We call it LIES
CO2 is invisible and essential to life processes. Animals breath it out, and plants breath it in. The fuels that produce CO2 have freed us from a world of backbreaking labour, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need,... the people we love. Now some politicians want to label CO2 a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? They call it pollution. We call it life.The second one goes:
You've seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting. We're doomed. But other scientific studies showed exactly the opposite. Greenland's ice sheets are growing. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim that the glaciers are melting because of the fuels we use. Let's force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for CO2, it isn't smog or smoke. It's what we breath out and plants breath in. They call it pollution, we call it life.But there's more. There are images.
The "world of backbreaking labour" is illustrated with a contemporary picture from Nigeria, where they must be choosing to continue with their unnecessary back-breaking labour, because there's oil leaking out everywhere.
"Lighting up our lives" is a night view of some neon billboards advertising cocacola.
"Move our children" has a concerned mother packing her brood, who are as yet too young to be obese from lack of exercise, into the back seat of her fat car.
"Force people to cut back" shows a man on a bicycle.
And for the bit where "other scientific studies show that Greenland's ice sheets are growing and the Antarctic Ice sheet is getting thicker," they gave up with the usual trick of citing junkmen like Fred Singer, and tried citing an actual scientific publication which, since it dealt with the truth, needed to be misrepresented. Unfortunately, since the scientists in question were not on Exxon's payroll, they could speak out about it. The resident CEI dingo-brain and former UK train privatizer Iain Murray then went on to explain how he understood the scientific paper better than the author did.
The sheer weight of alarming papers he must have had to flick through to locate a nugget which he could quote out of context must have clouded his judgement. I believe this is the best they could find.
Both ads end with a picture of a small child blowing the fluff off a dandelion weed. If it wasn't for CO2, she wouldn't be alive. You can see this kid getting run over by the climate train in a 30-second video that states the facts and puts what's at stake pretty succinctly.
There will be no business as usual.
I must end this posting with more from Myron Ebell, who said this week that his group does get funding from companies such as ExxonMobil but that it doesn't compromise him. If this were the case, then Exxon would be acting illegally, wasting shareholder's money where it wasn't needed. Myron Ebell has also been seen in "Accuracy in Media". As usual, no amount of investment in the brand name can overcome the underlying stench once Ebell has been cited in an article without due consideration. Articles mentioning him should read like this, or not mention him at all.