“Ted R. Bromund, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, alerted the public to the very real possibility that ATT proponents are changing the meaning of the term ‘consensus’ and to the political ramifications for the US if ATT proponents prevail,” they warn. “Until now, ‘consensus’ has been understood by the US and others to mean 100-percent agreement with all the provisions of the ATT.”
In other words, through redefinition and procedural manipulation, those bent on global gun control can transmute 100% to two-thirds to game the results:
...In plain English, this means that the Treaty will be the all-inclusive version —and wish-list— of everything the weapon-prohibitionists wanted from the start.
How unsurprising that the Clintonian "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is” deception has now been reanimated to apply to the word “consensus.” And how revealing of the character of those behind the move.
He's talking about the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and the games being played to screw us over.
In a followon to Climaquiddick, heard of the Heartland documents? Someone got hold of information from a place called Heartland which has had the temerity to actually argue about the 'settled science' of AGW, and then faked a document to try and damage them.
The present situation is rich with irony. The provenance of the Climategate dossier remains unknown. According to evidence of the Information Commission’s Office to Muir Russell (not included in their report), its exclusion of personal information “could be indicative of a whistleblower”. Nonetheless, it was unambiguously reported by the Guardian and other media as being “hacked” or “stolen”. The provenance of the Heartland documents is relatively clear. Someone pretending to be a director of Heartland tricked a secretary at Heartland into sending documents from a recent board meeting to an email address purporting to be that of a Heartland director but, in fact, belonging to someone else. The document with the most damaging quotes was then fabricated. Nonetheless, the dossier was unambiguously described by the Guardian and other media as being “leaked” by an “insider” at Heartland.
Many other ironies have been observed in respect to both Heartland and Climategate. However, the fact that the most damaging Heartland quotes were fabricated and contained only in the fake memo inevitably limits the parallels and raises a host of legal issues that did not arise in Climategate.
Lots of details and a timeline at Climate Audit, ending with
The ramifications of these events are unfolding.
In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.
Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.
As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.
The CSGV is playing with history again; Miguel whacks them with the full quote, and some other things, and some nice quotes in the comments.
And there are actual things , other than the innertubes, to take care of, so I'm gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment