KCOL's James likened Gore to a Nazi propagandist
On the March 22 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Ride Home with The James Gang, host and KCOL program director Scott James likened former Vice President Al Gore's "mass persuasion campaign" on global warming to Nazi propaganda efforts. Gore announced the initiative during his congressional testimony on March 21. James' comments were similar to those of CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck, who on his March 22 broadcast said Gore "sounded a little bit like" Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
From the March 22 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Ride Home with The James Gang:
JAMES: Busy day, lots of stuff to talk about, because if you didn't know, and, and it's -- by the way, Al Gore's campaign to make sure that you know -- the Earth has a fever. A fever. I'm waiting for you to find the song. Chris is looking frantically. [Laughs] A fever. And, and, and we're gonna find out whether or not we can -- we can cure it our not. It, it, it scares me the language that he used on Capitol Hill the other day. Because apparently by June you will be inundated by a massive -- these are his words -- massive persuasion campaign. You don't think this is all but a socialist movement? You don't -- it's all but a socialist movement? For crying out loud. It's a persuasion campaign. As he says, massive persuasion -- and if you have kids in school, God forbid, because that will be epicenter of said persuasion campaign. It's going to be fascinating to watch. [Using a German accent] "Because you will buy into the global warming, and you will be persuaded, sieg heil!" It's what it sounds like to me. Persuasion campaign.
—E.B.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (10) Show
1 - 10 |
When you mandate that children in public schools watch the scientifically disasterous "An Inconvenient Truth" IN THEIR CLASSROOMS DURING SCHOOL HOURS, what else could it possibly be called but a mass-persuasion campaign? If you can't convince rational, reasonable adults that we're all doomed, than it's time to start indoctrinating their children. Sounds pretty Nazi-esque to me.
When you empower children with the raw facts, you might get a result like the one they reached at Trail Ridge Middle School in Longmont after a mock trial concerning the subject. One sixth-grader asked, "“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?”
Good question!! Why can a sixth grader ask it but no one in the mainstream pose it to Al Gore?
As I've said before, I think I can state with confidence that no one here wants to live in a theocracy. Global warming is a religion that is being shoved down our throats. While I do not deny that we may have a problem, reasoning adults can resist this religious fanaticism with facts and rational thought, children in school under the thumb of their teachers cannot. The perfect target demographic for indoctrination into the Religion of Global Warming. No thanks.
What a refreshing response, instead of a personal attack on Gore, associate scientists, whose research hasn't been funded by oil companies, with Nazis. Obviously this idiot has no concept of taste, given that he thinks this compares with discriminate torturing and killing of millions of people. But he probably doubts that happened, too. Sorry but there is not a joke to miss.
And SPONGEBOB shows a similar disdain for reality. How cute to say a sixth grader knows more than all those scientists who have studied this problem. Apparently you have no qualms about admitting your ignorance, and you want to align yourself with the knowledge level of a sixth grader, who hasn’t done any basic research.
This isn't Gore's issue. He reiterates what the science has shown. And presumably by "charts," you mean CO2 levels haven't risen, but sorry to say recordings show that CO2 levels have risen dramatically. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide page down to atmospheric concentration. The measurements were taken in Hawaii because it is far away from any heavy industry that might skew the numbers. There is even a graph so you don't have to read anything, which sounds like it's right up your alley!)
Nice try MD, but too much concentration on attempting to insult me and not enough dealing with the facts at hand. You've, either maliciously or innocently, tried to take this thread on a different tangent than what it's intended to deal with.
I'm still waiting for an answer, so I'll ask again: When schoolchildren are FORCED to watch AIT in the classroom, a movie overwhelemed with serious scientific problems as well as outright lies, what else would you call it but an attempt at mass-persuation? The producers of the movie tried to distribute it, free of charge along with cirriculim guides, to 50,000 public classrooms! I can draw three or four parallels to the rise to the Nazi party in Germany in the 30's just off the top of my head with just this propaganda tactic alone! Try learning from history instead of ignoring it.
If it makes you feel good to insult sixth graders, go ahead. But you've completely mischaracterized the quote from the student I cited earlier. The sixth grader was correctly saying that carbon dioxide levels HAVE gone up, but global temperatures haven't. Why? That question needs to be asked of Al Gore and his doomsayer minions but no one in the mainstream bothers to ask it. Why? Could it be that there is a mass-persuasion effort underway to have us ignore the facts and raw data that blows Gore's entire movie out of the water? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The UN ITSELF says that CO2 emissions are up, but temperatures haven't risen since 1998. Not my opinion, simply their own figures. Where's the corrleation? Pretty intuitve of a sixth-grader to realize and pretty idiotic of you to ignore.
Finally, you reference "numbers." If you like graphs and figures so much, why not ask Mr. Gore why his movie DOSEN'T USE ANY in HIS graphs and charts! Maybe because it's a lot harder to disprove an unreferenced line on a graph than it is when that line might be tied to actual NUMBERS! Sheer idiocy! And sorry, Wikipedia dosen't stand up to the credibility test where global warming is concerned. Too politically charged a topic to be trusted there.
It's all religion with Gore and his followers. Religion that we all need to adhere to or we're all doomed. Sound familiar? No mass-persuasion for me, I'll remain free and make my own personal choices based on rational thought and real data, thank you very much. May I recommend you do the same, MD.
Well, first of all your statement was not clear about what "charts" you meant. Thus, I could only guess, and I showed you a link to the CO2 chart that clearly shows an increase. Sorry that my actually using citations makes this post look messy.
As for Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not textbook, and I was using it only to link to the CO2 chart. Interesting that Wikipedia is too politically charged, but you have no problem supporting a provocative statement by some talking head who uses simplistic Nazi references. Sorry, but you can't claim Gore and the scientists, whose information he used, are Nazi-esque. Don't be ridiculous. There is too much rapped up in the Nazi history for them to be referred to as mere propagandists. At best you are saying Gore and the vast majority of scientists worldwide are trying to control information, but there is an analogy that is much more on point. Oil companies have been giving away educational materials for years to organizations like the National Science Teachers Association ([link to ecommerce.nsta.org] and they have paid scientists to dispute global warming scientists. (“Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study” http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11Friday February 2, 2007; “Exxon linked to climate change pay out”http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm)
Also, I don't know the UN report to which you refer. Since you have such an open mind and trust in the UN, perhaps you should examine the series of UN reports that are coming out this spring. For instance, this NPR report entitled "U.N. Climate Report Predicts Droughts, Flooding," states that “scientists are more than 90 percent sure that humans are warming the planet.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9433825. Even, NASA, which has labored under Republican control for many years, states that that the five warmest years since 1898 have happened since 1998. [link to www.nasa.gov] face="Times New Roman" size="3"> As for the alleged unreferenced, charts and graphs in the movie, perhaps you should check out his book if you want a more concrete series of references, which would have bogged down the movie.Why should I have to check out Gore's book? Are you telling me he released a "documentary" without the documentation to support the claims contained within? Shocking! Heaven forbid we "bog down" an Academy Award winning movie with pesky facts.
Wikipedia: Yes, it's an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that anyone with web access can contribute to and modify. It's good for some things, but on the topic of Global Warming and anything else controversial, it's mob rule. It should not be considered credible or the bottom line on this topic.
You once again sidestep the main point of this thread: The mass-persuasion attempt that is currently underway. Oil companies do not attempt to FORCE schoolchildren in their classrooms to watch hours of propaganda in an attempt to persuade them towards their ideology, unlike Al Gore. "Follow my religion or you are doomed," is what Gore says in his movie. Of course, he's smart enough to not put that literally, but do you really feel the only way children can be "persuaded" on this topic is through that tactic? Tell me how that is NOT Nazi-esque.
I'm referring to the same much heralded UN report that the mainstream breathlessly characterizes as the "Stop exhaling carbon dioxide or we're all going to die!" story. They've been running it for nearly a week now. Of course, they won't take a look at or even INTERVIEW anyone that will intrepret the raw data honestly...
And the raw data in the report, among a lot of other things that damage the Global Warming Disaster arguement, states that global temperatures have NOT risen since 1998, while carbon dioxide emmisions have. This collapses one of the main pillars of Gore's arguement! But don't expect his useful idiots in the mainstream, ESPECIALLY NPR, to tell you that...
As I've stated many times, I'm not close-minded to the fact that we may have a problem. But I'm not going to trust religous fanatics to show me the path to Global Warming Salvation. I'll be making up my own mind and acting accordingly...
Why should I have to check out Gore's book? Talk about shocking! Do you honestly expect a documentary film to have a continuous crawl of citations? Wow, it is surprising that people who make a movie want something that people can watch! I'll bet if you watch the credits, you won't even have to bother with the book. The point of the movie is that there is a problem, and people need to start thinking about it and taking it seriously. It is a primer to stir debate, but obviously there are interests who want to focus on the messenger to avoid serious challenges to their business practices.
The difference between the producers of An Inconvenient Truth and the oil companies is that they tried to give the movies without setting up a front organization like the oil companies. The oil companies use front groups to create curricula for use in the schools The American Petroleum Institute (API ) tried to use $5 million to debunk global warming in classrooms nationwide through “Project Learning Tree.” This “Science Education Task Group” would help destroy the reputation of the Kyoto Protocol and counter initiatives to reverse climate change. Or how about “Provider Pals” curriculum, sponsored by Ford, that presented the wonders of chemical-based agriculture without mentioning the soil and water problems that it created. Insidious as this propaganda sounds, I refuse to call it Naziesque, and I am startled that you can’t find a better analogy. As I have stated before Nazi references carry much more baggage than only propaganda.
And if you can cite the where in the UN Report it says Global temps haven't risen in the last ten years, I'd love to see it. The only thing close I found was the Diurnal Range didn't change because night and day temps rose at the same rate. For instance on page ten it says, "the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." And the graphs that accompany this clearly show a rise in hte last ten years as well. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
As for NPR, they frustrate me very often by reporting right wing talking points, so they must be doing better than what you have heard about them. Nothing is perfect, but a decent news organization probably makes lefties and righties feel like the whole truth isn't getting out.
Bing! Round 4 will begin after these messages from our sponsors; Exxon-Mobil and The Sierra Club. But first, a thought from an independent source. Imagine a religious school bringing in a multi-media presentation that advocates intelligent design. And imagine that the school mandated that the students watch this. Someone on the left may shout: "That's a persuasion campaign! You are using impressionable children to promote your beliefs! That's a massive religious movement! Why, it's reminiscent of the Nazis!" The religious school would simply declare that it is an Education campaign. Perhaps the schools that promote An Inconvenient Truth also see it as an Education campaign. Depends on which side of the fence you're on. I always think that all, or both, sides should be presented. These kids are going to have to make up their minds about a lot of concepts in the future. Teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think. And now, back to the bout.
Ah, but a religious school is a private school where the curriculum is very much tied to the beliefs of the parents who pay beyond their taxes to have their kids there. Religious teachings, like intelligent design are probably expected there. If a teacher there started a course in devil worship, he wouldn't last five seconds. A member of the teacher's union in DPS doing the same would be as hard to remove as Ward Churchill from CU. (Who is STILL there!)
I'm talking about being forced, through my taxes, to have my daughter socially engineered by public schools in total contradiction to how I want to raise her. I wish I had a voucher so I could get her the hell out of DPS, but that's a whole different thread. Drilling down on this bit of social engineering, I don't mind her learning about Global Warming in the classroom, but I'd like the presentation to be balanced, and her conclusions drawn from critical thinking and research. Look at the curriculum guide attatched to AIT. There is NO opportunity to critically examine the retoric that is spewed forth in the movie. I again go back to the sixth grade class in Longmont: They looked at the evidence available from both sides, engaged in critical thinking and analysis of it, and reached a conclusion. THAT'S how kids should be taught to think, not watching a mass-persuasion DVD and being told it's conclusions are gosphel.
I keep pretty close tabs on my daughter's schoolwork and she is in her 11th year in public schools. I've heve never heard of or seen in her materials called "Project Learning Tree" or "Provider Pals" or anything else that I consider biased towards oil companies. What I have seen is "Environmental Sidebars" in her ALGEBRA book! And they play right down the "We're all doomed unless you start doing what we suggest" line and have nothing to do with math. What the hell are environmental "tips" doing in an high school algebra book?!
AIT Movie: If you're going to produce a movie and put forward "facts" in that movie, you'd better make sure those "facts" are correct. NO WHERE in the massive amout of publicity surrounding the movie did I hear that you need to read a book in addition to get the "real story." The movie was promoted, reviewed, and given the Academy Award as a stand-alone work. I will not be contributing to Mr. Gore's Carbon Offset Fund by buying a book that "backs up" his rediculous movie.
UN Report: When they have to use terms like "confidence intervals" and "likely ranges" in their figures to have the numbers crunch their way, the UN's "conclusions" become laughable. They are simply reverse-engineering the science from conclusions they've already reached rather than having the science lead them to the conclusions they don't want to reach. And OF COURSE you're not going to find STATEMENTS within the fourth IPCC Report that say global temps haven't risen! That would not serve their interests. But if you look at the raw data and trends and ESIMATES that produced the first IPCC report in 1990 (I mistakenly said 1998 in my previous post) and compare them with the fourth, you'll find:
Global temperatures in 1990 were predicted to rise .3 degrees C by 2005. Their observations now claim that period saw a .16 degree increase. They missed it by almost 50%. Also, data from 2001 - 2006 shows only a .03 increase, within the margin of error of the measurements. Using their own figures and not their retoric, global temperatures have not increased statisticly since 2001. At least, not the way they want as they try to correlate it to CO2 emissions. Luckily, there's a "confidence interval" to explain why the number don't add up.
While I'm at it: In just 5 years, they've cut their prediction for sea-level rise in half. In the last 15 years, they've brought their estimates for temperature increases from the years 1750 - 2100 DOWN five times! In 2001 the rise was projected at 3.5 degrees. In this report it's down to 3 degrees. If that trend continues, according to the UN, we'll all freeze to death by the end of the century!
Enough for now. Didn't know I was writing an epic...
Trust me, I know the difference between public and private schools, secular and religious schools. And I get it that the parents of religious school students comprehend what's being taught and support the curricula. I think that you and I are close to agreeing to agree (to a degree). I don't believe in creationism. I consider it to be religious dogma (mass persuasion). But the religious school does believe in creationism, so they consider it education. You don't believe in global warming. You consider the teaching of global warming to be mass persuasion. I believe that global warming is real, so I consider the teaching to be education. What we appear to agree on is that the teaching process should include both, or all, sides of an issue. My point is, what you see as dogma, I see as truth, and vice-versa. The religious (private) school is in no way obligated to teach alternatives to intelligent design or creationism. The public schools should teach alternative theories to global warming. Whether they do or not, I can't say. But the extremism of this conundrum is when people equate teaching a school subject to Nazism. Nothing is comparable to Nazism. It was the most horrific political and social movement of the 20th century. To compare anything, or anyone, to Nazism is intellectually lazy. By the way, I predict that Ward Churchill, after his sabbatical, will be shown the door. Either through firing, or by taking his retirement. Good riddance.
I agree that we're not that far apart education-wise. And I'm willing to keep an open mind on global warming. We may indeed have a problem on the horizon, but I'm not going to let people like Al Gore define the problem for me...
Good brain exercise. Thanks!
1 - 20 |