moonbattery.gif


« Movin' the D Downward | Main | Lawyers For Animals »


July 27, 2007

Michael Eckhart, Global Warming Hoax Enforcer

It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Those are the words of Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

CEI doesn't dispute that climate fluctuates, but isn't drinking Al Gore's leftist Kool-Aid when it comes to the causes — thus the threats.

Over 400 organizational members pay into ACORE, including the federal Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. This is your tax dollar at work.

In a separate threat, Eckhart demanded that CEI reverse its position and start spouting global warming propaganda "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down" — including siccing the IRS on it.

Why not? Besides heading ACORE, Eckhart is cochairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy and a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Presumably he's making good money off the global warming hoax, and doesn't want his golden goose threatened.

Just so long as no one thinks this has anything to do with science.

michael_eckhart.jpg
Michael Eckhart, global warming thug.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 27, 2007 7:47 AM

Comments

dontcha love those peaceniks?

Posted by: nanc at July 27, 2007 8:33 AM

It's for the children!

I question the timing.

/all purpose moronic responses

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 27, 2007 8:47 AM

HEY! Mr. Michael Yuckheart!

You are a fool supporting fools. You are a liar and an ass.

I'm calling you out, fool. I'll take on a pissant like you any day, any time.

Come and get me, if you dare.

Posted by: Jimbo at July 27, 2007 9:17 AM

I wonder how much moolah this dood gets from the glowball worming hysteria. It's obvious that he realizes anthropogenic GW is a scam, so he's trying to perpetuate the myth.

Posted by: skh.pcola at July 27, 2007 9:23 AM

To All Readers of this Blog:
The correspondence between Marlo Lewis and Mike Eckhart should be taken in context. Below for your background information is the original response posted by Mr. Eckhart on July 15th on the ACORE blog.
Thank you for reading this background material.
Jim Pierobon & The ACORE Communications Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To All:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has made public a July 13, 2007 email that I sent to Dr. Marlo Lewis, CEI’s chief analyst on climate change.  This private communication to Dr. Lewis is part of a two-year series of communications between us about CEI’s campaign to stop public policy on global warming.  The campaign is led by Fred Smith, CEI’s President, and Dr. Lewis.
I apologize to all in the public who were offended by the email, because it was not intended for public display.  You could not be aware of the two-year context of it, nor the choice of words in it – words that were only significant to Dr. Lewis and myself.  Now that it is in the public, however, everyone deserves to understand the context. 
Summary
I believe that global warming is occurring.  The evidence is overwhelming and persuasive both from a statistical as well as anecdotal basis.  Last year, the President of the National Wildlife Federation told the story about how a multi-billion duck hunting industry in Arkansas has disappeared – the ducks only fly south to Illinois any more. 
Recently, we have learned about the acidification of the oceans and the attendant accelerated loss of coral and other marine life.
This week, credible scientific organizations will predict that the North Pole will no longer have ice in the summer, beginning just ten years from now.  Glaciers are melting.  If the ice bank on Greenland melts, the seas could rise as much as 20 feet.  This is serious business, affecting all.
In my opinion, CEI, and especially Dr. Lewis, has been presenting a false prosecution — a knowingly false prosecution — of the global warming issue, to the detriment of society and the billions of people who will be affected by climate change.  This should offend all who believe in integrity and honesty in public affairs. 
Dr. Lewis admitted to me two years ago that he does not necessarily believe that global warming is not happening – he is pursuing it for another reason: his philosophical opposition to big government.  He has hijacked our issue to further his philosophical ideas about government.  I respectfully object.
My email to Dr. Lewis was in the context of personal combat and jousting that has been going on in the background — using his own words, as described below, to prod him out this false prosecution of global warming. 
Background
The interchange and jousting began two years ago when Dr. Lewis and I were invited to debate the issue on E&E TV, and we had 20 minutes to talk beforehand in the green room.  It was a 20-minute monologue by Dr. Lewis. 
He informed us that he is a trained professional debater from Harvard University with a PhD in Philosophy, but that he came out of the experience with the opposite philosophy of most Harvard graduates who believe that government is the solution to society’s problems.  He said that he believes that it is excessive government that is the root of most problems in modern society, and that big government must be stopped.  He said that one of his life’s goals is to show the Harvard crowd that they are wrong.
He went on the say that environmentalists are, in his view, “just full of cr*p” and that they are falsely using the threat of climate change to gain control of the power of government.  He said that he has a permanent dedication to destroy their careers, hence my use of the same phrases.  His method, based on his training in philosophical argument, is not to attack them, but to attack their underlying assumptions, in this case the technical arguments that global warming is happening.
I asked him, then: “so your argument against global warming is just a tactic in a larger battle you are waging against big government?”  He said: “Yes, correct.” 
Dr. Lewis went on to say that he might just as easily make the argument that global warming IS happening, and that, actually, he is a bit concerned about it, but he could not let that sidetrack him from his life’s work to stop big government. 
I then asked if there was any possibility that we could talk him into joining the climate change movement and take the lead on developing non-government solutions, since he is against government solutions.  He said that this was an intriguing idea, but, no, he couldn’t do it.  He said that his job is not to be a consultant on solutions; his mission is to stop big government.
We were called into the studio and I concluded by saying that I had never met such a brilliant mind that was, in my opinion, so off track on intellectual honesty, and asked if he thought it would consider it fair play if I tried to stop him as much as he is trying to stop us.  He said: “fair is fair” and we went into the televised debate.
A member of my staff was with us in the Green Room.  You will see Dr. Lewis’ own words in my July 13 email. 
Subsequent Communications
Since that first event, Dr. Lewis and Fred Smith and I have discussed on several occasions the honesty or dishonesty of hijacking the global warming issue to further their philosophy about making government smaller.  I confronted Fred Smith on this in May 2006.  There have been several exchanges.  For example:
On September 22, 2006, Dr. Lewis sent a campaign email saying: “I attach for your reading pleasure the latest version of my Skeptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.” 
In reply, on September 25, I wrote to Fred Smith and Marlo Lewis:  “I am writing to say that I am very unhappy to see this continuing false analysis coming out of CEI, seeking to refute the issue of global warming.  What concerns me is that you are credible and persuasive, hence your voice and that of CEI are having the effect of delaying a US response to the crisis.  The only explanation that I can see is that you are doing this because you are paid by ExxonMobil and other clients to do so.  I find this outrageous, that my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story.” 
On September 26, Dr. Lewis wrote back to me:  “Talk about an inconvenient truth! How inconvenient for some people that fossil fuels played an indispensable role in ending slavery and serfdom, extending human lifespan, etc.” 
This was clearly going no where, and it rested for a while.
Turning the Corner on the Acceptance of Global Warming
Coincidently, however, I was informed that ExxonMobil ended its many years of funding CEI’s anti-climate campaign the following month, at the time of a speech by ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex W. Tillerson to the Boston CEO Club on November 30, 2006, in which he said:
“While the scientific community continues this study, we should pursue public policies that start gradually and learn along the way with full recognition of the economic consequences of certain actions and we should bring all countries into the effort…We should start on a path to reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes… and understand the context of managing carbon emissions among other developing world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health. Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways.”
The most conservative companies in the oil industry are turning the corner on the global warming issue in a thoughtful and honest way.  We also are seeing the electric utility industry study the matter carefully, recognizing that the future is a carbon-constrained world and they must find practical ways of working in it.  And many serious people from industry, finance, the professions, academia, commerce, the nonprofit sector and government have looked at this and concluded that we as a society must take action now, for the sake of society as we know it, and for the sake of the generations who come after us.
The Issue Today
In the face of this came another analysis by Dr. Lewis this past week on July 12, undermining the inconvenient and now compelling truth about global warming, and I said: ‘enough is enough.”  I challenged Dr. Lewis using his own words from that Green Room conversation two years ago, and challenged him to take me on, to resolve this issue.  I have challenged him to debate this out, but he refuses, instead leaking my jousting email to him.
As to the email, there can be no excuse for it in the public’s eye, or out of the context of years of communications in the background.   I apologize to all who have read it.
To CEI, however, there can be no apology.  Quite the opposite.  It is time to end CEI’s disingenuous undermining of worldwide concern about global warming.  To resolve this, I again challenge Dr. Lewis to a series of personal debates on global warming that would go on for a month, with daily exchanges.  There would be a running public vote.  We would agree to accept the vote of the American people on the debate.
We must begin a nonpartisan, bi-partisan, and universal move forward to manage carbon in society and implement solutions in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, other non/low-carbon energy, and the management of oceans, biodiversity and forestation. 
I believe that a cleaner world will be a more productive world with more security, longer lives, broader equity, more peace, more prosperity, and greater freedom than the status quo can possibly offer.  It will not be big government delivering a solution, but the entire complex of government, the private sector and civil society adapting to a better path.   
I believe that an open debate on these issues will reveal the truth of the matter.  I call Dr. Lewis out of his analytic hideaway at CEI.
I will be happy to debate this out with Dr. Lewis and seek an answer, and again apologize to everyone for having the private email communication leaked to the press, distracting everyone from the serious matters at hand.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael T. Eckhart
July 15, 2007

Posted by: James Pierobon at July 27, 2007 11:52 AM

I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

"Corporate America" is with the global warming scaremongers. "Corporate America" is advertising all over the place how Green they are. No one in "Corporate America" is sticking their necks out. Back in the '50s Ike dubbed the ties of the military and industry "The Military/Industrial Complex." What we have today is the Environmental Agency/Industrial Complex. Michael Eckhart, ACORE, and the World Council for Renewable Energy are all very much a part of this Environmenal Agency/Industrial Complex. Eat them apples, Eckhart. Take me on.

Posted by: Kevin at July 27, 2007 12:00 PM

1} PROOVE that humans are the cause of global warming.
2} PROOVE that there will be a crisis.
3} PROOVE that it is imperative that draconian measures should be taken.
4} PROOVE that this will counter-act the warming trend.
5} PROOVE that lowering tempatures will be a good thing.
Otherwise, SHUT THE HELL UP!

Posted by: KHarn at July 27, 2007 3:59 PM

I'm with KHarn, People who are fighting against the global warming machine are not denying the fact that it's happening only the fact that we little piss ants can do anything about it. Mother Earth is doing her thing. Just think of all the farming that will be on Greenland... Just like when the Vikings landed there.

Global warming will be a good thing I think. More food for the growing population of the world. More of the population of the world will be self sufficient because they'll be able to grow food where it wasn't able to be grown before. Won't rising sea levels bring water to deserts? (I actually think this is the problem that the global warming people are worried about... The masses becoming more self sufficient.)

The computer models that people like ACORE are using are totally bogus because we all know when you put garbage into a computer you get garbage out.

I myself am enjoying the warmer weather. I can cool off easier than I can warm up. But saying that, my own city hasn't hit 100 degrees yet this summer and we usually have 2 or 3 100+ degree days by now... It's barely hit 96 degrees so far... And I'm pretty sure it only hit 100 1 day last year.. How's that global warming? What in the grand scheme of things is a 1 degree change going to do? I don't think it'll do much. What happened to the ice age we were so worried about in the 70's? We all know pollution was worse in the 70's than it is now..

Even the people that back kyoto say that if everything in that treaty was followed it would only drop the global temperature by .6 degrees... Big WHOOPTIE DOO!

SO until you can answer beyond a shadow of a doubt the questions KHarn asked, like she said SHUT THE HELL UP AND STAY OUT OF MY WALLET!

Posted by: Kerry at July 27, 2007 4:28 PM

Kerry, excellent post!

Posted by: d at July 27, 2007 4:39 PM

Kerry -
Weather (sorry - to all you little comrads I mean 'climate') in my neck of the woods has changed drastically. We are 10-20 degrees below normal (yes, 10-20 degrees!) all summer.

In Austin that has meant 80 rather than 100. If this is global warming, I really like it.

And - fyi - as far as the GW drout - we're also 20 inches (yes - 20 inches!) above normal for rainfall.

Global warming has been very good to me. ;-)

Posted by: Jimbo at July 27, 2007 5:35 PM

Jimbo: Yep -- it's amazing how the "man-made" global warming crowd just shuts up when the weather goes bad (on them, anyway), and rants and raves whenever it conveniently goes their way (Katrina! Oh, the horrors! There's never been hurricane like it! -- Oh, idiots: got two words for you: GALVESTON, 1900 and CAMILLE, 1969; or had you forgotten those bad boys? How convenient, to cite Dana Carvey).

As for Herr Eckhart (good German name there, buddy) -- Seig, Heil! We all know you nutballs want to run the world, run everybody's life, down to the least little thing, but threatening a man's career just because he disagrees with you -- shades of Deutschland, 1934 (burn any good books lately, Herr Eckhart?). What's next? Kristallnacht? Konzentrationlagers?

Heil, Eckhart! Our new fuehrer! Oh, the bliss!

Posted by: jc14 at July 27, 2007 5:59 PM

That "letter" supposedly posted as having been written by Eckhart is bogus. I was born at night, but not last night. Whoever posted that must take us all for idiots. Go blow yourself.

Posted by: fellowes at July 27, 2007 8:02 PM

We're doomed:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070727/wl_mcclatchy/20070727bcmideastarms_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

Posted by: fellowes at July 27, 2007 9:22 PM

I can't vouch for the authenticity of the letter. It sounds like the sort of justification a partisan academic would make, but I couldn't find it on ACORE's site. If, as fellowes suggests, there is something obvious about it that makes it patently inauthentic, I admit I missed it.

It is, at a minimum, someone's attempt to justify Eckhardt's behavior, and we might critique it on those grounds. Thus,

There is no actual apology, only an "I'm sorry anyone was offended." Cheap.

The summary justification is "It's alright for me to speak like this, because I'm right." Inadequate.

Similarly, he believes unseemly methods of argument are justified because AGW is really happening and is really, really bad. Incipient fanaticism.

His context is that his comments to Lewis merely reflected back in the style Lewis had written to him. As that is only partially true, it is dishonest by omission.

He considers that the use of the GW issue as a mere tool for a larger agenda of reduced government is dishonest in some way. Puzzling.

"I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone directory than by the 2000 members of the Harvard faculty." William F. Buckley Jr.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at July 28, 2007 6:57 AM

fellowes and Assistant Village Idiot, like you I don't know if that memo is authentic or not. If it was actually posted by James Pierobon, this is undoubtedly him:

http://jimpierobon.com/

Looks to me like he's a lobbiest for the environmentalist industry. Pierobon's post and that memo would, to my mind, be consistent with the mind set of these knuckleheads.

One thing that gets me is this idea presented in the memo, that it's just pure ideological blindness, or being in the pay of ExxonMobile (ExxonMobile? http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/campaign/climate_view.asp) that would make someone at CEI fight against AGW scaremongering and big government.

Mr. Pierobon, I won't speak for anyone else but, for me, my fear is that the Environmentalist movement will use AGW, wittingly or unwittingly, to destroy freedom. In a free country, Mr. Pierobon, you have every right to try and convince other people of what you believe to be true and we have every right to weigh your arguments and decide what is right or wrong and, as free people, to act accordingly. There are those that want to circumvent freedom and use the force provided by government to make us all do that which they believe to be right. It's my belief that in the end this will produce tyranny, totalitarianism, poverty, and very much human misery. If what you believe is so important to you that you would circumvent our birthright of freedom, it must at least be important enough to you to respect individual rights and appeal to your fellow citizens minds rather than legislative law-makers whose tools are the use of force and coercion.

Posted by: Kevin at July 28, 2007 8:23 AM

To get an idea of how insane this issue is, check out the 1,752-word comment -- which I later turned into a stand-alone post -- received from Eckhart's communications folks regarding a post on my blog about his spat/threat against Dr. Marlo Lewis.

Click on my name as it appears below this comment to read the post.

Posted by: Bob at July 28, 2007 8:45 AM

Enjoyed the commentary Bob. Didn't think you were being sophomoric at all, and I can spell too (usually).

Posted by: Fellowes at July 28, 2007 9:28 AM

Wouldn't it be ironic if Global Warming caused the glaciers to recede in Greenland... and they found a massive oil field underneath them? Wouldn't that be too cool?

Posted by: V the K at July 28, 2007 12:10 PM

Bob's blog was half-assed entertaining until I read his "I'm a Paulette" post. Nothing kills appreciation of writing more than the realization that the person who wrote it is a frackin' booster of mental instability. Sorry, Bob...you are probably a great guy, but people who support Paul are worth my attention.

Posted by: skh.pcola at July 28, 2007 6:47 PM

Thanks Bob. I don't care what any of these people have to say so long as they convine their beliefs it to the marketplace of ideas. It's only when they wish to use the government to force what they believe down everyone else's throats that I feel called upon to stand up and defend myself.

Posted by: Kevin at July 28, 2007 10:46 PM

Wouldn't that be too cool?

Actually it'd be quite warm.

Posted by: Archonix at July 29, 2007 4:35 AM

What does "convine" mean?

Posted by: skh.pcola at July 29, 2007 1:28 PM

What does "convine" mean?

Meant to write "confine." I pushed the post button just a little too soon.

Posted by: Kevin at July 29, 2007 3:35 PM