According to the Drudge Report on Wednesday notes from CNN’s Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to “push” their “Planet in Peril” special, but warns reporters not to “irresponsibly link” the fires to “Global Warming.” Meanwhile as Dr. Scott Campbell has posted below, congress followed suit.
By Dr. Scott Campbell, VP Technology, SCI Engineered Materials
The very liberal leader of the U. S. Senate recently made this statement about the grassfires that are ravaging communities in Southern California: “One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
The true statement should be “The main reason why we have the fires in California is the prohibition against clearing up accumulated brush from the areas surrounding housing developments that were instituted at the insistence of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.” California has always had grassfires. The environmental groups are the true cause of the catastrophic losses in the communities affected by these fires. However, staying true to Marxism, it’s the capitalist who are to blame not the holy and righteous actions of the government.
The American public seem to be catching on to this however. The leadership Pelosi and Reid have yielded the lowest approval ratings for congress in the history of poll taking in this country. Only 11% approve of their performance.
By Patrick J. Buchanan, WorldNetDaily
The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong. Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?
Put me down as a disbeliever.
Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster. Read more here.
By Vaclav Klaus, President, Czech Republic‘
Today, I intend to discuss another “high and holy” issue. I want to speak about supposed devastating climate changes, about consequences of global warming and about our responses and reactions to them. Some people try – consciously or subconsciously – caricature people like me and accuse those of us, who dare to speak about it differently than is now politically correct, of talking about things we do not understand and are not experts on. They are wrong. People like me do not try to enter the field of climatology, do not try to better measure global temperature, and do not try to suggest alternative scenarios of the future global climate fluctuations (based on different, but equally speculative and unreliable forecasting models). In my argumentation I don’t talk about climatology but about environmentalism, about an ideology which puts nature and environment and their supposed protection and preservation before and above freedom.
We are rational and responsible people and know that we have to act when necessary. But we should know that a rational response to any danger depends on the size and probability of the eventual risk and on the magnitude of the costs of its avoidance. As a responsible politician, as an academic economist, as an author of a book about the economics of climate change, I feel obliged to say that – based on our current knowledge – the risk is too small and the costs of eliminating it too high. The application of the so called “precautionary principle,” advocated by the environmentalists, is – conceptually – a wrong strategy. Read more of his courageous talk here.