Although it didn’t get a lot of publicity – conceivably for what will end up being obvious reasons – there was a conference held last weekend by a bunch of “environmental lawyers.” Not so surprisingly, the topic of global warming was – forgive the pun – a hot one.
Yet, maybe most fascinating was that the conference’s sponsor, the American Bar Association, actually invited members of the press – mostly believers with apparently only one skeptic I might add – to address how the views of global warming alarmists need to “percolate through the media pipeline and into general public awareness.”
One such media member seemed so disappointed about the public's lack of concern about this issue that she actually stated:
“We live in a country where more people care about the death of Anna Nicole Smith than the death of a planet.”
What a shock, huh?
As you might imagine, much like the cataclysm predicted by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, these lawyers were quite concerned for the future of our planet. As reported by the Summit Daily News (emphasis mine throughout):
Global warming is the hottest story of our time, and it will get even bigger as the full implications of melting ice caps and rising sea levels percolate through the media pipeline and into general public awareness, a panel of journalists said last weekend during the American Bar Association's environmental law conference.
The discussion was focused on how the media has covered the story and whether or not public perception of global warming has changed in recent months and years. Among the questions the panelists tried to answer is why it has taken so long for the story to reach critical mass.
In other words, folks, why isn’t the public buying into the junk science hook, line, and sinker? The article continued:
Most of the panelists credited Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," with helping to generate attention. The Democratic takeover in Congress has also advanced public debate, the panelists said. And even though the basic global warming science — heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere — is "third-grade" stuff, according the Wall Street Journal's John Fialka, the issues have been clouded by a massive, industry funded propaganda and disinformation campaign aimed at creating uncertainty.
But now the issue is taking center stage, and journalists must help explain the evolving story in terms that readers can understand, by showing them how the impacts will affect their lives, the panelists agreed.
Fascinating. So, because people aren’t buying this premise, it is incumbent upon journalists to scare them into believing it. Isn’t that special?
"We live in a country where more people care about the death of Anna Nicole Smith than the death of a planet," said moderator Judy Muller, a long-time NPR contributor and associate professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Journalism.
[…]
The challenge at this point may be explaining the full import of global warming, said ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore, who's been reporting on the issue for more than two years.
Blakemore, who has covered numerous wars over the years, said global warming is the most challenging story he's worked on.
"It's surreal to have pre-eminent scientists tell us very seriously that civilization as we know it is over," Blakemore said. "The scale is unprecedented. It touches every aspect of life."
Preeminent scientists have claimed that civilization as we know it is over? When did that happen, and what are these scientists’ names?
Yet, maybe more amazing was that as these geniuses discussed the existence of a so-called scientific consensus on this subject, nobody noticed the delicious hypocrisy in only inviting one skeptic to speak at the conference:
Only one of the panelists, Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page editor Sean Paige, took a contrarian view.
Paige, the only panelist who wasn't prepared to jump wholeheartedly on the global warming bandwagon, said a decade of sensationalistic coverage of environmental issues has resulted in a cry-wolf syndrome."Maybe the wolf is at the door now," Paige said, referring to global warming. "But the public has tuned out. We (journalists) haven't been skeptical enough of the environmental anxiety industry," he said.
"And nothing focuses the mind like an impending tidal wave of regulation," said Paige, referring to the potential for top-down federal rules to regulate greenhouse gases from a Democractic Congress.
Paige, describing himself as a layered skeptic, said there's still room for a global warming debate.
"What can be done and what will it cost?" Paige asked. Journalists should be asking whether it's really wise at this point to pour massive resources into prevention when the money might be better spent on adaptive measures. Paige said it's not clear that capping greenhouse gas emissions, for example, will make a meaningful difference in curbing the warming trend.
The one lone voice in the wilderness continued:
Paige also said he sees a form of eco-McCarthyism on the rise, with the fixation on "consensus" leading to a muzzling of dissenting voices.
"Let's silence everybody who doesn't agree," Paige said, characterizing the mood as he perceives it and claiming that there are legitimate scientists out there who have valid questions about the state of global warming science. But those voices are not being heard, he said, expressing concern about the potential loss of civil liberties in the rush to find a solution to the problem.
Of course, the alarmists weren’t having any of this, and quickly blamed all the problem on – guess who before I give it away – President Bush and the Republicans:
"We had a chance to have a reasonable debate," Linden replied. "Instead we had denial. The Bush administration and a Republican Congress had years and years to frame a response to global warming that doesn't involve government regulation," Linden continued.
But that never happened because the Republican leadership never acknowledged that global warming exists, said panelist Margaret Kriz, who covers energy and the environment for the National Journal.
"The people who set the agenda didn't believe, so for all practical purposes, it didn't exist," Kriz said, singling committee chairs like James Inhofe, who loudly claimed that global warming was a hoax, using his leadership role on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as his pulpit.
How many people guessed correctly?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
So again we lean that the wor
March 14, 2007 - 13:17 ET by florida_chadSo again we lean that the world history started with GW Bush in 2000. Its the fault of Bush and the republicans in congress. SOMEBODY please tell me what the dems or AL GORE did about GW when they were in charge?!? Why doesn't just ONE "reporter" ask Al Gore why he didn't do more to combat GW when he was the VP???p>
What Al do to help the climat
March 14, 2007 - 13:34 ET by danboWhat Al do to help the climate issue as VP. Under his "Reinventing Government" the Elk Hill pet reserves were transfered to an oil company his family had a great deal of stock in. Elk Hills had been set aside for the Navy, in the case there was a protracted conflict. (War)
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
March 14, 2007 - 18:03 ET by TheTruthLOL. . . Why doesn't just ONE "reporter" ask Al Gore why he isn't doing more now to combat Global Warming? POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH
WAIT A SECOND! Wasn't it t
March 14, 2007 - 13:21 ET by DyneWAIT A SECOND! Wasn't it the media who devoted more time to coverage of Anna Nicole Smith than stories related to global warming? This is pathetic!
Show me the law, and only then will I pay income taxes.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
But we're not paying attentio
March 14, 2007 - 14:03 ET by dscottBut we're not paying attention!!!!!! No matter how many times they repeat the same tripe. Besides, if Al Gore isn't interested in reducing his enormous energy consumption, why should it be a priority with us???? When Al Gore uses as little as I do, then I will pay attention.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Noel: I gotta admit. I was wr
March 14, 2007 - 13:27 ET by danboNoel: I gotta admit. I was wrong. I was going to say they were going to blame Exxon.
But I don't think these guys can differentiate between Exxon; and elected and re-elected "President" Bush and the Republicans.
I assume you've seen. And these are Al's friends.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
ABC Reporter: "We must f
March 14, 2007 - 13:39 ET by Airforce_5_OABC Reporter: "We must find the Karl Rove weather machine and quick or our Planet is doomed, DOOMED I SAY."
NPR: "Call in the superfriends; GORE, POLOSI, KERRY, KENNEDY, the DNC, and all outlets of the MSM. "
This is getting out of hand. We have allowed this crap to go too far. PROVE IT AND I WILL SELL THE SUV.
Because of ABC's constant Lib
March 14, 2007 - 13:44 ET by JayTeeBecause of ABC's constant Liberal Bias in reporting the news, and the absence of a Balanced view in reporting the TRUTH in the News....
NEWS AS ABC REPORTS IT, IS OVER ! !
At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.
"balance" is less important than truth
March 16, 2007 - 08:42 ET by ruckroverNewsbusters is constantly cheerleading the line that "liberal media" is not being listened to by the American people, cheering that more people worry about a celebrity than the grave situation facing the planet's ecosystems. There is rabbid snideness, sarcasm and attack dog quality to a lot of reporting on this (and a host of other) USA right wing websites.
But the truth is the USA is not the World. In most other nations there is growing serious concern about global warming and acceptance of the detailed scientific and rigorous debate process that led to the frightening (albeit in dry scientific language) report of the IPCC.
American right wing media (and their smaller allies in other countries) are losing this argument fast outside the USA, in spite of already discredited "polemical documentaries" (UK's channel 4's own description) such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - where the most prominent scientist in the program has already claimed his words were edited to make him appear to be saying the opposite to his real opinion (that being global warming is real, caused by fossil fuel burning and serious) - anyway read his own words http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/ or those of the former British chief meteorologist who highlighted a host of falsehoods in the "Swindle" film http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=debunking-of-global-warming--bad-science-&method=full&objectid=18749397&siteid=50082-name_page.html
The rather right wing (but probably looney left as far as something like Newsbusters is concerned) paper, The Times in London ran a story this week how all political parties in the UK (and all Europe for that matter) are now forming policies to combat global warming http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1511670.ece
Here in Australia where John Howard's right wing party has been in power for 10 years, a recent poll had 93% of people rating themselves as seriously worried about global warming. Howard's popularity has plummeted since Gore visited with his film last September and Howard refused to meet him. Within a month Howard was begrudgingly admitting to the reality of global warming. Howard has been Bush's closest political ally in the world, but Howard is tipped to possibly lose his own seat in the coming election according to current opinion polls. And concern over global warming is the big factor.
Our Australian car industries that produce large 6 cylinder sedans - Ford, Holden and Mitusbishi - are all falling behind Toyota imports with smaller efficient cars. I've started driving a hybrid Toyota Prius and after experiencing the smoothness, quietness, incredible fuel economy and surprising acceleration and highway cruising power - why why would anyone buy a straight petrol car for similar price? The likely new left wing prime minister, Kevin Rudd has offered a half billion $ fund for Australia's car makers to go for green efficient vehicles. In the face of automotive job losses already happening, that is a vote winner.
Go on, keep your big SUV's and dependence on Bush family friends in Saudi Arabian princes, pollute your country from the Statue of Liberty to LA, don't pay taxes for your sick and homeless but throw them in to jails (where they ultimately end up costing you more taxes), keep running up the world's hugest debt to support your military spending (more than the rest of the world's put together according to one of your retired former senior public servants) to pay in blood and greenbacks for your Middle East oil, neglect the Palestinians because of an odd but powerful voting block of right wing christian fundamentalists and zionists and thus keep stoking Islamic terrorism - that can keep military spending at such a height that keeps your mega rich military industrialists well mega-rich.
Do all that right wing America and keep the masses happy with the soap opera tragedies of minor celebrities. The rest of the world is moving on.
ruckrover - first of all, welcome to America and NB. ACA
March 16, 2007 - 08:53 ET by acaiguanaruckrover - first of all, welcome to America and NB. ACA
I see you are new to the site and given my great admiration for Australia, I wish to make you feel welcome.
I did want to comment on this one sentence in your rather overwhelming post.
"Here in Australia where John Howard's right wing party has been in power for 10 years, a recent poll had 93% of people rating themselves as seriously worried about global warming."
I hope these folks don't let their 'worry' affect their daily lives. That would be sad.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ruckrover is smoking crack again.
March 16, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Dave ROops.
We may not be the 'world' Dave, but we are the economy.
March 16, 2007 - 09:00 ET by acaiguanaWe may not be the 'world' Dave, but we are the economy.
And that is what galls these people. They resent that and they want to take as much of it for free as possible.
Every ex-pat swindler I have come across in my life has the view that if they could just sell a penny piece of junk to 100 million Americans (who are stupid by the way - just a big vending machine in the sky) for $1.00 they would forever be in Heaven.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA,Somehow my post got boo
March 16, 2007 - 09:02 ET by Dave RACA,
Somehow my post got boogered up. Darned gremlins again.
This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
But the truth is the USA is
March 16, 2007 - 09:09 ET by Free StinkerBut the truth is the USA is not the World.
You must be a Liberal.
You come to an AMERICAN web site, run by AMERICANS, which is about left-wing bias in the AMAERICAN main stream media, and you complain that it and the people posting here are so AMERICA-centric?
Did you ever wonder why the Daily Telegraph carries so much news about The Queen of England? Duh.
Quite the little anti-Semite,
March 16, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Sua Sponte 75Quite the little anti-Semite, anti-American you are now. Someone piddle in your corn flakes? Being "concerned" about an issue doens't mean that you FORCE me to live my life your way. Yea, forming policies that will never be enforced and more beauracracy costing millions solving nothing, seems to be the fix you types like. If it's broke, start a commission and throw some money at it, and if it involves me changing my lifestyle, forget it. In your little poll, bet if you asked the 93% if they would be willing to change their lifestyles to fit your agenda, they wouldn't be so "worried" about it. Reading articles concerning Austrailia, what are you doing to cause all the Islamic uprising there? I mean, YOU must be doing something wrong. Damn straight I'll keep driving my gas guzzler, swilling American bourban and eating pork......America, it's FANTASTIC.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius' arch nemesis.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
"Pork eating, whiskey drinking infidel"
But the truth is the USA is
March 16, 2007 - 09:42 ET by Dave ROkay, lets try this again.
But the truth is the USA is not the World.
And thank God we aren't. If the rest of the world is myopic and stupid enough to go along with Marxist/Leninist kooks such as yourself, and allow its various economies be run into the ground in a vain attempt to correct a problem that does not even exist, then so be it. This country is resisting this insanity, as most people in this country recognize that the real motivation on the part of the world's leftists has more to do with weakening the American economy than with saving the environment.
In case you haven't noticed, in the late 1970's the 7th Century Islamic barbarian horde resumed its 1400 year-old war against the infidel. It has expanded its conquests in Asia and Africa and is well on its way to re-conquering Europe. As things currently stand, this country could well be the only thing in a position to halt the advance of the barbarians. The next to useless European Union can do absolutely nothing about it. Russia itself is in danger from them. We are, as they say, it.
If we allow the world's leftists, as well as the ones here at home, to weaken this country to the point we can no-longer maintain our current military strength, the day is going to come whan a whole lot of people in this world will come to the realization that it was a hideous mistake for this to happen.
In your case, that probably won't be until some guy named Akhmed is raising a sword above your infidel neck. It will be a little late by then.
...powerful voting block of right wing christian fundamentalists and zionists...
And don't think for a moment that your anti-semitism is going to cause the barbarians to cut you any slack, either.
Idiot.
This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Global warmers and Liberal Democrats have to ignore their own
March 14, 2007 - 14:40 ET by acaiguanaGlobal Warmers and Liberal Democrats have to ignore their own religous belief in evolution to accept the idea that Global Warming is first something that the human race has not been dealing with for the past 18,000 years; and second something that we haven't evolved enough to continue to deal with.
Let us accept the premise that the Earth is 'warming'. OK, now what? Is this a catastrophie? Or is it 'normal'? I would say, given the premise, that it is normal.
Now, what? Only if one extracts people from the equation of 'normal' can one begin to deride people as the cause of the effect. If someone in an Aboriginal Tribe in a Rain Forest has trouble eating one year over the next, this does not mean that the streets of concrete paved New York City is the reason.
But it does if human behavior is not 'normal'.
For further discussion, let us assume that man contributes to Global Warming.
OK, now what? Does the 'increase in sea levels' have anything to do with me? Let's see. If I extract rational self-preserving behavior out of the human equation, like moving to higher or different ground from where I currently live due to high water, then of course, I will drown.
Not only will I drown, but all the other idiot humans who are 'not normal' will drown and their world will end.
Do I believe this? No. Will it happen tomorrow? No. Has it happened before (high water and changing coastlines)? Yes. Has the human race been destroyed by it? No.
So, now what? Am I supposed to decide that human beings are not a normal reality on the planet and therefore change their entire behavior, their methods of producing wealth upon which to survive and share (through markets) their bounty so that I can feel good?
I think not.
So, let me ask this.
If you are doing well in your life, have a job, eat, sleep without fear of the elements, have a family or just live day to day on your own, would you not be reluctant to change the entire economic structure of the world based on a supposed theoretical catastrophie?
I would.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
if it doesn't affect me, why bother?
March 14, 2007 - 16:39 ET by citizen xGlobal warming - man-effected or not - won't be a problem in my
lifetime so why should I change my behavior? I'll get my science not
from scientists but from profit-driven corporations, pat robertson and
fox news.
Al Gore's house is huge and uses more electricity than
a typical household. This is what happens in a capitalistic society
when you're successful...you have more stuff, which uses power. His
jet uses more fuel than your SUV, too.
It's probably enough to just start maybe one day beginning to
perhaps contemplate alternative energies, and put money into that
research - not just talk about it at the state of the union address and
election time 5 years in a row. See...this way in 30 years we'll have
found better energy supplies...and there will be new big corporations
making money from it ( hopefully not getting tax breaks ). You don't
have to live in a hut and eat veggie burgers....just start taking it
seriously - science, that is. And don't vote for people that get their
science from Pat Robertson, please.
If we start getting selective in what pollution we take
responsibility for.....what a great example for our kids. Before you
watch your bombshelter movie again maybe you should rent ' Idiocracy '.
The
only reason that there is a debate on global warming is cuz the liberal
press wanted to show both sides of the story - the vast majority of the
scientific community vs. the few skeptics - usually propped up by you
know who.
Why not turn it around and take some credit and be
proactive? Nixon established the EPA. Why? Cuz he wasn't a moron.
Don't let the democrats point out the obvious and take credit for
stating reality. It's not a republican / democrat thing and the
republicans only recently developed a loathing for science. I voted for
Reagan and things have really, really changed since then. Really.
At some point it you gotta ask yourself why you defend exxon
\ bush administration. Are you on their board of directors? Does GW
sign your paycheck? They'd run over you in a alabama second. Ask Libby.
I'll
look for your movie. I live in a redneck town that wouldn't show
Inconvenient Truth or Fahrenheit 911.....so your film probably has a
pretty good shot at making the A list.
Citizen X
Gee. the intellegence of a sl
March 14, 2007 - 17:50 ET by danboGee. the intellegence of a slug.
Did you miss any cheap prejudiced stereotype?
Complain to the media! You're the only one who knows anything! Your views are the only ones that should ever be reported or expressed. Demand that every scientist and citizen who disagrees, be sent to re-education camps. Or sent to the gas chambers, for the public good.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
show me some intelligence, danbo
March 14, 2007 - 23:25 ET by citizen xtell us how your science is better than the rest of the combined world scientific opinion. I can understand if you're pissed...if you own BP or Exxon and don't like dissent....well...just for the heck of it...show me that you're not just taking the oppositve stance. don't be a slug.
citizenx
March 15, 2007 - 02:00 ET by SportPoliticscitizenx - I suggest you go drop another dozen tabs of acid and view your favorite pshychotic 60's sex movie after thumbing through vid pics of fahrenheit 911, or slobbering on to some other moron about Stanley Kubrick's greatness. Don't forget to NOT flush every other time, you need to do your part as well.
".","."
March 15, 2007 - 02:05 ET by Carpareus".","."
the citizens are restless
March 15, 2007 - 02:10 ET by Carpareusthe citizens are restless
..Aha!Your a starship trooper
March 15, 2007 - 02:16 ET by bigtimer..Aha!
Your a starship trooper or some such eh Carp?
La-La Land rules your world....lol!.
Okie-dokie!
Ride 'em cowboy and have a good one out there!
".","."
March 15, 2007 - 02:20 ET by Carpareus".","."
Hey moderators... Carpareus
March 15, 2007 - 09:57 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHey moderators... Carpareus is a bot. Delete his account.
For the rest of you guys. This is a bot that is automated. It's a script written to post on a forum or comments of a website. Many times they're used for posting porn links.. it seems that this is someone testing scripts on this site... and probably not for any good reason... most likely, this is a precursor to an attack.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
LBZ - check your pm. ACA
March 15, 2007 - 10:01 ET by acaiguanaLBZ - check your pm. ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I had a conversation with i
March 15, 2007 - 10:05 ET by sarcasmoI had a conversation with it/him on the entity's first day here, where he/it exhibited (barely!!) above-artificial levels of intelligence, but that may have been just to set-up the 'bot as "human." If it's a 'bot, they're getting slightly more advanced, but regardless of whether it's robot or person, it's certainly averse to posting any interesting content.
JMR
it's certainly averse to post
March 15, 2007 - 13:10 ET by dahliatraversit's certainly averse to posting any interesting content
And that is a capital crime here.
TOO BAD Dr. Carpareus ASS
March 15, 2007 - 13:15 ET by CarpareusTOO BAD
Dr. Carpareus ASS.SK.
If I was here... I'd be tot
March 15, 2007 - 13:17 ET by CarpareusIf I was here...
I'd be tot by now. slow posts
Carp
Bye bye bye, Crapareus!
March 16, 2007 - 09:32 ET by sarcasmoWell, for whatever reason, a click of your user name now reveals: "Page not found." I'm sure you'll be back to troll & post pointless, content-free-BS again, but one thing's 100%-guaranteed: You're gonna be makin' another username first... So long, sucker!! Next time, try listening before you talk to yourself.
JMR
Thanks NB
March 16, 2007 - 09:40 ET by RJThanks, NB, the annoying mosquito whine on my screen has suddenly cleared up.
THANX !
March 16, 2007 - 09:45 ET by Free StinkerI too would like to that the NB Admins/Troll-slayers.
what a nice compliment
March 15, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Carpareuswhat a nice compliment
how 'bout a nice game of snoo
March 15, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Carpareushow 'bout a nice game of snooker?
postings TFS
ghost is gone 8P
lbz...Wow, I just learned som
March 15, 2007 - 13:48 ET by bigtimerlbz...
Wow, I just learned something new from you about computers....didn't know they had bots...or what they were.
...and to think I have posted a few lines now and then to the bot...like last night, early this morning...
LOL!
Thanks lbz...learn something new everyday here....one way or the other.
Yeah, me, too. Though my op
March 16, 2007 - 06:55 ET by dahliatraversYeah, me, too. Though my opinion is that it is a bot alternating with a person who indulges recreationally in substances, legal or illegal.
I also agree with Sarcasmo that these substance-free posts take up space pointlessly, making it harder to find new comments. Though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say he/it should be booted.
Nice substance-pun, dahliat
March 16, 2007 - 07:16 ET by sarcasmoNice substance-pun, dahliatravers. :) And I'm about 50% on booting him/it at this point because I have yet to see even a single post from it/him that's worth reading. IMO it's either an uninteresting 'bot which is alternating with an equally-uninteresting human; or if it's a 'bot 100%, it's a somewhat-interesting advance in uninteresting annoyance 'bot technology along the lines of the old Eliza unix program.
JMR
"..dozen tabs of acid and view your favorite pshychotic 60's sex
March 16, 2007 - 20:45 ET by citizen xThat was a great reply....informative ...illuminary. Illustrative of a keen intellect not wanting to show itself. Ever. I see your point of view more clearly now. I'd love to get more details on the topic, though. Oh wait...you're Sportspolitics....maybe I should wat til the halftime. zzzzzz
TV off.
Don't need to worry about see
March 14, 2007 - 21:32 ET by BDDon't need to worry about seeing the movie in a small "redneck TOwn" as you would probably like to characterize it. It is already being shown in high school Art Classes by NEA union teachers who studied "0" history while in school themselves.
When called on it, these liberal union members claim that "The debate is over."
Ha! THe debate has yet to really start.
BD...Great news!
March 14, 2007 - 22:39 ET by Clear thinkerBD...
I have some very good news to pass on. My granddaughter and I watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video together. She then went to school (7th grade) and told her teacher about it. I emailed the link to her teacher, then she downloaded the video. The video is longer in time than her classes but they showed it to the students yesterday and today.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle
My granddaughter tells me the class was almost in shock, now were waiting to see if there is any backlash. My hats off to the teacher for showing it!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Quick, let's take up a collec
March 14, 2007 - 23:29 ET by dahliatraversQuick, let's take up a collection for this soon to be ex-teacher. How can she last after bringing such heresy to the attention of her pupils?
BD!That is the best encouragi
March 15, 2007 - 02:23 ET by bigtimerCt!
That is the best encouraging news I have heard in a long time!
I am so surprised that she showed it...I hope there are no repercussions from it.
Our kids need to know the real facts...
I am just tickled to death with this news, maybe, just maybe this will slowly but surely spread to our kids that have had falsehoods crammed down their throats by leftists with an agenda...especially in our public schools, that we pay taxes on every single year.
Great news indeed!
The Swindle film is the real
March 16, 2007 - 09:05 ET by ruckroverThe Swindle film is the real swindle - at least according to perhaps the most noteworthy scientist in the movie who now says his words were taken totally out of context. You can read his take here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
Also Britain's retired chief meteorologist who lives in Wales was quoted today in Welsh media saying what a load of crock the Swindle movie is, read Sir John's words here: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=debunking-of-global-warming--bad-science-&method=full&objectid=18749397&siteid=50082-name_page.html
The Independent (but you'd just say that is a left wing paper) in the UK debunked the movie too: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
The IPCC report made the case clear. That report was debated over and over for years and didn't include evidence that suggests greater ice melt at the poles because it was within the last 12 months and couldn't be fully scientifically debated. The IPCC report is accepted by governments including George W Bush and Dick Cheney's government and our right wing govt of John ("I hate Obama") Howard. The IPCC report is a conservative consensus report. It is dry language but it is still quite frightening, especially when you realise it could underestimate the real problem because it doesn't include the feedbacks of released methane and acidified oceans.
Seriously are you going to risk your daughter and the next generations' future because of a tiny minority of scientists, a lawyer, an embittered greenie (yes I agree Greenpeace does play loose with the truth... but the IPCC does not), and a film producer who has a track record of being busted for distorting evidence and people's accounts in previous documentaries? That little group are right and the vast majority of the world's scientists are all part of some huge conspiracy??!!
Get a brain...
You can discuss points here rucky my boy without insult.
March 16, 2007 - 09:14 ET by acaiguanaYou can discuss points here rucky my boy without insult.
That is to the whole site...
Get it?
Now, you ask am I going to risk my daughter and next generation's futures...
No, I am not. No more than my father and his father risked mine.
To that end, I'm a little more concerned with a War against terror than I am talking about the weather. It is called perspective. Try it on for size.
Now, as far as taking all sorts of political and economic action based on a rather poorly thought out theory of Global Warming (man induced); very lousy data; very poor models; very bad extrapolations and fear mongering to the 'herd'; and your hiding under the bed.
Nope. Ain't gonna do it.
See, I live in the strongest most free country in the world. We have proven over time that our capitalistic system produces more than any other in the world and feeds more people than any other in the world. We have more opportunity and more wealth than any in the world.
And we built this country on Oil. We started out with wood, went to coal and now we use oil. Each one of these energy sources produces less pollutant than the one before. Funny isn't it?
Everyone's solution is to blame me. Of course, that means according to you and them that I need to tinker with the lifestyle I enjoy, the benefits of a proven system mentioned above and the future of my daughter and ensuing generations.
So, no, I'm not inclined to be lectured by an Australian who by definition is out of sync with a 10 year government movement much less a fringe poster who comes here with insults.
As someone once mentioned, 'get a brain...'
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ruckrover quotes facts...you don't answer
March 16, 2007 - 21:29 ET by citizen xAcaiguana.
How about responding ruckrover with some answers? Data..baby. You ignored all his linked data cuz it's not convenient, eh?
respond to them post by post so we can all get the truth. challenge 03/16/07
He responded. You didn't re
March 16, 2007 - 22:41 ET by dahliatraversHe responded. You didn't read. Computer models are not proof. Consensus is not evidence.
I'll add one of my own. The increase in carbon in the environment has historically FOLLOWED an increase in temperature. By hundreds of years.
But, citizen x, it is not sceptics who must provide data and proof. Al Gore and his friends have put forth a radical (not in the sense of leftist) theory. It is they who must proffer the data and proof, in part, because it is always incumbant upon the author of a theory to do so and, in this case, because the solution they have postulated (which, by the way, inexplicably leaves out major contributors of CO2: China & India) would radically change our way of life.
And there are holes in the "evidence" that they have provided, the biggest being that it is based upon computer models. But the more time goes by, the more we study this matter and the more holes we find.
ruckitsover,Humm, islamo H
March 16, 2007 - 20:24 ET by upcountrywaterruckitsover,
Humm, islamo H bombs in your harbours, or alleged CO2 levels, in (on) the planet? Water vapour is 95% of greenhouse gas, CO 2 is maybe 5%. My point? The weather is the same, overnight civilization is now in the 7 th. century!!. It's what the eco kooks want , islamos want, and it's what you are going to get, sleepy head brainless.
Your little dig at "prof
March 14, 2007 - 22:19 ET by UnsaneYour little dig at "profit driven corporations" belies your REAL motivation: you hate capitalism, and want to steal from the profitable and successful.
Tell me something, why do I have to instantantly question those who question whether or not global warming is happening and caused by Man, but I CANNOT at ANY COST question the obviously 1000% altruistic intentions of those who swear up and down that man-made GW IS happening?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
profit driven corporations
March 16, 2007 - 20:24 ET by citizen x" your REAL motivation: you hate capitalism, and want to steal from the profitable and successful "
Uhm...I own a tech company and love profits. I bet you work for the gov. post office and have free health care and arbor day off while I'm busting my ass, supporting your ass. This is no slur to gov employees. Or anyone. Don't say that anyone who criticizes corporations are commies or socialists, It takes away from the meat of the burger.
What is bad is big big corporations that care more about quarterly profits than long term damage to the country, competively or environmentally. Only corporations that have $$ to lose are funding the anti-science campaign against GW.
Trace it. I know a database website linkup that shows the thinktanks, their sponsors, gov., the scientists on the payroll...down to university professors on the payroll. Name. If you investigate this fraud it's actually funny, until you puke. Go ahead..make me get my bookmarks out..
The gov thinks you're dummer than you are. And you're falling in line.
Well, citizen x (cute user name) here is my answer to you.
March 15, 2007 - 07:55 ET by acaiguanaWell, citizen x (cute user name) here is my answer to you.
I'm tempted to simply post something silly, but no, I'll actually answer you.
My post was talking about the hysteria generated among the 'herd'. This is called 'herd mentality' in common useage. Herd mentality could also be called 'consensus'. Now that I have defined what I was talking about, I will try to explain what I was saying.
Since the herd mentality of any economic movement is generally wrong, e.g. during Carter's time, the price of oil will never go down; during Reagan/Bush 41, real estate prices and lending will never go wrong; in Clinton's time, the Internet and its dot com companies will never fail the market; and now in Bush's time, global warming needs the US (not too many others either) to radically change its economic engine to reject oil as its primary source to fuel production. Those are the 'herd' mentalities of the past 30 or so years. Each one so far has proven to be wrong.
Now, the issue would be whether man's influence on his environment is tragic and leading to the 'end of the world' or as the post here puts it, end of civilization.
Based on arguable science and conflicting facts and poor data and silly computer models the Global Warmers are telling me it is all my fault and therefore I must accept a carbon 'tax', subjugation of my country's sovereignty and a radical change in my lifestyle to save some coral island in the Pacific Ocean from being swept under water.
I think that pretty much states their position.
And my position is that I think we need to think long and hard before we adopt centralized planning as an economic model to radically change the base economic foundation of the greatest economic engine in the history of the planet.
See, I look at the United States as the 'Global Economy'. When you tinker with that you are tinkering with a known reality to our lives.
When you tinker with the weather, I'm unconvinced that any of the assumptions can be defended specifically with respect to damaging the reality of my life.
Get it, big guy?
And when "Acaiguana Notes from the Bombshelter" is released, we'll try to get an appropriate actor to play your part.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
update
March 15, 2007 - 08:11 ET by CarpareusRoland's tommy gun located- details to follow.
Head remains elusive.
Dr. Carpareus ASS.SK.
So, carp, are you just space filling here?
March 15, 2007 - 08:18 ET by acaiguanaSo, carp, are you just space filling here?
No, not under my post, on the site? I've been browsing for the last couple of days and come across your posts, but haven't seen anything of interest.
Is this your style? To blather? Or what? Just curious, if you want to waste space that's fine, but at one time I thought you had something to say.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I said this the first day h
March 15, 2007 - 08:23 ET by sarcasmoI said this the first day he came here. He apparently has a deep-seated aversion to posting actual content.
JMR
sarc, maybe its a self-esteem thingy?
March 15, 2007 - 08:25 ET by acaiguanasarc, maybe its a self-esteem thingy?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I dunno, but I was waiting
March 15, 2007 - 08:34 ET by sarcasmoI dunno, but I was waiting for someone else to notice. The problem with multiple content free posts is that they reduce the value of the site by knocking posts with actual content off the clickable list. As a person accused almost daily of too much self-esteem, I'll decline to speculate on that aspect of this issue, and stick with pining-away for actual content instead of more BS...
JMR
tag yah'll it
March 15, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Carpareustag
yah'll it
"."
March 15, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Carpareus"."
I rest my case.JMR
March 15, 2007 - 08:36 ET by sarcasmoI rest my case.
JMR
sarcasmo, check your pm. ACA
March 15, 2007 - 08:43 ET by acaiguanasarcasmo, check your pm. ACA
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"..with respect to damaging the reality of my life.."
March 16, 2007 - 19:49 ET by citizen x... that quote sums it up, acaignuana. the next 200 years fo the USA isn't about YOUR life, alone, or what is comfortable to deal with, economically or intellectually. Change sucks, I know. Reagan youth here. You and I have rested on the ingenuity of our forefathers who didn't except fire ...or whale oil...as the last and greatest means of enery. Thank God people are working on what 's coming up next - with an open mind. Wouldn't you agree?
What do you think of the herd mentality when people follow a tiny minority view ...in hopes that others can be fooled into the same ....just cuz it's from some politician's mouth - and you agree with them on some other thing so you must be lock step with everything else?
And I say that you're not courageously launching a great new idea; a risk like Galileo ...stating the earth is round instead of flat. You're defaulting to the fringe viewpoint ...to protect ...what?
I'm saying your data is as selective as the iraq war intelligence and from the same camp. Take that, big guy.
Still want to see your movie - remember the 110 ac outlet is different from the 75 ohm cable when you go to upload it..one cable has two prongs. For the difference between 1 and 2...consult the conservapedia.com
p.s. if you cared about the war on terror you'd be opposed to outing our overseas intelligence networks, and get off your knees and denounce the white house's actions.
take that Big Guy :)
ACA,The real questions need t
March 14, 2007 - 17:26 ET by DirkCSACA,
The real questions need to address anthropogenic global warming, not just global warming. I suppose I'm stating the obvious though...
I suppose it depends on your point of view, but I think that most of your questions miss the mark a touch.
First, let me be clear...I am NOT an AGW advocate. But I think some questions do need to be answered.
Here's an analogy that made some sense to me:
Imagine you have two 200-pound men perfectly balanced on a see-saw (the natural CO2 cycle). Now give one of the men a 16oz. glass of water (introducing man-made CO2 to the cycle). This would surely upset the "perfect" balance.
Now, does current science prove this analogy? No, nor does it justify spending 4% of GDP on "green-friendly" changes either in my opinion. It does raise a good point though.
Here are a few of the questions that the as-of-yet uncorrupted scientists are asking:
- Can/will man-made CO2 disturb the natural CO2 cycle?
- Assuming the first question is correct...Will this interruption reduce the ocean's, etc, ability to absorb CO2?
- Can cosmic rays, reacting with water molecules, create sufficient cloud cover to affect global temperatures? Contrary to Martin Durkin's show, this is NOT yet a proven fact.
- Does evidence that CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels disprove the theory that CO2 affects global warming or can this be explained by deglaciation? Current science seems to prove that BOTH are true. CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas.
There are many, many more, but I think you get the point.
Again, I am NOT an AGW advocate and I detest the political agendas of the AGW advocates, but these questions need to be answered in my opinion.
Individuals on both sides will answer these questions with certainty depending on their agenda. These people should be shot. Unfortunately it is these people that the MSM covers.
Dirk
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
Dirk. I thing the people in t
March 14, 2007 - 18:53 ET by danboDirk. I thing the people in this website are not indifferent. They're just not going to jump off a cliff because some people tell them what "scientist' say. In short they haven't turned off their brains.
You say you're not an AGW advocate. Yet just about the entire text of your post says otherwise.
Rather, it looks a like trolling for an attept to rehash the same talking points again. Kind of like if it's said over and over again, people will be believed. Like this.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo,Are you so jaded that
March 14, 2007 - 20:03 ET by DirkCSDanbo,
Are you so jaded that honest scientific questions become a trolling attempt? Well, I guess if you are it's not a big surprise. But that was sort of the point of my post.
There is so much damn sensationalism and bias out there, that you can't simply ask honest questions. People become so obsessed with pointing out the bias that other, very important, things are missed.
I don't claim to know the answers to the questions I posed, but neither do most honest scientists. If you answer the questions one way, then AGW is a very real problem. If you answer them another way, then AGW is a fallacy (or at least it is a non-factor).
Admittedly, I took a pot-shot at Martin Durkin (again), but that is because his show was as full of holes from a scientific viewpoint as Gore's movie, not because I am an AGW advocate. The parts that addressed the driving forces behind the AGW craze (the political agendas), I agreed with wholeheartedly.
What part of my post proves I am an AGW advocate? It's entirely possible that I did a poor job of getting my point across work kept interrupting me. My intent was to purposely NOT make any conclusions.
Dirk
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
Yep. Time will tell. I do mak
March 14, 2007 - 20:34 ET by danboYep. Time will tell. I do make mistakes. Prove me wrong. Prove you are truly open.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo,Now you are getting t
March 15, 2007 - 00:22 ET by DirkCSDanbo,
Now you are getting to the meat of the issue!
Who is the truly open one here? The people that hail Martin Durkin as the savior simply because it fits their agenda, or the one that refuses to accept sensationalism and propaganda, regardless of whether or not it conveniently fits his or her beliefs?
I would argue for the latter of course, since I am obviously biased.
Do I think that AGW is a real thing? I don't know yet. I've researched and researched and researched. I've learned three things:
(1) I let my dislike for Al Gore bias my opinion against AGW, thereby granting him a certain power over me.
(2) I'm better off now because I've decided to keep an open mind.
(2.5) I still think Al Gore is a <insert any fitting vulgarity here>.
(3) I need to research some more.
How I'm going to find any answers though when the science is unproven for either side is beyond me.
Dirk
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
What I would say to you DirkCS, is that you missed my point.
March 15, 2007 - 08:01 ET by acaiguanaWhat I would say to you DirkCS, is that you missed my point.
The question isn't whether Global Warming is real. The question is whether mankind (that would be me) is such an inept creature that it cannot deal with the planet as it exists. As life continues to swarm about the coastlines of the world (at one time 90% of the Chinese lived on the coasts and 10% in the interior of China); I believe that historically mankind has done pretty well in adapting itself to reality.
The issue before every thinking man is whether they are willing to buy into a package of centralized planning; huge government concessions of the US sovereign rights to an international body over its economic strength; and severe restrictions on economic freedoms, markets and the resulting innovations derived from the same all based on an unproven and rather poorly thought out theory of Global Warming.
That was my point.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
just research, ok ?
March 17, 2007 - 00:12 ET by citizen xthat's the most words I've ever heard saying you don't believe the science or Al Gore.
By the Numbers, Then
March 15, 2007 - 11:23 ET by CGattonBy the numbers then:
...Here's an analogy that made some sense to me..."
Your analogy is flawed, and therefore any conclusions you might draw from it are similarly flawed. The CO2 cycle that you refer to is neither balanced nor in equilibrium, rather it is a system best modeled by the mathematics of chaos, wherein a very minor alteration in one area can have far-ranging, and inherently unpredictable, effects in another. Thus, your comment, "...does current science prove this analogy?" and your own response are correct, however your follow-on discussion is moot, since your analogy is not nor ever will be correct.
"...Can/will man-made CO2 disturb the natural CO2 cycle?..."
No, for the simple reason af scale. Man's contribution to CO2 levels is insignificant, and while the CO2 cycle is not in equilibrium, it does attempt to reach that state of nirvana, if a cycle can be said to have such a thing. :o) Regardless, CO2 is self-regulating, and has a negative feedback co-efficient, similar to the temperature one that reguates the criticality of a nuclear power reactor. Essentially, nature's reaction to an increase in carbon dioxide is to increase the consumption of carbon dioxide. That being said, remember also that the CO2 cycle is constantly in flux, ever adapting to the current level, and never truly stabilizing...and most importantly, that ever changing current level includes man's contributions.
"...Assuming the first question is correct..."
Since it was not correct, the remaining portion of the question is moot.
"...Can cosmic rays, reacting with water molecules, create sufficient cloud cover to affect global temperatures? Contrary to Martin Durkin's show, this is NOT yet a proven fact...."
I'm not familiar with the show to which you refer, however, I do have a copy of the experimental results and Henrik Svensmark's report in which this was established as fact. Actually, it is the only assertion that has been determined to be a fact in this entire climate change/amospheric science discussion. (By the way, a 'proven fact' is very similar to a 'true fact.' Although assertions may be provable or false, facts, by their nature, simply are.) The crux here is that the cosmic ray influence on climate change as reflected in average global atmospheric temperature rise/decline, is in the neighborhood of 100:1, when compared to CO2 level contributions. That is, cosmic rays can do in one year, what CO2 from all sources takes 100 years to accomplish, and mankind's contribution to CO2 levels is only a portion of the total.
"...Does evidence that CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels disprove..."
While perhaps interesting, this is not really germane to the discussion.The most probable answer is that cosmic ray induced warming causes increased animal life, which results in increased CO2 production; there is an inevitable lag before an increase in vegetation acts to check the increase in atmospheric CO2.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
"Your analogy is flawed.
March 15, 2007 - 17:37 ET by DirkCS"Your analogy is flawed..."
First, it's not my analogy. It is an analogy used by AGW advocates. I said it made sense to me, but I didn't say it wasn't flawed. In fact, I followed it up by stating it was unproven. The point of the analogy is to bring up the question of how impactful man's contribution is, which science has yet to answer.
Mathematical models have been (and continue to be) done to see what the impact may or may not be. The problem is, the models depend greatly on who is doing them and whether or not they have a particular agenda which influences their model.
That's one of the tricky things of science. You can not dismiss a theory simply because it has yet to be proven. Rather, you have to essentially disprove it first. To do otherwise goes against the basic tenets of science.
"Man's contribution to CO2 levels is insignificant..."
It is very minor when compared to the other contributors, but whether it is insignificant or not is yet to be proven.
Svenmark has not established his theory as fact. In truth, many flaws have been found with his work. Check it out for yourself. While his explanation makes great sense to me, the jury is still out.
The reason the "CO2 lag" is germane to this discussion is that certain groups attempt to use this lag as proof that CO2 does not contribute to global warming. CO2, by definition, is a greenhouse gas. To say it contributes nothing to global warming is a fallacy (To say it will be the death of us all is equally absurd).
I tend to agree that, historically, "something" other than CO2 (cosmic rays makes the most sense to me) greatly affects global warming, which in turn causes CO2 levels to rise (mostly due to the ocean releasing it's stores). This resulting CO2 increase does contribute to further global warming.
The things that I tend to believe seem to be very similar to what you have stated. I'm just trying to keep an open mind about many things that have yet to be proven as fact. ("Proven as fact" is what I meant to say when I previously said "a proven fact". That's what I get for posting at work.)
Dirk
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil m