Soros be?

[waldo]

If Al Gore is the Pope, then who would George Soros be?

your call Pliny... after all... it's your obsession!

Time's a-wasting though. Let's get Pope Gore on this.

squawk! Pope Gore! squawk! Pope Gore! squawk! Pope Gore!

What's the latest from the Pope?

I imagine like your poster child Pope Gore,

... Pope Al Gore and The Book of An Inconvenient Truth? Yuk! Yuk!

Al Gore still the infallible Pope?

...such as presented by Pope Gore

It will take some time before you get the word from Pope Gore.

...from your High priests and Pope Gore.

[Shady]

Is there a thread in which waldo won't take his McCarthy-like tactics to?

This is ridiculous. Any time an opinion is cited in which waldo disagrees with, he goes right to character assassination. Right to his enemies list and alarmist database. It's gotten to the point of comical!

[lukin]

speaking of agendas, yours seems perfectly clear

perhaps we should set a few points of reference - hey?

sourcewatch on Steven Milloy

disinformation database entry for Steven Milloy

carry on

Read your links waldo. Is source watch like wikipedia where anyone can write anything. The greens hate Milloy because he exposes their doubletalk.

[Shady]

Is source watch like wikipedia

Great observation. Here's the best aspect of waldo's stupid link.

You don't need any special credentials to participate

Source Watch

[waldo]

Read your links waldo. Is source watch like wikipedia where anyone can write anything. The greens hate Milloy because he exposes their doubletalk.

why yes... yes, it is. Of course, CMD highlights that persons posting are subject to considerations of liability under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Certainly, if you have concerns about the veracity of the sourcewatch account for Steve Milloy, you should seek recourse. As for desmogblog, you'll need to take up any concerns you have with the blog owners/writers. Good luck with your pursuit to set the record 'straight' on Steve Milloy!

now, although I already pointed out your having made unqualified grandiose statements, do you have something concrete for discussion... something that would help qualify... your agenda?

[Jack Weber]

I was sure this thread was going to be a racist rail against green skinned people...

I assume Lictor has a theory on the Green Skinned Menace!!!

[lukin]

why yes... yes, it is. Of course, CMD highlights that persons posting are subject to considerations of liability under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Certainly, if you have concerns about the veracity of the sourcewatch account for Steve Milloy, you should seek recourse. As for desmogblog, you'll need to take up any concerns you have with the blog owners/writers. Good luck with your pursuit to set the record 'straight' on Steve Milloy!

now, although I already pointed out your having made unqualified grandiose statements, do you have something concrete for discussion... something that would help qualify... your agenda?

So I see you haven't formed your OWN opinion of Milloy as you are just going by what you read by some eco-activist who is upset at Milloy for exposing the green agenda for what it really is.

[Shady]

So I see you haven't formed your OWN opinion of Milloy as you are just going by what you read by some eco-activist who is upset at Milloy for exposing the green agenda for what it really is.

Bingo.

[waldo]

why yes... yes, it is. Of course, CMD highlights that persons posting are subject to considerations of liability under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Certainly, if you have concerns about the veracity of the sourcewatch account for Steve Milloy, you should seek recourse. As for desmogblog, you'll need to take up any concerns you have with the blog owners/writers. Good luck with your pursuit to set the record 'straight' on Steve Milloy!

now, although I already pointed out your having made unqualified grandiose statements, do you have something concrete for discussion... something that would help qualify... your agenda?

So I see you haven't formed your OWN opinion of Milloy as you are just going by what you read by some eco-activist who is upset at Milloy for exposing the green agenda for what it really is.

well... buddy... I simply work with what you give me - which is nothing more than you referencing Milloy's book and then making your (continued) unqualified grandiose statements. Do you have something... anything... to actually discuss? Something... anything... that will help qualify - your agenda?

I encourage you to "right the wrong"... to correct the "injustice perpetrated upon Steve Milloy" - simply go update his wiki page (just be sure to provide citations - hey? ). As for an opinion on Steve Milloy, your OP certainly hasn't brought him to my attention for the first time... he's well known across many disciplines... why... he showed up not long ago in another recent Shady practices influenced MLW thread as the source for that fallacious, blustering piece of Faux News slime concerning the Gulf Oil spill and the Jones Act. In any case, perhaps you could at least provide a semblance of clarification, particularly in that, as I said, Milloy's handiwork cuts across many disciplines... just exactly what is an "eco-activist", and just how do you class individuals that question/oppose Milloy's handiwork that resides outside whatever you classify as "eco-activism"?

[lukin]

well... buddy... I simply work with what you give me - which is nothing more than you referencing Milloy's book and then making your (continued) unqualified grandiose statements. Do you have something... anything... to actually discuss? Something... anything... that will help qualify - your agenda?

I encourage you to "right the wrong"... to correct the "injustice perpetrated upon Steve Milloy" - simply go update his wiki page (just be sure to provide citations - hey? ). As for an opinion on Steve Milloy, your OP certainly hasn't brought him to my attention for the first time... he's well known across many disciplines... why... he showed up not long ago in another recent Shady practices influenced MLW thread as the source for that fallacious, blustering piece of Faux News slime concerning the Gulf Oil spill and the Jones Act. In any case, perhaps you could at least provide a semblance of clarification, particularly in that, as I said, Milloy's handiwork cuts across many disciplines... just exactly what is an "eco-activist", and just how do you class individuals that question/oppose Milloy's handiwork that resides outside whatever you classify as "eco-activism"?

What did Milloy write in the book that I mentioned, do you disagree with so much? Please don't refer to some book review. Please read the book for yourself and form your own opinion.

[waldo]

What did Milloy write in the book that I mentioned, do you disagree with so much? Please don't refer to some book review. Please read the book for yourself and form your own opinion.

in your posts, to this point, you've not specifically referenced anything within Milloy's book... which didn't stop you from mouthing off such platitudes as "green agenda", "green activists", "eco-propaganda", "eco-activists", etc. Really, c'mon... the book hasn't even factored since you appear to have strong reservations about actually discussing anything concrete, about actually mentioning anything within the supposed book. I mean, I guess there's a book... you say there is

[lukin]

in your posts, to this point, you've not specifically referenced anything within Milloy's book... which didn't stop you from mouthing off such platitudes as "green agenda", "green activists", "eco-propaganda", "eco-activists", etc. Really, c'mon... the book hasn't even factored since you appear to have strong reservations about actually discussing anything concrete, about actually mentioning anything within the supposed book. I mean, I guess there's a book... you say there is

You're out to lunch if you don't believe there is a green ec0-agenda. look at how the Rainforest Action Network targets and brainwashes children to believe that the Earth is dying. RAN accomplishes this through teachers who are members of their organization. School kids are never taught that there are two sides to this debate. You do believe there are two sides to the climate debate, don't you waldo?

"The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up

with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,

water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these

dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through

changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.

The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Club of Rome,

premier environmental think-tank,

consultants to the United Nations

Edited July 22, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

lukin - welcome aboard! A strong, overt, “new world order”, conspiratorial posting angle has been missing in MLW climate change related threads for some time… other than the occasional Pliny ramblings.

obviously, you didn’t need to strike up a new thread simply to offer a book recommendation. Although it took a bit of prodding, clarity has surfaced. Although you didn’t explicitly define your use of the terms “eco-activist… eco-activism” (as I requested), it’s clear you associate them, along with your use of the phrasings, "green agenda", "green activists" and "eco-propaganda", to what you refer to as the “climate debate”.

thanks for coming out!

[Keepitsimple]

You do believe there are two sides to the climate debate, don't you waldo?

I doubt you'd ever get a straight answer but I believe he/she would consider the answer to be "No".

Edited July 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[lukin]

lukin - welcome aboard! A strong, overt, “new world order”, conspiratorial posting angle has been missing in MLW climate change related threads for some time… other than the occasional Pliny ramblings.

obviously, you didn’t need to strike up a new thread simply to offer a book recommendation. Although it took a bit of prodding, clarity has surfaced. Although you didn’t explicitly define your use of the terms “eco-activist… eco-activism” (as I requested), it’s clear you associate them, along with your use of the phrasings, "green agenda", "green activists" and "eco-propaganda", to what you refer to as the “climate debate”.

thanks for coming out!

I never mentioned New World Order in any of my posts. Is the Club of Rome a make - believe entity? Some of the quotes from members of that group are downright scary. The Green Agenda started in the 70's. Waldo, you can't properly critique, like you have, a book without reading it.

"We need to get some broad based support,

to capture the public's imagination...

So we have to offer up scary scenarios,

make simplified, dramatic statements

and make little mention of any doubts...

Each of us has to decide what the right balance

is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,

lead author of many IPCC reports

Edited July 22, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

lukin - welcome aboard! A strong, overt, “new world order”, conspiratorial posting angle has been missing in MLW climate change related threads for some time… other than the occasional Pliny ramblings.

obviously, you didn’t need to strike up a new thread simply to offer a book recommendation. Although it took a bit of prodding, clarity has surfaced. Although you didn’t explicitly define your use of the terms “eco-activist… eco-activism” (as I requested), it’s clear you associate them, along with your use of the phrasings, "green agenda", "green activists" and "eco-propaganda", to what you refer to as the “climate debate”.

thanks for coming out!

I never mentioned New World Order in any of my posts. Is the Club of Rome a make - believe entity? Some of the quotes from members of that group are downright scary. The Green Agenda started in the 70's. Waldo, you can't properly critique, like you have, a book without reading it.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,

lead author of many IPCC reports

you reek of conspiracy… other than you offering a recommendation on your OPs referenced book, it’s not factored into the ensuing discussion – at all. You’ve not quoted from it and you’ve not spoken specifically to it… you’ve simply recommended it. I challenged you on the background/associations of its author; particularly as you offered up nothing specific about/from the book… instead, feeling compelled to offer up your broad based, unqualified and unsubstantiated, platitudes.

the latest quote you offer is perhaps emblematic of your ‘agenda’, as much as it speaks to the broader failings at work. It’s also timely given this weeks passing of its author… one of the most ethical of climate scientists, Stephen Schneider.

yours is simply a long standing parrot of a completely distorted and out of context (now quite dated) quote – one that Schneider countered directly. Of course, as is the way, once the original distortion and specious design has been crafted, its out there… freely available for those intent on casting doubt and uncertainty to revel in, to perpetuate… those, apparently, like you. I doubt you’ll bother comparing the words in your distorted quotation to Schneider's actual words and context, per the following American Physical News 1996 article:

The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed to me in the APS News article:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need

[

Scientists should consider stretching the truth

]

to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have

. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest

. I hope that means being both.”

Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats. Their “evidence” comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, almost always - like Simon – omitting the last line and the phrase “double ethical bind.” They also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author’s views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn. What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbitecommunications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues. I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered.

[lukin]

The media constantly harps on citizens the evils of "big-oil". However, "big-green" outfits stand to profit billions at the expense of the average citizen. Waldo, you can go through life with your head in the sand, but I am tired of millionaires/billionaires like Al Gore telling me I have to downscale my modest living to save the earth, while guys like him, Richard Branson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other jet-setting hypocrites live a life of luxury while polluting the earth at much faster rate than average folks.

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.

Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,

we will be doing the right thing in terms of

economic and environmental policy."

- Timothy Wirth,

President of the UN Foundation

Edited July 22, 2010 by lukin