Ad Council Uses Children in Horrific Global Warming Commercials

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

Since 1942, the Ad Council has been creating important public service announcements that have ranged from Smokey Bear's "Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires," The Crash Test Dummies, McGruff the Crime Dog, "A Mind is a Terrible Thing To Waste," and "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk."

Sadly, this non-profit organization has not only decided to take on the most recent liberal bogeyman known as anthropogenic global warming, but do so by using young children.

In the ad embedded to the right, a young girl is actually about to be hit by a train to disgracefully demonstrate that our inaction today will kill our children tomorrow. In another, kids imitate ticking clocks as they list the predicted climate change horrors of massive heat waves, severe droughts, and devastating hurricanes:

 

I don't know about you, but irrespective of my position on this issue, I find using children in this fashion to be indefensible and way over the line of decency.

How 'bout you?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

  The alarmists know their

  The alarmists know their scientific argument is weak plus the weather is cooling so they are going for the emotions. 

NS

I'm in complete agreement..."indefensible and way over the line of decency.

However, it's not surprising in the least.  They do it all the time for whatever cause.

(Fill in the blank)...is for the children.  Totally unoriginal.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde

Blonde,

That train commercial is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in my life. I almost couldn't breath the first time I saw it. These folks should be ashamed of themselves. ns

True, Noel

Disgusting and utterly tasteless.

If you think about it though, it shows how desperate the warming worshipers have become.

I think we need to raise a hue and cry to make them apologize for traumatizing us all with their vile propaganda (I'd love to have a little kid so as to have a cause of action, I'd love to sue them, too). 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

  This train ad is a

  This train ad is a variation of the 'Daisy Girl' ad LBJ ran against Goldwater in 1964.

Like I said....

Totally unoriginal. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

At least my children get it...

My 16 yr old son watched the ticking commercial a few weeks back. His response? He looked right at me, started to say "tick, tick tick"...Wondering what he was up to, I asked him if he agreed that we face global calamity...He said, dead pan, "No, just waiting for your head to explode."

Then he turned the TV to the Military Channel, settled down with a bag of microwave popcorn and his i-phone (he says the i-phone is his only tribute to "hippyness"), and thought nothing more of global warming that day. I love that kid...

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table" Ronald Reagan, Jan 21, 1981

A proud liberal moment

So son, what did you learn today?

Well, dad, I learned that since you deny there is global warming, you want all children dead.

That's insane! Where did you learn that?

Tick, tick, tick daddy. It's true! You want the train to run me over! We need 'change!' Waaaaaaaa!

the fear factor

Using fear, re: family safety/security is threatened by terrorists and radical organizations - BAD

Using fear, re: social security WILL run out of money, so the government NEEDS to change the program - BAD

Using fear, re: children will suffer catastrophes caused by the inaction of 'climate realists' - Oh, that's perfectly acceptable (and encouraged)

What hypocrisy. Can you imagine the outcry if an ad showed children talking about an imminent terrorist attack and being frightened for their safety?

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

The Libs have no scruples

The Libs have no scruples about using children to further their agenda. They started way back when, sending kids home from school to cry and scream at their parents about smoking, then about pollution (before it became AGW), and then about recycling.

(Where I live, we even have radio ads done by moppets about work zones on the highway...a little squeaky voice spleading "Slow Down!! My Mommy works there!!")

Anyone who doesn't agree with them just doesn't care about the children....they want kids to live in a filthy polluted world and die of poison!

They are shameless.

When that silly "tick tick"

When that silly "tick tick" commercial comes on- Have to change the channel. 

 

As Al Gore Said......... " They play on our fearrrrrrrrrrrrssssssssssssssssssssss"  lol

 

friggin idiots.

waiting for the pastor to appear on these commercials

the chickenzzzzzzz. . . . zzza. . . . have come hommmmmm. . . . . . . . . .zaaa . . . . . . . . . to . . . roooooooooosssst . . . . . .za. . . . . .

This is Democrat politics at it's best (or worst)

This is exactly the same way Democrats play politics on every issue.  I doubt they know how to do it any differently.

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

PSA's supplement what kids get in school

Why be surprised by PSA's that target kids?  They're getting the long-form version in school.  Kids aren't so much taught as indoctrinated these days. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

I'll do my own ad. Tick .

I'll do my own ad.

Tick . . .

Tick . . .

Tick . . .

Islamofascism.

Tick . . .

Barack Obama.

Tick . . .

Another Clinton.

Tick . . .

Nanny state.

Tick . . .

Congress.

Tick . . .

Illegals.

Tick . . .

Help keep America strong, vote Republican.

Tick . . .

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

DFTT

Excellent!

 

Tick.

Inflation.

Tick...(due mainly to too much)

SPENDING.
JMR

PS Bear Stearns wasn't a "rescue." It's socialism.

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

This commercial has been around awhile

Saw it on one of the network channels.  I've only seen it once before now.  Didn't work then and it won't work now.

Re-Post

I posted this yesterday in another thread and thought I should re-post it again for a little humor..

I was picking up my daughter from a canceled
soccer tryout due to, "to much snow on the field" last Monday.

That's when the topic of global warming came up.

Equal coverage!
March 14, 2008 - 15:42 ET by GForce

I just went thru this with my 15 year old daughters "Global
Issues" teacher.

I found out last Monday that this guy was showing the
students "An Inconvenient Truth" while discussing man made global warming without any opposing view point.

I wrote and email stating, "This type of indoctrination
imposed on our children without any opposing view is uncalled for and action
shall be taken if this is the case."

Along with the email I sent him links to some great
material that blows holes in Pope Algores flick.

This is a public school folks!

I also wrote, "Please understand that I believe everyone is
entitled to their own opinion. However indoctrination and bias opinions taught
to our children as "fact" in the public school system warrants every parents
concern."

He never responded back but Wednesday we had the semesters
parent teacher conferences. HeeHeeHee

FYI, my daughter is a straight "A" student and involved in
almost every sport including band.

Needless to say he was a little taken back by my presents
when I introduced myself.

Mr. Adams and his student teacher admitted that they had
not planned on showing any opposing views but that the kids do have an
opportunity to bring "something in".

I said, "BULL SH!T".

It's HIS job and responsibility as a publicly paid school
teacher to provide that information. However, I did tell him that I would provide
100 minutes worth of opposition video and that I (as a tax paying citizen)
expect him to show it to his class.

He agreed without any hesitation. I seriously believed he
was shaking in his boots afraid that I would bring this to the school board or
Bill O'Reilly.

So get this.

He then begins telling me how he's not a Democrat but a
Liberal, and that he does not impose his politics on his students. Yea right! I
thought. He continues saying that he rides his bike to work to save fuel,
changed all his light bulbs to CFL's and some other BS he does to "save the
environment".

I'm looking at this guy and he's tan as hell! We live
in Michigan!

So to be guilt free for using up power in the tanning
booth the lighting in his house sucks. LOL!!

My closing statement as I was shaking his
hand.........

 

THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER!

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle

Good work! You may want

Good work!

You may want to hit him with some of this (Global Warming Dissent) too!

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Or with the works of Marcel

Or with the works of Marcel Leroux and the other scientists who disagree with Al Gorleone.

Murrow turning over in his grave
Murrow turning over in his grave
Ed Murrow had a child and the damn thing went wild
- Lindsey Buckingham

GForce... I had a similar

GForce...

I had a similar incident when I recently attended parent/teacher night for my Granddaughters 7th grade classes. As I walked from one class to another I noticed student art work and posters lining the hallway proclaiming the impending doom from global warming. I asked the Science teacher if she had anything to do with it and she stated 'no'. She said that the posters and art work was a project started by a 6th grade English teacher. Being she was not my Granddaughetrs teacher I had a talk with the principle, but we kept getting interrupted so I have an appointment to sit down and discuss this issue on the 19th of this month. I'm looking forward to our discussion.

"Abstain from McCain"

Excellent and Some Global Warming Material

This is exactly what every parent needs to start doing since Al Gore's movie is not a science film since he is no scientist but a politician with a B.A. in Government.

Since kids have a short attention span, the best one is the 20/20 Special since they cannot argue about showing something from ABC News or 20/20 would be Republican or Conservative Biased:

20/20: The Debate is Not Over (Video) (8min)

The best direct counter to An Inconvenient Truth is The Great Global Warming Swindle which is filled with real scientists instead of just Al Gore.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)

Eigil Friis-Christensen - Ph.D. Geophysics, Director of the Danish National Space Center
Ian D. Clark - Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Nir J. Shaviv - Ph.D. Astrophysicis, Professor of Physics, University of Jerusalem
Patrick Michaels - Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Patrick Moore - B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, Co-founder of Greenpeace
Paul Driessen - B.A. Geology and Field Ecology
Paul Reiter - Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris
Philip Stott - Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London
Piers Corbyn - B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Weather Forecaster for Weather Action
Richard Lindzen - Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, M.I.T.
S. Fred Singer - Ph.D. Physics, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Ph.D. Geophysics, Professor and Director of the International Arctic Research Center
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball - Ph.D. Geography - Historical Climatology, Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Roy Spencer - Ph.D. Meteorology, U.S. Science Team leader at NASA
Carl Wunsch - Ph.D. Professor of Oceanography, M.I.T.

You can get all the other material you need here: The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Your website

PT,

I sent my daughters teacher a link to your website
where he was able to see the material (video). He was asking about the video on
DVD.

So I'm personally purchasing the $20 video "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" DVD ( http://store.demanddebate.com/ ) for
his class and currently seeking the 20/20 episode in a high quality or DVD
format.

 

Thanks!

Glen


"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle

Good Idea - DVD Purchase Links

I added the purchase linke for these:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD - $19.99)

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (10/19/07) (DVD - $29.95)

Unfortunately for the 20/20 Episode you have to buy the complete show even though that piece is only 8 minutes long.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

On the other hand, Stossel

On the other hand, Stossel has a pretty poor track record for accuracy and obvious bias.

Looking at what is available at NASA, IPCC, etc and attempting to compare it to what is on the 'skeptic' side, is about the same as trying to use intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution.

Do they deserve equal time? No; there's not enough science in those arguments to justify it. And if you remember, Dover and the British courts have gone over both already.

And, everyone has the right to express their concerns about their perceptions of what is presented at school. So there could be as many parents asking why skeptic stuff is taking up valuable time.

So there could be as many

So there could be as many parents asking why skeptic stuff is taking up valuable time.

  Oh, I don't know.  Maybe because global warming has dissappeared.  It's been colder with more snow around the world for a whole year. The only place to find global warming now is in the minds of 'true believers'. 

reminder - in case you missed it in your links

Weather isn't Climate - a month's data isn't the same as 30 years of data.

Weather isn't Climate - a

Weather isn't Climate - a month's data isn't the same as 30 years of data.

   Yes but out in the real world there is no global warming.  The temperatures may warm again.  Then again maybe not.  But the only place global warming exists right now is on the computers of the esteemed global warming alarmists.

This is not a weather report

This is a comparison to more then 30 years worth of data so yes it represents the current "climate" trend.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

one month per year

It is a comparison of one month per year, not looking at climate trends.
Fairly typical of the cherry-picking to prove a point practices of the, at best, skeptic camp.
And notice from your Science Daily link is the article:
2007 Was Tenth Warmest For U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide

other links for your files

http://www.ncdc.noaa...

"

" http://www.ncdc.noaa...

 

"Based on historical records and other evidence, the rate at which the
glaciers are melting is also thought to be faster that at any time in
the past 5,000 years, said Professor Wilfried Haeberli, director of the
monitoring service. 'There's no absolute proof, but nevertheless the
evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary.'" http://www.guardian....

 

"He said that Duke Energy was the third largest emitter of carbon in the
United States and the twelfth in the world -- and if considered an
independent nation, Duke Energy would be 41st in the world -- so carbon
emissions is a huge issue for him and his firm and wants to turn that
around." http://www.thewashin...

 

"They hired R&R Partners,
a public relations company with an office in Salt Lake City that was
behind the popular "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" slogan, to
develop a $35 million campaign. Its aim is to influence people to think
of coal as a cost-efficient source of electricity rather than one of
the culprits behind global warming - and to keep coal central to
discussions about the country's energy future.
" http://www.sltrib.co...

 

 

Spare us Giles

There's no absolute proof, but nevertheless the
evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary

You want extraordinary?

Glaciers - They just keep growing, and growing . . .

  1. Icecap.us - Southern Hemisphere Ice Cover Remains Well Above Normal
  2. Antarctic Ice Growing (USA Today)
  3. Mount Shasta Glacier are Growing: CBS13 - Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow
  4. Hubbard Glacier is Growing: USGS - Hubbard Glacier, Alaska
  5. Glacier growing in Karakoram Range: JAXA - Glaciers in the Eastern Karakoram Range


PopularTech's Glacier Links:

  1. Greenland - Deep Freeze in Western Greenland (2008) (Sermitsiaq, Greenland)

  2. Greenland - ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (ESA - European Space Agency)

  3. Greenland - Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (Science Daily)

  4. Greenland - Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)

  5. Greenland - Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather (The New York Times)

  6. Greenland - Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes (Science Daily)

  7. Greenland - Greenland Temperatures Coldest in 60 Years (The Heartland Institute)

  8. Greenland - Is Greenland really melting? (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

  9. Greenland - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)

  10. Greenland - Letter to the Editor: Greenland Ice Gain Since World War II (The Heartland Institute)

  11. Greenland - Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation (American Geophysical Union)

  12. Greenland - Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing (CO2 Science)

  13. Greenland - The Cold Truth about Greenland (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

  14. Greenland - Dramatic Ice loss in the Greenland seas in 1817 (A History of the Royal Society Archive)

  15. Greenland - Current Melting of Greenland's Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event (Science Daily)

  16. Greenland - Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (Science Daily)

  17. Greenland - Magma may be melting Greenland Ice (MSNBC)

  18. Arctic - Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
  19. Arctic - Arctic Atmosphere Very Clean This Year (2007) (Science Daily)
  20. Arctic - Arctic Ocean Circulation Does An About-Face (Science Daily)
  21. Arctic - Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace (The Daily Green)
  22. Arctic - Dirty Snow May Warm Arctic As Much As Greenhouse Gases (Science Daily)
  23. Arctic - North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability (Science Daily)
  24. Arctic - Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History (NewsBusters)
  25. Arctic - Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (Science)
  26. Arctic - Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Look at the graphs you

Look at the graphs you linked to. Even with the horrible state of records you see a period of cooling since about 1998. All while CO2 continues to grow.

After assuring everyone that the models had everything accounted for, apparently they didn't account for LaNina.

While you whine about LaNina. You ignore that we've been in the warm phase of thr PDO since the late 1970's which is a 25-30 year cycle. There have been how many el ninos since 1998 alone? 3 was it?

We had a false switch to a cool PDO after the super el nino of 98. That didn't help you guys. The question. Is this the true switch of the PDO or a brief shift? If this is a true shift? We'll shift to a LaNina dominant climate. Cold.

Apparently your prescious models have problems with minor things like the oceans.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

" horrible state of

" horrible state of records" Meaning what?

But long term trends still move up. It is only by looking for what you want to find that you are seeing a cooling period

So, maybe wishing for 'prescious' graphs on suspect sites to be definitive proofs against AGW isn't your best option.

" It is only by looking

" It is only by looking for what you want to find that you are seeing a cooling period". You mean like seeing warming when it's been cooling for about 10 years. Yep seeing warming because you want to see it.

You really don't understand what your looking at do you?

Still nothing?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Giles Answer these questions

1. Is Al Gore a Scientist?

2. Do Scientists give the global warming presentation in Al Gore's movie?

If the answer is no to these then it has no business being shown to children in school as a scientific presentation of Global Warming.

There are many reasons not to show Al Gore's movie:


Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

The 'Errors'

Which is how the judge wrote it - with inverted commas..... 

The actual guidance notes for showing AIT is @ http://www.teacherne...

"Teaching staff will be aware that a minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that
climate change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases.
However, the High Court has made clear the law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views which accord with the great majority of scientific opinion
and those which do not."

 

Friends of the Earth have a short paper about the court findings

http://www.foe.co.uk...

And the actual decision, which isn't that hard a read, is @ http://www.bailii.or...

""The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film
is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific
community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the
IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective,
open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic
information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of
human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and
adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world
contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working
Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of
climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent
Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published
by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are
annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of
scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the
global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very
likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions
.""

GW,

 

The United Kingdom court ruling smacking down Al Gore's "An
Inconvenient Truth" as shameless political fantasy unfit for
schoolchildren elicited an interesting reaction from the former vice
president.

Did he challenge the court's findings?

No.

Did he provide new evidence to bolster his case for any of the specific findings of falsehood and exaggeration by the court?

No.

Did he argue that the court itself was corrupt or incapable of understanding the "science" behind his film?

No.

He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, what Al Gore did was to make scurrilous and
unsubstantiated accusations about the concerned parent who brought the
case to court, at some personal sacrifice, to protect his child from
the mental abuse of being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider questioned in a Washington Post
online blog whether Dimmock paid for his legal expenses himself or got
help from others. Since she could not determine the answer to this
question puzzling her, she determined that Dimmock's "motives are quite
suspect."

If this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't think I've ever seen one.

The people who created and distributed this propaganda film
throughout the world are among the wealthiest and most powerful people
in the world. And here they are questioning the motives of one obscure
parent who battled, like David vs. Goliath, the national education
establishment in the United Kingdom and won!

This is the definition of "chutzpah" ? Tennessee-style.

(Column continues below)

adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";

Interestingly, Gore himself has publicly said nothing about the
court case ? nothing! Apparently, he hopes you won't learn about it. He
hopes that by not commenting on it, the amazing story of one parent's
battle for truth and justice in the United Kingdom will not be heard
here in the United States. And, he may have something there.

This story had no legs whatsoever ? which is why I am writing about it two days in a row in this space.

A reputable court of law has heard the facts on "An Inconvenient Truth" and found it seriously wanting.
That court has determined the movie is unfit for viewing in public
schools in the UK without specific and explicit disclaimers explaining
that the assertions offered by Gore are not supported by science. And
the reaction in the U.S. is like nothing ever happened. The movie is
still being shown in classrooms from coast to coast. It is, besides
evolution, the very centerpiece of what passes for science education in
American schools today!

This raises some questions in my mind:

  • Why isn't Al Gore being hounded in all his public appearances to address this court ruling and its implications?
  • Why isn't he put on the spot in every venue to answer the specific findings of fact?
  • Since Al Gore won't comment nor dispute the court's
    findings, why aren't his acolytes in Hollywood and elsewhere, all those
    involved in the film and supporting it, being asked to take up the
    challenge?
  • Why aren't U.S. parents challenging the showing of this film in schools the way the UK parent-hero, Stuart Dimmock, did?
  • Is there not even one prominent school authority in
    America who is willing to re-examine his commitment to the educational
    value of this film in light of the UK court ruling?

h/t Joseph Farah

 

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

'errors'

'Knockdown' & 'unfit' are over the top for a description of the findings
of the court. I understand you need to attempt to save face in front of
your peers, but lying doesn't improve your argument.

Nor does a massive copy paste with out acknowledging where it came from. Think back to school; what happens when you try that?

 

 

following quotes from the decision (with my bolding) http://www.bailii.or...

 


"
The Film

  1. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
  2.  

    i) It is substantially founded upon scientific
    research and fact,
    albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a
    talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and
    to support a political programme."

"The sceptical view

Teaching staff will be aware that a minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that climate change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases. However, the High Court has made clear the law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views which accord with the great majority of scientific opinion and those which do not [this was anticipatory of my decision].
"

Again Giles do you recognize the court's findings?

Giles do you recognize the court's findings or not? Do you agree that the following errors do not agree with the alleged 'consensus'?

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Please answer the question and stop avoiding it. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

actual court findings

I recognized and linked to the actual court findings. I'm not going to parse out your rewordings.

 

"

"The Film advances four main scientific
hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published
in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest
conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been
rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to
continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
statement, that:

"The position is that the central scientific
theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of
the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the
recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a
comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific,
technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts
from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports,
including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The
physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007
and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for
Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of
both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott.
The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that
most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now
regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas
emissions
."" http://www.bailii.or...

"On the October 15
edition of Fox News' Fox &
Friends
, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed there was a "British study
that said [there were] nine major flaws in Al Gore's theory." In fact, the High
Court ruling was not a "study," and the
ruling did not find any "major flaws in Al Gore's theory" that humans have
significantly contributed to global warming. In addition to Kilmeade's claim,
numerous media outlets reported that the
judge found nine errors in the film but ignored
the judge's finding that
An
Inconvenient Truth
is "broadly accurate" and
"substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."" http://mediamatters....

 

Giles Answer the Question

Giles stop being dishonest and avoiding the question. The court document lists the 9 errors clearly.

Do you agree that the court found those errors in violation of the alleged 'consensus' or not?

Yes or No

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Scientific Inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth

Giles, see the problem with you is you are dishonest and willing to do anything to promote your alarmism. The UK Court ruled the following were not within the mainstream 'consensus' - which doesn't exist BTW but for the sake of the argument, the following were found to be inaccurate:

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Giles do you agree that these do not agree with the alleged 'consensus'?

You have also failed to answer my other questions:

1. Is Al Gore a Scientist?

2. Do Scientists give the global warming presentation in Al Gore's movie?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

From the Dimmock case findings

"These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists
. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness
statement, that:

"The position is that the central scientific
theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of
the world's scientific community.
That consensus is reflected in the
recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a
comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific,
technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts
from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports,
including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The
physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007
and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for
Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of
both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott.
The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that
most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now
regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas
emissions
.""

Errors are listed as 'errors' in the findings - and discussed.

 

  1. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
  2.  

    "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

    Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is
    because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not
    accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in
    certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report."

     

     

1 - attempt at rhetorical question?

2. I don't know, why are you assuming I've watched it? - I'm guessing you are attempting a setup for some point of one of your arguments, so again, perhaps this is a rhetorical question. But I imagine a qualified scientist would have the best information and research available to develop and create any needed presentation. And that Al Gore, as well as most any interested person of average intellegence can read and learn from the reports and studies.

Giles refuses to answer questions

If you did not watch the movie say so, though I find that very hard to believe.

1. Al Gore is not a scientist.

2. Scientist did not give the global warming presentation in Al Gore's Movie.

Thus it cannot be considered a scientific based movie.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

NASA? IPCC?

Let's see how good they are. Here we have the 1990 IPCC prediction. Seems they were wrong. Of course people can go back and adjust there original prediction to mirror what really happened after, at which point the truly faithful will sing praises. Hind site is wonderful.

I will also point out the differences between NASA (GISS) and the other 3 mesurement of temperture. UKMET and the two satellite measurements UAH and RSS.

Wonderful records we have there. And it doesn't even include  the last 2 months of cooling.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

I see that Giles has

I see that Giles has nothing to say about this.

The truth of this data always seems to silence them.   I just wish we could find an evangelist willing to distribute the truth the way Gore has distorted it.

The facts remain that the GW Alarmist community has still not proven there is anything to be alarmed about.  The effect of humans on the climate of this planet has been negligible and will remain so, provided humans refrain from all-out nuclear war.  Even in that event, there will be no significant warming caused by humans!

Giles and the rest of these mindless leftbots will have to find some other excuse to impose their socialist agenda on the people.

NL -- he just moves on to

NL -- he just moves on to posting more crap to bolster his weird views.

Now he'd have you beleve that wind power isn't the most subsidized energy source ever devised to take money from the poor so greedy "greens" can generate expensive energy.

It's shameful how rich, white, middle-class "greens" delight in making poor people pay more for what they need to live.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

mindless leftbots will have to find some other excuse to impose

Oh good, a conspiracy theory - that makes for reasonable debate. I think I'll just re-read some Heller or Pynchon.

 

Or you could go argue the science on a science site. It's been done here already; STML? Also, look through the links and comments at http://www.realclima...

 

 

"I just wish we could find an evangelist willing to distribute the truth... " There are plenty; and many well paid for their efforts

I see you didn't attempt to

I see you didn't attempt to debate anything that Danbo linked in his post.  In a debate, that is generally considered to be a concession of the point.

You haven't been willing to debate any science with me either.  Why is this?  Could it be that you really don't know any science?  This would be good for you.  It might even cure you of your AGW hallucinations.

Let's see how much you really understand about this hogwash the Alarmists are spreading.   Explain the functionality of IR radiation absorption with increasing concentration of the absorptive species in a gaseous medium.  This is simple science.  It has been around literally for centuries.  You should be able to find many decent explanations online.  Once you have a grasp of how this works, we xcan continue.  Alternatively, I will expalin the theory behind this.

NL I rest my case. Giles

NL I rest my case. Giles followed the modus operandi

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

explain why everyone else is wrong

Go ahead and explain why every scientist's study referenced in the IPCC reports has the science wrong.

Whilst you're at it, make sure to post your CV so we can see how you are more qualified than those scientists.

And you might want to notice that the site is 'newsbusters' so perhaps the science debates would be better suited on a science site. In fact, this particular thread was about children in advertising and has, yet again, become seriously derailed.

Actually, there are links to thorough discussion about the errors in your offered evidence on two of my replies.

 

 

hay Giles, let me fill in the blanks fro you OK

 

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
    evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede
    that this is not correct.
  • Giles how does this sound? The snows are melting kuz the people that live in the area are denied power from a coal, oil nuk fired boiler to produce electric heat.. so the people use wood fired cooking there by the BLACK soot lands on the snow, and the snow melts when the sun light hits it.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
    rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court
    found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2
    lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • Giles what say you?
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and
    suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s
    expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off
    events to global warming.
  • Giles you win this one, it's global cooling now, 60% of northern hemi covered with snow. That's why no more dozens of katrinas.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that
    this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to
    accept that this was not the case.
  • Only because, mikie moor Inc. wanted to drain the lake and find the Africian Queen.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
    drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had
    misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was
    because of a particularly violent storm.
  • Club a seal and feed it to adopt a polar bear program.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
    Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was
    that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • Giles you better review the "day way after tommorrow'
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including
    coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to
    support this claim.
  • Due to a world wide shortage of SHARKS, The turtle and whale populations have grown out of control. The excess piss these invasive critters leak, has caused the coral to rot.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing
    the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that
    sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred
    years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

Giles , Christians hate the world wide metric units, end of the age stuff ;I'll convert the units for you; that's almost 23 feet. With all this snow maybe he means a drop of 23 feet? 40 cm=13 inches.

America one nation under God, English units PTL

  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
    evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government
    are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this
    appears to be a false claim.

Giles link me to a tree that is being washed away, OK.

No oil for you Biker Giles

h/t Popular Tech

 

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

Gile's Propaganda

"Go ahead and explain why every scientist's study referenced in the IPCC reports has the science wrong."

The IPCC references many legitimate scientific studies which have nothing to do with proving AGW. They are instead used in combination with other studies to form an interpretation and a very weak attempt to prove AGW. You are attempting to use the skeptical disagreement with the IPCC's conclusions based on their "interpretation" of the available scientific literature as widespread disagreement with all the scientific papers. This is dishonest and propaganda.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"They are instead used in

"They are instead used in combination with other studies to form an interpretation and a very weak attempt to prove AGW." You can of course provide examples rather than assuming we're going to accept that.

And, no; it is typical a skeptic tactic to attempt to discredit the IPCC findings by attempting to disprove a single study, or to posit a new study refutes all the prior studies.

So, explain the errors in IPCC findings, or why you feel the science they are using is in error.

Still nothing? How dare

Still nothing?

How dare someone point to inconvenient facts about IPCC and NASA. That is not allowed.

Still you claimed IPCC and NASA had great records. And I pointed out. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Not all of the scientists

Not all of the scientists associated with the IPCC agree with the 4AR and a great many of them disagree with the PMS 'derived' from, but published before, the 4AR.  By existence proof, not everyone else is wrong.   Therefore, I don't need to explain why everyone else is wrong.  The Alarmists are wrong because the empirical science says they are wrong.  >Are you always this easy to out think?<

As for my personal scientific credentials, they are certainly greater than yours.

Last, and this is something neither you, nor any of your links can establish: there is no scientific evidence indicating that human produced CO2 is responsible for any climate change on this planet which is outside the range of natural climate variation or is in aggregate harmful to the biosphere on this planet.  Lets see you produce anything credible that says either one of these things. 

Existence proof doesn't

Existence proof doesn't work in this argument since all it 'proves' is that there is another side to the argument - it doesn't prove accuracy, completeness, repeatability of those studies.

As I recall, there is an 'Independent Summary' that is out without even a reference to a complete study to summarize from.

And the 'empirical science' you are sort of citing doesn't establish proof that overrides the science that shows links to anthropogenic CO2 and GW. It is, at best, a loose collection of studies, often published in journals without solid reputations, that don't hold up well to closer scrutiny.

Your ' not all' & 'great many' really don't hold any argument without some quantifying and qualifying. Could be a few or a small percentage and could be the non -climate science sections talking about economics, mitigation, etc.

As we know. The warmer

As we know. The warmer modus operendi is to ignore anything that is inconvenient. If they can't ignore it. As when someone points it out. You throw up a smoke screen. Something irrelevant to the discussion. Then you cite someone who is "beyond" refute. Then gets indignant and calls everyone ignorant of science when that source is not accepted as gospel.

We're not dealing with the realm of science when we talk with many if not most warmers. Rather it's an issue of faith and dogma. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Maybe there is a need for new batteries in the calculator

 

Eight year Trend http://www.realclima...

 

Fifteen year Trend http://www.realclima...

Discussion on methodology of your 'cooling' (with Pielke's links to sciencepolicy and links to Tierney) http://www.realclima...

 

'adjust there original prediction' you meant, of course, - their

 


"ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber." John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe WSJ http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337

Sorry Giles your graph is

Sorry Giles your graph is for GISS. You side stepped the issue of the 1990 IPCC prediction being off. Here's their after the fact adjustments. And Hansens 1988 prediction . Scenerio c was for sever cutbacks in CO2.

I already pointed out that GISS is the odd man out. Unfortunately UAH, UKMET and RSS. Show little to no warming since??

As Hansens scenerio C was based on sever cutbacks in CO2. We have a couple of options. We made sever cutbacks in CO2. or Hanson was wrong. Despite your smoke screen from Hansens employee. Gavin.

I wasn't the one saying IPCC and NASA were great at predictions, you did.

I will also point out something I noticed in the graphs. It looks like IPCC was so secure of their prediction they set the base line about .15 degrees cooler than the mean of the 4 scales, at that time.(1990). Is that hedging ones bet.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Your argument would be far

Your argument would be far more credible, and actually worth discussing, if the links were to the actual data, not a skeptic's reconstructions.

sever sb severe?

Let's see. You gave me a

Let's see. You gave me a couple of irrelevant charts. Not the actual data. then accuse me of being less then credible.

So you still have nothing. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Danbo's argument is

Danbo's argument is simple.  Hansen's orginal predictions of 1988 and 1990 were wrong. By comparing what really happened against what Hansen predicted, it is obvious they were.  The more recent predictions of that laboratory, made in 2001, are also failing.  It is not as warm as predicted.  The number I usually watch is the rolling average of the last 7 years.  That curve flattened two years ago.  When last year is added in and 2000 is dropped, it will show COOLING, not warming.  None of Hansen's or any other alarmist's predictions called for cooling.

And you don't seem to get it that realclimate.org are Hansen's employees and pupils.  These are hardly independent researchers if you are discussing Hansen's work.

The Ad Council has a number

The Ad Council has a number of radio ads that suggest that children are in peril as a result of everything from pesticides used in school classrooms to mercury in the environment. I hate these ads. Not only do they present all sorts of frightening concerns, but they're often misleading and/or inaccurate. As an example, one of the ads suggests that mercury exposure is somehow contagious. The ad doesn't use that particular word, but suggests that a child exposed to mercury can pass along the ill effects to others.

I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.

And then they have the

And then our esteemed journalists and pundits have the nerve to to write articles and have discussions about the increase of depression among children, and talk about how much stress kids are under. When they ask the kids what their fears are? Kids used to say that they won't have any friends or that they won't do well in school. Now they are afraid that the air will be unbreatheable or there won't be any clean water, or the whole east coast is going to be flooded.

They should not be burdening our kids with this!! It used to be that adults would say to frightened kids: Don't worry, a lot of smart people are on it, and they will figure out something to do. Now thy say to therm: have a nice childhood, because the world is going to be a steaming pile of garbage by the time you grow up. But they can't have a nice childhood, because they have to start taking responsibility, (have recycling drives, pick up garbage on the highways, etc), be little activists, and make the adults in their lives  do something about it!!

And then they act surprised that our kids are stressed out and depressed.

I've been watching these ads

I've been watching these ads for a while. I'm sick of the left using children to pander to idiotic adults who can't think for themselves.

Rather than only the

Rather than only the statement "..using children in this fashion to be indefensible and way over the line of decency." it would be far more enlightening to know what would be considered appropriate use of a child in a commercial.
Car companies use children in ads instilling fear of injury.
Food companies use children to promote buying junk food, cheap toy give-away promotions.

Giles

Giles,

Why would you care what my opinion on anything is? After all, in your view, I'm akin to a holocaust denier because I don't agree with you that man's emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the planet. So, how could I possibly enlighten you about anything.

That said, for those that care about my opinion in this regard, like most conservatives, I find many commercials to be indefensible and way over the line of decency including using kids to sell junk food. However, I don't recall car ads as horrific as this train ad.

C'mon, Giles, rather than just taking a contrary view here, why not answer a simple question: do you find that train ad with the little girl being left on the tracks by herself as the locomotive speeds towards her to be appropriate in a public service announcement? No shucking, jiving, or equivocating -- just answer the question if that's at all possible. ns

It is supposed to be

It is supposed to be unnerving - a graphic designed to make the viewer stop and think.

First there is the metaphor of AGW as a runaway train. The typical nimby attitude of 'won't bother me' and then the image of a child who has no voice in the matter.

 So, yes - entirely appropriate.

Hey GW... Just

Hey GW...

Just curious...do you belong to the Ad Council..a board member maybe?

ROFL!

AGW as a "run-away" train is impossible

The physics behind CO2 and solar radiation is logarithmic and thus it is impossible for anything to "run-away".

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

METAPHOR of AGW as a runaway

METAPHOR of AGW as a runaway train

The Horrors our Children will have to deal with!

I had no idea the train was a metaphor for 1-2 inches of sea-level rise and a 0.25 degree temperature increase in 30 years. How will the children survive? The Horrors! No wonder they used a 'metaphor' of a child getting killed by a train! It is all making sense now.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

runaway is usually

Runaway is usually being referred to as passing tipping points. Not an acceleration in things happening. But having gotten to a point of no return.

Giles

Giles,

So, AGW is going to kill the entire next generation on the planet if not immediately reversed? The world comes to an end -- much like a child getting hit by a train -- in 30 years?

Can you provide for me climate projections -- yes, even from the pathetic IPCC -- claiming that all life on this planet ends in 30 years? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

I await your next hysterical utterance with great eagerness. ns

METAPHOR!!! If level of

METAPHOR!!!

If level of CO2 isn't cut back, meaning generation of anthropogenic CO2, then your kids or grandkids are going to be facing a significantly different environment / climate / paradigm of energy use.

How much different? What are worst case scenarios? If one were to work with that assumption and it turns out that the middle was the most accurate, all we've done is moved levels to the lowest range. Some more money goes to making windmills and solar panels instead of pumping oil out of deep sea or arctic or converting shale in an extremely polluting process. Or your next car runs 40 mpg on $4 a gal. gas instead of 28mpg.

So, we could act like semi-intelligent human beings, not selfish chimps, make far less drastic changes now instead of dumping it on our kids, grandkids, great-grandkids.

Or in terms of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development - if there are more capable peers to collaborate with, there is the potential of a virtually limitless level of growth in capability. So look at where the best problem-solvers are. Not the ostriches.

Giles

Giles,

The commercial doesn't suggest that "If level of CO2 isn't cut back, meaning generation of anthropogenic CO2, then your kids or grandkids are going to be facing a significantly different environment / climate / paradigm of energy use."

It suggests they're going to be dead! THAT'S what's inappropriate unless the current scientific consensus -- regardless of how absurd that is! -- supports such a suggestion. PERIOD!

THAT'S WHAT'S INDEFENSIBLE AND BEYOND THE LINE OF DECENCY!!!

Thank you for making my point for me. You've been an excellent witness for the prosecution. :-) ns

P.S. Giles, how many kids do you have? How many grandkids? How many people do you employ? Do they all have health care insurance? How many cars are in your household? How many drivers? What is the average MPG of the cars in your household? Do you have solar panels on your roof? Do you have wind powering your home? What is the square footage of your house? How many miles do you fly on average per month that aren't business related?

It is a metaphor that they

It is a metaphor that they are going to be hit by a runaway train, AGW. Or the responsible adults can make some decisions not based on their own selfish interests. Actually, that you see an implication that they are going to be killed registers the impact that the ad has. It gets to your heart.

how many kids do you have? 3 - 17, 21, 36

How many grandkids? 0

How many people do you
employ?
Work for a company ~ 1K employees.

Do they all have health care insurance? Yes, full. Paid by employer. 5-10 $ copays

How many cars are in
your household?
2 (not to mention the commuter bicycle)

How many drivers? 4 licenses

What is the average MPG of the cars
in your household?
~32-35 (not including the bicycle which gets about 15 miles a day)

Do you have solar panels on your roof? Do you have
wind powering your home?
We are on green power plan

What is the square footage of your house? ~1250

How
many miles do you fly on average per month that aren't business related?
0 Though I'll admit to using Amtrak to get to ~ 2000 mile bike tour starting point a couple of times.

 

Giles

Giles,

Cool. You're not a "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" liberal. You walk your talk. Excellent.

BTW: What's the green power plan? Does this mean you don't have solar panels or wind power at your home?

As for what responsible adults can do, are you aware that even the IPCC admits that recommended cuts in CO2 output by G-8 nations will have little impact on global temperatures, if at all? How does that effect your "responsible adult" maxim?

For instance, the picture being presented in this ad is that "we adults" have to do something or else our children will die. Forget the metaphor crap, because most people don't know what a metaphor is.

If even the IPCC admits that cuts by G-8 nations will have virtually no meaningful impact on global temperatures -- especially as increases in such output by China, India, and Brazil dwarf our cuts! -- isn't this ad, as I have stated from the onset, shameless fear-mongering?

Wouldn't you feel better sacrificing today if there was evidence that such sacrifices would diminish the risks to the supposedly imminent calamity? Or, in your view, is it the sacrifice itself, and the ability to demonstrate your altruism, more important than its actual societal and environmental benefit which, again, appears to be nonexistent even as estimated by those on your side of this debate? ns

There's more than G8

I'm not sure where "IPCC admits that recommended cuts in CO2 output by G-8 nations will have little impact on global temperatures, if at all" is stated. The Working Groups 2 and 3 cover much of the costs and benefits of a variety of possible actions and scenarios. I'd say those reports pretty much contradict the 'give up, we're dead' implication.

 

You know, I grew up in an era where the USA assumed the mantle as a world leader; the world looked to us for guidance and support. However, in the science of GW, we are posturing in a selfish manner when we could be continuing in that great tradition.

Giles

Giles,

Forgive me, but you're showing some ignorance here. The IPCC has INDEED stated that proposed cuts would, in their view, have a negligible impact on global temperatures moving forward. This is one of the hypocrisies the alarmists totally ignore.

Furthermore, please don't throw at me what era you grew up in, for I live in exactly the same America as you do, and we're probably the same age or very close. We are the world leader in virtually all ideas and technologies, and that likely includes green ones with few exceptions. Whatever excesses we enjoy as a nation are just as much a part of your lifestyle as anyone else's. And, by comparison to those around the world, I quite imagine your carbon footprint to be significantly greater than the average internationally.

You want to sacrifice more of your lifestyle for this cause, fine. Please do so. But, as I have seen hysterical environmental claim after hysterical environmental claim in my lifetime eventually be totally discredited as utter nonsense -- as I believe wholeheartedly this hoax will be as well -- until I have greater proof than what is currently on the table, I have no interest in sacrificing the nation's economy one iota.

After all, I'm sure you were part of the No Nukes group decades ago that scared this nation away from clean, cheap, environmentally friendly nuclear power that set this country's energy production capacity back fifty years. As you and your ilk were desperately wrong then -- despite the so-called China syndrome consensus of the time! -- why should anybody listen to you now?

That said, please understand that I am all for energy conservation and more fuel efficient cars. I even advocate stricter CAFE standards much to the chagrin of my fellow conservatives. However, the cap-and-trade programs espoused by Gore and his ilk are a disaster -- of course, not for Gore who has nicely positioned himself to benefit financially from every country that buys into his ideas.

Speaking of which, I'm just wondering if it bothers you at all that folks like Gore, Hansen, and those on your side of the aisle refuse to debate people on my side of the aisle in a public forum. If these folk's science was so incontrovertible, why don't they just do a two-hour, internationally televised debate to prove once and for all they're right? After all, I communicate on a regular basis with dozens of scientists that would love to participate in such an event.

You want to know why folks on your side won't do this? Because they know the science doesn't support their claims, and that real scientists would tear them to shreds.

Doesn't this bother you, Giles, that the leaders of your movement don't feel strongly enough about their views on this issue to let them be tested and scrutinized in public, but instead stand behind the ignorant coward's veil of "the debate's over?"

Frankly, if the folks on my side refused to debate, I wouldn't be on this side! ns

"The IPCC has INDEED stated

"The IPCC has INDEED stated that proposed cuts would, in their view,
have a negligible impact on global temperatures moving forward."

 

Where?

 

UN Chronicle article quoting 4th.

"The Report points out that “neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can
avoid all climate change impacts. However, they can complement each
other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate
change.”
“We need a new ethic by which every human being realizes
the importance of the challenge we are facing and starts to take action
through changes in lifestyle and attitude”, noted Rajendra Pachauri,
Chairman of the IPCC. Governments had a wide variety of policies and
instruments available to create incentives to mitigation, especially in
the area of carbon emissions, he said.

http://www.un.org/Pu...

 

"And, by comparison to those around the world, I quite imagine your
carbon footprint to be significantly greater than the average
internationally. "

Well, yeah, US is 2x England, which is higher than average EU and about 2-3x world per capita http://www.eia.doe.g... On most of the carbon calculators we come out about 1/2 US average, so about 2.5 higher than world average.

 

"I'm sure you were part of the No Nukes group" I'm not sure, beyond typecasting and over-generalizing, how you would be able to make that assumption.

But, that said, "environmentally friendly nuclear power", when all the costs are factored in (like storage, pollution from mining and extraction) is really an oxymoron. Read up on Hanford and the Columbia River, for example.

 

"sacrifice more of your lifestyle for this cause" Not sure what the 'sacrifice' would be - We're paying a lower than average utility bill, far lower gasoline bill, smaller car wears out less expensive tires and brakes slower, not having to take meds for a sedentary lifestyle and poor diet, or pay to ride a stationary bike. We're promoting renewable energy which is more locally produced, enhancing our state and region's economy rather than shipping those $$ out of country.

 

"your side of the aisle refuse to debate people on my side of the aisle in a public forum" Seems there is plenty of debate in all the appropriate venues - science press, political journals, newspapers and magazines.

A face glistening from tears of 100% pure guilt

 You know, I grew up in an era where the USA assumed the mantle as a world leader; the world looked to us for guidance and support.  Oddly enough, Giles (I know you despise the United States for not being a Nanny State and all), the world STILL does.  You think the European Union could take down the Taliban, as much as they whined about them in the late 1990s?  No.  Hell, you think they could have stopped the Balkan bloodshed, right?  Well, they couldn't do that, either.  The United States, as much as you are ashamed of it, is STILL a world leader.  However, in the science of GW, we are posturing in a selfish manner when we could be continuing in that great tradition.  Hardly.  Read the Kyoto Protocol sometime.  That was/is a document which permits the world to steal from the United States blind. Is it selfish to not sign a treaty where China, Mexico, India and Brazil, among other countries, are 100% exempt?  How about the fact that the Kyoto Protocol does NOTHING about tropical deforestation, which, if you believe the scientists you venerate like infalliable deities, causes 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions? 

By the way, since when is "selfish" a BAD thing?  (It's only bad to a hardened, committed Socialist like you.  Don't come in here whining that you are not, either.  I have read your posts where you gush over France's health care system, and where you attack Exxon [but oddly leave out ARAMCO, PEMEX, NIOC, and PDVSA] for DARING to make a PROFIT.)

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Noel & Unsane,

You guys ROCK!

LOL-And you both type much more briskly than do I.

Nice shooting here, both of you.

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

"BTW: What's the green

"BTW: What's the green power plan? Does this mean you don't have solar panels or wind power at your home?"

We pay .008c kWh extra for using wind and biomass. About $5-7 a month extra. CC&Rs say no solar panels, HW, or clothes lines. Hmmm. I don't remember wind turbines being on the list....

Nukes

May I suggest nuclear power?  If it works for 78.5% of France's needs, then why not us?  AND, to make things more interesting, we have something France does not: a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste (in fact, only Finland has such a place). 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Now you are lying - You are paying for it through subsidies

The non subsidized costs of Wind and Biomass are not cost competitive. Looking at the price AFTER subsidies and presenting it is dishonest and propaganda.

- Total Subsidies for Ethanol Between $6.3 and $8.7 Billion Per Year ($1.42-$1.87 Per Gallon)
- Total Subsidies for Biodiesel Between $1.7 and $2.3 Billion Per Year ($1.69-$2.15 Per Gallon)

- Wind Power is subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States

Solar is even more expensive

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Oil and gas have subsidies

Oil and gas have subsidies also. Clear the playing field. At least don't pretend there is a free market there. And you can go back to regeanomics and tax incentives.

And a case can be and certainly is made that gov't subsidies for emerging tech, or local tax rebates to encourage new business is in the public interest.

We've known for a long time that many industries get a 'free ride' on some of the costs. Think mining and land reclaimation, air pollution and health care, etc.

Facts?

Please source your "facts" Giles.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

subsidies - "no free market in energy"

""Energy subsidies in 1989 favored mature, conventional energy supply
resources by $32.3 billion to $3.8 billion over non-conventional energy
resources." ($21 billion went to fossil fuels, $11 billion to nuclear,
and $900 million to all renewable energy sources including wind.)
"There is currently no free market in energy. Given the size of federal
energy subsidies, now and in the past, it is erroneous to speak of a
'free market' in energy... It may be appropriate to subsidize emerging
energy resources, but mature resources should stand the test of the
market. When this test is applied to subsidies in 1989, the pattern
appears to be almost completely backward. In other words, the mature,
conventional technologies received almost 90% of the subsidies.""

 

http://www.awea.org/...

More Propaganda

Giles even when you remove the subsidies on Nuclear it is still cheaper than Wind! But you cannot touch coal.

- The United States has 268 billion tons of coal reserves or about a 240 year supply (National Mining Association)

- The levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear and 6.64 cents for wind unsubsidized.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

not true costs

Factor in the expenses of CO2 mitigation and negative impacts on health with coal and the full costs of spent fuel processing and storage and the picture changes.

Now, what we have with those technologies is analogous to letting your teenager drive as much as they want as long as they buy the gas. We're stuck with buying the tires, changing the oil, getting a lower trade-in value with the extra miles, etc.

FYI: mining  - They've just hired a PR firm to help with their image - " Its aim is to influence
people to think of coal as a cost-efficient source of electricity
rather than one of the culprits behind global warming - and to keep
coal central to discussions about the country's energy future."  http://www.sltrib.co...

"

In reality, it's yet another example of major corporate players -- in
this case, the coal industry -- propagandizing under the guise of what would
appear to be a public-interest group.

It's a sophisticated ploy that's being used more and more by large
companies to sway public opinion.

"There's a name for it -- Astroturf," said Gail Hillebrand, a senior
attorney with Consumers Union in San Francisco. "It's when you try to make
something look like a grassroots movement when it's not."

For ordinary citizens, this represents a new challenge.

"You want to know if it's an industry-sponsored message," Hillebrand said.
"This helps you understand the validity of what you're hearing.""  http://www.sfgate.co...

 

First quote - '240 year

First quote - '240 year supply at today's usage rates.'

And second? cites?

100%?

You get 100% of your power from wind and biomass and it only costs $5~7 a month? Or is it some smaller percentage?

 

read more carefully

Research more carefully - Highly Subsidized

Research more carefully

- Total Subsidies for Ethanol Between $6.3 and $8.7 Billion Per Year ($1.42-$1.87 Per Gallon)
- Total Subsidies for Biodiesel Between $1.7 and $2.3 Billion Per Year ($1.69-$2.15 Per Gallon)

- Wind Power is subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Giles-

So, we could act like semi-intelligent human beings,......

Or your next car runs 40 mpg on $4 a gal. gas instead of 28mpg.

   I see that you're not one of those 'semi-intelligent human beings' so you probably realize that raising mpg ratings for cars encourage more miles driven because better mileage means lower cost per mile and it's a higher cost per mile that will curtail excess driving.  I'm sure in your infinite wisdom you already know mpg should be lowered not raised if we want to save the planet.

Damned good point, MA. Got

Damned good point, MA. Got to love it when economic theories work!

Big assumption -

Big assumption -

How much 'fun / vacation' driving do you do now compared to commuting?

And most semi-intelligent human beings are pretty aware that gas is only a portion of the total cost per mile.

And, of course, you're conveniently forgetting the left-wing marxists are going to raise the taxes on fuel...... Or was that just a talking point last week?

  It will make no

  It will make no difference if every person in the United States quit driving.  China and India are going to have that many drivers and more to replace ours.  

  We're doomed.  Those trains are going to mow down our kids like pins in a bowling alley.

And, of course, you're


And, of course, you're conveniently forgetting the left-wing marxists are going to raise the taxes on fuel.

Yeah, and I bet that would just break your heart, wouldn't it?

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

A case could be made for a

A case could be made for a better maintained and repaired transportation  infrastructure, improved driver training, incentives for green industry.

A case could be made for a

A case could be made for a better maintained and repaired transportation  infrastructure, improved driver training, incentives for green industry.

   There you go again.  Your solutions are always at odds with your goals.  Better transportation infrastructure will just increase use.  Bigger potholes and broken down trains will make people think twice about leaving home.  Best green idea?  Remove the freeways.  That will bring gridlock.  Cars will be almost useless in urban areas.

And what the heck is "green

And what the heck is "green industry"?????

I just love how they create a phrase and apply their own meaning to it. You know, like "green-collar jobs". Oh please.

I'm sick of politicians telling us that it's actually more profitable to "go green." I guess that's why there are mountains of glass and newspapers all over this country that aren't being recycled: the recyclers just don't know what they will do with all their "profits" from doing it!!

<sarc off>

Or perhaps thinking in

Or perhaps thinking in longer-term 'profits' where all costs are factored in.

Not at $3.45/gal + it can't.

And those infrastructure items should be left up to the states for the most part, not the federal government.

If the congress critters currently in charge really were concerned about fuel prices, they would vote to rescind the current confiscatory federal taxes involved, as well as vote to allow an increase in the supply.

The fact that they are willing to do neither speaks volumes as to their true motives.

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

"And, of course, you're

"And, of course, you're conveniently forgetting the left-wing marxists are going to raise the taxes on fuel..."

Is not this exactly what the Socialists in Europe and the Democrats in America have done?  Have you ever purchased gasoline in Europe?  Even here in the US, one can drive 150 miles and find gasoline is 40 cents a gallon less than it was where you started, all because of state and local taxes and regulations.

Left Wing Marxists Indeed

So Giles:

1. Socialism or Capitalism?

2. Free Market or Government Controlled Market?

3. Do you believe in Wealth Redistribution?

Now for the obviously clueless Giles - can consumers buy high MPG cars today?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

rather either or here

1 - don't forget Populism and Progressive.

2. I guess you're preferring unfettered capitalism - perhaps like before the 'yellow journalism' Upton Sinclair, era - enjoy a little downer cow and feces with that hot dog?

3. Nah, let them sit in the streets and beg.

 

"can consumers buy high MPG cars today" Well first you'd need to define 'high MPG' but it seems that even after whining about the new CAFE standards, Detroit has been producing more efficient vehicles for years. As has Europe and Asia. While you may be able to justify a 7-9 mpg vehicle for your own needs, consumers have had a range of higher mpg choices for years. 

Giles, answer the questions

Doomsday Cometh or not

Cold Facts on Global Warming (Image Analysis and Measurement Lab)

"What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. ...we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high. [...] At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255."

So lets see by my calculations in the next 30 years the temperature will increase 0.25 degrees. I wonder if my children can handle that.

Oh wait, Giles are you basing your predictions on climate models and not basic physics? My bad.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

The real problem is the CO2

The real problem is the CO2 is NOT affecting global temperatures. All the data we have says that CO2 levels trail rising temperature, so CO2 is not causal. I myself would not mind using less oil, because I believe it is a shame to burn something that is needed to produce so many useful things like chemicals and plastics. We can find alternative solutions, and have been working for decades to find them. Scare tactics do not help. They only help distract us from the real problems.

WOAH GW.. Take the recycled plastic bag off your face,

and for Gaias' sake open a window.

 

"If level of CO2 isn't cut back, meaning generation of anthropogenic
CO2, then your kids or grandkids are going to be facing a significantly
different environment / climate / paradigm of energy use."

Thanks to all this debate about co-2 we are going to lose the oil infrastructure FOREVER.

$111.00 / today, THANKS TO YOUR ILK.

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

Uh, no - not

Uh, no - not really

Falling dollar

Global economic expansion - including our own continuing increase in purchasing low mpg cars.

OPEC pumping levels - level of reserves

Speculation

And, what was Exxon et al's profit margins last year?

 

 

Comrade Giles,


And, what was Exxon et al's profit margins last year?

Uhh, what about them?

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

And, what was Exxon et


And, what was Exxon et al's profit margins last year?

If I owned stock = not enough.

If I didn't own stock = I should have.

GW exxon makes 9 cents on a gallon, BIG GOV makes 65 cents

on each gallon. Exxon is a small world player in the oil industry 2- 1/2 % and getting smaller.

Exxon would LOVE to spend all that profit on a new oil , rig ,refinery, nuk , coal plant..

Giles, YOU ARE an OIL USER .. soon oil will be

$200.00/ bbl .

THIS is BETTER than NO OIL.

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

Some U.S. Oil Facts

- The average amount of tax on gasoline in the United States is 47.0 cents per gallon (API)
- The average amount of tax on diesel in the United States is 53.6 cents per gallon (API)
- The largest supplier of oil to the United States is Canada (EIA)
- The second largest supplier of oil to the United States is Mexico (EIA)
- 60% of United States oil imports come from non-OPEC countries (EIA)
- No new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976
- The U.S.G.S. estimates 4.0 billion barrels of oil in the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- The U.S.G.S. estimates 10.4 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska (USGS)
- The U.S.G.S. estimates 10.6 billion barrels of oil in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) in Alaska (USGS)

It would seem Canada and Mexico have a much larger effect on our gas prices then OPEC. Now if the government removed taxes on gasoline we could lower prices by 47 cents a gallon. Then if they would allow new refineries to be built we could increase supply. Finally we could further increase supply even more so with drilling in Alaska and everywhere else.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Pop tech, I really like your links to data:

My 65 cents a gallon TAX is in Hawaii (state + federal) additionally we have an EXISE tax that is tacked onto everything here and that's is a additional 4.166%

Hawaii has the highest gas tax in the nation, I'm so glad we are #1 in something. NOT

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

The price of living in paradise?

So I take it your politicians justify it as the price you have to pay to live in paradise? It is one thing to pay higher prices due to import costs, it is another to tck on ridiculous taxes too.

What we need is a law requiring everything that is sold in the United States must show the taxes on the sales slip. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

PT, now that would cause a shortage in cash register paper.

and would bring on some Polynesian Paralysis.

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

You are neglecting the 1.8

You are neglecting the 1.8 to 2.0 Trillion bbls of oil in the Green River and adjacent oil shale formations.  The technology now exists to recover that oil without mining the shale.

High oil prices are a

High oil prices are a product of supply and demand in a free market.  Now, you don't suppose that political actions that limit oil production, restrict the use of alternative fuels, prohibt Nuclear power and subsidize or mandate inefficient energy sources have anything to do with this problem, do you?

 

True colors

And, what was Exxon et al's profit margins last year?  Thanks for telling us all that you are in fact a hardened, committed Socialist.  It ENRAGES you to know that there are companies and individuals who PROFIT, doesn't it?  So, in order to make things "fair", in your world, you have the unalienable right to steal as much as you want from them, don't you?

Keep right on showing your true colors...

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Inconvenient facts R

Inconvenient facts R squared for CO2 and tempertures  for the last century is only about .44. R squared for CO2 and tempertures for the last 10 years is only about .05 Not a very strong coorelations.

Although coorelations do not imply causality. Without one the implications of causality is far weaker.

So we used half baked science to ban DDT. Over 90 million die, because of that. Now you're telling us we need throw away what has done more to help the world than anything else. 

It's easy to whine and pretend you're smart when you drive around, have a computer, and have a full stomach. We'll kill the third world to save them.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

We used science to ban

We used science to ban DDT?!? I think we stuck our heads up our butts. :)

 I didn't say it was good

 I didn't say it was good science....

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

you did indeed say

you did indeed say half-baked

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

Yes he did! But I still had

Yes he did! But I still had to say something! I love it when scientists jump to conclusions. Really makes my friggin' day.

Metaphors make poor science

but math and physics are useful tools. As PopularTech points out above, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logrithmic, not linear. If you follow the link he provided, you'll find that we're pretty much already at the point on the curve where adding C02 results in very little additional warming. So even assuming human C02 emissions did drive 'climate change' for the last few decades, why stop now?

 Also, I'd be interested to see if you or any source you can reference has done the math to see how much of the earth's surface would have to be covered with solar panels and windmills to make a significant (say 25%+) contribution to energy needs. And what would be the energy investment required to manufacture all those solar panels and windmills in the first place?

 

Myth: Turbines are taking over the countryside

England is at ~4% wind power and well on the way to 10% in 2010 - and it seems they're not pulling down old castles to make way for wind farms. An ex. http://www.londonarr...

 

"

Myth: Turbines are taking over the countryside
The facts:

  • There are now some 1,769 turbines in 137 locations. [1]
  • Generating
    10 per cent of UK electricity from renewables by 2010 could mean an
    increase by around another one and half times the current number.[2]
  • Less than 1/20,000th of the UK (800–1,200 hectares) would be used for foundations and access roads.[3]
  • Land between turbines can still be used for farming or natural habitat." http://www.berr.gov....

 

And let's just say that many of PT's links need a skeptical eye for not only accuracy but cherry-picking, illogic, and reputability; sometimes a very skeptical eye.

Please learn to comprehend Giles.

Please learn to comprehend Giles.

I'll simply quote what this website LINK you provided says. But first what it doesn't say.... this from you

England is at ~4% wind power and well on the way to 10% in 2010 -(sic)

#1. It's Great Britain, or the U.K., and not just England.

#2. This is what the hyped up site actually states

The project would contribute significantly to the Government’s target for renewable energy – providing around 10% of their target for 2010.

Now follow this ... this site MAY provide 10% of THE UK GOVERNMENT'S TARGET for so-called "rennewbale energy. Do you follow that? That's 10% of their target not 10% of the UK energy production.

Do you know what that target is? 

IT DOES NOT STATE -- that this windy farm site will provide 10% of the UK's energy production. Because that is, quite frankly NUTS.

Something else... this is all PROPOSAL.

It is not even working. And do you know how much TAX SUBSIDY this project is getting? 

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

When GW stops talking GW, the Turbines shut down

No more Wind.

If the  Greenies think Power lines kills migrating Birds, wait till those Wind Turbines start Knocking out of the Air. 

Ted Kennedy's backyard

Just try building wind turbines in Ted Kennedy's backyard!

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Wind Turbine Facts

Giles you are not doing a very good job! Here is how it is done:

- Wind Power is intermittent (wind farms must rely on conventional power plants to back up their supply)
- Wind Power costs twice as much as electricity generated from fossil fuels (the
levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear and 6.64 cents for wind unsubsidized
)
- Wind Power is not economically feasible without subsidies (subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States)
- Wind Power equals only about 0.28% of the United State's energy supply (40% Oil, 23% Coal, 23% Natural Gas, 8% Nuclear and 0.28% Wind)
- Wind Energy cannot be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands (avoiding blackouts requires production and demand on an electrical grid be equal every second, so operators need gas-fired "load-following" generators that can adjust instantly)
- Wind Energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used)
- Wind Farms are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed (this increases trasmission costs)
- Wind Farms can effect weather patterns (the turbulence from large wind farms creates warmer, drier conditions at the surface)
- Wind Farms can be eyesores (community members often complain about the blinding strobe-light sensation that takes place on wind farms at dawn and dusk)
- Wind Farms can produce noise pollution
- Wind Farms can interfere with radar
- Wind Farms have a devastating effect on birds (an estimated 44,000 birds have been killed over the past two decades by wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco)
- Wind Farms need 100 times more land area than conventional power plants (to produce 1,000 MW of power, a wind farm would require approximately 192,000 acres, or 300 square miles; a nuclear plant needs less than 1,700 acres, or 2.65 square miles (within its security perimeter fence); and a coal powered plant takes up about 1,950 acres, 3.05 square miles)
- Wind Turbines have to be shut off in high winds or temperatures (wind turbines shut off in over 50mph winds or 100 degree temperatures)
- Wind Turbines can be dangerous (turbines can collapse, catch fire and the blades can break off)

Living Next Door to a Wind Farm, Australia (Video) (10min)
Wind Farms - Not In My Back Yard (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)

Wind - Catch the Wind, Change the Weather (The New York Times)
Wind - Energy Answer is Not 'Blowing in the Wind' (The Heartland Institute)
Wind - Hot Air and Wind (Cato Institute)
Wind - Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
Wind - Greenpeace Opposes Wind Farm Plan (BBC)
Wind - Problems With Wind Power (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Wind - The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill "Availability" Factors (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind - Wind Energy Will Not Reduce US Oil Dependence (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind - Wind Farm Claims Are So Much Hot Air (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind - Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests (The New York Times)
Wind - Wind Power: Red Not Green (National Center for Policy Analysis)

Birds - Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (BBC)
Birds - Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (The Daily Telegraph)
Birds - Turbine Expansion Said to Threaten Birds (FOXNews)
Birds - Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (BBC)
Birds - Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (Associated Press)
Birds - Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (BBC)
Birds - Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (UPI)
Birds - Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (USA Today)

Eyesore - Blow Back Over 'Eyesore' Wind Farms (ABC News)
Eyesore - Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch (ABC News)
Eyesore - Wind Farms Worst Eyesore in UK (BBC)

Noise - Family says wind farm noise made them sick (Fort Frances Times Online)
Noise - Flicker noise from turbines a worry for Montreathmont plans (Brechin Advertiser, UK)
Noise - Wind Farm Noise 'Harms Health' (Yorkshire Post, UK)
Noise - Wind Farms 'Make People Sick Who Live Up to A Mile Away' (The Daily Telegraph)
Noise - Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Noise - Wind Turbine Syndrome (Nina Pierpont, B.A Biology, Ph.D. Population Biology, M.D. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)

Radar - Wind Farm Blow to Radar Systems (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farm Fears For Ships' Radar (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farms 'A Threat to National Security' (The Times, UK)
Radar - Wind Farms Disrupt Radar Images (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farms 'Grounded By Air Safety Fears' (The Times, UK)
Radar - Wind Farms Threat to MoD Radar (The Press Association)
Radar - Windmill Projects Stilled For Now (USA Today)

Unsafe - The Dangers of Wind Power (BusinessWeek)
Unsafe - Danish Climate Minister Demands Explanation for Violent Wind Turbine Collapse (The Jutland Post, Denmark)
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
Unsafe - 242-foot Wind Turbine Snaps in Half, Killing a Worker at Top, Oregon (The Oregonian)
Unsafe - Big Chunk of Turbine Blade Shears Off (West Morning News, UK)
Unsafe - Blazing Turbine Falls Into Field, UK (BBC)
Unsafe - Danger Claim As Turbine Blade Snaps Off, UK (Berwickshire News)
Unsafe - Fire Damages Wind Turbine Near Garner, Iowa (Globe Gazette)
Unsafe - Man Dies After 100ft Turbine Fall, UK (BBC)
Unsafe - Two Giant Vestas Wind Turbines Collapse, UK (off-grid)
Unsafe - Unexpected Shrapnel From A Wind Turbine, UK (Habitat21)
Unsafe - Wind Farm Fears As Blade Snaps, UK (The Times, UK)
Unsafe - Wind Farm Fire Caused Blackout, Australia (News Limited, Australia)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine Catches Fire: Mount Storm, West Virginia (West Virginia Firefighters)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine Falls Near Weatherford, Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine on Fire, California (Video)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine on Fire (Video)
Unsafe - Winds Too Much for Turbine: Breaks Blade, Canada (The Sault Star)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

10% renewable by 2010 - pretty clear -

 

"To meet the 10 per cent target by 2010, renewable energy sources will need to generate approximately an extra 10,000 megawatts." http://www.berr.gov....

" The government has set a target for 10% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010." http://news.bbc.co.u...

 

"Wind power is set to make an important contribution to the drive in Britain
to produce 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010." http://www.esemag.co...

 

"And do you know how much TAX SUBSIDY this project is getting"

Do you? or just tossing out what in your mind is an accusation?

Sure -- a government

Sure -- a government target... wow... that clinches it.

If it's a government target it's going to happen.

So that's how it works with you. The government sets a target and that means it has happened. Geesh. Are you for real?

FACT: Wind power currently provides less than 0.5% of the UK's electricity power.

And even with that pitiful generation are you seriously trying to claim there is no tax subsidy here. That huge bucket loads of taxpayer funds are NOT being shovelled into wind projects. You hold on that position Giles? Really Giles?

Oh dear. Hoist by your own pet misconceptions.

FACT: In the UK, Wind power receives the LARGEST per unit subsidy ever paid for a commodity.

Wind electricity price is inflated to £90/MWh

As of January 2006 the wholesale price of electricity has risen to about £45/MWh (compared with c. £20/MWh a couple of years ago).

The implication is that the net subsidy, currently about £45/MWh, roughly doubles the value of wind electricity to c. £90/MWh (and prior to 2005-6 price changes, it almost trebled it).

This is probably the largest per unit subsidy ever paid for any commodity and the wind power industry has gained similar advantage in most other countries through either similar direct subsidy or, as in the US, through tax-breaks to wind power companies.

At present, coal-fired generation receives a per MWh subsidy which is less than a 25th of the wind subsidy. Gas-fired generation has never been subsidised and nuclear ceased to be subsidised in 1995-6 and has incidentally repaid with interest the bail-out loan made to it some years ago.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

"..energy investment

"..energy investment required to manufacture all those solar panels and windmills..."

As compared to repair and expansion of refineries, pipelines?

Shift happens - what's wrong with creating new, well-paying jobs in cleaner industries?

Or would you prefer a coal-fired smokestack or a nuclear cooling tower to a wind / solar panel factory down the road?

How many tons of steel and rubber do you need to haul home the groceries?

tons of steel and rubber - - - Hmmm..lets see

One Eighteen Wheeler from California Valley, to NY and all points in between . . . About 70,000 Lbs, or 35 tons of steel and rubber .

Railroad Transportation, or SHIP carrying Grain from America to Ports around the World, add a few more TONS.

The Last Leg of the Trip, usually only about  a 1 1/2 Ton Vehicle, from Store to Home.   You got a Better Solution GW ?

Glad you like your 'fresh'

Glad you like your 'fresh' iceberg lettuce shipped x-c.

But there are plenty of choices -

Yes we should use

Yes we should use children. I agree.

Fade in a youth is led up the pyramid steps. His parents dressed in rags, Weep as they watch.

A priest dressed in elegant robes raises a knife to the sun and says. We offer this sacrifice that you will rise tomorrow.

The youth is laid backwards upon the choc mool.

The priest, quickly rips open the youths chest and pulls out the  beating heart. Holds it to the sun.  The priest thanks the sun and begins to eat the still beating heart as the body of the boy is thrown down the pyramid steps.

A kindly well dressed priest consoles the parents. Telling them their sacrifice was necessary.

Fade out/fade in. A girl is seen being thrown into the cenote. She splashes. Then her lifeless body is seen floating. Fade in. The kindly priest consoles the poor parents. "To ensure the rains".

Fade in Carthage. The priest begins to cut the throat of an infant; crying, "To ensure victory over Rome."

Over voice. For centuries people have been asked to sacrifice their children. Now the witch doctors of global warming are asking again.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Giles, how about this for a commercial.

As it appears you have a real problem with children being used to promote (gasp!) capitalistic pursuits (no surprise here), and apparently no problem with children being tapped to promote propaganda, I have a great idea.

Let's film a commercial at your house, in which a couple of mischievous youths break into your garage in the middle of the night and fill your gas tank with a couple of pounds of sugar.

That should pretty much sharply reduce your "carbon footprint" for at least a week. Perhaps two.

Think of it as a temporary reprieve from your hypocritical existence.

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

Terrorism's Gonna Get YOU!!

I'm thinking of a script for an ad ...

Little Brittany and her family board a plane after a half dozen men, who just spent time on their knees on prayer rugs facing Mecca have boarded ...

Cut now to a scene where Little Antwon is playing stick-ball on the inner city streets and, unkown to him and his mates, there is a large suitcase counting down inside an abandoned building just a block away ...

Back to Brittany ... The plane takes off ... Once comfortably in the air the half dozen "prayerful" men stand up around various part of the plane's cabin and begin loudly chanting "Allah Akbar!" as two of them come out of the plane's bathrooms with weapons they have assembled from things they brought aboard in their carry-ons ...

Back to Antwon and the ball game ... Through x-ray vision we can see the timer inside the large suitcase in the abandoned building a block away has ticked down to just a couple seconds ... and then back to Antwon hitting a home-run ... then behind him ... <FLASH> ... <BOOM>

 

 

When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks

Why couldn't enough parents

Why couldn't enough parents get together, band, and put up a law suit against the AD Council...these are false messages, this is scare tactics to the utmost...absolutely despicable.

Take some kids to whoever(Dr. of some kind) that will say they are hurt by these ads, they cannot function like they used, they are frightened when the wind blows or a train whistle does too now, the sound of a grandfather clock ticking or alarm clock going off makes them cower and take cover....on and on...

Something should be done, enough is enough.

I like how the AD Council says they want to ensure that future generations will reap the benefits of our efforts to date and continue to be inspired...blah blah blah....and to think, they have been in business since '42...well, me thinks there has to be a way to stop this lying propaganda somehow...

For our children, grandchildren and future generations to come.

The scary CO2 train

This ad just confirms what we already know, namely that the AGW proponents are really just in the scare children mis-information industry. It also gets really tiresome listening to their cover thy butt doomsday scenarios. This ad states that "irreversible consequences are 30 years away". Al Gore said in Jan/06 that we have just 10 years left to avoid catastrophe. James Hansen said in Dec/07 that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350ppm (aprox the level in 1989). It seems every other week there's a new prediction of total arctic ice melting even though Jan/08 levels are almost exactly the same as Jan/1980 levels. If the "science is settled" like they say it is why don't they all have the same prediction?

Ahh the fairness doctrine one minute at a time.

PSA's are just 30-60 seconds of stinking little views into the liberal mind...

GET OUT OF MY MIND <some movie line somewhere>

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

upcountrywater,

Dune, the reverend mother says it to the character Alia during one of the final scenes.

Armed Forces Network

They have been shoveling these exact same commercials down servicemembers throats on AFN for over 3 years now.  The sad thing is that we can't change the channel!  They also force us to watch Olberman and Matthews.  AFN is a joke.  I am considering writing my congressman.

RH... I feel your pain to

RH...

I feel your pain to an extent...granted I am not in your shoes, but I can imagine.

Thank you for your service to us out here...my gratitude is sent.

Just out of curiosity who is your congressman...I'm hoping it may do some good is why I ask....if it is a repub, most likely shite out of luck for the time being...but it never ever hurts to do so anyway. 

This is old, you just found out about it?

I first saw this ad nearly a year ago.  

Apparently it is 2 years old:

http://www.adcouncil.org/default.aspx?id=325

You outta see this one:

Blue Man group warns us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-mfEMssy8

now that's global warming with a good sense of humor!

met... OMG and WOW is all

met...

OMG and WOW is all I can say.

No little children involved in this though...but talk about knocking your head against the wall...

Planetary Emergency...Planetary Emergency!

BT, funny. I like BMG's

BT, funny. I like BMG's music. Knockin' heads... :)

Social Security

Gee, you'd think they'd think about SS the same way, seeing as it really EXISTS as a threat to our children's happy future.

Is this news?

Noel - Have U.S. audiences just now been getting hit with this Stillsonian propaganda?  I ask because I first saw these "public service announcements" back in the summer of 2006 on AFN when I was stationed in Korea.  In fact, I never saw them again after those initial viewings.

It wasn't the imagery that caused me to roll my eyes in the "train" spot.  It was, however, the assertion that the worst effects of global warming were 30 years away.  In 1988, I heard...the same thing!  So, which is it, I ask the GW religionists? 

Leftists hiding behind children...is THAT supposed to be surprising?  Greg Stillson lives. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Green

Green is no longer one of my favorite colors. For obvious reasons, I prefer red. For all those folks who actually believe that humans, not the sun, are warming the earth, I suggest you move into a mud hut and ride a bicycle, or shut the hell up.

Wow, I agree...

Noel,

I believe using children to promote any agenda is wrong. The kids should be recognized as being "children of alarmists". Wouldn't you agree? Children should be able to intelligently question what they are being told to do. If children haven't had the time to formulate an opinion on a particular subject, than they should not be allowed to promote an adult agenda. Would you agree?

Syrius

 

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Holy reactionary knee-jerks Batman

You go from condemnation of using children inappropriately to promote an alarmist agenda -- to children should not be used to promote any agenda?

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

I asked the question...

brainchild,

You either agree or don't. What's the answer?

Syrius

 

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius - you reactionary alarmist

i disagree with the reactionary alarmists who produced the commercial and i disagree with with your reactionary alarmism.

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

Squirmin'?

brainchild,

Simple question...Do you agree it's okay to promote an adult agenda by way of using children?

Come on, botg, get a backbone...

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

oh noes!!!

Sy says ise squirmin---betta run for cova!!!

No Syrius, you asked a false dichotomy (aka an idiots question) i exposed it as such and you continued with it.  What does that make you?

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

An inquistor of idiots.

botg,

What is your answer? Why is it okay to promote an adult agenda with children? Hillary did it. Come on answer the question. It's a simple one...for a simple guy like yourself...yes or no?

Why don't you call upon PJ to help you? Or anyone for that matter? By the way, the question was posed to Noel in the first place...you just wanted to make a comment, right?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

botg, PJ likes the use of

botg,

PJ likes the use of the following...

:toes tapping:

:fingers drumming:

:tea sipping:

:sighing:

The answer to my question...yes or no, botg?

You usually stick around defending your position...Never thought you to be a coward. Enlighten me, Children promoting an adult agenda, for it or against it?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

cleopatra

Here's another example of your tactic: 

are you a moron or an idiot?  ---- answer the question!

give it up Cleo--you look stupid enough for one day

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

botg 4 ~ syrius nil

Ahhhh...

FreetoStink,

Dive in the water is cold, but, so refreshing.

FreeStink, simple question...What do you think about the overall use of children promoting an adult agenda? Feel 'free' to weigh in on this topic since your boy, botg, seems to have not been able to answer the question.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

I didn't ask that question.

botg,

Though, it is becoming very apparent that I should ask you if you know which one you could be- an idiot or a moron?

Simple question...Children promoting an Adult Agenda, for or against it?

It looked like someone was just about to help you and <poof> went away...

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

sy

you've been shown for what you are, hence your new nickname:

Cleopatra --'queen of d nile'

just can't admit being wrong can you?

(no more time to waste on you today)

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

No answer so far...

botg,

Answer it, it's that simple...

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

botg

botg - while I admire your attempts at reasoning with syrius, it seems pretty clear he could not care less what facts or logic you bring up.

Just my opinion, but he only deserves mockery.

Again I do admire your attempts. You have far more patience than I do.

 

Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!

Just my opinion, but he only

Just my opinion, but he only deserves mockery.

i thought that also but after reading his stuff i realized that he beat me to it!

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

brainchild, I would never

brainchild,

I would never want to offend a moron or an idiot by way of posing them in a question about your intelligence. For your vainity blinds you to your stupidity. I would begin with geology for your classification but once again I wouldn't want to offend a rock.

Syrius

- response moved -

- response moved -

Syrius

Syrius, when you say children "should not be allowed to promote an adult agenda," are you saying by their parents or by the law? If the former, that's the parents' choice. If the latter, I'm not sure I'd advocate legislation concerning such.

After all, you'd then get into the question of what an agenda is. TV shows, movies, and plays can have just as much of an agenda as commercials. Should children not be allowed in such? Isn't that taking this too far?

That said, my point wasn't about legalities. It was about decency, something that is very difficult to control legislatively without serious infringement on rights and liberties. ns

Noel's spot-on

"It was about decency, something that is very difficult to control
legislatively without serious infringement on rights and liberties."

Noel,

Would this also include the "children" of the "Boy Scouts of America"?

These decent children's rights have been slaughtered by the Left in recent times.

Yet try and name one Liberal group that has done more "good" for humanity than the Boy Scouts. LOL!!

 

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle

Definitions, descriptions...

Noel,

The point of my question was presenting children to push an adult agenda. Children are normally told what to say in a commercial without knowing fully what they are saying. Somehow, bringing their parents into the argument and/ or a certain legal precedent dodges the question entirely. Are children to be considered conservative, liberal, democratic, republican...etc. for the commercial or agenda being presented? The question is quite simple. Are the children's rights being violated in anyway if they were to know what is being presented?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius

Syrius,

I wasn't trying to evade your question, but, instead, trying to understand it. You talked about "being allowed." I wanted to understand by whom. Who's doing the allowing?

As for children's rights, that's also a murky area. Kids don't have the same rights as adults, correct? They are treated differently under the eyes of the law, right? So, I don't know if their rights are being violated if they are being asked to make political statements or product endorsements they don't understand. ns

The fact is...

Noel,

Children need to be respected for their potential views. They shouldn't be considered liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, etc. It should be considered shameful to indoctrinate them so early in their life. They should be able to have a choice when they become adults. So, call them for what they are now..."children of republican parents" not "republican children" or any other label you'd like to attach.

Syrius


"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius

Syrius,

It should be considered shameful to indoctrinate them so early in their life.

How many kids do you have, and what do you consider indoctrination? Is religion indoctrination? Or morals and ethics? What about instilling manners, good eating habits, and fitness regimens? Proper hygiene? Prudence and humility? No drugs or alcohol? Respect for elders and the law?

Should parents not indoctrinate their kids concerning these issues? If they don't who should be responsible for this? After all, I don't give my kids a choice when it comes to such things. In my house, it's my way or the highway.

Do you think that makes me a bad parent, or a good one? ns

 

Noel, it makes you a good parent

Clearly it makes you a good parent. Society as we know it would cease to exist if morality and ethics disappeared entirely and people were taught they can do what they want, when they want... wait isn't that what liberals teach their kids?

In a liberal household it is the kids way, they are in charge and in control of the adults. Doing drugs, having sex and abortions are all their choice!

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Noel,

Noel,

I can only hope you're a good parent. You will raise your children how you see fit based upon what you perceive as good moral values and your own experiences from your upbringing. You have been raised by your parents in such way to help formulate your own way of thinking. I'm sure they corrected you in their own way if you got out of line and rewarded you when you were good.

You raised the issue of religious indoctrination. We all have some form of early religious indoctrination whether you're a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. I do believe, in congruence with my previous statement, that very small children should be considered "Children of (insert faith) Parents". The understanding that they will be raised under a certain faith. I was raised Catholic, my wife is Protestant, and we are raising them Protestant but with a more open approach in learning other religions. I've given them the tools in which to ask questions and be able to argue with me. Of course, there's no argument in trying to run across three lanes of traffic.

It's interesting to see you take such a powerful stance by saying,"In my house, it's my way or the highway.". It's a little bravado to show you have control when it's normally the mothers that wield ultimate control. That's to be taken as a light joke. We all hope our children will survive their adolescence!

I'd suggest reading G. Lakoff's "Moral Politics" for a better understanding of my approach.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius

Syrius,

Your view of the mother as the dominant parental figure is archaic. Today's women, due to four decades of feminism, are much more concerned with their own careers and themselves than their children. This is a large cause of many societal ills facing our nation.

The reason I brought up such issues as religion, morality, and ethics is that such things are indeed indoctrinated on youth, and likely for good reason. Much education in any fashion is a form of indoctrination. We as parents force our opinions on a myriad of subjects upon our children in order to make them better adults. Without such indoctrination, what would they become?

So, in the context of your previous points concerning children being free to choose whatever they think, I don't believe that's true at all. My children, until they become adults, should share virtually all my views on things important to me, for that is indeed my responsibility as a parent. Anything less is an abdication of that responsibility.

In short, it doesn't take a village -- it takes good parents. ns

Noel, Whoa, back up the

Noel,

Whoa, back up the horse, dude! Archaic? It was a small lighthearted joke about the mother being the ultimate power holder in the family. I believe in today's world, as with most of the population, the parents are a team working together in raising their children. You, my friend, are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube with your stupid statement on women and feminism. Are you part of the American Taliban? Your stupid statement, "This is a large cause of many societal ills facing our nation." is absolute bullsh*t. Back your statement up, buddy, with proof that women and their feminism are the cause of many societal ills facing our nation. What crap! Get an education.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius

Get an education.

I've been civil and polite answering all your questions. You just crossed the line. This conversation just ended. Adieu. ns

Peter Foster

Noel:

Peter Foster had a GREAT op ed in the National Post on Sat. March 15 which would fit right in this conversation.  Not available on line yet.  They come available to the general public about a week later and would be worth pointing to.  He was the only skeptic at the Globe conference in Vancouver.  Worth a look.  He talks about improvement from generation to generation. 

The above ad said to me:

"let's make sure our children don't have the same opportunity as us due to an increasingly improbable, hypothetically catastrophic outcome.  I know we've enjoyed the fruits of the earth, but other generations, you can't.  Why?  Because we know what's best for you and your children.".

Do I worry about my children's future?  Darn right.  I worry about them not having at a MINIMUM the same opportunity as I.  Energy is essential to their liberties and opportunities. Warp the demand based consumption of natural resources with false pretenses and one takes away opportunity.  There is no way I'm not going to fight tooth and nail for my children to have the freedom to earn the life they choose.  Especially when the erosion of those liberties are based on factoids and out right lies.

In reality, the watermelons are asking me to put their perception of how the earth should be over an above the liberties of my children and their desires.  Now, who is truly thinking about my children?  Not them.  They are only thinking of themselves. 

It's not available There are 2 types of politicians.  Those who know AGW is a sham and stupid ones.

A little late

This ad has been out for two years. So much for current events. Besides, Noel should know that only the President is allowed to politically exploit children in the defense of banning stem cell research.

Descent, Don't forget the

Descent,

Don't forget the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC).

Big coal loves to use kids.