Educate yourself and stop being a Useful Idiot.
I am skeptical of all information and people until I research it myself.
April 8, 2014
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
Is Lying About Climate Change Okay?
By Alan Caruba
Those of us who have chronicled the global warming hoax, now called “climate change”, know that it is based on decades of lies about carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” with predictions that the Earth will heat up and cause massive problems unless those emissions are drastically reduced by not using coal, oil and natural gas.
Two American think tanks, The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have been among those exposing those lies for years. The lies have been generated and led by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Despite the panel’s insistence that the Earth is getting hotter, five different datasets show that there have been no observable warming for 17 and a half years even as carbon dioxide levels have risen 12%,” notes Christopher Monckton, a science advisor to Britain’s former Prime Minister Thatcher. “The discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow.”
Recently, two Chinese assistant professors of economics, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, were published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Their paper, “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly advocated lying about global warming/climate change in order to get nations to sign on to the International Environmental Agreement.
“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations,” they noted, “have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”
Craig Rucker, CFACT’s Executive Director, responded to the Chinese authors saying “They’re shameless.” Theirs and others ends-justify-the-means tactics reflects the attitudes and actions of environmental organizations and serves as a warning to never accept anything they say on any aspect of this huge hoax.
CFACT’s President and co-founder, David Rothbard, noted that “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change.” How long? Back in 1989, the late Stanford University professor, Stephen Schneider, said, “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’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
There is no “right balance” between telling lies and telling the truth when it comes to science or any other aspect of our lives. Suffice to say that thousands of scientists who participated in the IPCC reports over the years supported the lies, but many have since left and some have openly denounced the reports.
As the latest IPCC summary of its report has garnered the usual verbatim media coverage of its outlandish predictions, The Heartland Institute has released its own 1,062 page report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. An 18-page summery is available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org.
Among its findings:
# Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
# There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
# Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life.
# A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.
Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report is free of the lies that are found in the IPCC report whose studies have been, at best, dubious, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.
In light of the natural cooling cycle the Earth has been in that is good news and it will be even better news when the planet emerges from the cycle that reflects the lower levels of radiation from the Sun.
On March 31, CNS News reported that “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer nations adapt to the devastating effects of ‘unequivocal’ global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence. But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrial nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag.”
The price tag reveals the IPCC’s real agenda, the transfer of funds from industrial nations to those less developed. It’s about the money and always has been. It’s not global warming the planet needs to survive, it is the costly lies about it.
Mozilla, the company that operates the web browser Firefox, experienced its highest level of negative customer feedback the day after its embattled co-founder Brendan Eich resigned as CEO after gay rights activists objected to his appointment.
On Thursday, Mozilla forced Eich to resign just two weeks after hiring him. At issue was a $1,000 donation Eich gave in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a successful ballot initiative which banned gay marriage.
The decision to remove the man who invented the web scripting language JavaScipt did not sit well with many customers — many of them pelted Mozilla’s website with a surge of negative feedback.
On Friday, 94 percent of the sentiments registered on the site were “sad,” while six percent were “happy.” That translates to about 7,000 negative responses, compared to nearly 500 positive responses.
“Your abject and pathetic condemnation of an individual’s right to hold and support their own view on the world is simply unbelievable,” read one user’s feedback at the Mozilla site.
Eich’s hiring last month generated outrage from Mozilla contributors, called Mozillians, over Eich’s past support of Prop 8, which passed in California with 52 percent of the vote.
Outsiders protested Eich’s hiring as well, and likely served as the tipping point for his removal.
The matchmaking website OkCupid posted a letter which greeted Firefox users informing them about Eich’s political contribution. It urged them to find another web browser to search for dates.
Many conservatives expressed their outrage over the forced resignation. Talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh tackled the topic on his show on Friday. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called for a “counter-boycott” of the tech company. And many conservative Twitter users urged other conservatives to remove Firefox from their computers under the hashtag #UninstallFirefox.
Mozilla declined to respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
That is, the only reason Eich resigned is because his $1,000 contribution to the Prop 8 campaign became public. Or rather he was outed, so to speak, by activists—whom liberal satirist Bill Maher called the “gay mafia”—who scour the publicly accessible donor database in search of high-profile targets with “incorrect” views. Eich is only the most recent victim of such targeting, but he’s unlikely to be the last.
dir=rtl: Arun Ranganathan, Brendan Eich, Chris Wilson, Charles McCathieNevile (Photo credit: Martin Kliehm)
I point all this out as someone who supports marriage equality and recognizes that there may have been a valid business reason for Mozilla’s board to demand Eich’s resignation once his views became known. Just as business owners ought not be forced to provide services to a same-sex wedding, a private company can have whatever litmus tests it likes. The issue isn’t equality under the law or First Amendment rights—there’s no government action or coercion here—but haggling over what kind of personal opinions disqualify a CEO.
Surely we can all agree that a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier—or a Klan member, or a Stalinist, or a Satan worshipper—can’t run a large company. The trust won’t be there, either internally or externally. On the other hand, most people seem not to have liked last week’s How I Met Your Mother finale, but surely disagreeing with that view (as I do) isn’t a disqualifier.
So the question that has consumed discussions of the Eich affair is whether someone who’s against gay marriage—or at least donates to that cause—is on the wrong side of the Satan-Scherbatsky line.* Not because that person is equivalent to a Nazi or Communist but because there’s a line somewhere.
Crowd in support of Gay Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It’s unfortunate that holding a position that President Obama himself shared until recently got Eich in trouble, but Mozilla’s decision was understandable if it read its economic climate correctly. Silicon Valley apparently doesn’t countenance opposition to gay marriage to such an extent that a business leader who holds that view can’t be effective even if his personal views in no way affect company policy. (That’s one reason why opposition to Arizona’s SB 1062 was misplaced; most businesses that refused to serve gays would take severe financial hits—regardless of whether courts upheld their religious objections.)
But lamenting the cultural dynamic that led to such hypocrisy is beside the public-policy point. The whole imbroglio could’ve been avoided with a tweak of disclosure rules.
Currently, the identity of anyone making a contribution of more than $200 to a federal political campaign—name, home address, employer—has to be disclosed to the government, which puts that information online. In California, the threshold is $100. The reason for collecting and disseminating this information is rather thin: to prevent corruption and enhance the perceived integrity of the democratic process. Yet small donors hardly corrupt the candidates they support—Barack Obama spent over $1 billion on his reelection—and how do you corrupt a ballot initiative?
Imagine that you had to notify a government official each time you attended a rally, or made campaign phone calls, or posted to a blog, or even talked politics with friends. Now imagine that this information would be made public by the government. Would your activities and conversations change? The question answers itself.
Brendan Eich’s position thus became untenable not because he made a politically awkward contribution but because election laws revealed that sensitive information to people whose interest had nothing to do with clean elections or corporate governance. But election laws exist so that the governed can monitor the government, not the other way around.
The solution is obvious: Require disclosures, if at all, only for those who give so much money that the interest in preventing the hypothetical appearance of corruption outweighs the very real potential for harassment—which amount would be far greater than the current per-candidate maximum of $2,600. Then the big boys will have to put their reputations on the line—as they do already; see Harry Reid’s crusade against Charles andDavid Koch (who are CatoCATO-0.67% donors)—while the average citizen won’t be exposed to retaliation.
Let the voters decide what a donation from this or that plutocrat means to them, rather than enabling vigilantes to police the Satan-Scherbatsky line.
* Robin Scherbatsky is a character on How I Met Your Mother, and her last name is the most euphonic/memorable of the major characters.
Exposed: Accusations of Hypocrisy in Company’s Crusade to Oust Mozilla CEO Over Political Donation
The online dating site OkCupid led the charge to create a firestorm of controversy over Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s $1,000 donation to the campaign for Proposition 8 in 2008. The site went as far as to change its homepage for Mozilla Firefox users to suggest to users that Eich is anti-gay.
This undated photo provided by Mozilla shows co-founder and former CEO Brendan Eich. (AP Photo/Mozilla)
When Eich stepped down within a few days of the boycott, the company cheered.
“We are pleased that OkCupid’s boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships,” OkCupid wrote in a statement.
Then on Monday it emerged that OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan made a donation to a congressional candidate who opposed same-sex marriage, voted against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination and for prohibition of gay adoptions, according to Uncrunched.
Records show Yagan, who is also the CEO of Match.com, donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004. The congressman also reportedly earned a 0 percent rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL Pro Choice America.
Critics say the similar donation shows a level of hypocrisy in the company’s actions.
Few would deny that if anyone can be fired because they made a donation to a person or cause that a percentage of the population disagrees with, the implications for free speech are absolutely chilling.
OkCupid CEO Sam Yagan (Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/AP Images)
Of course, it’s been a decade since Yagan’s donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon’s votes on gay rights. It’s possible that Cannon’s opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It’s also quite possible that Yagan’s politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox’s Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn’t include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest.
Many people, even those who disagree with Eich’s donation, have spoken out against the act of silencing people just because they have a different opinion.
Even openly gay far-left blogger Andrew Sullivan panned the effort, finding rare common ground with conservative personalities who think free speech is more important than political beliefs.
“The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out,” Sullivan wrote. “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”
The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resignedunder pressure:
In a post at Mozilla’s official blog, executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker confirmed the news with an unequivocal apology on the company’s behalf. “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Baker wrote. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
The action comes days after dating site OKCupid became the most vocal opponent of Eich’s hiring. Mozilla offered repeated statements about LGBT inclusivity within the company over the past two weeks, but those never came with a specific response from Eich about his thousands of dollars of donations in support of Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.
Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Update: A continuation of my stance here and my response to dissenting readers here.
Among the scores of upset readers rattling the in-tray:
I’m going to disagree with you, quite strongly, about the resignation of Brendan Eich. While I agree that he is certainly entitled to his point of view, and to take actions in support of that point of view, he is not entitled to face no consequences from those actions. That’s all this is: consequences. If he truly has the strength of his convictions, he will consider this a necessary sacrifice. Were I to loudly proclaim a belief in the inherent inferiority of other ethnicities than my own, and take actions to enshrine that belief into law, would I not reasonably expect to face consequences?
He’s not going to prison; he just has to find a new job. For someone with his abilities, that should not be difficult. I just imagine it will be done more quietly this time.
As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.
Eich certainly has his right to free speech. Where the line should be drawn (Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding) is when somebody’s speech becomes action – in this case, donating to Prop 8. Monetary support to reduce fellow citizens to second-class status should not be enshrined as “protected speech.” He can say what he wants, of course, but we can also say, publicly, that we don’t want to directly fund that sort of politics (since our money given to the company goes to the CEO’s salary).
What if an employee went to a demonstration that his company found objectionable? Would that be a reason to fire him? What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I can barely believe the fanaticism. Another reader:
There is not a single mainstream company in the world today that would endure a CEO who donated to a neo-Nazi organization, or the KKK, or for a referendum to make interracial marriage illegal. If he were to apologize later, or say it was a mistake, then he might survive. But to be defiant in his support for blatantly anti-Semitic or anti-black causes? No one would survive this. In making our case for marriage equality, we have set the right to marry for homosexuals on the same level as the right to marry inter-racially. This means that the public will respond to those who oppose it just as they would to those who fought to prevent my parents from marrying. And rightly so.
A little history lesson. Not so long ago, many in the gay community itself – including large swathes of its left-liberal wing – opposed marriage equality. I know, because I was targeted by them as a neofascist/heterosexist/patriarchal “anti-Christ”. Yes, I was called precisely that in print for being a conservative supporter of marriage equality and for ending the ban on openly gay people in the military. And I’m talking only a couple of decades ago. And now, opposing marriage equality is regarded as equivalent to the KKK? And neo-Nazis? Another reader tries to catch me in a double standard:
So let me get this straight: It’s perfectly ok to spend money supporting legislation that causes actual, direct harm to gay people, but when Alec Baldwin calls someone names, he should be fired?
I never called for Baldwin to be fired – just that his rank use of homophobia while threatening violence made his claim to be a liberal preposterous. I was calling out hypocrisy. I never campaigned for Baldwin to be punished for this – just that liberals stop defending him as a campaigner for civil rights. The next reader probably has the strongest dissent of them all:
You wrote, “Eich did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy!” Andrew, you are seriously misreading this. Mozilla is not just any company; it’s the subsidiary of a non-profit, the manager of an open-source project, part collective and part community, and only thrives because the community cooperates, delivering applications, helping out by contributing code, and donating money. A key qualification for a CEO of such a company is that he or she not alienate the community, and Eich simply did not meet that qualification (the board screwed up in hiring him, clearly). I hardly think you’d see the same kind of fireworks if, say, he had been appointed CEO of Oracle.
This is more akin to an opponent of gay marriage being appointed CEO of a company that depends on gay or gay-friendly customers or stakeholders. A public radio station in a gay-friendly metro is a good example. So it’s more like, “in order to be a CEO of an organization dependent on certain stakeholders, you must not offend them.” Seriously, this is news?
And CEO is not just any job; Eich was CTO of Mozilla for many years with nary a peep. But a CEO personifies the company, and the standards are different. Eich then compounded the mistake by eliding the discussion every time he was asked about it. He could have stood by his personal beliefs but drawn a distinction between those and how he intends to isolate them from his ability to lead Mozilla. He could have shown a bit of empathy towards the people victimized by Proposition 8 (many of whom are his customers, employees and partners) without recanting his personal belief (Rarebit, one of Mozilla’s partners that pulled out of the store, has a good take on this here).
He could have done many things, but he was too proud to give people even a fig leaf of an acknowledgment. Instead, he stonewalled, and more insultingly, he wrapped himself in the mantle of tolerance (the whole stuff about Mozilla’s “culture of inclusiveness”), essentially saying, “If you’re really tolerant, you must tolerate my intolerant views and continue to interact with the organization I lead just as before.” Please. He’s entitled to his views, but he’s not entitled to people’s cooperation.
In order to be a CEO of a company, you must be able to lead it. Clearly he couldn’t, because too many people, both employees and external stakeholders, simply would not follow him. He was pushed out because he could not do the job he was hired to do.
Really? Here’s what Eich said last month: “I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to ‘show, not tell’; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.” There is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever discriminated against a single gay person at Mozilla; he was dedicated to continuing Mozilla’s inclusive policies; he was prepared to prove that the accusations against him were unfair, and that his political views would not affect his performance as CEO. But this was not enough. He had to be publicly punished for supporting a Proposition that is no longer in effect. This is absolutely McCarthyism from an increasingly McCarthyite left. Another reader makes a distinction:
Gay activists didn’t run him out. I really think you are wrong on that. Sure, some of the usual suspects piped up. But that wasn’t what did it as far as Mozilla goes. It was young and down-for-the-cause straight people. There’s been a very radical, very recent shift in critical mass and majority opinion (especially among tech people, young people) that opposing gay marriage is immoral. This supportive/progressive/tolerant/well-intentioned straight majority does not hesitate (although it should) to equate gay rights issues with race based civil rights issues. The gay marriage issue has tapped into a moral consciousness.
After all these years of ducking whenever someone starts talking about morals, the gays are now on the winning side of that conversation. And I think this moral shift is so new that we don’t see it yet. And so I don’t share your disgust that Eich quit. He lost the respect of the co-workers and colleagues he was supposed to lead due to something than runs deeper than a mere political point of view. This was a moral position. And a growing number of reasonable average people just can’t abide homophobia anymore. It wasn’t an angry rump of gay activists that did him in.
Yes, it was broader than that. It was a coalition of those, gay and straight, who do not believe that people with different views than theirs’ should be tolerated in a leadership position. It’s a reminder of just how closed-minded and vicious so much of the identity-politics left can be. One more reader:
Morality has always been about keeping society on the same page. If you violate the the norms, then you are shamed and ridiculed. The ultimate “victory” of the gay rights movement will be that those discriminating against homosexuals will be ridiculed and isolated as bigots. Ultimately we can only hope that the best values win out, and that we will always find outcasts in society that share our values, should our values violate the norm.
There you have the illiberal mindset. Morality trumps freedom. Our opponents must be humiliated, ridiculed and “isolated as perverts”. I mean “bigots”, excuse me.
OK, Cupid, Where's the Line? Mozilla CEO's Exit Over Gay Rights Shows Split in Valley
Brendan Eich’s resignation as chief executive officer ofMozilla Corp. is exposing a split in Silicon Valley between support for left-leaning issues and advocacy of unrestricted freedom of expression.
Eich, who became CEO in March, stepped down on April 3 after being criticized for donating $1,000 to an anti-gay marriage group in 2008. He had initially refused to resign for expressing a personal opinion, before bowing to mounting pressure.
Dating service OKCupid led the charge, blocking anyone accessing its website using Firefox, the Web browser that is Mozilla’s main product. Some employees of Mozilla publicly denounced Eich’s views, taking to blogs and Twitter Inc. posts to protest. At the same time venture capitalists including Michael Arrington and Marc Andreessen came to Eich’s defense, suggesting that the backlash was contrary to the region’s -- and Mozilla’s own -- commitment to libertarian views.
“This is a particularly fascinating situation, because it involves an illiberal reaction from a very liberal community,” said Joseph Grundfest, a law professor at Stanford University. “It’s fair to say that this could have been handled differently and better.”
Mozilla, a non-profit organization, has championed efforts to make sure the Internet remains open to all viewpoints. The Web is a “global public resource that must remain open and accessible,” according to the group’s guiding document, the Mozilla Manifesto. Mitchell Baker, Mozilla’s executive chairwoman, apologized for the uproar in a statement on Eich’s resignation and said the group “didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act.”
Mozilla’s board should have foreseen the uproar, said Irina Raicu, director of the Internet ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. For 16 years, Mozilla has relied on contributions from a diverse group of software developers, many who fiercely defend the need for freedom of expression on the Internet.
“This is going to make boards in the future think more deeply about this question: Is this CEO a good fit for the values of company?” Raicu said.
The political views of CEOs aren’t always grounds for resignation. In 2012, activists and the mayors of Boston and San Francisco urged boycotts of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A Inc., which donated millions through a foundation to anti-gay rights groups. While the company decided to stop giving to the groups, none of its executives resigned.
Eich has declined to comment on his views about gay marriage.
While a board may need to be involved if an executive’s views cause strife among the management team or impacts its ability to recruit employees, “it should err on the side of keeping politics and business separate and distinct,” said Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center forCorporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
“This is troubling because one’s politics is one’s own business,” Elson said. “That’s been the rule in American business for a very long time.”
Silicon Valley has long been associated with progressive political causes, including gay issues. Apple CEO Tim Cook has publicly pushed for passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, including at an awards ceremony last December. Former Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel have spoken of their libertarian leanings.
The controversy surrounding Eich concerned a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 to a group that supported Proposition 8, a California initiative that banned same-sex marriage and was later found to be unconstitutional.
David Pakman, a television and radio host who is a spokesman for GLAAD, the advocacy organization, noted that Eich’s resignation happened in a “very conservative, free-market way” as a result of pressure from Mozilla’s employees and developers, rather than from outside advocacy groups.
“This idea of those who are for gay rights are intolerant of those who don’t favor gay rights is a total ruse, a total canard,” Pakman said in an interview. “It’s a distraction and it’s a subjugation of what tolerance even is.”