CNN's Glenn Beck to host hour-long global warming smear-fest
SUMMARY: A CNN press release declared that Glenn Beck's upcoming "special report" will "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth." Beck has repeatedly advanced falsehoods related to global climate change, cited debunked scientists to support his doubts that "we're causing" global warming, and regularly attacked Gore.
During the May 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck will air an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: Climate of Fear" that, according to an April 30 CNN press release, will "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth of 20-foot sea level rises and the disastrous effects of increased carbon dioxide levels." As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck has repeatedly advanced falsehoods related to global climate change, cited debunked scientists to support his doubts that "we're causing" global warming and developed a pattern of attacking Gore.
Most recently, on the April 30 edition of nationally syndicated radio show, Beck falsely claimed that "even the U.N. says" Gore is wrong in suggesting sea levels could rise by 20 feet. He went on to liken Gore's climate change awareness campaign to the tactics Hitler used in "rounding up the Jews and exterminating them."
Climate change is a frequent topic on Beck's CNN Headline News show, but a Media Matters search* has found that since the show's inception, Beck has apparently hosted guests who appear to accept the consensus among the scientific community relating to global warming on just two occasions -- compared with at least 17 appearances by guests who have challenged to various degrees the scientific consensus on global warming.
Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented criticism of the claim in Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth (Rodale Books, May 2006), that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet ... Interestingly, the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea." Gore made the same claim in his documentary:
GORE: If [the West Antarctic ice shelf] were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of the ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that's roughly the same size -- Greenland would also raise sea level almost 20 feet if it went.
On the April 30 edition of his radio program, Beck denounced Gore's sea level claim, falsely stating that "even the U.N. says that's not true":
BECK: I mean, they are they were telling us things in Al Gore's global warming special that are not true. That the seas will rise 20 feet -- even the U.N. says that's not true. So you got to have the fear, we're all going to die.
Criticism of Gore's assertion about rising sea levels was highlighted by a March 13 New York Times article in which science writer William J. Broad set up a false comparison, suggesting that the 2007 report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which "estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches," contradicted Gore's claim, "citing no particular time frame," that seas could rise "up to 20 feet." But the IPCC projection to which Broad was referring involved rising sea levels as they are affected before 2100 by "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" -- not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome at an indeterminate point in the future.
A chart projecting the rise of sea levels in six different scenarios showed that "the best estimate for the high scenario," which defined the "likely range" of temperature increases over the next century to be from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," resulting in an increase in sea levels between 0.26 meters and 0.59 meters, which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches. But the IPCC further stated that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. Broad's apples-to-oranges comparison on sea levels was noted by Bob Somerby on his weblog, The Daily Howler.
In addition, Media Matters noted that University of Arizona professor Jonathan Overpeck's 2006 study, which predates the IPCC report, concluded that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are "on track" to melt at a quicker rate than previously expected, which, according to Overpeck, could lead to a sea level rise of 13 to 20 feet in the future. From a March 23, 2006, University of Arizona News article on Overpeck's findings:
The Earth's warming temperatures are on track to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets sooner than previously thought and ultimately lead to a global sea level rise of at least 20 feet, according to new research.
If the current warming trends continue, by 2100 the Earth will likely be at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was nearly 130,000 years ago. At that time, significant portions of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, resulting in a sea level about 20 feet (six meters) higher than present day.
[...]
Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.
"We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade. If we don't do something soon, we're committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."
Beck's global warming panelists
In promoting his special, Beck has repeatedly claimed, as he did during the April 26 edition of Glenn Beck, that "there are two sides to every debate, and you're not getting the other side on the story." Beck stated that his special would look at "the flip side of global warming," presumably focusing on those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Yet, a Media Matters for America review* has found that it is Beck who is not showing his viewers "the other side" of the debate -- that of the mainstream scientific community. Since his TV show began in May 2006, Beck has hosted guests that challenge various aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming at least 17 different times. By comparison, a Media Matters search of Beck's television show has found that he apparently has hosted -- on only two occasions -- guests who appear to accept the consensus among the scientific community relating to global warming. For instance:
- Martin Durkin, director of
the documentary film The
Great Global Warming Swindle
that aired in March on the UK's Channel 4 and, according to Beck, is
"very similar" to his own "Exposed: Climate of
Fear." The documentary's website states that
Durkin's film "brings together the arguments of leading
scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide
released by human industrial activity is the cause of rising global
temperatures today." An April 25 article
in the UK's
Scotsman reported that the
film is "under
fire" for
claiming "that the world was hotter during the 'Medieval Warm
Period' based on a graph that ended in 1975, and that volcanoes
produce more carbon dioxide than humans. According to one study, volcanoes
produce about 2 per cent of the emissions from human use of fossil
fuels." A 2000 article
from The Guardian noted that
Durkin made a film in 1999 which argued that silicone implants reduce the
incidence of breast cancer, as well as a 1997 Channel 4 series called
"Against Nature" that, according to The
Guardian, "compared environmentalists ... to Nazis,
conspiring against the world's poor" and caused the
UK's Independent Television Commission to:
hand down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology.
Durkin appeared on the April 30 edition of Beck's program to discuss his documentary and the criticism it has received in the UK. During his appearance, the filmmaker proclaimed, "Oh, the recycling thing has just gone crazy. There's a kind of -- I suppose once you've got the end of the world hovering over the horizon, it's an excuse for doing almost everything." Beck later asked Durkin: "We're doing our special on global warming this week. How much trouble are we in, do you suppose? What should I expect after airing a documentary very similar to yours?" Durkin replied: "Oh, welcome to Hell."
- Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), an anti-environmental group that has reportedly joined the "Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change," an organization that calls itself "a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for urgent action by governments." Johnson appeared on the May 1 edition of Glenn Beck to repeat the TCPR's misleading and unsubstantiated claim that in 2006 Al Gore's Nashville mansion consumed nearly than 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, which Johnson says is "about 20 times more energy than the average American." The TCPR first made its allegation against Gore in a February 2007 press release that, as Media Matters repeatedly documented, omitted steps that Gore has reportedly taken to reduce the effect of his home energy usage. Moreover, a February 27 Associated Press article questioned TCPR's assertion that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. The AP reported that "according to bills [it] reviewed," "[t]he Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006," while TCPR "said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours." The AP reported that Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): Beck has hosted Inhofe, who, as Media Matters has documented, once falsely stated "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today" and, in 2003, called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Most recently, on the March 22 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck allowed Inhofe to distort Gore's response to a challenge Inhofe made of him during his March 21 appearance before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Inhofe noted that he asked Gore at the Senate hearing to sign a pledge requiring that his Tennessee residence consume no more energy than the average U.S. household. Inhofe's pledge stems from allegations that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. Inhofe told Beck: "I said, 'Are you ready to change the way you live, 'cause you're consuming 20 times the amount of energy?' and he would not respond to it. I asked him three times if you go back and review the tape." In fact, as Media Matters for America repeatedly noted, Gore did not explicitly answer with a yes or no to Inhofe's question. Gore said that he and his family "purchase wind energy and other green energy that does not produce carbon dioxide," but Inhofe interrupted him six times.
- Chris Horner: Horner, counsel for the energy industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (Regnery, February 2007), has appeared on Beck on at least three separate occasions to attack the "hysterical movement" of environmental activists warning of the threats of global warming (April 23, April 5, and March 21). For instance, during the April 5 edition of Beck's television program, Horner declared Gore's film to be "pure science fiction," and, among other things, pushed the misleading claim that that "it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming," and that "it hasn't warmed since 1998." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, according to NASA, 1998 was a particularly warm year because "a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures." Despite the temperature spike that occurred in 1998, the Climatic Research Unit's Global Temperature Record and a surface temperature analysis of 2006 by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show a general warming trend since 1970. Moreover, a February 2007 NASA Earth Observatory news release states, "By the early 1980s, temperatures surpassed those of the 1940s and, despite ups and downs from year to year, they continued rising beyond the year 2000."
- Bjorn Lomborg: Beck has also hosted Bjorn Lomborg on at least two occasions (January 17 and September 21, 2006). As Media Matters has noted, Lomborg is a "political scientist" at the Copenhagen Business School who purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- were overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes." Lomborg has repeatedly attacked Gore's documentary and, as Media Matters documented used a false comparison to suggest that the IPCC "fundamentally rejects" Gore's claim that the world's sea-level could rise 20 feet as a result of warming.
- Mike Huckabee: A Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor, Huckabee was a guest on the April 25 edition of Glenn Beck. In response to Beck's question about whether "global warming" was "real" or "not," Huckabee replied that as "a Christian" he "think[s] we ought to take good care of the Earth. ... But as far as blaming human beings for enjoying the environment, that's a little bit extreme."
- Darrell Ankarlo: Beck hosted Ankarlo, a Phoenix radio host, to discuss global warming, among other things, on the April 23 edition of his television show. Ankarlo accused Gore of "creating these myths surrounding, you know, our global problem" and claimed Gore was "using" global warming "to gear up for an elections process in '08." Ankarlo did not specify what "myths" Gore was "creating" about global warming.
- Don Easterbrook: On the March 13 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck had on geology professor Easterbrook to argue that carbon dioxide is not "the cause of global warming." As Media Matters has documented, Easterbrook has predicted global cooling between 2065 and 2100 and denies that human-produced carbon dioxide has contributed to global warming over the past century.
- Patrick Michaels: On the same program as Easterbrook's appearance, Beck hosted Michaels, a Cato Institute senior fellow, to cast doubt on global warming. For his part, Michaels advanced the misleading claim that Gore "exaggerated" claims about rising sea levels due to global warming and claimed the U.N. "specifically [said] that there is no basis in the scientific literature existing at this time for these claims of massive sea level rise."
- James Spann: Spann, a meteorologist who does not believe that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming, was a guest on the January 22 edition of Glenn Beck. During his appearance, Spann claimed "the earth's climate has changed since the day God put it here. We have had these cyclical changes, and I believe that most of this is purely natural. ... So in our (meteorologists) opinion, a large part of this is not manmade. It's natural."
- Richard Lindzen: A Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, Lindzen has falsely claimed that "there is no agreement that the warming we've seen is due to man." Lindzen has also understated the extent of warming that has occurred and the level of scientific certainty that man has contributed to that warming. In a July 2, 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Lindzen accused Gore of "shrill alarmism." During his May 26, 2006, appearance on Glenn Beck, he agreed with Beck's false claim that in the last century "temperatures here in America" are "pretty much flat," responding: "Well, yes, as far as we can tell."
By contrast, Beck appears to have hosted only two individuals, each of whom appeared once, who discussed global warming and appeared to agree with the scientific consensus. Most recently, on March 8, Beck hosted Matt Prescott of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); while not explicitly supporting or denying global warming in a discussion of a PETA letter that called on Gore to "act as a role model in the fight against global warming and becoming personally a vegetarian," Prescott stated that activists would do more good for the environment by becoming vegetarian and that it is a "pretty big problem" that Gore does not "suggest to people the fact the going vegetarian, simply just cutting the meat out of your diet, is the best way to help your environment." Prescott argued that becoming a vegetarian is "the most accessible way and the most effective way to help curtail global warming." In addition, on the March 2 edition of his television show, Beck hosted Tom Arnold, chief environmental officer for TerraPass, who discussed the merits of purchasing carbon offsets to reduce one's "carbon footprint."
Previous attacks on Gore
- On the March 22 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck likened Gore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for Gore's statement, during his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, that he would initiate a "mass persuasion campaign" to urge Congress to act on climate change.
- On the June 7, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Beck compared An Inconvenient Truth to Nazi propaganda. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "[W]hen you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening" in An Inconvenient Truth.
- On the July 12, 2006, edition of Glenn Beck, Beck cited recent violence in the Middle East and India as evidence that "we've got World War III to fight," while also warning of "the impending apocalypse." Beck added that President Bush is facing the threat "by himself," while Gore is more concerned with the fact that "[t]he ice is starting to melt in Greenland."
- On the February 27 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck asserted that Gore "has a huge carbon footprint" and said that "the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006." Beck did not report any of Gore's reported efforts, which according to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, include the Gores' use of "renewable sources" from the "Green Power Switch" program "actually costs more for the Gores."
- On the June 15, 2006, edition of his radio show, after airing a clip from An Inconvenient Truth in which Gore describes that global warming could cause many highly populated coastal areas to be submerged by seawater -- including the entire city of Shanghai -- Beck responded: "This is what would happen to Shanghai. Does anybody really care? I mean, come on. Shanghai is under water. Oh, no! Who's gonna make those little umbrellas for those tropical drinks?"
Why don't you wait for the special to air before you preemptively strike it down? Global warming is an arguable and substantive debate to have, it is not a settled or agreed upon consensus by any means.
Unless different points of view threaten the proponents so much they want to silence any discussion?
TOMMY!!! From all you've read and understood about global warming AND Beck, do you SERIOUSLY think HE is going to STRIKE DOWN years of study and thousands of RESPECTED SCIENTISTS?!?!
No idea.
But I think waiting and evaluating it's content is much more fair and reasonable than calling it a "smear-fest" - which is taking a page directly out of O'Reilly's book of hyperbole.
Other than the headline, which I agree is overbroad and kind of dopey, I think the post is reasonable. If a man wants to present his views on a subject, then there is nothing wrong with looking at what he has already said on the matter. The post does not draw any conclusions about a show that has not yet been aired.
And this is a meta-argument of the type I had decided not to engage in. Mea maxima culpa.
Nobody forced you to respond. If you can't argue a point that you haven't framed your way, I understand.
i am going with what Alexander Cockburn of The Nation wrote.
Mea maxima culpa is Latin for "my bad."
Post notwithstanding, the headline, which you so easily dismiss, is the hook which is used to interest the reader. If the term "smear-fest" is used at the outset, that pretty much sums it up.........and it most definitely clouds and taints and is prejudiced against a program that has yet to air.
Tommy
Glenn Beck does smear people and he is hosting a special. Why not call it a smear fest?
You can call it whatever you'd like. However, preemptively insulting an unseen television special with an inflammatory label such as "smear-fest" seems a tad premature at best.
Pre-emptive???
The promos for the special describe it as being to "deflate" the "hype" about global warming, and to "question the accuracy of Al Gore's claims". They say we'll get the "other side" of the debate (i.e. the right-wing side only, not a fair debate). Look at the guest list. Now, you tell me where the special is headed, given all the things Beck has already said, and based on the very promos and guest list for the special.
Don't insult our intelligence with this "but you haven't seen it yet" argument. We and MMFA staff were not born yesterday.
No, your "don't insult our intelligence" rant actually means "don't bring another point of view to light", that's exactly what it means.......or in the words of a famous song "Let me hide every truth from my eyes with the back of my hand.........."
Call it whatever you want, or slam it before it airs........if another viewpoint is that threatening, perhaps you'd better reexamine yours.
I'll bet you 100 dollars there are at least five false claims made during this hour long special. Any takers?
You could make the same bet concerning al gore's book and you'd be a winner within the first 2 chapters. What's your point?
Interesting. I'll ignore your misconception about Gore's book and simply point out that you think it's okay to lie about science if the other side is doing it.
I like that. Don't set your standards so high that you might actually trip over them.
Why should a false point of view see the light of day? Those so-called scientists who dismiss global warming have all been dissed by their peers.
Admit it - Glenn Beck's "special" is just the same old crap re-crapped.
we're not debating the best singer on American Idol here. WHY is it so horrible for a different opinion to be discussed? If your argument is so solid, so strong, so supported by science, what do you have to worry about? What happened to free speech? What happened to intelligent debate?
Why pursue a close-minded life? If you have faith in your data, you can debate. But when you don't have good data, is attacking the messenger the best thing to do?
If you want respect, try to act like an adult instead of attacking a program before you even see it.
except, if you read the summary, this item is not about the film piece per se. it is about the press release that already is available. no need to "wait to see" something that is already there for you to look at. that is, if you were interested in anything but your talking points.
Again, this is not he-said-she-said. This is not a matter of opinions, everyone's got one, everyone's is as good as another. This is science.
The scientific world is all about debate, if you will. Someone proposes a course of research, publishes the results, has them reviewed. Someone else comes along, notes shortcomings or errors in the original research, performs new, better research, and publishes those results.
That is exactly how the current scientific consensus was arrived at. People like you seem to think some egghead somewhere pulled it out of his ass and everyone else just followed along, but it's not like that. The theories have been attacked and debated all along, by people who knew what they were doing and did the work to back up their positions. People are still hotly debating many aspects of the science of climate change, but not the fundamental issue. Not any more.
To suggest that the whole long, iterative process of research is now meaningless unless it is debated by uninformed laymen on TV is just silly. It just seems like you are really unaware of just what the scientific method is all about.
When Glenn Beck is one of the debating parties, there can be no "intelligent debate", because he lacks the intelligence to participate in such a venue. All he can do is lie, smear, and advance the narrow-minded conservative agenda.
We're not talking about a different opinion here - we're talking about an opinion that has been PROVEN FALSE.
Why not have someone on to make the case for the Earth being flat, or supported on the back of a large turtle?
Give me a break. You're such an apologist Tommy.
You don't want both sides. You want Beck to be allowed to give his ONE-SIDE ONLY show. You want propaganda, not two points of view on the topic.
Look at the guest list for the show. The ONLY goal is to give the corporate, anti-warming point of view, with an alternate goal of smearing Al Gore.
Who is the one afraid of the other point of view here????
Me, the apologist? What about you and your blind faith and biased apologizing for Gore? I am saying let the debate continue, if Beck's show is going to be so easy to poke holes through and discredit, then what are you so worried about?
Anything that is such a blantant "smear-fest" as this has already been tagged by this website as being, even before it airs - then repudiating it with Al's facts and figures should be a walk in the park.......
Your paranoid tone is quite revealing however, and makes reasonable people wonder just how secure the "science" is on global warming, if it can't stand up to the "lies, lies and distortions of a smear-fest"
The science is on solid ground. Public opinion, however, has had to deal with being force-fed pseudo-science as "one side" of a reasonable "debate" for so many years that there's a lot of confusion.
We are not "debating" evolution in such a manner, even though there are still those who question it. Neither are we "debating" the heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, or the Loch Ness Monster, even though there are "two sides"to all those "debates."
On this vitally important issue, though, it seems we need to treat a bunch of cranks with the same respect we accord our foremost scientists. No wonder the world is laughing their collective asses off at the foolishness of Americans.
Then I ask again, if the science is on solid ground, what exactly is the issue with Beck's hatchet job smear-fest full of lies and distortions? It should be able to be laughed off by a third grader?
Why the hysteria over airing it? Let the "nuts" from the other side just embarass themselves then - this should be red meat to you.......you should be making copies of Beck's program as proof of your position and handing them out on the street saying "look at this idiocy", shouldn't you?
Who is talking about third graders? It is, as should be obvious by now, a relatively easy thing for pseudo-science to be cloaked in the terms of real science. People can actually say things like "the earth's climate has changed since the day God put it here" and people will nod sagely.
For a long time now, these voices have been heard on our public airwaves, and scientists have been relegated to wonky journals. The result of that should be perfectly clear: absolute inaction.
Somehow, arguing for distinctions to be made between science and pseudo-science is "hysteria" in your world-view. I see no merit in that perspective.
Val, I am not arguing the merits of the global warming debate either way......but to characterize an unseen TV program as a "smear-fest" before it airs is patently unfair and biased, I don't care who the host of that program is.
If you are fine with that prejudicial portrait, fine........because your continued use of the term "pseudo science" goes directly to your preconceived notions of any alternate point of view, and despite your dismissal of such a valid point of view, it does exist.
I don't want to argue about MMfA's wording.
I feel perfectly comfortable characterising the types of arguments I have seen as pseudo-scientific in nature. If you can point me to a reasoned argument against anthropogenic global warming, with a basis in science as solid as that of the consensus viewpoint, I will certainly be interested.
I would have a difficult time defending "smear-fest" too, even if I was a rabid global warming fan. I understand why you would want to steer clear of it.......
However, this is a "media" matters site, where inflammatory words are constantly being highlighted by horrible rightwingers, so when this website engages in equal hyperbole, it only seems natural to be examined, so the wording is quite relevant......it's not a "meta" argument by any stretch.
But we disagree.
No, we would only disagree or agree if I wanted to engage you on that topic, which I don't.
tommy does his usual "why worry over this". if it's wrong, then it will be obvious. that about sum your argument up, tommy? picture it now. nazi germany in the thirties. "mein kampf" is at the top of the bestseller lists. tommy at the local pub: "i'm tellin ya, fellows, just ignore this hitler guy. you're just giving him publicity."
I have no problem with a real debate from both sides of the global warming argument. I have no problem with hearing from skeptics. What I have a problem with is a pure attempt at propaganda like Beck's, where you don't have on your guest list a single proponent of global warming. His guest list is nothing but libertarian pundits from the Cato Institute, Republican politicians, or the same few discredited skeptics we always hear from.
Where is the other side Tommy? Where is the debate? Who is REALLY paranoid about hearing the "other side"?
You can apologize for Beck's propaganda all you want, but please don't insult our intelligence with this "I just want both sides" meme. You want ONE SIDE. You want PROPAGANDA, not debate.
By the way, where have I once defended Gore's movie, or "apoligized" for it??? I haven't even seen it, and to be honest, I don't even care what Gore has to say on the topic. But to you, any liberal who says global warming is real must just be some brainwashed Al Gore follower. That's what global warming has become to you people; a political debate instead of a scientific one.
How do you explain the panic in the 70's over global cooling? There is no proof of global warming, only theories. I, for one, do not believe in drastically changing my lifestyle, what other nations are refusing to do, simply for a theory. It makes no sense. I see no problem with showing both "theories". There is no reason not to debate it. I also have a serious problem with the high profile proponents of this theory enjoying their big houses, big cars, private jets, etc. How dare someone preach to me about how badly we need to "act now" while it is blatantly obvious that they are doing absolutely nothing to lessen their "carbon footprint". Wanna know how to do your part? Kill a cow.
Wow.
This guy actually hit every talking point from my 2pm sarcastic post... I mean he missed the "Gore is fat" one, but I'm prepared to give him a bye on that.
Impressive. Well-trained.
Oh. Crap.
You've done it now. You've called her - the DoughNut - a guy. Bad move...
Save yourself some brain cells. Don't be expecting a logical discussion. Prepare instead to journey through the looking glass...
Unlike Valentinian, Neon and most of the leftist lunatics in here, I do not resort to such juvenile antics as attacking a person on his/her physical appearance. Gore may be fat, but that is not my concern. Also, I do have logic on my side. No logical conclusion can be found without looking at any issue from all angles.
Unlike morons like YOU I am not hypocritical enough to make rude ad hominem arguments while chastising THEM for making rude ad hominem arguments. Then again I ambrain dead nor brain washed like you .
I agree Tommy. This sort of topic and the smug responses so far, simply illustrates the paranoid fear that someday, the average Joe American might actually be audacious enough to think for himself (horrors!) and decide for himself what's BS and what isn't on the issues of the day. That's why the liberal element has to keep reinforcing the idea that it's up to lefties to think for them by reiterating the mantra " trust me, we have your best interests at heart and you're too stupid to discern for yourselves!"
Plain and simple disingenuity on the part of MMFA and most of its shrill and strident sycophants.. (or is that psycho-phants??)
See, you have it exactly backwards. People like Beck and other deniers don't think people are smart enough to read the research, so they try and pull the wool over your eyes talking about water vapor or the polar caps on Mars.
I have no specialised scientific education, I got a bachelor's degree at 39, and I follow the laymen's summaries as best I can. There is absolutely nothing special about me, and you can read the research and reach your own conclusions if you care to take the time.
In your 'lamen's summaries' did they forget to include the fact that the earth has warmed and cooled NATURALLY since its creation. Im not saying we havent affected earths climate, but i never hear the blue whale of a variable, NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
your going to tell me the same scientists that couldnt predict hurricane Katrina or even tomorrows weather schedule, can tell that out of all the many times the earth's climate has changed, THIS time its ONLY because of our impact.
Another point, why is any position 'opposed to global warming quickly stifled and ridaculed as false or smearing. Do you want to know why you dont hear more scientists opposing global warming? Look at who is sponsoring the scientific community and look at what the media supports. In other words, money isnt given for disproving the theory and the media covers global warming as undeniable fact.
"In your 'lamen's summaries' did they forget to include the fact that the earth has warmed and cooled NATURALLY since its creation. Im not saying we havent affected earths climate, but i never hear the blue whale of a variable, NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE."
Yes, that is addressed in the models, and we're making it worse. I fail to see why that is so difficult to comprehend. Changes this rapid are unheard of.
Well, to comment directly on point, and you are proving that point, you're saying you'll take the layman's summary as gospel. Who wrote that "layman's" summary? while you accuse the conservative side of trying to obfuscate things, who exactly is feeding you your information to make the discernment? As for myself, I happen to have a PhD in physics (nuclear sciences specidically) and my field work an dteaching specialy has been with quantum dynamics (lasers). I have read the research. Yes, the carbon footprint plays into it, but the fact is that the screeching of Al Gore and his ilk don't allow for the fact that the entire climactic realm is so complex that you cant follow only a single minded path (CO2 in this case) and have any surety that you're actually attacking the right problem. Climactic models are far more complex than we can account for- it enters the realm of chaos theory in terms of predictability and there's no single model of past events that can be assuredly applied to the present situation. Let me give you an example of what is commonly "ignored" by the left. They will decry the "sunspot" premise since sunspots represent a cooled area of the sun (can't make more heat right?- bah!) well, the fact is that sunspots being a cooler area of the sun actually will allow other forms of radiation to escape that normally will not get through the corona. solar particles interacting with the upper atmosphere of the earth directly impact ionization and so on. You have to look at total solar activity, which is known to have increased since 1950, and then look at all the permutation associated with its effects. This isn't limited to only the solar aspects. the system is so intricate that it's beyond our ability to to isolate a single source as being the solution.
The political correctness game, the egos involved, and then the politicians are the real problem in making any headway on global warming. SPend on your efforts on what turns out to NOT be the solution and you're resources, alternate research and more importantly TIME. THe fact that the left gets in line behind a hypocritical politcian (yeah.. dispensations for being an energy waster while touting the party line he devised) whose scientific understanding comes from a script is really the way to think.
Wrong--TSI trends are flat since 1950. Here's the data from 1978 on:
TSI
Check NOAA's site if you want to see the trend extending back to 1950.
Hey Tommy. A lot of the global warming denial crowd seems to be able to write off the possible outcome of extreme climate changes. I cannot understand why these deniers care so little about their children's future. Do they believe that the second coming of Jesus will put everything back to normal? Do you not care about your children's children? How will these people explain to their kids that they don't have to change anything--we can drive our Hummers and you kids and your future are s**t out of luck. Selfish, careless and just plain sad. Especially because something could have been done, but it wasn't. Think of the future...
Who is the one afraid of the other point of view here????
You are! And, everyone else who is afraid that another opinion may 'sway' the voters away from the democrats. Face it, you don't have the confidence to allow opposing opinions to be aired so you are afraid of it happening. In reality, what you are saying is that as long as the opinion agrees with your predetermined opinion it's ok. If not, then you better not bring it to the table!
CNN's Glenn Beck to host hour-long global warming smear-fest
Are dissenting opinions now automatically defined here as smears? :-O
Wow...
Ya, I know what you mean. Media Matters is starting to sound like O'Reilly. And why are they so scared about the other side of the issue actually being aired?
The "other side" of the issue has been aired to a fare-the-well, and as a result nothing substantive has been done about the problem, and a significant portion of the populace don't even understand that the "debate" is anything but.
I personally strive to hear/read BOTH sides of every issue. I'm getting just a tad nervous about how some on the Left consider a different point of view so threatening. Or just plain wrong.
Global Warming is still open to discussion & opinion.
You are acting like a scientific consensus is perfectly equivalent to someone's opinion, and it's not. This is not he-said-she-said.
Ah science. And Scientists. And all those studies. And how they've been absolutes....then changed.
Like eggs are good for you, um no they're bad...well keep away from the yolk...well the egg [yolk & all] eaten in moderate amounts, well we've concluded they're a great source of protein. So eat them...they're good for you.
Me? I eat Egg Beaters. I've grown tired of the debate ;-)
Stop it Val I know you're getting perturbed...damn Jeter comparing eggs to Global Warming. Not as important...unless you've got a cholesterol problem I suppose.
A theory developed by a scientist cannot be accepted as scientific knowledge until it's been verified by other research. Old ideas are continually being replaced by new studies.
Where have you read that all scientists are in absolute agreement on Global Warming?
It's still in flux.
Like eggs....
It's not. All peer reviewed studies out there show us basically the same thing, only differing on details. FInd me one peer-reviewed study by a respected scientist that says otherwise.
I do have a cholesterol problem... I prefer the Southwestern flavour of Egg Beaters.
Consensus, in the context in which it is used to describe the state of knowledge about global climate change, does not mean unanimity. I am not personally aware of any research significantly disputing the theory of anthropogenic warming, but I am not a scientist.
Science does not deal in certainty; that's the province of religion. It is the best tool we have for understanding big, complex systems like the Earth's climate. The question is how much of a consensus you really need before taking any action at all. 95%? 99%? 99.999%?
Val,
I'm not a doubter of Global Warming. I don't pretend to be as well versed on the subject as some here obviously are. Actually my only beef, if one can call it that, is that MMFA has already decided Beck is conducting a "smearfest" before the program even airs...and maybe the very word smearfest.
For instance, disagreeing with Gore is not smearing him. Now if you refer to him in a derogatory way, like moonbat or whatever, then that to me comes closer to smearing. Or suggesting the guy is deliberately lying about data, when he isn't, that's smearing.
Will Beck smear Gore and any number of scientists & others during his special? History says, very likely he will.
But, why not wait till he actually does it.
*I add onions, green peppers, mushrooms and a touch of [mild] salsa to my egg beaters.*
To which I agree... only I add garlic.
In addition to egg yolks, I am avoiding meta-arguments about MMfA posting policies, for health reasons.
egg beaters?!? do you know how much carbon emmisions are produced by the processing of eggbeaters?!? you better give them up to stay green....and your computer too since it uses electricity from dealy coal emmisions...oh what? your going to help buy Gore and his company a new private jet for him to fly around on to tell everyone to buy carbon credits.
A) try pepper-jack cheese with 'em :)
B) keep in mind those fluff pieces saying 'this this is BAD' and then next week 'the same thing is GOOD' are normally just filler for slow newsday and in many cases promoted by people selling a book or something or the 'The Thing Board of Somewhere', so I hardly ever even notice them anymore.
'The Thing Board of Somewhere'
best band name yet!
B) keep in mind those fluff pieces saying 'this this is BAD' and then next week 'the same thing is GOOD' are normally just filler for slow newsday and in many cases promoted by people selling a book or something....
or perhaps even selling a movie about "global warming"...
obviosuly, media matters is funded by people who sell carbon credits to morons who believe the hype. why else would they feel they need to go on the offensive against beck's special before it even aired?
have you ever considered that beck is trying to show people that there is another side to the story, and that HE is the one providing balance as global warming skeptics cannot get airtime otherwise? HE is the one that is allowing both sides to be presented.
Yo, Bo.
What about the "other side" to evolution? Why don't "evolutionary skeptics" get equal time? How about "gravity skeptics" or "Holocaust skeptics?"
Are there really two sides to every story?
"What about the "other side" to evolution? Why don't "evolutionary skeptics" get equal time? How about "gravity skeptics" or "Holocaust skeptics"
I see that you're part of the 8% of Americans who don't believe in God. Thanks for representing the minority view point.
Yeah, Thanks. I'm chiming in with the minority opinion, too.If that figure's right (8%), I guess nobody should be shocked at our nation's grasp on other areas of science.
equating global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers? thats pretty desperate and pathetic.
everyone knows that the people who fund media matters are selling carbon credits, and they are hyping global warming for the sole purpose of promoting fear and making money off of it. prove me wrong.
"equating global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers? thats pretty desperate and pathetic."
They both deny reality with a religious fervor and no acceptance of fact. While the deniers are pathetic, the comparison is accurate.
"They both deny reality with a religious fervor and no acceptance of fact. While the deniers are pathetic, the comparison is accurate."
man made global warming is a THEORY, not fact. Denying the theoretical aspect of the cause of global warming is a display of total ignorance and unwillingness to have an actual debate on the subject.
speaking of facts, Media Matters is funded by individuals who sell carbon credits and are trying to profit off the spread of fear.
Everybody knows a baseless assertion that you pulled directly out of your ASS? I dont thats true. Since I dont think that you are clearly WRONG.
"Actually my only beef, if one can call it that, is that MMFA has already decided Beck is conducting a "smearfest" before the program even airs..."
I agree that MMFA needs to be a HELL of a lot more professional in the way it presents these things, lest it look petty on a growing stage. Having said that, I don't think smearfest if unfair for Beck, just as I wouldn't think it unfair if someone heard that Al Sharpton was speaking said, "I wonder which deck he'll be pulling the race card out of this time." Certain people have proven themselves unwavering in their pet issues in the past, and to predict their future presentations through that past is hardly unfair.
The "both sides" of this issue is
Will the Arctic ice melt in 10 years OR
Will the Arctic ice melt in 25 years, NOT
is there global warming that will melt the ice.
Glenn Beck has been saying that there is some reasonable informed and objective scientists who refute these points. There aren't. It would be all unsubstantiated opinion not supported by the facts.
"Global Warming is still open to discussion & opinion."
Is calling the opposing point-of-view "Hitler-like" a good way to being a discussion?
I'm sorry, Jeter, but you're dead wrong there. In every other developed country country, people have accepted that global warming is happening and human-caused. The reason it hasn't in the US is people like Beck. They keep repeating the same BS and people think that's a debate--which it's not.
J,
Can you imagine the outrage here is there was a teaser on Fox News saying "And ready to air later this week on blah, blah network, a "smear-fest" from the Clinton campaign against her presidential opponents".
Every liberal within a thousand miles would be opining on the prejudicial, smearing of Hillary Clinton......it would have 200+ posts here in an hour railing against such talk of something that hasn't aired yet.
it would have 200+ posts here in an hour railing against such talk of something that hasn't aired yet.
Ah Tommy ain't that the truth. An inconvenient one perhaps ;-)
Hey Beck will likely smear someone...but you're right, the very folks here that would be screaming [typing] blue bloody murder if the tables were turned, don't see anything a tad off about accusing someone of smearing before the fact when it's someone on the Right.
Don't you understand? We gave Beck the option to step down, but he refused. It is a slam-dunk that Beck is going to smear Gore. We know he has smears, he has used them on Gore in the past. The British Government recently learned that Beck was attempting to attain large quantities of anti-warming scientists. And the threat of those scientists getting into the hands of wingnuts was something that we just couldn't allow. It was imperative that MMfA execute a preemptive smear, not wait until the smoking pipe could manifest itself in the form of a mushroom trip. And despite what the naysayers opine, we will be greeted as deliberaters, probably even showered with flowers and candy in the streets.
(hat tip)
Cleverly done.
The most interviewed scientist (by a factor of 2) on CNN was Patrick Michaels, a skeptic funded by Western Fuels. So the other side gets far more exporsure than their scientific credentials merit.
Why are giving so much credence to lies?
"In promoting his [link to insidecable.blogsome.com] title="blocked::special,">[link to insidecable.blogsome.com] Beck has repeatedly claimed, as he did during the April 26 edition of Glenn Beck, that "there are two sides to every debate, and you're not getting the other side on the story."
-----
Beck will be hosting other specials this season, presenting the other side of the "theory of Gravity," which, since it is only a theory, must have scientific opposition.
He will also host a special on the other side of the "Round Earth Theory," in which he will feature guests like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, both of whom have been described as "going over the edge," for their unique input.
Other future shows will present the points of view that the sun does in fact orbit the earth, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (he will use The Flintstones as documentatry proof), and, in the big series finale, will present the view that he is fair and objective, the biggest stretch of all.
Smearing a smearfest is in itself smearing.
Think about it.
"Think about it."
-----
No.
No thought was put into the statement, therefore no thought is needed to deem it ignorant.
"Think about it."
Yeah! It's like when you call a bully 'a bully', you're bullying them. Wow, you're a smart feller.
Yeah, and Bill Clinton gets BJ's from any chunky broad that he can, AND he gives public speeches. So maybe we should start calling his speeches "suck-fests".
ROLF
Yeah, that made me puke, too.
Speaking of headlines and hooks, just what does the title of Beck's "special report" (and the text of CNN's press release) suggest to you? Title: "Exposed: Climate of Fear." Press release: "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming." That, and Beck's history of smears, suggests to me "smear-fest."
Title: "Exposed: Climate of Fear."
The title is meant to catch one's interest. As "An Inconvenient Truth" did.
Press release: "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming."
Perfectly acceptable. What on earth is your problem with it?
Beck's special isn't likely to sway anybody one way or the other.
It's Beck. Not some award winning journalist.
But smearfest? No, just a different opinion. Wrong perhaps...but a smear? Wrong does not equal smear.
If Beck's wrong opinions are used to smeap people like Al Gore and those scientists who have PROVEN the existence of global warming/climate change, then it IS a smear-fest.
or at least a smeap-fest
We all KNOW what the content of a Glenn Beck "Special Report" will be - nothing but lies, lies, and more lies.
Tommy -
Just as I don't have to climb down into a sewer to know it's full of excrement, I don't have to watch Glenn Beck to know HE is full of excrement as well.
I agree, "smear fest" is not a good descriptor. I would go with lie-athon, StupidCon or the more generic Program that Will Make Real Scientists SHake Their Heads and Sigh.
Maybe it'll be a schmear-fest, with lots of bagels and cream cheese...
Beck has established himself as such a person who warrants the prediction of "smear fest."
I have lashed out at righties who judged Gore's film before they ever saw it. Many of those, I'm sure, still have yet to see it.
I agree. While I have my own expectations, but I won't level criticism until I see it.
Agree on waiting, I meant. :-)
So we should not criticize an upcoming hatchet job?
You just KNOW that Glenn Beck is only gonna present what advances his own narrow-minded agenda.
I'm not as forgiving. Besides smear and invective, just what does anybody expect out of Imhoffe that can be considered fact?
Oh, and forgive me for going off topic, but thought y'all would enjoy this recently released tidbit about O'Reilly:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/02/oreilly-derogatory/#comments
Not worthy of your defense, Beck is. See the above citations of his ongoing war against science, consensus, and humanity.
Tommy
I will agree, lets wait and see what the special is. I have wondered why Beck stll has a job at CNN after he made some very racist and disgusting statements. That being said, lets review it when it airs and discuss the merits of what his special say.
Doris
I love you and Julia, you both are so kind too so many on here and I think they do not respond in kind back to you.
Tommy, it seems you are using different definitions of the terms "debate" and "consensus" than the ones I am familiar with.
A debate, in my mind, suggests that the disputants at least be roughly equal. I don't see a scientist who is qualified in the field and who as produced published, refereed research as being on the same ground as someone who has an axe to grind, isn't in the field, and hasn't published.
Put another way, just saying "no it's isn't" is not a debate.
Have you had an advance screening of this program?
I was responding specifically to your point that "[g]lobal warming is an arguable and substantive debate to have, it is not a settled or agreed upon consensus by any means."
Others can debate with you the meta-argument of whether this post should be here or not. I have found you unbudgeable on this in the past and it doesn't seem enjoyable for either of us.
I take that as a "No, I haven't seen it yet"?
Tommy, Why do you have to be so sarcastic? Of course no one here has had an advanced screening of the show. Nor is that the point or relevant. The MMFA piece is basing this on the level of the smearing that comes out of the mouth of Beck in the past.
Val was responding to a different point you were making.
Would you care to address that, or just ignore it?
Val ignored my simple question, unless he's seen it I cannot see where he can discuss it's merits objectively.
In case you miss it earlier in the thread, I'm willing to bet that this show will contain false claims. I've been around the "opposition" to AGW long enough to know what's coming. Yes, I admit I am cynical.
Just how long has it been since you had your frontal lobotomy, Tommy?
I think Val is just going on past record. Yeah we all need to see the program before it is "judged," which on the right-wing commentators side happens about as much as an ice age.
"Why don't you wait for the special to air before you preemptively strike it down?"
Because this is like hearing that PeeWee Herman is doing a show about Global Warming. How could any anyone give credence to anything associated with Glenn Beck that purports to discuss, explain or debunk anythink of intellectual or scientific content. Glenn Beck reminds me of those little inflatable vinyl pockets filled with air to take up space as packaging material in shipping boxes. He's as intellectually credible as air.
Global warming is 100% certain.
Human caused exacerbation of global warming is agreed by a huge consensus. No peer-reviewed articles disputing this have been published in about a decade.
It's not up for debate, yet Glenn Beck not only debates this, but denies reality.
We are totally within reasonable bounds to suspect his motives and the upcoming special. If it didn't conflict with America's Next Top Model, and this wasn't the evening that we have our grandkids over to give their dad a break, I'd watch his show. However, I have to admit that Beck is like Limbaugh to me. I get so mad at his distortions that I have to change the channel sometimes.
"Why," Tommy?
Because it's Glenn f'ing Beck...that's why
this is the same guy who takes the Left Behind writers and their rapture fantasy seriously but then thinks that global warming is some sort of liberal hoax that serves no other purpose than to inconvenience people like him
this the same glass-jawed twit who, similar to O'Reilly loves to dish things out but flies into full-on Victim Mode if anybody gives it back to him
I'll bring the chips, dip and whisky.
I suggest you start on the whiskey at least an hour before his show starts.
Yeah I'll need a good buzz going into this one, but I doubt i'll make it through the whole program.
Just think theres this special and then on Friday we get the "DC MADAM LIST" I can't wait.
This "special" should certainly be entertaining if Beck is truly partially responsible for the infamous chart that O'Reilly toted out to prove the vast left-wing conspiracy initiated by Soros to ensure that O'Reilly is held accountable for the trash that falls out of his gaping maw. If these two brilliant minds could only come up with that chart, I can imagine a drinking game can result from Beck's "special" on climate change.
That this gasbag has a job remains one of the great embarrassments of our modern age.
The appropriate requirement for CNN would be that they be forced to air "Inconvenient Truth" as a replacement for all their regular prime-time programming, every day, solid from 7:00 EDT to 11:00 EDT forever, and execute all current and future executives at the instant of any attempt to escape doing so, for reasons of bankruptcy. Finally, any self-promotion slots in their advertising rotation should be revised to focus on the next scheduled airing of Gore's work.
Am I letting them off too lightly? Perhaps, but we could always toughen up the punishments as indicated by the substance of Beck's denial of science and humanity.
Oh boy, here come the deniers.
You know, there was a Newsweek article in the 70s about global cooling. You know, there is a guy at MIT who thinks this is all bunk. You know, all we are talking about is free debate, why do liberals hate free speech? You know, Al Gore sometimes takes business jets, which release a lot of greenhouse gases, and by the way, he is quite overweight.
I am looking forward to reading some new bull-dinky today...
The deniers can take the day off, you did a masterful job.
"His hair is gray."
"He grew a beard and got weird."
I'm sure there are more.
He buys undies that are made in a chinese sweat shop and kills little fish babies every time he takes a bite of caviar.
How about this one: Gore claiming that sea level will rise 20 feet IF the Antarctic ice shelf melted is fearmongering much like the neo-cons statement that IF Al Queda gets a nuclear weapon we could be staring at a mushroom cloud (somebody must have the exact quote).
Silly Bruce, Fear mongering only emanates from the right.......when it's used by the left, it's reasoned concern.
That's right, one can be proven by scientific models, the other is pure speculation. No wonder you can't tell them apart.
Proven by scientific models? Give me a break. Yes, the key word here is IF. I agree, IF the Antarctic ice cap melts then sea level will rise by 20 feet, that can be proven by scientific models.
If an asteroid the size of the moon collided with Earth, it can be proven by scientific models that we will all be destroyed.
The key is, does the science say this WILL occur or does it say IF it does occur than this WILL happen.
Melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters; melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters.
Both are melting now; Greenland alarmingly so. The comparison to an asteroid strike or other random, unlikely event is not apt.
To if, or not to if, that is the question. And that growing ozone hole and shrinking ice cap just isn't doing it for you, right?
The whole discussion that you and others are having right now with Bruce illustrates perfectly why there is room and necessity for debate on this topic.......so to call Beck's anti-Inconvenient Truth a "smear-fest" is wholly unjustified and a smear on it's own.
Global warming alarmists, or advocates, or strident supporters have no divine authority not to be questioned on it's merits..........every voice and point of view has a right to be aired, including Beck's special.
every voice and point of view has a right to be aired
I whole-heartedly agree with you. However, every voice and point of view does not have the right to be treated with equal merit. Mere assertion is not the same as scientific analysis.
This is not a he-said-she-said kind of argument. There are actually a whole array of observations that have been established repeatedly that weigh heavily to one side of the debate. To treat both sides as perfectly equivalent is intellectually dishonest and, given the stakes involved, dangerous and irresponsible.
And I agree, of course. But let this special air and then judge it objectively to see if it warrants or rises to the level of equal merit.
But to call it a smear fest before the first commercial runs is not only blantantly prejudicial, but a cheap attempt to undercut any substantive points it may make.......thus, any subsequent topic threads posted here should be suspect for inherent bias, based on their advance smearing of this TV show.
I've said on other threads that I do agree that Global Warming is a problem and is at least partially caused by human activity. I do not agree that we have the will or capability of solving the problem in 2007.
Putting out extreme examples like oceans rising 20 feet is fearmongering but that's just my opinion.
What is extreme about the example? The ice caps ARE melting. The impact of this is already seen in some areas of the planet where water levels are rising (Fiji, I think, is already seeing this happen), and also in those polar areas where the wildlife are suffering as the ice thins. Just because it's something that won't happen within the next five years doesn't make it extreme, and if it's true, calling it "extreme" is disingenuous at best.
Ice caps are melting. That's not the same as the ice caps completely melting as would have to occur for sea level to rise 20 feet.
The ice is melting at a faster rate each year. There are chaotic events, like sheets of ice breaking off, rivers under the ice etc. that make the future rate of the melting hard to predict. But it is absolutely not an unreasonable projection that it might all melt one day.
Okay, I did some googling on this ice cap phenomenon and what I read is that even with worst-case projections it would take about 1000 years for the ice caps to completely melt. I don't know if that's the kind of timeframe you had in mind but that's what I read on the internets.
So, whether you agree or disagree with that timeline, I think it's safe to say that considering how far we have come technologically in even the last 50 years, future man should be able to deal with this problem much easier than present day man.
Therefore, I resort back to my initial claim that Gore is fearmongering when he talks about a result that won't happen for at least 1000 years.
That is not the worst-case scenario. The IPCC report didn't take into consideration the dynamic melting effects that are only now beginning to be understood. Remember that it's only in the last year or so that we started to talk about an ice-free Arctic. Remember that half the Greenland ice sheet and half the West Antarctic shelf add up to the same as all of Greenland. Remember that even half that ice melt will swamp the homes on millions worldwide... let's not even talk about storm surges.
The fact is that we don't know how fast it might be. I'm glad that you have moved this risk back from the killer-asteroid level, but I wish you wouldn't so easily dismiss it. The fact that this is actually a debate reasonable people can have ("will the ice melt in 1000 years or only 100?") should be scary enough.
The way my world works, Val, is that I only worry about things I can control. I already agreed that global warming is at least partially man-made. There's nothing I can do. I drive a 4 cylinder car that gets 30 MPG and live in a condo. I'm not part of the problem.
I think carbon offsets are a scam but I'm not involved. There are scams all over the place, if people want to buy them to make themselves feel better, that's their business. They might be right about it. "Going green" makes a lot more sense to me as a personal responsibility solution than the carbon credits, but that's up to each individual.
I have to admit that I don't like this "Not My Problem" approach to the admitted problem - whether it take three generations or thirty generations doesn't excuse the existing generations from persuing solutions today for tomorrow's emergencies. This false debate on whether or not it's even happening is disingenuous at best and irresponsible at the very least. These generations are contributing to the problem, so we should be contributing to the solution - this is difficult to accomplish as long as talking heads like Beck are diligently working to convince a large amount of the voting public that there's not a problem at all.
Bruce, you could be right, we may not have the means to solve the problem. We do have the means today to reduce our contribution to the problem though. For instance, I bought a hybrid, it's roomy, comfy enough for 4 and gets awesome gas mileage. I'm taking a serious look at solar power now that gas is almost $3 a gallon. And that's just from the individual side. Will is an issue, but I think it has to do with overcoming these stereotypes about forcing people to drive small cars and wanting a return on their investment in 1 year or less (the I want it now! syndrome).
Sometimes, when you know it's the right thing to do, you just gotta force the people to do the right thing (think equal rights).
Through history science has had to fight the naysayers, religious zealots and simpletons. They've been labled heretics, burned at the stake. We don't know the names of many of the people that denied science fact throughout history but today we do. And today we face possibly the greatest danger ever, and scientists the world over are in agreement. It's only those with an agenda who seem to want to debate this. It's highly likely that if it were a republican, and not Gore, standing up there in that video, that we would be having a different discussion, because it's only conservatives that are pushing this denial. To say there is room for debate indicates that there are legitimate scientific findings that dispute what the majority of scientists in the world agree on. Where are they? Where are the studies that have had scientific peer review that disputes this? I think those that are willing to make this an issue should have their names in stone as the ones who not only did nothing but fought very hard to mislead the public and dismiss the entire thing for political and monetary gain.
Let's compare a couple quotes then:
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." --Dubya, Monday, October 7, 2002
"And that is what is at stake: our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization. I believe this is a moral issue. It is your time to seize this issue. It is our time to rise again to secure our future. There's nothing that unusual about what I'm doing. What is unusual is that I had the privilege to be shown it as a young man. It is almost as if a window was opened through which the future was very clearly visible. See that? That is the future in which you are going to live your life. Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves, ‘What were our parents thinking? Why didn't they wake up when they had a chance?’ We have to hear that question from them, now." -- Al Gore at the conclusion of An Inconvenient Truth
It seems like you're referring to the quote about Saddam Hussein and nuclear weapons, "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud."
It's amusing that you raise that as a comparison, because the argument in that case was that you don't wait for absolute proof to take action. When it comes to global warming, the same people seem to be waiting for a smoking gun, with someone's hand on the gun and the other hand writing a confession.
You might mean this quote from Mr. Fearmonger himself, Dick Cheney: "We believe that, in fact (not "if"), Saddam Hussein (not "al Qaeda") has reconstituted nuclear weapons".
This oughta be good...
From the CNN press release: "Beck himself offers his own ideas..."
I can't wait to hear what Professor Beck comes up with.
"His own ideas" ...backed up by his own extensive research and the extensive research of an entire community of scientists, researchers and climatologists? I guess we'll find out.
"Glenn Beck will air an hour-long "special report..."
This no-doubt very serious-minded, ultra-scientific "report" will be broadcast immediately following an airing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, right? Of course, because I mean you know Beck and CNN are anything if not fair, and will want to present "special reports" from all viewpoints. Otherwise, Beck's show would be laughable, and seen as pandering to right-wing, pro-corporate-profits-at-any-cost, anti-environmentalists.
Beck will spend an hour lying and denying. Let CNN air it. They have become a joke.
With sadly few exceptions, CNN has devolved into the Crappy News-less Network.
Bernie Shaw must be so ashamed.
I'm sure James Earl Jones is ashamed of lending his voice to the sound byte that says "THIS .... is CNN".
I can't imagine why Media Matters says Beck's report will be a "smear-fest" just 'cuz Beck said Gore was like Hitler.
Yeah--I'm pretty sure Beck will be calling in credible experts the caliber of Rush Limbaugh in support of his various and sundry theses. These include well established scientific ideas like Mount Pinatubo is responsible for depletion of the ozone layer. There are others: like condom use doesn't reduce the likelihood of transmission of HIV. Let us not forget that he believes there are more First Nations people alive today than before Columbus. Oh how about "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along"? Then his correlation of IQ to bra size: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." How about his comments on poverty levels: "$14,400 for a family of four. That's not so bad." On being gay: "When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it's an invitation." Link to the FAIR website where the making of these pronouncements is documented. No doubt it is all out of context and the humorless liberals who run the site didn’t understand that he was just kidding. I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to count on Beck to continue to ensure the quality of inquiry manifested by these brain-dead morons on a pretty regular basis. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think so though. Too much evidence to the contrary.
Fair also lied saying men beat their wives on Super Bowl sunday.
Why don't you tell us which of the above items reported by FAIR were not accurately reported? Do I hear crickets chirping again?
Lies? Lets talk about important ones uttered by your fearless leader like say:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” or
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” or
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." or
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." or
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Now these are just a few of the whoppers that have really screwed us all..
Next Up On CNN
Glenn Beck's special that offers a different perspective on Newtonian Physics titled "Sometimes Apples Fall Up, or I'm Not Down With Gravity".
Honestly, you can't say this will be a "smear-fest" until it airs. You can assume based on past behavior of Beck and his guests that it will be, but until you see it, the headline of this particular article is misleading.
That said, I have no doubt it will be full of lies, distortions, and half-truths, but I am willing to listen and take notes on what is said. For all his bluster, Glenn Beck is right about one thing - you can't make up your mind until you've heard the other side, and I haven't heard much in the way of opposition to Global Warming.
This doesn't mean that I'll stop conserving energy and stop hoping for a cheaper version of the new Tesla automobile, this doesn't mean i'm going to go and drive around a few extra hours a day. What it does mean is that I'm interested in hearing what the opponents have to say and what facts they're bringing to the table.
If for no other reason then to research said facts and debunk them as necessary.
A very reasonable and commendable approach to take regarding this special. I would be very interested in getting your take on it after it airs....if there is a topic on it, please post your thoughts. Cool.
Seriously, people need to stop pretending this is a debate. Scientific consensus means one thing: you can accept it as fact. If you wanna debate, you use scientific data. These guys are experts in using pseudo-scientific data, and i'm not willing to hear a so-called 'reasoned debate, where you can also hear from the other side'. My reaction to that is simply stfu. This debate that's going on is just as fake and useless as is the whole creationism vs evolutionism debate, where the former keep bringing their 'scientific facts' to the table.
Game, set, match then. Anybody who disagrees with Al or his buddies on this issue in any way, shape of form should just be told to stfu.
That's that.
Equating the perfectly reasonable position "If you wanna debate, you use scientific data" with "shut the f_ck up" is just ridiculous.
Read the post again Val, what part of "My reaction to that is simply stfu" do you not understand?
You read it again.
The commenter specifically referred to "experts in using pseudo-scientific data," not "[a]nybody who disagrees with Al or his buddies on this issue in any way, shape of form." Your paraphrase was not helpful.
There is a difference.
Al Gore has the backing of those qualified to judge. Glenn Beck does not. The same goes for evolutionary theory.
Scientific consensus has been that the earth is warming and that mankind plays a big part in the increase in temperature.
Differing opinions are always welcome in science. But differing opinions by lay people are not welcome. So you're correct, those who are operating on nothing but opinion or religious belief, like Beck, and the proponents of intelligent design should do just that, STFU.
If you or they know of a scientist who has an idea that has merit, then it will be peer reviewed by the scientific community.
If we continue saying that there are two sides to every scientific theory, then we will be nothing but a scientific backwater compared to the countries we're competing against.
This is not to say that the current consensus is the last word. Science grows, changes and corrects itself all of the time. But it's the scientific community that effects these changes, not lay people's opinions or that of a TV talking head.
It's funny how Tommy doesn't respond to posts like yours or mine on this thread.
Now, he'll say that it's because he was too busy responding to other posts, but the facts are that he could not do anything but look stupid and disingenuous or he could agree with everything you said, and make all of his other responses on this thread look stupid and disingenuous.
Opinions are only valuable if there are the facts to back them up. I could have the opinion that men didn't land on the moon, but the fact that I had that opinion would not validate that opinion, nor make that opinion worthy of debate! There are no facts that back up any assertion or opinion that manmade global warming isn't actually happening.
For the record, I have many discussions with Worrierking all the time.......he is intelligent, respectful and raises interesting points.
Perhaps he could teach you how to post without insulting, childish name calling and you may get a response to your posts as well.
Until then, or at least until you have a post of substance, don't hold your breath.
I'll settle for "you get what you give". Here's Beck's response from last year when "An Inconvenient Truth" 1st aired:
Summary: CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck became the latest critic to compare the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, about former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to raise awareness of global warming, to the Nazis. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "When you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' "I also recall Burnett smeared the film and admitted never even seeing it. So if we're dismissing Beck's show before ever seeing it, I say turn about is fair play.
This is precisely why I am genuinely curious about this debate tonight. I really want to see what scientific data will be presented to the contrary. However, according to the site, it's not necessarily going to be about science. We have this from the site ([link to www.cnn.com] responsible for global warming and what can be done to fix it? Why would someone be harassed just for raising questions? Glenn Beck takes on the media hype surrounding the global warming debate and asks whether some proposed solutions would do more harm than good.
I'm curious to see what these people will say as to the "Who" and the "What," since it implies that there IS no question that Global Warming is occuring. I'm also curious about who is getting harassed and how. Finally, I want to know, since some of his 'favorite innovations' include Henry Ford (huh?), Nuclear Power, the Tesla car, and an entirely Solar-Powered House, what the excuses will be for people not pursuing the latter three inventions, and what excuse Glenn himself has for not having the third and fourth.
Again, I'm not saying he necessarily will have any substantive proof for us, but it's wrong to say it's a "smear-fest" without hearing what they have to say. You can anticipate that (and I do) but you can't say it with the certainty implied in the headline.
I agree, we can afford to wait and give Beck the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he will perform against type and actually present a factual, balanced argument. I'm not holding my breath, though.
As a side bet, who thinks he'll read Michael Crichton's little essay about how indestructible the Earth is? Any takers?
"...how indestructible the Earth is?"
There may be a certain truth to that... however people are quite destructible. When we speak of saving the earth what we're really talking about is preserving the human race.
Actually, the human race will almost certainly survive, if not its lesser-privileged members. Many other species are at great risk.
Exactly. That's why I laugh every time Rush Limbaugh plays it on his show as an argument against global warming. Sure, the Earth will endure, but there's no guarantee that we will.
Tommy,
You didn't read the article did you? If you did you would have came across this:
Yet, a Media Matters for America review* has found that it is Beck who is not showing his viewers "the other side" of the debate -- that of the mainstream scientific community. Since his TV show began in May 2006, Beck has hosted guests that challenge various aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming at least 17 different times. By comparison, a Media Matters search of Beck's television show has found that he apparently has hosted -- on only two occasions -- guests who appear to accept the consensus among the scientific community relating to global warming...
17 to 2 is hardly getting the other side of the debate and now he is doing a program that is just as lopsided will increase that ratio of 17 to 2 to a higher ratio favoring the side of the argument against global warming.
Also take note the ratio resulted from a Nexus research. So tommy your rant is just an unsubstantiated rant.
Drats, just couldn't get past that "smear-fest" part.......if that was the headline, the hook, the catch, then the rest of the article was, well, obviously a prejudicial smear against Beck's program.
But thanks for your summarized backup, only proves what I thought in the first place.
Tommy your game is always one of semantics. ALthough there is "some" merit in what you say expecting this special to be a fair counter point to Global warning is like expecting a crackhead to keep and I on your car for a few hours withe the keys in it and the door unlocked.
Smear fest is semantic? Seems pretty devoid of nuance to me.
Harlequin,
Also take note the ratio resulted from a Nexus research. So tommy your rant is just an unsubstantiated rant. Understand that is Tommy's stock in trade, usually with the standard, "why is this misinformation?"
Actually, this falls under the "why is this future misinformation that has yet to be broadcast?"
O.K. I was unaware you added a new "why is this posted on this site category"
Beck is just another GOP propaganda mouthpiece, even though he claims to be independent. As far as I'm concerned, he has no credibility on science or history. Just a few weeks ago, on his radio show, he trotted out that tired old list of Communist Goals for taking over America. Not only did he present it as fact, but said that all of them had been achieved. Sorry, the guy's a hack.
Why is CNN or any reputable media outlet allowing this hogwash to be aired?
What is next up for Beck special?
Is the Earth Really Round? Does Gravity Exist or Does the Earth Just Suck?
There is only one side to the truth. Global warming is here, it exists and hour long specials highlighting unsubstantiated contrarian views won't make it go away.
Beck and his global warming denier ilk are children who want to once again believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Sticking our heads in the sand is not a viable plan to address global warming or anything, which intrinsically includes wars in the Middle East, two of which are presently being prosecuted by the USA without the slightest hint of a plan, two of which Beck thinks are going swimmingly.
Believing in postmodern fairy tales like "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" have their roots in believing in other fairy tales like Iraq and Afghanistan aren't botched or lost causes because George Bush, who thinks God made him President, cannot come to grips with reality, in Iraq or Afghanistan, or that global warming is a real threat to human life.
Irrational behavior begets irrational behavior.
Randy
Beck represents the worst on television, when will the axe fall on this guy? Why would anybody watch him? These are amazing times were living in.......
Oh no! Someone might put an opposing view into the media! Hurry MMFA! Stop all disenting views! Down with freedom of the press!
We need Beck's point of view on global warming because clearly he's well studied. I mean Shanghai gets flooded, lets have the little umbrella's in the drinks joke....
Firstly, Beck is an entertainer however he does air the views of scientists who either disagree with "man caused global warming" or other experts who at the very least think that the alarmists of Al Gore's ilk are too extreme. It is a viable source of information but, unfortunately hurts the lib status quo and therefore must be silenced.
Give it a rest. Nobody here is calling for "silencing" Beck. That StrawMan ain't gonna fly around here. We're just using the same freedom of speech to point out what a lying hack he really is...that's all.
Actually, this site has called for the silencing of beck, savage, boortz, limbaugh, etc. The posting of their post-imus hitlist is evidence of that
Now, now ... no one is calling for "silencing" them. Asking that they be taken off the air? Yes. Asking that they be held accountable for distasteful and irresponsible claims? Yes. Silencing? No.
Asking why the guy at the drive-through who calls my chocolate shake an "n-word smoothie" and then implies I'm evil because his personal beliefs clash with mine ... well, that's grounds for me to ask "Why does your drive-through guy still have a job?"
I mean, sure, I don't have to stop at that McTastrophe burger place again, but isn't it my duty to report it? He could be the best drive-thru guy in the world, but if I was offended, why not let them know? Why not ask why he still has a job?
And when he leaves his job, fired or not, I'm not waiting in the parking lot for him with a baseball bat because of it. Yeah, he's not my favorite person, but hey, it's his right to say it.
So what's different about posting a list of people who say things that are considered hurtful and wrong? No one's waiting with a lynch mob for them outside of work, they're just saying that these people are offensive.
"It is a viable source of information"
And this is where you're incorrect. Beck is a viable source of lies and disinformation, and you are suggesting that this has equal value on a News Network as.. well, news and actual fact. Beck and his ilk have no place on a station that suggests that it is a News channel, and CNN should be absolutely ashamed that they are showing an Entertainer on their network without a scrolling disclaimer that admits that he's there for entertainment value only, and to research the actual facts of the matter as the viewer sees fit.
This is why I hate to debate the great global warming scam...it's almost becomming similar to religion. You think Beck is lying, I think Gore is lying, the majority of scientist say one thing the many others say something else and a vast number of non-scientists try to wade through the debate. I've found that arguing with those who run around screaming "we're all going to die" is futile. People who can't simply look at how the majority of the alarmists act (for example, the dem candidates flying private jets to their first debate) and realize that they themselves must not believe it if they haven't changed their own habits. I 've never understood how one could be so close minded to seeing both sides of an argument, then again, I'm not a lib.
the majority of scientist say one thing the many others say something else
"Many" others? How many? Have they done actual research? Is it published, refereed? If not, why not?
they themselves must not believe it if they haven't changed their own habits.
So let me get this straight. I live in California and I have business on the East Coast. In order to be taken seriously on this issue by you, I should take Greyhound?
I 've never understood how one could be so close minded to seeing both sides of an argument, then again, I'm not a lib.
I've never understood how one can't see the difference between science and mere opinion, but then again, I'm not an apologist for deniers.
Look, it's fine if you don't want to think things through on your own, and fine if you want to make fun of people who do. You have to admit, though, that it looks pretty silly.
"In order to be taken seriously on this issue by you, I should take Greyhound?"
To be fair, critics aren't saying you need to take the Greyhound, they're saying that you not take a flight on which you're one of maybe 1-3 passengers.
To be more fair, Al Gore is a former vice president of the United States and is required from a security standpoint to be protected. Security dictates he travels this way.
As long as he is making changes in other ways to be as green as possible I will not fault him for his travel methods.
I didn't think that was the case for the democratic candidates, but I could be wrong. I know Clinton likely has her own detail, but the others ought to be able to take regular flights.
that would be true what you said about the other candidates. The secret service site says it only enforces travel requirements on presidential candidates when they are within 180 days of a general election, if I'm mistaken that won't be until august of next year. ;)
Okay...fair enough. Then we can assume that you don't believe the Bush Toadies when they say we're in the "fight of our lives" against turrists, since they don't think we need to raise taxes or institute a draft or make any sacrifice which might negatively impact their stock portfolios?
"This is why I hate to debate the great global warming scam..."
You call for 'hearing both sides of the issue' yet you start off by calling it a scam. In other words, you are saying that you don't wish people would hear both sides, you're wishing that they just agreed with your science-lite side, yes?
"it's almost becomming similar to religion."
It's an echo of the Intelligent Design scam. On one "side" of the debate, you have a VAST majority of learned people and scientists who make a living at.. well, working in Science saying that non-Science should not be part of Science classes. On the other "side" you have creationists with a VAST minority of scientists and more than a few pseudo-scientists arguing an opinion from a science-lite POV and asserting that their POV is just as valid, even though it doesn't carry anything near the amount of weight of peer review and fact. Some of the American public through personal interest or political or religious motives then take the approach that any opinion is valid in a scientific debate, which is patently false. You take the approach that one opinion is being silenced, then, when it is repeatedly pointed out that this opinion is comprised of nothing but misinformation and unwarranted character assassination and then proclaim victimization when that opinion is dismissed wholly.
"You think Beck is lying, I think Gore is lying, the majority of scientist say one thing"
Correction - vast majority.
"the many others say something else and a vast number of non-scientists try to wade through the debate."
As compared to the number of scientists who say it IS happening, this number isn't "many" - it's very few. Statistically irrelevant, as a matter of fact. The non-scientists are irrelevant, as this is an issue of science primarily and an issue of policy only to the point that we decide what to do about the fact that climate change is happening and we need to minimize its impact as best as we can without reverting back to the dark age.
"I've found that arguing with those who run around screaming "we're all going to die" is futile."
I've found that arguing with those who think an entertainer's opinion is as valid as a leading scientist's is futile.
"People who can't simply look at how the majority of the alarmists act (for example, the dem candidates flying private jets to their first debate) and realize that they themselves must not believe it if they haven't changed their own habits."
I posted a puppy-punching theory in another thread that will probably never be read because I didn't pay attention to when it was originally posted. The summary: just because one person is doing something bad doesn't mean all of us have the right to do the same bad thing. A democratic candidate being an idiot does not disprove climate change, and any honest person would be able to see that and stop using it as a strawman.
"I 've never understood how one could be so close minded to seeing both sides of an argument, then again, I'm not a lib."
I've never understood how, when faced with a mountain of facts, one can choose to believe as they like instead of dealing with reality. Then again, I'm an independent.
"...therefore must be silenced"
It is Beck who is doing the silencing-and it's no accident. 17 out of 19 times his show has presented only his viewpoint. Soon to be 18 out of 20.
And I'm so sure Beck didn't intend to silence Al Gore by comparing him to Hitler.
We await your evidence of where Al Gore has said anything personally derogatory about Glenn Beck in an attempt to shut him up, let alone comparing him to a mass murderer.
Seb, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Is Beck an entertainer or news?
If he's entertaining like Rush and others we can all laugh.
It's kind of hard to laugh and take his comments as entertainment when you and others constantly present their views as fact.
uhh yea, cuz al gore invented the internet, he must know everything about global warming. WTF
"Stop all disenting views!"
That's what Beck has done on his show, all right. All but stopped the dissenting view. 17 dissenting views out of 19.
Plus Beck's upcoming hour-long Dissent Fest in which Beck will remind viewers that Al Gore is like Hitler.
Well, Beck is a conservative who makes no bones of which side of the aisle he's on while Gore says that ALL scientists are in agreement, the debate is over (lie) and claims it's a non-partisan issue thus acting like he's somehow in the non-biased, even though he owns stock in a carbon offset company
I was under the impression that Gore said that virtually no peer-reviewed science was in opposition to his touted model of Global Warming. Also, does it matter that he owns his carbon offset company? You can claim "conflict of interest," perhaps, but he can claim "global concern" in exchange.
After all, if I were up on some new technology that would be important to saving lives, say, a company that could produce perfectly nutricious food from non-nutricious rocks, would people demonize me for trying to offset global hunger just because I owned the company? I think not.
BTW, I thought the X-Men got you ~_^
"Gore says that ALL scientists are in agreement"
Lie.
Will Beck's differing opinion stand up to scientific peer review?
I must have missed the part of the article where it says that Beck shouldn't have the ability to present his lies - would you mind pointing out where MMFA has said that Beck needs to be silenced?
Oh, it doesn't exist?So your mock hysterics are just for show because you can't argue that Beck is a liar, promotes other liars, and has no credibility with anyone who values Fact?
Thanks for clearing that up, Shaw.
The fact that it was an issue on this site (which wants to stifle those of beck's ilk) is the point I was making. For some reason someone presenting the other side of an argument (a side which is backed up by many scientists) is somehow conservative propoganda.
"The fact that it was an issue on this site (which wants to stifle those of beck's ilk) is the point I was making."
So, in other words, no one is trying to silence Beck and you pulled a strawman from a place that the sun doesn't shine?
Thanks for clearing that up. Reporting Beck's report is just that - notifying readers of the BS ahead of time so we have a chance to see it for ourselves.
"wants to stifle those of beck's ilk"
Will the hour-long special rebuttal with Al Gore be airing before or after the Glenn Beck "Special Report"?
I actually have no issue with the special, but I predict a smear fest. Is that a litle unfair on my part? Yes.... so what.
"On the February 27 [link to transcripts.cnn.com] title="blocked::[link to mediamatters.org] [link to transcripts.cnn.com] color="#0052a3">edition of Glenn Beck, Beck [link to mediamatters.org] color="#0052a3">asserted that Gore "has a huge carbon footprint" and said that "the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006." Beck did not report any of Gore's reported efforts, which according to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, include the Gores' use of "renewable sources" from the "Green Power Switch" program "actually costs more for the Gores."
Olberemann performed the jornalistic equivalent of a Lewinsky for Gore. Any thinking person knows that Gore is a hypocrite on the global warming issue. He and Tipper use far, far more energy than the average American. I would bet the Gore's contribute more to global warming just through the mowing of their lawns than the average American does.
Keith ... man ... what in the holy Aitch-Ee-Double-Hockeysticks does this have to do with Glenn Beck's program?
Zippo.
Regardless of that, why does it matter what Gore's carbon footprint is? If he is trying to reduce it, it shows he believes in what he's saying. And if you believe in Global Warming being caused by human means, you should to. And if you do not believe in said model, what does it matter what he uses in the first place?
Do you believe in the model of Global Warming which means it's caused by humans? If so, what have you done to reduce your emissions? If not, why are you using theories you do not support in an attempt to make some sort of case for injustice?
Whoops, I meant Kevin. Sorry, the dumb-guy merit badge seems to have kicked in ^_^
JamesBondKevin knows it's irrelevant....but he has military intelligence training, so he probably has access to classified information which would make it relevant...but he can't share it with us.
Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:
1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
What's not to understand?
â– Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
â– Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
â– Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
â– A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
â– Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
We can always count on The Financial Times to give us the straight scoop on environmentalism, that's for sure. They're never interested in solely the bottom line.
No, but you can count on The Financial Times to explain how industries are benefitting financially on the concept of global warming. And this is only the beginning. I am sure we will see so many creative ways that businesses will find of capitalizing on the public's guilt that it will make our heads spin.
All,
The problem with Glenn Beck's special is that it WILL be a smear fest. Anyone who has listened to his radio show, or watched his show on TV knows its nothing other then propaganda. That would be fine if this "special" was on his radio show, or a movie; and let's face it Al Gore's movie was propaganda based upon the definition. Not all propaganda used lies and distortion, truth can be used to help a cause, which Al Gore uses in his movie.
The problem with this show is that it is being run on a NEWS outlet. The news should be used as a place for fair debate and discussion. This show will do no such thing. It will only push propaganda, most disturbingly on a branch of CNN. Heck, even Lou Dobbs, who has an obvious point of view that he continuously pushes, does, from time to time, have guests on that promulgate the opposite point of view that Dobbs does. I dare say that this special will not have guests from opposing points of view at a 1:1 ratio, or even a 1:2 ratio, probably not a 10:1 ratio either. I'll wager some Monopoly money that what ever guess he has on the special to discuss the pro-GW position will be a weak debater, or not particularly strong on the subject. I'd fall off my char if he had a climate scientist who has worked in this field for the past two decades and is an eloquent speaker to boot. Fall off my chair I say.
I suppose that MMFA should have used the term "Propaganda Fest", which would be more accurate, but the point is, Beck's corporate masters at CNN, while NOT, and I repeat NOT stopping him from pushing his agenda, should ask him to maintain some level of journalistic integrity since he is presenting this as and on a news program. That really is the issue here. People will see this as a news show, when it is no such thing.
Cheers,
Cosmo
Cosmo,
I think you underestimate the public. First of all, hardly anyone will watch... although I might just because I heard about it here... and second, anyone who watch Beck, knows his schtick.
Even if you buy, lock, stock, and offset credits everything Gore espouses, it'll be interesting to see what he comes up with don't you think?
"hardly anyone will watch..."
So, yeah: no one will watch because Beck surely won't promote his special on any of the shows -- these shows no one watches or listens to.
Brilliant.
I have a question. Isn't it pertinent to hear the opposition's views, no matter how little you like them? Even assuming without hearing what they're about to say that what they're going to say is untrue, that does not make it a smear. That makes it an opposing viewpoint.
If all they end up doing is slandering Gore for an hour, then yes, it will be a "smear-fest." However, if they only offer differing opinion, no matter how realistic or far-fetched it might be, this article's title will be untrue, and it will be a wrong against our American belief of "innocent until proven guilty."
And assuming it is all backwards, unproven, wrongheaded theory, then it is even more important that it gets broadcast, so that those who oppose it can be seen performing their tricks and giving their half-truths so that we are better prepared for argument and debate, reasoned or not. And one of the reasons for news is to inform.
So just watch, decide for yourself, and then criticize, and know that you are now better prepared for debate no matter which side you happen to fall on.
"If all they end up doing is slandering Gore for an hour"
"If"? Beck already did an entire segment comparing Gore to mass murderer Adolph Hitler. Of course, that was probably just another right-wing "joke".
Red, the main problem I have is with untruths being presented as science - with the perpetuation of the idea that there is a debate, with two equal parties disputing the same evidence.
In actuality, what we have is the overwhelming majority of scientists giving the results of painstaking research, and some cranks - significantly people with an axe to grind or an actual financial stake in denying anthropogenic climate change - disputing it, without any refereed publications to back up their claims.
Again, people have the right to their opinions, but they don't have the right to have their opinions treated as the same as scientific research.
"NOT stopping him from pushing his agenda"
Actually, I think the corporate bigdogs who run CNN are probably getting exactly what they're paying for out of Glenn Beck. Does anyone really believe that he was given this show because of his sparkling personality and insightful opinions? He's a paid propaganda whore, just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Well put Cosmo, I appreciate your tone and civility. (something rare around here). :-)
While much of HNN is news in 30-minute chunks, they also offer other shows such s Greta, Nancy Grace, and entertainment coverage. The concept of Global Warming IS news, therefore I think it is fair to air it on this channel. CNN hosts all sorts of shows on varying topics, as does MSNBC.
I watched the show and thought it was well presented. Facts were disputed, quotes were given, and all of it was civil. One of the main points driven home is that global temperatures rise first then CO2 levels increase, NOT the opposite, which is what Al Gore claims.
Another main point is that the Kyoto treaty is tragically flawed and even if followed to the letter will do virtually nothing to change CO2 levels. Nevermind the fact that some of the largest polluters are exempt from the treaty. Why doesn't anyone on the left address these points?
This Tommy charater takes the cake.
1st, Beck probably could care less about global warming one way or the other (in fact, he probably believes in it).
Beck's gripe is with Al Gore; Beck hates Al Gore & is using global warming as a right wing anti-Gore wedge issue.
That's so obvious even our ignorant MSM can see it (or one would hope).
Yet we get the resident, high road conservative (ie, Tommy) lecturing us on the evil of smears.
Give me a break.
Beck's schtick is smearing,I would think it quite naive to expect anything else from him.I doubt his target audience tunes in to his show to learn,but rather to have their opinions echoed and to hear the opposition demeaned and insulted.
That being said,I think it is useful to have contrarian opinions aired.Then informed people with a preponderance of factual information can point out the errors in logic and outright misstatements of fact that were presented.I only hope that CNN will air another special to present the scientific consensus in a clear way.Unfortunately,quality science will not fit on a bumper sticker.
Beck has never denied that global warming is not happening - he has even acknowledged that there is a human component to it. The problem is the response.
Do you really think that switching to florescent light bulbs will make a difference? Or banning plastic grocery bags? And don't get me started on "Carbon Credits"..THAT'S where the real money comes in and is probably the motivation behind the media hype of global warming. Time Magazine says that one way to "help" the climate problem is to buy used clothing. Used clothing! Can you see Al Gore or John Edwards or Barbara Streisand or any Hollywood type buying used clothes? When you think about it, the only proposed solutions will mostly affect lower income people. What does a rich person care if gas goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon. Or if electricity rates skyrocket because all the coal plants have been shut down. Al Gore will just pay the energy bill on his mansion let the poor folks cut back.
Okay - enough ranting.
The reason these solutions are in the media is because nothing is being done by government and industry, and people are looking for something they can do.
I don't think any of these things are a real solution, though they help a little, and do raise awareness somewhat.
There needs to be a serious commitment to clean transportation and clean energy generation in this country, but there is no political will to do so because the public is being kept in this artificially induced state of ignorance.
Right, let's all do nothing --that's a real positive step forward.
My last take on this:
It seems Beck (and people like Beck) thinks Al Gore uses global warming as a political stunt.
That since Gore uses planes to fly to Europe instead of swim, then that proves he (ie, Gore) is a phony.
I might tend to agree except the air stinks, the rain forests are almost gone, the weather (worldwide) is nuts, and you can even see footage on TV where the icecaps are melting.
So the question is this: Just how far does your head have to be up your rear end for you to sincerely believe Al Gore is using global warming for political gain?
Last I heard Al Gore isn't running for anything.
Here is what i sent CNN
I see where Glenn Beck is doing a global warming special. This is another example of why I watch cable news less and less, and particularly your network. He just compared Gore to Hitler, so I look forward to viewing his fair and balanced special. I want to be informed when I wath TV. Programs based in untruths or opinions not based on facts lessen your credibility. Glenn Beck is known for his struggle with the facts. And this is not a right vs. left thing. I am a progressive, but I will not watch anything that distorts the facts because it is a waste of my time. CNN is becoming more of a waste everyday. He has been wrong on everything about the Iraq war and other topics that I cannot believe he still has a show.
Your first mistake: telling them you are a progressive. That word will not make it through the email filter. Second mistake was to tell them you are going to watch it. They don't care, and the sponsors don't care if you like the programming. They just want you to watch.
I am glad to see there are so many in here interested in Beck's show. It will probably be one of the most watched programs tonight.
Adam, I take it you are not so outraged at Dick Durbin's comments, comparing the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to victims of Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge.
Or Kerry's, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,"
Of course it is all right for Al to go around screaming Bush, "Played on our fears!"
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I don't like Beck either, but I think you are conflating opinion and facts. Beck's show, like many others, is an opinion show. We want Olberman to have his say even if it rattles a few conservative feathers don't you think? What about Rosie? (I know she's leaving the View.)
Lets face it, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, they all engage in hyperbole.
Yeah. That traitor Kerry sez our troops are terrorists, and treasonous Durbin sez we're Nazis. That's what they said all right.
And I herd it from Limbaugh, townhall, newsmax, and frontpage, and they're always rite.Give It A Rest! Why not let Beck air his "special" before throwing out the pre-emptive smearfest label? I do believe that global warming exists. What I am unsure about is what can be done to significantly reduce this problem. How long will it take? At what costs? Will all countries participate? These are serious questions that need to be addressed. Other posters have made a point that I do agree with. Any scientist that disagrees with the prevailing global warming viewpoint is "wrong" or "ill-informed". I want to hear their debate first before before throwing out the "smearfest" label. Perhaps tomorrow I may completely agree that the smearfest label is appropriate. But I'd prefer to watch the show FIRST. BTW, I think it is commendable that Al Gore is attempting to reduce his carbon footprint. We all should ( my wife and I own two 4 cylinder cars and a motocycle ). But, imho, the jury is still out on the legitimacy of "carbon offsets". There was a report recently, from the UK I believe, which stated that some of the carbon offset companies were a sham. I am not implying that Al Gore was involved with such companies, but it's not hard to believe that there are plenty of companies willing to make a quick buck by scamming well intentioned people who actually care for the environment.
Global warming is a threat to conservatives (or in this day and age, their wannabe, ditto-head, neo-con, incarnations) because it trumps everything else, and proves just how stupid they are.
Everyday I shake my head and laugh about a bunch of groupthink addled morons who are quaking in their proverbial (non-combat) boots over a bunch of angry guys of swarthy complexion yelling angry things in a foreign tongue and strapping home-made bombs to their chests, who in their megalomanic paranoia said morons imagine to be everywhere, and yet feign total skepticism (I'll say it again, skepticism requires knowledge, which you dittoheads do not have) of the very real issue of Climate Change - the issue that trumps everything else.
Repeat after me, dittoheads: "There is no Santa Claus, there is no Easter Bunny, and THERE IS NO UNCLE MIKEY!!!"
and tonight with a one hour special on the Cure for AIDS...my high school janitor
Hey, is Beck a journalist? Is he a scientist? Does he know the first thing about research or statistical probability?
The Beaver (aka Glenn Beck) is no scientist and is clearly no journalist...but he is a "thinker." However, even that is being called into question.
Listen, the Beav is an entertainer. The Beaver sells for the same reason tabloids sell, and that's why CNN hired him. He's been wrong on so many of the days important issues that it's impossible to take him seriously...he has no credibility and is exactly the wrong person to give the other side of global warming.
Note to the Beaver...stick with the puff pieces...maybe a Britney Spears interview. Maybe a real story behind why she cut her hair...better yet, how about an entire special on the topic. Can't wait.
OK, let's see how blountly I can put this............
THE SUN IS HOTTER, PEOPLE. LOOK AT THE DAMN FACTS. THE SUN HAS FLUCTUATIONS LIKE A HEARTBEAT; IT EXPANDS, IT CONTRACTS, EXPANDS, CONTRACTS. GO BACK AND DO THE READING, THEN READ IT AGAIN. RIGHT NOW THE SUN IS HOTTER!!! SO........BIG SURPRISE, WHEN THE SUN IS HOTTER, THOSE LITTLE THINGS CLOSE TO THE SUN GET HOTTER!!!
And this healthy dose of fact and logic is brought to you by.......
Rush Limbaugh? No. Neal Boortz? No. Sean Hannity? No. Glenn Beck? No. It's brought to you by..............drum roll............................DOCTOR Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research !!!
Now, what does Al Gore have a Phd in???????????
Good night, and God bless.
It isn't true that there has been any significant change in solar output over the past 50 years and the type of warming that has been observed over the past 20 years is entirely consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and not with increased solar output.
Media Matters either missed or failed to mention a significant error in the Glen Beck presentation having to do with the fact that temperature increases in the Anarctica ice core data lead increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 800 years. This would appear to indicate that increases in mean global temperature cause CO2 levels to rise and that rising levels of CO2 simple follow increases in mean global temperature . The truth is not so simple. Generally a change in the earth's orbital motion causes the earth to absorb more solar radiation, the oceans warm and release dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere, and it takes about 800 years for this initail CO2 release to occur. The increased atmospheric CO2 levels cause the earth to get hotter because of the enhanced green house effect and this positive feedback along with other positive feebacks such as changes in the earth's albedo and further warming of the oceans cause the mean global temperature of the earth to rise further. It is impossile to explain the magitudes and time delays of the temperature swings in the ice core data without CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.
This is a fundamental scientific error that anyone with a basic understanding of climate science should have caught.
"How Strongly Does the Sun Influence Global Climate"
According to the Max Planck Institute "solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming". It took me one minute to find this doing a google search. Jason33 should heed his own advice and look at the DAMN FACTS. The Max Planck Institute goes on to mention that that solar brightenss has not appreciably increased during the past 30 years.
And guess what, genius....The overall average temperature of the Earth hasn't risen appreciably over the last 30 years either.
The article that you recommended stated that the global surface temperature has increased by 0.2 degree C. in the past 20 years. Other papers that I have read all agree that the earth's mean global surface temp. is increasing by atleast .1 degree C. per decade. This is a significant change an unprecedented at any time during the past 1000 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
Read this article, Doctor WIN. It's from the UK, and as we all know (or at least all you self-loathing, anti-american parasites think), the Europeans are MUCH more intellectual and sophisticated than we are.
You have misrepresented the information in that article but is interesting to read and I am glad that you suggested that I read it.
I have a copy of the New Scientist with a cover story involving the same topic and Dr.Solanki is one of the contributing scientists. This is a quote from him on page 36 of the Sept 16-22 issue, "The temperature of the earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all". He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30%, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won't do anything to get rid of them.
The article that you mentioned is about sun spot activity and the associated short-term fluctuations in cosmic rays and their subsequent possible relationship to cloud formation. This is a very controversial and unverified hypothesis at the present time.
Herre is a lnk to the entire article:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html
Both sides need to face the facts:
Yes there are two sides to the debate and yes both have valid points.
Fact: The data that scientists and climatologists use is still incomplete and highly debated by both sides
Fact: Mankind has added to our greenhouse gases and land and sea pollution in increasing ways.
Fact: The earth has been far more influential to the same gases than mankind ever HAS (not ruling out our future potential to make a bad thing worse)
Fact: CO2 has been proven to be BOTH an indicator of warming and a cause of it. Core samples from both polar regions prove that CO2 levels don't correlate with temperature increases.
Fact: The earth and the sun go through cycles. Yes Virginia the sun does affect the earth even if it is at a tiny 30% as the above comment suggested others believe it is more, some less.
If you focus on the tail end of the current cycle and ignore all the other data your only get about 5 minutes worth of an all day show. The earth/climate has yet to be modeled by anyone. All we have to go on is past data this includes all the data and not the hype about the last heat wave or the last mini-cooling from the 1900X to 1970s.
Yes we are still coming out of "Little Ice Age" all part of a natural cycle that will continue well past the two goofballs of Gore and Beck. Everyone open you eyes and research things and include all the data don't get scared by the loudmouths on either end of the spectrum. And clean up your space around you and demand better from your food sources go organic.
I sought out this site after watching Glen Beck's "Special Report" and being totally disgusted by it. I wanted some background information on some of the participants making claims and I'm glad I found it. I don't think providing legitimate information to the public about a program that is totally one-sided is a "smear." I think it is a valuable service. I eagerly await an update on the program now that it's aired. I would particularly like to know more about the professors teaching at State Univerities and what their colleagues think of their views. Also the "state climatologist" how, exactly, is a "state climatoligist" appointed and what, exactly, do they traditionally do? Too bad we don't have a fairness doctrine, in the meantime, thank goodness we have Media Matters.
It is a sick joke that Glen Beck, who has stated many a time he is not a journalist, that he is a pundit, can be given so much valuable time to "report" on global warming. If CNN were a responsible network a credible, non-partisan, journalist would be critically covering both sides to the benefit of the public at large.
I watched it but Beck hosting it killed my ability to take it seriously. Sorry but he's just blown me away too many times.