About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Hannity says stolen emails are evidence global warming is a "hoax"

November 24, 2009 10:02 pm ET

From the November 24 edition of Fox News:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Beck's "brand new reality" on climate change relies on distorting apparently stolen emails

Limbaugh distorts apparently stolen emails to falsely claim global warming is "made up"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by donwelty (November 24, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
         
      Science and an understanding of truth are foreign to Hannity. Hannity has as much understanding of complicated issues as high school graduates and not much more--Oh. Hannity is a high school graduate only. He has no understanding of complex issues and neither does Limbaugh or Beck, both of whom never graduated from college.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Übermensch (November 24, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
         
      So...some hacking into some email is okay. And some hacking is bad?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 24, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
           
        Conservatives can change their entire philosophy depending on whether the situation supports or refutes their own agenda.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 24, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
      2  
      I have to ask, Gate keepers of WHAT? What gate are they standing guard over? Scientists don't usually distort their own data to get money or grants. Maybe for the pharm industry...

      Greedy scientists? Again, greedy for what?

      So their conclusion here is that scientists across the world would fabricate their own data to get money (but they dont explain how saying there is global warming if it is a hoax can get them money of course) and scientists are now against capitalism. Does this really sound like a logical argument? Scientists who spend their whole life trying to gain credibility in the field through their work would jeopardize it all b.c they either have previously invested in something that would make them rich if global warming was true and/or just plain hate capitalism.

      That is about 95 percent of the world's scientists and almost every single scientific organization of merit in the entire world. Is this like all the scientists read Marx and now they want to work in conjunction to bring down capitalism in the world? Shockingly, Ive heard worse conspiracy theories than this already this year. But this one has so many fallacies and illogical jumps and rationalizations its just patently retarded on its face. You can tell, FOX is grasping at straws here trying to figure out how best to tell their viewers the entire scientific community around the globe can work together and against all of the FOX viewers best interests. That is a tough one to explain even with FOXs mindless audience.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (November 25, 2009 12:24 am ET)
         
      Sean Hannity is evidence that Faux News is a hoax.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Civic Racecar (November 25, 2009 1:52 am ET)
      1  
      How is wanting to improve the environment an attack on capitalism? Hannity has absolutely lost it. You can't be greedy and anti-capitalist. As Sharpe alluded to, if they had a hidden agenda to get rich, then they would be practicing capitalism. That's the foundation of capitalism--asymmetric information.

      I think an excellent experiment would be to place Hannity in a small airtight chamber for several hours. This way his man-made carbon dioxide can fill the chamber until he passes out due to a lack of oxygen. Maybe then he will actually understand why reducing fossil fuel emissions is important.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 2:38 am ET)
           
        Not to mention that fossil fuels are a finite resource and within the next century, the oil of planet Earth will likely run dry. Our continued reliance on oil as a primary energy source is stupid on many levels. CO2 emissions, damaging the environment, possible impending doom. But what gets lost in all that buzz is the fact that even if global warming is some giant scam (its not but just saying) we STILL need to seek our and advocate for extensive use of alternative energy to run our society. We are trying to ignore the facts right now by making almost no preparations for the inevitable tapping the Earth dry.

        So here is the list for why implementing environmental legislation that forces new energy sources upon the US economy - global warming, natural disaster, threat to national security, destruction of most coastal cities, destroying the environment and our Earth beyond repair, inability to power our economy, sky-rocketing prices of more and more limited oil, excessive reliance on continued diplomacy with foreign nations to drill, economic collapse due to inevitable rise of oil prices and complete reliance on oil to run the economy, melting of the polar ice caps which would trigger extinction of various animal life resulting in catastrophic consequences to the ecosystem combined with migration and refugee sizes the likes of which humankind has never seen, inability to rapidly find, develop and implement alternative energy sources on a massive scale, did i miss anything? Plus reform could result in massive job creation, growth of new private green industries, a cleaner environment and healthier planet, assurance that we no longer have to worry about possible impact of global warming, less reliance on foreign oil, improved economic output as a result of cheaper energy sources and cheaper goods as well as a slow phasing out of fossil fuels to avoid financial oollapse when the oil runs dry.

        And the argument against enivironmental reform - the economy may suffer in the short-term because of mandates to decrease carbon output and initial investment by the government to curb pollution and spark the rapid growth of new industries and new research and development of alternative energy sources. I rest my case! Even if you take out global warming, the benefits of environmental reform focusing on creation of a green industry to find, produce and promote implementation of alternative energy sources would far out-weight the cost.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (November 25, 2009 6:04 am ET)
          2  
          Ah, but see free market fundamentalism means that you get to use endless amounts of resources without silly little things like reality infringing on your freedom.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by grunt (November 25, 2009 9:50 am ET)
           
        You can absolutely be an greedy anti-capitalist. Stalin? Hitler? Caesar? Monarchs? Mussolini? Oligarchies? Were you joking or were you being serious?

        You can be greedy if you are for the concentration of power.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 10:23 am ET)
             
          Yea but she said scientists across the world are making this all up (they lose me after that part) for two reasons - they are anticapitalism and they want to make lots of money off it. I guess the anticapitalism part could be plausible if the rest of it was because the current economy relies on oil as its primary energy source. But how would one make money off global warming. I would think they are saying that scientists have already invested in industries that would become more profitable like solar panels and electric cars.

          But if they INVESTED IN INDUSTRY to get rich off global warming (ignoring the extremely unlikely part that tens of thousands of international scientists coming together to plan this and inact it at the same time, seems like a ridiculous motive to compromise your profession and life's work for an investment that may never even pay off) they would have to rely on the current capitalist economy staying in place. So the two ideas that they are anticapitalist and hope to make profit off lying seems to be contradictory. However, with the ridiculous nature of this story, such a contradiction seems like the least of one's concerns when trying to actually convince people this is all true.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by grunt (November 25, 2009 10:45 am ET)
               
            It isn't that hard to understand on my end. Scientists receive gov't grants. That is how the majority of this science is funded. Climate bills and treaties are one of the biggest ways governments can control industry and wealth. If they control energy and growth and development, they control the lifeblood of wealth and economic growth. Climate change legislation is also a way for countries to strip sovereignty away from more prosperous or less prosperous nations.

            If governments are willing to give billions upon billions of dollars to the scientific community for this research, why wouldn't scientists be willing to go along with it? Grants are their lifeblood. It isn't necessarily about the investment for these scientists, it is about the funding that they are receiving that drives this line of work.

            Is my theory correct? Only time will tell. I do think we should always question whether something is legit science or manipulated. I don't think someone is a denier if they question how scientists have reached their conclusions and whether or not the data is conslusive and whether or not the data was found in an honest and open way. Isn't that how science is supposed to be? Open and honest? If it isn't, then it isn't science.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Civic Racecar (November 25, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
                 
              Science should be open and honest. Findings should be tested and questioned. However, debate always ends when people start attacking each other on a personal level. Calling these scientists anti-capitalist is nothing more than a personal attack. That is what is wrong with the direction of their whole conversation.

              Hannity is far to prone to calling individuals Communists, Fascists, Socialist, etc. This stifles debate and creates a coerce atmosphere where the only options are "you're either with us or against us." This kind of attitude is what is wrong with FNC and its supporters. If you go on FNC and claim a middle ground or liberal position, then you are immediately attacked. This happens all the time on Hannity where one individual makes a middle ground comment about Van Jones or Jennings and then Hannity claims that they support communism or NAMBLA or statutory rape.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grunt (November 25, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
                   
                I agree with you about Hannity. He is a Republican hack. He says he criticizes them as well, but he is far too hypocritical for me. I fancy myself a libertarian, and I agree with Hannity on some fronts. He is far too quick to call someone one of those names.

                I still find it ridiculous that scientists who debate whether AGW is real are called "deniers" boggles my mind. If they have science that produces another theory in their mind, why are they called deniers? They just have a differing scientific opinion and theory. Demonization has been perpetrated by both sides in this debate.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by gpp (November 25, 2009 8:00 am ET)
        1
      STILX is still quiet. Where are you man?

      Hey, where is all that talk about cherry-picking, moon walking, consensus building denier stuff? What, cat got your tongue?

      Well, the real deniers now are not those who don't believe in the man made global warming theory, it is the global warming scientists themeselves. They are denying the evidence that the earth is cooling, they cant even believe the data, wont publish it, and will block others from publishing anything that says AGW isnt happening. These global warming scientists, are the REAL deniers. And they are chasing the money, hundreds of billions of dollars spent to study and combat man made global warming. These scientists are being paid by the govt, and by the energy companies who will make big money with cap and trade.

      This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

      The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

      This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (November 25, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
      1  
      Whenever an agenda driven commentator tries to make an argument that isn't based on fact, their argument always ends up in a conspiracy... it has to, because logic dictates it.

      So when you want to front an agenda that ther is no global warming or climate change... and you spout out false facts like 2009 was the coldest year in decades (when in fact it was one of the top 5 warmest years in the past 130 years)... then you shoud conspiracy.

      Aliens in Roswell.
      President Obama was born in Kenya.
      Scientists are colluding to perpetrate a lie.

      sigh
      Report Abuse