Honestly, folks, no matter how hard you tried, and regardless of the effort or good intentions, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Following her disgraceful performance during an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen on Tuesday, one of the producers of the schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Laurie David, opted to further humiliate herself by publishing a “scathing rebuttal” at the Huffington Post (h/t NB member Sick-n-Tired).
David ironically began her piece (emphasis added throughout):
Webster's Dictionary defines "sloppy" as something that is "careless" or "negligent." For the moment, I can't think of a better word to describe the background research CNBC reporter Joe Kernen did regarding the state of global warming science when Sheryl and I appeared on his program the other day.
Interesting, Laurie, for folks could say – and indeed, have – the same thing concerning the obviously shoddy background research you and your team did by not editing out all of the mistakes and misstatements made by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore in the film you produced.
Obviously missing this delicious irony, David continued:
If you saw the interview, you know that instead of focusing on the serious problems of global warming and what we need to do about it, Joe decided to put on the hat of naysayer to attempt to refute the consensus opinion of over 2000 scientists from over 150 countries including the US.
He chose to refer to a recent 'documentary' out of Britain that attempts to refute the scientific consensus around global warming. The problem is that he failed to take into account the fact that this documentary has received no consideration in serious scientific circles and is shrouded in immense criticism and controversy.
Once again, David seemed to miss the delicious irony that her own documentary on the same subject was similarly shrouded in immense criticism and controversy, even from unlikely sources such as the New York Times. As NewsBusters reported on March 12, the Times was less than thrilled with obvious mistakes made by Gore in David’s film (emphasis added):
In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Neglecting this clearly inconvenient and deliciously hysterical truth, David continued to pummel the British documentary in question by not debating its contents, but by instead using a common, liberal tactic of discrediting the messenger:
A quick survey of film's 'expert' contributors uncovers a virtual who's who of Exxon funded global warming deniers. Further, I uncovered numerous allegations of selective editing of interviews (apparently causing at least one scientist to threaten legal action), the use of mislabeled graphs, outdated and flawed data, not to mention that the list of 'experts' interviewed includes a who's who of Exxon's favorites. Worse is that when the film's creator was alerted to the fact that the data he was using in certain cases was outdated, misrepresented and flawed, he intentionally ignored it.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle a denier. Yet, still not seeing the extraordinary hypocrisy in her position, David continued to stick her green foot further and further in her mouth:
So this begs the question, why didn't Joe check into any of this to ensure that he wasn't using unsubstantiated and flawed material to attempt to refute the consensus of the most credible scientific study on the subject in the world? I would guess it is because he couldn't find anything else, so he hitched his wagon to the product of a man whose previous documentary was apparently found by a regulatory commission to have distorted the views of at least four participants through what the commission called 'selective editing'. Bang up prep job, Joe. Real thorough.
Physician, heal thyself.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
It seems like Joe did have so
April 12, 2007 - 16:43 ET by NoMoreClintonsIt seems like Joe did have some facts to confront them with, but since it's not their facts it can't be right! Joe Kernan - my nominee for hero of the week.
Hilarious...not only can you
April 12, 2007 - 16:46 ET by TruthMongerHilarious...not only can you "not make this stuff up" but the great thing is the libs are broadcasting all of this stuff for us absolutely free of charge:)!!
This is why Libs eventually g
April 12, 2007 - 16:51 ET by mattmThis is why Libs eventually go insane: Their brains atrophy through faulty usage and/or non usage, i.e. "the debate is over," which is the height of folly.
Noel,Thanks for posting this
April 12, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Sick-n-TiredNoel,
Thanks for posting this one too. These people are truly ridiculous. They use smoke and mirrors to distract from the issue at hand. Regardless of where they (the contrarian scientists to AGW) may work, which isn't the issue, are they not allowed to voice their opinion and dissent of the AGW religion??----their/our dissension however is based on scientific fact.
I wonder if any of these alarmists have ever had a scientific debate or have had to defend an issue, any issue, based on logic and cold hard data? If they ever had they would realize how foolish they do indeed sound.
"Regardless of where the
April 12, 2007 - 17:52 ET by MobiusStrip"Regardless of where they (the contrarian scientists to AGW) may work, which isn't the issue..." is an interesting starting point for debate. The contrarians used exactly the same logic from the onset in attacking scientists studying climate change. Their talking point was- and is-that these guys get paid to study this stuff, therefore they have self interest at stake. In other words, it's where they work that is the issue! This has been repeating ad nauseum by every right wing commentator on earth. My guess is that you caught yourself realizing this mid-sentence, and went back to insert that little "not an issue" clause. Your argument is smoke and mirrors. Buy a puppet for yourself so you can stick your hand up his backside and make him squawk instead. You'll feel better- but you won't get the same Rush.
So, from your viewpoint, al
April 12, 2007 - 18:02 ET by BigBSo, from your viewpoint, all of the scientists are on the same footing as far as motivation goes, but the only ones we get to hear from are the ones that say we are all doomed...imagine that.
I would be interested in a comparison in funding. Which one's are actually the most dependant on government or UN or Santa Claus funding.
I'd also love to see an income statement for this tour as well as for the movie
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
No, not all scientists are on
April 12, 2007 - 18:12 ET by MobiusStripNo, not all scientists are on the same footing. Add to that the well-documented censoring of federally employed scientists for political purposes by NOT scientists, the placement of industry lobbyists into regulatory body management, the rise of the think-tank partisanship expressed as policy and you have every reason to question affiliations of the naysayers. If the right can relentlessly question motivations of the overwhelming scientific community and then try to push a meager sampling of naysayers as the true voice, they are failing. TO look at it another way, China and Saudi Arabia did their best to water down the IPCC report. Political and economic. I must then assume you are aligned with those countries and their agendas?
Wow...you sure do write pur
April 12, 2007 - 18:36 ET by BigBWow...you sure do write purty...Maybe you should try and say something next time you do it.
Why would the Saudis or especially China give a squirt of pi$$ what the IPCC report has to say?? You think they are going to change course?? wow...no wonder you buy into this crap....Maybe they should put in an addendum...$60 a barrel oil is too expensive and maybe it's alright for you to let women drive a car and not kill them if they don't feel like wearing a gunny sack over their entire bodies. And China,the oppression of yer population is killing...well...people. Wait, strike that last one, more people=more of the DREADED CO2.
The Debate is OVER!!! And now, since the world is doomed and we have all the scientists, except for a few corrupt crack pots, to back up our theory.....Here's our most distiguished spokesperson to tell you all about it.....AL GORE!!!
Why don't we ever get to hear from the 'Corrupt Crackpots'??? Al could surely put the smack down on one of them in an open debate.
Oh wait, you can hear from the Crackpots...you can see their documentary FOR FREE on the internet...Still haven't been able to find the Truth for free...
Imagine that....
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Maybe you should read more th
April 12, 2007 - 19:15 ET by MobiusStripMaybe you should read more than the Reader's Digest. China and Saudi Arabia forced the watering down of the report- check it out. It is called politics. If you're too lazy to read real news and too dumb to understand their motivations- well then, you're lazy and stupid.
On China
April 12, 2007 - 19:48 ET by UnsaneWhy should China care? They are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol and get a pass at all times from U.S environmentalists, as they are more concerned with screwing their own country out of pure guilt.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Wow, once again you managed
April 12, 2007 - 20:21 ET by BigBWow, once again you managed to type a lot of crap...say nothing, and avoid anything I put in my post...good job!!!
How can any country influence a super verified, debate is over, cross my heart and hope to die report made by cross-myheart-hope-to-die scientists....oh wait...is this some kind of UN deal??? Wow, this IS politics...how shrewed you are.
You mean when Al was over in Saudia Arabia taking a giant s**t on the Bush Administration he didn't tell them all about global warming???
And of course Al was all over Slick Willy when he wouldn't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. No?
Maybe Al found himself to be an unemployed Douche bag and glommed onto the one thing that can keep him in the $$. Well, they are putting the content warnings on music these days...no gold there.
What there is no wondering about is the fact that these people will always build their forts on the 'America is Bad' platform because this is the only place where they can gain any traction(a'la this Mobius dork) and make $$ doing so.
PT Barnum said 'There's one born every minute'....
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Don't answer moron....just
April 12, 2007 - 21:02 ET by BigBDon't answer moron....just skip down where you can prattle along with yer inane, typical horse s**t...
good effort...
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Nice job of skewering Mobius, BigB
April 12, 2007 - 22:16 ET by RJNice job of skewering Mobius, BigB. Doncha love the way he cuts and runs as soon as he realizes he's getting his butt kicked? I know, because he's done the same disappearing act a couple of times when I've schooled him. ;^>
Mobius' specialty is laying down a smoke screen of "superiority", but when you blow his smoke away, you're left with just another grunting troll.
RJ..It's his trade-mark!He ha
April 12, 2007 - 22:34 ET by bigtimerRJ..
It's his trade-mark!
He has done it to me too... I sent links, he eats them... runs... pretends like he never got them the next day.... wants them again... I do it... he asks again next day when I inquire about an answer...he comes back with dog ate his links or some such...can I resend again....
He never has an answer, just more troll schooling BS!
He is not worth it.
Just a total troll.
Galileo is turing over in his grave
April 12, 2007 - 20:46 ET by exLibIf there truly has been censo
April 12, 2007 - 22:14 ET by NL207If there truly has been censorship and it has been well documented by anything more than the unsubstantiated allegations of a few individuals, then you should have no problems providing links, now shouldn't you? Link or slink. We can link to show just the opposite is true: http://washingtontim... Prove otherwise or get hooted out of the joint.
And yet ....
April 12, 2007 - 22:31 ET by BD57none of the scientists swearing on the stack of "Earth in the Balances" that global warming is real, it's caused by man and it's going to be a disaster has a financial interest in propogating that line?????
You really believe this, right?
One big hole in your arguemen
April 12, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Sick-n-TiredOne big hole in your arguement--and you state it yourself "they have self interest at stake"----------EXACTLY!!! GORE, DAVID AND THE REST!! GW is big money business plain and simple. Furthermore, to what they feel is their benfit, allows them to push their agenda for a socialistic utopia!
"is an interesting starting point for debate": Man, I would love to spar with you some more-but to be completely honest, I have to go mow my yard---and freeze my a*s off no less. I will be back in a few hours if you are still around. ST
That was kind of my point o
April 12, 2007 - 18:54 ET by BigBThat was kind of my point on the 'They're all on the same footing' thing...But it went right over, or was (imagine that) ignored by our budding novelist...
As we all know, the GW people are noble and caring and kind...and ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Big B. I have to disagree abo
April 12, 2007 - 19:18 ET by danboBig B. I have to disagree about the GW folks being noble and caring. I used to think that. way.
Though there are noble and caring folks on the AGW side. There is too much question. And there are all the personal attacks.
Taken at face value. We should attack china and india and force them to stop their dastardly industrial growth. Then turn off our own. Instead we have a carbon tax.
This is about power. And arrogance.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Exactly right.There are bil
April 12, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Jack BauerExactly right.
There are billions of dollars subsidizing the Logic Deniers peddling the absurd notion that mankind can make one jot of difference to the global climate.
A climate which has only been changing fore the past 4 billion years.
Fortunes are being made by the global dumbers (as epitomized by a Lear Jet liberal and her dopey pop singing sidekick). And it's apparently a bottomless well to draw from.
It's the biggest corruption of so-called science ever.
"the absurd notion that
April 12, 2007 - 19:25 ET by MobiusStrip"the absurd notion that mankind can make one jot of difference to the global climate."
Let's see... we could have massive nuclear exchange with Russia or China. And that would do it, unless you think vast irradiation on three or more continents and radical instantaneous atmospheric changes don't count as global. Unless you think that our scientists in the DOE and NOAA modelled the nuclear winter scenario with Al Gore in mind. Your point is refuted.
Hey, isn't Jack Bauer that imaginary fantasy hero dude that kicks ass and saves the world over and over? He plays one on TV or something. Are you that guy?
WTF are you talking about? Be
April 12, 2007 - 19:30 ET by contraryWTF are you talking about? Because humans can launch nuclear weapons means you debunked the claim that human's aren't responsible for global warming? Dude, shut up. Let someone else present some cogent reason why human activity is the main driving force for GW.
WTF is that mankind CAN make
April 12, 2007 - 19:43 ET by MobiusStripWTF is that mankind CAN make global impacts by anthropogenic activity, and my point is that this is an example of that. By making the blanket statement that we can't in any way, and by my offering a counter-example that we can, the argument itself is spent. Unless you want to dispute the veracity regarding the science behind the nuclear winter scenario, then you make no points, DUDE.
BTW, DUDE, a few hundreds of experts from around the world presented findings under peer review regarding AGW and their large consensus was that it impacts to a measurable degree. Either you believe this to be the greatest conspiracy among those hate filled scientists with an axe to grind for the American conservative right, or your credentials are more impeccible than anyone here deserves. But, I mostly think you're just more like Where's my Karma, DUDE?
Again, WTF...Put up or shut u
April 12, 2007 - 19:50 ET by contraryAgain, WTF...
Put up or shut up...
Show me where humans have been the predominant driving force for GW.
Once again...
April 12, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Unsane"Peer review" = "I don't have to critically think on my own, others do it for me"
...and...
Consensus is a creature of politics, of legislatures and parliaments, not of science. Newton didn't submit his Principia Mathematica seeking "consensus".
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Thru your whole diatribe you
April 12, 2007 - 19:55 ET by contraryThru your whole diatribe you have yet to actually link to anything! Why don't you try that first.
Mobius
April 13, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Dave RMobius,
If we were to set off every single nuclear device that exists on this planet all at once, life on this planet would continue. Sure, it would take on different forms, but it would continue nonetheless.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
As if...
April 12, 2007 - 19:33 ET by nkviking75...as if the GW fear mongers are alerting us to the risks of all out nuclear war? OK, maybe that would affect the climate, but I think we'd all have bigger worries at that moment. The GW preachers are telling us to stop raising cows and change to a different type of light bulbs to save the planet. They're not dwelling much on global thermonuclear war.
ms,Hear that whorring sound?
April 12, 2007 - 19:51 ET by upcountrywaterms,
Hear that whorring sound? it's the iranian gas centrifuges running 24-7-365
The next nuk or 25 nuks will be used by your islamo buddies on our oil refineries. That will be the end of alleged AGW.
What are you thinking when you stick that fuel nozzle into your bubble car? The fuel station will never run out of gasoline!!
GW is big money. British Petr
April 12, 2007 - 19:04 ET by MobiusStripGW is big money. British Petroleum has not missed it- they are pushing the green card and lead it with new product lines based on efficiencies. GE as well. I live up the hill from the NREL federal wind power research labs between Boulder and Golden, which Reagan tried to quash and Bush de-funded, which caused him to make a speech from the loading docks because 22 of our top researchers had been fired the week before- and the office was half empty. That was two weeks after his State of the Union address proposing a move towards renewables. The guy blows smoke up your asses because he's in bed with the Saudis, and other countries are investing research into the NEXT GENERATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTION. We have the ability to research, produce and corner global markets in wind, water and geothermal generation- but our whoring adminstration blocks it. US led technological innovation in this field is totally absent- Bush would like to keep it that way. Now, let's talk about the billions of subsidies to oil companies in the year they make record tens of billions. THAT is big money, and you pay pay it at the pump. But somehow worry about a movie and a tour. Really.
next generation of energy production
April 12, 2007 - 19:21 ET by mastersofdeceitToo bad when something like this comes up, the hypocrital hollywood aka Malibu Mercedes Marxists "do as I say" crowd fight tooth and nail to block. Perhaps Laurie David would like to comment.
That could be a NIMBO thing-
April 12, 2007 - 19:53 ET by MobiusStripThat could be a NIMBO thing- Not in my back ocean. I don't do Hollywoood at all, and most of those people are scum. But there are some serious concerns about LNG terminals as terrorist targets, which are being looked at by the NSA. Them things would blow up real good, and typically are located in major ports next to large population centers. The LNG would be piped, I believe, into the LA port area for off loading and thus presents a prime target of concern.
But I still don't do Hollywood.
ms,President Reagan also kill
April 12, 2007 - 19:36 ET by upcountrywaterms,
President Reagan also killed carters 2 billion pork barrel oil shale project on the western slope.
What is the "NEXT GENERATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTION" ? The Dutch used Wind Egyptians used water, Romans used geothermal !
What is the next generation ? As if we can corner the wind LMAO.
BTW the goverment made more off oil than the oil companies.
Living in Colorado, I can tel
April 12, 2007 - 20:11 ET by MobiusStripLiving in Colorado, I can tell you that the oil shale misadventure was shelved for economic reasons tied to technology at the the time. It is being re-invigorated now. Carter's idea was to decrease foreign energy dependency. It was a goal ahead of it's time and sorely needed now. That the federal put money into it was a good thing, though it didn't pan out- a lot of the fields being re-worked now provide infrastruture for new technology and it can become a new source of domestic energy.
Research must continue here on all fronts. The government should have a strategic hand in it. We need a national energy policy, not closed door sessions with a VP that came from oil and a P that did as well. What is wrong with taking the lead on new technology delvelopment? How do you think that Japan grew up so fast? MITI. Why should we give subsidies to oil companies without demanding they re-invest in production infrastructure? Why should we give billions away to companies making billions in profits? These give-aways fly directly in the face of traditional Conservative ideals and basic philosophy of both laissez-faire economics and fiscal conservatism- yet few from the right care to even discuss this. We are fractured in our national approach and need to change.
About "corner the wind"- dumb ass remark. We can corner the technology- and we're behind. GE is losing the race right now. A substantial base of turbines would propel a greater R&D budget, which would develop the best technology, which we could sell to the world. European firms have the lead in efficeincies and more importantly installed equipment. Laugh your own ass off when gas goes to 6 bucks and only Japanese firms are making hybrids and electrics. Damn dumb ass remark.
Good God...It's Ward Church
April 12, 2007 - 20:46 ET by BigBGood God...It's Ward Churchill!!! Run for your lives!!!!!!!
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Funny BigB - I was beginning
April 13, 2007 - 16:18 ET by mulerider24Funny BigB - I was beginning to think the same thing the more of his comments I read. Maybe someone should write a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book based on GW liberal-speak.
"If you believe the ocean will rise 20 feet, turn to page 34. If you think the American government should give everyone a Prius, turn to page 57."
“Carters idea was to decrea
April 12, 2007 - 21:50 ET by JPR1“Carters idea was to decrease foreign energy dependency.”
The same Jimmy Carter that to this day remains a great friend and benefactor of the Saudi’s?
“…taking the lead on new technology development…” “…Japan grew up so fast?”
For example the huge boost to the Japanese steel industry when, after WWII they/we upgraded their mills with latest US designed electric furnaces, while ours were forced to continue using the older coal fired units. That was a “give-away”, and it cost us.
“…subsidies to oil companies without demanding they re-invest in production infrastructure?”
These companies can’t so much as fart in the wind without some greenie throwing a conniption fit.
“…give billions away to companies making billions in profits?”
We give billions away to other nations and rarely see a real return. Why not put money into something that actually benefits our economy. Consider the difference between a “give-away” and a subsidy.
“…and we’re behind.”
You’ve got a box score we might review?
“A substantial base of turbines would propel a greater R&D budget,…”Uh, I think you might have that bass-akwards. 30 years ago commercial wind energy was little more that a pie in the sky idea; today there are what, several thousand turbines in operation? Any numbers on how “European efficiencies” are impacting their fossil fuel consumption?
“…gas goes to 6 bucks and only Japanese firms are making hybrids and electrics.”
Typical liberal pessimism.
ms,Oil shale was DUMPED KUZ I
April 13, 2007 - 02:36 ET by upcountrywaterms,
Oil shale was DUMPED KUZ IT WAS PORK! There is NO oil flowing from oil shale at this moment. natural gas yes NO OIL. Federal money is MY money it's a lost cause, try drilling in ANWAR, or the gulf before the Chinese do.
Corner the technology.. and what is that? I ask once AGAIN????
Gas at 6 bucks, because fools like you REFUSE to allow drilling .. Next time you fuel your battery bubble car, think of that .
Warning! Socialist detected!!!
April 12, 2007 - 19:53 ET by UnsaneLooks like we have a Socialist on our hands; one who is positively enraged that the oil companies DARE to make a PROFIT!!!
So, Mobius, I take it therefore you want the government to do what you are much too afraid to do yourself? (That is, steal from the oil companies at gunpoint)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
looks like we have a Communis
April 12, 2007 - 20:18 ET by MobiusStriplooks like we have a Communist on our hands- pay your buddies to pay you to stay in power while they buy dachas! Tax breaks, incentives and subsidies are SOOOO Conservative. Bribes, kickbacks and strong arming are SOOO conservative! Your tax dollars are at work, Unsane, paying companies to not invest. Your economics are truly Communistic.
Why, I am not the one advocat
April 12, 2007 - 20:34 ET by UnsaneWhy, I am not the one advocating punishing and stealing from the successful!
That would be YOU!
(Yes, I agree that is is a shame that there are very few politicians that agree with my political principles - hence I do not belong to a political party.)
By the way, last time I checked, having lived in AK...it's the Leftists who keep fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve (as I like to call it) from being explored. NOW who is keeping the oil companies from doing their job?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane, most in AK support it
April 12, 2007 - 21:05 ET by exLibMy sister lived there for years and said she didn't know anybody who was against it.
The two senators from AK are both for it as well.
The funniest thing is, whenever you meet someone who against anwar just ask them, do you live there, when they say no, ask them if they personally know anybody who does, when they say no again, walk away....
On AK and oil
April 12, 2007 - 21:16 ET by UnsaneEven better...
I had a good friend who lived there who once was minding her own business in a park in Anchorage, when she was approached by a whiny Leftist crying about how evil Big Oil was, how any drilling in ANWR MUST be prevented, blah blah blah...
She took this all in and asked a very simple question of him: "Do you get the Permanent Fund dividend checks?" To which the whiny Leftist said "Yes".
Her response: "Don't talk to me anymore about it."
Don't you just love hypocrites?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Mobi,First off I have no inte
April 12, 2007 - 22:25 ET by Sick-n-TiredMobi,
First off I have no intention of defending or backing somebody that YOU say blows smoke up my ass. Now, with that being said, lets discuss those alternatives. As of current, wind, water or geothermal are not economic alternatives-blocked or not. Let's do talk about subsidies. Until the last 5 years, the majors have been out of continental 48 domestic production; it has been a few large independents (e.g. Devon and Chesepeake in the Barnett play--Ft. Worth Basin) WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCTION COMING FROM SMALL COMPANIES---ma and pa type operations. They have kept things alive and have introduced new production to the market. So, going back to subsidies; i am assuming you think subsidies for farmers are good right? Especially those that produce corn and hence ethanol. They struggle to keep the farm going right? Salt of the earth types that contribute to the good ol' USA; well, it is no different for our homegrown domestic producers. You want to get out of the mid-east don't stifle homegrown production, encourage it---just like the farmers.
And for the record, producing ethanol involves MUCH more petrochemical than it substitutes/replaces. (and it was later, but i made it back; hope to see you out here.)
How dare you people doubt t
April 12, 2007 - 17:29 ET by ckc1227How dare you people doubt the words of that well-known climatologist Laurie David, who is second only to Al Gore in the field of climatology.
Well, gotta run. I'm off to see the butcher about about some computer problems I'm having, followed by a trip to the plumber for investment advice......
Our new best feiend Joe Kerna
April 12, 2007 - 17:47 ET by NoMoreClintonsOur new best friend Joe Kernan can give you that investment advice. That's actually his area of expertise on CNBC . . . when he's not calling out the Gore groupies.
I was just wondering about
April 12, 2007 - 17:53 ET by BigBI was just wondering about the 'You need to take a look at who funded this documentary' line....??? This from a snooty liBTard hag that was one of the producers of Inconveniently Devoid of Truth.
We are touring college campuses because??? We already tried to shove our free movie down the throats of the primary education system but that got broke off in our a$$es......
Sherly and I have graciously take time off from our jobs at N.A.S.A. to tour campuses and instill some of OUR BRAND OF 'COMMON SENSE' into the multitudes of down-to-earth rational minds out there. And make a little $ratch along the way...
I am right and if you DARE question my authority, I will throw a hissy fit and go preach to the smarmy choir over at Huffington's Joke...
I urge you to see(BUY) my movie.....
good lord....cha-ching$$
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
For those who have read Sta
April 12, 2007 - 18:33 ET by gueinFor those who have read State of Fear by Micheal Crichton...There was a composite character who represented the well-meaning but ignorant celebrity whose shallow knowledge of science was revealed under rudimentary questioning. Yet this didn't prevent the aforementioned character from spouting ill-informed opinions based on the knowledge of others. Having spent time in Hollywood, I sure Crichton based his character on personal experience. Plot spoiler: the character is eaten by cannibals in the climax of the book. Draw your own conclusions.
To the thicko likes of Davi
April 12, 2007 - 18:48 ET by Jack BauerTo the thicko likes of David/Crowe, one of the basic tenets in the socialist liturgy of the Church of Manmade Global Warming is this...
Just like the Pope is for Catholics... "scientists" are INFALLIBLE.
Well, only certain "scientists" who are the chosen ones working on MATHEMATICAL MODELS
Sure... this is how reliable science can be using mathematical models.
From the London Sunday Times
Dumbfounded you missed something? No crap Copernicus!
Not the first time
April 12, 2007 - 19:40 ET by w0tmCheck out the reason why the Hubble telescope was out of focus until what is, essentially, a correction monocle was added (at the cost of half a billion dollars). A long succession of eminent scientists and all around smart people forgot to change some numbers from feet into meters (or vice versa - I forget).
Many years ago, I was a field tech engineer who, among my duties, investigated aircraft crashes. Not an enjoyable job except, several times, I gave closure to victim's families as to why their loved ones died. Every time it was an engineering design error. No matter how sure man is about a creation, the "laws" of physics or the world around us and the universe beyond, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. Walk through an aircraft broken into a million pieces caused by a forgotten decimal point in a tech manual and you know those who profess to be absolutely sure about anything where science is involved are either ignorant or fools, or both.
All things being considered, in an unbiased manner, it appears our planet and sun as well as all of the other planets in our solar system are in a warming spell. Mankind may be contributing a small part of the warming occurring on earth, or perhaps not. On the other hand, those who blame man for everything may turn out to be completely correct. The odds are against it but it's possible. But it won't be because those who were zealots against Mankind possessed the slightest bit of scientific knowledge to base their rage upon. "Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day while a clock one second slow never is".
So scientists are fallible. A
April 12, 2007 - 20:38 ET by MobiusStripSo scientists are fallible. As are engineers and designers. I used to supply them to Fermilab, which was one of the coolest places I've ever seen. Used to roast a buffalo on a spit and have massive beer parties when they hit energy goals. Really cool place, though probably not as fun now. But they were always in competion with CERN- do you know why the Fermilab director was furious? They must be collaborating on basic research at this point. Fermilab had the best magnet designs at the time, back in the 80's.
BTW, isn't Jack Bauer that imaginery fantasy save-the-world guy that kicks ass on TV? Are you that guy?
You are Ward Churchill...OM
April 12, 2007 - 20:50 ET by BigBYou are Ward Churchill...OMG!!
You and AL are the only surviving members of the Plutonca Tribe. Well, mebbe Farrakan but the jury's still out on that...
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Mobius did you go to the mall allot
April 12, 2007 - 22:52 ET by exLibDid you go to the mall allot in the 80's?
It's ironic that someone wh
April 13, 2007 - 11:28 ET by Jack BauerIt's ironic that someone who claims to know about magnets should have a less than magnetic personality.
The only course of action as
April 12, 2007 - 19:08 ET by contraryThe only course of action as citizens concerned about both the environment and government policy is the continual demand for debate. Only then, will the agendas of self-serving politicians and their special interest groups be exposed, and the will of the people be expressed.)
Hear, hear! Well and succinct
April 12, 2007 - 20:41 ET by MobiusStripHear, hear! Well and succinctly put.
contrary
April 12, 2007 - 20:54 ET by gfrrmancontrary, that's all well and good in theory. But when alGore and the AGW alarmists declare that the "debate is over" and won't stand for any tough contrary questions the will of the people will never be served. They just refuse to hear another voice other than their own.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
The Flat Earth Society meets Global Warming
April 12, 2007 - 19:14 ET by w0tm700 hundred years ago, a unanimous and broad consensus of the world's most eminent scientists, professors and all around smart people said the earth was flat. The fact was beyond reproach. There was only one side, the correct side. Thus, the discussion was closed. Those few who didn't agree were drawn and quartered. We seem to be nearing that point again. Except, fortunately, drawn and quartered" has been changed to ruining the world's economy, one-world government and returning us all to living in the early 19th century. May we go back and discuss this flat earth thing one more time? Look where it led us.
This flat-earth theory was br
April 12, 2007 - 21:44 ET by Del DolemonteThis flat-earth theory was brilliantly discussed in the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs teams up with Chris Columbus to discover America in 1492 (and no, they didn't do any Benny Goodman tunes)
"The world, she isa roun
April 13, 2007 - 12:42 ET by JoeBob"The world, she isa round likea my head!"
WHAM!
"The world, she isa flat likea your head!"
Classic.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Joe vs the volcano
April 12, 2007 - 19:19 ET by cpra3255Joe is my hero. I don't always agree with him but he always calls it the way he sees it. In this case, I couldn't have agreed with him more. Now if only some of the pansies in the MSM would ask the same basic questions, we could get beyond the global warming nonsense and focus on issues that actually have an effect on our lives... I know, to dream the impossible dream...
Be prepared
April 12, 2007 - 19:19 ET by nkviking75A question for Laurie David: If you know so much about this stuff, why weren't you prepared to rebut Kernan on the spot? Maybe it's because you never expected someone in the MSM to actually challenge you. So you retreated to a safe spot where you could make your points unencumbered by having to deal with other opinions, and where you had plenty of time to think of your answers.
If you want to sell this nonsense, try sending out a real scientist.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
David: In talks, articles and
April 12, 2007 - 19:50 ET by GalvanicDavid: In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
Well, let's see. Prince Albert Gore claims that the seas will rise 20 ft, putting much of Manhattan under water.
But the latest IPCC estimate --- and they, too, have been known to exaggerate ---- is a rise of 9 to 23 INCHES. Taking the mean of that estimate (16 inches), we compare 1.33 feet to Gore's 20 feet! Wouldn't the consensus of 2000 scientist hold that Gore is an alarmist? Aaah - yah.
My bet is that Crow and David will not expose themselves to potential "hostile" questioning again. Afterall, the debate is over, right?
It's inconvenient all right
April 12, 2007 - 20:24 ET by c5thenIt's terribly inconvenient to have to deal with facts, statistics and truth. It's much more convenient to deal with feelings and supposition
AGW is the attempt by radical
April 12, 2007 - 21:33 ET by ahusserAGW is the attempt by radical environmentalists to mainstream their political agenda. This is a political movement not a scientific movement using the typical hammer method so beloved by the left. The science being used is vague and inconclusive enough that even though they say the debate is over it's only over because the protagonists refuse to debate the issue. Any detractors of any standing or credibility are ignored or demonized. It is an offshoot of the Green Party in Europe a reformulation and reincarnation of Marxist/Leninism. This is about the control of peoples and governments. The old Socialist utopia rearing it's deadly and stifling head.
Mobiusi am finally back for a
April 12, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Sick-n-TiredMobius
i am finally back for a little bit and responded to ya.
cheers
We are all wearing the ribbon!
April 12, 2007 - 23:00 ET by acumenWho does not want to wear the ribbon? But I am wearing the ribbon. He is wearing the ribbon. We are all wearing the ribbon!...
One can only wonder how much input Laurie had on Larry David and crew coming up with that skit.
Misterbill to Laurie david
April 12, 2007 - 23:10 ET by misterbillMisterbill to Laurie david--"Laurie you ignorant s*** you!"
Lauri to Misterbill "Look , here's the deal--this is the way I see it and if you don't agree, you're stupid!' "And btw Misterbill, that's a consensus and the debate is over."