It's Academy Awards night. Best documentary feature is up. And the Oscar is favored to go to "An Inconvenient Truth," starring Al Gore… Lawrence Bender and the film's other producers come up to accept the Oscar with Gore. The audience roars its approval. This is liberal Hollywood. Gore speaks.
The video then cut to Martin Kaplan, who is the director of the Norman Lear Center:
A Trenton, New Jersey, meteorologist has just launched a new website to counter the constant stream of disinformation about anthropogenic global warming coming from a hysterical media.
As reported by ClimatePolice.com (emphasis mine throughout):
Joseph Conklin, a meteorologist with expertise in the analysis of surface weather observations, has launched a website to help promote alternative scientific views on climate change. He believes these views have been overshadowed and even wrongly criticized by sensationalist news stories.
If what Fox News reported Saturday is correct, conservatives all around the country might have been given a very early Christmas present by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
FNC’s Bill McCuddy announced the following from Hollywood during Saturday’s "Fox & Friends”:
The big story here out on the red carpet back to live action is that Mr., Mr. Al Gore who is going to walk this red carpet, still doesn’t have permission to go up to that podium if he in fact wins for “An Inconvenient Truth,” which sounds awfully inconvenient in and of itself. It’s something of a clerical error. This guy can not win or give an acceptance speech to save his life.
How delicious. McCuddy was asked to elaborate why that might be:
As sickening as it might seem, Al Gore appears to be a lock to win an Academy Award Sunday for his schlockumentary about global warming. Unfortunately, the real inconvenient truth is that the film appears to violate the Academy’s own rules concerning documentaries.
According to the "rule 12" standard for documentary films established by the Academy, while it is permissible to employ storytelling devices such as re-enactments, stock footage, stills and animations, the emphasis must be on fact and not fiction.
The critics argue that in the case of "An Inconvenient Truth," the criteria are not met.
This is getting ridiculous. For the second time in roughly two weeks, a governor had harsh criticism for a state climatologist over differing views of man’s responsibility for global warming.
After Oregon’s state climatologist received the bad news in early February, Delaware’s governor had similar sentiments as reported by The Daily Times (emphasis mine throughout):
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration.
Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to "clarify" the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts.
In this instance, the governor in question was concerned about the state climatologist’s work when he wasn’t representing her state. However, it suggests that Minner’s views have been impacted by all the recent focus on this issue by the media:
There’s little secret about the media desire to see Al Gore win an Oscar Sunday. Over at ABC, they’ve given up any pretense of neutrality. Just two days before the awards, reporter Jonathan Karl quizzed Vice President Dick Cheney about the film.
In an “exclusive interview” that will likely be broadcast during regular newscasts, Karl asked Cheney about global warming, by beginning with Gore. “Did you get a chance to see Al Gore's movie?” asked Karl.
That was just part of Karl’s timely interview. According to the ABC.com piece on it, Cheney’s view that there is a debate about whether mankind causes warming or not is “a position that puts the administration at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists.”
Just how large an effect has all this global warming media hysteria had? Well, in Sydney, Australia, there is a company selling carbon credits for folks that want to offset their cat’s flatulence. They’ll do the same for your grandmother, too.
Think I’m kidding? As reported Thursday by Bloomberg (emphasis mine throughout):
Governments in rich nations are spending billions of dollars to buy a clearer conscience over climate change. Are they getting their money's worth? Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.
To put this in some perspective, a NewsBusters article on Wednesday made the point that all this global warming alarmism is about money. Folks, you have no idea:
One of the primary solutions for climate change being touted by global warming alarmists is the purchase and sale of carbon credits. Put simply, companies, countries, and individuals could balance their CO2 output by purchasing credits from others that are emitting less greenhouse gases than prescribed maximums.
The concept is that this would give companies, countries, and individuals a financial incentive to produce less CO2. Readers might recall that during a debate on “Hannity’s America” this past Sunday evening, the two liberal guests firmly avowed that there wasn’t anything wrong with Al Gore’s use of private planes because he was offsetting his massive emission of CO2 with purchases of carbon credits.
Unfortunately, there’s a hitch in this scheme that threatens to totally derail it: carbon prices are plummeting due to an excess supply. I realize this might be a bit complex, but an article published in Green Business News wonderfully detailed the problems inherent in this scheme (emphasis mine throughout):
So, you think the global warming alarmists are actually concerned about the environment or the future of the planet? Think again, for a recent funds request from the World Bank to solve this “problem” should clue you in as to what is really going on with those advancing theories emanating from junk science.
As reported by Reuters (emphasis mine throughout): “The World Bank wants to breathe life back into a mooted $10 billion-plus fund to combat climate change which would need public and private sector backing, its Chief Scientist Robert Watson told Reuters on Tuesday.”
Many conservatives are familiar with a marvelous book by Peter Schweizer entitled “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.” In it, Schweizer detailed how America’s top liberals are famous for not practicing what they preach.
On Sunday’s “Hannity’s America,” the host demonstrated how the country’s leading global warming alarmist, Dr. Al Gore, is a perfect example of a liberal who doesn’t come close to following the lofty environmental ideals he demands of the rest of us (video available here).
At issue was the inherent absurdity of a self-righteous politician complaining about the dangers of greenhouse gases while he flies fly around the world in private airplanes:
Better get a trash receptacle handy just in case this turns your stomach: former Vice President Al Gore is rumored to be up for an honorary doctorate in climatology. As unbelievably reported by the Minnesota Daily (h/t Drudge):
Former Vice President Al Gore could pay a visit to the University [of Minnesota] in the near future to receive an honorary degree for his work in climatology.
University President Bob Bruininks spilled the beans at the February Board of Regents meeting, saying that "two of our colleges are working with Vice President Gore to provide, we hope, an honorary doctorate."
Amazing. This guy makes a science fiction schlockumentary creating unwarranted hysteria about an unproven theory, and an American university wants to give him a degree? You’ve got to be kidding?
On the Tuesday edition of “Good Morning America,” host Robin Roberts slammed the insurance industry for daring to make a profit in the years since Hurricane Katrina. She also used the segment as a vehicle to call for more government regulations. The piece, combatively titled “GMA Gets It Done: Getting Answers” suggested the subjective, advocacy oriented slant that the program would take. (Additionally, last week, Diane Sawyer previewed the multi-day story, describing it as “a call to arms.”)
Roberts repeatedly took insurance company representative Bob Hartwig to task for the industry’s “record profits.” A sampling of Roberts’ hostile questioning can be found below:
Robin Roberts: “When people who have lost everything, who are in dispute with various insurance companies and they see the amount of money that-- the profit that is being made in such a year, these home owners scratch their heads a little bit. Do you understand?”
Roberts: “Though people find it hard to believe during such a devastating year, you still make a significant increase in your profit. And they’re saying, ‘Good grief, we trusted you.’”
Roberts: “You know that rings hollow, what you just said, to so many people. They don't believe that anymore.”
I must admit that I never thought I’d see this kind of a book review at the New York Times. This is especially true given the recent zealotry surrounding global warming, and how much of the media-driven hysteria is based on computer models created to predict future climate events.
Much to my elated surprise, the Times amazingly published an article Tuesday entitled “The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies.”
I imagine many readers are checking that link about now as they question my veracity. Go ahead. I can take it.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we (emphasis mine throughout):
At first glance, one might question the relevance of religious opinions on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. However, given the cult-like fervor being exhibited on this subject by the media of late, maybe what the world needs is a little balance to add a modicum of sanity to the growing hysteria.
With that in mind, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, wrote on op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph last week cautioning readers about the zealotry being exhibited by those convinced that man is destroying the planet (emphasis mine throughout):
This is way too funny and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects to be properly stowed.
The Christian Science Monitor recently reported that if man wants to halt global warming, he should forget about the fuel efficiency of his SUV and just stop eating meat (emphasis mine throughout):
As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.
Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.
One of the leading atmospheric scientists in the country made some statements at a conference going on in San Francisco that will almost certainly get no media attention.
As reported by C/Net News.com (emphasis mine throughout):
Approximately 125,000 years ago, the Earth was around three to five degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is today and sea levels were four to six meters higher. The ice sheets covering Greenland's land mass have trapped a significant amount of that water that used to be in the sea, thereby lowering sea levels, Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking place in San Francisco.
Shocking coming from a co-chair of the recent IPCC report, wouldn’t you say? But that’s just the beginning:
A new study just released by the University of Oregon indicates that despite all of the attention given to global warming by the media and pols like Al Gore, most people believe that solving the problem is a low priority (emphasis mine throughout):
Most Americans believe global warming is real but a moderate and distant risk. While they strongly support policies like investing in renewable energy, higher fuel economy standards and international treaties, they strongly oppose carbon taxes on energy sources that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
How deliciously refreshing. The study in question was done by Anthony Leiserowitz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Oregon, and had some rather fascinating conclusions:
An interesting online survey was recently conducted in Australia, and it showed how large an impact the media have on children’s views. Even more cautionary was how the press's unchecked global warming hysteria is having a potentially dire impact on youngsters.
As reported by the Daily Telegraph: “THE state of the environment is one of the most troubling issues concerning children today, according to a new national survey.”
The article eerily continued (emphasis mine):
More than 2000 children across Australia participated in the online study, which found a fear of friends and family dying topped the list of worries for young people.
This was followed closely by their concern about the planet with global warming, trees being cut down and the drought featuring strongly.
The methodology used was potentially even more ominous:
What’s that about a consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming? Well, regardless of the assertions by such experts as Al Gore and Ellen Goodman, more and more professionals actually involved in the climate industry are speaking out against this man-made myth.
The most recent announcement by skeptics came during a panel discussion Tuesday evening in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. As reported by the Plain Dealer (emphasis mine throughout):
There’s a new study out from Ohio State University that seems destined to be totally ignored by the media and all the global warming alarmists.
As many folks that have been following this debate are well aware, the majority of the hysteria surrounding anthropogenic global warming is based on climate models created by folks responsible for much of the fear generated by this issue.
With that in mind, a new report out of Ohio State University concludes, “the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.”
As of 10PM EST, not one major media outlet has bothered to report these findings.
Given the subject matter, Horner had a lot of fun slamming Al Gore, Ellen Goodman, and the global warmingists (video available here). Goodman was Horner’s first target:
Well, let's say this Ellen Goodman a columnist just joined the parade of those who call people who deny climate change – that’s what they call it -- Holocaust deniers. Okay, now think about this. You decide which is being trivialized: a few tenths of a degree increase over a hundred and something years, or 20 million people dead on the basis of their religion or sexual preferences.
Horner then made an interesting historical climate observation that has conveniently eluded all the global warming alarmists and their devotees:
The name Timothy Ball should be familiar to many conservatives as one of the leading international skeptics of man’s role in global warming. He was interviewed recently by Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and once again made some fascinating statements about the media hysteria surrounding this issue (emphasis mine throughout):
As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future,” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it’s almost like the race card. It’s not to say that it isn’t valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.
Ball addressed the recent IPCC report by the United Nations:
A report published by Science magazine on February 8 has gotten tremendously little coverage from the mainstream media. Given its findings -- that glacial melt in Greenland dramatically slowed in 2006 -- this certainly isn’t surprising.
So far, the most comprehensive report on this subject was done by YubaNet.com on Tuesday (emphasis mine throughout):
Two of Greenland's largest glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005. And then, less than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
It should now make sense why this report got so little attention. The article continued:
A common alarmism by global warming activists like Al Gore is that glaciers around the world are melting. This represents the real threat to the planet in their view, as this will cause a rise in oceans that will eventually drown us all.
Well, leading scientists in India claim that this is bunk, and that glaciers in the Himalayas aren’t retreating at all. As reported by the Hindustan Times (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):
Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.
Hmmm. Not on the spot research, huh? Why isn’t this surprising? The article continued:
"Consider the case closed on global warming," wrote Time's Bryan Walsh in the Feb. 19, 2007 issue.
Walsh's article also stated that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had found the culprit for climate change: humans. Throughout the piece Walsh advocated government mandates and highlighted main points of the IPCC report that he agreed with, but undermined the point that wasn't frightening enough (how much sea levels are predicted to rise).
You can find the Business & Media Institute's full story by Amy Menefee here.
As the media, the left, and the United Nations become more and more strident about a supposed scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic global warming, more and more dissenters speak out against the junk science involved in this mythology.
The most recent was Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.
In an interview with "Hospodářské noviny," a Czech economics daily, Klaus made the following observations (emphasis mine throughout):
Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
I couldn’t agree more. Klaus marvelously continued:
Since 9/11, there has been an international debate concerning a battle of civilizations. After the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., many have categorized the war on terrorism as an epic struggle between East and West, a modern day Crusades if you will.
In the few short weeks since the Democrats officially took over Congress, a different war has taken shape within our own borders, and has morphed into a potentially more important conflagration, at least for the time being.
At the heart of the debate is anthropogenic global warming, and what America should do about it if anything. On the fringes is: the battle to unionize Wal-Mart; another push for universal healthcare; the perennial goal of raising taxes; the jealous desire to limit the pay of CEOs, and; a Hugo Chavez-like call to strip the oil companies of their profits.