In preview of special, CNN host allowed Beck to repeat comparison of global warming consensus to Hitler eugenics
On the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, while previewing his May 2 special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics." Those comments recall remarks Beck made on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."
Beck continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." He added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."
Later in the interview, Beck addressed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called Beck "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate." In response, Beck said: "[P]eople who question global warming, they're called Nazis. They're put right up next to Holocaust deniers." However, Lemon did not note Beck's own invocation of Hitler to describe Gore's global warming campaign. In addition to his April 30 comments, as Media Matters for America noted, 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.
Further, on the June 7, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Beck compared Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), 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.
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom:
LEMON: Glenn Beck -- boy, are you asking for it. He joins me now from New York. Listen, I got to start right out. If the scientific consensus says, Glenn, that global warming is a reality and we need to move past the debate into action, why even do this hour-long special? Why are you asking for it?
BECK: There's a couple of reasons: First of all, the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea. I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics. The global consensus is fractured in several different areas. Some people believe that global warming is happening. It's pretty easy to tell, you know, all you have to do is check the thermometer. Then there are those who say, yes, but man caused it; others say man didn't. Those who say either way, yes on that one, then you have to say, how do we solve it? And it is fractured all across, and we're talking trillions of dollars.
I am doing this special mainly because it frightens me that we that live in a world where I'm called by RFK Jr. a fascist, and when The Washington Post asked him, "Why did you call Glenn Beck a fascist?" he said because I heard him question global warming a couple of weeks ago.
LEMON: But Glenn, do you think that that is a general consensus, that one person said it, not everyone is saying or calling you a fascist in all of this.
BECK: No, no, no. You could -- has RFK Jr. called you a fascist? There are people that call global warming deniers -- that's an interesting quote, because I don't even deny global warming is happening -- but people who question global warming, they're called Nazis. They're put right up next to Holocaust deniers.
LEMON: And then -- but there are people, Glenn, who are going to say you're not denying that global warming is happening. There is not one consensus about why it's happening -- some people say it's greenhouse gases and all the pollutants we're putting in the air -- but Glenn, wouldn't you agree that it takes people a lot to change?
BECK: Sure.
LEMON: Don't we have to scare people a little bit that maybe you shouldn't drive, you know, your SUV so much? Maybe you should take the train or take public transportation --
BECK: No, I think we should --
LEMON: -- or use a hairspray so much? Don't you think that we need to scare people a little bit so that we do get back on track with the earth?
BECK: You know what? I got to tell you something: The world is a scary enough place with just the truth. I think we should start telling people the truth. You know, I'm perfectly willing -- I watched the Al Gore movie, and I looked at it and I said, "You know what? If these things are true, then we do need to change. I'll drive a Prius gladly. I just want to know what the truth is. And that's all we're looking for.
You know what? This is a bookend to the Al Gore movie. On the website at cnn.com, where it talks about the special, we've provided the link to the Al Gore movie. You should watch both sides. When have we said, ever in America, ever in the world, that we should only have one side of an argument? We should listen to all of them.
LEMON: So, you believe folks should watch that, but you're not saying it's necessarily they should take that as whole. They should look at the other side, correct?
BECK: It's one side.
LEMON: And just -- you know you mentioned the Al Gore movie. Did you hear about the removal of Bibles from this one hotel?
BECK: I think this is the most appropriate thing --
LEMON: What do you think of that? They're putting Al Gore's book over the Bible?
BECK: Science has become religion for some people, and it is amazing -- many politicians -- Al Gore is one of them, the U.N. is another -- we should just have them get out of the suits and put a collar on -- a priest's collar on -- because I think we are entering the Dark Ages where these new priests are saying, "Science cannot question -- no one can question what the current belief is today."
LEMON: Yeah, and I think some people would say -- and I think there is a general consensus on this, that we've gone too far when we think that science is bad, because science actually has made major influences and has helped diseases and cured all kinds of things.
BECK: There's -- science is great.
LEMON: Yeah.
BECK: We just have to keep in perspective they're the butter is bad, butter is good people.
LEMON: Yes. Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with preservatives, sometimes. It helps you keep the -- all right. Glenn Beck, always a pleasure to have you.
BECK: Thank you, sir.
1st poster says, guess what? Beck will smear tonight, not debate facts or present an opposing "view". Just proved it...
and tonight to dispute global warming I have fryguy from super mario brothers and the fat Jackson brother...please
no you need a REAL Beck-style 'expert', like meatwad, he get's the ladies yo!
Beck: "no one can question what the current belief is today."
The right-wing classic, the 'You're trying to stifle me, shut me up, censor me; I can't ask questions', etc.' Straw Man.
You know how the History Channel is sometimes called the Hitler Channel?
Well, these Right Wing pundits should be described as the Hitler-smearing pundits because, more and more, that's pert near all they do.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine!
I am as offended as anyone that cable news version of Ladmo The Clown is being given a full hour on nationally televised format to promote a lie so outlandish that there is not a legitimate peer reviewed study to back it! I still would fight for Ladmo The Clown to make his cartoon, but given that Mr. Gore’s film was only released in theatres, and rental stores, and has not aired on national TV, I would demand an equal access in a same time slot for the opposing view!
That is the Fairness Doctrine! A whack job may whack away all he likes, but only if a rational argument may be given equal time! Let the nation see both sides of the argument, and the nation as an electorate will delegate these people to the obscurity they so richly disserve!
Freedom of Speech is a right granted us in the Constitution of the United States of America, whether the truth is being spoken on our national medias as news, or serious discourse on serious national issues is a matter of that government should at least guarantee equal time to the opposing opinions!
Vote for a Democrat; insure they wield their power to restore the Fairness Doctrine, and the dismantling of the media monopolies to bring the media back to the people and markets they are meant to serve! We have amassed a mountain of evidence of the effect of the consolidation of the nation’s media into a small number of media empires that are aligned with a corporate agenda enough for any rational mind to see that these are conditions that are poisonous to democracy, and subvert the preservation of constitutional freedoms!
If the drumbeat to war, and the following suppression of the truth over the past 5 plus years of the lies told to go to war isn’t evidence enough of their complicity, and willingness to let the RNC and the Neo-Cons lead them around by the nose then we have already lost the fight!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Actually, Gore's movie is being distributed freely through the schools, and being shown to children of all ages. That should please you. Last I heard, Beck is limited to radio and TV.
Also, I was forced to endure the madness of Gore's movie at a Bon Jovi concert last summer. It was run strategically between the opening act and Bon Jovi's performance. I felt like I was trapped in a brainwashing fest with Gore's voice droning on through the huge speakers and the huge screens displaying the graphic extreme images. If I had not been given free tickets, I would have been demanded my money back.
Don't preach to me about the Fairness Doctrine. Your opinion would fall under the same category and be squashed just as easily as Beck's. You should consider yourself lucky that you have equal access to that information that you deem so evil and hateful. What kind of job would you have without it?
Stupid liberals.
(Click the link. Really. You'll enjoy it.)
Neon, are you obsessed with me? Thanks for the link, but.......
I don't care what the NTSA accepted or rejected. Gore's whores thought that the place to initiate the brainwashing would be the science classroom. They bypassed that a long time ago. It is not only shown in science classes, it is also shown in other classes covering other subjects as well. I know you had to make that discovery when you searched for something to prove me wrong.
Try again, please, I love the attention!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
You went to a Bon Jovi concert and your complaining about seeing Gore's movie, you must be mental to think that a Bon Jovi wouldn't be a Gore supporter!
And if you don't like the conclusions, then find the science that refutes the conclusions of every national sceince organization, peer reviewed periodical, and related scientific edeavors in related sciences that all conclude the same thing, and have a resounding consensus of Mr Gore's conclusions!
He won an Oscar by lieing to the world!! Right!! That's your big lie, tell it often, and loud, and it will materialize into the truth!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Roger. Response protocals enabled. Response determined. We have SurieaCon 4. Release codes enabled... confirmed. Targeting confirmed. Do the bombay door thing. Bombaydoors swinging and open baby. And we have release one,release two.
Contraseptives should be used in every conceivable occasion!
Policemen are numbered incase they get lost!
G'nite Gracie.
Shorter Beck:
"Those people are like nazis because they compare people to nazis!"Ah, the circular logic of the ignorantly certain.
Beck is just plain WEIRD. To compair Al Gore's climate change campaign is just food for fools, it makes little logical sense. I thought the Indiana U. study of Bill O'Reilly said it best. A clinical study in propaganda:
"The seven propaganda devices include:
Beck you have been insulting people for so long, why should we feel sorry for you when someone calls you a name. Beck is not trying to encourage independant thought, has he ever, he is trying to frame the issue in his terms, using his guests, on his show. Does it bother anybody else that CNN Headline News pays this guys salary and his show airs in every gym known to man. Why do I have to read his words off the screan when I am working out?
- I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks...
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible…. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends. - Michael Crichton
Everyone with a dog in this fight...for or against...should take these words to heart.
Fair enough. But like I saw earlier, what % of scientists agreeing on any given theory is proof enough to move forward? Today, Einstein's theory of relativity is being taken to task, but does that mean everything he accomplished using that basis is now wrong? The atom bomb still blew up, and the speed of light didn't change...
Or how about Darwin? This is the point. Science says nothing will ever be concrete because we will continue to learn. Saying "let's wait for something concrete" is a bogus argument because it can be debunked to some extent with time.
No -- not fair enough. Wesley is fundamentally mistaken about science:
"Science...requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."
First of all, the bit about an investigator who 'happens to be right' is baloney. Science isn't about truth -- science is about facts, and there's a big difference. The great scientific breakthroughs weren't by scientists who "happened to be right": Newton? His theory of physics needed major revision by the 20th century. Darwin? He had no idea how genes were being transmitted. Scientific discovery isn't about "being right" -- it's about observable, repeatable, verifiable facts. When you hear someone bringing the ethically charged language of "right and wrong" into a discussion of science, it should set off alarm bells.
Secondly, science is and always has been a social endeavor. It actually DOES require more than one investigator, because otherwise, the process of verifying results is weakened. If I claim to have discovered cold fusion and no one can verify my results but me, even if I'm the most honest person in the world, there's a good chance that something about the way I'm conducting the experiment is messing with the results. Regardless of what Wesley and Michael Crichton say (--and by the way, since when has the guy who wrote 'Sphere' and 'Rising Sun' had any credibility about the philosophy of science; he's still got a long way to go before he masters writing fiction...--), science is meaningless with scientists. There never has been and never will be a 'lone investigator' because there must always be someone who can verify this 'lone' investigator's results.
I like your explanation of science. Below, I referred to science as the process for learning natural "truths"... but your phrasing is more accurate. You are correct, science is about learning "facts"... repeatable, observable facts. What's lost, however, is that science is a process in which facts (or data) are learned, studied and vetted by others, including the methods used in obtaining the facts or data.Only then is it sometimes determined that certain facts are reliably accurate or predicatable, at least within an acceptable range of accuracy. But it's upon those facts that other facts are learned... a "building block" process. I have never believed that scientists know, or professs to know, all there is to know about global warming and its causes and effects. But that is the point... they know enough to know the importance of further study. And what scientists know now about global warming tends to indicate the possibility of dire consequences. This country should be throwing money at the issue. If I were the President I'd identify all the heavy hitters in the scientific community on this issue and say "Tell me what you need!" This is not a subject of political debate. Politics are about power, manipulation, spin and creating impressions... science is about fact, as you point out. How can you mix the two? It's mind-boggling...
Good call, IRONY101. I think it really gets to the heart of the debate when you start scrutinizing the politics of the issue. Why, with an overwhelming majority of scientists telling you something is going wrong with the earth, would you not pay attention? Why the heated, partisan battle? I'm pretty sure we all know what it comes down to - who's ponying up the dough for each political party respectively. Now, you'll hear the right talk about how global warming is all a big "conspiracy" brought about so that environmental organizations can receive more donations, Al Gore can line his pockets with video rental profits and seminar fees, scientists will receive more grants and won't be ostracized by their peers, etc., etc., etc. In fact, many of the arguments against the stance on anthropogenic global warming seem more to be about personal or professional attacks on the motivations or lifestyles of those who support the consensus on the issue than they do about the actual analytical facts.
Now what about the vested interests of those on the right? Where, for instance, does big energy, a huge lobbyist of the Republican party, fit into the equation if the warnings about global warming are heeded? Who really stands to lose or gain more over the longest stretch of time per this issue? Glenn Beck's biggest beef with the issue of global warming seems to be how the implenmentation of restrictions on emissions will effect the "American way of life" and our economy. He's afraid he'll lose his SUV and insists that huge amounts of people will be out of work. However he never seems to note who, exactly, will be out of work, or for that matter, how many will be unemployed or why. He never seems to plead his case in a manner of factual analysis. Will job loss be the result of corporate cutbacks? Many corporations who have "gone green" in some way or another are actually finding that it increases their efficiency and bottom line.
I'm sure that conservative apologists will reply that regrdless of profit, the scientific community as a whole feels a vested interest in the whole issue of global warming as they are afraid of losing credibility whenever their stand in consensus on the issue is challenged. It has been stated that the research of scientists who take a stand discrediting the consensus view are attacked mercilessly in a knee-jerk fashion. But, since the right feels free to question the impetus of proponents of the consensus based on personal motivations, shouldn't the motivations of the challengers to the consensus be questioned as well? Who is funding their research?
Anyways, I've written too much, so I'll just end with a couple links that might be of interest:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167
But like I saw earlier, what % of scientists agreeing on any given theory is proof enough to move forward?
Wasn't there a time when a majority of 'scientists' thought the world was flat? Meaning that your theory is that as long as a larger group agrees with your theory it must be correct? How bout discussion on the subject? If your theory is correct you cannot lose the discussion. If you're not sure that it's correct, then I don't blame you for not wanting discussion. It looks like you're not sure, because you certainly don't seem to want discussion. Either that, or you're afraid of discussion because it may turn out you are incorrect.
If you want to get back to a time when the majority of 'scientists' believed the earth was flat, you have to go back nearly to prehistory. The ancient Greek philosophers showed the Earth to be round (from the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse, and the different angles of shadows at widely separated places) and it has never been in doubt since--among 'scientists'.
But let's not create a straw man: the dedication of 'natural philosophers' to focusing oin experimental resultd no matter where it may lead is not much older than Newton, when before overarching philosophical or metaphysical ideas would get in the way.
To equate the natural philosophers of earlier eras, who sat around reading Aristotle, Lucretius and Galen and wroter long treatises without conducting a single experiment, with today's scientists is worse than useless. The two approaches are not the same.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
The point is that ALL scientists do not agree with what the cause of global warming is. There are several factors that need to be considered and each scientist think some factors have more responsibility in relationship to the cause of global warming.
I will believe al gore's wild claims of global warming when ALL scientists agree on the same REASON that causes global warming. Until then he is just trying to scare people into voting for democrats. And you are just parroting those talking points. It would be fitting to call you the 'neo-con who parrots the conservative talking points' but you are the liberal doing the same with the democratic talking points.
Since when is my mentioning that the ancient greeks knew the world was round a democratic talking point?
I inform you on the history of scientific thought and you start blasting away with 'talking points' and 'brick wall'.
Very well, let me ask you this: what do you mean by 'scientists'? Do you mean 'scientists' in climatology, or any field? By 'scientists' do you mean people actively engaging in research, or someone with a Ph.D.?
And let me ask you this: if a dozen doctors tell you you have high blood pressure and are very close to having a massive heart attack, and one says it's not all that bad, what do you do?
Do nothing because it's not unanimous?
And let me ask you this: if a dozen doctors tell you ..... and one says...... what do you do?
Ask that question again using the percentages of scientists who ALL agree on the cause/effect/correction of global warming. What are those percentages? Like 60% one way and 40% the other?? So, if 7 doctors told YOU you had high blood pressure and 5 said you did not, who you gonna believe? If 2 of those dr's say your HBP is caused by stress and 3 say it's clogged arteries and 2 more say it bad blood cells, which doctor are you going to believe? If all 12 say take an aspirin and go home, are you going to do it unquestionably? THAT is why we need to hear ALL sides, not just Al Gore's side!
Which brings us back to "consensus". There are no peer-reviewed studies contradicting global warming. So it's not 60%-40%, or anywhere close to it.
You were demanding unanimity from scientists, which is patently absurd.
Again, I am NOT argueing whether 'there is' or 'is not' global warming. That's a given. I am concerned about the insistance by many democrats and liberals that there is only ONE cause of it. I prefer to be able to find ALL information available and have an intelligent decision made. I am against restricting the information to only the information that liberals feel is worthy! Somehow, I have no confidence in their ability to make rational decisions on even the simplest of matters, and this one isn't a simple problem...as much as liberals make it out to be.
Auto, who is saying that there's only one cause of global warming? That's another straw man. Obviously there are many contributing factors. The important question is simply this: if we can control the degree to which we ourselves are contributing to global warming, why shouldn't we consider doing so?
And to what degree are we contributing? That seems to be the question many do NOT want asked or answered.
Again -- what are you talking about? This is THE question occupying climate scientists!!! Who has suggested that we shouldn't answer this question?
I'm afraid that you're arguing against a phantom. Glenn Beck and his pundit colleagues like to suggest that there are only "two sides" to the "Global Warming Issue" -- but nothing could be further from the truth. The question of human contribution to global warming and overall climate change is one of degree, and certainly not a matter of 'yes or no'.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
The point is that ALL masons do not agree with what the construction of a brick wall is. There are several factors that need to be considered and each mason think some factors have more responsibility in relationship to the construction of a brick wall.
I will believe joe mcbuilder's wild claims of brick walls when ALL masons agree on the same METHOD that constructs a brick wall. Until then he is just trying to scare people into voting for fences. And you are just parroting those talking points. It would be fitting to call you the 'landscape-con who parrots the fencer's talking points' but you are the engineer doing the same with the masons talking points.
.
Wesley: "Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant."
Do you have any kind of grasp on the complexities of todays science?
Today, we're dealing with theories that no single person would live long enough to even prove or test thoroughly. Climate science, string theory, stem cells, quantum physics - all are so complex that the only hope of their advancement is the concerted effort of many scientists and mathematicians. Computers have helped speed up the process, but the GIGO effect will always be the primary stumbling block.
When you hear "peer reviewed" as applied to publication of a theory, it doesn't mean one other person looked at it and verified that it's accurate. You need several different pairs of eyes, each pair concentrating on the section with which they're most familiar, the benefit being that any error which may exist is likely to be detected. There may be some that even find errors that don't exist, because of their own mistakes. The review process weeds these out as well.
When discussing an issue like climate science, we haven't reached its conclusion. Peer review and concensus is a means to keep the science headed in the right direction. It doesn't guarantee faultlessness, but it puts the odds in favor of that direction. So to have you dismiss "concensus" as irrelevant illustrates how ignorant the majority of our population is of science. "Concensus" is not merely scientific "majority rules".
If it helps you understand, let's take NASA, for example. That's a pretty banal subject, since we've been putting spacecraft into orbit for nearly half a century, now. According to your way of thinking, surely one guy could launch a rocket by now, right? How many engineers are employed to do that simple task these days? Think it's just more government waste?
Try not to use the phrase "real world" any more, until you completely understand what it means.
"Peer review and concensus is a means to keep the science headed in the right direction."
Exactly... thank you for pointing that out. What bothers me most is that the so-called scientific "debunkers" of the many related global warming scientific issues seem to want to close the door on global warming entirely. A huge majority of climate scientists are waiving so many red flags (their arms must be tired) that our government should be making this a priority issue of accelerated scientific study. I don't care if it turns out that the predicted catastrophic effects may only be one-third as direly predicted... I'd be delighted, in fact. But let's put this issue on the fast track, scientifically speaking, and encourage the scientific community to go full speed ahead to narrow the answers. Instead, we have a President, backed by energy interests whose enormous profits are threatened, who until recently literally would not even publicly utter the phrase "global warming" for fear of lending validity to the phenomenon and alienating his supporters. If the scientific community was raising red flags about a predicted impending catastrophic disease epidemic, and the pharmaceutical industry stood to make a profit as a result, do you think you'd see the amount of industry-backed "debunkers" as with global warming? Do you think Bush would drag his feet on the issue?
But back to your original point... science is a method designed to learn natural truths. No one said everything there is to know about global warming has already been discovered. But there is enough reliable information and opinion emanating from the scientific community on the issue of global warming that our government should be encouraging further study (ASAP) rather than affording it a lukewarm and (pardon the pun) "inconvenient" reception.
People like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others, in their quest for ratings, are being terribly irresponsible, IMO, in presenting questionably one-sided opinions from maverick scientists who disagree with the majority of the scientific community. I'm not at all suggesting that dissenting scientific opinions be silenced. No... in fact, the more reliable opinions there are to build on the better. But for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others, even including the White House, this is more about politics and, God forbid, Al Gore. Too much is at stake for this issue to have become so politicized... and I am sure many people in the scientific community must be scratching their collective heads in amazement, disillusionment and disgust.
The problem with Crichton's explanation is that there are certain areas of science which cannot be reduced to experiments in a test tube. Cosmology and evolution are two of the most debated, with climatology catching up. We can't go back in time and observe evolution, or the birth of the universe...we can only make educated guesses based on the evidence and known physical laws. That is where consensus comes in. You'll never get 100% of the scientists to agree on these matters, so, the only way to address them is by consensus among "experts".
Very well Wesley! Note taken!
Let's wait to do those commonsense measures to preserve our natural resources, like air, water, and the atmosphere! Let's wait till the damage is done, and irreversible, and pat our children and grandchildren on the head while we reminisce about how we used be able to stay outside for more that 3-4 minutes at a time without a protective suit. Let’s explain to them that the earth won’t be able to restore nature to her former glory because we didn’t think it valuable enough to protect!The worse that could happen if we take these commonsense measures is that we clean the air, restore the atmosphere, and improve the quality of life of all living things on the planet, not just the rich Americans who want their lifestyle to never change! I find the arguments against so weak as to be laughable on their face, so why make them!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan GradyBy calling global warming a great fraud perpetuated on the world for political and/or financial reasons by left wingers... to suggest that the drive to make the world aware of global warming is Satanically inspired... aren't you, in effect, trying to END all debate on the matter? The "debunkers" don't want an exchange of scientific ideas, or to save the world from possible destruction... they want to WIN. All I know is that if ExxonMobil, which made record profits of 39.6 billion dollars last year, has funded anti-global warming campaigns, that's about enough information I need to know as to which side financial considerations matter the most.
thermometers don't measure BTU content. Thyermometers are highly localised. Forget watching Glenn beck, flip channel to NASAtV to watch real scientists withy real degrees discuss the issue.
BTW, is this Nazi Week or something...? Does anyone recall as many Nazi references in one week?
yeah, you are right. The Rovian dictionary must be on " N "
It seems to be the week for using "Nazi" to describe those most different from Nazis.
Also the week for the right wingers to point out as hypocritical the use of "Nazi " to describe those who are behaving in some way like Nazis.
It might be a good time to also point out that if you ever need to know what the neocons are up to, just listen to what they're accusing their opposition of doing.
Just something I've observed over the past 15 years or so. Could merely be an anomaly.
That's exactly what I thought.
Neocons are all about black and white, but with them, often black is white and white is black.
They accuse others and suspect others of the nefarious behaviors that they themselves choose as their behaviors.
They accuse their opponents of the very activities in which they are surrounded by.
They turn everything on its head. One of Kerry's strong points was that he was a war hero out to protect our troops and support our soldiers' families. They turned that into a liability for him by suggesting that he was a coward who ran from fights and deceptively worked to get out of Vietnam earlier than he should have. They acted like he failed to support the troops by decrying his Congressional testimony, when his bravery to go up there and testify on behalf of many soldiers who were ordered to commit war crimes was laudable.
It is the Democratic leaders in Congress who are displaying the most support for our troops right now, yet they portray their behavior as being traitorous.
"They accuse others and suspect others of the nefarious behaviors that they themselves choose as their behaviors."
-----
You're exactly right. It's because they can't even conceive of someone acting differently from the way they would in any given situation, so, since they would always do the worst thing possible, they project those same actions and motives onto those they disagree with.
Your observation is correct. If you can stomach listening to Rush Limbaugh, you'll find that he does this very thing on practically every issue. He is the master of projection.
ok, new here,what is the Nazi Connection and Obsession with Adolph Hitler??? I think it reveals more about those of you that repeat it mindlessly than the people its meant for.
You can prove me wrong by explaining it . . . WITHOUT using the words Nazi or Hitler. Al Gore and hmmm ...... Alec Baldwin( just for fun) can be used as 'metaphors' instead
Seems to me the only ones who DO NOT want discussion on this subject are the liberals. Must be tough being so sure of yourself that you do everything in your power to stop any further investigating into the controversy and denigrate ALL who don't fall lock-step into agreement with the liberal opinion.
You miss the point entirely. What's wrong is that scientific dissent has become highly politicized by the right wingers. For example, who the hell is Jerry Falwell, unfortunately still an influential political voice in some circles, to associate scientific global warming findings with evil influences? As correctly pointed out by someone else above, science is about "facts"... and peer reviewed studies point to a reliable factual basis for global warming, it causes and its effects. Is there more to be learned? Absolutely, yes. But, scientists already know enough facts to be very concerned.
It is the politically motivated right wing that wishes to end all debate on global warming by pretending to debunk the phenomenon on the basis of the opinions of a few scientists who disagree. The political motivation of the right wing? Economic factors... not allowing economically developing nations to gain an economic advantage by not adhering to proposed emission restrictions. Or because ExxonMobil may only make 35 billion dollars a year instead of 40 billion dollars if required to change how it operates. The point about China, India and other economically developing countries is valid... but we have to take the lead. We have to start somewhere. Al Gore is right in at least one respect... it's a moral issue, not a political one. Open your mind... a lot is at stake.
Irony wrote: "Or because ExxonMobil may only make 35 billion dollars a year instead of 40 billion dollars if required to change how it operates."
News flash......WE gave them that money. WE DID IT!! Our habits created their profits!! We predictably b*&tch and moan about gas prices while we sit alone in our 8 passenger SUV's in bumper to bumper traffic every morning and afternoon alongside thousands of other single occupied 8 passenger SUV's during our 22 mile commute!! You want to really stick it to Exxon? Cut your fuel consumption in half!! Better yet, move closer to your job and buy a bike, then complain about Exxon's profits. Until then, stop whining about it while you're standing at the gas pump breaking oil consumption records year after year.
Hey, I agree... sadly, we may need to face some serious lifestyle changes. That includes Rush Limbaugh who denounces every energy savings measure known to man. Ever hear Rush's tirades about hybrid cars? Wheeeew...! Energy saving is all an evil liberal plot, according to him, to do God Knows what to screw up the world as he wishes it was. Where do you think people get these ideas that global warming is an evil liberal plot? Hint: Tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity or just about anyone on FOX News.
Energy savings is NOT an evil liberal plot. It is the individual responsibility of every single person that consumes energy.
The problem comes when we confront the conflict of freedom and behavior. In order to forcibly change our behavior, our freedoms must be constrained. We, as Americans, are widely regarded as living in freedom (allegedly).
So unfortunately, our only hope at this point, with gas prices poised to shoot up again, is to let economic nature take it's course and REALLY hit people in the pocket book enough that we all collectively scream "ENOUGH" and make radical changes in our behaviors that will reduce demands enough to make a real difference.
It's sad, but punishing us monetarily is really the only way to curb our thirst for oil. There's nothing more we can do today. Personally, I parked my full-sized Chevy V8 Impala SS and bought a Mazda Miata. I live about 3 miles from work, so gas prices really don't affect me too much. We would all be much happier if we all drove Miatas. Drop the top!!
What, give up my Hummer???
Just kidding... Actually, you're preaching to the choir. Problem is when we say things like you just did many people want to believe we're living in a 1960s hippie timewarp... like it's Un-American to speak inconvenient truths. (Hey, I like how that sounds..."inconvenient truths" Glad I thought of it.) ;>)
What, give up my Hummer?
Isn't that a Bill Clinton quote?
Hey I agree. Good point.
Solon,
I have been gone for a few days and have just now had a chance to see your comments on the Gibson-Knuckle dragger stuff. I am referring to your posting at the end of the comments when you indicate that my being in Vietnam only gives me a limited view of who we fought. You also indicated that there was not way to tell a North Vietnamese person from a south Vietnamese person. While that is true in general, from a military and battlefield standpoint it is your assertion that is baseless. As I said, I was there, and during the first couple of years (1965 through late 1966) most engagements were countryside sweeps and search and destroy missions aimed at guerilla forces operating in and around key geographic and population areas. During this time we were fairly succesful in these engagements and therefore the North decided to infuse more of their regular army into the mix. Now, you could always tell a NVA regular because they wore khaki colored military issued uniforms. It is incontravertable that during 1967 through the Tet Offensive and onward until the end of our involvement the NVA bore the brunt of the war and as such suffered many more casualities than the Vietcong Guerillas, who continued to operate but with less efficiency. Many of the major engagements of the war were fought against both NVA and Vietcong. But again, the NVA were more prevelant and certaintly took more casualties. I take umbrage to your supposition that I have a limited view of the Vietnam war because I served. Not only did I serve, but I have educated myself about the conflict, I am not talking out of my ass. With all due respect, that would be you on this particular subject. All this crap you hear that "we didn't know who are enemy was" in Vietnam is false. We knew who they were, It is not hard to figure out that someone is trying to kill you. There were instances in cities in which Vietcong blended in with the populace and engaged in attacks and melted into the public. There were also instances in which Vietcong would perform hit and run attacks and blend to the villages int he outlying areas. I think Hollywood has embelished that ideolgy a little. It was not the most prevelant type of engagment over there. so the fact of the matter is that one could easily tell a NVA soldier and during a firefight a VC guerilla was easy to spot since they didn't wear army green as we did. That sir, is the facts.
Excuse me, did you tell people a post back or so to "move closer to their job?" Must be nice to be able to move wherever you want at the drop of a hat and still have enough money / room / time to do whatever else you want, not to mention moving into a good neighborhood from another good neighborhood.
I respect your conservationist thoughts but "move closer to work and buy a bike" is ludicrous and you shouldn't mention it so casually.
Right, it's not easy or convenient. What is easy and convenient is crying about gas prices while doing nothing to reduce our record levels of consumption. Like I said, move close to work and buy a bike, THEN your gripes about gas prices will be backed by meaningful action.
Ever hear Rush's tirades about hybrid cars?
I haven't heard limbaugh for years and years. However, I do not think hybrids are the answer or even a good direction to go, either. They pollute even worse (in the long run) than ordinary vehicles. Our corolla gets 30mpg. So the previa gets only double the milage. Our corolla does not have a giant battery pack like the previa does. Both have the smaller one, the previa also has a larger one(3ftx3ft approx). This battery pack will fail after 4-6 years and have to be replaced. So, now you have the hybrid creating the same greenhouse gases (only half as much) and also creating land born pollution that is as deadly as nuclear waste to our planet. Liberal picture of the US in the future....everyone driving hybrids and getting 60+ mpg. The view of the same US by someone knowledgable....nowhere to grow food because of all the waste batteries caused by liberals who only listen to their 'chosen' scientists and not listening to ALL scientists.
Where do you think they put old batteries after they go bad? Yeah, I didn't think you knew. That's why you think hybrids are God's gift to mankind! That's why you think hybrids are the 'perfect' car. Have you ever wondered why they don't advertise that part of the equation when selling the hybrids? Nah, I guess you haven't. Because you're not worried about the danger to the earth! You're only worried about al gore being correct so you can get democrats elected! When you start actually worrying about the ENTIRE planet why don't you pay attention to what science is telling you.
What good will it do to stop global warming when the planet becomes a giant wasteland caused by all the batteries you've placed underground?
This is more nonsense. There is no huge, non-managable threat that our landmass would be swamped by used batteries, or that our Earth would be so irreparably harmed by the storage of old batteries under the ground that we should abandon that solution in favor of continuing using non-hybrid cars.
So, hybrids are only twice as good as your compact car? They they're about 3-4 times as good as the average vehicle on the road today. You minimize that difference, acting like it's an unimportant improvement, and you grossly exaggerate the threat that used batteries pose.
Ok, our pick up gets 20 mpg. That's one third of the prius. Is the prius THAT good where it is deemed acceptable AND creates a massive land based pollution problem along with airborn pollution? When the 'global warming saving' vehicle gets over 100 mpg then I'll say the trade off is acceptable, not when it only doubles or triples the current crop of vehicles.
You drive a pickup? I never would have guessed. It gets 20 mpg? WOW that's fantastic. Thanks for the sacrifices you make for the next generation.
Learn here.
and here
and here
and here
"The view of the same US by someone knowledgable....nowhere to grow food because of all the waste batteries caused by liberals"
I find it terribly frightening that you're trying to pass that happy hogwash off as 'knowledge.'
No one in their right mind is going to think that batteries are going to fill up the globe's landmass with trash. Can't you come up with an actual argument? I'm not even asking for one that's completely valid - just one that makes sense, please.
auto claims liberals "do not want discussion" on global warming. no, that would be your side. they want to say there's "no consensus" and "scientists disagree", so therefore let's just do nothing,
No as usual you are flat out wrong. In fact you NEVER seem to know what you are talking about. Investigate. study. DO Science, do it the way it SHOULD be done. Do the investigations and experiments measure then submit your study to peer reviewed journals have reproducable results then we can talk. The rightwing isnt trying to investigate they are trying to substitute RHETORIC for science, and pretend they belong on an equal footing. They want to pretend their ARGUMENTS are equal to the SCIENCE that has been done on the issue. They are saying ok so you have hundreds of studies but I dont believe it and unless you take my word on that as being just as substantial as your hundreds of scientific studies then YOU are trying to quash debate.
No, I am not wrong. Nobody denies that global warming is happening. The differences pop up with the 'reasons' that cause global warming. And the corrective measures needed to stop global warming.
Some scientists say all global warming is man-made. Some say it's naturally occuring. Some say it may be a combination of both. Which aspect do YOUR scientists fall into? And WHY are you against finding out what causes global warming?
No scientists say all global warming is man-made. Not one. Stop misrepresenting the situation.
dittopsychotic has been programmed to spew nonsense
Many rightwingers deny that human-caused global warming is much to worry about.
Many also claim that it is a false campaign, one not intended to repair and mitigate the damages that are caused by man-made global warming, but in fact a campaign to mislead the public and further their selfish aims.
The efforts to get the world and the neocons to recognize the dangers from man-made global warming, and the urgent need to continue and expand efforts to stem the oncoming dangers, is a very selfLESS effort. It is the selfish rightwingers who feel threatened by a fair debate on man-made global warming.
No the huge majority of scientists believe man is CONTRIBUTING to Global warming. I am not against finding out what the cause is, we know what SOME of the causes are and some of the ways WE are contributing. I am against WAITING until we know everthing there is to know about Global Warming before doing ANYTHIGN because it is a prescription for DISASTER. We can take steps now that hopefully can emiliorate the problems to come. That is a good thing.
I agree that we need to expend our resources and energy to further research the issue... but to start to mandated government "carbon credit" programs and whatever else Gored is spouting off is as irresponsible as doing nothing.. especially when we start to lose ground in the global economy as a result...
God forbid it might cost us money. Of course it might usher in technological breakthroughs in clean energy which the US could lead the world in and export. Then again if it might cost us money its just out of the question. I say we give up. Yeah lets just write in letters 30 feet high on the side of the Grand Canyon. We COULD have saved it but it would have COST too much. Let that be a lesson for whatever civilization comes after us probably descended from cockroaches and Keith Richards.
I am all for for spending money on viable research and alternatives, hence the orignal phrase "expend our resources".. please don't put me into your one sided box as you and your pals are so fluent at doing... please explain to me what some crazy idea like carbon credits is supposed to do?.. I guess if you can afford it like your pal Gored and just live the way you always have, it is a non-issue.. But for a party that cries there working for the less fortunate, I think they the less forunate not be so pleased with the outcome of those types of programs..
- Science says nothing will ever be concrete because we will continue to learn. Saying "let's wait for something concrete" is a bogus argument - snoopy
I agree that science should be about the quest to gain new knowledge and I don't advocate waiting for something concrete before acting on or acknowledging "consensus" opinions.
Yet mmfa and their steady drumbeat of "consensus science"...asserting that global warming is unassailable and man-made is the bogus position. The IPCC has continually revised downward their predictions on the future levels of global warming.
Current "consensus" science has been unable to back up their predictions with repeatable evidence. Much of the evidence is based on woefully inadequate computer modelling...that forces data to match preconceived theories.
Current "consensus" science has little knowledge of the effects on global warming that is caused by clouds, rain, and solar activity.
Those that advocate that global warming is man-made and will produce catastrophic results...and those that claim man has little to no effect and is powerless to change the climate are the real fringe in this debate.
It is a complex topic with no simple answers from the scientific community. We should not ignore "consensus" thinking but count me in on the theory that mother nature is more powerful and has more affect on global climate change than man.
With that in mind...we know for a fact that the global temperature has always gone up and down...what is the perfect global temperature?
"...what is the perfect global temperature?"
I don't know the exact temperature precisely but I am certain that it will be way cool when Bush leaves office.
Yes, we libruls are a bunch of culties who believe everything our leaders tell us.
Like there were WMD in Iraq
Like the Nicaraguans were going to invade the US via Mexico
Like the Nutmeg Capital of the World (Grenada) really was a threat to our national security
Like it was a good idea to let the Contras flood our streets with drugs so that they could buy weapons from the Iranians
Like that third plane wasn't shot down
Like Mission Accomplished
Like Katrina was unforseeable (who knew?!)
Like Schiavo was any of our f**king business
Go look up liberal in the dictionary, then look up conservative. Conservatives can't even have a coherent and stable philosophy because conservativism is preserving the status quo, and guess what folks: you can't stop time.
Yes, we libruls are a bunch of culties who believe everything our leaders tell us.
Like there were WMD in Iraq - All the democrats (liberals) voted the same as republicans for our actions in Iraq. Get over your hypocrisy! If your liberal leaders felt there were no WMD's then why did they vote to go in after them? Perhaps next time you liberals will vote using your BRAIN!? doubtful, but perhaps
Like it was a good idea to let the Contras flood our streets with drugs so that they could buy weapons from the Iranians - hey mr liberal, who wants to make those drugs legal? It isn't the conservative!
Like that third plane wasn't shot down - And you would have prefered it hitting another building? Why are you whining about our government saving another few thousand lives? Oh, you only whine when protecting our nation from attack is the cause of death.
Like Mission Accomplished - And that part of the mission was accomplished. Why do you keep rehashing things that have been debunked thousands of times before?
Like Katrina was unforseeable (who knew?!) -Darn, if only the liberal leader of the city had actually DONE something to prepare. I guess you got me on that one. No, wait...it was a conservatives fault the city got built under water then got flooded when it rained. Yeah... WHO KNEW it could do that? Certainly not the morons who lived there!
Yes, we libruls are a bunch of culties who believe everything our leaders tell us.
Like there were WMD in Iraq - All the democrats (liberals) voted the same as republicans for our actions in Iraq.
Our Congress voted to have Bush take every possible step before war, and to verify that war was the only option months before the weapons inspectors were allowed back in, and were able to tell us that diplomacy and sanctions would continue to work. War was not a necessity. It was Bush's choice, not the Congress' choice.
Like it was a good idea to let the Contras flood our streets with drugs so that they could buy weapons from the Iranians - hey mr liberal, who wants to make those drugs legal? It isn't the conservative!
Legal drugs would not fund illegitimate enterprises in the same way that illegal drugs do. Republicans allowed that to happen. The legalizing of currently illegal drugs has nothing to do with that.
Like that third plane wasn't shot down - And you would have prefered it hitting another building? Why are you whining about our government saving another few thousand lives? Oh, you only whine when protecting our nation from attack is the cause of death.
Some people are conspiracy theorists.
Like Mission Accomplished - And that part of the mission was accomplished. Why do you keep rehashing things that have been debunked thousands of times before?
Major combat operations were over? Not by a long shot. The defense by rightwingers has been debunked thousands of times before. Saying that because you have taken the first step in a long journey successfully is unimportant and irrelevant in your eventual success in completing that journey. The Bush Administration claimed that the first step was "Mission Accomplished". That was not a time to rejoice or do the major display of conceit that Bush did.
Like Katrina was unforseeable (who knew?!) -Darn, if only the liberal leader of the city had actually DONE something to prepare. I guess you got me on that one. No, wait...it was a conservatives fault the city got built under water then got flooded when it rained. Yeah... WHO KNEW it could do that? Certainly not the morons who lived there!
Nagin did a good job within the constraints he faced. It was the Bush Administration that failed to show up with additional resources in a timely fashion. What will they do when they don't get advanced notice, like for an earthquake or tsunami? For decades the federal government had never discouraged anyone from living in New Orleans. They continued to maintain the levees. Bush didn't change that plan of (in)action, so your point makes no sense.
"They continued to maintain the levees"
If by maintaining the levees you mean letting them rot into disrepair, sure.
Sorry, but all the liberals did NOT vote for Puddinhead's war.
All the democrats (liberals) voted the same as republicans for our actions in Iraq. Get over your hypocrisy! If your liberal leaders felt there were no WMD's then why did they vote to go in after them?
Maybe because that was the official, now-debunked, word from the CIA and the White House? Don't recall too many in congress doing their own investigating.
hey mr liberal, who wants to make those drugs legal? It isn't the conservative!
The libertarians want drugs legalized.
And you would have prefered it hitting another building? Why are you whining about our government saving another few thousand lives? Oh, you only whine when protecting our nation from attack is the cause of death.
You guys are arguing whether Spiderman could take Batman in a fair fight. I'll defer to your expertise.
And that part of the mission was accomplished. Why do you keep rehashing things that have been debunked thousands of times before?
Apparently, the portion of the banner not shown in the pictures is the part that says "...so far".
Darn, if only the liberal leader of the city had actually DONE something to prepare. I guess you got me on that one. No, wait...it was a conservatives fault the city got built under water then got flooded when it rained. Yeah... WHO KNEW it could do that? Certainly not the morons who lived there!
I lived in Louisiana a while back. It rained plenty. New Orleans, a nearly 300 year-old city, never washed away. Might have been the levies that they built in anticipation? Too bad they didn't build them to the specs that the engineers required from their past experiences with hurricanes. But, disasters happen, this time in the crescent city. That's what FEMA's for. And they'll get around to it when they have time...
Did you tell him to USE his brain? Perhaps it would be a good idea if you OBTAINED A BRAIN. No ALL of the democrats did NOT vote for the Iraqi war resolution in fact the majority of the democrats in the house voted AGAINST it. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
As much as I enjoy a good there-is-climate-change-no-there-is-not-climate-change fracas,
I'd like to point out that Beck is pretty firmly in the "black helicopter" camp.
The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal.
So, how about we give him as much attention as we do to the other "black helicopter" nutjobs. CNN? Hello? You are giving a crank a prominent platform. Hope yer proud of your product.
CNN's level of pride will be directly proportional to the number of FOX viewers they attract with this Beck program.
Someone should point out to Mr Beck that the Eugenics movement was not, natively, a European phenomenon. Try googling "Cold Spring Harbor" and Eugenics Movement.
It started right here.
I did it! I DID IT!
I broke the Karl Rove Code and have next week's M.O. memo. Here's what they'll be saying about Al Gore next week:
"Al Gore is exactly the same as 92 Hitlers."
Google just called and was wondering if they might get the Karl Kode from you. They'd like to add a couple more functions to their translator page:
English to Karl Kode
Karl Kode to English
but they're stymied by the English words "truth", "honor", and "competence".
Here's a theory....Global Warming is actually the Earth running a fever. And guess what "virus" the Earth is trying to kill....... DOH!
Oh, I get it. You're part of the "blame earth first" crowd.
Zog, dude, why do you hate Earth?
I remember very clearly the global cooling scare, so I have always been skeptical of the new obsession with global warming. I was born and raised in CA, and I distinctly remember that the smog was heaviest on hot days. One of Gore's graphs claims it is the other way around.
No you dont there was no Global cooling scare that is a rightwing talking point without merit. There were a few articles with Scientists raising the question at NO POINT was there a scientific consensus that we were undergoing Global cooling
You are wrong, case closed.
Ah, no. The "global cooling" theory was an article published in a popular scientific magazine. That was it. No peer reviewed scientific study said the earth was going to get cooler in the next hundred years.
"One of Gore's graphs claims it is the other way around."
-----
I'm sure you can provide a link to the graph, used by Gore, stating exactly what you said it does. I'm sorry to be asking you for proof of your statements, but since not a single thing you have posted to this site so far is even remotely true, I am not going to buck the trend and believe you in this instance without rock-solid corroboration.
well I guess it is a good darn thing that I am just giving my opinion then. I am quite sure of where I grew up, I don’t think it was all a dream, but I am sure you could find a way to make me believe that it all was. Tick tock, tick tock. And I do vaguely remember that crappy concert where the only thing worth watching was Nickleback. I don’t have time to link to a graph provided by Gore, so here watch the movie:
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_feature.asp?id=11
When you get to the graph that spans 650,000 years, then pay attention to what he says. As I see it, the CO2 levels follow the temperature, not the other way around. I am basing MY opinion on MY experiences growing up in smoggy SoCal. Once again I feel as though I am talking to wood.
I'm not sure what your point is. When the temperature starts to heat up, the ocean heats up and releases more CO2 into the amosphere. That in turn creates the green house effect. That is why CO2 levels follow temperature spikes. This is well known.
In the past, other mechanisms would allow the earth to cool, and the CO2 level would decrease. But with man putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere, the earth will not be allowed to cool again. We will have a run-away green house. This is also well known, and agreed upon by virtually every climatologist in the world. The theory of global warming is also backed up by tons of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Not one peer-reviewd paper refutes glogal warming. Not one.