Beck's global warming special dominated by industry-funded "experts," serial misinformers
CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck's May 2 hour-long special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, purported to present the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere." Introducing the show, Beck stated: "I want you to know right up front, this is not a balanced look at global warming." Indeed, Beck relied heavily on people with energy industry ties and others espousing positions on global warming that have been soundly debunked or rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying climate change.
Here is a list of those featured:
- Marlo Lewis: Lewis is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an institution funded by the energy industry. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Lewis has said that "global warming is real and humans play a role," but has argued that "[t]rying to do too much to stop warming would be a waste of money better used on new technologies." As The Washington Post reported on March 19, 2006, CEI, "which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a 'major donor' largely as a result of its effort to push that position." According to Lewis' biography on the CEI website, he once appeared on C-SPAN to explain "why taxing the oil industry for 'excessive profits' is counterproductive." On February 10, the Post reported that Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president for public affairs, said that "Exxon's foundation, which he heads, decided in 2005 to cut funding [for CEI], though that came to light only last fall."
- Timothy Ball: Ball is a climatologist who is also the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian environmental think tank whose three-person board of directors includes an executive of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in 'energy, environment and ethics." Timothy Egan, High Park Advocacy Group president, is "a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association," in addition to serving on Natural Resources Stewardship Project's board. Ball was previously an adviser to the industry-funded Friends of Science, which, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported in August 2006, was supported by "a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals." Additionally, according to ExxonSecrets.org, Ball has contributed to Tech Central Station. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Tech Central Station Daily is a website that from 2000 to October 2006 was operated by the Republican lobbying firm DCI Group, which, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is also a "registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm."
Ball has consistently repeated debunked claims aimed to cast doubt on global warming. For instance, in November 2004, Ball claimed that global temperatures have "warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." Ball added: "[S]ince 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the 'urban heat island' effect -- that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations -- if you look at the Antarctic, for example -- the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well."
But, as Media Matters has previously noted, several studies have shown that the urban heat island effect is minimal. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "[t]he total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values."
- Patrick J. Michaels: Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (both published by the Cato Institute); and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. In addition, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, a July 17, 2006, memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) by general manager Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., detailed IREA's financial support for Michaels:
We here at IREA believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists and bring a balance to the discussion. Many scientists have an opinion, but only a minority have any involvement in climatology. We decided to support Dr. Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.). Dr. Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources. He has A.B. and S.M. degrees from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Michaels is the Virginia State Climatologist, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, a Senior Fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute, and a Visiting Scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, DC. In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G & T's over in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr. Michaels group. We will be following up with the remaining G & T's over the next several weeks.
Michaels has falsely suggested that former Vice President Al Gore endorsed exaggerating the threat of global warming, as Media Matters documented. Further, on the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Michaels repeated a false comparison between Gore's claim that global warming could cause "sea level worldwide [to] go up 20 feet" with a section of the 2007 IPCC report, which, in the scenario Michaels cites, states sea levels would rise about 8 to 18 inches by the end of the 21st century. But as Media Matters has noted (here and here), Gore was specifically addressing what could happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome "broke up and slipped into the sea" at an indefinite point in the future. The portion of the IPCC report that Michaels cited referred only to projected sea-level increases before 2100 based on increases in temperature. Michaels used this false comparison as the basis for characterizing Gore's position as "beyond shrill" and "thermonuclear."
- Chris Horner: Horner is a senior fellow at CEI and author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (Regnery, February 2007). He has appeared on Beck on at least three separate occasions to attack the "hysterical movement" of environmental activists warning of the threats of global warming (April 23, April 5, and March 21), as Media Matters has noted. For instance, during the April 5 edition of Beck's television program, Horner declared Gore's film to be "pure science fiction," and, among other things, pushed the misleading claim that that "it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming," and that "it hasn't warmed since 1998." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, according to NASA, 1998 was a particularly warm year because "a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures." Despite the temperature spike that occurred in 1998, the Climatic Research Unit's Global Temperature Record and a surface temperature analysis of 2006 by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show a general warming trend since 1970. Moreover, a February 2007 NASA Earth Observatory news release states, "By the early 1980s, temperatures surpassed those of the 1940s and, despite ups and downs from year to year, they continued rising beyond the year 2000."
- John Christy: Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Alabama state climatologist. Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. The New York Times reported that when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere.
Christy also contributed an essay skeptical of climate change to Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Crown Publishing Group, 2002). The book was released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
- Bjorn Lomborg: As Media Matters has noted, Lomborg is a "political scientist" at the Copenhagen Business School who, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001), purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- were overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes." Lomborg has repeatedly attacked Gore's documentary and, as Media Matters documented, used a false comparison to suggest that the IPCC "fundamentally rejects" Gore's claim that the world's sea-level could rise 20 feet as a result of warming.
In introducing Lomborg, Beck noted that because Lomborg was "not a scientist," but a political scientist. ... I'm not going to ask any science questions." Beck has previously hosted Lomborg on at least two occasions (January 17 and September 21, 2006).
- David R. Legates: As Media Matters has noted (here and here), Legates is associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. His 2006 report, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts," was published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank that has received substantial funding from energy interests such as ExxonMobil Corp. The report concluded that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."
Legates' report claimed that "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Legates attributed this finding to a 2004 report by climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Legates ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years.
- Patrick Moore: Patrick Moore is a former leader of the environmental activist group Greenpeace who has served as a corporate consultant since 1991. His public relations firm, Greenspirit Strategies, specializes in strategic communications for mining, fossil fuels, logging, and nuclear power industry clients. As the Center for Media and Democracy reported, Moore's "past work with Greenpeace has proved an irresistible hook for many reporters" in their coverage of his clients.
Moore is co-chair and paid spokesman for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CSEC), which describes itself as "a large grassroots coalition that united unlikely allies across the business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor community to support nuclear energy." In fact, as the Columbia Journalism Review reported, CSEC was formed by the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 and continues to receive most of its funding from that body. NEI is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technology industry, and seeks to "promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."
As the Brattleboro Reformer reported on January 16, Moore serves as spokesman for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a nuclear industry front group that seeks to prevent the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. He is also an adviser for the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, a lobby group that promotes the renewal of the operating license for the Indian Point nuclear power plants. According to Jim Steets, spokesperson for Indian Point plant operator Entergy Corp., the company was "instrumental in the founding of New York AREA" and continues to partially fund the organization.
During his appearance on Exposed: The Climate of Fear, Moore touted nuclear power as a clean, safe source of energy. He stated: "That is what actually drives me nuts, is you've got Greenpeace and other major environmental groups saying that the civilization and the environment are going to be destroyed by global warming, catastrophe, chaos, and all of these scary words, and yet they are unwilling to adopt nuclear energy." Beck replied: "Look, America should embrace nuclear power, even if it's to get off the foreign oil bandwagon." Moore has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that there is a link between global warming and human activity. In an open letter to the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, Moore wrote: "Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident." According to The Honolulu Advertiser , he has also claimed that global warming would be beneficial: "In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees."
Beck also hosted two guests who did not appear to question the scientific consensus relating to global warming, Martin Eberhard and Bill Lord. Introducing Eberhard, the CEO of Tesla Motors, Beck stated: "He probably doesn't agree with anything in this special, except maybe for this: It's ideas like his that are part of the solution." Eberhard did not discuss scientific issues concerning the causes of global warming; rather, he promoted his company's high-performance electric cars, with which, according to Beck, he "hopes to solve two major concerns: the CO2 emissions and, importantly, the male midlife crisis, while looking damn sexy doing it."
Beck introduced Lord as "another guy who probably doesn't agree with one word of this special," and interviewed Lord about his solar-powered home. Lord asserted: "On balance, we probably are generating as much as we use, so essentially it's a net-zero type of situation. We have to pay slightly more than $7 a month."
Yay 1st post hooray for me!
[crickets]
Well, it looks like a smear-fest to me folks
TOMMY!!!! WHERE ARE YOU???? Let us discuss this *man* of disgust and his lies and UNBIASED reports on global kool-aid....
Hello... Beck said that it was NOT an unbiased show at the very beginning. Since when is it offensive or wrong to submit opposing viewpoints to anything? YES, the world is getting warmer. The debate is about whether or not humans have anything to do with it. Earth has cooled and warmed before without our intervention. mars is getting warmer... are we responsible for that too?
Open your mind to opposing views once in a while and remove emotion from debate when possible. You might learn that insults and attacks are not the best way to live out your life.
Mars is ALSO gettin g warmer?!?! Holy CRAP!! Our suv's are more dangerous than I thought!! And... and.. the earth has cooled and gotten warmer BY ITSELF?!?! Holy SHIZ-NITS!! Then... then... the earth is GOING MENSTRUAL ON US!!! *Whew* Thanks, cannon fodder, I.. I just don't know what I would have done without your logic, except for, ohhh, I don't know... USE FACTS BY SCIENTISTS!! What the heck does mars have to do with EARTH, buddy?!?! And, yes, the earth DOES heat and cool by itself... the point, though, is that WE ARE ESCALATING THE WARMING AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE!! And that is not good for the earth... or us...
Damn... I meant to say 'menopausal'.... oh, well...
The point about Mars, you sohpmoric twit, is that it is getting warmer without any help from us... JUST LIKE EARTH. Try some statistical analysis, try some science other than Al Gore's powerpoint slides. Temperatures on Earth rise PRIOR to CO2 levels. Gore has it backwards.
Sarcasm you've got down just fine. An open mind you do not have. Why are you so offended by alternative viewpoints? Is it possible by any stretch of the imagination that this is all hype and willbe replaced by a different hype in a few years?
The point about Mars you complete moron. Is that its orbit is more eccentric than Earths. This has been explained ad nauseum. It is closer to the Earth and therefore the Sun than it has been in centuries. THAT might explain why IT is getting warmer but the EARTH doesnt have that eccentric an orbit so it DOESNT explain why the Earth is getting warmer. It is a stupid rightwing talking point that is meaningless.
That was classic, especially after the "try some science" line.
So he is a moron?
You on the other hand, provide no reference to support your claim. Try this search. The first hit is this. This researcher attribute Mars warming to increased solar activity. The second & third hits, both referencing the same ultmate source, claim that Martian warming is unrelatd to earth and attributes Mars' warming to unique conditions there. Four is another dust theorist. Five references one. Six is a non-autoritative blog, but does reference your claim without proof andhas competing viewpoints. Finally we get to seven, Realclimate, and unabashedly biased defense site for every junk science global warmingist on the planet. They make your precession argument, again without proofs.
Conclusion: Nobody as yet has produced definitive science explaining why Mars is warming. It's all still theory.
Splash one, repeat, splash one igorant loudmouth.
Cannonball was arguing that because it was getting warmer on Mars that suggested that Earth's increase is natural too. The point is that the orbit is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that example.
The point is that the other explanantions are perfectly reasonable as well. Like the issue of human causes of global climate change, they are simply unproven. That arrogant mouth, Solon, did not even mention the third theory explaining the warming of Mars and pretended the explanation he put forth is an established fact, which it is not.
No, the point is that warming on Mars can't be used as evidence that Earth's warming is natural, which was what cannonball was trying to do. It doesn't matter if there are other reasonable explanations for Mars or not, in fact that only hurts your argument. Cannonball was implying that the causes for Earth and Mars must be the same, which was highly fallacious and he got rightfully called out on it.
Cannonball raised a point of doubt in the validity of the AGW argument, which itself is also not settled science. Yes, that's right! AGW is not settled science! It is perfectly legitimate for Cannonball to point out these theories are at least in part, in conflict with one another.
Understand the scientific method: Observe-hypothesize-test by experiment. Apply this to the theory of AGW. I think a sizeable majority of scientific observers will agree that step 3 is no where near complete for AGW. Observe also that step 3 hasn't even started yet on the issue of the Mars Warming theories. To assert one is established fact as Solon did is simply wrong.
You're blowing smoke. That's far from what Cannonball was doing, as evidenced in this quote;
"The point about Mars, you sohpmoric twit, is that it is getting warmer without any help from us... JUST LIKE EARTH."
That is not evidence of anything regarding Earth. Its irregular orbit provides a very simple explanation of why it might be heating up, which makes linking the two planets ridiculous. Alternate explanations of warming or the methods/status of testing have absolutely nothing to do with this very simple concept.
If you can't address that, then you have no point to make.
And let me address your "Solon asserted it as established fact and was wrong" BS as well. Here's what Solon said;
"THAT might explain why IT is getting warmer but the EARTH doesnt have that eccentric an orbit so it DOESNT explain why the Earth is getting warmer."
Note the word "might". If you look at the link I posted, you can see with your own eyes that the orbits are different. It's a valid explanation of why warming on Mars does not necessarily prove anything about the nature or cause of warming on Earth.
Cannonball made a ridiculous assertion, Solon made a perfectly valid point to dispute it, and you're not helping anyone with your lame defense.
Its not my fault that you are really, REALLY stupid. What isnt an established fact? That Mars hasnt twice in the last five years been closer to the Earth than it has been for more than FIVE THOUSAND YEARS? Why yes that IS an established fact
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/mars_preview_021108.html
Mars to Get Closer than Ever in Recorded History in 2003 By Joe Rao
http://space.about.com/od/astronomynews/a/marsclose2005.htm
Perhaps you didnt know that the Earth was closer to the Sun than Mars is so you thought THAT wasnt an established fact? Cannonball was trying to use the fact Mars is heating up to establish the Earth must be heating up for the same reason. Since there is a fairly good reason that Mars is heating up, an eccentric orbit that is irrelevant to Earth which DOESNT have such an eccentric orbit, my point is valid. As for my arrogance, it must seem to you, what with your monumental ignorance and all, that knowing things is arrogant. I cant help you with that. I suggest adult education if in fact your substandard brain could in any way be helped by it. Here is a clue, just because you are far too ignorant to know something like Mars HAS in fact had its closest approaches to Earth, and by extension the Sun in the last few thousand years and that yes the Earth IS closer to the Sun than Mars doesnt make me arrogant for knowing it, it just means you are very stupid.
Interesting. Both of your links refer to the distance between the Earth and Mars. This says nothing whatever about the aggregate solar radiation received by the planet Mars over its year. Nor do they speak to the distance between Mars and the sun.
The remainder of your argument is a blatant non-sequitur. There is no relationship bewteen the temperature of Mars and its distance from the Earth.
Is he a moron, I dont know but anyone calling someone else a sophmoric twit then using Mars as an example of why Global Warming is natural without examining the DIFFERENCES that would obviate his example deserves to be called a moron. YOU are very stupid. This is soooo simple. My point was valid. It doesnt matter if there are other reasons why Mars might be heating up the fact is it CANNOT be shown that the differences between Earth and Mars do not point to DIFFERENT reasons for their heating. Now us people with normal IQs understand this. MORONS like you miss this point completely. BANG goes the world class stupidity of NCDUMBASS
The debate is about whether or not humans have anything to do with it.
On one side, there are scientists and refereed publications.
On the other side is... what, exactly?
Scientists? A bunch of left wing hacks, is more like it. For an educated opinion on climate one needs only to consult actual climatologists as opposed to a group of "scientists" such as the IPCC put together.
<>The new religion of global warming is coming undone, and it's about bloody time. Get back to reducing pollution etc. as opposed to spreading fear that the world is near imminent demise because goofballs and nuts like Al Gore and Sheryl Crow say so.You're conflating scientists and public personalities. Just because Sheryl Crowe or Al Gore lend their status to the cause of reversing global warming doesn't mean the methodology of the climate researchers is bunk.
That's like saying cancer research is an illegitimate religion because Ronald Reagan told me cigarettes are good for me.
I'm merely pointing out that the IPCC that was set up by the UN (hardly sympathetic to right-wing politics, or capitalism for that matter) sought out the opinion of a hodge-podge of "scientists", not climatologists, for their so-called research.
Would you consult a proctologist for the psychological make-up of a patient? No, I didn't think so.
<>If your car broke down, who would you want to fix it?
<>A high school dropout who's been around cars all his life, or a group of "scientists" with Ph.d's coming out the yazoo ?
If you want me to respect a report about the environment, then show me some respect by asking the right people in the first place. But what else would you expect from the UN?
Are you kidding? If my car broke down give me the guy with a mechanical engineering degree from Harvey Mudd every time. Did the UN have their ambassadors and politicians do the study, why no they didnt they had a couple of thousand SCIENTISTS that is climatologist do the study. Those guys who actually submit their studies to peer review.
Poor assumption my friend, you're showing a clear anti-intellectual bias. Who's to say those Ph.D's weren't once high school kids who spent their days under the hood? But that's beside the point isn't it?
Can you prove that Beck's cadre of scientist's weren't invited to submit their work?
It's real funny that you would trust these industry funded analysts, first cousins to lobbyists, whose employers' interests are narrowly confined to profit over an international collection of scientist's whose interests are the health of the global environment.
And yes, I said scientists because restricting the knowledge pool to climatologists is small minded indeed. This is a global ecosystem problem and requires the informed methodology of oceanographers, ecologists, biologists, chemists, organic chemists, physicists, geologists as well as climatologists.
Your proctology analogy falls short. Global warming involves more than a single element.
You're focusing on a single brush stroke intead of the entire composition.
IPCC that was set up by the UN... sought out the opinion of a hodge-podge of "scientists", not climatologists, for their so-called research.
You are entirely wrong about this. The IPCC does not do research, the reports are based on expert review of the scientific and technical literature."Experts" as the name suggests, are scientistswho are competent in their respective fields. Put another way... there are no proctologists studying the climate data.
Please, learn what you are talking about before writing. Or don't, as you like... just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Hi Checkers,
"If you want me to respect a report about the environment, then show me some respect by asking the right people in the first place."
Done. Go on scholar.google.com and look for peer reviewed papers on global climate change. I challenge you to find a single peer reviewed paper that contradicts the general conclusion that, by all our best evidence, the Earth appears to be warming and human activity is contributing to this change.
"left wing hacks?" LOL, obviously you've never even looked at the IPCC report, because if you did you'd see the most highly trained, highly respected scientists in the world were involved. How about spending 10 minutes looking into the background of the lead authors, before you go spouting such nonsense? They have real degrees, publish in real peer reviewed scientific journals, perform real research in the field their write about, and generally aren't high-paid consultants for special interest groups.
I have looked at the IPCC PRELIMINARY report. This was entitled "Summary for Policymakers". It is therefore a POLITICAL DOCUMENT, not any kind of scientific report. The actual scientific report is to follow, and that too is surrounded by controversy, in that several of its contributors reports were edited before inclusion and at least one reasearcher, Dr. Landsea, who had contributed to the three previous reports, quit in disgust.
It appears that the IPCC is no longer a scienfific body, if it ever was, and it can only be viewed now as a political advocacy group. Any scientific pronouncements from this organization are of dubious objectivity.
Correction. On one side there is junk science, government money and publications referreed by people whose livelihood depends on that junk science and the government money that supports it.
On the other side there is science and referred publications.
Really? Then you can cough up those peer reviewed papers opposing the Global Warming theories the IPCC report supports? Cool, lets see them.
People like Reid Bryson, one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world. He says your side is full of bunk. Oh, and he is not sponsored by Exxon, he is paid by communist U. of Wisconsin.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/07142006_hockey_PR.gif
"The other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere."
- I wonder why?
"The other side of the earth-is-round debate that you don't get to hear anywhere." - The Flat Earth Society
Good observation. They're trying to create a false compromise and give equal scientific credibility to the anti-global warming crowd.
maybe people are starting to wake up. a guy i know at work, republican, voted for bush, and someone else was discussing global warming with him and the claim that there is disagreement. to which he replied, those people are crazy, it's common sense. which.....it is.
Thank goodness for sensible people, even if they are Republicans. Seriously, I think global warming opponents are movable on the issue when it is placed in the larger idea of energy independence and economic sustainability.
Why is Beck and Friends so against it? Ask GE.
Beck is with CNN. MSNBC (Keith Olbermann's network) is with GE.
Thanks for the correction.
From what I have seen, I don't think Glenn Beck should be allowed to talk about anything. Despite having never produced any evidence beyond uninformed hearsay and angry cries of "this can't be possible!", the anti -Global Warming crowd has been given as much time by the media as thousands of qualified scientists with years of solid evidence. All they have to do is claim that there is a debate among scientists and it weakens the cause.
He should not be "allowed" to talk about anything ??? What are you suggesting - he should be physically shutup ? He should be killed ? What exactly are you saying ?
Straight to the presumption of violence. What is with some people?
Beck is no scholar on any matter, he has no credibility. Why is he given time to speak on any matter? That is the most likely the partial point of Fusion Chamberlain's comment. The other part of his comment pertains to the illusion of equal standing that global warming opponents are given. It's a false compromise, the two sides are not equal.
sheeesshh....Not allowing people to speak .. maybe beck is right about comparing global warming tactics to that of nazi tatics.
nazi's did not allow people to speak either !
Another Nazi hysteric.
Silly hysteric. MMFA is for grown-ups.
In the future everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes.
Wookie, you get a cookie!
I know I've been compared to Hitler a few times by MMFA posters.
Let's see:
Hitler: gassed mentally retarded citizens
Holly: taught mentally retarded citizens
Hitler: gassed Jewish citizens
Holly: was a Hebrew teacher
Hitler: wrote about Jews in "Mein Kampf"
Holly: writing about Jews in a coming Auschwitz book
Yep, I'm Hitler. We've both got that mentally retarded/Jewish history.
And Wookie, if you like cookies, as Hitler did, then you're Hitler too.
But only for 15 minutes. We all have to take our turn, you know.
I'll do my part. I'm free today from 3:30 to 3:45.
But I'll need to be relieved of my Hitler duties promptly at 3:45. I promised my dogs that I'd take them for a ride in the car.
If they're daschunds and your car is a Volkswagen, you can stay on the clock.
FYI: the 3:45 to 4:00 slot is open. Ann Coulter's been quiet for a bit, so she's unlikely to compare Gore to Hitler during that slot. If you'd like a double shift, King, it's yours. It'll work with your dogs too, 'cause Hitler loved dogs.
Hitler poisoned his dog...
He was testing to see if it worked before he and Eva took their own lives.
I'm a Hitler, your a Hitler, we're all Hitlers,
If you drink right wing kool aid you'll be a Hitler too!
Be a Hitler, drink right wing kool aid!
Be a Hitler, drink right wing kool aid!
Give the tune, please--show some sensitivity for community.
Dr. Pepper ad from the 80s...?
I don't wanna be a Hitler. Can't I just be a Schickelgruber???
You're allowed to make an honest argument. You don't have misrepresent what people say.
I asked a simple question as did Fusion Chamberlain: why? Why does a man with no credibility have the oppurtunity to influence the public on such an important discussion? This question goes to the heart of what's at play; propaganda.
You may notice a difference between asking why he has this oppurtunity and asking how can he be silenced? Let him speak, I want to know why he is taking the time to create a false compromise. That's all.
Fusion said:
"From what I have seen, I don't think Glenn Beck should be allowed to talk about anything."
That is what he said. I let Fusion's statement stand.
In other words, you can't address the point.
Bingo.
Other side of the coin: Why should we give a rats patootie about what Olbermann thinks about anything? He's not a scholar either.
Where in Olberman's career has he questioned science based on nothing but his own ideology? If you're going to question the accepted view, then either you should know something about it yourself or provide a legitimate case made by others. Beck's not doing either.
Cannonball, you just don't get it:
Scientific purity and incorruptibility=tax dollar- funded inquiry.
Scientific perversion=inquiry not done with sanctified (tax) $
Endeavors financed w/ your tax dollars have an inerrancy of motive and outcome that is above reproach, as in every other publicly-funded, untainted project.
It is, therefore, axiomatic that any postulates (or non-conforming, bare data) submitted by scientists (even from publicly-funded schools) who got as much as a Subway sandwich from a non-public scource, have zero validity. It is just not possible.
Like in the example of Thomas Edison. Private money supporting those 10,000 experiments, holding out against the consensus. A true sociopath.
.
Think tobacco sponsered Science studies and peer review.
Even if I think someone has no credibility, lies, I would never, ever say
well "he shouldn't be _allowed_ to say anything".
sheeessshh !!
Maybe we should set up truth tribunals and if 80 percent of the people think someone is lieing and 20% don't then well too bad - guy shouldn't be allowed to say anything. He has to keep quiet, he can't talk in public, can't have a tv show, can't have a radio show. Oh
forget the tribunals, we'll just let mmfa have the final say. They can decide who gets to speak. The make the final decision, they say you are lieing, oh well too bad you can talk on tv or radio or anything.
Which leads to the question you won't answer;why should someone with no credibility be able to influence people? Fascist imagery aside, what's the reason that someone like Beck should be given a platform for his BS?
It's not about censorship, it's about maintaining an honest dialogue. If your problem is with the tone of Fusion's comment, fine, but you can't seem to address Roundhouse's post in any meaningful way.
allowing a free market of ideas may not always work out. there will be times misinformation gets spread. but it is the best system we have - i don't know what other system we could come up with. why should beck be allowed on tv ? because the alternative is worse and more dangerous.
Now, this is where you are utterly off course. There is no such thing as a free market. We do not allow the sale of narcotics, alcohol or any drug without regulation. Why are harmful ideas, as it were, any different?
Further and more broadly, if the market is imperfect, in your view, why should we subject ourselves to its whimsy when we can work together to make it more perfect?
because who decides which "ideas" are harmful ? please propose a method of regulating speech.
Concerning global warming, there is a method. It is known as peer review.
As for hate speech, that's still going to exist, but there should and will be watchdog organizations to alert the public.
so we should pass a law that says - if you say something against a peer reviewed journal you should be silenced, and removed from tv ?
Hmm. Interesting conclusion. What is it with your punishment fixation?
How about balance? Why not give an hour for climate scientists to present their argument?
We should pass a law forcing every tv show to show the both sides of any issue ? hmmm... do you honestly believe that ? do you think that law would pass the supreme court ?
Not seeing where I supported such an idea but if I did I would call it the Fairness Doctrine.
What I am talking about is that in a truly 'free' market like the one you mentioned earlier there would be perfect competition (of ideas) and therefore equal accessibility to that market. We do not have such a market. If we did both sides of this discussion would be equally represented.
Now, how do we decide who gets representation? Wouldn't that be answered in a 'free' market?
You still have not come up with a way to implement your so called fairness doctrine. By the way would satellite radio and all media ( magazines, books etc ) also have to abide by your laws. Also who decides what is fair. Answer the question.
Citizen oversight, wiki-style, I guess.
The fairness doctrine used to function as an apparatus of citizen oversight. People would listen and report items of questionable veracity to the FCC. The matter would be reviewed, and in order to keep their privileges the licensee would be required to offer rebuttal time. Not even equal time, just some time for rebuttal.
Satellite radio? No. It is subscription based. Books, movies, magazines etc. are likewise not items that are passively consumed, per se, you must seek them out and they are under no public lease like the airwaves are licensed.
Now, you answer my questions, why is Beck given the oppurtunity to misinform and propagandize? What is wrong with citizen oversight of the media?
my cable - last time I checked is subscription based. I pay a fee each month for it. to answer your question beck imho beck is not giving propaganda, he is giving the other side of an argument.
"my cable - last time I checked is subscription based."
That's a valid point, but on the other hand channels that are on basic cable reach an enormous amount of people. How many people do you know who watch TV at all and are relying on "rabbit ears" in this day and age? Cable, or some similar service, is practically a requirement for TV viewing, whereas satellite radio doesn't have anything near that status.
i'm not completely against a rebuttal type system. but this is a lot different from not allowing beck to show something on tv, and not allowing beck on tv is likely to fail in the supreme court.
Not a single person has suggested Beck be banned. Please stop with your erroneous conclusions.
I do like that you are receptive to the idea of rebuttal, that shows a fair mindedness on your part.
the original fairness doctrine was allowed by supreme court b/c there was only a limited amount of spectrum. and fairness doctrine only allowed for rebuttal. there was nothing about suing people for so called "misinformation".
The original"fairness doctrine" is a liberal conception because of their inability to counter talk radio with liberal programs. All their attempts at it failed (Air America is a great example, nobody wanted to listen to uninformed blather).
What? I'm listening to Air America right now. They're making inroads.
It won't happen overnight but libs will prevail because this country is founded on liberal principles, the Constitution is the greatest document of liberality ever written.
Satellite and premium cable program content is not regulated by the FCC. Basic cable program content is regulated and as such is commissioned with a public trust and therefore should be subject to citizen oversight.
Do I want the fairness doctrine back? I could take it or leave it, I would like to see media consolidation broken up, level the playing field and get some program diversity.
You may see Beck simply presenting the other side of an argument but it's a manufactured argument. It's a political argument specifically designed to drive a wedge between traditionally left leaning environmentalists and right leaning sportsmen. This so called science being slung by hired guns is about accreting Republican control.
The political motivation is expressed in the title of the program, Exposed: The Climate of Fear. But luckily for the GOP this strategic initiative is multivarious in its scope. Not only does this initiative keep people in the Republican fold, it bloodies up any subsequent science based arguments, that will be a real helpful tool in fighting environmental regulation. Also this retrograde energy corporation sponsored stategic initiative will stem the tide of a green collar economy.
Kudos, to the GOP. They have never been afraid to pick a losing battle in the short term for the purpose of longterm erosion of common sense programs. Look at Social Security, Bush picked a losing fight but it was just the opening salvo of what will be a long endeavor to privatize, privatize, privatize anything public.
You are making an opinion on beck. Should we appoint to the council on who decides what is fair ? I guess only your opinion counts. You decide who is using propaganda and who is not. Or some judge appointed by a political figure.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Once upon a time truth was objective, now objective truth is up for debate.
Anyway, suit yourself and have a nice day. I'm going to a Derby party where I can drink a few mint juleps and dominate conversation with my overbearing opinions.
Social Security is peer-reviewed and approved (it's a con-SENS-us!) as a fool-proof retirement vehicle. It must be, otherwise why do so many fail to save and invest during working years, and look to SS for retirement security. Surely they haven't been mislead--who would do that to trusting people?
Furthermore, the SS was conceptualized, promoted, implemented and became orthodoxy through the use of public funding, and is therefore incorruptible as an idea and a working belief system. Any suggestions of personal accounts (might have the attractiveness of gov't employee PERSI accounts) will be shouted down and fear-mongered.
Beneficiaries of chain letters always want it to last just a little longer, before the screwees (in this case our descendants) wake up.
Can you gaurantee that these so called personal savings accounts will outperform SS in the longterm?
Furthermore, who's gonna be saving for retirement when there's only $3.52 left at the end of the month?
Have fun roundhouse ! Good luck to your horse !
that is right free speech is bad...we need responsible speech
Even if I think someone has no credibility, lies, I would never, ever say
well "he shouldn't be _allowed_ to say anything"-skettle
And it's that mentality that allowed the Administration to rush into an invasion of a nation that did nothing to us. Moreover, the people who were right about Iraq were told to shut up.
But, I think you're not being honest. Suppose some guy is telling your daughter that condomns cause brain damage or that heroine isn't addictive. And also suppose this kid is a silver tongued salesman with just enough truth behind his claims to be believable.
So, I'll ask one last time. Why is this guy, Beck, given an oppurtunity to present his false compromise?
I can tell you why. I just don't think I can persuade you to believe.
who is allowing beck on tv ? cnn is a private company. they are not breaking any laws by allowing beck on tv. america is not cnn's daughter.
The one thing you are being honest about is that CNN is not America's daughter. Other than that you're evading the point.
While CNN is a private company they lease their license to broadcast from the FCC and as such they are obliged to act in the public interest. Propaganda is not in the public interest.
Yes but who decides what is propaganda?
Do you really want to live in a society where the media is
controlled by the govt ?
The media is controlled now by a small family of elites.
I would rather have speech that is accountable to the people.
Is NPR controlled by this family of elites ? Just wondering. Who are these families of elites anyways ?
It's called an analogy, not to be taken literally. It's a way of saying that media ownership is concentrated into the hands a small number of owners, who just happen to be wealthy elitists.
Oh, probably just a small enchantment to grow his lips back together . . . it's not so much the talkin' . . . it's the lyin' . . . Beck should not be allowed to lie further about anything, having already far exceeded his maximum lifetime allowance of lies.
He should be allowed to occasionally ask for water... ;>)
Oh, where he's going, asking will be allowed. However, even in the Church of Repugnant, lying is considered a sin.
CNN is a NEWS channel. News by its very definition required the conveyance of TRUTH and FACTS. Glenn Beck presents lies and misinformation, and therefore does not deserve a job with a news organization.
Let him go work for Faux News.....
what? CNN sometimes reports news. Do you really think larry king is a news show? Do you really think Greta Van Death is a news show? We live in a world of entertainment. What do you have to worry about if your facts are accurate? Why worry about what people you say are wrong think? At least be open to debate... not doing so makes you as bad as the people you hate.
You have to worry about people who are wrong when their views are put out there without correction. People vote and act based on knowledge, so misinformation is clearly a problem. That should be obvious to anyone, but apparently it isn't.
misinformation is a problem. but what do you do about it ? do you ban people from tv ? do stories have to be reviewed by the govt before going on tv ?
It's basically an honor system now, except for extreme cases where sponsors threaten them. On their own they're supposed to maintain a higher standard, and hire people who conform to that. The best that can be done is for viewers/listeners to complain, which is how MMfA helps, by bringing the misinformation to light.
I personally think there should be an independent government agency which holds media outlets accountable. You would have some people as monitors, but most incidents can be garnered from public tips and internet sources, and can be researched and evaluated easily from that point.
If there's misinformation, or an incomplete story which skews it one way or another, then the source either clarifies, retracts, or pays up. If the source wants to stand by their story, they can take it to court, and the loser has to pay costs for that. That way, you hit the liars where it counts, in the pocketbook, and the agency doesn't want to file trivial complaints because they'll lose money from their budget.
I've never heard an explanation of why that is wrong outside of the "big gov'mint!!!!" reaction. It would apply to everyone, so it would help to correct the supposed "liberal media". It's non-partisan, would create a more honest dialogue, a better-informed citizenry, and could even be a source of revenue for the government. It may need some tweaking, but I think the basic concept is quite workable and completely fair to everyone.
BTW, Brabantio, I wasn't talking about you in my post--yours wasn't there when I first started typing! About your watchdog agency idea though, I think it's intriguing. I mean sites like MMFA are pretty effective at holding the media peep's feet to the fire but there obviously isn't any direct penalty for the misinformation that is being exposed, unless they can get to the advertisers (which of course happens.) I at one time thought of the FCC as kind of the agency you describe, except now of course they, like all others, are shill for the bushies.
I didn't think you were referring to me, so that's cool. As both of us said, as it currently stands entities like MMfA are the most effective way of countering misinformation. MMfA does a great job, but yes, it really has no teeth of its own. If such a thing as an independent government agency is really possible anymore, that's the way to go.
Also I forgot to mention, part of the idea is that if the same person tells the same lie or a lie on the same subject over and over, the fines increase. If Hannity brings up the "Clinton haircut", just as an example off the top of my head (so to speak), then the show might get fined $25,000 if he doesn't correct it. If he does it again, it's 50 grand, etc. Obviously, at some point the producers and owners are going to figure it's not worth it and clamp down on him. My dream scenario here is to see someone like Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly trying to refute a point with a lie and coming to a stammering stop when they remember they've been busted on it numerous times before, and have either had to eat crow or pay dearly in green already.
And of course, if there's anyone on the left who's doing the same thing, then they are pressured to be honest too.
Independent govt agency controlling speech is what scares the bejesus out of me ! Doubtful will pass muster in supreme court.
Yes, that's the "big gov'mint!!!" reaction I was referring to, exactly. Just because people have the right to speak doesn't mean people have the right to lie through media outlets. This country deserves a better informed citizenry instead of sacrificing that for ratings and partisan interests.
Problem is you have not pointed out one lie that beck told in his special, yet you still think he is misinforming people. "misinforming" is your opinion, showing the other side of the argument is my opinion.
That wasn't even the issue, we were speaking in general terms, not about Beck's show specifically. I'm not sure that this would fall into my scenario. I think it's clearly overvaluing the opinion of people who don't have any studies on their side, which frankly doesn't have a lot of validity.
Nobody except one poster, who was quite apparently asking a rhetorical question, mentioned anything about Beck or anybody else being "banned from tv" or any such nonsense. In fact, your whole (very troll-like) line of posting is nothing but straw man bs. The obvious answer to your question concerning what to do about someone spreading blatant misinformation is to do what MMFA does: expose the lies and distortions and put pressure on the entity that allows them to be put out there to either issue a correction or possibly cause them to reconsider why they would allow someone who consistently lies and distorts to have a prominent--and unchallenged--forum. 'K skeeter?
I totally agree with you here ! I'm for mmfa clarifying any lie. This is what America is about, it's not about independent govt agencies controlling speech ! Good God man, do you have any idea of the dangers that can arise by having speech controlled by a so called independent govt organization !
But what I'm talking about would be monitoring during broadcasts, not pre-screening. That's what MMfA is doing too. The only difference is that the misinformation would cost them money instead of a mere mention on this site.
There's really no argument against that, except for a fear of government in general.
Yes BUT who decides misinformation ? Some judge appointed by a govt. ? Who appoints this independent agency ?
The agency decides it, and then a judge (preferably a three-judge panel, really) rules on it if contested. See, check and balance.
It works the same as any independent agency. The details can't be that hard to work though, can they?
I'm not willing to hand over my right to free speech to some agency and judge. be 3,5 or 101 judges. Suppose someone gets on tv and says "bush invaded iraq for the oil" ? Is that a lie ? well if the judges are by majority left leaning maybe they say that is fair statement, if the judges are right leaning they may say it is a lie. You see the problem here ? Only the most trivial statements can be concluded to be downright lies.
Your example is in opinion, for starters, so that would be a risky case to make because it could obviously backfire (there's money at stake for the agency too, remember?). Regarding political bias, that is a concern, but if our system is that far gone then we don't have a lot to lose, in my opinion. We already have SCOTUS judges appointed by Presidents, and those judges can interpret the Constitution any way they want. Should we scrap that system?
Remember two things;first, the people we're talking about have a platform to keep speaking;and second, that if a case is brought up with someone they can clarify their comments, so nobody is being silenced. Further, you can make rules about objectivity, have an appeals process, give the Senate power to replace the management of the agency or judges with 60 votes, etc. I think it's entirely possible to create a system where everyone has incentive to behave responsibly.
It's clearly possible to have a significant, objective lie. For example, Hannity could come out and say that Obama received campaign funds from Al Queda. That's verifiable. Further, while a lot of incidents may seem trivial, they add up. You yourself said misinformation was a problem, but now anything that can be addressed is "trivial".
Nobody has unlimited free speech. What you say is already actionable based on obscene, slanderous or inflammatory content. Political misinformation is inherently slanderous and damaging, so it's highly arguable that it can and should be addressed in a direct manner.
Very few statements are black and white. For example if someone says Bill Clinton had a $200 haircut which delayed flights at lax ? Is this a true statement or a false statement ? To verify this statement how many people witnesses would have to be brought into court. First Clinton would, his hair dresser, the people in the traffic control tower, the pilots of the various planes. All for a simple statement. Are you serious .. this is the system you want ? Do you honestly think this is practical ? How long would the trial last .. would there be a jury ? Could it eventually go to the supreme court ?
You're becoming unhinged here. It's a false statement. The traffic logs show no backup from that, and that would be very simple to show. I can't imagine why that would require a jury or a process longer than 30 minutes at the very most. That case probably wouldn't even be contested by a misinformer, because the evidence is well-known ahead of time (and would be cited in the complaint in the first place, obviously).
And how quickly you forget, even if there were a case where it actually required the sort of scenario you cite, that would be a huge financial risk for the agency, and they would be unlikely to undertake it. But look at items on here, for instance, which point to clearly misleading, false or incomplete statements by people. Are there any that really require such a circus to verify? Transcripts, video, recordings, records, and the occasional affadavit should cover just about anything, really.
Actually you don't know if that story is false. Have you talked to all the pilots and the air traffic controllers ? No you have not. Are you saying not a single plane was delayed for even 1 minute due to the haircut ?
Why do I need to talk to pilots or air traffic controllers? They keep a traffic log, as you seemed to skip over. The story's been debunked for years, it has no legs. If this is all you have, I think you're done.
Please show me all the flight logs that you claim are out there.
And there you go, you're admitting that those logs would prove the case. Objective and simple. If there are no logs, then it would be too risky to pursue the case, and if there are, it's a very simple process.
Do a google search, Newsday covered it, but I don't think the logs are available online. If it's not actually debunked, then I apologize, but that's irrelevant to the argument anyway. Airports keep logs, so that would prove the case one way or another, without the need for the circus you conjured up.
Sorry even if you had all the logs you could not prove it. Some planes would naturally have been delayed by various factors. Surely the logs would show some planes were delayed.. but for what reason ? the logs would not show the reason - only the times. You would have to interview the air traffic controllers asking them questions "well did this plane get delayed b/c of clinton using the runway or some other reason." Logs do not show this. You see you do have to go through all this stuff for even a simple, simple scenario.
Nonsense, you are parsing this down to a delay of minutes. The story is that the delay was two hours. There is one two-minute delay that I read of, which even if Clinton's fault defines the story as misinformation.
If there's nothing more than a couple of minutes of delays in the logs, then the story of the two-hour delay is debunked. If there is a huge delay, then even if they wanted to define the cause then a couple of affadavits answer the question. Again, if it's not clear-cut, they're not likely to pursue it. Why do you refuse to comprehend that?
Who is not going to pursue it ? The agency that is appointed by your 60 senators. What if the senate is dominated by 1 party.. agency then becomes a tool of the party in power since they appoint it. Judges are appointed by govt.. They become of tool of party in power. Party can easily _maintain_ its power by choosing which cases to pursue or not. Judges also are controlled. Parties power is now secured since they control free speech. Unbelievable you do not see the risks in your scheme to control speech.
I love how you say the "only" difference is it would cost them money, like that's just some tiny step above what mmfa is doing right now. It is a huge step ! ( and btw it is a step that would be unconstitutional )
What makes it unconstitutional? I think you're talking out of your hat here. The government has the power to regulate media. Are you arguing that free speech includes the right to lie? I don't get it. Like the founding fathers would have a snit if they imagined that liars are forced to correct themselves.
what makes it unconstitutional to not allow a ban on hard core pornography ? like lies porn is harmful - it degrades and objectifies women. Whats wrong with not allowing porn ? For you to be logically consistent then you would also have to ban pornography, for it too is dangerous free speech, much like the "misinformation" you talk about.
The damages to women are highly questionable. A man can watch porn and have healthy relationships with women, obviously. I'm sure there are cases where men have hurt women based on their views of them, influenced by porn, but that's on the same level as kids who hurt each other letting their imaginations take over after playing dungeons and dragons or someone who kills themselves after listening to judas priest. These are not things that are done by rational people in response to an influence, so you can't ban that influence based on it. By that standard, you couldn't have "the simpsons" because of "Apu", degrading Hindus.
Misinformation, on the other hand, is something that rational people are affected by, clearly. What's with the quotes, by the way? You said it's a problem, now you say "misinformation" as if its existence was questionable. Stop backpedaling.
I'm not backpedaling. The reason for the quotes is b/c "misinformation" can be a matter of opinion. You consider the Clinton hair cut story and Becks story "misinformation". I do not. I agree misinformation ( note the no quotes ) is a problem but like I have said many times before there is no easy way simply to verify something like the Clinton story. I believe porn is a problem but I agree with the supreme court that banning porn would be unconstitutional. If you thought about the Clinton story some more you would realize that it is possible a plane was delayed.
btw the supreme court did not say well porn is sometimes okay and people can have healthy relationships that view it. That could very be the case. They said we will not ban porn ( regardless of whether it is harmful or not ) because it is against the constitution not allow free speech. Simple as that.
Nonsense, harmfulness is a factor in free speech but it has to be significant and verifiable. The ruling only shows that the harm is not a significant factor.
By your logic, you could print an article claiming Lindsay Lohan was born a boy based on no evidence. You're not going to win a libel suit because of "free speech". If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and there is no fire, you're not getting off the hook that way. You can't reveal mititary secrets that endanger our security, just because of "free speech".
Regarding the N-word example, you're talking hate speech now. Inciteful, inflammatory language is not protected. Look up Tom Metzger, I believe that case is a useful demonstration.
There simply is no right to absolute free speech. This is very basic stuff here.
In 1992, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to prevent the state of Minnesota from censoring “speech” (in this case, a burning cross) just because the idea expressed was offensive. Just b/c something is harmful and verifiable does mean it is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Okay porn doesn't do it for you, what about calling black people nigg*rs ? Do you think that should be banned. Do you think calling black people nigg*rs is harmful to society ? Problem is to ban the word nigg*r is unconstitutional, despite how harmful and degrading it is.
Another one with this "scientist" nonsense. If you want to talk about things climate related, consult CLIMATOLOGISTS, not "scientists."
If these "scientists" you speak of are actual climatologists, fine- otherwise, get real.
CLIMATOLOGY is a Science. CLIMATOLOGISTS who study climate are Scientists!!
LOTS OF Republicans and conseratives are coming round. My father in law is a dyed in the wool, national security sector conservative. But like many of the real conservatives in this country, he's also a conservationist. Think T.R.: hunting and fishing are no fun if they tear down all the forests to build roads and strip malls. Most rural (or rural-background) conservatives are nature lovers of the old-fashioned type. Bird-watchers, former Eagle Scouts, and farmers and ranchers. These people are witnessing the environmental degredation first-hand, and they're smart enough to know what's causing it (because alot of them are also good with their hands and love machines, they know what certain chemicals can do to living things). I am pleased to witness so many of my more conservative or more disinterested friends and family members slowly but surely become aware of this massive crisis. I really think that its only the dittobots that are left, the ones who simply cannot think for themselves and need a strong authoritarian male role-model to worship.
Castration may be necessary.;D
CM, I write for some outdoor magazines and I'm encountering the same thing: big, burly Bush-voting sportsmen who are seeing environmental collapse and believing in global warming. They're the canaries in the cage 'cause they're out in the woods and on the water. I suspect that the only woods a slickster like Beck sees are through a first class window.
Nah - beck flys a private jet.. Oh wait ! maybe he shares the same one Hillary and Gore use... And I bet he has tonnes of money invested too .. yeah maybe in that hedge fund Edwards was working for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html
You need to work on your gratuitous segues. That diversion wasn't even close to subtle.
There are two sides to the Global Warming "debate": the informed one, and the uninformed one.
But Glenn, do we really need to give the uninformed side more publicity?
All this, despite the world's top 2500 climate scientists, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, and several figures in the armed forces--such as Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni--all encouraging action against climate change and acknowledging the danger of Global Warming.
And don't forget a host of people from the corporate world, including SHell and BP. And a few sensible Republicans--McCain, Governator, etc.
They are NOT climate scientists!!!
Only some are climate scientists. The vast majority are "scientists", and lefty ones to boot. (And boot them we shall)
"And my guests today are the bearded lady, the wolf-boy, and the guy who can guess how much stuff weighs just by looking at it."
Let's get things nice and sparkling clear: no one pollutes the environment more than people like Glenn Beck - for every person that he somehow manages to convince that Climate Change is not man-made, that's Beck polluting all over again.
All posters here are Big Oil supporters. Therefore anything you say has -0- validity.
You've been peer-reviewed and debunked.
You've all been seen at gas stations.
Wow, that was a good point.
</sarcasm>
- Beck relied heavily on people with energy industry ties - mmfa
mmfa relies heavily on people with liberal ties...are we to excuse their efforts as biased based on that premise?
mmfa purports to be a credible source of information...while being funded entirely by left wing donors....well pardon me while I wipe the spittle and soda off of my screen...and have a huge lmao at the hypocrisy.
Why don't you clean the spittle off your screen and see if you can find any peer reviewed literature by these scientists that challenges the consensus position.
Start with Web of Science and work your way from there.
Just like the "peer reviewed" science that clamored about global cooling a short time back.
I don't need to hide behind the smoke screen of peer reviewed science...I am quite capable of looking at all sides and making up my own mind.
Case in point? The peer reviewed science that the political hacks on the review board of the IPCC report as conclusive...They have never been able to reproduce any of the so-called consensus reports.
Those that persist in following in lock step the "consensus" are destined to be a pile of wool at the base of the cliff.
Like I've said in previos discussions, anyone that brings up the tired global cooling argument does not prove anything other than their own ignorance of the issue. If you knew anything about GW, you would know where the cooling theory came from. Some scientists at the time thought that the tons of emissions we were pumping into the air would cause less radation in and cool the planet. They later knew that while it was doing that, the other qualities of retaining heat were more powerful. They knew this by the OBSERVATIONS that the earth is warming.
Of course you didn't hear all the details from Hannity or Beck, you just parrotted the simple-minded talking points that they bored into your brain through simple repetition.
The global cooling theory came from the fact the earth cooled for 40 years from 1940 to 1980.
Scientists don't know why. Now the earth has warmed since 1980. Scientists still don't know why. They are no smarter than cave men. They can't predict anything correctly with atmospheric science and are hundreds of years from knowing what they are talking about.
Wow, it's come down to "scientists are stupid".
Listen, if your worldview relies on completely discounting the findings of science, you probably don't have a very strong position.
Galileo:My study shows that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
Church:Heretic! The Bible says otherwise, therefore you are lying and standing against God!
Just as an example...
Leatherhead,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Thanks for posting that. I'm sure that Leatherhelmnut will read it and rethink the issue....yeah, right. Just more facts for him to ignore.
That would be an excellent point if it were true.
That is FALSE. You are referring to the same Newsweek article from the 70's, and NOT a peer-reviewed article on global cooling.
There have been zero peer-reviewed studies concluding that global cooling was upon us.
Liar.
Peer reviewed studies are not smokescreens they are SCIENCE. IF the anti Global warming people want to be taken seriously they need to submit THEIR studies to peer review. IT is how it is done.
What studies? Are you suggesting that they should actually do research and come up with an alternative theory (that could hold water when presented to real climate scientists) to explain the observed phenomena? It's just so much easier for them to infuse confusion and repeat long ago debunked talking points which the ignorant swallow without any collaboration.
Hell yeah, screw peer review! Why can't I be an individualist and say that the sky is green?
Wookie, when you're Hitler, you may say that the sky is green. After, Hitler was a dictator and dictators may say whatever they want.
OK--but only for 15 minutes.
"Just like the "peer reviewed" science that clamored about global cooling a short time back."
DING! Score one for the peanut gallery! They find an actual term, and try to turn it around into a catch-phrase.
Peer Reviewed has an actual MEANING, Weasley, you don't get to use the term just because you're trying to turn the argument around on the people that actually have fact on their side. Global Cooling was not peer reviewed and accepted as scientifically sound by the majority of scientists. Your lies are disgusting.
Wesley, Wesley Wesley, didn't we go through this last time with you?
The global cooling theory was discredited and only a couple of researchers talked about it. Let me go through the archives here and pull up all those sources people posted in response to your "global cooling" argument.
Let Wesley make out with his global cooling strawwoman. It's all he's got.
But Wesley, for the sake of the children, please get a motal room.
Motal? What's a motal? I do believe in the theory that typos mean something and that they're often the way our subconscious controls the keyboard. Whereas I meant to write "motel," "motal" looks a lot like "mortal." I think global warming deniers are mortality deniers. They believe that life goes on and on and on. I don't think it's a conincidence that a lot of the homeschoolers who believe that Jesus will levitate them to eternity also teach their children that there's no global warming.
By your theory, a "conincidence" must be a coincidence created by conservatives.
You get a cookie too! And you might be right. I once worked at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a pack of us believed in the typo theory. It was maddening, fun, and illuminating to dissect emails and memos, for typos do occur.
Holly, I think your killer subconscious was exposed. You may have been suggesting Wesley get out of that bulky mortal coil and get a mortal room.Is that a crypt?
Such senseless violence. ;0)
HBL, I do have a killa subconscious, but I think most of us do. I've learned to be wary as my subconscious is stealthy.
Motals? Yeah, the Motals--they did "Mission of Mercy", my favorite.
We all remember the 'science' funded by the tobacco corporations. The liberals making donations here have no MONEY at stake. They arent going to lose business if MMFA prints something they dont like. Your point is a non starter.
"Money", as you refer to it, is not the only form of assets or capital, but is a way of denominating assets or capital.
There is political capital, there exists capital as friendship and acceptance (fraternity), and the list goes on.
All can be bought. The final price can be quantified, depending on the person and the circumstance.
So your point is that MMFA is such a politically powerful organization that liberals will give them money for their friendship in hopes that it will pay off down the line? Are you kidding?
Why is it that dittoheads have no grasp at all of concepts like qui bono? It is clear that Energy interests benefit greatly in discrediting the science of anthropogenic climate change, and that they are the only ones creating any kind of debate.
MMFA makes no bones about who it is funded by, and you would be hard pressed to find an instance of erroneous reporting or "liberal bias". When MMFA quotes Imus as saying, "nappy headed hos", thats what Don Imus really said, not what MMFA is creating or spinning as liberal propaganda. Their job is to be a watchdog. CEIs job is to run PR for Exxon-Mobil.
"Why is it that dittoheads have no grasp at all of concepts like qui bono? It is clear that Energy interests benefit greatly in discrediting the science of anthropogenic climate change, and that they are the only ones creating any kind of debate.
MMFA makes no bones about who it is funded by, and you would be hard pressed to find an instance of erroneous reporting or "liberal bias". When MMFA quotes Imus as saying, "nappy headed hos", thats what Don Imus really said, not what MMFA is creating or spinning as liberal propaganda. Their job is to be a watchdog. CEIs job is to run PR for Exxon-Mobil"- Cartoon Messiah / Thursday May 3, 2007 10:47:50 PM EST
What? Are you kidding me?!! MMFA has no liberal bias?
That's what the site is all about. Anyone..ANYONE..in the media that does not absolutely agree with the far left will be featured on MMFA. To be honest, I didn't see anything in MMFA's story about Beck's special that wasn't true. They didn't really discredit his experts - Look, even if they are funded by 'Big Oil', why does that automatically skew their results? It seems to me that it would be in the best interest of these industries to be absolutely accurate with the studies.
Beck is right - Time will tell.
>>I didn't see anything in MMFA's story about Beck's special that wasn't true. They didn't really discredit his experts
Pleae read the article more carefully. Here is a direct quote from the article:
But, as Media Matters has previously noted, several studies have shown that the urban heat island effect is minimal. The most recent report">[link to ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu] by the Intergovernmental">[link to www.ipcc.ch] Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "[t]he total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values."
Okay you win - MMFA's story was a hit piece.
I'll take your opinion for what its worth *FLUSH*
"Anyone..ANYONE..in the media that does not absolutely agree with the far left will be featured on MMFA."
Absolutely not true.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with the far left. It has to do with respecting the truth, and not dishonoring the viewing/listening/reading public with misinformation.
Anyone in the media who supports or creates conservative misinformation gets highlighted on Media Matters.
It's just too bad for you that Media Matters, and many of us on the "far left" (another smear from you to call us far left - we're not just the left, but we're on the fringes) stand up for the truth and point out the lies. Anyone...ANYONE...who does not agree with telling the truth and instead chooses to go with conservative misinformation gets featured on MMFA.
I know that's what you must have meant to say, because you wouldn't be the same kind of misleader, would you?
"It's just too bad for you that Media Matters, and many of us on the "far left" (another smear from you to call us far left - we're not just the left, but we're on the fringes)" NotThatGeorge / Friday May 4, 2007 12:02:43 AM EST
I apologize.
I won't use the terms "far left" or "left-wing agenda" when posting on this sight - I see it can be disrespectful. I hope to be given the same respect.
Fella, generally around here, when ya give it, ya get it.
And when ya don't.... Solon comes around to take a chunk out of your ass.
Sorry.
That's just how we roll.
Funny how you failed to acknowledge your gross errors and mistatements in your post.
I would believe your apology was sincere if you had not attached a caveat to it and had not failed to acknowledge any other point I made - the point that your asssertion was totally off base.
You may have to subscribe to see the whole story. But please read this from fellow liberal Alexander Cockburn in 'the Nation'.
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn
Alexander Cockburn is not my fellow liberal. I don't consider myself a liberal per-se. Just a thinker.
I know this liberal-conservative dichotomy fits your manichean world-view, but the real world is much more diverse.
I'm still waiting for an exampe of erroneous reporting by MMFA.
I can't read the whole article you linked to (I need a subscription). But if Cockburn is serious when he says "There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend," he is stupider than Rush Limbaugh.
Cockburn was always a bit of an ass. Not as bad as Hitchens, but still an ass. If he reallly thinks this, then it shows how *The Nation* in some respects is no better than the Free Republic.
Okay, I found the whole article on another site, and Cockburn *is* serious. God is he stupid and blinded by idealogy. Global warming doesn't fit is idealogy, so he uses the same techniques that the freepers use.
I always knew Cockburn played loose with the facts, but I didn't think he played that loose.
Here's what some climatologists think of Cockburn's article:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Besides, if you knew anything about The Nation, you would know that the "Beat the Devil" column is meant as a tongue-in-cheek spoof, after the '53 John Huston film starring Humphrey Bogart, "Beat the Devil", which was a spoof of the Maltese Falcon.
So...Seriously -
Are you saying that Cockburn's entire column was a tongue-inc-heek spoof? Boy - it sure read like he was serious.
Sadly Cockburn is serious, and he has a second part coming.
I look forward to reading the letters The Nation gets in response to these pieces.
Glenn Beck does it again!! He exposes hard facts the mainstream ignores. He is so filled with intellectual honesty & courage telling it like it is without worrying about popular opinion. I'd trust him with a million bucks
Either you are being ironic, or you don't know what fact means.
HA. That was good. Funniest thing I have read all day. I do think you over did it though no one in their right mind would believe anyone would be stupid enough to really say that. Good satire though.
imright.urwrong2571's post had to be irony.
Had to be.
Had...to...be.
Neo-conservatives understand that careful cognition is a prerequisite of true citizenship. Neo-conservatives won't just say, "Ditto."
MMFA is pathetic.
Most of these people work for NASA, but you wouldn't know from the hit pieces. Why not attack the most compelling arguments like...
CO2 is followed by Temperation. Correlation does not equal causeation. In fact the CO2 lag is attributed to the fact that the oceans give off more CO2 than any other source. They give off the most CO2, when the temperature is the hottest. But, the Oceans take hundreds of years to warm.
What are you talking about? It is well known that when the earth heats up, the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. You don't think scientists know this?
It does not take hundreds of years for the ocean to heat up. You are simply spouting anything to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. The ocean is already heating up and destrooying ecosystems. Good grief!
We saw plenty of dead and troubled coral on our last scuba diving/cruise trip. Most of it is due to the water being warmer than those species of coral can stand.
I know. This is being observed all over the world. It is sad. Even if we could stop global warming right now, a lot of damage has already been done.
FYI: It is called coral bleaching.
You said,
"Most of these people work for NASA, but you wouldn't know from the hit pieces.".
Can you prove that most of the people criticized in this MMFA article work for NASA? I counted zero of them who are NASA scientists.
And if I missed some, they are certainly not "most" of them.
I love how you said you counted...lol. Which basically means you read the MMFA "fact" sheet.
Why not google every name and see all the information MMFA left out. In fact, many of the people wrote the IPCC report that is somehow the consensus...MMFA is a joke.
the IPCC report that is somehow the consensus...
Huh? The IPCC report is the IPCC report. The consensus is the consensus. Where did you get the idea that one report was a consensus?
No YOU are the joke. One day you may know what you are talking about but that day is not THIS day. This day you are babbling.
So far no ones mentioned the cohersion of our own government scientists by their own government to corrupt any link between GW and mans activities. Ther've just been a few articles cocerning this at NASA. Said behavior is duly thrown out.
April 2007 was the hottest April ever recorded in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6598953.stm
April 2007 was the hottest April ever recorded in Ireland.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=217954202&p=zy79549x8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3065977.stm
River Po in Italy.
Relax, Scooter. Exxon has already dispatched its scientists to disprove that the River Po has dropped 24 feet.
No drought to see here, folks.
Move along, folks. Move along.
James Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation.
Whoops! Corrupted by private $$$. By MMFA definition, the very foundations of AGW are debunked.
Right, it's a big conspiracy of peer-review, to sell carbon offsets. Is that about it?
Your words.
No, that's what you're suggesting. All research requires funding. For that to be an issue, you must be saying that there's some conflict of interest at hand, otherwise it's not an issue. So what's the conflict of interest? What's the evidence that these scientists know it's not a real problem, and are just acting in a huge peer-review scam for some unexplained purpose?
You're responsible for what you say, not me. If you think that science in general is a fraud for personal gain, make that case. Otherwise, don't write a check you know you can't cash.
You and your buds are the ones discrediting scientific opinion that comes from other than the public sector. Peer-pressured (woops!) peer-reviewed OPINION on debatable data is discredited because there are more warm bodies with opposing OPINIONS, who are more credible because their paycheck comes from a public entity?
Come. On. You people want to believe and if it requires a big step of faith, go for it--you're people of faith and it's commendable.
Meanwhile, $3-plus for a gallon of gas has me thinking alternatives, NOT contrived photos of polar bears swimming in the summer. By the way, they've survived untold millenia of climate change--or are they a new species?
Now I have to get back to building my Ark, 'cause we'll be under water next year.
But the OPINION you cite (as if anyone expects a theory to be "fact") is validated by others on one side and not on the other. If it's phony, then that validation is evidence of a conspiracy. Based on what?
Where is the conflict of interest?
Here are a couple of things that bother me about the anti-global warming people, and I've never heard a good answer to either of these issues:
1. Who is "funding" the global warming movement? It's obvious who is funding the anti-global warming movement (it is nearly impossible to find a study refuting global warming that is not funding by an oil or energy company). Tell me, when you follow the money, who is the big beneficiary behind the global warming movement if it's not just people who care about protecting the earth? Do you want us to believe that there is some massive wind power lobby out there?
2. Since there is so much "debate" on this issue, let's just assume for a minute that there is either no global warming at all or that it is less than people like Al Gore want you to believe. Can ANYONE tell me what would be the harm in erring on the side of caution?! Do the anti global warming people believe we could HARM the environment by cutting back on carbon emissions? Or is it just more that they want to create this noise and confusion so people think there is legitimate debate? If if there was legitimate debate, what harm would be doing to take precautions to save the earth in case the global warming people are correct?
I just hope that more people get the message before it's too late to do anything, and I DON'T see the harm in that....
Senator Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma already named the culprit on the far left-fringe that is funding the loony so-called global warming charade: The Weather Channel.
In his words, The Weather Channel is pushing "the greatest hoax ever perpertrated on the American people" JUST FOR RATINGS!
Oh, the shame...the shame.
Look out! Look out! The next threat, after we beat Big Oil, is Big Windmill! Can't you see it coming? They'll control our lives, just as Big Oil does now. They'll team up w/Big Solar too, and ....
...and they'll buy up all the other emerging and competing technologies, just so they'll have monopoly, and....
C'mon, fill in the blanks...
neuboy, these are the questions I ask about many of the right wing myths and accusations. I' don't have any sort of legal or law enforcement background, but I have watched enough cop & lawyer shows to immediatelt look for a motive.
Separation of church and state, the Gay Agenda, Global Warming... all are considered conspiracies, but for the life of me I can't figure out whose selfish interests they benefit.
When questioned, the response from the accusers usually falls into some vague "government control of your life" area.
Now finding a motive on the other side of theseissues, not so tough.
It's the Illuminati, silly. Everybody knows that.
Bilderberger conspiracy theory is immensely attractive to most here. The po
...meant to say that the power of money in private hands and how that just has to be ee-ville is very dear to the hearts of many Leftists.
Except of course for their own assets (all acquired by back-breaking work for THE MAN). THEY'RE not Capitalists.
But when you notify them that the Compassion Express will be coming by for their excess assets (Lord knows there is so much excess in this country), they have that confused look on their face.
And the Compassion Express WILL be by shortly. The coming tax increase will catch EVERYBODY here, and it will be packaged as "Soak the Rich", the oldest con in the book.
Your post is pure obfuscation. No one is saying that private money is clearly evil or corrupted. WHEN that money is coming from a source that has a clear ax to grind that is another matter. Who believed the science about how nicotine was not addictive funded by tobacco companies? Big oil clearly has a vested dollar interest in NOT taking action on Global Warming therefore this SPECIFIC conflict of interest is obvious. Not some vague wwwaahhhh private money isnt inherently evil strawman argument.
Of course the classic right wing answer to #1 is that the "global warming" scientists are padding their bank accounts with the "huge" grants they get to fund their studies.
I'd like to expand on your second point. Out of the blue my normally jaded 16 year old son was asking me serious questions last night regarding the future of oil and coal. The total carbon based energy reserves of the world are finite. Oil may run out in 100 years, coal maybe twice the time. But then what? There are currently no viable alternatives to replace oil and coal. There is nothing even remotely close. Based on the volatility of today's demand and pricing, what's going to happen when, say, we're down to our last 50 years of oil and coal? 25 years? 10 years? Scary.
I am pushing every kid I know (who will listen) to start thinking about massive conservation efforts, not just to address the global warming issue that is affecting us now, but the very real dangers that face future generations. Then maybe they can teach their children, and then maybe, just maybe their grand children will not have to suffer.
TTFN
I didn't get around to seeing it, so I won't comment on the program itself. It's nice to know a little more about the "experts" though. Thanks, MMFA.
Regarding Tim Ball you say:
"Timothy Ball: Ball is a climatologist "
This is too kind. He is not, nor has ever been, a climatologist. He taught geography at the University of Winnipeg. His only foray into climate "science" was a thesis he did that was concerning the written observations of weather by an 18th century fur trading company.
Tim Ball is not a climatologist. It is often reported that he is from the Department of Climatology a the U of W, when no such department exists.
In fact, he is a doctor of philosophy, whose field of study was Climatology. See for yourself: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm
A tidbit about the writer of that article:
Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Judi can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com.
If you don't like the writer, you don't have to read the article. Simpley look at the posted diploma. If you think it is a fake, call the phone number on the diploma and find out for yourself. The author of the article has no bearing on whether or not Timothy Ball is legitimately qualified.
The man himself states:
"I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College," Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview.
Geography is not one of the physical sciences. A geographer with a focus on historical climatology is not a climatologist. Dr. Ball has undertaken no study, peer-reviewed or otherwise, offering an alternative to anthropogenesis as the cause of global warming.
He is merely a well-educated man with an opinion, which he is welcome to. He is also welcome to the money he has received from the energy industry.
And James Hansen is welcome to the $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation.
He has a degree. He has a doctorate, for good measure, but that doesn't make him a climatologist, and it doesn't make him right on this topic.
What's funny is that you think that his degree makes what he says unassailable for some reason! Even smart people with doctorates make mistakes and lie and have hidden agendas!
"What's funny is that you think that his degree makes what he says unassailable for some reason! Even smart people with doctorates make mistakes and lie and have hidden agendas!"
Agreed. However, the same statement applies for Al Gore. At this point in time, I think Gore is more of a fraud because of the fact that he has extended beyond facts and is making this into a "moral obligation"...effectively turning anyone who doesn't agree with him into a bad person. Ball's opionions/data is at least just that, he's not pushing a moral agenda.
Gore isn't claiming to be a scientist, he's highlighting the case made by actual scientists. So no, you can't say the same thing.
As for the rest of it, obviously the conclusion of the studies is that global warming is real and influenced by man. Now, if there's no evidence otherwise, then wouldn't you say there's a moral obligation to do something about it? It seems to me that someone who ignores the issue because of laziness, apathy, political prejudice or greed would be contributing to a problem which affects the entire planet.
No, the same statement, in no way, applies to Al Gore.
Al Gore is simply promoting science done by others.
The PhD from Canada is promoting his own opinions, not the opinions and hypotheses of others.
You're wrong.
Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850."
That's his doctoral thesis title.
He's not a climatologist. He's a man who examined historical records. A person who studies the Spanish Inquisition is not a Jew. A person who critiques the Bush Administration is not a Republican. A person who discusses historical weather data is not a climatologist.
Sadly, I did miss the special, because I did want to watch it. But I've reviewed the clips here on MMfA, and it's almost chilling how two-faced Glenn Beck is, condemning the behavior he extols. Certainly, his carnival showman's demeanor would turn me off whatever message these people were trying to deliver, but the simple fact of editing quick quotes together is simply silly.
well that's good that you reviewed the mmfa clips. no need to watch the special. if you are ever on a jury ask the judge if you can miss the the defense case, no worries - you can just watch the prosecution's.
Hypocrites are MMFA as usual--they attack Lomberg for being a "political scientist" suggesting he has no authority to speak on a climate matter yet hail Al Gore as the God on global warming (only slightly below Keith Ubermensch on the God scale). Textbook hypocrisy.
Gore's pointing to the consensus view of the scientific community. How on earth is that comparable to a "political scientist" trying to debunk that same view with shoddy evidence?
Until someone conducts a survey using a representative sample of all scientists, don't start with "consensus views." 400 scientists signing onto this particular report does not a consensus make.
And where's the peer-reviewed research on the other side?
As the "debate" continues between the real scientists who want to know the truth and the so-called scientists funded by big oil and big industry, there may come a time when the scientific community collectively sighs and gives in the idiotic idea that they have to sign the Global Warming report (along with a report stating that the earth is a sphere, man was on the moon, and gravity exists) just to keep Conservative "morans" from posting such drivel.
If more than 90% of those qualified to sign do agree with Gore's movie, then will you please tell congress to do something? Or are we going to have further debate on how drying lakes and ponds, rising sea level, etc are actually good for the world, a la El-Rushbo?
Until someone conducts a survey using a representative sample of all scientists...
Done.
Keith O. is not on the God Scale. He's on the Dreamy Boyfriend Scale.
Now, Interesting Observer, I took a number and I'm waiting my turn. I suggest you do the same. It's a long line.
Interesting Observer: "Hypocrites are MMFA as usual...."
IO, you're talking like Yoda! I would just add a "hmmmm."
"Hypocrites are MMFA as usual, hmmmm?"
Okay, today, I found the Immutable Climate Research Center. When Exxon realizes that I'm here, they'll fund me. I'll get my cut of that $3.50 per gallon you're paying for gas. But first, I have to go shopping. I'm going to buy pink satin hot pants and high stiletto boots. If I'm going to play the part of the head of the Immutable Climate Research Center, I best look the part.
Quoting Captain McAllister of The Simpsons:
"Aahhhhhrrr, the hot pants...."
First, I can't figure out why the so called "pro-global warming" crowd constantly labels those who disagree with al gore's position as "deniers" or "anti-global warming." Thats basically completely false, only a fool would deny that our planet is not warming up. However, the main thing to question in this debate is the effect that humans are having on it. If you think about all the abosolutely amazing natural phenomena in our world, is it so wrong to investigate the possibility that the world is warming up on its own (like it has in the past), regardless of human activity? Being skeptical of global warming as a result of human activity is not limited to conservatives with ties to the energy industry, either: check out the May 14 issue of "The Nation," there is a compelling article by Alexander Cockburn, a liberal columnist writing in a liberal publication. Here is a link, but you can't see the hole story unless you are a member: http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn
Wow, I feel as if I've seen that somewhere.
HBL, here's a suggested prerequisite for MMFA:
You don't get to write (post) until you read.
Yeah, obviously you've seen that before. I'm asking a core question here though: When Al Gore presents his facts and figures, why doesn't MMFA question the credibility of his statements? Why doesn't MMFA question who Al Gore's scientists are funded by or associated with? Unless I've missed something, and I'm open to be proven wrong here, I have never seen an article on this site questioning any of the information presented in Al Gore's documentary, or any article questioning those who fund and support the "pro-global warming" movement.
Why would you expect to see an article on that on a site that exposes conservative misinformation?
I suppose it's possible that there is a conflict of interest on Gore's side, but I don't see what it is. Bicycle manufacturers? Public transportation? Some Schwinn-Smartbus conspiracy? This seems to be an exercise in false equivalence, where the oil companies very clearly have a monetary interest in disputing all the findings and everyone else. Like 1% of scientists that argue against global warming studies and are paid by big oil are equal to everyone else who might be funded by someone who might have a vested interest in the result.
Gee, I guess we just don't know, and can't believe either side...
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how much money is at stake in research grants for the pro-global warming studies. There's you "Qui Bono". Hollywood is stepping all over themselves to give money to their favorite environmental group. Don't kid yourself; It's ALWAYS about the money.
Let' see what happens if the UN starts with the so-called "carbon taxes": Trillions of dollars would flow from wealthy countries to poor countries in the form of carbon offset taxes that don't really reduce anything.
That's one of the silliest arguments I've seen in a while. What, exactly, precludes the funding for research and charitable donations from being a reaction to a genuine problem? Are researchers supposed to be independently wealthy in order to be credible, or what?
"Trillions of dollars would flow from wealthy countries to poor countries...."
I bet you jeer Robin Hood and cheer the Sheriff.
Seriously, your statement reveals what's really at stake in this global warming denying: luxury. The deniers covet their soft, luxurious lives.
The accepters say, "Sorry, but the Earth-exploiting gig is up. The Earth is running a fever. Fevers serve a purpose. They kill the virus. We've been behaving like a virus, attacking the healthy tissue of the Earth in our hunger for more, more, MORE!"
Since it's noble to give, please have your excess ready for the Compassion Express.
You do have excess, don't you?
And while we're somewhat off-topic, Holly, it will not go well for you, levelling hatespeech at Christians re: their beliefs (an earlier post of yours), in light of the House bill passed May 3 (a victory for Libs). If such talk results in violence done to one group or another, you may be held responsible for the violence.
Well the compassion express wont be waiting for you. Thats ok. I am sure the selfishness and greed express will pick you up on schedule
But would those scientists not receive research money if their research found man was not a major factor in global warming? NO. The research money comes in regardless of the results of the studies. The studies are also peer-reviewed, so if they manipulated the research in any way, they would be exposed and discredited.
You ARE a man of faith. Discredited? Any scientist raising questions about AGW is shouted down and totally eclipsed by the AGW club.
And if they have the FACTS and if their papers can survive the peer review that wouldnt happen. I remember when a German forensic scientist did a study which found cocaine and nicotine in Middle Kingdom mummies. The established historians went ballistic and tried to attack her. She just did more studies and coughed up the evidence which effectively shut them up. IF the facts were on their side they wouldnt have to worry about being shouted down. What they seem to want is their OPINIONS to be considered as on the same level as the peer reviewed STUDIES of the vast majority of climate scientists.
It's ALWAYS about the money.
Here's what I don't get about this argument: if it were about money and nothing else, wouldn't at least some of that money go to one study that disproved anthropogenic global warming?
DISPROOF would apply in the case of a PROOF, and not in the case of religious absolutism.
The key word there PROOF, they dont HAVE any. IF they did they could provide it to peer review and it would survive. They have OPINIONS.
Brabantio,
You are the first person who opposes my view that I think has common sense, and brains. Watch out though, you may get on the bad side of your fellow liberal bloggers making statements like this: "Why would you expect to see an article on that on a site that exposes conservative misinformation?" According to the other bloggers this side has no left-wing bias and exposes ALL misinformation in the media. Or, maybe you pointed out a valid fact about this site that the other bloggers will not concede to. Thank you for your honesty.
In direct response to your statement I would say this: All the speculation and finger pointing about who funds who will always put opposing parties at odds. This is how I look at the situation, when scientist Timothy Ball was accused of being funded by the oil industry, he responded by condemning those statements and setting the record straight by letting everyone know he did not receive a dollar from them. Similarly, when MMFA was accused of being funded by George Soros, MMFA made a simple statement that it does not receive funding from him. Whose denial should we believe? I don't think it matters, because the funding will continue regardless. The debate should be about the validity scientific facts presented, not the funding that assisted the research.
John, whereas it's cool that you admire brabantio., you didn't even read this thread, as your linking to the Cockburn piece revealed. Someone had already linked to it and it had already been discussed. So, you can't assay the lucidity of the libs here. You lack the data. But woo brabantio if you must.
I know whenever I contemplate him, I think, "Woo-woo!"
A cookie and a "woo-woo"? You're too sweet :)
Holly, I acknowledged that I posted the same thing. Sorry it is such a big deal for you that I didnt read every single one of the 100 posts before expressing an opinion. The article backed up my opinion, so I really don't care if it was arready posted.
On the other hand, I think you need to cite mr. gore as your source for the "fever" argument a few posts up, it's bordering on plagiarism.
Here's the big deal: "You are the first person who opposes my view that I think has common sense, and brains."
You're generalizing without even a general sense of what's been said. A whole string of posts were spent discussing your linked article. It's not that you didn't read "every single post." You're skipping pages and then generalizing in an attempt to cultivate favor with the Magnificent Mr. B. Now, I cultivate his favor too, with cookies and "Woo-woo's," but at least I read the threads before favoring Mr. B. over others. Please read before you write.
I haven't seen the Gore movie, so if Gore used the fever comparison, I reached the same analogy by a basic understanding of biological mechanisms. I believe in the Gaian Hypothesis. Thus, the fever analogy is apt, as the Gaian Hypothesis asserts that the Earth works like any other organism.
It isn't in the movie. That rhetoric by gore was all over the mainstream media after he used it in a presentation to congress recently.
I appreciate the compliment.
The difference is that Soros's supposed funding of MMfA doesn't really suggest any change in the nature of the site (It's always said it exposes conservative misinformation, not all misinformation, so I really have no idea who you think I'm going to anger). It's not supposed to be purely objective, balanced research, nor does it need to be so to be respectable. The question is if they are fair, accurate and honest. My issue with the MRC, for instance, isn't that they're funded by conservatives, or that it has a conservative tilt, it's that the methods they use are extremely weak, and they inject dishonest talking points into their items.
Scientific studies, on the other hand, should be objective, or the findings are obviously suspect. Science simply requires a higher standard in this regard than websites about politics, wouldn't you agree?
No one has EVER made that claim. This site covers ONLY conservative media misinformation. It says so in its mission statement. That is a strawman argument without merit. Just like MRC is about liberal media bias, this site is about Conservative media bias and misinformation and has never made any other claim.
Heres why. The vast majority of scientists are in agreement. IF a layman represents something that is based on the prevailing scientific theory, say that if he jumps off a cliff gravity will make him go splat. He doesnt need extraordinary evidence he is using what is considered to be the scientific consensus opinion ITSELF to back him up. IF he goes AGAINST that opinion saying that he can in fact fly he needs some serious evidence to back that up. IF I say Abraham Lincoln was a man, that goes along with what virtually every historian in the world believes IF my claim is he is a woman then I have a serious burden of proof to overcome because I am going AGAINST what is the considered opinion of most of the people whose job it is to know these things.
If you think about all the abosolutely amazing natural phenomena in our world, is it so wrong to investigate the possibility that the world is warming up on its own (like it has in the past), regardless of human activity?
Not wrong at all. i think all possibilities should be considered, and a reasonable conclusion agreed upon. The threat of such amazing natural phenomona was the reason that, in my village, we formed a study group made up of our best doctors and most experienced and aged holy men, examined the geological evidence, and determined that the best way to protect our homes and livlihoods from certain annihilation by the environment was the application of a single virgin female into the caldera of the volcano. There are still a few skeptics remaining, however the success of our method leaves no doubt that our course of action was the correct one.
Had our panel of experts not considered all the possibilities, it is highly likely that we would not have arrived at an effective solution, and I would not be here today to write this.
My suggestion to the nations of the world, when pondering the global warming riddle, is to do the same. Assemble your best alchemists, conjurors, economists, and holy men, and come to an agreement on a solution which will most likely sate the gods.
Praise be to Hephaestus. All hail Hephaestus. Ciao.
All hail Neondesert!
Hephaestus is clearly a Democrat...
Don't know about Hephaestus, but I'm pretty sure Phestus was. And Chester, too.
Gabby also...
Skepticism is good. Investigation is better. IF it is done with actual science, investigations, hypothesis, experimentation, studies reviewed by OTHER scientists. I am all for it. Coming out with an opinion you DONT have reviewed by other scientists in the field is NOT science its politics. It should not be considered as if it were just as valid an opinion. That lady that wears a shower cap seems to live at the park and is afraid of blue cars has an opinion
That's exactly why this report by the group of "scientists" that is the IPCC, is flawed. The vast majority are not "in the field" of climatology, and thus, their report to the UN has to be taken with a giant desert of salt.
That's the UN at work for your taxpayer dollars.
CRAP.
You are "wrong," despite "repeating" the same line over and over "again."
Climatologists review the climate research, biologists review the biology studies, and so on depending on the particular literature being looked at.
Please take the "time" to learn what you are "talking" about and you will not make an "ass" of yourself.
"Look, even if they are funded by 'Big Oil', why does that automatically skew their results? It seems to me that it would be in the best interest of these industries to be absolutely accurate with the studies."
Oh, god...I'm feeling a little numb...that last thing I remember are my feet rising up off the ground as I was thrown through the air...
I'm not even going to argue the logical counter-point. This guy is part of the 30% of Americans who still thein the Uniting Dividing Decider is doing a good job. The thinking, or lack thereof, that is so evident in this post is at the core of the mess we're in today on so many fronts.
make that "...is my feet..."
is your feet what?
Motal? What's a motal?
Actually Holly, you might be on to something. A Motal was a Shtetl located about 20 miles west of Pinsk on the Yasolda River. A room in a Shtetl on the Yasolda sounds like a good place for Wesley. He might have to learn Yiddish though.
Ahh, an erudite poster!
Or was it Google?
Either way, you made me giggle.
I looked up erudite, and that's me, too!
</irony>
Here's what's at stake: luxury. Grapes from Chile in the winter. Watermelons from Mexico in the early spring. Houses so large that the people who visit us envy us. Global warming deniers are fighting for their luxurious lifestyles. There's also a massive infrastructure at stake. People make mah-millions shipping grapes from Chile. Other people make money building mini-mansions for people who want their friends and relations to envy them. So, everything from self-esteems to livelihoods are at stake. Thus, the deniers.
Our lifestyles of unfettered consumption aren't just killing ecosystems. They're also chipping away at our souls. We need each other, for we're social animals, but we're told to be afraid. Very, very afraid. To bunker in our homes and watch tv and buy, buy, buy. I live in a modest neighborhood in a modest house. I know every neighbor for a block in all directions. I've been in all their homes. We cut across each other's yards and share cookies. In a way, I live in 1955, except my neighbors are white, black, Asian, and Hispanic, which was rare in 1955. And it's a good life. If you were to measure me by my consumption, by the size of my house or the gourmet quotient of my food, I can't begin to compare to someone in a McMansion with a pesticide-choked yard and foods procured from around the world. But let me tell you, McMansionites, don't be afraid. A diverse and humble 1955-life is a rich arrangement.
Do you ever get jealous of rich people ? Just wondering, I'm asking a serious question - not saying you do or don't. Do you ever get jealous of rich people and some of the things they can afford and staff they can hire ?
I'm not a 'Global Warming Denier'. I just don't believe that human activity is the main culprit or that we can somehow change what may well be a naturally occur climate change.
The thing that bothers me most about Gore and others is my lack of respect of authority - and most of the pro-environmental stop-Global-Warming crowd seems VERY authoritarian. Almost as bad as Evangelical Christians. "Do this or you'll DIE".
And, yes, Holly, we DO take luxury for granted and PAY for those things. If one wants it, and can afford it, and someone is supplying it, that's free enterprise. I still beleive the money spent on stopping Global Warming (which I don't think is possible) would be much better spent providing health care and clean water to 3rd world countries or stopping HIV and Malaria in Africa. That's real and tangible and will save MILLIONS of lives.
First off, thank for not calling me "Hitler," as my shift doesn't start until 2:00 p.m. CST.
Goodfellow, you need to think macro. Maybe this micro-example will help. Imagine that I'm your neighbor (This wouldn't be all bad. I'd bake you cookies, which I'd deliver in a bio-hazard suit. You'll soon see why.).
Also imagine that I'm a bluhgillionaire. It's my money. I earned it. Now, I have an odd hobby. I like to pulverize asbestos. You wouldn't understand. It's a girl thing.
My asbestos pulverizing facility is adjacent to my mansion. The facility is quite leaky. Even worse for you, you're downwind of me. So, day after day, you're sucking in asbestos dust and on your bad days, you're spitting up pieces of your pancreas.
So, my hobby has deadly consequences for you. Unfettered luxury has deadly consequences for people too. Do you have kids? Your children and your grandchildren will pay for your greed. For my greed. For our collective greed.
Although your comparison makes sense, is reliant upon humans being the sole contributor to global warming. Let's have an extreme example here: humans cease emitting CO2 completely. Is it your honest opion that would cause the planet's temperature to start to go down?
I don't know, John.
You might want more, but sorry, that's honestly all I've got.
That was actually a great answer. Matter of fact, I think thats what most people on both sides of the debate should be saying, even if they slightly lean one way or the other. I also support doing everything possible to leave the environment cleaner than how we found it, but at the same time we can't impose any radical rules and regulations on emissions until our answer changes from "I don't know" to "Heres what can be proven will happen, beyond reasonable doubt."
John, you are introducing a proof threshhold that is completely without precedent in the history of all regulation. Science does not do "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Scientists are more meticulous than others in being entirely clear about what they know and do not know, which is the reason why something like a 95% certainty is taken so seriously.
Take a look at this paper on the subject of "proof" as it relates to science. It's not that long and quite accessible to the layman.
I just love it when you totally destroy a rightwinger's point, and they almost never come back and acknowledge that they were wrong.
I would argue that you are missing the point. The goal would seem to be for humans to avoid influencing the temperature of the planet in any way, so that global mean temperature fluctuations are as close to natural cycles as possible.
The fear is that human interference that has already occured may send temperatures to greater extremes than normal cycles would have.
Yeah! Just because an great consensus of the scientists think CO2 is a tremendous factor, then I'm going to wait for the oil-funded scientists to agree before I change my lifestyle.
It is my opinion that we are greatly contributing to global warming. Never has man/woman had such an impact on their environment. Would it stop the warming? Don't know. Would it allow the earth to do its own thing and possibly correct what we have done? Probably.
John Long-String-of-Digits, the answer, as best I understand it is "yes, but not right away." Co2 would continue concentrating in the atmosphere for reasons I don't recall, then level off and start falling.
I could probably find something on Google Scholar to back that up if you are interested.
I think you are misunderstanding the basic science. No one I know has EVER said man is the only contributer. There is a balance, man might only be contributing a very small amount however IF that amount is enough to throw off the balance then that part must be addressed. Imagine a pond with natural water chanels going in and a natural chanel going out. It is in balance you begin adding water from the runoff of irrigating your garden, it might be less than one percent of the amount of water going in from other sources and that can still be enough to overflow the pond because it is ABOVE the amount that the natural balance has already established.
"First off, thank for not calling me "Hitler," as my shift doesn't start until 2:00 p.m. CST."- holly / Friday May 4, 2007 12:25:38 PM EST
Yes - thanks - I know your kidding (right?) but I have decided not to use disrespectful terms, like 'left-wing' when posting here.
"So, my hobby has deadly consequences for you. Unfettered luxury has deadly consequences for people too. Do you have kids? Your children and your grandchildren will pay for your greed. For my greed. For our collective greed." - holly / Friday May 4, 2007 12:25:38 PM EST
Capitalism and true free enterprise requires great responsibility. Those who intentionally do harm and pollute the environment should be stopped.
Really?
Who should stop them? The same idealogues who detest government oversight also detest liability lawsuits.
Also, the word intentional is interesting to me. The environment doesn't care if the nitrates in its water were put there intentionally or unintentionally, and in Holly's scenario, you wouldn't care either while you are suffering from asbestosis. Regardless of intention, it is only fair for businesses to pay for the full cost of their product, including the damage caused by the manufacture and byproducts of their industry. If Holly is making big bucks on her pulverized asbestos, the government needs to enforce that she, and nobody else, pays for the environmental damage caused by her actions.
Yep, I was kidding. I don't recall you being one of the you'reahitler! gang.
Good, I agree. By the way I personally dont consider leftwing or lefty perjorative. Far left is probably an accurate description of me though not necessarily most of those at this site. Far left moonbats is getting into the area that makes me tetchy.
I prefer "pinko," myself. "Commie rat" has a nice indie-rock ring to it...
Pinko is good. I am partial to bleeding heart liberal. Gramsci lover, although infrequently used is one of my faves. Commie anything is so 80's but there is something to be said for tradition.
I like the line by General Ripper from Dr. Strangelove,( Or how I learned to stop worrying about global warmng because it's CRAP.)
<> "I'm beginning to smell a BIG FAT COMMIE RAT."Wasnt that how you were brainwashed by Limbaugh and Wienerdog to worry about what they tell you to worry about and forget the rest?
Thank you. At the risk of sounding a trifle crude, I think I just peed myself a little during my laughing fit while reading your analogy... ("it's a girl thing you wouldn't understand...") - classic
If I made you pee your pants, then my work is done here, southparkliberal.
I'm off to Tralfamdore, for there's no place like home.
Good night and good luck.
P.S. - Did I set some sort of record there for cultural references?
So it goes.
The thing that bothers me most about Gore and others is my lack of respect of authority - and most of the pro-environmental stop-Global-Warming crowd seems VERY authoritarian. Almost as bad as Evangelical Christians. "Do this or you'll DIE".
You mean the Bush-Cheney authority, where they completely overstepped their bounds because * thinks he is the "decider" since he started the war? It used to be that the gov't listened to the scientists, and actually published the facts as presented by the scientists. Do you recall what BushCo did with EPA studies?
I agree that authority is to be questioned at every turn, but America has never had so many turns -- ever. Time for you to start concentrating on the authority that is quickly taking your right away, and worse taking your right to real research away. Scientists are having problems convincing BushCo to tell the truth so we can get on with doing something about this upcoming mess. Clear Sky Initiative, anyone? Bueller?
Also, please take a trip to Taiwan and get back to me on how lack of environmental control is a good thing. Without environmentalists, nobody would be able to even see Bush's ranch, or Rove's mansions, or Cheney's mansions... I think they would never have property in Taiwan.
I love how MMFA left out LINDZEN, isn't that convenient. Is that b/c he has no ties to Oil companies and is a professor of climatology at MIT??
Looks like we found a respectable scientist who agrees that CO2 is a factor, and that temps are going up. He does offer good argument that there are many factors, and that we may not be able to turn it around, that we may not be a large part of the changes,it may be cost prohibitive, etc.
We found the 1%-er, and I agree that this is someone to listen to. Now will you start listening to the other 99% as well?
he has no ties to Oil companies
(cartoon double-take)
"Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]"
All this science stuff is giving me a headache. Wake me up when it's my turn to be Hitler.
Tag your Hitler
Definitely. If you get caught with a Hitler with no tag, it's a big fine, and they confiscate it.
This post uses a technique known as "poisoning the well"; it attempts to discredit Beck's video before it ever aired.
Actually the video "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" is very well done and contains facts which are difficult with which to disagree. It is evident that Al Gore attempted to scare everyone with bogus claim that the ocean could rise 20 feet unless we give more power to politicians like him.
Obviously the earth has been getting warmer recently, just as it did in the early 20th century when the industrial revolution was in its infancy. Autos were only beginning to be widely used in the 30s. Then there is that pesky period between 1940 and 1980 when the earth was stubbornly cooling while anthropomorphic CO2 generation was rising dramatically.
It is equally evident that those who disagree with the causes, proposed cures, and projected severity of the present global warming are treated as religious heretics by the left.
Beck's show aired two days ago.
What is "anthropomorphic CO2 generation?" Is someone generating CO2 in the shape of a man? No matter how many long words you write without understanding their meaning, you can't dismiss scientific research. If you can, find some credible research that bolsters your position. If you can't, you may want to ask yourself why.
What is "anthropomorphic CO2 generation?"
I could be wrong, but isn't that the "pfffffft" when a man opens a beer?
Good valentinian,
Ability to spell a word ... A+
Ability to refute my arguments logically ... D-
Good luck on finding a reputable scientist who believes that the ocean is likely to rise 20 feet.
"Good luck on finding a reputable scientist who believes that the ocean is likely to rise 20 feet."
"Likely", interesting word to use there. Likely this year? No. Likely in the next hundred years? Probably not, no. However, if you pose the question as "is it likely if the global temperature continues to rise?", then that's different because then that could certainly happen, and it's just a question of time. Or is it your contention that no matter what happens, no matter how much ice melts, that a reputable scientist won't say the water level can rise 20 feet?
Brabantio,
I am not sure if you are parsing the word "likely" or extending the time period of the discussion into irrelevancy.
More to the point, who said a sea-level rise of 20 feet on any time scale was "likely?"
I'm not doing either, as far as I can see. Try this, if there's a 10% chance of something happening, you wouldn't classify that as "likely", I wouldn't think. For the sake of argument, let's say that within 100 years, there's a 10% chance of that 20' rise. The question is, how do you balance this out? Do you recognize the problem, or do you brush it off as "unlikely" and just hope that catastrophe doesn't pull an Ace from the dealer's shoe of fate?
It seems to me that when you're dealing with scenarios like this which have extreme consequences, the issue isn't whether it's "likely" but whether it's possible. You may not be around to see the results, but some of us actually care about the future, and want to take steps to preserve it.
FF, this is not a philosophical argument, where you make an assertion and I either do or don't take it apart logically. This is a question of what scientists qualified in the field have found through decades of research.
Unlike you, I am not asserting anything beyond my competency to understand. My only point is, in matters of science, look to the scientists. None of the wild assertions you posted is backed up by a shred of credible research.
Media Matters called becks video a smear before it even showed. This is true. Video showed May 2nd evening and mmfa called it a smear before it aired that night.
They called it a smear, and it was a smear. They were right.
Funny how none of the people who objected to the characterization of it as a smear before it aired have come back here and admitted that we were right, and that it was a smear!
If they were so interested in the potential of defaming Beck unfairly, one would think that they'd come back and admit that he deserved every one of those characterizations. But they didn't.
No we arent treating them like religious heretics. We are treating them like people with opinions they are NOT backing up with solid scientific research and papers in the way scientific research is done. IF they want to play in the big leagues they need to play by the professional rules. THEY want to change the rules of the game and STILL be considered major leaguers. Their OPINIONS are not equal to peer reviewed science it really is just that simple. When they DO the science the way science is done get back to us.
Well, now that I've watched Beck's presentation and attacks on Gore and the Warming issue I'm even more sure that Gore is correct.
Let us all be sure to take care of our Earth and stay away from that Glen Beck Cool Aid Puking Loon.t
I'm sorry, that wasn't very nice of me. Stay away from Beck and his Miss Information.
Where is Sam, anyway? Would someone please tell him that his computer is misbehaving again, and he needs come back here and get control of it?
I just can't believe the way some people just let their computers run wild...
So Beck hosted a special featuring EIGHT industry shills representing the opinions of EIGHT people and TWO auto makers, who are onboard with the science of global warming, to represent the consensus opinion of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED climate scientists.
Not even Bugs Bunny would throw a curve ball this contorted and unreal.
Randy
Eh... I shouda toined left at Albuquerque. Once a consensus of scientists told us the earth was flat and that Alar on apples was killing us. Forgive me if I choose to remain skeptical of your global warming hysteria a bit longer. I suppose you are suggesting that the show is obviously false because it needed more scientists? How many scientists were interviewed on "An Inconvenient Truth"?Isn't it fascinating that scientists who once did some project for the auto industry or whatever, are less credible than scientists who work for the government or in universities which are largely dependent upon government grants for their research. I realize big government is always truthful and magnanimous, while industry is always evil and corrupt, but still...
There are no, none, zero credible studies challenging the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. There are hundreds that support it.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about, because all you do is parrot what you have been told by people who think like you.
Read the research on Alar and make up your own mind.
Read the research on anthropogenic global warming and make up your own mind.
Use the brain you were born with.
I realize that I am a mere mortal, and not an omniscient climate scientist, so while I am poring over those hundreds of government-funded scientific works, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how much the earth's temperature will drop by 2100 if I trade in my SUV for a Prius?
Bjorn Lomborg says that even if we adopt the most draconian measures recommended by Kyoto that we delay the rise in temperature by 6 years as of the turn of the new millenium. Is he just another deranged person who "thinks like me"?
Does that result make it wise to ratify a treaty that will hike consumer prices 40 percent and cost the American economy $3.3 trillion over 20 years?
Is this something that you would qualify as using the "brain you were born with"?
I would be willing to bet that I know more about Bjørn Lomborg than you do. If you want to get your information from a source even Glenn Beck admits is "not a scientist," be my guest.
I look at both sides and make my own mind up. If you don't have the time or interest to even glance at information that doesn't fit your preconceptions, fine. Just don't expect people to take your arguments seriously.
That's your answer? Do you favor ratifying Kyoto or not? If my figures are wrong regarding costs and benefits, what are yours?
I didn't realise you were asking a serious question. I couldn't see for all the invective you were hurling.
Taking your question at face value: yeah, sure, I favoured Kyoto as step one in a long process, not the be-all and end-all. There needs to be a better resolution of the compromise between the developed world and the developing world other than China and India polluting all they want, or their economic growth getting stopped cold. Some form of technology transfer from the developed world may be a part of that solution, but, fortunately for the world, it's not my job to figure these issues out.
As far as the economic impacts of climate change mitigation, I'd direct you to the IPCC report on that very subject released today. Again, looking at research done by people competent in the field can be instructive.
The cost to the global economy, according to the report, is projected at 0.1% of world GDP per year. This does not seem excessive.
LOL, of course you don't find it excessive. Stay out of our lives.
Stay out of YOUR lives?
How about you and your pals stop ruining my grandchildren's lives by failing to bite the bullet today and reining in our degradation of the environment that's leading towards catastrophic man-made global warming consequences?
Stay out of YOUR lives? What a *&%*@#$* you must be in real life!
WOW. And yeah STAY OUT MY LIFE!
Valentinian,
Here's an interesting article from 1998 but still valid since it is talking about long time frames: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html
It would appear that we are enjoying a brief (geologically speaking) respite from an ice age that ended about 10,700 years ago. If you look at long time frames, we are in a period of cooling which started when Holocene temperatures peaked about 4500 BC.
I confirmed this with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
So we are due to move back into an ice age which will last about 90,000 years. We don't know exactly when, but historically this cooling has occured relatively rapidly when it starts.
The long term climate cycle is driven by the change in the shape of the earth's orbit from round to elliptical. The ice age is likely to be rather severe because of the feedback effect; that is the Anarctic land mass tends to hold ice sheets which reflect sunlight, causing further cooling. In geologic periods before the Anarctic had land, the ice would tend to melt and the ice age was less severe.
There is little we can do about this climate change either, although it will not happen in our lifetimes hopefully.
There are no, none, zero credible studies challenging the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
-Valentinian
Sorry, this is demonstrably false.
In February 2007, environmental consultant Madhav L Khandekar, in reaction to the Oreskes survey, issued an annotated bibliography of 68 recent peer-reviewed papers which he claims question aspects of the current state of global warming science:
As the debate on climate change and GHG emission targets continues unabated, a large number of studies questioning the GW science have appeared in peer-reviewed International scientific Journals. These studies have seriously questioned many aspects of the GW science and at present there is an emerging view among many scientists that the present climate change may be more due to natural variability rather than due to human added CO2. The impact of solar variability and changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns are now considered as providing significant impact on the earth’s climate in historical as well as in geological times.
This Document presents an annotated bibliography of [68] selected peer reviewed papers which question the current state of the GW science.
All of these are studies that suggest some of the science done by some previous studies have errors or failed to take different factors into consideration. None challenges the consensus.
Read, for Christ's sake, instead of just blindly copy-pasting links that you don't understand. That's a half-hour of my life that I'm not getting back just because you're a lazy ideologue.
Science is self-correcting. The reason the consensus analyses contain significant error bars is because there are a range of results from different studies that are being done.
If you take the absolute best-case scenario inside the IPCC reports, it still indicates that humans are changing the climate.
The consensus of the worlds knowlegable people was NEVER that the world was flat. The ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Sumerians, Greeks all knew the world was a sphere. It was a consensus among the Catholic church and comman MAN the world was flat, never of the worlds scientists or what would pass for scientists.
Let's just boil it right down to the obvious:
Shorter Right wingers: Don't bother with debating whether or not Global warming is real because the rapture is coming anyway
Can I have a refund? I just wasted precious moments of my day reading this comment. You do understand that MMFA and the posters are not one and the same right?
Breaking News! Bible researchers, using advanced cryptology algorithms discover secret message in old testament. God reveals that burning fossil fuels does not release CO2 ! Proof positive that humans do not cause global warming. Be sure to watch the CNN exclusive, tonight hosted by Glenn Beck. Beck promises to ask hard hitting questions like, how does it feel to be the first person to see the secret thoughts of God? Why did God keep this a secret for so long? Will sales of SUV’s double, triple or maybe even quadruple? Also scheduled to appear, Pat Robertson, Pat Bennet and Creepy Gobal Cooling Guy from 1970’s.
OMG. I cannot believe the garbage being thrown out here. Global warming, climate change, hockey stick, whatever the frick you wanna call it. This is all the biggest farce ever. Your greatest, greatest grandchildren will be still be here. Do you wanna know why? Because they will adapt if they have to, just like we humans have always done. Whether this planet gets hot as hell or as cold as the North Pole. And you also want to know something else. Your greatest grandchildren will be gone and this planet will keep spinning on it's axis for helluva lot longer.
The problem I have with the crap being spewed here is the fact you GW alarmists are trying to force the down the American people's throats. And don't give me your 60% of people believe in GW. That would be 60% of idiots who believe in this crap. You all know what 's best for myself and my family. Well, so sorry but keep your long winded opinios to yourself. The possibility that we has Americans my pay a tax on our "CARBON FOOTPRINTS" is absolutely the most revolting thing I have ever heard. Utterly disgusting.
HMMMM. Lets see. Behind door one we have the vast majority of the worlds scientists and 100% of peer reviewed science on the issue. Behind door two we have the OPINIONS of a few scientists and ranting morons like Henry. Tough choice.
How typical you are with your uppity "Euro-sensibilty." Don't go crying when that tax bill starts creepin up for some invisible gases that are making it a little toasty. Unbelievable.
"Uppity Euro-sensibility" LOL. Literally. I am laughing out loud at that.
Those damn uppity Europeans, with their pretentious accents and their funny cars and their dumb adherence to the scientific method...
What is it that you want done to supposedly solve this "unspeakable" crisis? Are you seriously gonna me tell that this is our globe's most pressing issue? Seriously? The absurdity of this issue is global, not the warming. If you try to make us financially responsible for this "crisis", the wrath of the silent majority will be historical.
What is it that you want done to supposedly solve this "unspeakable" crisis?
We want the issue to be given the attention it deserves, and we want the serial misinformers with their selfish motives to stop misinforming.
Are you seriously gonna me tell that this is our globe's most pressing issue? Seriously?
The globe's most serious issue? Of course it is.
The absurdity of this issue is global, not the warming.
The absurdity of your position is that you apparently don't understand that it's all about the global cooperation to mitigate a global issue of man-made global warming. This is not about blame. It's about fixing the issue, and when people deny that it's an issue, they delay the fixes. That's absurd.
If you try to make us financially responsible for this "crisis", the wrath of the silent majority will be historical.
So, if those on the right have to bite the bullet to protect our children, they'll turn on us? Boy, I'm quaking in my boots. The right refused to fairly address the need to change the funding for Social Security to protect our children and grandchildren. They wanted to "Fix" Soc Sec to protect their own money, and to disable social programs, not to help future generations! Biting the bullet means taking a long look, not a short look.
The Bush Admin's plan? Always take the short look. Invade Iraq without much thought at all to the long term consequences of that behavior. Stack the Justice Department with 150 inept graduates from a fourth tier law school, with no regard to the damage to the Dept's reputation or ability to be an effective body for decades to come! Short-termers all the way, and this is another example of that same sinful and embarrassing behavior!
Can you please stop w/ the rhetoric. You have a mind. Please open it.
Yes he has a mind. A first rate one at that. Too bad the same cannot be said about you. So RENT a brain cell and get back to us.
"How typical you are with your uppity "Euro-sensibilty.""
Please tell me you're kidding! Did you really just call the idea of using scientific evidence and reasoning uppity Euro-sensibility?
And, as for our grandkids surviving, yes, they probably will, but in what kind of world? Should we set the bar so low that our only goal is not actually exterminating the human race?
Don't go crying when that tax bill starts creepin up for some invisible gases that are making it a little toasty, says Henry.
Me, cry because I am helping make the world a little better (or a little less worse) for my grandkids by paying more in taxes?
That's a tiny price to pay to help give my descendants the best planet I can. It makes me cry that there are so many thoughtless and selfish people like you whom I have to argue against to get the world and the USA to the sensible, but slightly painful things today to keep my grandkids from having to suffer a lot more later!
The fact that CO2 is an invisible gas is irrelevant, of course. The fact that the worldwide temps will only rise a few degrees doesn't mean that the sole consequence is a slightly warmer climate. Those few degrees, worldwide, mean horrific consequences for billions of people, and because it will mean horrific consequences for those billions of people, it's likely that only a very few people will not be significantly adversely affected by the terrors that all those other people face!
amazing! i listened to his radio show and he made one thing very clear but a fair analysis is something we all cant expect from media matters. glenn made clear that his segment would be one sided because all we get from the liberal media with an aggenda and the hypocrital gore is one side and only one side. now it was time to only here only the other side. media matters once again distorting things to fit an aggenda and you fools actually are foolish enough to believe everything a liberal outlet tells you. get off your asses and learn for yourselves people. its undermining sources like this that makes solving problems so difficult
You are such a moron. The difference is Beck trotted out energy affiliated people with an OPINION, and WE have the scientists who actually did the SCIENCE. Is the difference between the two beyond your very limited ability to understand? Feel free to do your LEARNING from industry supported science. Remember cigarettes dont cause cancer and nicotine is not addictive, industry supported scientists said so for decades. Meanwhile the actual CLIMATOLOGISTS put THEIR science up for peer review which is how science is done but dont do your science learning the way science has is done, no be a maverick and do your learning from those with money to make when a certain view is pushed. That however makes YOU the fool, not us.
Solon,
You are such a stooge. Keep walking that straight line and follow all the other idiots off the cliff.
Ooo, Solon. He pwned you with that one. PWNED
You are such a moron you will stay out in the rain and catch pnuemonia, that is if its what Rush told you to do. YOU being too stupid to UNDERSTAND the problem is not equal to it not BEING a problem
I rile at the "Right's rants and rambling", no matter the subject. Surprise! This is no exception. I think their brains are wire differently and they can't help it. But Beck is way over his head in tackling Global Warming. First, his is not a journalist and is not held to the same standards. It is inappropriate for CNN to allow Beck to do anything "real". Next, Beck has already demonstrated his objection to the scientific theories on the subject. Beck also is not a scientist or even a scholar in the subject of Global Warming. He showed his lack of knowledge in the very people he chose to present his position. The program was not objective and shame on CNN for allowing it to air.
KBLEX, What does "undermining sources like this" mean and could you provide a few examples? I find I learn best by examining examples.
"Let's just boil it right down to the obvious." -The Crapture
Yes let's. This Global Warming hysteria is basically a scheme in which government gets to tax corporations for emitting a new bogus pollutant: CO2 (ya know the same stuff plants use to produce oxygen).
Also angry libs will finally get to force their rich neighbors to stop driving those big, ugly SUVs. So California has just proposed a new tax on SUVs of $2500 each.
There will be no doubt about the costs. But there will be little if any tangible benefit. Once in place, these new economic costs will never be rooted out; the government will ensure that. Even if the globe cools again as it did between 1940-1980, we will still be saddled with this goofy albatross.
One of the first things bill clinton did in office was attempt to pass a massive energy tax -- an insidious tax on producing nearly everything, but done at the wholesale level where no one would be directly aware of it.
So guess what one of hillary's first agenda will be? As we move into recession, all this will be blessed by legions of willing "scientists".
How, in this highly entertaining scenario of yours, did the conspirators get every climate scientist who studies the issue to buy into their scheme? I mean, the sneaky buggers are 928 for 928, how do you think they pulled that off?
The Beaver using discredited and biased sources?!
Shocked I tell you, completely shocked!!
Beaver - please, stay with the puff pieces. Hey, Paris Hilton has been sentence to jail time. How about a Real Story segment!!?
By discrediting all the scientists who disagree, based upon who they once worked for, rather than listening to what they say.
FF, you're not following me. You're also not using the "Reply" link, but that's cool.
There are no "discredited" scientists who have published. None. There are these random people here and there, but they're not competent in the field, and they have not published anything in a refereed journal.
Unless you're saying that you're widening your conspiracy to include all the reputable scientific journals on the planet...?
How do all your scientists explain that the globe cooled between 1940-1980 during which anthropogenic C02 was exploding? The IPCC analysis conveniently starts in 1970.
If there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, it is still not clear to me which direction this causal relationship goes. Also the vast majority of greenhouse gasses consist of water vapor, the behavior of which scientists still don't fully grasp.
In addition, something caused the increase in that CO2 over all those millenia before man was an industrial society.
Furthermore the damage from increased warming is not apparent; some argue credibly that it is beneficial on the whole. It is certainly not unprecedented and it certainly beats an ice age and man has been around a couple of million years to experience both.
How do all your scientists explain that the globe cooled between 1940-1980 during which anthropogenic C02 was exploding?
What cooling? It looks to me like a brief plateau in a clear warming trend. What is your explanation for the warming? What scientific studies support your case?
If there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, it is still not clear to me which direction this causal relationship goes.
Are you saying that rising tempertures cause the release of CO2? If so, what causes the warming? What scientific studies support that idea? How do you account for temperatures and CO2 concentrations rising in lockstep?
Furthermore the damage from increased warming is not apparent; some argue credibly that it is beneficial on the whole. It is certainly not unprecedented and it certainly beats an ice age and man has been around a couple of million years to experience both.
Your point is unclear. The benefits and dangers have been pretty intensely studied and the balance is strongly on the danger side - to the degree, however, that it is poorly understood, shouldn't one err on the side of caution?
What cooling? It looks to me like a brief plateau in a clear warming trend. What is your explanation for the warming? What scientific studies support your case?
-Valentinian
Semantics -- there were nearly 40 years of a "plateau" or slight cooling while CO2 levels including anthropogenic CO2 were rising dramatically. If there were a linear relationship between CO2 alone and global temperature, this could not possibly happen. What is your explanation for the big swings in CO2 throughout history when man could not have possibly been to blame?
So perhaps the in the next 40 years we will have a similar respite, without ruining the economy.
Who says "there [is] a linear relationship between CO2 alone and global temperature?" CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not in any dispute. It is increasing at an alarming rate. This is not in any dispute. Yes, other things have an impact on climate. But why shouldn't we reduce CO2, which we know to be a greenhouse gas?
You are absolutely right that a new ice age could happen on the scene and cool the earth, thus making the CO2 rise irrelevant. There could also be a volcanic eruption, or a giant space dinosaur could come and block the sun's rays from reaching Earth.
I don't understand, though, why any of these unlikely scenarios mean we shouldn't do something to control the CO2.