A celebrated Harvard professor has been selected to whisper into President-elect Obama's ear about global warming...uh, I mean global climate change, or whatever they call it these days. Professor John P. Holdren is expected to serve as Obama's top science adviser, no doubt signaling that the Obama administration will attempt to pass a bill to put a tax on carbon rather than fight real environmental issues.
And just who is Holdren? Well, take a look at him. Just look at him! We've all met the type. If this smug picture of the professor doesn't tell you all you need to know about him and his attitude towards you, then take a look at one of his op-eds regarding people who think that global warming is a contrived crisis.
"The few climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all."
See? He's smarter than you. Yeah, I'm talking to you! The one with no scientific credentials. Holdren is obviously tired of debating with the fringe of "internet bloggers and cocktail-party conversationalists," and has sought a larger audience where he can appropriately express his obvious mental intellect.
And it takes all of two seconds to connect him to Al Gore and his global warming propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth, a movie that a judge in the UK prohibited from being sent to schools unless it was countered with “guidance giving the other side of the argument” due to it's nine factual errors. The Harvard professor, who is smarter than you, was Gore’s adviser on the film.
So why does Holdren feel that the average skeptic of common or sub-par intellect continues to deny global warming? It’s the fact that terms such as “climate change” and “global warming” have become public memes that don’t properly align with his chicken little views of the phony environmental crisis. He would prefer that the term “rapid warming,” or some other catchy phrase be used so that the commoners understand that it is a crisis that must be solved right now or the world is simply going to melt away.
Holdren also misrepresents the people that view global warming as just another swindle that was concocted in order to squeeze the middle class. He asserts that they’re mostly just dumb Republicans, regardless of the fact that there are people from both sides of the political isle who think global warming is an insignificant issue.
Holdren, with his obvious intellect, must be oblivious of the public’s mistrust of government officials who scream about problems that must be solved right away. The government screamed about the problem of Iraq that had to be solved right away or else the US would be attacked with Saddam’s imaginary weapon’s of mass destruction. The government screamed about the banks that had to be bailed out right away by US tax payers or the entire financial system would collapse.
Holdren is simply the latest hack in Obama’s administration that has been cobbled together to ensure that the United States continues to head for the trash can of history.
Submitted by Maasanova on Sat, 2008-12-20 18:57
- Maasanova's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 148 reads
-
want to explain why we should believe proven liars about global warming?
Results 1 - 10 of about 16,100 for AEI warming denial
Results 1 - 10 of about 52,600 for AEI lies iraq wmd
if exxon is allied with the AEI, and the AEI is allied with the likud party of israel, and the head of the likud party of israel thought 9/11 was "very good"... well, wouldnt that be a sign that these guys wanted the "new pearl harbor" that PNAC needed? ...aka 9/11?
in other words, they had motive to commit 9/11... and what could that motive have been?
control of oil? ...sure.
why do you need to control oil? ...maybe because, among other things, unrestrained use of oil will lead to the destruction of israel?
i admit all this could be haywire.
if israel would quit threatening iran, that would be one indication of haywireness ...
...but it still wouldnt get israel off the hook, seeing as how israel has such a dismal reputation... and it's certainly possible that israel could back off from its threats towards iran, then stage a nuke false flag attack on itself ---blame the attack on iran, which would result in israeli america nuking iran, seeing as how the new administration intends to extend its nuke ubrella to israel.
it's just too damn bad that, once you've acquired such a bad reputation, you're never again going to be trusted.
and it's very likely that some of the kingpins in this PNAC operation could give a shit less about israel: they're exploiting common jews and jewish persecution myths to enrich themselves to the point they'll be able to buy refuge someplace more suitable than israel... berezovsky chose the UK and london, but he's probably got a fallback, just in case everything turns to worms in a methane burp and london goes underwater.