As NewsBusters previously reported, there is a climate change skeptics conference going on in Canberra, Australia. One of the function’s organizers is the influential Lavoisier Group whose co-founder Ray Evans has written a fascinating publication on this subject that the media and global warming alarmists would hate for Americans to read.
Simply called “Nine Facts About Climate Change,” this piece carefully outlined the major issues concerning the anthropogenic global warming debate while countering claims by the alarmists including former Vice President Al Gore.
Evans wonderfully categorized the problem at hand in his introduction (emphasis mine throughout):
Fresh off his Oscar coronation, Al Gore is stepping up his
jihad against global warming skeptics by continuing his
campaign to stop the media from covering their viewpoint at all.
In a speech delivered Tuesday, Gore blasted media
giving any credence at all to people who see things differently than
him on global warming. The former veep denounced what he termed "balance
as bias" in environment reporting:
Gore told a crowd of about
50 people at the U.S.
Media Ethics Summit II
that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that
contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of
California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed
scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists,
whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper
articles disagreed the global warming premise.
Sir Arvi Parbo is likely not a household name in America. However, the knighted business mogul originally from Estonia is highly regarded in Australia, so much so that he was the keynote speaker at Wednesday’s gathering of climate change skeptics in Canberra.
As reported by News.com, during his address, Sir Parbo had some rather harsh words for Dr. Global Warming, aka Al Gore, as well as for all alarmists including those in the media:
A CONCERTED and well-organised campaign has created alarm over human-induced climate change, industrial magnate Sir Arvi Parbo says.
Sir Arvi also said today key international reports warning of climate change, including Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, are biased and scrutiny of them has been suppressed. [emphasis added in second paragraph]
Sir Arvi was just getting warmed up (emphasis mine throughout):
Folks that aren’t familiar with columnist James Lileks will be pleasantly surprised by his recent op-ed concerning Sunday’s Academy Awards and the Church of Global Warming. As published by Newhouse News Services, Lileks marvelously observed (emphasis mine throughout):
If environmentalism is the new religion, the Oscar ceremony was the High Holy Mass.
Of course, if the Academy — a remarkable name for people who paint their faces and pretend they're secret agents or royalty — were truly serious about imminent global warming, it would have asked everyone to turn off their TVs and receive the results by some low-impact Earth-friendly means, such as carrier pigeon. Perhaps such drastic measures will be used in 2008, by which time the oceans will have risen 37 feet and everyone east of Cleveland will be clustered on the roof.
Dr. Global Warming, aka Al Gore, in his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” proclaimed that the internal combustion engine was “a mortal threat . . . more deadly than that of any military enemy.”
An op-ed written by an economics professor at the University of Georgia counters Gore’s dire assertions, and fervently stated that this invention is actually saving the planet.
In his piece published Tuesday in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dwight R. Lee wrote (h/t JunkScience.com, emphasis mine throughout): "The motto of all environmentalists should be 'Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine.'"
Got your attention? Good, for Lee was armed for Gore, err, I mean bear:
In another classic example of liberals telling Americans to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” Dr. Global Warming Himself, aka Al Gore, has been identified by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as talking a good game about energy conservation while not walking the walk.
In a press release published Monday just hours after the conclusion of the Academy Awards, the “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization” reported (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge): “Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.”
Despite Hollywood and the media’s love affair with Al Gore, it seems that the smart money on Wall Street has turned cold to the concept of global warming.
As has been noted by many skeptical scientists, this current period of temperature rise that began in the ’70s may actually have peaked in 1998. Yet, the real hysteria surrounding this issue reached a zenith with the cataclysm of Hurricane Katrina, and the arrival of the equally disturbing schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
As the world became more and more focused on climate change issues, shares of alternative energy companies skyrocketed like tech stocks in the late ’90s. Unfortunately, according to a Bloomberg article published Monday, the party might be coming to an end right around the time interest in this subject is skyrocketing (emphasis mine throughout):
Well, it’s final: Al Gore’s schlockumentary won an Oscar Sunday evening. And, despite Bill McCuddy’s prediction Saturday, the former Vice President and soon-to-be-doctor did indeed get a chance to give an acceptance speech.
I'm sure you're all thrilled.
(Update: Drudge is reporting that Sunday's Oscar broadcast might be the third lowest rated in history.)
After producer Davis Guggenheim just gushed over Tipper’s husband, Gore spoke his piece (Hot Air has video available here):
And, much as the headline, the text despicably read like a tabloid story about Britney Spears' shaved head or Elvis sightings in Las Vegas as if written by a starstruck groupie (emphasis mine throughout):
As we are now just hours away from former Vice President and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore receiving an Oscar for creating a deceitful schlockumentary about global warming, it seems appropriate to hear from another member of the scientific community that is not buying into this junk science.
For those unfamiliar, Patrick J. Michaels is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. On Friday, he had an op-ed published at National Review Online that discredited much of the hysterical nonsense depicted in Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (emphasis mine throughout):
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: