It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cheney good... Wait, huh???

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:04 AM

Going Cheney on Climate

Well I should have posted this last night, but after I read it I went to bed with my jaw on the floor. So now it seems, according to the article, that Cheney had a good idea. That good idea was how to deal with a "new problem" which he referred too as a "low-probability, high-impact event". Cheney used this as a way to justify the wars and the situation of Pakistani scientist and Al Queda working together to get a Nuclear Weapon. The idea is that even if the probability is only 1% we should treat it as a known.

Okay so you might be saying what does this have to do with the Climate. Well none other than Cass Sunstein(Obama's Regulatory Czar) pointed out that Cheney was acting how environmental activist are responding to the threat of "Climate Change". How is that you might add, well this is what Sunstein wrote in his blog:

"According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent)."

Okay so I got it! Republicans and Bush are horrible horrible people that ruined the economy and got us into never ending wars, but wait let's use one of his strategies that he used to deal with the war to deal with "Climate Change". I'm sure that will work out very well, just look at Afghanistan.

Okay, okay, lets see what else the author of the article has to say.

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a "trick" to "hide" a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.

Yes, folks you read that right. Almost sounds like Iraq doesn't it? Let's go invade a country off of not so good intel? According to some people that was a horrible horrible thing to do and it shouldn't have been done, but this guy is advocating we adopt the same strategy for deal with "climate-change". Hrmm, I though the people voted for "change"? Oh well, guess the policies of old are okay when they can be used to further your agenda.

Okay moving on. So this is why he says we should take this seriously and legitimate reason to use the "Cheney Method" to deal with "climate-change".

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is "irreversible" and potentially "catastrophic," I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull's-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don't prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that's why I'm for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

So basically, what he is saying is hey if we are wrong we get a whole bunch of stuff that will ween us off of oil, but electricity will be outrageously expensive in the "transition period" but hey we will be powering a homes, with wind and solar, and cars with batteries. We will also have nuclear and second-gen biofuels. How we are supposed to afford any of this stuff is beyond me. But that is okay because Cheney came up with a good idea and I think we should use it.

This is just an Op-Ed column written by Thomas L. Friedman, but I thought it was particularly insightful when Cass Sunstein's name popped up. So my conclusion from this is, damn the evidence and rational justifications for doing things to further an agenda, knee-jerk reactions and emotions will suffice and we will even adopt strategies from the people that we have demonized for 8 years, after all a good idea is a good idea.


posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:38 AM
First, this is nothing new, and is certainly not a technique pioneered by Cheney. It would actually best be described as Machiavellian - the ends justify the means.

To my understanding Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the Prince as a guide for "princedoms," and not for other types of governance, yet the treatise has been used by despots and tyrants of all types since its publication in the mid 1500's.

I think anyone, be it the Cheney/Rove types of the previous administration, or the alarmist scientists who "fudged" the numbers to scare people, or even the screaming ninnies on FOX and MSNBC, are all guilty of using a control technique which is inherently evil.

That being said, I wonder if we can discern who used the old ends justify the means rhetoric for the more overtly evil purpose. Ok, on one side, it's recently been revealed that some lefty politicians and scientists have used scare tactics and lies to influence environmental policy for the obvious sake of financial gain... and the supposed purpose of "protecting the environment". Hmmm, not so good.

What did the other side do again? Oh yeah, used similar lies and disinfo tactics to lead us into two bloody foreign wars which have killed thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines plus countless government contractors, and MILLIONS of people worldwide. And why???? Survey says: also for financial gain.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want to be lied to in the first place, but if a money hungry power seeking a-hole is going to lie to me for their own financial and political gain, can it please be the one who tries to "green" up the place and not the one who sends you and I to die in their BS wars?

Think about it........


new topics

log in