On the June 12 "Early Show," anchor Harry Smith again pounded Tony Snow, and Tony Snow again responded with a reprimand. Smith, who recently offered a puffy interview of Al Gore, continued his harsh interrogation of the White House press secretary. When discussing the G-8 summit, Snow asserted that Bush has "taken the lead" on initiatives such as climate change. Smith interrupted Snow like wise.
Video (0:37): Real (0.99 MB) or Windows (1.11 MB), plus MP3 (167 kB).
SMITH: I think that's following on climate change. He's following on climate change.
SNOW: No, no I don't think so --
SMITH: These other countries are setting the table for this, for years. The president is late to this table. You can't flip that around --
Snow, who previously accused Smith of sounding "like a partisan" hit the CBS anchor right back.
SNOW: No, Harry, you can't have your own facts. We got a better record than the rest of the world. We have more --
SMITH: And he should have better record than we already have and you know that –
Harry Smith then moved to Guantanamo Bay noting former Secretary of State Colin Powell is calling for its closing. After Snow asserted that "some people there" are "really dangerous," Smith continued to advocate for its closing.
"You know, by keeping it open, and keeping it there, you're basically saying the United States justice system can't be trusted to prosecute these people properly. Why not just shut it down?"
Early in the interview, Smith mildly sided with the president, but on an issue where the president gets the bulk of his criticism from the right, immigration reform. Smith asked Snow: "Doesn’t the president have to convince those people who are so adamant about this that he may be right?"
The entire transcript is below.
HARRY SMITH: For more on the president's Capitol Hill visit, we turn now to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Tony, good morning.
TONY SNOW: Good morning, Harry.
SMITH: We just heard in this report from Joie Chen 38 Republicans voted against this immigration bill. Any real chance of getting any of them to change their minds?
SNOW: Yeah, there is, because if you take a look at the vote last week, it wasn't necessarily on the immigration bill. There are some people that are opposed to it, but also a fair number of Republicans were unhappy because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not want to continue the process of debating a lot of Amendments. Say, people like John Warner and others saying, "well, wait a minute, this is the Senate. We need to have a full debate." I think what you're going to find, Harry, is that Senate Republicans are going to put together a package of amendments, they're going to present them to Democrats, saying this is what we want to debate, and we seem to be getting some signals out of the majority leader that he'll go ahead and make that debate possible. Therefore, we feel pretty confident we're going to get passage.
SMITH: But when this thing went down last week, there were a number of conservative groups very vocal, very determined, very angry people who said, "see, this system works for us. The people in Washington listen." They're very angry at the president as well.
SNOW: Well, you know, and you can kind of understand it. Look, 21 years ago, we had immigration reform. And what did they promise? They promised to have secure borders, and to do assimilation, economic things, and none of it came to pass. And so there's, there's a fairly high amount of skepticism right now about whether Congress is going to be able to follow through on security and all the measures. What's interesting is if you take a look at the component parts there are more than 60 votes in either House. I'm sorry, 60 votes in the Senate. And furthermore if you do the polling on the component parts, they're all highly popular. But there is a big level of skepticism, which is why the bill has been written in such a way as to say "okay, don't trust us verify."
SMITH: Doesn't the president have to convince those people who are so adamant about this that he may be right?
SNOW: Yeah, well, look, there are some people who are not going to be persuaded because they disagree with them. But there are also a lot of people right now who are saying, well, who's right here? I think that's one of the reasons why you have political debate in this country. You're absolutely right. We're going to continue to present our arguments to the American people and explain exactly what this bill says what it does and why it answers people's qualms about security, provide security first, why it restores rule of law and why it makes citizenship special.
SMITH: The other thing that comes up then is that the president can't get this done, in which he has placed so much of his own prestige and will and everything else. Does this not show that he's a lame duck?
SNOW: Well, think of it -- let's flip it around. The president just came back from a G-8 session where, you know, when everybody went, they said, well, here's George W. Bush, the whole world's against him on climate change. Guess what? He goes to the G-8, leads the way on climate change, leads the way in development, leads the way --
SMITH: I think that's following on climate change. He's following on climate change.
SNOW: No, no I don't think so --
SMITH: These other countries are setting the table for this, for years. The president is late to this table. You can't flip that around --
SNOW: No, Harry, you can't have your own facts. We got a better record than the rest of the world. We have more --
SMITH: And he should have better record than we already have and you know that --
SNOW: No, what you're, what you're arguing is that you regulate your way in. It never works, hasn't. What the president says is use technology as the way of doing it. Guess what everybody agreed. Now, when it comes to domestic policy, the president laid out a number of key items in the State of the Union address. Immigration is one of them, we feel pretty good about that. They're debating energy right now. He's been able to implement a fair amount of that by executive order. No Child Left Behind, that's got bipartisan support. What I think you're going to see is big major legislation being passed in the seventh year of the presidency. That's not a lame duck. What you have is a situation of a lot of political contentiousness.
SMITH: Alright we'll see. General Colin Powell goes on television over the weekend. He says that the United States should shut down the detention center at Guantanamo, Cuba. Is there any way the president would consider this?
SNOW: The president says he wants it shut down. I mean look, we don't like the situation with Guantanamo. The problem is, you've got some people there who are really dangerous and the president doesn't want them on U.S. soil. What are we trying to do? We've asked their countries of origin --
SMITH: You know, by keeping it open, and keeping it there, you're basically saying the United States justice system can't be trusted to prosecute these people properly. Why not just shut it down?
SNOW: No, no, that's not at all what you're saying. What you're saying is that there's a long chain of precedent extends back to the founding of this country where you treat, where you treat enemy combatants in military tribunals. That's always been the case. And furthermore, the approach has been supported by the Supreme Court and we've had legisla- we had a big legislative debate about this last year where we got resolution. The fact is Harry, we don't want Guantanamo open. But the guys there are so dangerous, their countries of origin don't want them back. So what we're trying to do is set up a process where their rights are respected where you have a disposition, at the same time, you keep the American people safe. We certainly understand what, what Secretary Powell is, is saying.
SMITH: Tony Snow, we thank you so much. We understand the president is going to buy vacation property in Albania.
SNOW: Bada boom, thanks, Harry.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Harry Smith. What a jerk.....
June 12, 2007 - 10:25 ET by SouthJersey1953Harry Smith. What a jerk.....That Albania vacation property comment was TOTALLY uncalled for (but I loved Tony's response!)
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
Is it OK that I have a man-c
June 12, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Hero SquadIs it OK that I have a man-crush on Tony Snow?
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Hero Squad:Yes, but you can't
June 12, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Mica the MagnificentHero Squad:
Yes, but you can't post that here.
Tony: Hey Harry, why don't you visit quantanamo and just shove your tongue down the throat of a terrorist and get it over with? - - - It has to be said.
And yet, I'm sure, if asked,
June 12, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Chris NormanAnd yet, I'm sure, if asked, Smith would (disingenuously) protest that he feels he's neutral and balanced...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Snow
June 12, 2007 - 11:01 ET by iveseenitallIMO both Snow and Smith have a huge disconnect with average Americans. Smith is simply a liberal, biased, elitist "jounalist" . But Snow is also out of touch. Ask the average Joe why he is against this bill and he will say nothing about amendments and debates in Wahington. And he will be thoroughly pissed if this thing passes. The real "two Americas" are Washington and the rest of the nation.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Be American or begone
June 12, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Cool ArrowCan we agree on the premise there is another agenda influencing Washington than is held by America? It is inexplicable that President Bush would waste what political capital he has by publicly flogging a heretofore loyal base.
How is it we are racist for insisting those who come to our country be Americans? All those "Diversity Training" seminars we attended in the 90's were aimed at shutting Americans up and forcing them to witness the crumbling national identity.
Why is it not an insult to hyphenate any American. Why would an American demand to be recognized more by race than country of allegiance unless the descriptor preceding the hyphen is meant as a flag of division.
If my "home" country treated me with as much hatred as Mexico treats its poorer citizens, I like to think I'd find another place to live and never look back.
Be American or begone
Be American or begone
June 12, 2007 - 11:40 ET by PolazerusAmen!!
Tony Snow
June 12, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Polazerus"both Snow and Smith have a huge disconnect with average Americans".
I often wonder what Snow's real opinion is. On Fox he always seemed pretty grounded, but as the Press Secretary he has to tow the Presidents line. With that said, I still think he is one of the best we have seen in years.
As press secretary his job is
June 12, 2007 - 11:52 ET by mattmAs press secretary his job is to toe the president's line. Smith, on the other hand, is supposed to be a journalist, but he demonstrates his Leftist bias.
toe the presidents line?? wh
June 12, 2007 - 15:18 ET bytoe the presidents line??
which is about as honest as communist russia was and has evolved into...
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
"Jesus is my co-pilot if
June 12, 2007 - 15:21 ET by"Jesus is my co-pilot if he listen to Rush, and Muslims are my very, very good friends..."
and were you born before rush was conceived or after the fairness doctrine?
so the avg iq of this site is 75?
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
monty...can you count that high?
June 12, 2007 - 15:24 ET by LionKingDo you know what comes after 75?
Please tell me...what makes you think you are so smart and that everyone else is so stupid?
its the BDS.........and maybe
June 12, 2007 - 15:26 ET by florida_chadits the BDS.........
and maybe all that LSD he took
That's my profile monty, not
June 12, 2007 - 15:25 ET by TruthMongerThat's my profile monty, not matts...
You really need to take a break now - before you hurt yourself...
That's nice. Did the I.Q. s
June 12, 2007 - 19:38 ET by dahliatraversThat's nice. Did the I.Q. survey start and stop with you?
Dahlia, I don't think so. I
June 13, 2007 - 01:04 ET by MikeBDahlia, I don't think so. I think the average IQ of this site is about 75. If Montana Lyons left the site, the average IQ would about double. Who knows how high the average would go if all of the libtrolls decided to go play on Hufftard or the Koskids blogs?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
lol
June 13, 2007 - 23:01 ET by dahliatraverslol
Why do Leftist Trolls always disappoint?
June 12, 2007 - 20:17 ET by Jonah JohansenLike many conservatives on the web I would love to have a friendly intellectual debate with someone from the left. If they use logical arguments backed up with documentable facts and I can not find a flaw in their argument or evidence, then I need to do some more research. That research will either let me argue more effectively in the future or cause me to adjust my view.
All the liberal trolls I have seen here and on FR make no real effort to engage in dialogue. They are full of cheap insults, hyperbole, and venom for the President, Christians in general and anyone that thinks America is a basically a good country trying to do good in the world.
I will make liberal trolls a simple offer, stop with the petty insults, the trash talk the anti-Bush slogans, and assert your point, in a reasoned, serious, thoughtful manner. I will do everything in my power to answer you in a reasoned, serious thoughtful manner.
If we conservatives are so un-informed, such sheep, so stupid uneducated and illogical; then you should have no problem coming up with at least one example or case, where liberals are clearly in the right and conservatives are clearly in the wrong and all available evidence supports the liberal position.
Wow, it's been so long - i fo
June 12, 2007 - 20:28 ET by TruthMongerWow, it's been so long - i forgot all about that stuff - thanks Jonah!
Jonah,I hate to say it, but
June 12, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Dave RJonah,
I hate to say it, but the Stanley Cup Playoffs will be held in Hell long before that happens.
Build the damn fence, George!
I don't always agree with th
June 12, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Chris NormanI don't always agree with the policies Snow has to defend. I'm just addressing Smith's on-air provocative hostility towards Republicans and in particular, this administration - traits that he would deny, if asked.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
All I can say is Snow is a mu
June 12, 2007 - 13:07 ET byAll I can say is Snow is a much smoother liar/spinner than Bush.
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
Snow a liar?Really?Prove it.
June 12, 2007 - 13:40 ET by TheDeuceSnow a liar?
Really?
Prove it.
Im sorry he cant be a liar if
June 12, 2007 - 13:52 ET byIm sorry he cant be a liar if hes only following Bush's honest agenda. Hmm, who wrote for the Pravda?
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
"Im sorry he cant be a l
June 12, 2007 - 14:20 ET by ckc1227"Im sorry he cant be a liar if hes only following Bush's honest agenda. Hmm, who wrote for the Pravda?"
Translation: Sorry, Deuce, I can't prove it.
Monty has "left the buil
June 12, 2007 - 14:28 ET by TruthMongerMonty has "left the building" so to speak...
rangly rangly rangly
hey, maybe we can spin the qu
June 12, 2007 - 15:00 ET byhey, maybe we can spin the question around the way fox loves to do so well.
What has snowjob told us that has been honest?
ummm, katrina, the war for terrorism, patriot act...on ad infinitum
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
"All I can say is that S
June 12, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Chris Norman"All I can say is that Snow..."
Oh, if only that was all that you would say...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
"If the dog barks and ha
June 12, 2007 - 14:57 ET by"If the dog barks and has no bite, then it must be Georgie."
Monty Lyons
Bush for lame duck prez in 2008!
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
ML - how "lame duck' was
June 12, 2007 - 14:59 ET by florida_chadML - how "lame duck' was he when he vetod the war spending bill?
speaking of lame
June 12, 2007 - 14:59 ET by LionKingMonty...was that an attempt at humor?...LAME
wow, george can sign his name
June 12, 2007 - 15:10 ET bywow, george can sign his name!
"get it done!"
yeh rt, at this point he gets me more laughs from me than homer simpson, a good family man, who is at least honest about his alcoholism.
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
He's really got that "un
June 12, 2007 - 15:17 ET by TruthMongerHe's really got that "uncleaned dorm room smell" doesn't he...?
Don't you have some laundry to bring home monty...? I think you're out of video game money too...back to your folks house with ya...
SNOW: No, Harry, you can't
June 12, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Tom1969caIs Smith interviewing Snow, or is he debating him? Because, if you're participating in a debate, you must necessarily take a side...
~~~
"The current tax code is harder to understand than Bob Dylan reading Finnegan's Wake in a wind tunnel."-- Dennis Miller
SNOW: No, Harry, you can't ha
June 12, 2007 - 14:07 ET bySNOW: No, Harry, you can't have your own facts.
But, like I have the "facts" and I was told to tell 'em!
We got a better record than the rest of the world. Thats a fack,Jack!
hmmmm
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
"The fact is Harry, we don't want Guantanamo open. "
hmm another fack (Bushista spin)?
Dopey gobshite. A free press
June 12, 2007 - 14:14 ET by kathleenirishDopey gobshite.
A free press has been long gone in Cuba and Venezuala, but liberals love despots still, right Monty?
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Montana Lyin', the United Sta
June 13, 2007 - 01:11 ET by MikeBMontana Lyin', the United States is a net carbon sink. Both our forests and our agricultural industries are net carbon sinks. Our net output of carbon has gone down since we didn't sign on to Kyoto. During that same time period Europe, who did sign on to Kyoto has increased its net carbon output by 5%. (I think 5% is the correct number.) I have already linked to our forests and agricultural land being carbon sinks. You can either search NB for that thread, or you can search the net for them.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
That is a rather dubious ar
June 13, 2007 - 11:37 ET by steve2007That is a rather dubious argument. The Earth had already achieved a CO2 equilibrium before people started burning fossil fuels; and America's forests were already accounted for in that balance. Any additional CO2 production which does not find a new sink is going to contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Additionally, farmland often takes up land previously occupied by forests, and is not as good a sink as forests. So farmland should really be counted as a source of CO2 in that sense.
steve2007-By that argument, i
June 13, 2007 - 11:47 ET by bassndudesteve2007-By that argument, it would stand to reason that CO2 levels now are higher than they ever have been. And that just aint so. CO2 levels have been higher in the past, way before clear cutting and farming 'en mass and before the use of "fossel fuels", which is, its self, a misnomer.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
*crickets* Save a SeAL, club
June 13, 2007 - 11:57 ET by bassndude*crickets*
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass -- good call on so cal
June 13, 2007 - 12:00 ET by Jack Bauerbass -- good call on so called 'fossil fuels'.
It never tires repeating that there are millions of dopes who actually think "oil" comes from crushed dinos!
There's no limit to lib***ls believing any fairy tale they are fed.
Jack, These people are hilari
June 13, 2007 - 12:05 ET by bassndudeJack, These people are hilarious. They never cease to make me laugh at the level of stupidity they have achieved.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass -- well it is a known
June 13, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Jack Bauerbass -- well it is a known fact that in the past the Dinosaurs and lush vegetation was only found in places that are now deserts and frozen tundra.
So they could die, be crushed and become oil.
Hey, I guess the CLIMATE must have changed.
So if it was that WARM in Alaska -- then it must have been boiling in the tropics.
But what about Saudi... And how come the globe heated up that much. And why did it cool down. to freeze the arctic again.
You know, the place with the second largest known crude oil reserves.
Gosh so many questions.
Wow you're right. The clim
June 13, 2007 - 13:00 ET by steve2007Wow you're right. The climate has changed! And before that, the planet was fully molten.
What is your point? How does that argument say anything about the question of the current global warming?
Climate change
June 13, 2007 - 13:04 ET by LionKingCurrently, Global Warming alarmists claim that Global Warming is the fault of MAN!!!
The sun & nature (volcano
June 13, 2007 - 13:09 ET by florida_chadThe sun & nature (volcanos) cause global warming. Man's input is tiny in comparision.
Why are other planets heating up?
Anthropogenic solar warming
June 13, 2007 - 13:15 ET by LionKingThis is getting out of hand. Now we are heating up the entire solar system.
OH, SH*T!!! What's next, the galaxy? Al Gore is right. Man must be stopped now. Liberals, please take the lead, stop breathing and creating CO2...please, for the sake of the Universe.
Well - those two SUVs we sent
June 13, 2007 - 13:21 ET by florida_chadWell - those two SUVs we sent up to Mars are destroying that planet. And think of all the trash we left on the Moon. We are terrible creatures. I feel so guilty.......
brother, can you spare a carbon credit?
drought
June 13, 2007 - 13:27 ET by LionKingI heard Mars is suffering from a major drought. Also, Venus is victim of acid rain. Everyone on Jupiter must endure the worst Ice Age imaginable...and tragically, everyone there is also morbidly obese because of the effect fo gravity.
Yep...no doubt about it. Solar system is falling apart and only Al Gore, Eco-Warrior, can save it.
[btw, sorry bro, got no bling or CC.]
We even stole Pluto's identit
June 13, 2007 - 13:30 ET by florida_chadgotta go get my teeth cleaned (aren't you glad you know that) see you tonight
Not in the current case. ht
June 13, 2007 - 13:21 ET by steve2007Not in the current case. http://arxiv.org/abs...
Your inane question just sh
June 13, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Jack BauerYour inane question just shows how you have no regard (or maybe it's just no knowledge) for the scientific method.
It's really quite pathetic that you insist on making an ass of yourself.
But just to get you on the record, you are seriously proposing that what happened in the past has no relevance to what happens today. Wow.
Except, of course, for some arbitary date of YOUR choosing based on some arbitary criterion of your choosing.
Well where does oil come fr
June 13, 2007 - 12:11 ET by MightyMouthWell where does oil come from?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM -- there are a number of
June 13, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Jack BauerMM -- there are a number of theories, including this laughable "fossil" idea.
Given that oil can easily be synthesized industrially, I am more persuaded by the idea that it was created by natural chemical processes under the violent earth's surface.
The whole "fossil" idea is a total fiction invented to scare people that oil would, of course, "run out."
Could you please elaborate
June 13, 2007 - 13:15 ET by steve2007Could you please elaborate on your idea of "natural chemical processes undern the violent earth's surface"?
Oil has the right structure to come from fossilized organisms, being made of hydrocarbons. This is the accepted theory as to the origin of oil.
Frankly, I think you're quite clueless when it comes to science. You've made up your mind about certain things ahead of time, and are willing to modify reality to vindicate yourself.
Critically Think
June 13, 2007 - 13:20 ET by LionKingThink about it for just a few moments. How much oil has been used over just the last 50 years? How many dinosaurs would have had to been around to create all of that oil?
Hmmmmmmm?
its like we are killing them
June 13, 2007 - 13:24 ET by florida_chadso destructive are we
Steve00,Hydrocarbons are made
June 13, 2007 - 13:39 ET by upcountrywaterSteve00,
Hydrocarbons are made by planets!
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/hydrocarbons_titan_atmosphere.html
IRANIAN URANIMUN ,IRANIAN URANIMUN IRANIAN URANIMUN , not a tongue twister , it's just a 7th. century life choice. DUH
Sounds reasonable to me Jac
June 13, 2007 - 13:16 ET by MightyMouthSounds reasonable to me Jack. Of course with my limited knowledge of the subject my usual response to the question is: "From the ground" :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM...ground ???
June 13, 2007 - 14:44 ET by LionKingMM, I thought it came from Wal*Mart. Don't they sell everything? ;-)
Don't know LK, I haven't be
June 13, 2007 - 14:56 ET by MightyMouthDon't know LK, I haven't been in a Wal*Mart in some time. But I am even further disconnected from the "Texas Tea" than Wal*Mart shoppers. I pull my car up to GreaseMonkey, go in for a cup of coffee and in about 10 minutes my oil is changed (or so they tell me).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The most logical theory is th
June 13, 2007 - 14:40 ET by bassndudeThe most logical theory is the Abiogenic theory. This would account for the biomarkers and wouldent have killed the dinosaurs in the process.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The Earth makes it. http://ww
June 13, 2007 - 13:11 ET by upcountrywaterThe Earth makes it.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16737
Less paper work to drill Titan , send Halliburton.
up,A certain AGW apologist
June 13, 2007 - 14:29 ET by MightyMouthup,
A certain AGW apologist seems to be ignoring your links. I wonder why?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
My apologies. If you're
June 13, 2007 - 12:16 ET by steve2007My apologies. If you're not comfortable using standard terminology, what word would you prefer I use to describe oil, gas and coal?
Where do you think oil comes from if not from fossilized plants and animals? Did God put it there?
Sure big brain. That's the
June 13, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Jack BauerSure big brain. That's the choice: God or crushed dinos.
Jack...I would say that God c
June 13, 2007 - 14:54 ET by Clear thinkerJack...
I would say that God crushed the dinos so we could have oil in the future for our survival. Works for me!
Prove you can secure our borders first. The only legislation that counts!
How many T-rex died to fuel m
June 13, 2007 - 15:03 ET by bassndudeHow many T-rex died to fuel my truck and boat? Ohhhhh the pain of it! I cant bare the thought!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I miss the good old days when
June 13, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Clear thinkerI miss the good old days when you could look out into your backyard and watch your dog get eaten by a T-Rex.
Prove you can secure our borders first. The only legislation that counts!
Trex ate one of my horses whe
June 13, 2007 - 15:18 ET by bassndudeTrex ate one of my horses when I was a kid. Never forget the hunting trip for that Trex. Well, he will never eat another horse!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I hope you turned him into oi
June 13, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Clear thinkerI hope you turned him into oil.
The dino, not your horse.
Prove you can secure our borders first. The only legislation that counts!
Jack, not only is this guy tr
June 13, 2007 - 14:50 ET by bassndudeJack, not only is this guy trying to hard to impress someone, he really thinks you get all the oil only after all teh plants and animals turn to rock, then by magic, turn into oil! His theroies are common, but he is not very well read and he sounds like he watched algores movie, and bit! Likely he is just out of school for the summer...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
steve2007, here is your infor
June 13, 2007 - 15:00 ET by bassndudesteve2007, here is your information on oil formation. Dr. Kenney was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century." Really steve, all you need do is apply yourself in school, and dont belive everything your told by algore, and you will be suprised what you can learn.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Kenney is certainly in the
June 13, 2007 - 15:21 ET by steve2007Kenney is certainly in the minority on this issue. The vast majority of scientists are convinced of the more conventional theory for oil formation. http://en.wikipedia....
You didn't even understand the principle behind the greenhouse effect. Did you even go to school?
steve, puleeezeeee....talk ab
June 13, 2007 - 15:52 ET by bassndudesteve, puleeezeeee....talk about not understanding greenhouse. And I posted earlier, we dont use wiki here. It is a public access point and anyone can write anything they want in there. It is not very well regulated, if at all. If this is where you are getting your information from, its no wonder you come off as an uneducated parrot. As for Kennedy, if you read his report, you will find the formula for crude oil, and the physics behind it. A little real research on your part, you will find that, while a minority in the population, a vast majority of the population of the sicentists that work with such things, all agree with Kennedy. Did you read the links or the paper Kennedy and the others wrote? Dont insult me when you come off as a kid out of middle school for the summer. You post your "wiki" referances, and dont know it is written by laymen. Use a real referance. And the abiogenic theroy dosent require biologics to form crude. But it accounts for the biomarkers.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, people use wiki on here
June 13, 2007 - 16:02 ET by LeonBass, people use wiki on here all the time.
When the conservative NBs use it, they always begin, NORMALLY I HATE TO USE WIKI, BUT...
you guys only reject it until it's the only source you can find, then you use it. Convenient indeed.
Could you provide a referen
June 13, 2007 - 12:06 ET by steve2007Could you provide a reference that CO2 levels were higher historically? A quick Google search led me to http://cdiac.ornl.go... , which is a US government web site that says current levels are unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Even if levels were higher historically, your conclusion is still wrong. I have no clue how my argument that it's silly to count the US as a carbon sink leads to the conclusion that CO2 levels are now higher than they ever have been. The huge increase in CO2 emissions is, on historical timescales, a sudden perturbation to the climate system. Previously, the CO2 levels were changing so slowly in comparison that they could be considered constant.
Please -- don't come here u
June 13, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Jack BauerPlease -- don't come here unarmed.
CO2 levels have been five to TEN times higher than today. Do you understand that? Is it sinking in?
Do your own research. Your self-induced ignorance is almost -- staggering.
I bet you think carbon dioxide is a "pollutant."
Still waiting on that ref
June 13, 2007 - 12:23 ET by steve2007Still waiting on that reference. And I mean, within reasonably modern timescales (say, past 500,000 years). I don't doubt that CO2 levels have fluctuated. All I am saying is that today's levels are very high, and that is because we've started emitting.
http://www.realclima...
realclimate? As a source? Ple
June 13, 2007 - 12:37 ET by bassnduderealclimate? As a source? Please. That is a global warming alarmist web site. Made for global warming, by global waming. You gotta do better than that. Your fear of going back farther than 500 000 years clearly shows that you know that CO2 levels have been higher in the past.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well realclimate.org is mai
June 13, 2007 - 12:54 ET by steve2007Well realclimate.org is maintained by climate scientists. I suppose they could all be corrupt, or poor scientists. Doubtful though.
http://www.realclima...
What are your sources?
The reason I don't want to go back more than 500,000 years is not because I want to hide the fact that the atmosphere was much different then, but because it is irrelevant. Humanity is accustomed to the modern state of the Earth. Are you advocating a return to something much different?
What a non-scientific disem
June 13, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Jack BauerWhat a non-scientific disembler. Pathetic.
You know you've won an argu
June 13, 2007 - 13:05 ET by steve2007You know you've won an argument when your opponent just resorts to insults.
steve2007, this is all a disc
June 13, 2007 - 16:14 ET by bassndudesteve2007, this is all a discussion we have had before on this site. Let me do this the easy way. Chumly was another of your buddies, maybe even you in a diffrent life. NL207 did this alot better than I could so here you go. Just replace Chumly, with steve2007.
"NL207 Says:
April 5, 2007 - 20:06
Chumly, lets see if you've a shread of common sense at all. Like some of he others on this board, my academic training is as a scientist. I am going to do something here that is a legitimate engineering estimation technique and that should be enough to convince even you that these gobal warming alarmists deserve neither heed nor credence. Generally, this technique is called a bounds analysis. [See here, for a couple of course descriptions that teach this thinking. I got 1.1 million hits on the search. I just picked one of the first few. ] It is intended to discover the maxima and minima of the range of some result over ths domain of its input. It can be used in the reverse as well, given a range of values, estimate the domain of variability, which I will do here.
Some facts, all of which may be easily Googled. (1) the mean temperaure of the planet earth is 288 K. (2) The earth's atmosphere accounts for greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees K, meaning that without its atmosphere, the mean surface temperature of the earth would be a frigid 255 degrees K. (3) The present concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 385 ppm. (4) Variously, Scientists claim that water vapour, that is, H2O, represents 60-95% of the greenhouse effect. the balance is attributable to an assortment of other greenhouse gases including CO2. (5) the measured increase in mean surface temperature of the earth over the last century is agreed by science to be 0.6 degrees K. (6) Over the last century, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by approximately 35%
What we desire to do here is examine the maximum contribution Human activity might have made to the climate system.
Lets assume that ALL the change in global temperature observed in the last century was caused by CO2 increases,i.e., there were NO natural variations.
Lets also assume that changes in CO2 were the only significant factor in play, i.e., all the change can be blamed on CO2.
And last, lets assume that all the change in CO2 concentration can be blamed on human activity.
Under these asumptions, we see that a 35% increase in CO2 presumably caused a 0.6/33.0 or 1.8% change in the aggregate greenhouse effect. This suggests that CO2 can be estimated to represent about (3*0.6)/33.0 of the aggregate greenhouse effect bfore the increase, or about 5.4%. This number agrees very closely with one of the computations made and published by climate scientists that assessed water vapor as 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. The climate scientists who suggest that water vapor is only 60-70% of the aggregate effect are likely in error, since their result is greatly at variance with observed data. Interestingly, these are all pro-AGW climate scientists who place the water vapor contribution this low.
Now, Chumly, if you can't see the validity of these estimation techniques and are instead taken in by this junk science Gore and his allies are pedaling, then you are a colossal fool."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
If you look at one of the
June 13, 2007 - 17:09 ET by steve2007If you look at one of the posts I made to you earlier today, I made the EXACT SAME estimation as NL207. I, like him, said that humans have contributed roughly ~2% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Now you are trying to impress me with your ability to repeat what I say?
If you bothered to read my other post, you would have noticed that I also said that this is not to be ignored. A very crude estimation would be to say that we would then have an increase in temperature of 2% of 33C, or slightly less than 1C. Really, the system is much more complicated to that, but I pointed you to a paper that discusses this more thoroughly.
Where NL207 fails in his argument is that he says 2% of greenhouse gases are insignificant. That's wrong.
A major concern with scientists is that the CO2 concentrations are still increasing, and that 2% could turn into 5% if we burn all our fossil fuel reserves. That leads to perhaps 2C in temperature increases by this same crude estimation technique.
In reality, once the polar caps melt, the albido will go down significantly, and the temperature will increase much more.
How about you learn to read before you post?
In a word, yes! I would reall
June 13, 2007 - 15:58 ET by bassndudeIn a word, yes! I would really like to return to the days of a 30% oxygen atmosphere. People live longer, they heal faster, and the immune system is enhanced.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Who says 500,000 is reasona
June 13, 2007 - 12:56 ET by Jack BauerWho says 500,000 is reasonable?
If your looking at the vostok
June 13, 2007 - 12:19 ET by bassndudeIf your looking at the vostok charts, then you have a problem with discerning information in scientific terms. If you look back farther, you will find a period of 4400 ppm in the lower atmosphere, lessing over time. If you look, you will find the lower atmosphere also was 30% Oxygen in the past. The Vostok research also shows, AND concludes, that temp dosent follow CO2 increase, but that CO2 increase follows temp increase. So at least, read the report, dont scan it or use search words.
ave a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And how long ago was the at
June 13, 2007 - 12:35 ET by steve2007And how long ago was the atmosphere in this state? You seem to have trouble understanding the argument I have been trying to make, which is that it is ludicrous to consider the US as a carbon sink if one compares the climate system to several hundred years ago (not several million).
Also, your point about CO2 increase following temperature increase is irrelevant. That's all well and good that this is what has happened in the past, but that's clearly not what's happening now. I don't think you would argue that in this case the CO2 increase has happened first.
If YOU read more than the first paragraph of the introduction you would understand that the CO2 emissions that followed the quick temperature increases historically acted as positive feedback, further increasing the temperature. What makes you so confident that this feedback will not happen this time, just like always?
steve, I really am not sure w
June 13, 2007 - 13:18 ET by bassndudesteve, I really am not sure why you are concerned about atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas anyway. There is another greenhouse gas that folks just ignore, and it is far more abundant and far more efficient at retaining heat than CO2. As a matter of fact, compared to it, CO2 is a very minor player. The fact that the US is a NET CO2 sink, is a fact tho. Check the carbon credits which is a direct reflection of CO2 producing countries. You will find that a great majority of the credits sold, are sold by the US.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sure, water is a greenhouse
June 13, 2007 - 13:37 ET by steve2007Sure, water is a greenhouse gas too, but we have not boosted water emissions like we have CO2 emissions. While the total percentage of greenhouse gases that humans produce is quite small, since the sinks are not increasing at the same rate, this is a cumulative effect. Over time, we've managed to add 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. While this is a ~35% increase in CO2, it is perhaps only a ~2% increase in total greenhouse gases (assuming CO2 represents 5% of greenhouse gases). I believe this is the point you are trying to make.
However, this is not to be taken lightly. The Earth's temperature is set so that the amount of energy which comes from the Sun is equal to the amount of energy radiated to space. Now, when we perturb this system by adding an additional 2% of greenhouse gases, the amount of energy radiated to space will go down because of the greenhouse effect. That means, to achieve equilibrium again, the Earth's temperature must rise. This is explained clearly here:
http://arxiv.org/abs...
In the paper, they estimate the temperature increase.
I think the man induced CO2 l
June 13, 2007 - 13:49 ET by bassndudeI think the man induced CO2 level is somewhere around .02% of totals.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
My calculation was based si
June 13, 2007 - 13:57 ET by steve2007My calculation was based simply on the fact that CO2 levels have risen from ~280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to ~380 ppm today. One reason to think this is primarily human-caused is that it is in stark contrast to what one would expect from looking at the ice core data. More evidence can be found by looking at the isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere, as described in the realclimate.org link I provided.
I also assumed CO2 made up ~5% of greenhouse gases.
I dont understand why you ref
June 13, 2007 - 14:06 ET by bassndudeI dont understand why you refer to CO2 as a greenhouse gas, when it has been established that CO2 levels rise following Temp increases. CO2 dosent come first, it comes after. This is established in the ice core samples from two seperate sources. This being the case, what is the greenhouse effect? The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. If water vapor increases temps, CO2 levels follow. And all of this is mute anyway as it seems that the warming trend is mostly in the northern hemisphere.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It is well-established that
June 13, 2007 - 14:18 ET by steve2007It is well-established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All this means is that it absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared range. The greenhouse effect is the process where greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb IR radiation radiated from the Earth. Shortly afterwards, that radiation is re-emitted, both up and down (to space, and back to Earth). If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, all of the IR radiation from the Earth would go out to space. But with the gases, the Earth is warmed.
Now I will explain the ice core CO2 lag. Some external process (probably the Sun) initiates warming of the Earth. This causes oceanic carbon to be liberated. The time lag of 800 years is just the right amount of time for this to happen. This extra CO2 in the atmosphere then contributes to the greenhouse effect, and the temperature increases further.
The reason why this lag is no argument against AGW is that any other process could initiate the carbon release. But the greenhouse effect is still there.
The Earth had already achie
June 13, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Jack BauerSays who? What an idiotic thing to say. A truly ludicrous assertion pulled, apparently, out of your ass.
Look:http://upload.wikimedi
June 13, 2007 - 12:44 ET by steve2007Look:
http://upload.wikime...
CO2 levels were trapped between roughly 180 and 300 ppm for the past half million years. The horizontal axis is in units of thousands of years, so looking at the data, it clearly takes AT LEAST a thousand years for any sort of change in CO2 levels. In that respect, since we are considering the time since the industrial revolution, we can certainly consider CO2 levels as roughly constant.
Now who sounds like an idiot? Send your references now.
We dont use wiki here as a re
June 13, 2007 - 13:29 ET by bassndudeWe dont use wiki here as a referance. The reason being is that anyone can edit and make changes to any posting there. It is not a fact based referance.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass...correction
June 13, 2007 - 13:32 ET by LionKingBass, sorry to correct you. Liberals use wiki quite often.
[Leon, TP, WW...you know who you are.]
And Icecore data dosent go ba
June 13, 2007 - 13:31 ET by bassndudeAnd Icecore data dosent go back that far. Where is your data from?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
As cited on wikipedia:Vosto
June 13, 2007 - 13:48 ET by steve2007As cited on wikipedia:
Vostok temperature data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
Vostok CO2 data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
EPICA DomeC temperature data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc_dd.txt
EPICA DomeC CO2 data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-650k-390k.txt
Right. The point is consist
June 12, 2007 - 19:41 ET by dahliatraversRight. The point is consistency. Pick an interview style and go with it. If it's debate, great; debate all your guests. If it's schmooze, DON'T JUST SCHMOOZE CERTAIN GUESTS.
Harry Smith is one of the r
June 12, 2007 - 15:13 ET by daveinbocaHarry Smith is one of the reasons CBS will remain way behind ABC & NBC in the morning show ratings. This pompous fool epitomizes leftardo arrogance and totally biased "news" reporting.
Smith is stuck-on-stupid, pure and simple.
Contradiction
June 13, 2007 - 00:01 ET by steve2007In this exchange, Tony Snow said that the president promotes technical solutions to global warming with "No, what you're, what you're arguing is that you regulate your way in. It never works, hasn't. What the president says is use technology as the way of doing it."
Meanwhile, a couple days back an article citing British scientist Roland Clift was referred to on NB as a positive thing for its criticism of the increased interest in biofuels to combat global warming. In the article, he criticizes the belief that such technical solutions exist to global warming:
"Kemp and Clift point out that the surging global interest in biofuels derives from a “false belief” among politicians that there must be a technical solution to climate change.
Kemp said: ”Underlying all this is the assumption that we have to preserve the mobility and freedom to travel that we now enjoy at all costs.
“However, when you look at the science of climate change it is clear there are no such simple solutions. Humanity has to accept that.” "
NB even went on to criticize Al Gore on this issue of biofuels. So which is it? Biofuels are good or biofuels are bad? I don't think you can have it both ways.
That's a phony dichotomy, steve
June 13, 2007 - 13:21 ET by RJ"Biofuels are good or biofuels are bad? I don't think you can have it both ways."
Have it both ways? That's a phony, invented dichotomy, steve. It comes from either being disingenuous or making lazy assumptions. NewsBusters and posters have been pretty consistent in their criticism of biofuels. In fact, I don't even recall anthropogenic GWers here praising it.
Also, the column focused on Snow's disagreement with Smith on whether or not America was leading in "climate change", and did not mention biofuels.
But since you brought it up, what is your opinion about biofuels?
Snow was referring to biofu
June 13, 2007 - 13:41 ET by steve2007Snow was referring to biofuels when he mentioned technological solutions to climate change.
My opinion is that corn-based ethanol is a bad idea because the energy gain in the process is minimal at best, and it requires extensive farming.
Brazil has been doing well with ethanol from sugar cane though, and its production is much more efficient from an energy standpoint.
And you know that, steve, because......
June 13, 2007 - 13:49 ET by RJ"Snow was referring to biofuels..."
And you know that, steve, because you're psychic?
BTW, your argument that there is a dichotomy on the subject at NB is still a contrived invention.
From Bush's 2007 State of t
June 13, 2007 - 14:03 ET by steve2007From Bush's 2007 State of the Union address:
"To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative
fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion
gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017"
Also, from http://www.whitehous...
Under the President's proposal, the fuel standard will be set at 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017.
This will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use in 2017.
The President's proposal will also increase the scope of the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanding it to an Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS).
Alternative Fuel Standard will include sources such as corn ethanol,
cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and
alternative fuels.
What they dont say is it will
June 13, 2007 - 16:29 ET by bassndudeWhat they dont say is it will be more expensive than crude base fuels. Biofuels require 1 and a half gallons of fuel to make one gallon of biofuel. How is this helping? Its not. Just gives you liberals something to feel good about, and lets us warm up this iceburg we live on, he he he he.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Perhaps the dichotomy at NB
June 13, 2007 - 14:07 ET by steve2007Perhaps the dichotomy at NB was unintentional, but by being in favor of Snow when he says that technological solutions to global warming are needed, it is there.
Also, I'm not psychic. Just better-read.
"better read?" Thanks, steve, for proving you're an elitist jerk
June 13, 2007 - 14:22 ET by RJ"better read?" Thanks, steve, for proving that you're an elitist jerk.
Of course I'm familiar with the President's statements on biofuels, but they have nothing to do with the Snow-Smith conversation. That you have to bring them in shows that you cannot back up your contention that there is a dichotomy on biofuels at NB.
Again, the column was focused on Snow's rebuke of Smith, and only referred to "technology." It most certainly did not refer to biofuels.
Hah -- I make one remark ab
June 13, 2007 - 15:13 ET by steve2007Hah -- I make one remark about being better read amid dozens of much worse insults, and I'm the elitist jerk.
To say that Snow most certainly was not referring to biofuels is a fairly strong statement. I'm not saying it only refers to biofuels, but that biofuels are one of a number of things he is referring to. I sent the Bush statements to demonstrate the fact that the administration is pursuing biofuels as a strategy and to provide evidence that when Snow said "technology", biofuels were most likely included.
What makes you so certain it did not refer to biofuels?
Of course you're an elitist jerk, Steve
June 13, 2007 - 16:07 ET by RJOf course you're an elitist jerk, steve.....but not very good at it. You keep getting slapped around intellectually, but insist on making references to your supposed superiority. If you were able to make strong arguments, you wouldn't have to play that protective game.
Speaking of slapping you around, "what makes you so certain it did not refer to biofuels?" is resorting to asking me to prove a negative....and that's the act of a backpeddaling man. I'll take it as an admission that Snow said nothing about biofuels and that you cannot back up your original contention that there is a dichotomy in the NB position on biofuels.
RJ, I must disagree with you
June 13, 2007 - 16:17 ET by bassndudeRJ, I must disagree with you on steve. He is in no way an elitist! He isint that well educated. He has a dictionary in front of him and he reads "wiki" and uses it for referances. Elitist? I think not. Wanna be? Yes. Now jerk, yeah, you have a point.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, we're not in disagreement
June 13, 2007 - 16:21 ET by RJBass, we're not in disagreement. I use the term "elitist" mockingly. Leftists often think they're elites, but we know better..... ;^>
You guys really are quite p
June 13, 2007 - 17:23 ET by steve2007You guys really are quite pathetic. Not one of you has countered any of my statements about the science of global warming with anything substantive. Plenty of insults, but that doesn't really get you anywhere from a scientific point of view.
No, stevie, it's YOU who is pathetic
June 14, 2007 - 08:51 ET by RJNo, stevie, it's YOU who is pathetic, with your lame, faux-elitist "I'm too smart for you" nonsense.
If you're so brilliant, why haven't you been able to back up your phony dichotomy regarding NB and biofuels?
I've already established th
June 13, 2007 - 17:28 ET by steve2007I've already established that the Bush administration is trying to pursue biofuels, so when Snow refers to "technology" it is perfectly reasonable to assume biofuels are lumped in with that. Yet you claim quite fervently that they are not. Thus the onus is on you to demonstrate that in this particular case he is not referring to them.
Are you really as stupid as your posts make you appear stevie?
June 16, 2007 - 15:01 ET by RJYou've "established" that the Bush Administration is trying to pursue biofuels? Wow! Really? Thanks for the newsflash, stevie.
"...onus is on you to demonstrate that in this particular case he is not referring to them."
Still demanding that I prove a negative? Snow made no reference to biofuels, but you insist that because you "intuited" that's what he meant, there's a dichotomy at NB.
Stevie, are you really as stupid as your posts make you appear? ;^>
For the record, MikeB is corr
June 13, 2007 - 23:16 ET by dahliatraversFor the record, MikeB is correct. North America is a net carbon sink.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5388/442
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/27/134213/138
Thanks for all the great di
June 13, 2007 - 23:45 ET by steve2007Thanks for all the great discussion. It was like I was trying to explain things to a bunch of bicycles.
Great strategy, stevie.
June 14, 2007 - 08:59 ET by RJBuh-bye, stevie. Great strategy. Convince yourself that you've retained a little of your self-respect by proclaiming that you're too smart for everyone else....and then run away.
Too bad you didn't respond to the links peppered throughout the thread that proved you to be an idiot.