What’s Old is New Again: ClassicCrock from 2009

September 23, 2016

Reviewing my investigations of the climate denial movement has convinced me that it’s been a proving ground for the Alt/Right hate groups behind madman Donald Trump.

One reason: here we are in a critical Presidential election – what has the media been snookered into talking about? Emails.

I know it’s old news for the well-informed, but I still hear this nonsense from (generally elderly) climate deniers.


More confirmation of my thesis. As I sometimes do, I tweet out popular  videos from past months so that those who haven’t seen them get a chance.  I did that this morning for Katharine Hayhoe’s “Climate Science Elevator Pitch” Video. Here is one response.



18 Responses to “What’s Old is New Again: ClassicCrock from 2009”

  1. jimbills Says:

    The “alt right” groups that ARE behind Trump are not the reason for his success. They’re a smallish percentage of his support, although they are are a larger factor in funding. Trump’s base are people who are pissed off at Washington and feel like they’re getting a raw deal plus the third or so of Americans that can’t stand the Clintons and wouldn’t support them in any case.

    The vast majority of people don’t think about politics rationally. They form “teams”, then they find evidence to support their team’s positions. They won’t listen to evidence that contradicts that position. They become insulated in their team’s perspective, and can’t see what the other believes, or why they believe it.

    Politics involve the gradual recruitment of segments of the population into these teams. Once someone is on the roster, they’re unlikely to change, and it requires a monumental shift to move them.

    (Or, most people are crazy. Some are super cray cray, like the “alt right”, but they’re in the minority.)

    The Democrats have relied on labor’s support for decades, and they’ve become complacent towards them. With globalization and job losses, working class people are frightened, and while they want to believe things will get better, they have a hard time believing an establishment candidate (not just Clinton, but all the establishment Republicans as well) will create that change.

    This is why I think the Democrats are in serious trouble long-term. The teams in the U.S. are shifting, and if the Democrats become seen as the establishment, they’ll lose vast segments of the population, probably for decades. Obama did not have this problem in 2008. It’s a different story, especially for a Clinton, in 2016.

    This recent article has some good info:

    The emails are important because they go to Hillary Clinton’s trustworthiness and character. And, let’s take the political blinders off for a second. Let’s say it’s 2008, and Dick Cheney is running for President against Barack Obama. Let’s say it’s revealed that Cheney decided against protocol to do a lot of his communication by a private home server, and in that communication he passed classified information, including top secret info, and that his server was potentially hacked by the Russians, and when pressed to reveal exactly what was discussed in those emails, said that a bunch of them were accidentally deleted. Would it be fair for the press to ignore this? Would they?

    The Clinton emails are an entirely different case than the “Climategate” emails. The former is an actual problem, deemed not criminal by the FBI but “extremely careless”, and it does go to the character of a leading candidate for U.S. President. The latter was an isolated incident, taken out of context, centered on a handful of scientists discussing one particular incident that wasn’t classified by government. None of the scientists are running for U.S. President.

    They’re both being used by the “alt right” for political gain, but both should be viewed objectively, rather than by the preferred eyewear of a favorite team.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Clinton took the advice of Colin Powell in setting up the server, something Condi Rice did as well. The media never cared.
      Moreover, the Bush/Cheney team deleted millions of emails critical to understanding what happened in the Iraq catastrophe, and the media never cared.
      The rules are different for Hillary, and a lot of people bought into the narrative. The reason emails are an ideal boogey man for right wing propoganda is because they know people will never read them, the only thing necessary is to play up some kind of narrative that creates doubt, and the let the media (who are even less likely to have researched) run with it.
      I’m sorry you bought into it – but Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most investigated and vetted figure in the history of American politics – and no thing has ever been turned up – from the bogus “Whitewater” nothingburger and Ken Starr’s 5 year witch hunt in the 90s – to todays media narrative that “questions and doubts linger about” fill in the blank.
      Suggest you read Joe Conason’s “Hunting of the President” or David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right” for background.
      The reason the right pulls out all the stops for Hillary is that she is a powerful, smart woman, who hit the nail on the head when she said there is a “vast right wind conspiracy” in this country.
      And no, I don’t give her a pass on Iraq. She screwed up, I think she did it, like John Kerry, with too much of an eye to her political ambitions – shame on them for that. It’s why I didn’t support her in 2008. But this year, neither Barack Obama or Jesus Christ, for that matter, is on the ballot. We have to choose an imperfect human being.
      We need to think about what kind of Supreme Court we are going to have – and I really believe that American democracy, and maybe the capacity of the planet to support life are in the balance.
      Clinton is not the perfect candidate, and I’m not sure who would be – but at least electing her gives us a fighting chance to pull back from a full blown planetary catastrophe – and that’s what motivates me night and day.

      • jimbills Says:

        You have your glasses on, and are seeing strictly from that perspective.

        “The media never cared.”

        What? And my comment is bullshit?

        The Colin Powell and Rice info was fully reported in the press. Every major news source talked about it for days. So were the Bush/Cheney emails. None of them were running for President in 2008 or now, though. It does make a difference on what makes the headlines and for how long.

        Your argument amounts to – the press shouldn’t talk about Clinton’s emails because Trump is a monster. No – the press should do its job and report what happens. The Clinton email controversy is not fabrication. It actually happened. I’ve read the FBI report on it, which to me is pretty much the final word on the matter:

        Comey was elected FBI Director by President Obama. He’s Republican, but he’s also known for butting heads with John Ashcroft. Since that report, the Clinton emails have not been headline news.

        The press has had a full blitz on Trump for months now as well, so no, Clinton is not being singled out for being picked on by the press (although she is certainly being picked on by the right). There are now reports about Jill Stein and Gary (Face Palm) Johnson, too.

        By siding so forcefully behind one candidate, and by subverting your perspective to only support that, how can you hope to convince anyone that your cause is just and worthwhile besides those that already are on your team?

        They won’t agree with you. They actually can’t. They’re on the other team, saying similar things from their perspective.

        “I really believe that American democracy, and maybe the capacity of the planet to support life are in the balance.”

        “but at least electing her gives us a fighting chance to pull back from a full blown planetary catastrophe”

        That’s where we fundamentally disagree, really. Personally, I agree that a Clinton win would be far better than a Trump win for environmentalism and representative democracy in the short term. A Trump Presidency also runs the risk of some truly monumental world diplomacy disasters.

        In the long term, however, I don’t think a Clinton win will make an ounce of difference, and in the medium term, I worry that a Clinton win will set liberal causes, democracy, and environmentalism back for decades (these are both too much to go into here, but I alluded to the medium term in the middle of my comment above.)

        History isn’t a straight line. It’s cause-and-effect, action, reaction. Sometimes a very bad thing can mean a very good thing afterwards, and American politics is a continuous story of party reversals.

        But, we’ll see.

        (For the record, I won’t vote for either main party candidate. Nor will I vote for Johnson. I’ll vote for the candidate that comes closest to my own political, military, and environmental beliefs, and I have the freedom to do that by living in nutty nutsville, or, a solidly red state. If I lived in a swing state, I’d vote for Clinton, even though I know my vote wouldn’t swing anything more than my one vote.)

        • greenman3610 Says:

          “In the long term, however, I don’t think a Clinton win will make an ounce of difference,”
          “not a dime’s worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush”

          we already ran that experiment.

          good luck explaining to your grandchildren.

          • jimbills Says:

            As I don’t have children, I don’t think I’ll have grandchildren – but that’s neither here nor there.

            From Bush, we got Obama. That wouldn’t have happened if Al Gore was President in 2008, and Al Gore wouldn’t have made that great a difference himself regarding climate change. China would still be China, at best we’d have reduced our emissions to somewhere where they are now, and the country would be hungry for a red meat Republican.

            The world needs to change radically, quickly, and no one is on that page. We’re all about economic growth and prosperity, and this is the real engine for the upcoming full blown planetary catastrophe. A President Clinton would chip away at some of the edges of the problem, but what will happen is that Americans will grow weary of her as President and replace her with someone like Cruz or Rubio in 4-8 years – unless the country suddenly kickstarts into an economic revival under her term, and none of the necessary supports for that are in place.

            You’re so convinced that you are right, and that’s cool. Maybe you are right. I’d actually like to think that. Maybe Clinton wins, everything turns around, the future is all solar panels and happiness, and I’m the bad guy, the jerk who questioned it. But the evidence I see for the long term (100 years +) points to catastrophe under any scenario.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            “From Bush, we got Obama”
            right. we also got 911, the iraq war, ISIS, an economic collapse, some of the worst supreme court justices ever, and citizens united, which might already have brought an end to democracy as we know it. A few hundred thousand dead people in the middle east thank you for your philosophical take.
            You really don’t get it that decisions have consequences, – so you’ve pretty much confirmed everything I’ve thought about nihilist third party voters. But you’re pure. so great.

          • jimbills Says:

            My philosophical take did not elect Bush in the first place, so please don’t pin the blame for that on me. It’s just observation of historical trends both recently and in the past.

            I have no control over this election, and neither do you. There are far greater forces than any one person at work here.

            If I were a true nihilist, I wouldn’t be communicating at all. I have explained that I would vote for Clinton, despite not being delusional about the impact of that one vote, if I lived in a swing state – so I’m not all that pure.

            And, I do care what happens. I weep that we’re on this path.

            What’s REALLY wrong is everyone else – the people who think they’re effecting change, when they’re just maintaining the systems that are leading humanity on its current course. Everyone SHOULD be voting for real change, but they’re not, and somehow they’re still expecting that change to occur. Crazy.

      • webej Says:

        Sounds like there is a right-wing conspiracy in your mind.
        Strange that she is supported by the military industrial complex and the establishment.

    • andrewfez Says:

      The Democratic Party is in trouble. The millennials get there info off the internet now and tend to be more informed than the average older Democratic television watcher. Here is why young liberals don’t like Hillary:

      voted for Iraq War

      voted for Patriot Act

      Pushed TPP 45 times before declaring to be against it. Pushed for NAFTA.

      Tried to push fracking on other Western countries in the process of democratically banning it.

      Pushed to deregulate Wall St. Gets bribes from Wall St. in return for small talks about how bankers are ‘misunderstood’.

      Pay to play arming of Saudi Arabia who then gives arms to Al Qaeda and bombs hospitals, schools, and other civilian targets in Yemen.

      Corrupt DNC pushed Clinton over Bernie. Voting machines made by Clinton Foundation donor have unusual statistical bias towards Hillary. Multiple states suppressed vote strategically to favor Clinton. Super delegates unfairly gave impression Clinton already had primary wrapped up before it began; corporate media complicit in communicating such to public.

      Multiple articles claiming people are only voting Bernie because they hate women. Multiple articles blaming millennials for Hillary’s bad poll numbers as former Bernie voters flee to Jill Stein.

      Pushed to escalate imprisonment of blacks (‘super-predators that must be brought to heal’).

      Made comments several years ago on record about how if she were president she would push to make appropriate cuts to social security for the sake of being ‘fiscally conservative’.

      Firmly in the grasp of military industrial complex. Will continue trillion dollar wars whilst claiming single payer health care is not possible.

      In other words, young people don’t like her because she’s a Republican.

  2. Here are Jonathan Allen’s five unspoken rules that the media follows in covering Hillary

    1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and mainstream media outlets
    2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
    3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there’s hard evidence otherwise.
    4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America’s royal family
    5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

    So, set feelings aside. Get out the yellow pad and create a Hillary and Donald column. Throw in Sanders and the other GOP candidates just for information purposes. List issues in order of importance. Climate Change is near the top right beneath total thermonuclear war. List other environmental concerns. Add campaign finance laws (reversing Citizen’s United), social and gender issues, taxes on the top 5%, etc. How many of those will be accomplished? Very few unless the House and Senate turn over, but on climate change, we will at least have a chance of not regressing. It will become more and more apparent during the next eight years that extreme weather events are increasing and sea levels are rising—wait for the next Sandy. Want to see northern migration—wait for wet bulb temps above 30 degrees south of the border and even in the Southern states—already happening this year in the Middle East and Pakistan. As that happens and people begin to wake up we will need someone at the top who will lead this country in the right direction.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Well said—–there is no doubt that Hillary is held to a different standard (and has been for over 25 years). In contrast, the Orange POS is held to almost NO standard at all.

      Anyone who DOES make a list as you suggest, (and there have been a number of journalists who have done so), can come to no conclusion other than that a vote for Hillary is the only one that makes sense.

      I have been following jimbill’s and Peter’s exchange with interest and haven’t had time to jump in, but I will say for now that jimbills statement that he won’t vote for Hillary because his vote won’t count in his very red state IS nihilistic, and that most of his “communicating” here is just self-absorbed “navel gazing”.

    • addledlady Says:

      Thank you Anthony.

      I spend far too much of my time on news sites and I’m about up to my back teeth with the garbage that’s spewed about Hillary. Especially when it’s from people who claim to hold the MSM or “the Establishment” in disdain. Not what I call disdain when they’re accurately regurgitating wholesale the lines that Murdoch and other “news” purveyors have been dishing out for decades.

      When I make the mistake of referring these clowns to her policies – she calls them Issues – I’m told that it’s all a blind and that she’ll do exactly the opposite if she’s president.

      I’m glad I’m only watching from the sidelines at this distance across the Pacific. I’d be running around tearing my hair out if I were over there.

  3. jimbills Says:

    Okay, one long super kvetch, and then I’m out of here as far as talking politics at least until the election is over.

    All I’m asking is for is some degree of objectivity with this race. That becomes largely impossible for the reasons I listed above (the forming of teams), and people become emotional regarding politics, but to me at least, a degree of objectivity (no one is truly objective) is always a worthwhile goal under any circumstance, and I’ll explain why.

    The only way people can be convinced of the science behind climate change is by having the facts on their side. Whenever ones bends the facts to fit their desires, this advantage is lost, because the other side is doing the same, and they can see where there twisting has occurred, and it only reinforces their perspective that they are right, and the other side is wrong.

    With climate change, we on the left are frustrated that climate change has become a political issue, but when we treat politics without objectivity, we reinforce the view to the other side that we ourselves are being political. We will never convince such people – in their minds, we are the irrational and stupid ones who cannot see our own subjectivity.

    I understand the desire behind wanting Clinton to be President instead of Trump. Under any view, the matchup is decidedly lopsided as far as environmental issues are concerned (lomantony – I don’t know why you suggested we add other candidates like Sanders to that list if we can only justly choose between two candidates in the first place). But we aren’t talking about really solving climate change with a President Clinton. It’s about not losing ground because of Trump. Or, it’s a constant defensive war, where the line never really moves, and we think against any sense of realism that we’ll someone eventually win.

    The country, and the world, needs to change radically and quickly. I understand that this is also not realistic. It won’t happen. But, I’d also prefer not to pretend that electing Clinton and buying a Chevy Bolt is going to fix things, or even that it’s the key step to avoiding planetary disaster. This is crazy talk.

    We still need a degree of objectivity here. Don’t just believe everything Vox says, like someone believing everything Breitbart says. If that degree of objectivity is willingly tossed aside, because Trump is such a menace, then this site will quickly become an echo chamber. It mostly already has, and that’s a shame

    Now, I live in Texas, and it’s not exactly a mystery who will win this state. Because of the electoral system in this country, my vote will only really count if I vote for the winner. I have zero power to decide the outcome of this race. I am called a nihilist for thinking this way, that I’m just a navel-gazer, and it’s hinted that my view on this matter will contribute directly to planetary disaster. Fine. I’m immoral, the bad guy, an idiot, whatever. To me, I’m just viewing this matter as it actually exists, and that’s what’s left to me in this perverted democracy.

    Okay, thoughts on the race in general:

    I read this today, which I thought was interesting, and it’s a similar timbre to what I’m saying above:

    To me, Clinton must do three things in the next month to win: 1) cream Trump in the debates (she should, but who knows for certain), 2) stop attacking Trump personally and turn to inspiration and policies (the Republican field all made the mistake of going after Trump personally, and it doesn’t work. Plus the country needs inspiration, not bickering.), and 3) she needs to be ahead in the national polls at least 4-5% by 11/8.

    That final point comes down to what I think will likely happen in the polling, much like what happened in Britain in regards to Brexit. A lot of people will not say they are voting for Trump until they actually walk into the booth. As such, I think a 1-2% Clinton lead will not cut it. It’ll be magically erased when the vote comes in.

    I do not want Trump to win. I do think it’s a horrible outcome, if it happens, on November 9th. I don’t like or trust Clinton, but I’d much rather have her as President than Trump. I don’t know how else to say this.

    Best wishes to all from the planetary destroying nihilist.

  4. webej Says:

    Clinton is being held to a different standard. Anyone else would be in jail for contravening the esponage act, for not reporting on gross negligence, perjury, contempt of congress, evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. Then there is actually getting foreigner and others to pay to play. Regardless of the whole Trump thing, there is no respect for the rule of law anymore, and Clinton exemplifies a lot of what has gone wrong. If there were another progressive alternative, nobody would be defending Hillary.
    And talking about a planetary catastrophe, what do you think will happen when neo-con policies are carried on with renewed vigor. Confrontation with Russia and China are very serious dangers. We are closer to nuclear war than we ever were during the cold war (when people were trying to de-escalate instead of recklessly escalating). Don’t believe it? Start perusing the new weapons and new weapon programs, the changes to nuclear doctrine that have been enunciated, the warnings that have been issued about redlines crossed, all issues the media doesn’t consider worthwhile discussing.

    • mboli Says:

      Even the odious Comey says that was no evidence she did anything that would merit prosecution. His words were: not even close.

      • webej Says:

        Try arguing that with other people who are in jail for taking a picture or some work (classified) back home, not for nefarious purpose, but just for convenience.

  5. mboli Says:

    Greenman is right. What they have done to Clinton is throw buckets of the same cow manure they did with the climate e-mails.
    She did nothing even remotely wrong or unseemly. Every charge has utterly fallen apart.
    — Like all other State Dept. employees, she used the regular State Dept. communication systems for classified material.
    — In her >30,000 work e-mails, eight classified e-mail chains were found. None were important, if they had been released they would have caused no harm. Seven contained material on the drone program, which had been reported in the press anyway. And one was a communication from a foreign government which is routinely classified but wasn’t important.
    — In her >32,000 personal e-mails, three e-mails have been found which should have been turned over as work e-mail. In other words, she and her lawyers made three mistakes in reviewing over 60,000 e-mails. And none of these three were particularly a problem, they clearly had been withheld by mistake.
    — She *didn’t* lie when she testified that she mixed work and personal in one address in order to have one device. Even Comey, when asked a follow-up question, said the only times she had two devices was when she was transitioning to a new one.
    — She had every right to delete her personal e-mail. The House committee had subpeona her work e-mail. Only later did they go after her personal e-mail — a clear fishing expedition. Most of these have been recovered. And they have found bupkis.
    — And, of course, it turns out she was exactly correct when she said that Colin Powell had advised her to keep her own e-mail.
    Clinton has been exemplary in her compliance with the requests of the javerts trying to bring her down.
    Google search “hide the decline.” Use quotes, so you are searching for pages containing that exact phrase. There are 229,000 hits. And if you scan the results, you will see that most of them are claims that the climate scientists were discredited, doing something underhanded, etc.
    It is an extremely effective smear tactic. The lie goes more than half-way around the world. It coats the world and gets into the pores, before the truth gets its boots on. Zillions of people belive that a few climate scientists did something very underhanded and wrong. And zillions believe that Clinton likewise. When all the evidence is the opposite.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: