The one world theory
Meanwhile Myron Ebell, who does not belong on a living planet, has been sounding off at length on the Cybercast News Service, a deceptively crap webpage which is one of the few sources who still print his BS frequently and far more often than anyone else. The CNS has been a recipient of Exxon money as part of their disinformation campaign; this rattled their founder Brent Bozwell enough for him to come out on his own webpage and complain that "ExxonMobil's total contribution to the MRC represents two-tenths of one percent of our operating budget during this study period. If that influences us, we're cheap ... how is that influencing anything that we do?"
Well, Brent, it's simple. A taxi driver hires out his car to all kinds of customers, none of whom amount to a significant percentage of his income, although each one determins his destination completely, rather like the content of your publication. You need money. You know Exxon's position. Not necessary to sign a contract with "strings attached", because the strings are actually on the next dollar which you want to reel in from their bank account when you behave in a way that they like. It is already an empirical fact that any media source who publishes quotes from Myron Ebell without at the same time informing their readership that he is a paid liar none of whose words should ever be trusted is junk.
So when we get the usual lame attempts to counter-attack the Union of Concerned Scientists, which begins with Myron whinging that:
The name suggests everyone involved is some kind of objective scientist, but they tend to be leftist political activists... Facts mean very little to them.By using the phrase "extreme leftist", they're trying to reanimate the dead spectre of Russian Communism. We've already raked over the facts presented in the UCS report, including authentic documents with Myron's name on them, about how they were plotting to train a cadre of fake scientists to back up their false information, knowing this would mislead the public, but they don't mention it. Instead, what follows is an irrelevant horse-hair sandwich from Tobacco lobbyist and peer review process denier Bonner Cohen about how the UCS had a:
remarkably benign view of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s and undertook extraordinary efforts to discourage the U.S. from countering whatever moves the Soviet Union was making to enhance its own nuclear arsenal.added to the usual crap about how President Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet empire by outspending it on an expanded a nuclear missile stockpile far beyond that which would guarentee the total annihilation of life as we know it on the planet many times over, as well as investing in a missile shield that couldn't possibly work. The UCS quite reasonably pointed out that, since we only have one planet, it only needs destroying once in order to defeat the enemy as well as ourselves, and stockpiling nukes beyond this threshold was psychotic.
We were then, as now, ruled by provably ignorant psychopaths, including The Committee on the Present Danger and Team B, staffed by the exact same nuts who lead us into the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, through a blend of opportunism and lies about WMD.
The Soviet Union's demise in fact had nothing to do with the massive appropriation of the U.S. public's wealth into the private pockets of missile manufacturers, such as Boeing, Raytheon and McDonnell Douglas, and everything to do with the democratic reforms established by Gorbachev, systemic economic crises, and the military fatigue over their decade long occupation of Afghanistan. What other empire beginning with the initials U.S. could possibly be facing the same trifecta today? This time we can add to the mix an insoluble and life-threatening environmental catastrophe. So it's curtains for sure. Not that anyone in the Green Zone is capable of noticing.
It's all lies, with attempts to set us back to the middle ages by discarding the scientific method. As Bonner Cohen says in the same articles, side-by-side Myron:
the so-called "peer review process" is too narrowly focused, because it does not allow for input from geologists who are better positioned to gauge the question of global warming than climatologists.Oh yeah? That would come as a news to geophysicist Michael E. Mann, geochemist Eric Steig, Professor in the Department of Geosciences Raymond S. Bradley, and Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, all of whom have published scores of actual fact-checked, peer-reviewed, content-rich, related-to-the-data scientific papers, unlike anyone on Myron's team of sock-puppets. There's a difference. Myron's fake scientist friends write on used toilet paper, and shouldn't complain when everyone can tell that it stinks.