A few weeks ago, NewsBusters reported on the environmental think tank that believes having too many children is bad for the planet.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel must have gotten wind of this daffy position, for his crew (time unknown) created a wonderful parody of Al Gore’s schlockumentary wherein the former vice president ties the global warming problem to various behaviors by children.
Entitled “An Inconvenient Youth,” this brief segment is guaranteed to even get a chuckle out of Gore sycophants like Laurie David and Sheryl Crow.
However, the reader is cautioned that this is a bit raw, and possibly offensive though well-intentioned (video available here, grateful h/t to NBer Hero Squad).
Did you hear about the nineteen Democrats that sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) expressing concern that a global warming bill being discussed in the House could reduce energy supplies and raise prices?
You didn’t? Want to know why?
Well, because other than Environment & Energy Daily, nobody reported it.
*****Critical Update: Complete text of letter follows.
Regardless, the short piece by Ben Geman was rather extraordinary (h/t Benny Peiser, subscription required, emphasis added throughout):
Do you hear that hissing sound? That’s the balloon that soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry alarmists have floated concerning a scientific consensus on man’s role in global warming losing air.
As the media continue to pound the table about the debate being over, another state climatologist has come out of the closet so to speak to voice his views about all things climate change.
As reported by the Columbus, Mississippi, Commercial Dispatch Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer dscott):
Brian Williams turned over just under five minutes of Wednesday's NBC Nightly News to a live interview with former President Bill Clinton about his effort to address global warming, a fawning session which amounted to little more than pontificating from Clinton cued up by Williams, who set the tone by asking: “What does the current administration have to answer for? How much of it, in your view, is their fault?” The ostensible news hook for the segment: The “Clinton Climate Initiative's” announcement of “a global Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program.”
The three other questions Williams managed to squeeze in between Clinton's long-winded answers to the easy inquiries: “What have you done in your personal life that contributes to better environmental health, let's say, in this country?” Clinton insisted: “I have a hybrid vehicle which I drive, which I drove to New York to work today.” Does the former President of the United States really drive his own car and not ride in a Secret Service-driven limo? And where do the agents ride in a puny hybrid? [Update: or it could be a not so puny hybrid SUV] Williams didn't ask, but instead treated Clinton as an energy use expert: “For the people who find it hard to believe that replacing bulbs in their home or changing the vehicle they drive could make a difference, what's your counter-argument?” Finally, Williams turned cute: “How much of your personal time these days are you spending as, let's call it, political advisor to somebody close to you?”
While global warming alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry sycophants continue talking about a scientific consensus concerning man’s role in “climate change,” the list of scientists that have grown skeptical of this nexus continues to grow.
Unfortunately, a media obsessed with advancing hysteria on the subject refuse to acknowledge the existence of such folks as they continue to pound the table about the imminent doom to the planet.
With that in mind, Sen. James Inhofe’s office (R-Oklahoma) is preparing a “detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria [that] will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.”
Inhofe’s communications director, Marc Morano, published a few of these names, as well as their backgrounds and conclusions, at Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog Tuesday:
Webster’s tells us that an extremist is one who is "at the end or outermost point; farthest away; most remote." In politics, extremism is "the extreme right or the extreme left." Both sides have their respective ideological embarrassments, but with one striking difference: if you’re a left-wing environmental extremist you are treated as sensible, even praiseworthy, by ABC News.
Meet Colin Beavan, a man who touts himself as "No Impact Man," a walking Manhattan publicity stunt with a book deal and a documentary filmmaker to publicize his year of monastic self-denial. He sounds like a comic-book superhero, but the more you hear of his story, the more it’s simply comic. He describes himself whimsically on his own No Impact Man blog as a "guilty liberal" and a "tree-hugging lunatic," and that was good enough for ABC’s "Good Morning America," which on May 10 devoted eight and a half minutes to exploring Beavan’s World.
"Early Show’s" cheery weatherman Dave Price used his forum to feature Dan Lewis, Starbucks regional marketing manager, and Matt Petersen, the CEO of, Global Green USA, a left wing environmental group.
While much of the story focused on what individuals can do to save the planet, Petersen noted that "global warming is a serious issue, and we need our leaders in Washington to act, our corporate leaders to act." Petersen also encouraged the viewers to "send a message to Washington" about what viewers "think they should be doing about global warming."
Watching the global warming alarmists it's amazing to see how much they completely discount the sun's role in determining the earth's temperature. It's something that can be readily observed simply by stepping outside during the day and at night. Yet, we almost never hear the sun mentioned by Al Gore and friends.
This is despite the fact that astronomy continues to prove that the sun has an influence on its planets temperatures and is likely to be responsible for observable warming of the earth. First came the news that Mars is getting warmer, now comes the news that Neptune is also experiencing global warming:
Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered
only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth,
and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization
out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up
of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no
increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in
the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on
any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent
issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning
relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven
forbid, the temperature of the Earth. [...]
After Barack Obama was caught (see earlier post) for incorrectly stating that Japanese cars get an average of 45 miles per gallon, the left-wing blogosphere swung into action attempting to defend the Illinois senator. Far-left groups cited a report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change which took official numbers from Japanese auto manufacturers and "corrected" them to appear similar to U.S. fuel economy standards. Trouble is, that "correction" doesn't seem to be accurate as John Hinderaker points out:
What's going on here? Why is the Pew report being cited for a 46.3
mpg average? The answer is that Pew rejiggered the numbers. Pew noted
that different countries use different test procedures to measure fuel
economy, and it devised a system to normalize those different
procedures. The Pew formula says that Japanese mpg numbers are to be
multiplied by 1.3. It is this multiplication that generates the 46 mpg
figure that apparently has been relied on by Obama and others.
Did you happen to see the reports last week predicting that summer temperatures in the southeastern part of the country could reach 110 degrees by the year 2080?
Well, according to a study just released by the Roger Pielke, Sr. Research Group, the media took “an otherwise interesting and informative research article” published in the Journal of Climate and translated it “into an almost hysterical claim of future weather.”
Those who have been following the manmade global warming debate are well aware that every time the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues another dire pronouncement, the media report the bad news every hour on the hour.
However, what if a new scientific study concluded that the IPCC cherry-picked data concerning CO2 levels in the past in order to make it look like today’s levels are out of the ordinary. Would the media report that?
Well, an article written by scientists Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project was published on Monday making exact this claim (emphasis added throughout):
When President Bush receives protests as he travels abroad, it’s front-page headline news. Yet, when former Vice President Al Gore is so protested, the media couldn’t care less.
Although the Associated Press did report Gore’s visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, to speak at a biofuels conference Friday, virtually no American media outlet picked up the story:
As Gore spoke, outside the hotel demonstrators on bicycles and wearing surgical masks chanted slogans against multinational agribusinesses, saying the biofuel boom will cause deforestation and turn arable land into deserts.
Sadly, there wasn't a lot of details in this piece about the actual protests. Thankfully, I received the following La Nacion article by e-mail yesterday with a translation that offered a lot more insights into the matter:
Discussing this week’s announcement that British Prime Minister Tony Blair will soon be resigning, all three morning shows managed to work in the insulting "Bush’s poodle" reference. "Good Morning America" was the most obnoxious, absurdly claiming that "Bill Clinton’s sidekick became Bush’s poodle."
Speaking of global warming, Diane Sawyer and "Good Morning America" have been promoting liberal environmentalism for quite some time. This week, however, GMA went even further and touted a New York liberal who wants to save the planet by not using toilet paper. Some things, you just can’t make up....
The religion of the left seems to be environmentalism, and the everyone knows what happens when religious figures on the right are exposed as hypocrites. Ted Haggard, Jim Baker and others have claimed to stand for one thing and privately lived a life that conflicted with their stated beliefs, and the media covered it non-stop. In contrast, the media ignore that the darling of the Democratic presidential candidates has again been nailed as an environmental hypocrite.
Barack Obama was outed as an SUV driver in 2006, who said at the same time, "the blame for the world's higher temperature rests on gas guzzling vehicles." Now, a year later, the Detroit Free Press' on-line site Freep.com reported similar contradictory behavior today and stated, "his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes." (emphasis mine throughout):
Colin Beavan is going without many things this year, including toilet paper. You can find previous Newsbusters and Business & Media Institute stories about Beavan here and here. His "No Impact" experiment includes going without any carbon-emitting transportation, electricity, paper products, packaging, new clothes, refrigeration ... you get the idea.
But on May 10 ABC "Nightline" host Cynthia McFadden said Beavan is doing it all "to avoid harming the earth." Too bad that's not entirely true. Beavan is conducting the "radical" year-long experiment because he is a writer of historical nonfiction and it was "the only one of four possibilities his agent thought would sell," according to The New York Times.
This one is really too funny, folks, and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects be properly stowed (grateful and humorous h/t to NBer dscott).
Despite all the carping and whining by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of sycophant devotees about global warming killing polar bears, there is actually a baby boom occurring in this species in Canada’s eastern Arctic.
As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):
The mainstream media’s promotion of climate change hype continues unfettered. A segment on Thursday’s "The Situation Room" wholeheartedly embraced the theory of human-caused global warming, and the International Panel on Climate Change’s recent "action plan" to do something about it.
During his actual report, CNN correspondent Frank Sesno asked, "But what if the world took climate change seriously?" He then gave examples of two people that are taking global warming hype "seriously" and have become "trendy" for doing so - Sheryl Crow and Al Gore. More importantly, he stated that "leaders would have to lead, and make some unpopular decisions – incentives, subsidies, and yes, taxes, including a tax on carbon emissions, to spur investment and move the marketplaces. Expensive? You bet. Trillions and trillions." (continued...)
"World News" anchor Charles Gibson promoted the costly green lifestyle, but ignored the hypocrisy of his cross-country flight to report on May 9.
Gibson traveled from New York, to San Francisco for the "Going Green" segment, which featured one man who has "no idea how much" carbon he emits; and another who drives a hybrid, uses solar panels and buys "squiggly" light bulbs.
The ABC anchor supported the choices of Peter Boyd (the one with the solar panels), but left out cost information about those lifestyle choices, and his own jet-setting behavior.
In fact, the solar energy situation in California is "a mess," according to the Los Angeles Times.
On Thursday’s "Good Morning America," the ABC program touted a liberal New Yorker who is so concerned about the environment that he refuses to use toilet paper. GMA devoted eight and a half minutes of the May 10 show to promoting the cause of Colin Beavan, a man who, in addition to his bathroom stance, refuses to buy anything in packaging, won’t use transportation, even elevators, and insists that all his food be grown within 250 miles.
According to liberal weatherman Sam Champion, who admiringly recounted Mr. Beavan’s story, "The rules may seem a little extreme."A little? Co-anchor Diane Sawyer talked to the environmentalist in a follow-up segment and gushed over Beavan’s bizarre, minimalist lifestyle:
Colin Beavan: "...A lot of the things you can do for the planet are also good for you."
Sawyer: "And so good for you. Yeah. What you were saying about the way it concentrates your mind to be free of concern about a lot of the things in your life. It really makes sense to me."
Kids and parents love the highly-successful series of “Shrek” movies, starring Cameron Diaz, Mike Myers and many others. “Shrek the Third” opens May 18, and that means the cast is on a promotional tour. Several cast members gave an interview to Michael Ordona for the Tribune Newspapers, which own the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times, and disclosed that “Shrek 4” might continue a relatively recent Hollywood trend.
The trend in children's movies has been propagandizing them, usually about environmental issues, and it looks like the the upcoming “Shrek 4” will be no different, especially if Diaz has anything to say about it.
Cameron Diaz wants “Shrek 4” to involve an eco-friendly story line about a threatened swamp environment. Fellow cast members Myers, Julie Andrews and Amy Poehler are also in the below interview excerpt where Diaz revealed her propagandist goal (emphasis mine):
Here’s something you’re unlikely to see in an American newspaper or magazine: global warming might actually be good for the planet and its inhabitants.
This radical idea was advanced Monday by the German magazine Der Spiegel which did something I can’t imagine a U.S. publication having the nerve to do in this highly politicized environment: offer readers a comprehensive, balanced view of the pluses and minuses inherent in a warming earth.
How delightfully extraordinary.
Unlike most American media reports on this issue, Spiegel, in an article ironically titled "Not the End of the World as We Know It," wonderfully began with a little history on the subject to put things in a proper perspective (emphasis added throughout):
It's so easy, the cave men did it? LiveScience.com staff writer, Dave Mosher, wrote an article on Yahoo.com titled "Climate Change, Not Humans, Trounced Neanderthals" about Francisco Jimenez-Espejo, a University of Granada paleoclimatologist who “says a lack of evidence has left climate change weakly supported—until now. 'We put data behind the theory,' he said, filling in a large gap in European climate records when Neanderthals faded out of existence.”
He concluded from a detailed examination of evidence that Neanderthals disappeared from Earth more than 20,000 years ago at least partially because of climate change. As in global cooling.
The Greensburg tornado disaster was just the perfect excuse for another global warming item on ABCNews.com.
After all, the Associated Press and CNN have focused on an Iraq angle to devastating tornado damage, but finding an Iraq angle to everything is so, I dunno, 2004.
At any rate, on his "Science and Society" blog at ABCNews.com yesterday, reporter Ned Potter set out to find why tornado touchdowns have increased in the past few years.
I called the National Weather Service, which says that as of today it
knows of 69 dead in tornadoes since Jan. 1, compared to 49 up to this
point last year, and 38 deaths for all of 2005. It's worth looking
around NOAA's Storm Prediction Center site; find it HERE.
there a reason? Shifting weather patterns? Shifting population
patterns? Global climate change? Clayton Sandell was asked to put
together some notes.
When it comes to the subject of global warming, is science being sacrificed on the altar of political activism? Yes, says the German magazine Der Spiegel (h/t Glenn) in a report that sounds strangely familiar. It's funny how many on the left are now complaining that we "rushed to war" in Iraq are now rushing to implement far more expensive and economy-destroying programs on the subject of global warming--with far less certitude of success. The irony is further compounded when you consider that the main person leading this rush is the guy who would have been president had George Bush not won in 2000.
No United Nations organization currently dominates the headlines as much -- or is as controversial -- as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Critics call the panel politically one-sided and its reports alarmist. Its defenders say the opposite is true. The IPCC will publish its third report on Friday. [...]
There is hardly a newspaper article and hardly a TV or radio program that doesn't conjure up images of "climate catastrophe," prophesy floods of gigantic proportions, droughts and hunger. Indeed, the media have developed something akin to a complete apocalyptic program.
It's the fault of the media, of course, but not exclusively. It's also the fault of a new hero, an environmental activist who likes to introduce himself by saying: "Hello, I was once the next President of the United States of America."
Sometimes the blog entries just write themselves. Mark Ellingham, a man who helped increase travel as a form of leisure is now telling people they should stop taking flights. It gets more ridiculous, however:
Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guides and the man who
encouraged a generation of travellers to pack a rucksack and explore
the world, has compared the damage done by tourism to the impact of the
Ellingham now says travelling is so
environmentally destructive that there is no such thing as a genuinely
ethical holiday. He wants the industry to educate travellers about the
damage their holidays do to the environment. The development he regrets
most is the public's appetite for what he calls 'binge-flying'. [...]
'It is hard to say the positive impact travelling has can
ever outweigh the damage done by simply travelling to the destination,'
he said. 'Balancing all the positives and negatives, I'm not convinced
there is such a thing as a "responsible" or "ethical" holiday.'