Republican Party Mary Matalin's Global Warming Conspiracy Theory
Just when you think, maybe, just maybe the Republican Party is beginning to pop its head out of the sand and recognize what scientists all over the world are saying about the realities of global warming, you get Republican "strategist" and former President Bush Assistant, Mary Matalin, saying this on CNN:
... global warming is a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction."
Matalin, of course, is talking about that massive conspiracy secretly organized and executed by the most prestigious scientific organizations (i.e. the Royal Academy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US Academy of Science, NASA etc.), disseminated through government institutions like the United Nations and then echoed through the pages of most of the free-world's communist underground network of journalists bent on world domination.
If Matalin and other GOP "strategists" keep favoring worldwide conspiracy theories over rational scientific research, they're going to "strategize" themselves right into irrelevancy, even within their own party.
That is, unless Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) can somehow cajole a staffing budget increase.
H/T to Media Matters for America for their ever-vigilant hard work.
If you enjoy this story, please consider voting for it on Digg.com by clicking here.
She's just jealous 'cuz we have a secret handshake.
I wonder what her husband, James Carville, thinks?
I think this is a good example. Blitzer says McCain leads on issues that he says aren't priorities for conservatives. He simplifies by using stereotypes. Matalin says global warming is one of those issues (and says it's a political concoction, etc, to which Blitzer doesn't challenge). And I think people sitting at home who belong to a Party like they cheer for a sports team, and who consider themselves conservatives think, "Hey, I'm a conservative so therefore AGW is a hoax." Meanwhile others who are equally disinclined to look deeper than the simplistic left/right dichotomy presented to them by the MSM say, "Well if that's what the other team says, then the opposite must be true." And we're further from making any progress.
Thanks for the link to her blog. I sent her an email:
Dear Ms. Matalin,
I just heard about your interview on CNN today.
In case you have not read this article yet, I wanted to share it with you.
This is in response to your quote:
"... global warming is a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction."
A quote from the article:
"Matalin, of course, is talking about that massive conspiracy secretly organized and executed by the most prestigious scientific organizations (i.e. the Royal Academy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US Academy of Science, NASA etc.)..."
Since you have shown such such a strong stance in the face of the global warming hoax, I am writing to ask you to join me in debunking another hoax:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Regards,
Bill Miller
Thanks for the link to her blog. I sent her an email:
Dear Ms. Matalin,
I just heard about your interview on CNN today.
In case you have not read this article yet, I wanted to share it with you.
This is in response to your quote:
"... global warming is a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction."
A quote from the article:
"Matalin, of course, is talking about that massive conspiracy secretly organized and executed by the most prestigious scientific organizations (i.e. the Royal Academy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US Academy of Science, NASA etc.)..."
Since you have shown such such a strong stance in the face of the global warming hoax, I am writing to ask you to join me in debunking another hoax:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Regards,
Bill Miller
A rather off-topic question (unfortunately I'm not sure where to post this)...
Which reminds me: what's the world's leading "scientific" publication of AGW denialist research at the present time? I keep hearing about "Energy and Environment", but are there any better(*) denialist publications out there?
You see, I'd like to be able to keep myself abreast of the latest developments in Anti-Warmist Freedom Science...
(*) in whatever sense
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
Energy and Environment is the best source of poorly worked-out, unobjective science on the issue.
Thanks!
(Though I can't access it yet...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
It's very unlikely any of us will be 'accessing' or reading Energy and Environment anytime soon. Only 22 libraries in the entire world have active subscriptions to the magazine. (A reference librarian did a search for me using the WorldCat database).
But that won't stop it from being endlessly cited on the internet as a great source of information. So, how (or why) does a journal with 22 subscriptions stay in business anyway?
"Only 22 libraries in the entire world have active subscriptions to the magazine."
Aww, shucks.
On the bright side, I see that "The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique" is available as a "free paper" under Energy and Environment. I know the paper's already been debunked by Nakicenovic, but I still find the Editor's Note hilarious:
"This contribution is not a standard journal article. [...] since the issues raised are highly topical at this stage of the IPCC’s programme, with the groundwork now being laid for the Fourth Assessment Review, we decided to ensure its timely appearance in print by publishing it promptly and with only minor editing changes."
Yeah, Mr. Editor. thanks for telling us it's not a "standard journal article". But what you didn't tell us, is that it's just a whole bunch of letters and op-eds containing reams of unsourced arguments jammed into a single mudpile. Can you give a better excuse for wanting to publish this huge pile of crud?
(But hey, now the denialists can refer to it as if it's a perfectly respectable paper, with volume number, issue number, page numbers and all. God Bless America!)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
It reminds me of a book with some pretensions to history by Tom Flanagan, First Nations, Second Thoughts. It has academic looking footnotes, but when you look them up in the bibliography, some of the references turn out to be just newspaper articles, which historians usually differentiate from academic articles.
And I believe the sequels to Chariots of the Gods? had footnotes to make them look scientific.
Remember the list of sources in State of Fear? An awful lot of people were hoodwinked into believing Crichton had actually done some research!
Fern Mackenzie
Asked and answered:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/22/121317/601
James and Mary must have an interesting marriage.
Now that your are cencoring input, does this mean that you are loosing te battle and are getting desperate?
Propoganda never wins you know.
Propaganda actually...
That's a curious remark coming from a troll.
Perhaps you should frame it and hang it on a wall where you can see it every day....a reminder...
But it's true that my comment just got eaten up.
Moderation filter?
(Edit: Seems OK now. I guess something went bad inside the server.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
The last two campaigns she's helped run? Hardcore global warming deniers George Allen and Fred Thompson. Where are both now? How can I put this gently ... the private sector.
qualites- years of close ties working for Dick Cheney.
I might just be a little simple but to me the first signal of propaganda is an alias.
News flash for co2isgoodnotbad:
Cutting-and-pasting the exact same denialist garbage THREE TIMES, while IGNORING ALL RESPONSES, is an act of total lameness.
That is all.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
It's called spamming and is often considered reason for banning.
That I do consider them spam and will be deleting them.