CNN host channeled Beck on global warming: "[T]he cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate"
On the May 3 edition of CNN's American Morning, during a discussion about CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck's May 2 hour-long special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," co-host Kiran Chetry stated that there is "no denying" global warming is happening, but added, "I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) share the consensus view that, as stated in a June 2006 NAS report, "[H]uman activities are responsible for much of the [planet's] recent warming."
In February, the IPCC released its fourth assessment report, which found:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-produced] greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. [The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.]
Later in the interview, Beck repeated a false attack frequently made by conservatives that in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), former Vice President Al Gore greatly exaggerated worst-case projections of sea level increases. Beck told Chetry, "It is important to have ... a reasonable conversation on this without the, you know, shock waves of 20 feet of sea level rise." As Media Matters noted, this characterization of Gore as an alarmist is based on the false claim that the IPCC's assessment of a likely rise of 23 inches contradicts Gore's claim. But the IPCC projection involved rising sea levels as they are affected before 2100 due to "[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, which is what Gore was discussing in the film.
Beck's appearance on CNN was his second in two days to discuss his special. As Media Matters noted, Beck appeared on the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom and 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."
Chetry ended the interview by announcing, "I guess I just made a programming decision that we're going to run [Beck's special] again at some point."
From the May 3 edition of CNN's American Morning:
CHETRY: A recent poll showed about 60 percent of Americans think that global warming has started, and --
BECK: Yeah.
CHETRY: -- there's a very small amount who think it's never going to happen. Is the debate about the -- I mean, we have gone up, point -- what is it? -- .7 degrees?
BECK: Yeah, about .7 degrees Celsius. Look, there is no --
CHETRY: So there is no denying it's happened. But I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate.
BECK: Yeah. There are three -- there are three questions -- really, kind of four. There's -- has the globe gotten warmer? Yes, it has. That's undeniable. Is this a lasting effect or is this just a cycle? That's still up for debate. The next one is: Is man causing it?
And the fourth one is: If man is causing it and the other three are true, then are we able to stop it? Even there, some scientists say it's already too late. There's a lot of debate.
CHETRY: Right. But we're pretty smart people, and if we can figure out ways to not destroy our planet, shouldn't we at least try?
BECK: Oh, of course we should. Nobody -- I mean -- I want clean air. I want water. I mean, I think this is -- it's obscene to say that people who are on the other side of the debate don't want a clean planet.
I have children, and I think about -- I think about all of the issues that we're facing today as a generational issue. I mean, I don't want to leave our planet in a worse shape for our children. It's not about us. As we get older and have children, it becomes less and less about us and more and more about our children. We should do the right thing. But when you can --
CHETRY: What are people going to get when they watch your special?
BECK: Well, the special was last night. I hope they just got a look at the other side, enough to where they say, "Wait a minute. Let's use reason here. Let's not silence dissent." It is important to have a conversation and important to have a reasonable conversation on this without the, you know, shock waves of 20 feet of sea level rise.
CHETRY: And I guess I just made a programming decision that we're going to run it again at some point.
BECK: Oh, good. Go for it.
CHETRY: Glenn Beck, always great to talk to you. Thanks a lot.
BECK: Great to talk to you. Bye-bye.
"M.MFA Nazis Hate Free Speech"
Wow, now they're using screen tags to INVOKE HITLER.
This is getting beyond ridiculous.
Ok, looks like he's banned. Sorry.
That was unnecessary, IMHO. He's far from the worst, and the poor guy seems like he's run out of video game characters.
Just like Imus, this is not a free speech issue my friend. This is a website owned and operated by a certain entity who allows users and readers like us to post comments on items. If whoever owns this website deems what you're saying as inflammatory, and or improper, you can be, and probably have been, banned. You are free to create your own website, and post whatever it is you want, or start a blog and complain about how bad MMFA is and all. If you don't follow the guidelines, then you get banned. This is a privately owned website. You don't have the right of freedom of speech here, and then again, MMFA is not a government entity either, and therefore is not impeding your freedom of speech, nor are you being taken to jail for making statements. You guys sure have a weird definition of freedom of speech, and as I'm sure that other folks have said on here, there are vehemently right wing wesbites out there that don't allow any liberal viewpoints at all (well reasoned, or raving lunatics), as soon as they see someone disagreeing with what they're saying, they ban them. But hey, that's not impeding my freedom of speech either, again, privately owned website, and I'm a guest, just like you are here.
Speaking of Imus, I hear that man is going to get PAID! I guess that's what happens when you get fired with 40 mill left on your contract when you had a stipulation that you were allowed one warning prior to termination and were encouraged tobe "egdy". Sucks for cbs I guess. Maybe you guys can pitch in so their stock won't take a hit.
He's got to win his lawsuit first before he gets paid. Good luck to him. I hope I hear lots of decrying of this from the right wingers on here who were talking about how bad it was he got fired. You know, conservatives HATE litigation and suing for large amounts of money. Something tells me that they won't have an issue with this one though.
You're right cons DO hate frivolous lawsuits, for example the lawyer suing a mom and pop dry cleaners who lost an $800 pair of pants for over 60 mill even though they offered him $12000 to settle. However, in this case it seems that CBS is breaking a contract that speciffically said for him to be edgy and that he would be warned before he was fired. He's asking for the remainder of the money he's owed so it's not frivolous.
Got a link to back that up with the $800 pair of pants and someone wanting $60 million? I'd like to read up on that story. If true, that is silly, and any sane and reasonable judge is going to throw that out as soon as it walks in the door of his/her courtroom.
As for Imus, I guess it would be up to his employer what they deemed "edgy" and or "controversial", and if that is not explicitly written into his contract, methinks he's going to have an uphill battle. As I said before though, good luck to him. $40 million is a lot of cabbage.
From what I've read, it's a judge that's filing the lawsuit.
I've heard both so I just went with the lesser.
That's correct. The judge is claiming that the cleaner's advertising, including the phrase "Satisfaction Guaranteed," is deceptive and fraudulent. Apparently, the $ figure is derived by the number of violation counts - i.e., number of individual appearances and days - of the phrases.
Personally, I suspect the judge is an egotistical pr*ck who figures he can use his knowledge of law to royally screw someone else over. I wonder if he serves in a jursidiction subject to retention or open election. If so, I'm guessing he didn't anticipate this publicity.
Associated press good enuff for you Hotshot?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120AP_65_Million_Dollar_Pants.html?source=mypi
Sad.
No need to get snippy now. I just wanted to read the story and all. And indeed, it is a judge who has filed the lawsuit, not THE judge hearing the case, for obvious reasons. You'll also notice the NLRB is going to bat for the Chungs in this case, and I still think that the suit is going to get tossed, and this guy will probably be dis-barred and lose his judgeship.
Sorry, I got snippy - PLEASE DON'T GET ME KICKED OFF! I just get tired of having to post links everytime I say something.
Don't worry...MMFA probably has an exemption for comic book characters. (Sorry - couldn't resist.)
I guess it does kinda out me as something libs fear more than anything, a young conservative
I wouldn't call it fear so much as a sort of bland pity.
Well, call it what you want but I made it through the public school system and actually avoided being programmed into a lib. Next comes a harder test while I continue college (pre-law) where the proffesors are even more blatant with their bias. But I've always wondered how a lib, who for the most part thinks America is such an awful place, how do you guys live with yourselves?
I know you aren't really interested, but I'll pretend that was a real question.
The only way things ever advance is by people standing up and saying "no, we won't accept this any more." The reason why you have a two-day weekend is because "America-haters" fought for it. The reason Lake Erie hasn't caught on fire lately is because some rotten commies struggled to have a clean water act instead of moving to Russia like your spiritual forebears wanted them to.
This country was not built with an attitude of "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." It was built by tough, caring people who knew that we all benefit when the least of us benefits.
I was actually referring to the lib view on history that blames many of the worlds problems on America. I never said libs never did any good. That's clearly not the case. In fact, if this was say 1960 during the civil rights movement I'd be a lib (and a republican). Again my point wasn't to imply that libs are never right, I just loathe the far left view of history that seems to think that the world would be better if america and capitalism never existed.
Shaw, I don't know of any serious historian making such a sweeping generalisation. I think it is fine - actually a good thing - that you have a view of history that may be different from my own, though I think it would be good for you if you focused your arguments more.
Are there really people who say the world would be better if America and capitalism never existed, or are they saying that some things done in the name of the United States of America were bad, and that some companies did things harmful to others or to the environment.
Best of luck in law school! You have more of a work ethic than I did at that age...
You'd be suprised at some of the things professors say today, such as capitalism is evil, and say that America was responsible for the worst atrocities in the world, etc. BTW, don't be too hard on yourself, I changed my major twice.
Well, we've gone from "the lib view" to a couple of professors...
I believe I did say far left views were the ones I was talking about.
I'm still wondering what it was they said. Besides, did they say anything about why they thought that? Always important.
I also don't know any of my liberal friends, who want to effect changes in our country, who say that they "hate" it, which is the commen refrain I hear over and over again from the right wingers I come across on a daily basis, when I might be griping about the war, or how Bush has run the country into the ground. I always, almost always hear, "If you don't like it so much why don't you move to Iran or somewhere else?" Yeah, because that's a "good" argument to be making.
Look Sebastion, I think you're smarter than that, I pray that you're smarter than that. I try not to pidgeonhole conservatives all into one lump group, you should try and not do the same to liberals, because believe it or not, there is probably a lot of common ground betwixt the 2 of us. In your posts, you attacked liberals for their tilted historical view of America, and propped up the argument about liberals always wanting to blame America first, which is really far far away from the truth. Do you have some people who do it? I'm not saying that there aren't, but far and away, the majority of liberals and democrats don't do this at all. Far from it. As others have stated, we see what we perceive as mistakes, and we want to correct them to indeed, possibly make the US of A a better country. It's not about chanting "USA!" at the top of your lungs, it's about working on ideas, and progressing things to make it better in our country, not just for liberals, but for everybody. At least this is the direction that I'm coming from.
You came with strawmen, and had to back off a touch. And don't listen to everything your professors say. Lots of times, these are people who have been isolated in their own little academic world, and they have a different worldview than lots of people who haven't had such sheltering. Take for instance an example from my own life. I am engaged to a wonderful woman, who has spent her entire existence post high school in an academic university setting. She still doesn't understand me having to work an entire summer, while she does not. This is not to say that your professors don't have some valid viewpoints, I'm sure that they do, and sometimes it is hard to not interject your own opinions into classwork, but challenge them on it. And I'm sure that they don't actually believe that America is the root of all evil. The other thing you pulled up was something about public schools, and how you didn't come out a liberal. I hear this view expressed often, especially on the talk radio shows about how evil public schools are, and how they're indoctrinating kids to the "liberal" way. Well, I'd wager that a vast majority of people in this entire country went to public schools, and we all have a lot of different viewpoints. Public schools don't make you liberal, or conservative. They educate you. This is such a strawman/boogeyman argument put out there so often by right wingers, it makes me sick (when most of THEM were educated in the same public school system that they so decry). I feel that a lot of times, how you're raised at home is more indicative of what political leaning you may take on, and let's face it, when you're in high school, and for the most part, most people in college, you couldn't care less about politics. You're thinking about that girl in the next row, or a game you're playing that night, or some parties you want to go to. I know I speak for myself, and a lot of my friends I went to college with, when I say that when I was at University, I was a lot more concerned about where I was going to get beer on a Friday night moreso than what was going on politically, and indeed, it is a good time for that.
Because that is a total misrepresentation of the liberal view. Which would be more accuratly stated as America has done a lot of good in the world and has also done bad things, so we ought to keep doing the good things and stop doing the bad things. Typical of brainwashed rightwingers, the have to aknowlege the FACTUAL REALITY of things like the US overthrowing democratically elected governments like in Iran in 53, Guatemala in 54, The Dominican Republic in 64 (which included an invasion by the Marines) Brazil in 64 and Chile in 73 replacing democracies with military dictatorships. Those things are undeniable. However strangely to a conservative its not bad that we DID them its only bad that anyone ever TALKS about them. Many conservatives want to live in a fantasy bubble. Reality is not allowed unless it conforms to that fantasy. If it doesnt, then it is irrelevant that its true anyone that points out unpleasant truths is somehow an America hater because to cons patriotism isnt about watching administrations and demanding our governments uphold the values we associate with our country rather its about chanting our name and denying any reality that is unpleasant. You know propaganda isnt meant to convince thinking people, its meant to give cover to moral cowards who would rather hide behind illusion than demand our government do the right thing.
The only way things ever advance is by people standing up and saying "no, we won't accept this any more."
Unless you're a conservative talk show host, then if you say those things you are threatened with being fired or removed from the air by liberal web sites/bloggers.
What do you imagine you are referring to?
appy-polly-loggies there, AP. I didn't realize Imus invoking 'nappy-headed hos' was actually a reasoned stance on the American government's domestic or foreign policy. Now that I know that, I'll write CBS immediately.
That makes us even. I have always wondered how conservatives who for the most part are ignorant brainwashed morons live with themselves.
It's $60 million because Pam Anderson's phone number was in the pants pocket.
Do all you moonbats have ADD? What's Imus got to do with Beck and Kiran?
Do you work at being so stupid or is it a natural gift?
This is a website owned and operated by a certain entity who allows users and readers like us to post comments on items.
Let be more specific. This is a website funded by people who sell carbon credits, which is why they are so biased against man made global warming skeptics. Think about it.
Which of those people funding the website are selling carbon credits, and how do I look into purchasing them?
So now the causes of global warming are "closed for debate"?.....and even a mention that other viewpoints may have a sliver of merit is now misinformation?
That is absurd.
The debate is over Tommy. You lost. And anyone who says otherwise is a fear-mongering, anti-science money-grubbing planet-hating selfish prig-bastard.
And don't forgot - anti-gay, racist, mysogynistic, rightwing nut job.
You said it Bruce! Right on! J/k
I don't care that Beck is saying what he is saying. He put it out there and I don't agree with him at all. My beef is he is trying to make like he is offering up a "Valid" contradictory argument.
Beck and people like him are basically telling everyone that conservation and reducing oil depency is bad. That there is nothing wrong greenhouse gases and cars that pollute. That it's ok for companies not to at least to begin to try to clean up there act.
I don't care if they don't believe in man made globla warming, it's just that the message they put out along with that is all bunk.
"Beck and people like him are basically telling everyone that conservation and reducing oil depency is bad. That there is nothing wrong greenhouse gases and cars that pollute. That it's ok for companies not to at least to begin to try to clean up there act." - monknj80 / Thursday May 3, 2007 02:27:05 PM EST
You're kidding, right? One of the cornerstone issues of Beck's show is about REDUCING oil dependency because until we do the radicals in the Middle East can seriously ruin our economy.
Pretty much, yeah.
prig-bastard
I feel lucky....I haven't been called that yet.
Unless you bow at the altar of the global warming evangelicals, you will soon.
TOMMY:
The altar of global warming?
So you are equating SCIENCE with FAITH.
What manner of incongruent comparison will you attempt next?
Apples with dinosaurs? Dinosaurs with fungus? Buicks with Pontiacs?
All right, I'll give you the last one.
I marvel at global warming deniers or skeptics who have no problem accepting the Noah's ark flood story as "gospel" truth but are incredulous that a measurable rise in sea levels will occur IF Greenland or Antarctica's ice caps were to melt.
I know how to get you folks onboard: add global warming to the Bible. Make a third testament. Why not. The Bronze Age tribesmen who invented the Bible cannot sue or protest. And it would be the only real and verifiable thing in the whole damn book.
Randy
I am equating the voracity and the fierce protectionism that the global warming alarmists equip themselves with on this issue thus dismissing any naysayers who do not share their views.......with similar fervor that those of unshakeable religious faith often do.
Tommy, if you thought a major, preventable calamity was about to befall the Earth, and nothing was being done about it because a small, vocal minority was distorting and dismissing the views of the world's best scientists... you might get your dander up a little.
Anyway, to equate the assertion that science is the best tool we have to describe our natural world with religious fervour is a vulgar false equivalence. I would have thought we got beyond that since, oh, I don't know, the Eighteenth Century.
You're right, I did get my dander up a little when a recent major, preventable calamity was about to befall the earth - but the Democrats took control of Congress anyway......(kidding).
I am only equating the fervor that both sides have in their entrenched beliefs, that's the analogy. Don't invent one I didn't make.
I am only equating the fervor that both sides have in their entrenched beliefs, that's the analogy. Don't invent one I didn't make. - Tommy
There you go again with the B-word.
Belief plays no role in global warming. It is tangible, observable, measurable reality.
One does not believe in the sun or the moon or the stars or gravity or heliocentrism. They exist. They are facts.
Belief is strictly a component of religion. Why? Because it's whole cloth balderdash, so one MUST believe because it is without evidence or support. One dose of THINKING and the entire charade comes crashing down.
Randy
There is a hotel in California that has replaced its bibles with Al Gore's book. The analogy is appropriate.
Liar.
The debate is over Bruce?
Oh good, cause for whatever reason I don't find this subject all that interesting.
Damn, did I just write that?
Does that make me an anti-global warming believer???
Sorry, didn't mean to insult anyone's religion ;-) [yup got that from Rush]
;-)
the debate goes on. one big unexplained factor is past temerature swings and their beneficial effects
Actually, a lot is known about the paleoclimate, given that, you know, there were no scientists back then. Much of what we know about the current climate was learned from studying the climate of past eras through what they call "proxy records" like tree rings and little bubbles of air trapped in ice.
and it looks like warmer weather will help the planet
Tommy, why did you put quotes around that phrase? Did someone actually say that?
Val, Read the headline - apparently it is blatant misinfomation to say global warming is still up for debate......so obviously the issue, according to MMFA, is closed.
Sorry. Usually when you put quotes around something, it means that you are, you know, quoting someone.
It also means an interpretive meaning as summarized by myself. considering the opposite of "up for" and "open" is "closed" - pretty self explanatory.......but then you don't get into these meta arguments, do you?
Tommy, if they never said it, they never said it.
If she had said "the cause is almost certainly human pollution, but what we can do to help is up for debate" she may have had a leg to stand on. In reality, the debate on wether there is global climate change, and wether 150 years of greenhouse gas pollution is the primary cause is over. What is up for debate is, will changing ocean currents speed up or slow down the warming? Will particulates from coal fired plants in China and India temper the warming? There is alot of debate, out in the open, among scientists and policy wonks who have spent years or decades in the climate change arena. What is disinformation is this constant harping about useless arguments such as the "Gore is an alarmist because he said sea levels will rise 20 feet". Well, guess what? That is such an easy calculation that even your above average high school pre calculus student can verify that if the Greenland ice mass melts completely, sea levels will rise at least 20 feet. Unbeknownst to Beck, there are hundreds of scientists who will gleefully stay up for 2 days on end to triple check some one elses data and results. These people are obsessed with accuracy. I know, my father is one of them. Here is one example of thousands of articles regarding the effects of climat change. I know it is 800 billion words long, so skip to the bottom and look at the footnotes. The footnotes are a good indicator of wether you are looking at actual scientific research or some propaganda cobbled together.
no there is still inadequate evidence that it is anthropomorphic. was the mesozoic heat wave human caused? the early middle ages? what about the little ice age? the theory is incomplete at best
anthropomorphic
Why do I get the distinct impression that you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about?
anthropomorhic
andro, anthro = human, or man as in androgen
morphos = change or make
anthropomorphic = man made
C(ertainly) N(ot) N(ews) and facts.... how come you never see them in the same room at the same time? Makes 'ya wonder, huh?
the cycle argument has been debunked over and over again. How many more ice cores do we need to review before the right will get it through their thick skulls?
Columbus thought the earth was round.
And another post that has the incorrect basis showing, since it was deleted. Sorry, Snoop.
No worries, I've read enough of your posts to know that wasn't directed at me!
But the IPCC projection involved rising sea levels as they are affected before 2100 due to "[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
So Al takes the worst possible scare scenario of 20 feet and the IPCC takes 23 inches. Any wonder why this whole notion of global warmaing is up for debate? Al is a fear monger. Greenland being flooded tomorrow is as likely as Bill Clinton becoming a one woman man. Ain't gonna happen.
Having just finished reading the report, I have to agree that there's a big difference between 2 feet and 20 feet. But, does that mean we shouldn't worry now?
What irks me is that the other side keeps saying "well all we want is a debate," but then when they actually get one, it's like they brought a toy ightsaber to a knife fight.
Problem is that those things look good on TV, so people walk away going "well, I guess there are two sides to every story."
I'm going to lunch now, and if this GW thread isn't up to 200 comments when I get back, I'll be very disappointed.
It would be if they didn't keep getting deleted.
---"It would be if they didn't keep getting deleted."---
It would be if right-wing commenters would refrain from calling us "Nazis".
Val, Despite the global warming alarmists, there are two sides to every debate, or at least this one. Encouraging all sides to speak out usually leaves the weak arguments in the dust, and the stronger survive.....if the other side is so weak in this knife fight, then the pro global warming religiousites should have it easy.
In this corner, an entire community of scientists, climatologist and researchers!
And in this corner, a guy who thinks that Al Gore is the next Hitler!
Let's get ready to rumble!
Not so sure about that. The Creationists have held on for quite some time, now, and are even making progress in some states. It's not always the best science that wins, but the loudest voices.
Considering that at least 50% of Americans believe in the biblical story of creation and that the earth is 10,000 years old, you'd think that that should still be a debatable issue as well.
The fact is, there are segments of society that believe the Biblical account is the literal truth, and insist on its being tought in the public schools.
The rhetoric of "let's hear both sides of the debate" sounds very nice, Tommy, but what you're advocating in this instance is the relegation of the validity of science to describe the physical world as "just another opinion." I can't see how that's good for society.
Val, I believe you misdirected your ire on this post at me.
I was replying to Rino in the first paragraph and to you in the second.
A debate between scientists and people with an agenda lacking scientific qualifications in the field is not "bringing a knife to a gun fight," or whatever the expression is being used. It's more like bringing a baseball bat to a tennis match. Scientists are not equipped to win rhetorical, sound-bite-sized arguments, nor should they be.
Nobody is insisting that creation be taught in public schools. Just intelligent design. This is a scientific theory. God and the bible aren't mentioned in this theory. It's basically just a critique of evolution. I've listened to speakers who have used extensive scientific theory to cast doubt on the theory of evolution and explain that the earth is to complex to have happened by chance. This is scientific theory, not religion.
This is scientific theory, not religion.
No, it's not. ID theorists have not submitted a single scientific paper for peer review. However, they have sucked someone like you, bright and well-read by all appearances, into their bullchit.
This is the exact problem I have with these faux debates.
"bright and well-read by all appearances"
Wow. Be careful what you say. You might make the liberal posters on here angry.
I'm hardly angry. Especially at Val. I'm a little upset about having to clean a partially chewed piece of my peanut butter sandwich off my monitor, but I really should have known better than to take that swig of milk before reading the rest of your comment. THAT was my bad.
Mmmm... peanut butter...
Peanut butter cups...peanut butter on apples, on celery, peanut butter sandwiches with or without jelly or marshmellow fluff, peanut butter right out of the jar by the spoonful. Yum :-)
Ketchup on everything else....
Jeter, whatever your other flaws ;-) you are a man of taste and distinction!
tabasco sauce or malt vinagar on french fries...
I myself like either hot sauce, or covering them with Au Jus gravy and some melted Mozzarella. Decadant, yet delicious
Ketchup? Ugh.
Now I know why I don't get along with conservatives. UGH.
ID is religion with the religious words carefully extracted in an effort to pass it off as science.Maybe it's not BS, but it is an attempt to attack science with nothing.
HBL
This is the topic that really chaps my hide. The ID'rs want to change the very definition of science. Their stated goal is to remove secular reasoning from US policy. This a very sophisticated movement to roll back democracy to feudal states. Their only weakness is that they will never be able to agree on who is the most Christian and thus gets to wear the biggest hat.
Also, what you said isn't surprising. I wouldn't think that mainstream scientists would publish something that the vast majority don't agree with. If the ID design advocates sent their theory in for peer review, it would no doubt be rejected by scientists who fully believe in the theory of evolution.
I think you may have a confused notion of what "peer review" means. It's not like American Idol, where they just express their opinions, and slam the kids that aren't cool enough. Criticisms are based on, you know... science. Validity. Repeatability. All that.
I don't understand what people think the alternative to peer review should be. A coin toss? Arm-wrestling?
Wrong. If ID was peer reviewed (and I think it was to appease those who believe in the crap that one must believe before succumbing to ID) then it would be handed to a 10th grader to be resoundly debunked.
It is interesting to read about Stephen J Gould's debates with Gish. Anyone with even an inkling of scientific thought knows that creationism/ID is insulting to scientific thought.
Also, the trend of "we need equal debate" is absurd when religion/magic is the basis for "science." Pedophiles who truly believe in their cause represent a larger portion of the public than ID believers, and yet we don't give them equal time. We know they represent a small minority for reasons that don not need to be debated.
If some random dude says that the world was created by a tree frog, and for political reasons attracts a few followers, so we have to now divide the discussion into thirds now?
"Pedophiles who truly believe in their cause represent a larger portion of the public than ID believers"
Not quite:
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
.
God GuidedThe ProcessGod HadNo PartCreated InPresent FormOther (vol.)/Unsure %%%%3/28-29/07
3013489Sorry that didn't work quite right. I'll just provide the link.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Yep, more people believe in ID than pedaphilia.
Isn't that kind of similar to having the fullest shopping cart in the alley?
Sadly, they must have interviewed Americans only. Only in America would so many religious unthinkers take parables for truth or science.
Are you sure they were not the same group that was asked if Saddam had something to do with 9-11? I see a troubling trend where the easily misinformed are the same 48% (?) who believed in Bush (now down to a paltry 18%) They may be the same people who did not vomit while watching that whiny-voiced Beck pretend to know something about anything scientific. May as well believe the authors of Bush's environment web site (on the internets, no doubt.)
Even more sadly, I think Rinohunter was trying to bolster his position that debate on any issue is justified by enough people being ignorant.
These poll numbers are embarrassing for a developed nation.
Exactly, it doesn't make a difference if 90% of people believe in creationism or ID. It's not science, so it's not acceptable for it to be presented as such.
"No creationism, just Intelligent design"....hah hah!. hysterical! "Another scientific theory"..hee hoo hooho.... ow. ow. My stomach hurts...
Please excuse me while I change my pants, and clean the milk off my upper lip.
Rave on sweetie. Science is in large part an agument. Some arguements last for centuries. At what point might you say we need work here, not a 20 year argument over a couple decimal places?
Yes, it's the "scientific theory" that a diety of your choosing created the world.
By definition this is not science, because science has to be able to be disproven, by definition. There is no scientific method for determining the existence or influence of supernatural beings.
Sorry for the under-edited post. To make up for it, a link.
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."
And support from the National Academy of Sciences.
Its NOT a scientific theory. The court even ruled it is a relabelling of creationism
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
If we have to debate everything that half of the country believes, I think I'll go take a nap.
My father taught me that the geological record and dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil to test our faith, and that carbon dating is completely unreliable.
Now that I'm an adult, I'm happy to take the side of carbon dating. Once again - not every argument is a valid one just because the people are loud or because they are numerous.
"there are two sides to every debate,"
There are at least two sides to every debate. There are not always at least two valid sides to every debate. The valid part of this debate is: How do we slow our impact on global climate change, and can we do anything to reverse the damage? There are many, many valid sides to that debate.
The debate that the right seems to be interested in having is one in which they do not have a valid argument - namely, it's mostly not our fault so we don't need to do anything about it. Irresponsible and infactual.
"It is important to have a conversation and important to have a reasonable conversation on this without the, you know, shock waves of 20 feet of sea level rise."
A reasonable conversation! What a concept, Beck!
There's just one problem.
When someone, such as Al Gore, tries to reasonably converse and tell us that if we lose our polar ice, the resulting water volume will raise sea levels by 20 feet, YOU INVOKE HITLER AND CALL GORE A NAZI PROPAGANDIST!!!!!!!!!!
Is this "reasonable conversation"?
Our vanishing friend posted a reference to "Global Cooling". I notice that the Cons like to bring this up. However, according to the article the Forbidden One cited, the Global Cooling Theory "never had significant scientific support."
The global warming science is based on the best evidence available in 2007. No disagreement from me. But science goes back on itself all the time, they might in this case as well. They also might not.
Ever seen a picture of an atom from an early textbook? Not exactly how it looks now. Pluto? That was actually a planet when I was in high school, but I guess science changed their mind on that one too. I could go on.
The best debunker of science is better science.
The best debunker of science is better science.
Couldn't have said it better myself, and I won't try.
Here are some global warming naysayers and I think they know a little more than MMFA:
CHRIS HORNER, AUTHOR, "POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING": Kyoto encourages people to run the hell away from it.
JOHN CHRISTY, PH.D, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: There are examples of Chinese factories that are being used to buy credits for European countries, so European countries can say, "Well, we can pollute because we`re reducing pollution in China."
BJORN LOMBORG, AUTHOR, "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST`S GUIDE": Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good. That`s not a good deal.
On global warming studies, temperature change, and the possible effects (natural disasters, rising oceans, etc.):
LEWIS: Where [Gore]'s misleading is that he gives the impression that this is something that is likely to happen. The likelihood of this is next to nil.
DAVID LEGATES, PH.D, CLIMATOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: The IPCC report is that the upper limit of sea level rise by the year 2100 is going to be about 23 inches.
BALL: We now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO-2. And one of the fundamental assumptions that Gore doesn`t understand is that in the theory of global warming due to humans is, as the CO-2 goes up, the temperature will go up. Well, the ice floe records show it`s exactly the opposite.
GEORGE TAYLOR, CLIMATOLOGIST: Most of the climate change we`ve seen up until now has been as a result of natural variations.
ROY SPENCER, PH.D, FORMER SENIOR CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NASA: Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there`s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it`s warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there`s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.
CHRISTY: One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous.
MICHAELS: There are two factors that most climatologists think happened that don`t seem to be included in it, which are the little Ice Age, which is a very cold period that ended in the late 19th century, and the medieval warm period, around 1000 or so.
HORNER: Since the third U.N. report, for which this was the smoking gun, there`s been a fourth U.N. report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can`t see you. It`s not in there. Guess what? It`s air-brushed out, in classic fashion, and they don`t even mention why it`s not here. What hockey stick? I didn`t see any hockey stick.
On the global warming crowd, and their intimidation tactics:
LEGATES: I think those people are entitled to their views, but in many cases it`s not the scientific consensus.
BALL: Many times I`ve been tempted to say why am I doing this? If I had gone along with the prevailing wisdom, the funding would have been enormous. Instead, I`m accused of getting the money from the oil company, which is simply a lie. I think that the truth is absolutely paramount, and if we abandon that, we`re lost ... The problem with the media is that it`s essentially become a business, and everything`s got to be more sensationalized.
MARTIN EBERHARD, CEO, TESLA MOTORS: I think that anybody whose idea about how to fix the world starts off by, "First, we`re going to change human nature," is doomed.
Way to copy-paste.
Any of these people published any peer-reviewed research on the subject?
Peer reviews are meaningless if the person doing the reviewing has the same mindset. It would be like Ford saying American cars are better and havingGeneral Motors backing it up. You will get the same answers.
Overall, an interesting post. I'm reading about the Oregon Petition now, and a lot of what I'm reading states that it is anything from a hoax to an unverifyable mess. It sounds like a lot of the science is untested and the practices used were underhanded and misleading.
In addition, at least one of your quotes (the very last one about changing human nature), is woefully out of context and could be applied to just about any subject. Can you provide the context for the CEO's quote, or is it, as I suspect, in reference to them creating a car that looks nice and drives nice and has freedom, which is why most electric cars fail to capture public interest?
And now I'm reading about John Christy and Roy Spencer, whose careers are so close as to be counted as one person, it seems. On the one hand, you have a scientist who thoroughly denied Global Warming until he couldn't, then said that it was actually good for the environment. On the other hand, you have a scientist who denies human involvment in climate change.
Putting aside for a moment the CO2 emissions ... you also have large-scale alterations to the environment, from clear-cutting to extensive over-farming to strip-mining to creating substances which do not naturally exist creating waste that does not naturally exist. Is there any doubt that humanity has had at least some effect on the climate and workings of Earth's ecosystem?
Finally, assuming that it is totally natural and that we have nothing at all to do with Global Warming, doesn't the loss of comfort and ease (at minimum) of living tell us that we should be doing something to head it off?
loss of ease? longer growing seasons would make life easier in some places
And drought will make life harder in a lot of places. Rut ro!
longer growing seasons are a given. drought is a guess based on computer models
The "mindset" you are talking about is called "the scientific method." It is not a political, moral, or spiritual opinion or belief. It is a set of techniques for verifying the results of experiments and validating observations based on those facts.
I have no problem with people who have other opinions than mine. Science is not an opinion or a belief, however. It's a way of doing things. There is not a red or blue science, or left, right, Christian or Jewish. There's just science.
Oh? If there's no such thing as Christian Science, then why do we have a Christian Science Monitor?!
Nya-ha!
... err ... sorry, it's the end of the day, and I'm really tired.
I know you're kidding, but that's just what I'm talking about: taking a religious belief like "disease is caused by lack of faith" and slapping the word "science" on it.
Words mean things, as our friend Rush is wont to say...
Science is extremely political. Always has been, always will be. In order to get money and support for science, you need cash. In order to get cash you have to raise money, win grants, raise awareness, etc. If oil companies sponsor science, do you feel there is no politics there? If federal grants are given to study global warming, do feel there is no politics there? After all, if there is no global warming who is going to fund the grants? Why have Laurie David and Cheryl Crow, combined IQ of a sponge, run around the country in planes and Lauries big SUV to pump global warming? GW is nothing but politics, that's why in 20 years our generation will be a laughingstock for pumping the biggest farce in the generations.
If money were as central as you say it is to the scientific enterprise, then why is there not one referred paper refuting anthropogenic global warming?
hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSDEAD you are clearly uninformed about what science is as well as how peer review is done. Since YOU think science is about the opinions you mistakenly believe that scientists think the same thing.
I think if I pasted the scientists that know the topic well enough (peer reviewed if you wish) then you would have to read through a list 100x yours. I know someone who thinks Saddam had something to do with 9-11, and another who thinks the world is flat. Although I'll let them speak, I think we can agree that we do not have to rent a conference room and let them embarrass themselves.
Hey GOPLOVESTOGETAMERICANSKILLED
Can you say peer review? I knew you couldnt. Find out what science IS then get back to us
Oh no! someone's suggesting we debate something! This is horrible!
Don't be scared. Give it a try.
You may find that you actually enjoy doing real research.
"[T]he cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate"
Imagine that. Having a debate on a controversial issue. I know that liberals don't like to debate, but this is getting ridiculous. This whole censorship movement is out of control. A lot of these quasi-socialist scientists are the same ones that were saying that we were going through global cooling back in the 70s. The absurdity never ends.
We love debating. It's just we like to discuss facts.
See above about your global cooling drivel. It was never accepted as a fact by the scientific community...
Correction: Liberals like to debate so long as the opponent can come armed with more than, "You're the second coming of Hitler!"
Wrong in so many ways. Show me one, ONE, scientist who said there was going to be an ice age in the 70's and now says that the climate is getting warmer.
I know conservatives HATE facts and that reality thing. Its amazing how much they love to repeat the long debunked rightwing lies. There was NEVER any real scientific consensus on global cooling it was just looked into, SCIENCE did its job and the facts made it go away. Keep pretending that the world was all atwitter about it though. Its ludicrous but amusing. There is NO censorship going on at all then again without a strawman baseless assertion one of your posts wouldnt be complete
Time for a little fun! Think Neal Diamond...
Glenn Beck lies
everybody knows that!
He smears, and cries
and other stuff just like that.
Me and you, are subject to,
his rants now and then.
But if you take a swig it's not that big,
just childish chatter again...
Sing it with me, everyone!
This is like the abortion debate, really. Both sides completely unwilling to give the other an inch of acknowledgement.
Antarctica unlikely to melt into ocean. Natural climate change likely the biggest contributor to global warming.
Widescale release of carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere are bad. At the very least, they are contributing to the Earth's current warming pattern. Human activity is responsible for a notable portion of these pollutants being released.
Repeat, rinse. See, was that so bad?
It could not be any more unlike the abortion debate.
There is no disagreement about the physical facts of abortion - only their interpretation. Both parties to the agreement accept the scientific evidence that humans grow from cells replicating in a woman's uterus. The only question is what to do about it, which is a wrenching debate, but at least it's focused.
The only way for your analogy to make sense is if one side denied the existence of the embryo, or said there was still debate about whether babies grew in cabbage patches and were delivered by storks.
I disagree. I know SOME details are different, but one of the major points debated on abortion is whether the fetus is a "person/human being" or a sort of appendage to its mother until birth. I think that could be related to whether the Earth is warming from natural or "unnatural" causes.
Val,
I think you missed the analogy..........I believe he is saying that people are so entrenched in their views on both global warming and abortion, that alternate views are immediately discounted and dismissed without benefit of discussion or debate.
Exactly, the global warming debate has devolved into something tantamount to debating religion. This is why I decided a long time ago to not debate it. Both sides are so set in their beliefs that they hardly consider the other side. Personally I believe man is probably not causing it one only has to look at the world's history of climate change to see that but I've come to the point where I just plain won't debate it because neither side will listen to the other sides views.
Interesting... You won't debate the issue, as both sides are too close minded, but you will offer your opinion that it's not affected by humans.Based on ...?
Is the climate on Mars warming because of humans? No, it is caused by the sun. Same thing could be happening here.
Hey, you got your screen name and your silly point from Rush.
Same thing could be happening here.
Yeah, and you know the cool thing about science? You can actually test ideas like that.
Which has already been done.
Thanks for making my point.
Actually, it's caused by variations in Mars' orbit. It's a typical 5 or 6 year cycle (I'm doing this from memory. If you care to rebut with references, I'll reciprocate).
I don't think you know nuttin'.
Wrong! Holy crikey. Do you really think that the incredibly brilliant people researching why global temps are rising did not think, hmm, I wonder if that giant ball of nuclear fusion burning away near us might be the cause? Of course they asked that question and still do, but, alas the cycles of the sun can account for only a tiny fraction of global climate change. In fact it's the inverse, solar cycles are so feeble that the much stronger effects of terrestrial causes completely shadow any solar cycles. Now, maybe there is some physical property of fusion that is yet to be discoverd that will put all the blame on the sun, but that is like waiting for aliens to land and show us how to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere in a way that would have a net effect of cooling the atmosphere.
In conclusion, CO2 levels are now higher ( by quite a bit) than at any time in the last 650,000 years. That stat alone pretty much puts the temp rise at the feat of us, humans.
Hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSDEAD
Did you know that Mars orbit is much more eccentric than Earths? Did you notice the stories in the last five years that Mars is closer to the earth than it has been in centuries? Did you know the Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars therefore Mars is closer to the Sun than it has been for centuries? Do you just parrot the rightwing talking points without spending one second thinking whether or not they make sense?
It is not the side that values scientific debate and the scientific method that refuses to change their mind.
It's people like you who decide that global warming is not man-made, contrary to all the evidence, who won't be swayed by evidence.
This is another example of those on the right who have flaws who project those flaws upon others who are not similarly flawed!
Again, I discount that a disagreement between hundreds of scientists and decades of research that has been published and refereed on the one hand, and some guy with a theory on the other, can be called "debate."
There is nothing stopping anyone who has a theory from doing the research and testing it. Nothing.
I disagree with your assessment. It seems to me on one side we've had a growing confidence in the idea that humans contributing to global warming based on an increasing body of scientific evidence. On the other, we've had changing hypotheses that, when one is discounted, another replaces it. The former seems like science; the latter seems like religion.
You realize, no matter how wrong-headed you may think the opponents of Gore's model of Global Warming is, this is not misinformation. It is clearly debated by some. Whether or not their science can stand against peer review and facts is not the issue. Whether or not you can sling invectives FOR or AGAINST isn't the issue.
The issue listed is "(T)he cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate." And it's true that it is.
As an example:
What is the best way we should all help the environment? Carpool? Oil-industry-funded subsidation of energy research? Oil-industry-funded credits toward purchasing lower emissions vehicles? Legislations? Personal Responsibilities? Not pointing at someone and saying "They do it too! They'll do it if I don't!" Biking to work? Mandating tax money be spent to research energy? Mandating tax research to fund something else entirely? Pray?
As far as I've heard, not a single person has given everyone one clear plan as to what to do. While I realize my statements above do not clearly frame the debate as intended, the point is clear. There is debate to be had as to what we can do to solve it, and what is the most efficient and do-able way for everyone to help out.
Red, I believe we should be debating what to do about it. In fact, we must. The reason that we are not having that debate, though, is precisely because some people insist on having a sham debate about the cause.
"What to do about it" is a political and social issue that is best left to those best equipped to decide it: the people and the political and social organizations that represent them. Determining the cause of climate change is best left to those best equipped to decide it: climatologists and earth scientists. Politicians shouldn't be debating science and scientists shouldn't be depating policy.
I'm sorry, it just seems that straightforward to me.
"best left to..........climatologists and earth scientists"
What about ex-vice Presidents?
What about ex-vice Presidents?
Stop it Tommy, Gore is the Pope of Global Warming...after all he uses carbon credits.
Can I buy those on line ;-)
BTW, good one hehehe.
Al Gore is making a case about what we should do about global warming. He is not debating the cause, he says it is clear, because... wait for it... there is a scientific consensus.
Vice Presidents who base their comments upon the research of scientists and climate researchers?
Of course they would be acceptable sources. Gore is not spouting his own uninformed opinion, after all!
That frivolous statement about Gore is nothing but catty. Lets remember he spent most of his Senate career in the Science and technology comittee. Its not like he is some guy from Taco Bell. He is used to dealing with scientific issues as part of his job.
If they have done their research and choose to lend whatever charisma they have, then any people are welcome. However, as stated previously by other posters (I think), it should come down to facts vs. facts, not opinions vs. opinions or ever personality vs. personality. Because someone's profession does not reflect a learned background does not indicate a lack of knowledge on a subject (though it may so imply this).
So long as each side sticks to its own facts and avoids slander and name-calling, the debate over what to do can only be enhanced. And as I stated, there has to be a debate because some people, bless them, are not willing to do anything until they are told what to do and how to do it. I think we can all agree, lib, con, dem, rep, whatever, that not a single one of us wants to be shaken off by the planet, and, despite the blatant anthromorphication by yours truly, this is essentially what will occur if we do not address the issue from the standpoint that we can do something about it, no matter what the root cause(s) may be.
How many times has Gore turned down an invitation from Beck to appear on his program(s)? I will wager a steak dinner on ZERO.
Very reasonable post, but Beck and people like him advocate doing nothing. They don't seem to think there is a problem and in my opinon thats dangerous.
Even if there is global warming, the debate, as I see it, is how much is man made?
The IPCC report is very biased in many of it's conclusions. It is put together by many activist scientists and politicians. I've read where some scientists have resigned from the studies because of the overt bias expressed by some of the compilers of the report. I've read of studies that conflict with the 'official' concensus that were disregarded when the report was put together.
There is evidence of previous global warmings and coolings and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. I've read where one good sized volcano somewhere (I forget where) recently emmitted more C02 into the atmospere than all the internal combustion engines combined for that year. (Maybe some one else can correct me if I am wrong.)
Having said that, if we want to lessen reliance on internal combustion engines and oil, we need to develop an alternative cheap fuel technology. I'm all in favor of that. (Who wouldn't be?) Any suggestions?
The IPCC report is very biased in many of it's conclusions. It is put together by many activist scientists and politicians. I've read where some scientists have resigned from the studies because of the overt bias expressed by some of the compilers of the report. I've read of studies that conflict with the 'official' concensus that were disregarded when the report was put together.
Do you have a source for any of those allegations?
I dont think the question is how much man is contributing so much as IS the amount man is contributing enough to pass the tipping point. If I add only .01% of cyanide into your martini is the amount I put in the crucial point or the EFFECT of the amount I put in.
"The IPCC report is very biased in many of it's conclusions."
The IPCC report was open to government review before it was released, and was only changed very minimally. If it were "very biased" against our welfare, one would think it would have been rejected.
I believe some of the above article takes to task some of your sources. I beleive they are your sources because you post sounds an awful lot like what is used as examples by the shows "experts"
As far as what to do. I've found info here and there. The things include. Solar cells, wind power, geothermal, fuel cells,greater efficiency in prime movers and auxilliary mechanisms. There are some fancy plans concerning global warming. This is a larger present market than many realise (hello G.E.) Leadership in many companies look more willing to invest here than do our political and media leadership. If we're extremly lucky, sucess here could render this debate accedemic. MY look at it is that effort here is good regardless. If somehow Beck and friends are right and shove it in our faces for as long as it makes him smile. Ok where's the downside. Rational things that dent our impact on our home are pretty hard for me to argue against.
eweston,
Some great ideas, but they seem to me at this point to be bandaids. Would any of these replace internal combustion engines? I think unless we can figure out a way to power automobiles that does not rely on cabon based fuels, we're really not going to do alleviate man made CO2 emmissions.
Thats one of the current myths. A lot of work has been done on the various technologies and projections. Pretty much what we know now and with the infrastruture we have. Progress in this direction is not hard or expensive and viable results possible. This is just today. As I said regardless of the rhetoric. Busniness, strangly, thinks its possible to make a profit here. Somewhere in the local paper Seattle P.I. was an article on our geothermal resources. Effectivly used these resources can meet or exceed our national electrical energy needs. I'm waiting to hear more about a printable solar cell. The where with all and abilities are to my point of veiw mot. Where it can be lost is in our heads.
As far as personal tranportation goes, some items. A much lighter wieght electrical motor technology is emerging. In the fine tradition of government research somehow making some public person rich, watch for alchohol powered fuel cells. I'm not waiting for duex ex machina. I've been a motorcyclist for over 30 years. The current model gives 40 mpg and performance equal or better than most cars in the $100,000 range. Mind a bad choice due to weather sometimes. For that, when life allows and I can drag myself away from the keyboard, I'm building a kit car. 300hp pushing a ton in wieght should return a good economy, and occasionally be as exciting as all hell.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think the NAS and IPCC have many of the same people.
As an aside, I thought it telling when Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite opposed the windmills off the coast Massachuesetts mainly, as it is widely suspected, because it interfered with their view.
Who was talking about Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite?
I'll take a guess- Rush?
Actually, no. Kennedy did not say that he opposed them because of his view. I cannot find a single quote from him stating why he opposed it, but several conservative quotes attributing the reason to hiim.
Please don't debate me on wind farm placement, and assume you can win with items from Rush. I have serious (peer reviewed, state awards etc) scientists in my family, one a leader in my state's environmental wetland and wind projects, another in tropical rainforest research, etc. The windmill placement debate among scientists who UNDERSTAND the topic involves the proper placement. You can take pristine mountaintops, cut down many acres of trees, and chop up many migratory birds, including 10,000s of bats. Debate: why not place them on other locations that have the same effect with less destruction.
Respected Columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote this a couple weeks ago about Carbon Offsets, CO2 levels and global warming. He is definitely NOT a right-winger.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn.html?columnsName=aco
Oops!
At which university does Respected Columnist Alexander Cockburn do his research?
Also on this site: Malkin, O'Reilly, Stossel, Sowell, Prager, Blankley, Bozell, Blankley, Limbaugh (David), Novak, North.
Yeah, this is something we need to read to become more informed. I cannot speak for Cockburn's education and scientific understanding, but I wouldn't link to Gould's work if it appeared on this site.
So...what are you saying? ALL these people are idiots?
Or do you just disagree? Or both?
No, though some of the definitly are morons. We are saying they are NOT scientists doing RESEARCH and peer reviewed science. I Think Chomsky is a brilliant man but I wouldnt bet on the Red Sox based on his recommendation.
No Cockburn is definitly not a rightwinger. A longtime writer for the Nation his liberal credentials are solid. This does NOT make him right all the time. Just like Weiner isnt WRONG all the time.
Anyone ever travel to Taiwan or China?
I think that those who oppose environmental issues because they may cost $$ or lifestyle changes may want to stay in an city in Taiwan or China. There have always been wealthy industrialists who have opposed environmental laws because they would hut their bottom line. Sadly, there are many who would listen to Beck (and prefer to live in filth?) because their party sez it's a scam.
Please Beck, go to Taiwan and spend a week. Tell me again how the "alarmists" are destroying America. Every Conservative should pray to their God every day in thanking the environmentalists for their relatively clean water and air. If we physically split the nation into Liberals and Cons, I wouldn't want to live too close to the soon-to-be-polluted Conland. Kinda like eating next to the smoking section.
I once was staying with some friends who has a TV, and I made myself watch Fox News because Kiran Chetry was on. Frankly, I don't know why they don't have her anchor all their shows... by the time she went off the air I was ready to buy a Hummer and shoot small animals.
We're talking that kind of pretty...
"I once was staying with some friends who has a TV, and I made myself watch Fox News because Kiran Chetry was on. Frankly, I don't know why they don't have her anchor all their shows... by the time she went off the air I was ready to buy a Hummer and shoot small animals.
We're talking that kind of pretty... "- valentinian / Thursday May 3, 2007 06:06:20 PM EST
You sexist hatemonger!
"I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate."
That's a fair statement. MMFA says there is a consensus. However, consensus does not equate fact. As long as there is merely a consensus, the cause and how we can help is indeed up for debate.
I'm glad to she that Kiran's brain has not turned to mush after joining the left-leaning CNN.
Let me pose a hypothetical, Kevin.
You have a weird lump in your left nut. You go to the doctor and he thinks it might be testicular cancer. He wants more evidence so he runs some tests. They seem to confirm the diagnosis, so he calls a specialist. The specialist runs some more tests, discusses it at his weekly meeting and they all agree: cancer.
The doctor breaks the news to you. Scared and depressed, you go out to the bar and have a drink to settle your nerves. You spot a friend there. You tell him the news. He says "I had that once, but I read that happens sometimes when you eat spicy food so I didn't do anything."
Now, we do, by your definition, certainly have a "debate" here. The question is, who has more credibility, a panel of doctors or some guy at a bar?
Kevin, what part of "
CHETRY: What are people going to get when they watch your special?
BECK: Well, the special was last night."
makes you think she is not just another rusty shovel in the CNN toolshed? Left leaning compared to what? The voices in Karl Rove's head?
CNN is not left leaning your baseless assertion is without merit. My liberal friends refer to CNN as Contains No News. I have no problem with a debate as long as it is a SCIENCE debate not an oil company inspired opinion vs scienced debate that lasts till the end of time. Either they can do real science reviewed by OTHER scientists, you know the way science is DONE. Or they arent debating they are obstructing.
The Beaver (aka Glenn Beck)...expert on...NOTHING. Wrong about virtually EVERYTHING!!
Good grief CNN, I remember when you were actually a NEWS network. Isn't it time to change the middle "N" to "C"...for comedy.
I just read an interesting paper by Naomi Oreskes of UCSD on the subject of proof and consensus and what it all means.
Abstract
Ah, if only that was the last word. I will be referencing that quote quite a bit. But it won't fly in the black and white world of the somewhat right of center community.
peer reviewed articles eh? how many on here have read more than five in the last month?
How many peer-reveiwed studies have you ever read which contradict the consensus view?
my point exactly. I havent had time to read any peer reviewed articles except on drugs. and please I do have a right to discuss this. anyone who says other wise is ignoring the constitution traditin and common sense
I read some Scientific American, but I don't think I'm ready for a test.
[link to www.reason.com] />