EPA chief: 'Crucify' comments from official are 'disappointing' - The Hill's E2-Wire
The apology came soon after Inhofe released a 2010 video Wednesday of Armendariz comparing his enforcement philosophy to that of Roman soldiers who crucified villagers in towns they wanted to conquer. He made the comments after calling the oil-and-gas sector an "enforcement priority."
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement. And I think it was probably a little crude, and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’m going to tell you what I said,” Armendariz says in the video.
“It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer the villages in the Mediterranean — they’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. Then that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
'Crucifying' EPA Regulator was Eager to Inflict Pain | National Legal and Policy Center
The administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 6 office in Dallas, who boasted on video that he sought to “crucify” oil and gas companies as examples much like the Roman empire, has a history of environmental activism and overzealous statements.
U.S. Department of Defense Leading Climate Change Fight « The Center for Climate & Security
Good to see that the DoD’s long-term and thorough approach to planning for different potential futures is being recognized as a strength in combating (and adapting to) the risks of climate change.
The World's Insurers Brace For Climate Change -- Except In America | World | AlterNet
Climate change is increasing insurance costs all over the world. But a recent Ceres report finds that American firms are still in denial.
Video of EPA Official's 'Crucify' Remarks, Removed by Environmental Activist, Reappears Online
We can easily win | ScottishSceptic
Andrew Montford is the only sceptic in Scotland I know who has any kind of income (Monckton is abroad!).
Posts
1 comment:
I just left a crazy long comment at the ScottishSceptic article "We Can Win." I am going to try to get the words and gist of my comment around elsewhere to try to goad or instigate some shakers and movers to take action to change public opinion on this load of bs, climate change. My comment:
[points the author made]
1. Sceptics are sceptical of our own arguments
4. The BBC are completely biased.
7. Lack of money
8. There’s no public funding
On point 1, everyone’s different, but I think the majority of skeptics feel that the opposition is absolutely full of it, Scotland or USA. But what’s important is we need to start thinking about winning, and that means taking a dedicated beeline approach to changing public opinion!!!
There’s always going to be ambiguity in the arena of theoretical argument, but public opinion is and will be the main gauge of perceived success, and public opinion will drive policy. We have to stop our kind of self-righteous sense of our own superior moral fiber, and start doing what the opposition does so effectively — campaigning in systematic structured funded ways to change opinion. We are going to have to “stoop” to employing the tricks of the trade to get the job done. And though we seem to have won the last couple of rounds, we shouldn’t get complacent, we have had the benefit of Climategate and a string of other strokes of luck, but in the future, with the tenacious leftist MSM against us, we could easily find ourselves losing again big time.
Put the rights minds and skills together, and we could raise plenty of money for systematic PR & advertising campaigns. The campaigns would bypass the leftist media and beam directly to the public. That is what it is going to take to change opinion: short effective TV (mostly) spots. Certain ads hit the main issues like: there is nothing unusual about current temps (no hockey stick), and that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming worth more than a hill of beans. And there would be other ads that hit subsidiary issues like the leftist nature of the opposition, their deceptions, ice and sea levels, whatnot.
Making the case to prospective donors should be easy now. The importance of this issue, in terms of determining election outcomes and consequential govt policies, is clear. Also, once a campaign is up and running it could be largely self-sustaining through viewer contributions — now that so many people, especially conservatives, are hyped about the issue, and would give $.
Finally, conservative govts should strive to get public funding for the resistance. Equal funding at minimum. If not, then at least cut all funding for anything that abets the ideologically motivated warmists.
Post a Comment