Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

12/07/2009 (11:20 am)

56 World Newspapers: "Scandal? What Scandal?"


On the opening day of the Copenhagen climate change summit, 56 newspapers around the world have published a single editorial written by the UK Guardian, signalling the propaganda theme of the conference: “We will lie to frighten you, in order to institute World Socialism.”

According to The Guardian’s web site where I read the editorial,

The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

Michelle Malkin signals the important lesson: take note of which newspapers publish this propaganda — and never trust those newspapers again.

The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage.

Every word of that paragraph is false. Eleven of the past 14 years have not been the warmest on record, at least not here in the US. The adjusted GISS data show only 3 years in the last 14 have made the top 10 hottest years on record. The Arctic ice cap is beginning to recover, and the Antarctic ice cap has increased in mass by more than 40% since 1980, according to GlobalWarmingHoax.com and supported by WattsUpWithThat. Last year’s inflamed oil and food prices had absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures, as I reported here on PlumbBobBlog; the food prices were the result of US ethanol policy, and the oil prices were the result of rising Asian rim demand, world politics, and ill-timed dollar policy by the Fed, exacerbated by deliberate limits on US exploration (see here.) And the comment about scientific journals is simply false: according to former NASA climate scientist Ray Spencer, not a single, peer-reviewed paper has ruled out natural causes of whatever warming has been experienced.

I know of no observable evidence tying human-generated CO² to the current behavior of the climate. None.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.

This is hysterical scaremongering, not science. Global temperature rise over the last century is measured at .7 degrees Celsius (if we trust surface weather station readings — and we have good reason not to.) The prediction of a rise of 3-4 degrees C is the upper theoretical limit on the effect of doubling atmospheric CO² and does not conform to actual observation, which suggests a much more modest warming of 1-2 degrees — if we actually double CO², which we may or may not do eventually. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that global temperature rise expected from ordinary greenhouse warming will “turn farmland into desert;” quite the contrary, it’s more likely to turn desert into farmland, as CO² is plant food and greenhouses are known for lush vegetation. A survey of peer-reviewed literature on climate change published by the Petition Project and signed by more than 30,000 American scientists confirms that the only provable impact of human-generated CO² is a worldwide increase in plant growth. The claim that we can “prudently expect” calamity is an outright lie; the predictions of calamities are based on untested hypotheses that do not conform to observation and are provably unable to predict actual temperatures.

Furthermore, there is no economically feasible scenario under which action taken by the nations of the world would be able to limit temperature rises by a full 2 degrees C — even if the “science” of the global warming alarmists turns out to be true. This is the second leg of the hoax: that even if humans are causing global warming (we’re not,) it would be possible for humans to reverse this by limiting or redistributing economic growth. Even if the scare were true (it’s not,) the only sane response is to adapt.

The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

This is the only mention of the wheels that came off the Global Warming Bandwagon last month — and in fact, the wheels were coming off the bandwagon even before Climategate. Tell us, Guardian writers, what mass of evidence exists on which those predictions are based? And if the scientists we’ve been told to trust on the subject, who wrote the core of the IPCC reports, were finagling both their own data and the peer review process itself, how can we trust any part of that illusory mass of evidence without reviewing the entire subject under a more transparent regime?

And after the lies about the science, we get to the true agenda:

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

International wealth redistribution. World socialism. Kiss liberty goodbye, it no longer exists. This is about world governance by socialists, and about stealing the prosperity of rich nations and giving it to poor nations. We already know from American welfare experiments what happens when you do that — the poor remain poor (because nothing has addressed the real cause of their poverty,) the rich cease to be rich, and all incentive for innovation disappears.

The left loves to yammer on about the scaremongering of Dick Cheney — a local candidate here in Massachusetts ran ads specifically naming this as his reason for running, despite the fact that Dick Cheney no longer holds office — but they never mention the real scaremongering, the hysteria of global warming alarmism. This is a global power grab on an unprecedented scale. President Obama will certainly bow down and kiss the feet of the incipient World Government. We, the people, must prevent his treachery from ever becoming law, or lose our liberty and our national sovereignty forever.


Corresponding to the Copenhagen hoax, the EPA apparently plans to announce its finding that CO² constitutes a serious pollution hazard, which will trigger its ability under the Environmental Protection Act of 1973 to regulate it.

The revolution shall commence shortly thereafter.

« « It Never Shrinks | Main | I'm Not The Only One… » »


December 7, 2009 @ 1:10 pm #

It might be instructive to see a list of owners of those newspapers. There was a time several years ago when I was exploring the ownership and editorship of the Army-Navy Times, and somewhere it came up that virtually all of the major newspapers in the US are owned by about 5 corporate entities.

It also turned out, by the way, that the editor for the A-N Times was a former reporter who had published very anti-war articles during the Vietnam period, and that the ownership of the paper had originally been the military, but had been relinquished to civilian control at some point. I don’t remember the specifics, but it was interesting from the stand point that the military used to be a much more self-contained organization that it is today. For example, the Commissary and Exchange used to be run by the military for the military. Today, both are civilian run. There was a period during WWII when the Federal Government didn’t have money to pay the military. Most military members and their families were in military owned housing at that time, so with that fact and the fact that the commissaries were directed to provide food on credit to military members, the military wasn’t in a world of hurt – like I suspect they would be today. Military housing – which was owned and maintained by the military is largely non-existent today.

If the Feds run out of money these days, life could get interesting…

December 7, 2009 @ 1:17 pm #

It’s also interesting from another angle – what is the educational background of these “consulting” editors? What qualified them to make these judgments?

MM is right – these newspapers can’t be trusted because they print opinions as fact when they themselves – I suspect – don’t have the backgrounds to evaluate the facts that go into forming their opinions.

December 7, 2009 @ 11:37 pm #

A very good post that sums up this insanity nicely. Unless you object, I intend to submit your post to the Watcher’s Council for consideration in the weekly contest for best blog post. http://www.watcherofweasels.org/

(Author’s note: and why would I object to such an honor? Thanks.)

December 8, 2009 @ 5:58 am #

This reminds me of about 30 years ago when the hysteria was about a coming ice age, and Time Magazine published a statement along these lines saying they were declaring themselves all in, that this was too crucial an issue for them to remain impartial.

Also, I’ve always wondered why conservatives are held to courtroom standards of proof on any statements they make. A “t” not crossed, or the finding that the person may have published an unpolitically correct college paper in the past that was not fact checked by 11 AP reporters is enough to discard an entire line of reasoning.

But liberals, that is another matter. Just brush off those nagging little wing nut doubts. “The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.”

I guess a little muddy water isn’t near enough to dilute the purity and clarity of the shining beacon of light that is the ‘settled’ science on this issue.

December 8, 2009 @ 4:15 pm #

RM: Steven Den Beste wrote an instructive essay (Government by Wishful Thinking) in Hot-Air which goes a long way toward explaining the difference in the way conservatives and liberals think. Allow me to quote a small snippet.

One way to compare and contrast those two world views is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.

So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.

To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)

The intellectual development of Western Civilization has descended from Aristotle. The intellectual decline of Eastern Civilization (and modern liberals) have their roots in the writings of Plato. (Read his “Allegory of the Cave” in Republic for a description of Plato’s Metaphysics and Epistemology.)

December 9, 2009 @ 4:19 am #

Along your line above, a quote from an SF book written over two decades ago:

Karl Marx is to economists what Khalil Gibran is to philosophers. In the real world there is no Marxist program, but inside the human brain he tickles the mood centers.
– Alexis A. Gilliland, ‘Long Shot for Rosinante’ -

An an observation of my own:
The primary thing to grasp about liberals is The Midnight Reset Button.

There’s a device built into their tiny widdle brains (such as they are) which acts on their memory processes as it processes the day’s experiences into permanent storage.

It examines all the day’s learning in light of Officially Accepted Liberal Positions®. If it finds ANYTHING which violates the OALP, it is instantly purged and removed from further affect on the brain (such as it is).

This explains how you can, with any liberal, start from one of their more Cherished OALPs, take them, step by step, through a reasoning process and show how that OALP is categorically guaranteed to result in exactly the opposite of that thing which the OALP is intended to promote, and have them agree with you utterly and completely every step of the way, even unto the conclusion that the OALP is blatantly, inherently wrong.

Then, despite this, when you see them again a day, or two days, or a week, later, they will still be arguing in total and complete support of the OALP you just wasted your time convincing them was utterly and completely defective in every way, shape, or form.

The Midnight Reset Button has done its nefarious work.

Once you grasp that this is not a joke, that it’s an actual, functioning mechanism inside libtard brains (such as they are), you will have a far greater understanding of how it is that liberals make no sense.

December 9, 2009 @ 8:07 am #

O Bloody Hell,

I’ve never fared well when trying to convince a liberal of anything different from the OALP, as you call it. My experience has been that they never give you one scrap of concession. If you cite factual data they will toss back a Democrat talking point or claim you got your data from Rush Limbaugh. If that doesn’t fly, they typically move on to some sort of ad hominum attack – “You actually supported Bush and the war in Iraq!”

I think the reset button also helps to purge any inconsistencies from their minds so they can take diametrically opposed positions on an issue depending on whether it advances the cause of liberalism that day.

December 9, 2009 @ 9:53 am #

[...] Submitted By: Wolf Howling – The Plumb Bob Blog – 56 World Newspapers: “Scandal? What Scandal?” [...]

December 9, 2009 @ 7:53 pm #

[...] Submitted By: Wolf Howling – The Plumb Bob Blog – 56 World Newspapers: “Scandal? What Scandal?” [...]

December 9, 2009 @ 9:45 pm #

As to socialism, I think the best assessment of it came from Churchill. To parahprase “There are two places where socialism will work. In Heaven, where it is not needed, and in Hell, where it has long been in practice.”

December 10, 2009 @ 8:02 pm #


That’s a keeper…!

December 11, 2009 @ 2:01 pm #

[...] Second place with 1 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Plum Bob Blog – 56 World Newspapers: “Scandal? What Scandal?” [...]

December 11, 2009 @ 2:11 pm #

[...] Second place with 1 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Plum Bob Blog – 56 World Newspapers: “Scandal? What Scandal?” [...]

December 11, 2009 @ 2:12 pm #

[...] the joint, front-page editorial on Monday to open the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting, entitled “56 World Newspapers: ‘Scandal? What Scandal?’” was nominated for a weekly award at Watcher of Weasels by my blog-buddy over at Howling Wolf, whose [...]

December 11, 2009 @ 2:24 pm #

Your fine post was chosen for second place in the Watcher’s contest. Congrats.


December 15, 2009 @ 1:34 am #


That’s a fine quote but I think it’s by Stephen Leacock and not Churchill. It’s credited to Churchill here and there, and it’s shown up at lot recently, but I can’t find a reputable primary or secondary source that attributes it to Churchill. Oddly, some sources (for example, Webster’s New World of Quotable Definitions) credit it to Cecil Palmer, an English anti-socialist contemporary of Churchill. Indeed, Palmer does use the line in the introduction to his 1952 book, The British Socialist Ill-fare State, but he’s quoting Stephen Leacock. (http://tiny.cc/a97ti)

The origin of the quote seems to be the end of Leacock’s 1935(34?) essay “What Is Left of Adam Smith?”:

“But this socialism, this communism, would only work in Heaven where they don’t need it, or in Hell where they have it already.”


That line is typical of Leacock’s wit and politics but it doesn’t sound like Churchill to me. I’m sure Churchill was familiar with Leacock, a notable Canadian Tory, and I guess he might have quoted Leacock in a letter or an off-hand speech but I can’t find a reference to it.

Regardless, it’s worth nothing that Churchill–the anti-socialist–was also an instigator, a critic, a skeptic, and finally, a forceful advocate for the National Health Service. The Beveridge report that lead to the creation of the NHS was started–perhaps despite Churchill’s intentions–in his cabinet. Churchill criticized the Beveridge report, mostly on financial grounds, but he also declared that national health care was not, in his view, socialist. Yes, Labour famously won the ’45 elections and immediately started the NHS but the ’45 Conservative platform, and Churchill, with various caveats, supported the creation of the NHS and had already instructed his cabinet to move forward with the NHS before losing office.

I was surprised to see that Churchill quote and thought, hmmm, that might be worth tracking down. I’m not sure what any of the above has to do with health care in the US. I guess the only conclusion I can draw is that Suek and GW should change the citation, and maybe add a footnote, in their journal of interesting quotes.

December 15, 2009 @ 12:23 pm #

Regardless, it’s worth nothing that Churchill–the anti-socialist–was also an instigator, a critic, a skeptic, and finally, a forceful advocate for the National Health Service.

I think you meant “It’s worth noting...” But you were correct the first time. It’s worth nothing, or very little. I wonder what he would think about it today, after seeing what it has become and what it has led to?

December 15, 2009 @ 6:46 pm #

Right. Noting. Sorry about that.

After he lost in ’45, Churchill was fairly critical of the Labour implementation of NHS but when he returned to power, he continued or even extended the NHS related Labour polices and generally spoke highly of NHS and its goals. (For reasons that probably made more sense in his time,) Churchill did not consider the NHS to be socialist.

I don’t know what Churchill might say about NHS now but I’d guess he’d stick with the current Conservative party line which is not that far from the current Labour view on NHS. In general all UK parties support NHS, though all see room for improvement. The Conservative party sometimes makes noises about expanding parts of the private sector of UK health. Labour sometimes argues that a bit more consolidation will improve NHS. There are good reasons why NHS is still fairly popular after 50 years. It provides care that is comparable to an average US private insurance plan for all UK citizens at about about half the US cost. There are complaints here and there, of course, but I don’t think any viable political group wants to get rid of NHS.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>