As Kernen tried to present the skeptics’ side of this debate, the ladies clearly got uncomfortable and, to say the least, a bit defensive with their interviewer.
For instance, when Kernen referenced the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” and presented evidence from it refuting anthropogenic global warming theories, David astoundingly responded (video available here, h/t NB member Sick-n-Tired):
Well, I haven’t seen it, but I do believe in fact and science. I mean, this is, again, isn’t my opinion. And the world has complete consensus on this. And I would just question who funded the documentary, and what their agenda is. I mean, I would ask that question, really. Because we, the debate, the debate is over.
Amazing. So, she admitted she hadn’t seen the documentary, and dismissed its contents by bringing up the now-infamous “c-word,” questioning the agenda of who funded the film, and declaring the debate over. Yet, she first claimed that she was interested in “fact and science.” Obviously, that’s not the case if “the debate is over.”
Regardless, Kernen ably pushed on by reading a quote from the documentary about the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report being “politically driven” and that skeptics’ views were “deliberately censored” even though their names were included in the report “leading some to even threaten legal action against the IPCC.” David responded:
Let me just say this, okay. There’s now more CO2 than in the last 650,000 years. Now, just basic common sense says that cannot be a good thing. And, you know, it’s extreme weather in both directions. Every single day on the news, you guys are talking about extreme weather. So, there you go. 2006 was the warmest, wait a second, 2006 was the warmest on record, and they’re saying 2007 is going to be worse. Something is happening, and we really need to start acting, we really need to put the debate behind us.
Kernen then pointed out that in the past, there have been CO2 levels “fifteen and sixteen times” as high as today “without any warming.” It appears David wasn’t aware of this.
Furthermore, using newly updated climate calculations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has determined that 2006 was not as warm as 1998. So much for science and fact, huh Laurie?
Kernen continued to press the issue:
Are we sure it has nothing to do with cosmic rays or sun spot activity or volcanoes? The footprint of humans for CO2 is apparently fairly small compared to volcanoes.
What was David’s response? Incredibly:
You know what? I urge you to see “An Inconvenient Truth” ’cause Al Gore answers all these questions beautifully in the movie. It’s the reason why this movie has had such a big impact. And I urge you and all of your viewers to watch it.
Amazing. No response about fact or science, Laurie? Just watch former vice president Al Gore – with absolutely no formal training on this subject whatsoever – and all of your questions will be answered? What unmitigated arrogance. Kernen then brought Crow into the discussion asking for her opinion on what we should use as fuel if not hydrocarbons. Crow answered:
I think there are lots of opportunities to explore wind power, solar power obviously. We can use coal. We’ve got to go with clean coal plants instead of these dirty coal plants. And, I guess I don’t understand the reticence that people are displaying on this subject when we’re living through what I feel like are perfect examples of what’s happening and what we can expect in the future. And, I think there’s a certain amount of arrogance with that. Obviously there’s a lot of fear there, and lots of misinformation. And, I think the longer we drag our feet, and we’ve got scientists all over the world who are saying the window is about ten years, and these are conservative people, that the time is now to start acting. And we can certainly wait until the outcome is on our doorstep and its affecting us in our daily life. And you’re talking about disease. We don’t even know disease yet. We’re talking about malaria entering into Texas. We just heard the governor of Arlington talking about this. Talking about what’s going to happen in health just in this country. And talking about the Andes not having ice on the mountains. And that is the water source to all the people in Peru. This is dire, and it’s happening. And, to sit back and think that this is not happening, and we’re just going to wait until we really see the outcomes is a dangerous, dangerous way to look at this.
Amazing. So, we should listen to the mayor of Arlington, Texas, about the future of the planet more than scientists from our finest learning institutions that, despite absurd claims of a non-existent consensus, are indeed skeptical about all this? Extraordinary. Yet, here was Crow’s marvelous conclusion: “When you’re talking about climate, when you’re talking about the organism we live on, when it starts becoming sick, we’re going to suffer the outcome of that.”
Amazing. The earth is an “organism” that’s “becoming sick?” I yearn for the facts and science that David spoke of at the beginning of the interview, don’t you? However, in reality, we learned what the real fact is, as David concluded the interview thusly:
And by the way, it’s going to become a top-tier voting issue for both parties. You’re going to see candidates from both parties take on global warming in a big way.
Frankly, this was the only thing that either Crow or David said that had any validity or basis in truth, and clearly demonstrated what this is all about – politics. Period. Everything else is a thinly veiled lie.
For those interested, here was what Crow had to say about this interview at her blog (emphasis added):
After a short night’s sleep on the bus, Laurie and I got up early to do CNBC. We were interviewed live, via earpiece, by a militant sceptic who’s [sic] sole objective seemed to be to disprove us and the theory of global warming at every turn.
Now, I’m not exactly sure what planet this guy is living on (or what planet he thinks he’s living on, perhaps one that is not suffering the extreme weather patterns that planet earth is experiencing) but to argue that global warming does not exist and that the IPCC reports are a political maneuver, is irresponsible and overtly unethical…and at 7:30 in the morning, just plain irritating. Laurie David may be a great mom, a fun girlfriend and busmate, and absolutely adorable but let me tell you, when it comes to the subject of global warming, you better step back because she is not going to go down without a fight.
How delicious. Of course, here’s the really inconvenient truth that Crow and David will likely also blow off as they ignore all opinions different from their own. CNBC did a poll after the interview, and published the results at its website (emphasis added): “About 80% of viewer responses sided with Kernen, many referencing the indignation that Crow and David expressed at having to answer questions about the global warming debate.”
I bet all these viewers are funded by oil companies, don’t you?
