Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pat Buchanan speaks out about Global Warming

arroba Email

The global-warming hucksters

Excerpt from Buchanan’s article:

Put me down as a disbeliever.

Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?

We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation’s foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.

Read more

I completely concur with rswood, why does it matter what the opinions of a redneck lying bigot are on global warming or anything else? Who cares what he thinks? If a neo-Nazi white supremacist organisation in America or anywhere else spoke out against GW alarmism, would you tout that on your blog? And if you tell me that I am exaggerating the case by equating Buchanan with white supremacists, I am not. Buchanan has endorsed everything from Holocaust Revisionism and opposed all civil rights legislation and court decisions in the '60s (he repeated lying smears on Luther King Jr in his column for the St Louis Globe Democrat at the time) and then some. [My source for the quotes below is Steve Rendell at http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html ] In one column from 1977, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan disputed the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90). Buchanan's columns have featured regularly in the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87) Buchanan was vehement in calling for then President Reagan, despite protests, to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: "If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." New Republic, 10/22/90) On gays and AIDS, Buchanan wrote in 1983: "The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution." (Los Angeles Times, 11/28/86) In 1992 he remarked: "AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature." (Seattle Times, 7/31/93) Buchanan has blamed both the 1991 Gulf War and the present Iraq War on the Jews, what do you expect? Buchanan cannot mention the war in Iraq or most anything else without indulging in predictable Jew baiting, hence his popularity in this regard among many radical Leftists, who conveniently ignore his anti-black and anti-feminist and anti-gay rhetoric naturally. Just as on this blog you ignore all his deranged bigotry against absolutely everybody, his conspiratorial rantings merely because he holds the same skeptical position on global warming! And all this ignores the fact that Buchanan has no competence to speak of the subject of GW. Whether anti-alarmist or alarmist, he is a scientific illiterate, that is an important point that most seem to miss here. In other words his position on GW is of no matter, just like Al Gore he has no scientific competence here, so it is of no matter what he says, just like Gore. It matters what those who have scientific competence (whether they are climate scientists or not) have to say here, on both sides of the debate. I am not saying they have to be climate scientists, just that they have to have a real knowledge and understanding on the topic. Buchanan does not. I'm surprised he doesn't try find a way to blame GW hysteria on Israel or homosexuals or blacks or all of them together. This blog is better served by putting up links on GW anti-alarmism by those BOTH competent on the SCIENCE who are also not NAZIS. Such as prestitious climate scientists like Lindzen, Gray, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer etc. If Ahmandinjehad comes out against GW will you guys blog on that too? And I'm an anti-alarmist on GW btw. zephyr
Oh, I forgot though. There is a "consensus" that man (especially the U.S.!!) is destroying the earth, just like there is a "consensus" that information-packed self-replicating biological machines just kinda happened. shaner74
rswood writes: “It’s just the whole ud-is-religion connection that is only strengthened in people’s minds when pat buchanan is on ud’s front page.” The Darwinoids have no problem associating themselves with, and even evangelizing, atheism. I don’t see any problem with a post at UD concerning something said by Pat Buchanan. Man-made global warming is total bunk. Just like Darwinism, it has to explain away reality when its predictions fail. I read this morning on Yahoo news how global warming may be to blame for bigger wildfires. Gee, I wonder why that story is being vomited out by the liberal media? Unless of course, there were no wildfires this year. Then global warming would be to blame for increased rain which is limiting the beneficial renewing effects of annual wildfires. Total garbage! shaner74
rswood How unwise is it to take up GW anti-alarmism if it turns out that the anti-alarmists are right i.e. the science behind GW alarmism is without merit, distorted and misrepresented in order to whip up public support for a hidden political agenda? In my opinion it would establish UD's track record in exposing lies concocted and perpetuated by scientists in pursuit of political goals. I'm quite convinced that the Global Warming hysteria will collapse before Darwinian evolution does. They're both the same as far as the merits of the underlying science are concerned but for several reasons I believe GW will be the first to fall. The primary reasons are as follows: - There's no hiding behind the "it takes millions of years to observe evolution" for global warming. Climate changes and consequences happen a lot faster than that and there are very much more precise metrics by which to measure them. Global warming alarmists are making dire predictions for the near future that will be proven true or false such as more frequent and more intense Atlantic hurricanes. Unlike time and chance evolutionists they're actually going out on a limb by making predictions. No Darwinists are silly enough to try predicting what will happen in the future evolution of species. You can't pin them to the mat if they don't show up for the contest. - Global warming "theory" isn't entrenched by a 150 year history of indoctrination - just 30 years ago Global Cooling was the big scare. - There are far more immediate and tangible monetary costs associated with measures to reduce global warming so there will be commensurately more effort taken to make sure it's based on sound conclusions. If Darwinian evolution is proven true or false there's no huge monetary impact on civilization either way so there's commensurately less effort devoted to proving or disproving it. DaveScot
Pat Buchanan? Isn't he that guy who all the Florida voters voted for because the ballot was "too hard?" Hey, if you ask me, someone who can't read a straight line is too stupid to vote for who will hold the most powerful office on the planet. But the man does make a good point. UrbanMysticDee
How many times has that Ron Paul video been linked here? Why? Evidently not enough times because that's the first time I saw it. I'm leaning towards Fred Thompson but Ron Paul makes many good points but he appears to be too naive about foreign policy. The young United States was certainly better off with a non-interventionist policy - we didn't have the economic or military means to wage foreign wars until the 20th century. We had enough problems just winning wars against a few native indian tribes in our own backyard. Now we're we have more economic and military capability than any other single nation on the planet. That changes things considerably and IMO it would be highly inadvisable to go back to 18th and 19th century non-inventionist policies. That stopped working in th 20th century. What happens is that we get god-awful huge wars that require all-out no holds barred action to win. It's far better to engage in the conflicts early when they're small instead of trying to stay out only to be forced to act when they grow huge. DaveScot
i mean id-is-religion but you get me. rswood
it's just the whole ud-is-religion connection that is only strengthened in people's minds when pat buchanan is on ud's front page. look, i'm skeptical myself, back id, and am a conservative Christian. id/ud has enough problems with its reputation in the public mind, is all. it's an extension of some people thinking it's unwise to report on gw here at all--something i disagree with, but the same idea. rswood
StephenB The common thread amongst ID proponents, Global Warming skeptics, and people who abhor rewriting history to say the United States wasn't founded on the principle of God-given inalienable rights is that they don't succumb to fashionable group-thinks or peer pressure - they're individuals who prefer to think for themselves and don't fear disapproval by the group. If you're a sucker for group-thinks or can't stand up in crowd and say something they don't agree with then you probably aren't an ID proponent, aren't a Global Warming skeptic, and believe that the United States wasn't founded on the principle of God-given inalieable rights and that the mention of God, a creator, or some other absolute authority above mankind that appears in the preamble to 48 of 50 U.S. state constitutions doesn't really mean what it says in plain english. DaveScot
rswood Buchanan's comment is on the political nature of Global Warming and he's certainly qualified in that department. On the science side he quotes a scientific authority. Where's the problem? DaveScot
Stephen, I believe in evolution and separation of church and state. When it comes to global warming, I have to admit that I don't know enough about it and have not bothered to look it up myself to have any opinion, at least not one that I could call educated. leo
I'm really not sure how smart it is to be touting the thoughts of Pat Buchanan on UD. He's a man like any other who can make up his mind like any other, but do you really want the genetic fallacy applied to this blog that, "They think Pat Buchanan's opinion on Global Warming is worth noticing, what does this mean for how serious their ID science is?" I mean, this is kinda like PT posting an article noting how, oh, Bono is "convinced" that ID is junk science.... Either way, who cares? Dr. Gray is worth discussing more, especially since his work is constantly "debunked" by realclimate.org and the like. rswood
Stephen I used to be a communist and now believe in ID. I'm a socialist and I'm uncertain about global warming. DanielJ
I wonder how much variation one would find among the advocates for Darwinism, global warming, and the radical separation of church and state. Or, is there any variation at all? Is it the case that to believe in one is automatically to believe in the other two? When Darwinists become educated and come over to the ID side, do they disavow global warming and socialism, or do they experience cognitive dissonance? Or do the three positions allow for mixed convictions? Can you accept intelligent design while hugging trees and stumping for a "living constitution?" StephenB
Yesterday, the Australian press pushed a global warming story. Members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had announced that the situation is even more grave than previously thought. The CO2 levels for the period 2000-2007 were 35% higher that what they themselves had predicted. This was given the spin by the press that we should try even harder to urgently reduce carbon emmissions. It made me ask if they can't predict with precision what will happen over a few years, can we trust their long term predictions? idnet.com.au
Denyse mentioned Dennis Prager in a recent post. Check out Prager's interview with William Gray. http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=a7d40268-9cd7-461f-a748-6253a057fc5b GilDodgen
How many times has that Ron Paul video been linked here? Why? eddiehaskell
Hmm... something from Pat I agree with. Wonders will never cease :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA Gods iPod

Leave a Reply