And many conservatives, too, share this view. Conservatives like Brent
Scowcroft, the former Bush national security adviser, Lee Thomas,
Ronald Reagan’s EPA Administrator, and Theodore Roosevelt IV. All of
them — and many others — would say exactly what Gore says.

Given that Al Gore is the self-appointed Founder and High Priest of the Church of Global Warming,
it appears Katie is vying for an appointment to be its annointed False Prophet.

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

Saying that it is not a political issue - especially when said by a politician and a group of leftists - makes it very political.

If these Hollywood goofs want to make it not political - the way to do that is to give away all of their money above what the average person has and live within those means. That would make it cool to be middle class. Instead - they want to lecture all of us to do with less so that they can continue to have more.

It's the same with the movie Blood Diamond - many of them have talked about how important that movie was and how you shouldn't by conflict diamonds. They even had something at the end of the movie telling people not to by conflict diamonds. Hello? Who buys diamonds? I don't. I wouldn't even let my husband buy me one when we got married. I do happen to have a pretty big one, but only because it's an heirloom. Otherwise I'd never let him waste the money on one.

What does not buying conflict diamonds really do? It keeps diamonds more expensive and elite so only those in Hollywood can afford them. So they need to quit buying diamonds period! They are such idiots. - "now all you little people - quit buying the cheap dimonds - you should only buy diamonds if you are important like us" Give me an f'ing break!

Katie... Katie.. Katie.. ?It wasn’t too long ago, after all, that environmentalists were decried as tree-huggers, and former President Bush railed against them — trying to say it was the spotted owl against logging interests and jobs in the West."

Even less long ago Katie, there was a fellow in the White House, a Bill Clinton and his sidekick Al Gore, who were catching one heck of a lot of grief from those very same enviormentalists for not protecting those very same owls. Why in the world Katie, do you skip all the way back to the administration 8 years before that, when it was your "saints" that turned their backs on you.

Here is how the enviormentalists (from "Nature and Politcs") saw it:

Then along came Bill Clinton and Al Gore , who vowed in a 1992 campaign stop in Portland, to "end the standoff" over the fate of the Northwest forests once and for all. Of course, the standoff had been serving the owl pretty good. What was to come would drive the owl even closer to extinction.

Within days of taking office, the Clinton/Gore team set its sights on getting the injunction lifted and the big logs rolling back to the mills. The scheme was pure Clinton. Convene a staged "town hall" style meeting, put out a pre-fabricated plan, and induce your liberal friends to sign off on it. This shadow play was the April 1993 Forest Summit, a ridiculous display of consensus-mongering that saw enviros play footsie with executives from Weyerhaeuser. ..

...By 1998, the evidence was clear. The Clinton plan was driving the owl to extinction must faster than the old cutting plans of the Bush era that Dwyer had swatted down as illegal.

Katie. Get your owls straight, OK?

PS - great catch, TG

Since this was about CBS and Gore, I felt it was a good place to share this:

I have been home sick since Sunday, and I was listening to talk radio. At the top of the hour was the CBS radio news. They presented the story on Gore's excess use of energy as "Gore spends more on electricity in a day than the average consumer spends in a week", even though the actual story was about his use of kilowatt-hours, not the dollars he spends. I wondered why they used this tactic, until the final line revealed their spin:

"A Gore spokesman said the reason Gore spent more was because GREEN ENERGY costs more than regular energy."

I guess they don't have that "Green Energy" in Texas, because I have never heard of it.

So there you have it. CBS News intentionally changing a story to fit the reasoning of the perpetrator.

Couric: "Some people find anything trendy repugnant, but this a trend that's really important."

And some people find anything trendy, well, trendy.

If Ms. Couric wanted to learn about the real debate over GW, she need only invite Michael Crichton to her broadcast for a live interview.  Dr. Crichton studied the data that Gore relies so heavily on and concluded that while GW exists, it won't produce nearly the catastrophe that Prince Albert forecasts.  In fact, Crichton adds that money being thrown at GW would be much better spent fighting AIDS and other diseases.  But more importantly, Crichton would tear her argument apart in such a way as to gently expose her ignorance of it for all her audience to see.

People! People! You’re giving the perky one too much credit for what she says on CBS.

I doubt seriously that she writes her own material. Remember, that when she appears to be looking at you, she’s reading a teleprompter.

Ha, Couric says some people find anything "trendy" to be repugnant. Totally misrepresenting those who oppose this global warming baloney. As if we just don't like it because it is the "trend" (because of the MSM and their totally ludicrous "reporting" about everyone going to die). That's like when the Great Stainmaker said in 1992, "We must have the courage to change" and "We must make change our friend." Hey you adulterous boob, people who opposed you and your policies did so because you are a lying corrupt jackass and your policies were nothing but big government proposals of breathtaking proportions. So both he and Couric paint the opposition as if we know the liberals are correct but we are afraid of changes and new trends. How pathetic (but not as pathetic as the numerous morons in our country who actually fall for it).

Liberals and Democrats are the biggest opposers of "change", anyway. They recoil at changing our monstrous tax system, letting parents have more school choice and schools themselves to have more local control, ending tax payer funding of PBS, eliminating wasteful spending programs and ineffective Departments (like the Department of Education!) and many other things. They are tolerant of their own agenda! They like change when it fits their own agenda! They are pro-choice when it's regarding their own agenda!

And I think we are indeed seeing "climate change" (as Couric used here) more and more from these loony libs, instead of "global warming", as NewsBuster readers discussed a while ago. They probably realize the silliness of saying warming when the country has had such prolonged below normal temperatures. And it also will allow them to cover anything. Heat wave? Blame climate change! Deep freeze? Blame climate change!

And now we are also seeing the libs favortie c word, "crisis" being added to "climate change". No you freedom hating libs, there was no health care crisis (though there would have been had the Clintons socialized medicine been enacted) and there is no climate change crisis. What we do have is a news media crisis. And while no one finds "trends" to be repugnant, I certainly do find Algore repugnant. (by the way, think about just how stupid a statement that was by Katie Couric. People find trends repugnant?? No, people hate trends that they think are bad and like trends that they think are a turn for the better. DUH!! How absurd to say that anyone would hate the concept of trends in and of themselves! But once again, she's not that stupid to not realize that. Libs have to resort to ridiculous lines without any substance because they don't have a leg to stand on in defending their positions).

I think liberals make convincing arguments as frequently as the Chicago Cubs win the World Series.

"Right wing backlash"?  Probably will just bring out the smarter and more intelligent voices, on his claims.  May though, now, that the "fifth estate" has voted its new economic, environmental, and budget policy through during their celebrations that evening also bring about some shift in economic numbers maybe even in China.

Also, as Sean Hannity had me thinking this afternoon, on the subject of political hypocracy and carbon neutral claims:  It seems Al Gore's claims of his twenty to one power use in his Nashville shack compared to everyday joe is even worse than yet reported.  Not the amount of usage but that his claims of being "carbon neutral" ignores the interconnectivity of society and that though maybe all his power is from Tennessee Valley Authority and maybe all Hydroelectric power someone somewhere else could use that same amount of clean power instead of him.  Just another clean only in our own back yard Democratic hypocracy.

China, please don't believe Hollywood is setting our energy policy.

As Ted Bell likes to quote in his thrillers:  "it is often the simplest answer that is the right answer."

It's already started, some right wing organization has pointed out Al Gore's use of electricity is out of balance with his rhetoric.  The shame of it, actually holding the new guru of global warming accountable for his own energy consumption.

Needless to say, the Gore spin machine is not the Clinton spin machine.  Comments, from his staff, included such wonderful comments as he buys energy offsets, etc.  What a joke!!!

I can't help myself, first coffee in the Morning - Katie Couric.

"Some people find anything trendy repugnant, but this is a trend that’s really important."

Ah so, Grasshopper - A really important repugnant trendy thingy?

Thanks

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)