Image thanks to Andri Krychok
Who knew Nigel Calder’s father was a skeptical reporter who was drawn into writing war time propaganda to help the Brits in World War II? Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist (back before it became Non Scientist), and author of The Chilling Stars, is one of the few science journalists I really admire. So I was delighted when readers here told me Calder had started his own blog, and very interested to read a recent piece by him describing the parallels between World War II propaganda and official Climate Science gloss productions.
My story was about a discovery in the physics of the weather. To find anything comparable you have to go back to the 18th Century. That was when the postmaster of Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin by name, flew a kite in a thunderstorm. He proved that lightning is just a big electric spark. To be precise, he described how to do the experiment, and let the French try it first. They lived to tell the tale, so Franklin repeated it for himself. A very prudent postmaster.
In 1996, in Copenhagen, the climate physicist Henrik Svensmark made another discovery just as amazing. He found that the everyday clouds we see in the sky take their orders from the Sun and the stars. I wrote a book about it, called The Manic Sun. Nobody paid much attention, but the scientific evidence went on piling up and last year Henrik and I together published a second book called The Chilling Stars.
Arrange things so it’s easier for others to agree with you
I mentioned leaflets. Billions of them were scattered on German cities and on the front lines. One of the best of these paper weapons, so my Dad told me, was a pamphlet written by a doctor explaining to German troops how to fake illnesses so they’d not have to fight. Rule number one: pretend to be desperate to get back into action. Rule number two: report the symptoms as explained in the booklet, but pretend you’ve no idea what disease they might represent. It was so effective that the Germans translated the pamphlet into English and redirected it at British and American troops.
Although the malingerers’ handbook told no direct lies, it fell in the category of ungentlemanly behaviour, which was Foreign Office parlance for dirty tricks. Now you might not think a fine fellow like our Nobel peace prize winner Al Gore would ever resort to dirty tricks. Well think again.
An early event in the politicization of climate science was a US Senate hearing organised by Al Gore in 1988. It was for his Svengali, or Savonarola if you prefer, Dr James Hansen of NASA. On US public television last year, a colleague of Gore’s confessed what happened. I quote from the transcript of Senator Timothy Wirth.
We called the weather bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. … So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. … What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows – I will admit that, right – so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. … The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving his remarkable testimony.
That was when Hansen claimed, 20 years ago mark you, that global warming was already large enough to ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.
Gagging the opposition
In wartime most newspapers here were pretty passive. It was patriotic, as they saw it, to toe the official line. But the Evening Standard and the Daily Mirror were critical of the conduct of the war, so their editors were simply conscripted into the army. When Ritchie Calder reported the opening stages of the Blitz on London, in the Daily Herald, he complained about bureaucratic muddles that often left survivors uncared for, without food, water or medical attention. That counted as giving comfort to the enemy. The government shut him up by shanghai-ing him into Political Warfare.
Gagging the opposition isn’t possible in peacetime, is it? You’d be surprised. I know two American solar physicists who have been warned that they’ll lose their university jobs if they go on publicly claiming that the Sun drives climate change. When Danish TV broadcast a film sceptical about the manmade global warming story, a senior government official in Copenhagen told the producer that he’d never work for Danish television again. Here, the botanist David Bellamy, well known as an environmental broadcaster, was simply dropped from the airwaves by the BBC when he rashly mentioned his doubts about global warming.
Evidently uneasy about the attitude, the BBC newscaster Jeremy Paxman wrote in 2007, “People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that global warming is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.” The BBC Trust tried to intervene. In a hard-hitting report on “safeguarding impartiality”, it singled out climate change as an area of special concern. “Dissenters,” it said, “cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who should not be given a platform by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view.”
And glory be, when that report came out, the BBC granted a few dreadful people like Henrik Svensmark and me, two minutes here, three minutes there, to explain why we dissented from the manmade global warming story. But that lasted only a week, before the normal partiality returned.
Read the full fascinating account at Nigel’s Blog Calderup. There is much more than I’ve posted here about what the media won’t cover today, as well as stories from the war (do tell him I sent you). If you are a history buff, it’ll be especially appealling.
Thanks to Bernd and Ross for letting me know about Nigels Blog
This could be an amusing parallel if the deprivation, suffering & subsequent mortality which will come from denying the less developed nations access to energy, particularly in Africa, was not a looming reality.
Too many people (voters & politicians) these days live in some kind of “lala/magic pudding” land. The media tells you that you need something ( such as a designer morality & conscience) for a lifestyle. You come to believe that it is therefore your right to have it, but there should be no real cost to you.
Just look forward to your next election when some smiling polly is standing up there spruiking “but wait, there’s MORE!” VOTE ONE – ALBERT PUDDIN’ !!!
20
Thanks for the heads up on Nigel’s blog Joanne. What a great speech 🙂
20
The CAGW is nothing more than an attempt by the far left to control every aspect of our lives. No energy equals no life. It really is just that simple. If they can control the energy supply through cap and trade they can control every aspect of the economy as well as every aspect of our lives, right down to the breath we exhale. The greens glorify the peasant lifestyle. You know, the good old days? The truth is, these are the good old days. Cheap energy has made possible virtually all of todays modern conveniences and people are living longer than ever before. Well, at least in the developed world they are. The people in the poorer parts of the world who live without electricity and clean running water are one step shy of the dark ages. For them, life is short and brutish. I want to see Al Gore and the rest of his ilk live the peasant lifestyle for a year and then tell us exactly how much of their western lifestyle they are willing to sacrifice to appease Gaia.
It has, is and always will be about the money! People are beginning to pay attention as the pandering politicians try to pick their pockets. I look forward to the day when Gore and the rest of the warmanistas are broke because of judgements obtained against them and doing life without the possibility of parole for their crimes against humanity. I do not believe in the death penalty per se but I would have to bite my tongue until it bled just to work up a tear for Gore and his cronies if they were ever forced to pay with their lives for the dastardly deeds they have perpetrated against the human race!
As a homo sapien I am proud to be at the top of the food chain. Humans are more important than any other animal, global warming is the greatest and most expensive fraud ever concocted and as Shakespeare once said, “The truth will out.”
Live long, prosper and enjoy what remains of this interglacial!
10
We have a new series in 6 exciting parts coming up soon on “Our ABC” about redesigning cities. Blah blah blah.
The promo says that its been done before in London so it can be done again.
I’ll ASSUME for now they are wittering on about things like building sewers (a truly transformational event), but fairly straightforward if you have pots of money and a bloody great road down the middle of which you can dig a big hole. Turning cities of millions of people and a built infrastructure of billions of $ (or pounds) into something else, and doing it quickly and cheaply is just fairy-land.
I really do wonder what planet these idiots are on. I don’t think I’ll be able to watch it when it comes on, I’ll get so annoyed I’ll be wanting to throw things at the TV (a common event during the evening news, so I’ve stopped watching that also).
10
Good gear. I checked dear old Aunty’s website yesterday, and thought of joining an online “forum” about global warming, but didn’t bother- no moderation, no names or even tags, and huge outpourings of propaganda and abusive vitriol. What a joke.
ken
10
Speaking of gagging the opposition, I bet few have heard of this by Christopher Horner of the CEI
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/22/survey-says-americans-not-worried-about-global-warming/
10
whoops WRONG LINK above
here is the correct one
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/bp-is-asking-for-its-punishment%E2%80%94literally/
10
Hmm translated handbooks to spread propaganda? Sounds familiar.
10
Just think, Matt, your comments are the only ones that seem to accumulate the “thumbs down” comment evaluation counter – and earning enough of them, your comments are hidden from view unless someone has the stomach to look to read them. (I have a sinking feeling that few people do.)
I think that feature was put in place specifically with you in mind!
10
Matt –yes the handbook is called the IPCC Report.
10
@ Brian G Valentine # 9
Brian, it is always good to see you post and I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.
I understand how irritating MattB can be but MattB is still entitled to his opinion even though he never substantiates anything he says with regard to objective third party empirical evidence. When you get to be my age there are three things that are really important; good food, good beer and a healthy bowel movement. Having MattB around to use as an intellectual punching bag is just the icing on the cake!
Allow me to demonstrate.
@ MattB # 8
Once again you have demonstrated amazing ignorance when it comes to your inability to reason logically and debate intelligently. You have often posted that you are quite comfortable accepting the authority of the climate scientist. If I were to google the term “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw your picture posted along with the definition. Jo has been both tolerant and compassionate in regards to your often bizarre rantings. Yet, you write, “Hmm translated handbooks to spread propaganda? Sounds familiar.” What a cheap shot! You never produce any empirical evidence to support any argument or claim you make and you have stated in no uncertain terms that you cannot or will not do so. Have you no shame? Have you no decency? If you can show by the weight of evidence that Jo’s handbooks contain error please do so. Perhaps you should change your screen name to the Artful Dodger!
10
@ MattB # 8
Just to be fair regarding what I wrote at # 11 I thought I should cite evidence to support my claim that MattB basis his beliefs on an appeal to authority (consensus.)
From the MattB files.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:21 am
“Sheesh when a guy gets hounded just for asking a question you know the blog is just a bunch of crazy loons. Thanks for the ref Humbug.
Eddy I prefer my bets of Trading Places denominations. I’ll
hand over my $1 as and when Courtney’s ramblings become consensus – as you know that is how I judge things.”
Yep, “ramblings become consensus-as you know that is how I judge things.” By your own words you have been judged!
10
11 June: CO2 Group Expands into New Zealand
Australian environmental services company CO2 Group Limited (CO2 Group, ASX:COZ) will expand into New Zealand in June this year, the company’s first overseas venture.
The expansion of CO2 Group services outside Australia allows it to extend its commercial footprint into international carbon markets: the first Australian dedicated carbon forest sink planting firm to do so…
CO2 Group has formed a partnership with Māori commercial development company Tukia Group, and New Zealand based investment and advisory firm Carbon & Energy Partners (CEP).
The partnership will trade in New Zealand under the name “CO2 New Zealand”.
CO2 Group holds a 45 percent interest in CO2 New Zealand, with Tukia Group and CEP holding the remaining 55 percent..
http://www.businesses.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:co2-group-expands-into-new-zealand-&catid=38:business-news&Itemid=71
thought this CSIRO-connected individual was worth noting:
C02 Australia: Our People
Dr Chris Mitchell, Executive Director Corporate Development
Prior to joining CO2 Group full-time Chris was Foundation Director of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research – a partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology and was CEO of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting. He is a member of the Victorian Climate Change Minister’s Reference Council on Climate Change Adaptation and was recently appointed to CSIRO’s Environment and Natural Resources Sector Advisory Committee…
http://www.co2australia.com.au/?sectionID=6695&pageID=6697
10
Also,in fairness to MattB he has also defended Jo as this post by Matt from Deltoid demonstrates.
Maybe it is because we are both from Perth Western Australia but I take an interest in Jo Nova. She used to host a kids science TV show a number of years back, and has filled in on JJJ’s science show when the great Dr Karl Krusilnisky (SP?) was away (which is the national youth radio network non-commercial radio station so indie cred etc).
From what I believe she also used to run Australia’s #1 University (ANU)’s Science education roadshow (Questacon Science Circus I think)…
She is a great public speaker and makes her quid doing science lectures/expos for corporations etc amongst other things.
For the life of me all I can see is a genuine science person who has looked at all the facts and just come up with a different conclusion – one which I think is wrong btw.
you should have a look at her site and some of the threads… she asks for JUST ONE peer reviewed article that genuinely gives evidence of CO2 causing global warming… and no one has one it seems:) Of course what would she accept as evidence is the key point, as she dismisses models, and the earth warming (as anyting could cause the warming where is the EVIDENCE linking to CO2).
I’ve said it before… underestimate a well credentialled science communicator who is an attractive blonde at our peril! She is not some sort of Monckton crank. She is also presenting at Heartland (for what it is worth).
Just my 2c worth.
Posted by: MattB | February 11, 2009 7:54 PM
Honestly Matt, I just do not understand you!
10
Pat @ 13. I suppose this is what some people in NZ are referring to as ” carbon farming “. This is where the nonsense has lead us to.
NB. The reafforestation they are referring to is just a continuation of major planting of trees that started in the 1930’s depression.
( At once stage that area had the largest “man made” forest in the world ). It has been harvested and replanted at least twice since. so it is nothing new except these guys will milk the carbon credit scam.
10
“MattB”………
TRIED AND SENTENCED UNDER “RULE 303”!
10
MattB,
You seem content to believe that the climate system exhibits net positive feedback because you’ve been told so. You seem intelligent enough to realize that if the system exhibits negative feedback, an intrinsic 1C is not amplified to 3C, but attenuated to below 1C. If this is true, the entire basis of your belief system crumbles away, which I can understand will make it hard for you to accept from me or any other CAGW skeptic. I suggest you go to a CAGW friendly blog and ask for the specific evidence that supports net positive feedback. Please make an effort to actually find the underlying, raw data. The climate sensitivity is exceedingly easy to measure from the dynamic response of the climate to seasonally varying solar energy as reported by weather satellite data, which despite it’s flaws, is far better than the highly selected, adjusted, homogenized, averaged and curve fit data supporting hockey stick reconstructions. Oddly enough, the data I’ve used to conclusively show there is net negative feedback acting on the climate was produced by Hansen’s GISS organization (ISCCP).
In addition to illustrating net negative feedback the data also supports a falling global temperature trend. While the temperature data suffers from an even changing radiative transfer model and several calibration issues, the water content (precipitation) and cloud coverage data is far more consistently measured and reported. Both of these show a downward global trend over the last 25 years. This is more consistent with decreasing global temperatures than increasing temperatures. Corroborating evidence comes from the ice cores where the ice age layers are far thinner than the interglacial layers, indicating that as the temperature decreases, precipitation decreases.
George
10
Mattb,
Sorry, the link dialog dropped the http:// in the previous post. The reference demonstrating net negative feedback, reduced precipitation, reduced clouds and which quantifiably measures the climate sensitivity is here.
George
10
This is old-ish news but such a good read….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
Plenty can argue back and forth, until teh cows come home and long after, but until the IPPC and cohorots start showing some genuine investigation into the ‘other’ possible (probable) effects, its all pointelss political semantics verging on religious fervour.
Holding a discussion with a CAGW alarmist is like telling someone I’ve just cut the throats of a bag full of little kitty cats and set fire to their favorite footy jumper.
And yet it still irks me to read and hear about the Australian contributions to the mis-direction re: Darwin (csiro, bom, etal) temperature adjustment trickery. ahh!!
Where are more of the Kinnimont histroy files!!!
10
Of course it sounds familiar after all Real Climate, De Smog etc were set up by public relation firms for just that purpose. The amount of propaganda – commentary and visual, without supporting evidence – regarding AGW from governments, environmental groups,the MSM and AGW blogs far outweighs anything on the skeptic side. For years the AGW movement had its own way and now there is minimal publicity for skeptical viewpoints the AGW reaction is to whine and cry foul. Rather than addressing the serious issues that people have with the AGW hypothesis discussions center on how to counter the nonexistent PR campaign by fossil fuel companies with more focused pro AGW propaganda. This will be a waste of time “it’s worse than we thought” doesn’t work any more. The reason that more people are skeptical has nothing to do with PR but rather the lack of empirical evidence, the failure of the more extreme claims and a recalcitrant mother nature.
As you are sure that the Skeptics Handbook is propaganda it should be simple for you to debunk the central theme – the missing hot spot. Rather than a gratuitous one liner how about you address that issue, it should lead to an interesting discussion.
10
Allen the Hotspot is I feel well covered in numerous sources, including this website, and there is a difference of opinion depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Most people sit on my side of the fence but I’m completely comfortable that one day science may make me sit on your side (that is if those on your side can handle being at one with the mainstream… you may have to find a new fence?)
10
Matt the gap between the pro and anti AGW groups is narrowing hence the need for additional propaganda by the AGW camp. I think that a few cold years, which seems increasingly probable, will see the balance swing in favor of the skeptics. As I agree with the science in general and accept that C02 has an effect, although minimal, I feel that the science is with me anyway.
I believe the scientists promoting 3 degree per doubling and worse are highly politicized minority group with too much influence and who are agenda rather than science driven. As I am not an ultra conservative conspiracy theorist if it turns out that I am wrong I will have no trouble accepting it but as all of my fences are electrified I will not be straddling one regardless of the outcome.
10
I don’t know many folks with electric fences who are not ultra conservative conspiracy theorists Allen;)
10
Andrew Bolt holds Tim Flannery’s feet to the fire:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/warmist-cant-take-the-heat/story-e6frfhqf-1225878118730
Flannery doesn’t like having his quotes thrown back at him.
10
Done that.
10
The claim Nigel Calder makes about the BBC dropping (the excellent) David Bellamy after he came out as a sceptic seems to be untrue (although Bellamy himself has made it), at least according to Wikipedia here who point out that according to a Guardian article his tv appearances had ceased some 10 years earlier.
10
How appropriate for this thread Naomi Oreskes is at it again bleating about industry funded disinformation campaigns, how poorly Ben Santer has been treated etc etc. I for one do not believe a rat was placed on his doorstep I think a resident rat preferred suicide to sharing a house with him.
10
One of the ways to recognise (amateur) propaganda is that it is equivocal.
The author does not want to risk their reputation with a direct lie, so they use words words like, “could’, “might”, “may”, “usually”, “if [improbabe situation], then [scary result]”, et cetera.
Most of the articles produced by WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, et cetera. have this characteristic.
Professional propaganda is a lot more subtle. The Public Relations companies that spin it, have lists of positive, negative, and neuter words. The good ones can produce an article that looks balanced on the face of it, but by using the appropriate words, in combination, they can still leave the reader with with a subliminal message that lasts a lot longer than the subject matter of the article.
And then there are the statistical and scientific games, like the phrase, “no statistically significant cooling”. How many of the general population know what “statistically significant” means in the context of climate change?
And finally, we have pure displacement – using the above techniques to accuse your opponents of holding your own position. Accusing sceptics of being funded by industry is an example that we all know.
To the people who produce it, propaganda is a game. Those of us who must interpret it end the day feeling dirty.
10
allen mcmahon: #47
Professionally written propaganda – thanks Allen, your timing with an example was spot-on.
Notice the “king-hit” paragraph, third from the bottom:
The author uses the word “Cold” twice – very negative word – in the phrase “Cold Warriors all”, and again in saying, “The Cold War was a conflict between economic ideologies …”, thus leaving the reader with the subliminal message that Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz (all with “european” names to an American audience) are probably communists, and therefore not to be trusted.
Of course, the Cold War has absolutely nothing to do with climate change (or smoking for that matter). It is a glorious red herring, but professionally executed for all that.
Also, notice the quoted sentence from Fred Singer. If we assume the quote is correct, why has the word “danger” been inserted? The sentence would stand perfectly well on its own without the addition. It would just be more generic. Here the author is asserting the position that they want the reader to adopt. “Danger” is another very negative word.
There are other examples scattered through the article, but I have to go and wash my hands now … 😉
10
MattB @ 21. As a self-avowed Green at present sitting on the AGW side of the sense, you may find the following article very interesting and far better than anything you’ll read on RealClimate! It’s by Peter Taylor, another Green environmentalist who started on the AGW side, but then looked at the alleged science behind the theory and chose to switch. He authored Chill: A Reassessment of the Global Warming Theory.
His summary of the whole history and debate and his struggle to come to terms with the conflict between his own beliefs and the reality of the real science is very informative.
http://icecap.us/index.php
10
Rereke @29
Articles by Naomi Oreskes appear every two of three months and always include mythology about big tobacco, big oil, big coal, powerful conservative think tanks or a combination thereof.The message never varies but at no stage does she provide evidence to support her claims.
If she looked at left leaning institutions there is ample evidence of conflict of interest. The Woods Hole Research Center refers to itself as an independent scientific institution yet their board has a number of environmental activists. The WHRC prepared the report that saw the REDD (a plan to reduce deforestation via carbon trading) adopted by the UNFCCC at Bali in 2007. Their report relied heavily on an alarmist WWF report and one of their sponsor foundations is Goldman & Sachs. I doubt that Oreskes would see a conflict of interest in this unholy alliance but the cynic in me suggests that money is rather higher on the agenda than the environment.
10
allen mcmahon: # 31
I totally agree Alan. In reality, the alarmists are far too compromised themselves to be pointing the bone at anybody else. I doesn’t stop them having a go though.
No, I just thought it was a very good example of propaganda. Whether that style of writing comes naturally to Ms Oreskes, or whether she has had training, or whether she employs a spin merchant, is really immaterial.
As one of my colleagues once said, “It is all about climbing inside peoples heads, and [doing something unsanitary] in the corner”. When you look at it that way, propaganda is a form of assault.
10
Ahh yes, but suppose when you climb inside a persons head only to find that there is nothing BUT piles of [unsanitation] and nothing else? 🙂
Not naming names though……..
10
Matt,
It’s quite obvious that you are being purposely obtuse in this whole argument. You ignore any evidence that goes against your pet theory and spout ridiculous “evidence”. Please try to show at least the semblance of fairness and intelligence.
10
Mattb @ 23:
And therefore how would you “deal” with those folks Mattb?
10
Subject: CHAIRMAN RUDD & HIS COMMUNIST LABOR PARTY WANT TO ACCESS YOUR EMAILS AND INTERNET WEB BROWSING HISTORY!!!
THESE COMMUNISTS HAVE TO GO!!!!!!!!!!
BRING ON THE ELECTION!!
The Fed Govt is considering forcing Australian ISPs to retain data on how Australian citizens are using the internet, such as their sent and received email and browsing history.
Read More Here:-
http://apcmag.com/govt-may-record-users-web-history-email-data.htm
10
Subject: Rudd throws away another half a billion on the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD!
Rudd squanders another $469 million, in the name of a myth and in persuit of the UN’s worthless praise:
Rich and poor nations alike criticized a new blueprint for a U.N. climate treaty on Friday as two weeks of talks among 185 countries ended with small steps towards an elusive deal…
The new draft text keeps some elements of the Copenhagen Accord, including a plan for aid to developing nations of $10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, rising to more than $100 billion from 2020.
Australian delegate Robert Owen-Jones announced in Bonn that Canberra was contributing 559 million Australian dollars ($469 million) to the 2010-12 funds (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/11/hates-uns-new-climate-plan/).
Er, how much exactly? And entrusted to whose hot little hands?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_throws_away_another_half_a_billion/
10
Charles Bourbaki in post 35. Comment about Kininmonth not having a doctorate. It would have no real bearing on any scientist that they did not have a doctorate. There is no reason that a person with bachelor degree would not have more knowledge than a person who may have a doctorate from study in an obscure subject. An aside, those with double pass bachelor degrees, bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery are called doctors, although they don’t have doctorates. Vets and dentists are now doing the same. Bob Brown is a double pass bachelor degree holder who describes himself as Doctor Brown. I have been in contact with a brickie who has a proper doctorate.
10
CHECKOUT THIS FANATICAL AND MENTALLY DERANGED US SENATOR & HER SUPPORT FOR THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD!!!
Greatest national security threat is carbon dioxide:-
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=KJJB7zFsFFE
It is frightening that such a radical can hold the position of senator!!
10
Wendy,
Unfortunately, this idiot is one of my Congressional representatives. On the bright side, unless Carli Fiorina self destructs, it looks like this life long politician will not be re-elected. When I first saw this tirade, I sent Boxer a note that told her her fear of CO2 causing war is a self full filling prophecy. It will only happen if Congress attempts to regulate physics by declaring CAGW is a real threat. The reason is that there will be countries who believe the physics, rather than the rhetoric, and they will not bow down to the CO2 lunatics. This will piss us (America) off and we will start WW CO2 by picking a fight with the ‘heretics’ under the false premise that it’s for the common good.
George
10
George, it will be a very good thing to see Barbara Boxer retired! Carly has some baggage that I hope won’t get in the way of her prevailing.
10