‘Planet in Peril’ Thanks to CNN Marketing Team

Photo of Stuart James.
By Stuart James | October 17, 2007 - 16:21 ET

Last night on the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert took CNN's marketing team to task, pointing out the hypocrisy of putting a "six foot square poster in each of the 2.3 million copies of today's the USA Today. That's 13.8 million square feet of ‘Planetary Peril.'" Planet in Peril a program airing next week on CNN. Colbert who could barely keep himself from laughing went on to say,

"Now the paper is recycled but hopefully that glossy ink isn't going to biodegrade anytime soon, so awareness of this threat is going to be around for centuries. Brilliant marketing CNN, you have strategically insured the planet will still be in peril by the time your special airs next week."

Video (1:17): Real (2.10 MB) and Windows (4.60 MB), plus MP3 audio (598 kB).

"Planet in Peril" airs October 23 and 24 on CNN. It details all the ailments of Earth today. A quick jaunt through the website shows that global warming will be a top issue. The website highlights various locations throughout the planet where harms such as pollution (China), rising water levels (the Carteret Islands), the black market animal trade (Southeast Asia), and disappearing lakes (Lake Chad in Central Africa). Other issues include, deforestation, habitat loss, overpopulation, and species loss.

The Business and Media Institute will be reporting more on "Planet in Peril" next week.

 

-Stuart James is a Research Analyst at the Business and Media Institute

Topics:

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.

Ad Nauseum

October 17, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Dr_Liberty

Being so sick and tired of all this global warming, doom and gloom stuff, I'm gonna go get me one of them fancy USA Today papers and then I'm gonna throw out the CNN ad in the regular trash, or better yet use it as a dropcloth when I varnish my bench and then burn it in my backyard burn barrel.

 <insert witty signature here>

ad naeseum is right

October 17, 2007 - 16:35 ET by candance

This is about as bad as it gets. Nonstop coverage of GW like the world will implode tomorrow morning. You can't even watch sitcoms anymore without people referring to it.

As Ann Coulter brilliantly explained in Slander, this is the Blabocracy forcing us to believe something with relentless repitition. 

 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Oh, please  <yawn>  Hold

October 17, 2007 - 16:32 ET by drillanwr

Oh, please  <yawn>  Hold me  <snapping gum>  I'm so scared <sigh> ...

The sky is falling. The sky

October 17, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Clear thinker

The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

The Planet IS in Peril

October 17, 2007 - 16:37 ET by mattm

There is only one solution:

Eradicate Liberalism!

new plan

October 17, 2007 - 16:39 ET by candance

 Prevent global warming: tell algore to shut his mouth!

 

 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

I'm hoping

October 17, 2007 - 16:42 ET by Dr_Liberty

I'm just hoping they don't panic and stress out the "tween set" with all of this talk.

 Darn it.  Too late.

 

<insert witty signature here>

...or some parents or

October 17, 2007 - 16:45 ET by bigtimer

...or some parents or teachers make the tweens watch this tripe with Anderson Cooper who has been hawking this BS for a couple of weeks now on CNN.

The overwhelming majority of

October 17, 2007 - 16:50 ET by mgerardn

The overwhelming majority of scientists must be wrong.

Yawn

October 17, 2007 - 16:55 ET by RJ

Yawn...

That works for tweens, but not here....wake me when you have something intelligent to say.....

Pssst...

October 17, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Dr_Liberty

Hey RJ, wake up.  Joe Scarborough is about to come on.

Oh, nevermind, go back to sleep.  Sorry. 

 

<insert witty signature here>

The overwhelming majority of

October 17, 2007 - 17:10 ET by mgerardn

The overwhelming majority of scientists also believe dinosaurs existed, but not some republican presidential candidates.  I can't wait for the next democrat to mention dinosaurs so the "T-Rex Myth" will become a hot topic here

Troll Identification Challenge -- The Overwhelming Majority

October 17, 2007 - 17:14 ET by Free Stinker

The overwhelming majority of scientists

 

Does the phrase "The overwhelming majority" ring a bell with anyone?

A weatherman has been

October 17, 2007 - 17:16 ET by mgerardn

A weatherman has been located in Toledo who doesn't believe in global warming, tell Fox News to open up a spot on their payroll...

mgerardn - this is called being bxtch-slapped

October 17, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Free Stinker

I've provided you this handy list of links to Global Warming disssenters & facts.  Come back after you've read or watched at least half.

Hat-tip to Noel Sheppard, botg, NL207, dscott, Kristen Byrnes, GlobalWarmingHoax, xfast, Gary Hall, and PopularTech

Films & TV

  1. Film: Global Warming Swindle - New Link <link fixed Sep 11>
  2. Film: Doomday Called Off - Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V
  3. TV: Exposed: Climate of Fear - Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part IV
  4. NEW! Film: Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - Link
  5. NEW! Film: Penn and Teller Bullshxt! - Environmental Hysteria

Global Warming - R.I.P.

  1. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
  2. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Courier Mail - High price for load of hot air
  3. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: OISM - 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever
  4. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Business and Media Institute - 77 Skeptical Scientists
  5. Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Hudson Institute - Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

There seems to be a problem with their data and premises

  1. Warm is good!: Breitbart - Oldest DNA ever recovered shows warmer planet: report
  2. CO2: falsly accused? - Energy Tribune - Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap?
  3. Oops! Data collection "issues": Pittsburg Tribune-Review - Helping along global warming
  4. Data used is only from only 1979?: MSNBC - Winter Arctic sea ice near record low
  5. Where's the Beef?: New Zealand Herald - Chirs de Freitas: Evidence must prevail
  6. Satelite Data shows cooling: Frontier Center for Public Policy - Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist On the real danger for Canada, global cooling
  7. Only 30 Glaciers are monitored? world glacier monitoring service - glacier mass balance data 2003/2004 and 2004/2005

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

  1. Antarctic Ice Growing (USA Today)
  2. Greenland's Ice Sheet Growing 5 cm per year (CO2 Science)
  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

Dissent (h/t PopularTech) Quicklist

  1. Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)
  2. Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  3. Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  4. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
  5. 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
  6. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC)
  7. Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source)
  8. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA)
  9. Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source)
  10. Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)
  11. Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA)
  12. Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA)
  13. The warmest year in the United States was 1934. (NASA)

Covering-up and Intimidation? (just from the left)

  1. It's not Global Warming! It's Agitprop: Financial Times - Global warming: truth or propaganda?
  2. Cover-up? Not!: The Washington Times - Climate Scientist sees cover-up
  3. Intimidation of Global Warming disenters: American Policy Center - The Global Warming Inquisition and the Suppression of "Skeptic" Heresy
  4. Intimidation of Global Warming disenters: Opinion Journal - Climate of Fear
  5. Who is censoring whom?: Reuters - Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard
  6. Outright Threats: Canada Free Press - Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist

Plenty of Dissent & opposition

  1. More Dissent: Financial Times - Models trump measurements
  2. Scrutiny. It can be annoying: Chicago Sun-Times - Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
  3. Less polution equals more sunlight: Nature - Clear skies end global dimming
  4. Dissent: The Washington Times - Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent
  5. Global Warming Debunking: Kristen Byrnes - Ponder The Maunder
  6. Global Warming Debunking: The Timaru Herald - Global warming debunked
  7. Global Warming Dissent: U.S. Sentate - Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
  8. Global Warming Dissent: The Wasington Post - The Tempest
  9. Global Warming Dissent: Newsmax - Here we go again: It's not global warming
  10. Global Warming Dissent: Newsmax - The Myth of Greenhouse Gases
  11. Dissenting Book - Global Warming and Other Eco Myths
  12. Global Warming Dissent: AP (at Myway) - Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
  13. Global Warming Dissent: NewsWeek(at MSNBC) - Why So Gloomy?
  14. Global Warming Dissent: U.S. Senate - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming
  15. Global Warming Dissent: The Huntsville Times - Scientist: Warming not caused by humans
  16. Global Warming Dissent: UPI - Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
  17. It's not us! It's the %#@! Ocean!: Daily Telegraph - Ocean currents to blame for warming: expert
  18. Global Warming is Cyclical!: Science Daily - Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

Now THIS is dissent! Financial Post series by Lawrence Solomon

  1. Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
  2. Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
  3. The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
  4. Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
  5. The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
  6. The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
  7. Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
  8. The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
  9. Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
  10. Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
  11. End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
  12. Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
  13. Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
  14. The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
  15. Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
  16. Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
  17. Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
  18. Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
  19. Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
  20. Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
  21. The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
  22. Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
  23. Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
  24. Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
  25. They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
  26. NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
  27. Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII
  28. Open mind sees climate clearly

How come other planets are warming up? (It's All Rove's Fault!)

  1. Mars is warming up too!: CNN - Study: Red Planet Heating Up
  2. Mars is still warming up: National Geographic - Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
  3. So is Pluto: MIT - Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
  4. And so is Triton: MIT - MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

Is it just me, or are we getting colder?

  1. Arctic Ice: Capitalism Magazine - The Amazing Disappearing
  2. Antarctica Temps: Capitalism Magazine - Antarctica Is Cooling?
  3. 1st Snow in 26 Years: Bloomberg - Johannesburg Gets 4 Inches of Snow, First Since 1981 (Update1)
  4. Snow in Argentina?: BBC - Buenos Aires sees rare snowfall
  5. Darn Solar Activity!: CO2 Science - Did Increasing Solar Activity Drive 20th-Century Global Warming?
  6. More questions? I thought the debate was over?: RPPI - National Academy of Sciences Raises More Climate Questions
  7. Still more questions?: World Climate Report - Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
  8. The sun is doing it!: Duke University - Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report
  9. The sun is still doing it!: AGU - Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
  10. The sun continues doing it!: AGU - Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming
  11. The debate is over. GW lost!: Heartland Institute - Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate
  12. It's getting colder!: NOAA - April Temperatures
  13. We're going to Freeze?: MSNBC - Remember Global Cooling?
  14. Snow is melting in Africa: Reuters - Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming
  15. Snow still melting in Africa: American Scientist - The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
  16. Global Cooling: AP (at Myway) - Cold Snap Postpones Spring Festivities
  17. Global Cooling: Anchorage Daily News - Frozen bay turns otters into easy prey

  18. New! 1895 - Prospects of another Glacial Period (PDF) (The New York Times)

  19. New! 1912 - Sees Glacia Era Coming; Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age (The New York Times)
  20. New! 1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post)
  21. New! 1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine)
  22. New! 1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times)
  23. New! 1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times)
  24. New! 1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek)
  25. New! 1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book)
  26. New! 1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book)
  27. New! Cold Yet? (The Washington Times)
  28. New! Fire and Ice (Business and Media Institute)

Did you want a list of links

October 17, 2007 - 17:29 ET by mgerardn

Did you want a list of links to the "Truth about 9/11" people - I don't believe them either, but putting a list of links of 30 articles doesn't negate the fact that the overwhelming majority believe that global warming is happening and that man has something to do with it.  Rupert Murdoch is figuring it out, the White House is figuring out, you guys will figure it out.

Everyone to the life

October 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Jimbo

Everyone to the life boats! 

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

and

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07) 

mgerardn

October 17, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Free Stinker

putting a list of links of 30 articles doesn't negate the fact that the
overwhelming majority believe that global warming is happening and that
man has something to do with it.

 

Meanwhile, the below link alone should be enough to blow away that argument of yours. The headline should tell you all you need to know.

Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

I guess you missed it in the list.

Can someone just take the

October 17, 2007 - 17:53 ET by mgerardn

Can someone just take the 'con' side of the argument of my ORIGINAL post - does anyone disagree with me that the majority of scientists believe in global warming and it's manmade component.

So What ?

October 17, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Free Stinker

So what if they do?

 

IT. STOPPED. IN. 1998.

oh, you're right...that's

October 17, 2007 - 18:01 ET by mgerardn

Good, then the debate is over, you agree with me.  Thank u...

Can you really be this stupid mgerardn?

October 17, 2007 - 18:40 ET by RJ

...or is it just childishness?   You ignore BD's point that "GW" has already stopped, and claim "victory?"  Only a dumb Troll could claim that means the debate is over....oh, wait....you ARE a dumb Troll.....

Yes, I will take the Con

October 17, 2007 - 17:58 ET by BD

Yes, I will take the Con side of that argument.

A synopsys of my argument in short would be that the Environmental lobby under the auspices of Albert Gore Jr has attempted to essentially take the argument by fiat.  In effect, they have said:

 "This is critical, some scientists are for our side of the argument, in its criticality it is key that reaction must be swift and therefore the debate is over."

Gore had the advantage of the initiative and only in recent times have those opposed to his position been able to muster a response.  Though over time you will find that response growing.

This is a different issue

October 17, 2007 - 18:08 ET by mgerardn

This is a different issue than most issues that divide the right and the left - issues of abortion, welfare, global war on terror..these have an emotional component that rely on opinion.  But this is a case of scientists using methodologies to show results - you just don't have that component on the other side of the argument.  It seems like you are covering up the fact that few climatologists have provided counter-arguments with the "in effect" assumption that "reaction must be swift and therefore the debate is over".

A few points. Reports of

October 17, 2007 - 18:17 ET by BD

A few points.

Reports of both pro and con positions held by scientists on this issue are anecdotal.  There has never been a true attempt to gather a state of opinion of ALL climatologists and codify it into a position. 

Usually what we have seen is limited group of scientists sometimes not qualified to render an opinion.

The initial reports of global warming were generally posited by such groups of scientists. (Amongst the Albert Gore Jr list of scientists where supposed experts who held advanced degrees in social science rather that climate science.)

As I have stated earlier, the preponderance of such polls initially showed the PRO position winning the debate simply because the initiative rested with them.  In recent months, that initiative has waned as other sources have come to light and CON Climatologists have made their voices heard, including my old Meteorology professor from the 1980's.. 

That is why you are now seeing the effort to end debate on the issue by fiat by the Pro-Anthropogenic Global Warming side of the issue.  They do not wish to see the CON side develop.

-

October 17, 2007 - 18:31 ET by dahliatravers

Mgerardn, it is, in fact, AGW proponents who have abandoned the scientific methodology.  For example, when a suspicion arose that 1998 might not have been the warmest year in the US, Dr. James Hansen petulantly refused to release his algorithm and someone had to recreate it.  [Turned out 1998 was not the warmest year on record in the US.]  What happened to showing your work so that your fellow scientists can recreate it?  Another example:  they broke Mann's hockey stick.  A third example.  Where do we stand with the computer models which are the heart and soul of the scientific case for AGW?  Has anyone gotten around to factoring in clouds?  Kind of a big item to leave out if you're trying to predict temperature trends.

 [Glad to provide links to all of these developments if you don't accuse me of not believing in 9/11.  Not everything on the www is fiction.]

"But this is a case of

October 17, 2007 - 18:33 ET by Indiana Joe

"But this is a case of scientists using methodologies to show results..."

But the problem is the presumption that these scientists are free of any bias or prejudice, and that the "methodologies" are valid. The famous "hockey stick" model has been pretty much debunked, or is at least being challenged and debated. While some icepacks are thinning, others are growing. Data seem to have been "cherry-picked" to fit a pre-set conclusion. Not to continue to beat an old horse, but the time was that "the majority of scientists" believed the world was flat. True scientific fact does not bend to opinion, scientific or otherwise.

This debate is far from "over," and to try to end it by declaring such is akin to a magician saying, "Okay, now close your eyes." It takes away from the veracity of one's argument.

And just how many

October 17, 2007 - 17:58 ET by bassndude

And just how many scientists constitutes this majority?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

okay

October 17, 2007 - 20:02 ET by candance

Yes, the majority of scientists say they believe in GW. Yet that's begging the question.

"Everyone is getting into a panic about GW."

"Then everyone is wrong."

"But everyone believes in it."

For the millionth time, repitition and wall-to-wall promotion do not MAKE something true. No matter how many people fall for it.

If you have a problem with the inherent point of the article, then talk about that. Yet you don't want to discuss that. You want to change the subject so we all focus on how many people believe in it. We then show you prominent examples of people who don't, which you rebutt by saying they don't believe in dinosaurs either.

Sounds like you don't really want to discuss the article - you just want to imply that we're all cavemen, no matter how much evidence we have on our side. Does this person always come on here with snappy, off-subject remarks?

 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

candace... Simply put in

October 17, 2007 - 20:07 ET by bigtimer

candace...

Simply put in answer to your last question...

YES.

LOL...

The "majority of

October 18, 2007 - 08:20 ET by Seabeach4348

The "majority of scientists" (probably some of the same) believed that we were heading into another ice age 25 or 30 years ago, didn't they?

Five hundred years ago everyone just knew that the earth was flat and the center of the universe with the planets and sun revolving around it, didn't they? (OK, they didn't have the methods we have today, but...)

And if the "debate is over" then why are scientists still debating it as they should be?  The scum in the MSM only reports and repeats over and over again the doomsday side with humans as the cause; there has never been a genuine scientific debate.  And the bloated buffoon Algore doesn't ever want one!  And why is this "majority of scientists" comfortable with that if they are true scientists?

One thing we can all agree on is that the pro-AGW issue is much, much more political than it is scientific, and it simply smells of spanking America, once again, for being a bit too successful and putting the UN in charge to make sure that we pay for it and never do it again!

-

October 17, 2007 - 18:08 ET by dahliatravers

Mgerardn, the attacks on 9/11/01 certain happened and dinosaurs existed.  Now, having found some common ground, let's have a discussion.  Briefly outline for us the mechanism whereby man is causing global warming.  

Start with how much greenhouse gas we generate versus Mother Nature.  Be sure to mention which of man's activities generates the most greenhouse gas.

I know where there are

October 17, 2007 - 19:49 ET by danbo

I know where there are fairly long list of warmer scientist just as I know where to find even longer list of sceptics.

But since you brought the issue up. Please name them.

However, it is irrelevant as science isn't decided by voting. It's about the 1 scientist with the correct answer.  

"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

Read the literature

October 17, 2007 - 23:11 ET by NL207

Read the literature yourself, if you've access to it.

The existing body of science to date has shown that human activity has caused at most 0.4 degrees C of warming.  All other observed variations over the last 150 years are natural in origins.

The alarmists you want to follow are predicting that human activity will cause anywhere from 1.7 to 10.4 degrees C warming depending on who you want to believe.  This does not follow from the observed changes to date.

 To put all this in perspective, the mean temp of the earth, 288 degrees K, can be attributed to the Sun's rays: 255 K, and to the blanket effect of the atmosphere: 33 K.  The measured change caused by human activity can be no more than 1.2% of the total effect of earth's atmosphere and possibly less.

translation:  there is no cause for alarm, on this issue.  The massive government programs proposed to address this issue are completely unjustified by the facts.

"translation: there is no

October 17, 2007 - 23:45 ET by ckc1227

"translation: there is no cause for alarm, on this issue. The massive
government programs proposed to address this issue are completely
unjustified by the facts."

So, you're saying that the 0.56 percent of total greenhouse gases caused by man isn't going to destroy the planet? I'm not sure I'm buying it. I mean, if nature is responsible for 99.5% of all greenhouse gases, it's pretty obvious that man is responsible for global warming. How can anyone conclude differently?

:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually mgerardn, I heard a weatherman say that most

October 17, 2007 - 17:20 ET by RJ

weathermen believe the jury is still out on both GW and AGW....sorry about that.

I believe it was the same

October 17, 2007 - 17:23 ET by mgerardn

I believe it was the same weatherman in Toledo....

mgerardn, you have to be the most boring "debater" on this site

October 17, 2007 - 17:29 ET by RJ

These are your best shots?   Really?   That's sad....

and yet he inserts

October 17, 2007 - 19:51 ET by Chris Norman

and yet he inserts himself over and over again...

Still boring, mgerardn. Is that your idea of debate?

October 17, 2007 - 17:16 ET by RJ

Typing little snippets of leftist docrinaire? 

Say, are you a teacher, by any chance?   

Debate...on this site?

October 17, 2007 - 17:21 ET by mgerardn

People rehashing Sean Hannity talking points with responses like SO TRUE and LOL....that's what you believe Debate is?

Yes - debate

October 17, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Jimbo

As opposed to the Daily Kos, this site looks like the Harvard Debate Club.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

and

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07) 

Jimbo... ROFLMAO!

October 17, 2007 - 17:25 ET by bigtimer

Jimbo...

ROFLMAO!

Yeah, using the fresh Comedy

October 17, 2007 - 17:49 ET by mgerardn

Yeah, using the fresh Comedy of Clinton BJ jokes is really cutting edge - why don't you throw in a Where's the Beef reference to add to your hilarious LOL posts.

Clinton BJ Jokes

October 17, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Jimbo

Here we go again.... To liberals, Clinton BJ jokes were "old" before the stain on the blue dress even set.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

and

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07) 

that's gold.  Keep telling

October 17, 2007 - 18:18 ET by mgerardn

that's gold.  Keep telling them, it'll distract you from the disaster that is this administration.

"why don't you throw in a

October 17, 2007 - 22:57 ET by ckc1227

"why don't you throw in a Where's the Beef reference to add to your hilarious LOL posts."

We know where the beef was, and so does Monica. Sadly, so do all those poor women who were raped by our former President.

Still waiting for a sign of intelligence from you, mgerardn

October 17, 2007 - 17:26 ET by RJ

Come on, big guy, I've been trying to get you to engage, but so far, all you've shown is a penchant for repeating leftist mantras, and a laughable and transparent pretense of "superiority."  

RJ... You aren't holding

October 17, 2007 - 17:29 ET by bigtimer

RJ...

You aren't holding your breath waiting with anticipation I hope.

Nah, BT, sometimes I just feel mean, and poke sticks at the

October 17, 2007 - 17:31 ET by RJ

pathetic creatures that wander in.....   :^)

The best part of this site

October 17, 2007 - 17:32 ET by mgerardn

The best part of this site is the reassurance you guys get by patting each other on the back with a LOL or LMAO after one of you pastes a talking point - it seems to indicate a lack of re-assurance and self-esteem in your non-Internet life.  There is no debating here.

mg... LMAO!

October 17, 2007 - 17:35 ET by bigtimer

mg...

LMAO!

mgerardn, I've been begging you to start some intelligent debate

October 17, 2007 - 17:36 ET by RJ

...but it ain't gonna happen, is it?

mgerardn... Wrong! If

October 17, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Clear thinker

mgerardn...

Wrong!

If you follow any of my postings (if you don't, no big deal) you may notice that I like to post real life experiences instead of using talking points. Real life experiences has taught me more about life than any talking point could. I also do not link very often because some think it a weakness and I am far from weak. However, if I am discussing the actual words of a particular potician or pundit I will cut and paste what they said.

Last but not least.... many here have learned that it's time wasted when trying to debate liberals that are jack-ass stubborn. On the other hand, there are some here that can out-debate you in their sleep, so my suggestion for you is... get your rest! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

I love the 'I dont' link

October 17, 2007 - 17:47 ET by mgerardn

I love the 'I dont' link very often' but you had that ready list of links to copy and paste. 

What list are you talking

October 17, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Clear thinker

What list are you talking about?

You have me confused with somone else. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

CT - I can understand when

October 17, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Free Stinker

CT - I can understand when someone confuses Free Thinker with me, Free Stinker, but how does this guy confuse you, Clear Thinker with me? ;-)

 

Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Lol...  Get Email

October 17, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Clear thinker

Lol... 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Since you all seem to be

October 17, 2007 - 17:57 ET by mgerardn

Since you all seem to be sharing a brain, I think that's why I made that mistake

Confused Individual

October 17, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Jimbo

Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that you are a confused individual?

Typical liberal mindset - I'm never wrong.  And if it seems that I am, it's only becasue someone else is wrong.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

and

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07) 

Jimbo... ...or it could

October 17, 2007 - 18:11 ET by bigtimer

Jimbo...

...or it could be that Randi Rhodes syndrome...14 too many Bloody Mary's.

Maybe it's posted down, and

October 17, 2007 - 19:41 ET by danbo

Maybe it's posted down, and I haven't got to this yet. Has this guy posted anything new yet? Like what we haven't heard from loads of trolls.

You're doing great. 

"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

mgerardn - Are you confusing clear thinker w/me, Free Stinker?

October 17, 2007 - 17:50 ET by Free Stinker

mgerardn - Are you confusing clear thinker with me, Free Stinker?

You seem confused about a number of things.

No wonder he can't

October 17, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Clear thinker

No wonder he can't debate. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Fine, pick a topic and let

October 17, 2007 - 17:42 ET by BD

Fine, pick a topic and let us get it on..

I recommend you take the Con side in the topic of:

"The War in in Iraq is key to Amreican security in the post 9/11 world."

If that is a bit too cerebral, let us go with a topic of:

"America Can win the GWOT Solely on the defense."

If you are not into that one, let us take on:

"You can support the troops, but not the war."

Take your pick.

Shouldn't You Still Be Sleeping RJ?

October 17, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Dr_Liberty

I thought you were only going to wake when somebody said something intelligent.

<insert witty signature here>

zzzzzz, wha?

October 17, 2007 - 18:18 ET by RJ

Oh, sorry, Dr Liberty, I was dozing.  Has he said anything intelligent yet?   ;^)

Go back to your nap.

October 17, 2007 - 19:36 ET by danbo

Go back to your nap. Nothing yet.

"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 may end up a Paul Bunyan

October 17, 2007 - 19:44 ET by bigtimer

You may end up a Paul Bunyan if you wait for the intelligent part RJ.

mgerardn; thus far, I

October 17, 2007 - 17:38 ET by bassndude

mgerardn; thus far, I havent seen you pose anything that requires a response other than "so true" or "lol". Your premise of debate is atrocious, at best. Not even a hint of a syllogism.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

The response of 'you haven't

October 17, 2007 - 17:43 ET by mgerardn

The response of 'you haven't seen anything that requires a response' is synonymous with avoiding responding to my original point that the majority of scientists do believe that global warming is real and has a manmade component. 

-

October 17, 2007 - 18:11 ET by dahliatravers

Mgerardn, "a majority" is 51%.  So you are stipulating that 49% of all scientists do not believe that man is causing global warming?

Actually when you say "the

October 17, 2007 - 19:33 ET by danbo

Actually when you say "the majority of scientist do believe that global warming is real and has a manmade component."  And I will add a 3rd variable that you don't state, that it's a big deal. If you make that statement it's obvious that you know the talking points. Not the science or the issue.

"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

...the majority of

October 17, 2007 - 21:50 ET by PeskyDane

...the majority of scientists...

And the results of this scientific survey are... where?  OK, how about just ONE climatologist?  Name, the paper he or she submitted, and the research method used.  Political affiliation is inconsequential.

Hi bass... I tried a few

October 17, 2007 - 17:43 ET by bigtimer

Hi bass...

I tried a few times with mg to have a syllogism...

It is futile my friend....lol.

 

Of that, BT, I have no

October 17, 2007 - 17:55 ET by bassndude

Of that, BT, I have no doubt.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Lots of scientist

October 17, 2007 - 19:21 ET by danbo

Lots of scientist also thought  Eoanthropus dawsoni was a great find.  I wanna see your piltdown theory.

"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

"The overwhelming majority

October 17, 2007 - 22:52 ET by ckc1227

"The overwhelming majority of scientists also believe dinosaurs existed, but not some republican presidential candidates."

Really? Name one Republican presidential candidate that doesn't believe dinosaurs existed so I can make sure that I don't vote for him.

Until then, I'll just consider your post one more example of the type of leftist make-believe that makes up the bulk of the democrat platform. You haven't been drinking bloody marys with Randi "Chip" Rhodes have you? 

-

October 18, 2007 - 13:41 ET by dahliatravers

It's a plank of the RNC's platform, ckc1227.  Right after the pledge to increase US dependence on fossil fuels but before the clause about reinstating slavery: 

"All candidates endorsed by the Republican National Committee shall sign a statement disavowing any belief in the existence of dinosaurs."

Boring

October 17, 2007 - 18:48 ET by allanf

mgerardn   has been with us for two weeks and 5 days. You can also read his enlightening post about 60 Minutes going after Clinton Womanizers.

A word of advice mgerardn . If you want to convince people on this blog, do so with referenced material and reasoned argument. There is little point in repeating trite catch phrases.

It's on CNN? Not to worry.

October 17, 2007 - 19:15 ET by danbo

It's on CNN? Not to worry. Not many people will see it. 

"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... Great

October 17, 2007 - 19:17 ET by bigtimer

danbo...

Great point...hehehee