CNN programs uncritically promoted Beck's global warming special
On the May 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck aired an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." According to an April 30 CNN press release, the special's purpose was to "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of former Vice President Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth of 20-foot sea level rises and the disastrous effects of increased carbon dioxide levels." In addition to the release promoting Beck's special, on three separate occasions, various CNN and Headline News programs hosted Beck to discuss or promote his "special report," without highlighting or challenging his false or misleading assertions on the global warming issue, his attacks on Gore, or his claims of the hype surrounding the issue in his "special report." For example:
- During an interview with Beck on the May 3 edition of American Morning, co-host Kiran Chetry echoed some of his past false claims on global warming, stating that while there is "no denying" global warming is happening, "I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate." Chetry also did not challenge Beck's false attack -- frequently made by other conservatives as well -- that in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore greatly exaggerated worst-case projections of sea level increases.
- Previewing the special on the May 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, Beck told host Don Lemon that he is doing the special because "the scientific consensus in Europe in the 1920s and '30s was that eugenics was a good idea," adding: "I'm glad that a few people stood against eugenics." Those comments recall remarks Beck made on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."
- During a discussion of the special on the May 2 edition of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace, guest host Pat Lalama did not challenge Beck's suggestion that humans may not be the primary cause of global warming. Beck also reiterated his attack on Gore, again comparing the global warming issue to what "people did in the 1920s and '30s with eugenics." Continuing to attack Gore, Beck claimed that "you could put Al Gore into a priest collar, because [the global warming issue] is now the church. It has gone from science to dogma." Beck also said that Gore "is the high priest. You cannot question him."
Media Matters for America noted that Beck's "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" 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.
From the May 2 edition of CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace:
LALAMA: Hey, another noted professor came out yesterday in one of the big papers and said, "You know, yes, we should all be responsible, but that, in seven years, there will be another cooling trend." I go to the UCLA movie store to, you know, pick up some movies, and I said to the kid, "What do you recommend?" He goes, "An Inconvenient Truth." and when I said, "No," he goes, "Oh, you must drive an SUV." I mean, it's like, "Oh, my gosh, I need combat pay to work out here in L.A." Why are people buying it willy- nilly?
BECK: I think it's really strange. I think you could put Al Gore into a priest collar, because it is now the church. It has gone from science to dogma.
LALAMA: Right.
BECK: It is -- and I got into trouble saying this earlier today on my radio program, but it's the way I feel: It is the same kind of thing that people did in the 1920s and '30s with eugenics. You take some scientists, and then you silence all of the dissenting voices, and then you make it into a propaganda film, and you keep feeding it to people, through all of your media, and then you introduce it in, not just science class, but art class and English class. And before you know it, there is no dissent on it.
LALAMA: But, you know, are you getting in at all to the psychology of it? I mean, are we -- is it sort of a liberal self-loathing? And, of course, I'm not accusing all liberals of being self-loathing. But it seems that we have to hate ourselves so much for being human, we Americans, that here's another thing to, like, self-flagellate over, like, "Oh, you know, we're ruining our Earth."
BECK: You know, Pat? I think it's partly that, but I also think that it's a good sign with America. It's yet another sign of our compassion. Nobody wants to hurt the Earth. Everybody wants green -- you know, good, clean water, and good, clean air, and a green Earth.
And so we say to ourselves, "You know, I know we can do better in gas mileage. You know, I don't want to throw garbage out. I don't want to throw garbage in the sky." And so what we do is we say, "Well, you know, I feel a little guilty, and maybe we are causing this, so I'll just do what I have to do."
LALAMA: Well, I'm with you, and I'm so glad you're doing this. And I'll make sure my whole family watches. And I might call their teachers, too.
[...]
GORE [video clip]: Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really.
LALAMA: I'm Pat Lalama in for Nancy Grace. Now more with Headline Prime's Glenn Beck.
So, Glenn, is global warming real? It may be, right?
BECK: You know, here's my personal stance on global warming. It's clear that the globe is warming. It's up .7 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years. However, we've gone from global warming to global cooling to global warming. It seems to be a 30-year trend.
Maybe this is -- you know, maybe we're going to go into an extreme warming period or an extreme cooling period. That is what happens. The real question is: Are we causing it? And can we stop it?
The Kyoto Treaty, we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars, and we're not going to stop global warming. They say, if it's fully implemented, and everything, every piece of science is accurate, it will delay global warming another three years in the next 100 years. That doesn't seem like a smart investment.
LALAMA: Right. Hey, what do you make of carbon offsets? Is that bogus? It's kind of the new catch phrase? "I'm changing my light bulbs."
BECK: You know, Pat, what really kills me is there are so many similarities to the Dark Ages and the church. I swear to you, first of all, Al Gore is the high priest. You cannot question him. You cannot question the facts.
LALAMA: I know.
BECK: They are saying that any scientist that disagrees with it is a heretic. He's crazy.
LALAMA: Right.
BECK: And, by the way, you can come to me and buy a special dispensation. You can buy forgiveness.
LALAMA: Hey, I have to wear a bulletproof vest in this town, so you know what it's like, and we'll be watching.
BECK: Oh, I know.
LALAMA: OK, Glenn.
BECK: Thanks a lot.
Oops, Beck actually said something truthful "You cannot question the facts." He should be more careful.
Another outrage. CNN promoting a show on their own sisterhood of networks and not ripping it apart before it airs?
On any generic CNN program, The host says "Back after these messages".....cut to commercial > "Coming up on CNN, a Glenn Beck smear-fest ripe with lies, falsehoods and distortions.....please watch".
You can't be serious here?
A few days ago you were defending Beck and saying we were all wrong to prejudge this special even though there were plenty of promos, previous statements by Beck, and the guest list which made it perfectly clear which direction this propaganda special was going.
The special aired, and it was filled with falsehoods and propaganda, yet you will never admit you were wrong. You just move on to your next attack.
You've been wrong on so many issues Tommy, it's hard to take your seriously on anything. You're a broken record with your "why is this here" meme.
Your arguments are also dishonest. You know this MMFA piece was not just about CNN promoting a special. It was about their hard news people repeating the same false claims, then allowing Beck to repeat the false claims over and over on their "news" segments without anyone questioning or countering his obvious lies.
Can youpoint out a single 'falsehood'from the special? Please do.
Or, are you simply repeating the liberal mantra? Why is it wrong for someone to express an opinion opposite of Gore? Beck's case is laidout perfectly above in bold. Gore is using numbers to generate fear and support, and anyone that suggests an alternative opinion gets flamed. WTF?
Somebody check the temperature in hell. I actually (somewhat) agree with Tommy here.
It's perfectly legit for a network to promote its own show.
However, the root problem here is that there shouldn't be a show in the first place. So what we're really seeing is that CNN is uncritically promoting indefensible dreck.
Furthermore, if we are to apply the wingnut logic to this situation, this means that the entire organization at CNN, including their employees, management, TV personalities, and janitorial staff have gone off the deep end and are now ALL global warming deniers. Let the scorn begin, yes?
I say we all start impugning their mothers, fashion sense, ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientation.
See, wingnuts, how silly that sounds?
I wish CNN would stop promotong their own programs and promote something useful like the Golf Channel.
Here's a real outrage:
I try to be respectful of other people's faiths, but I have to wonder how fragile one's faith must be if you can't bear to have a television show give alternative viewpoints."
So, why is it OK for the right to keep anything that challenges their beliefs off of the air?
Gotta agree with you there. If your faith is strong you should have nothing to worry about. Anyone that complains about this (including Beck) should be quiet.
Why is this website and the global warming religiousites sooooooo afraid of this program? The preemptive strikes against it here are not only revealing, but smack of incredible paranoia.
Calm down, let the "smear-fest" air.......if the "peer reviewed science" is so rock solid, then what's the problem?
Did you ever consider it has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with the fact that these supporters were the same ones who got the reagan biopic removed from abc? As in turn about is fair play?
Oh well, I didn't know it was payback for the Reagan biopic? That lends a whole new level of credence to it, thanks.
Just trying to keep ya honest. You're starting that "there is only two choices here" shtick again. Gotta stop using that broad brush if you're gonna argue that using a broad brush stroke is a bad thing!
Tommy, this question was asked and answered in pretty much every thread about this show.
The problem is that Beck is misleading about the science. When this is put on television, it creates doubt about things where no doubt exists. Scientific debate is not amenable to sound-bite arguments, so Beck can say things like "scientists say butter is bad for you and then they say it isn't" and people nod their heads.
I mean, if you disagree, at least tell us why. Please don't keep asking the same question over and over again. It's tiresome.
And Al Gore's propaganda movie was not misleading?
Not sure what you are referring to. Could you be more specific?
If the peer reviewed science is so rock solid then how come thousands of scientists question it?
THOUSANDS of scientists? I doubt that. If they are so sure why havent THEY put their doubts into peer reviewed papers? Either they have the facts to back up their doubts and it will survive peer review or they dont and THAT is why they havent done so.
Welcome back, clay pigeon!
Yes, thousands.
You are once more as factually incorrect as I see in most of your posts here.
LOL! Dude, believe me, you don't want to call other people "factually incorrect" of the Oregon Petition is your gold standard.
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
Let Ginger Spice do some research, then I'll believe one of your "thousands."
Idiot.
There are lots of scientists who disagree with this idea that humans are having a significant impact on earth's climate. My suspicions are that a roll call investigation of the Seitz petition would reveal that well over half of its signatories are or were degreed scientists, MS, Phd or both, who both knew what they were signing and agreed with the general concepts at that time [1996-1997]. This is why I think that everyone on your side who has tried the roll-call approach to debunk it has aborted the attempt, including Scientific American, who went ahead and fudged an outcome from a statistically unsound and therefore faulty sample [30!] of the signers. I can't even find the original SciAm rebuttal online any more, just third party references to it with no links.
Would you care to debate the science, or are you content just to attack a list of names. Are you qualified to even discuss a real scientific paper? Let's try this for training wheels. It's not a scientific paper. It is the testimony of a real scientists before the Congress in 2004, but it contains plenty of debate material.
What do you think would be the value of debating science with another non-scientist?
I would ask you to point to any peer-reviewed research that invalidates or refutes the consensus view published in a reputable journal. If you have some other standard for judging whether a given work has merit, please let me know.
So you duck the debate. I expected as much. I suggest then that you be silent in general on this topic if you aren't willing to defend your position. You are simply defending someone else's position without any critical thinking on your own part.
Side note: Where do you think you will find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that asserts (a) Global Warming is largely or wholly an artifact of human endeavor (b) is a serious threat to civilization (c) can be mitigated by human action?
Hint: The IPCC summary report is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. The IPCC full report which is not even available is not a peer reviewed scientific paper either.
This should be interesting.
I have done far more reading of skeptical opinions than I have of the research - for one thing, the deniers are far more entertaining! It is purely through the use of "critical thinking" that I arrived at the determination that the scientific consensus view holds far more credibility than the constellation of anti-AGW proponents, who variously opine that (1) there is no global warming at all, or if there is, it's natural, (2) even if there is, it's no big deal (3) even if it's a big deal there's nothing we can do about it anyway - or apparently, in your case, all of the above!
Again, what sort of a debate do you propose? One where you pull discredited sources and wild assertions out of your ass, and I have to keep responding, "show me the research?" It seems obvious that you are not interested in "debate," but rather an opportunity to rehearse your favourite unsupported theory.
Why is it so wrong to suggest that scientific skeptics actually do some science?
Perhaps you might want to find a source that doesn't rely on uncorrected satelite temperature data?
Yawn. If you ever want to discuss the actual science, let me know. Until then it's so boring and old to say "We deserve equal time! Unfair! Unfair!" Equal time is not meant for distortions of evidence, the construction and demolition of strawmen, and flat out inaccuracy.
When the skptics publish something in the literature, we'll read it and discuss it rationally. Until then the "debate" is simply an op-ed masquerading as a scientific thesis.
"However, we've gone from global warming to global cooling to global warming. It seems to be a 30-year trend."
But the warming is winning. There is a net warming, and it's significant. This reminds me of a very unpleasant discussion I had with a coworker, looking at graphs of actual data, and the idiot insisted that the current warming trend was no more severe than the "medieval warming period" ... and then he couldn't find the warming period on the graphs. Or when he told me that although the ice in the arctic is decreasing, the ice in the antarctic is increasing ... and then I found out that the net change is a loss, there is much more arctic loss than antarctic gain. Is the problem that these people are lacking in scientific thought, logic, and reason ?
I'd like to give Beck a good butt warming with the thick side of the paddle.
Now if you tell me he needs to be in chaps, I do not want to know any more.
Young man, there's no need to feel down.
I said young man, pick yourself off the ground!
Snoop, you don't need to euphemize ! ;0)
It's because it is all a scam. Scientists are making leaps in logic although they have a zero track record in predicting future climate changes.
Here's a nice chart for you:
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2000/notes/1127.jpg
The hockey stick graph which I am sure you were showing your friend has been debunked by multiple statisticians from Rice U. and Ivy League as being biased and purposely leaving out the medieval warming period and the little ice age.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/07142006_hockey_PR.gif
The logic comes in to how the burning of fossil fuels can possibly have any negligible effect on the climate. We burned fuels from 1940 to 1980 and the temperature went down. Were there cars then? Were there humans then? So we have a spike up and suddenly people believe scientists -- who are no better than tarot card readers in predicting future climate changes --- suddenly get their past predictions waived off and promoted to undisputed champions of climate prognostication. Global warming is the biggest scam of the 21st century and deserves every ounce of skepticism Glen Beck or any other human wants to challenge it with.
Yes indeed. Now that we've seen your 2 charts, we realize what fools we were to believe in the years of research from, and strong consensus of, hundreds and hundreds of scientists all around the world, and how stupid we are to worry that humans have anything at all to do with global warming.
There are many thousands of scientists within the United States alone who are less than entusiatic about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The two thousand or so vigorous proponents of this idea worldwide have failed to demonstrate to the tens of thousands of skeptics that man can in any significant way, alter the prevailing climatic conditions on the planet as a whole with any technology he presently possesses short of an all out nuclear war. Even this last calamity would have only a short lived, in geologic terms, effect on the global climate.
Have any of these skeptics (who grew from "thousands" to "tens of thousands" in the space of one comment, wow!) done any research to substantiate their claims?
If we are to submit science to a vote, majority wins, then the Bible will be the standard for scientific understanding in this country. And I am fine with that - so long as I get to live to be 969 years old like Methuselah.
The original question was: ""peer reviewed science" is so rock solid, then what's the problem?"
All I needed to do was shown there is considerable doubt among scientists about these political conclusions surronding global climate made by the IPCC.
Maybe you shoul should learn to count. The Seitz petition has close to twenty thousand subscribers, nmostly degreed scientists here in the US. There is an equally large if not larger body of scientists in the rest of the world who have more or less the same ideological demographics as the US resident scientific population.
My only point was there is lots of dissent within the scientific community despite what you here about consensus. Laymen like you don't hear much about this dissent because it is stifled at many levels.
I am sure you'd like to discuss exactly what credentials a scientist must have to review scientific literature, in particular, what degree do you think a climatiologist should have to be credible. Yes?
Wrong. The original question was "If the peer reviewed science is so rock solid then how come thousands of scientists question it?"
The Oregon Petition has been pretty well taken apart in this thread, but I'll go ahead and act like it has some validity. The question then becomes: what research has been done to substantiate any of the objections to the consensus view?
So I'll turn your question on its head: If thousands of scientists question the consensus then how come there's no peer reviewed science?
Actually laymen like myself hear about the dissent all the time, it is well represented in the press. Skepticism is good, especially in science. I am glad to have a healthy debate occuring in the scientific community. The more they are forced to back up their claims the more study they do to defend their positions the more likely we are to arrive at the truth. What I want to see is the skeptics DO THE SCIENCE the way science is done. They need to do the studies prepare the papers and put them through the peer review process. Standing in the peanut gallery criticising then demanding their criticisms that dont conform to how science is done be given equal weight to the science that IS done that way is what I object to.
Oh please. First you drag out a debunked petition to support your thesis that "thousands" of scientists disagree with the idea ofAGW then you assail us with this exercise in spurious logic. What on earth do you mean when you use the phrases "less than enthusiastic" or that "vigorous proponents of this idea worldwide have failed to demonstrate to the tens of thousands of skeptics that man can in any significant way, alter the prevailing climatic conditions on the planet as a whole ".
This argument is not about "who believes what" or how many uninformed people may hold a particular viewpoint--this is about whether or not credible evidence is being produced in support of the arguments. While it may be true that there may be tens of thousands of skeptics (an observation one might call true but trivial)how many of them are actively engaged in scientific research into climate issues? And of those who have scientific credentials, an active research life, and maybe even informed opinions how many have published in relevant peer reviewed scientific journals? That sir--is a very short list.
On the other hand Naomi Oreskes writing in Science Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686--which is a peer reviewed journal performed a content analysis of 928 abstracts of papers published in refereed scientific journals covering the topic of "climate change" between 1993 and 2003. The search "climate change" was performed on the ISI Web of Science database to generate the list.
Her findings:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
You can see the essay here.
My question to you: can you produced a comparable analysis based on the literature you claim exists in such abundance in support of the denialist viewpoint? And oh with the humility you would expect from a real scientist she adds:
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."
However a competent review of relevant refereed literature is most certainly a reasonable way of arguing in support of a scientific consensus on this topic or any other. Such agreement exists on the AGW issue--no credible evidence of a contrary "consensus" has been produced--ever. If it has show it to me and I will stand corrected.
ask the australians about the global warming scam. one of the predictions made by researchers is a much drier australia. they are currently in the middle of an extreme six year drought that may not leave enough water for agriculture next year. they are taking global warming very seriously.
You are still missing the point. BOTH sides agree that the Earth is warming. The Anti-Gore side simly believes that Man is not responsible for the current increase.
And what is that belief based on? I would really like to know.
Or do you think this is a position where simple credence is sufficient, like "I believe life starts at conception" or "I believe the children are our future?"
I don't think you know much more about real science than you do about fornicating.
You should have stopped after the first three words YOU. DON'T. THINK. We get that. You dont seem to have the requisite equipment. Where most people have grey matter you seem to have lint. Please do us all a favor and aquire the necessary equipment to peform the act known as higher brain function before further wasting our time with such inanities as you have produced so far.
Is the woman here Kim Cattral from Sex and the City?
Or Barbara Eden from I dream of Jeannie?
She'll just cross her arms, blink her eyes, and make global warming go away. Or turn it into a billy goat.
Pundits are contractually obligated to "go blond" on cable. That of course is a euphemism.
OK, I've gotta beat you to the punch on this one!
CNN is a cable news channel
That's two clicks below bloggers in flannel
They regurgitate crap
with a hardy knee slap
and give airtime to those who are anal!
I Love it!
I'll see your limerick and raise you one.
There once was a host, name of Grace
Blonde Lalama was put in her place
To canoodle with Glenny
Spread propoganda to many
Preaching to all of the base
Ohhhh, that is good. I'll be practicing now!
"You know, here's my personal stance on global warming."
So glad to have his "personal stance" on the matter.
An overwhelming majority of scientists, very learned men and women who often spend the majority of their life studying climatology, a field involving complex mathematics and advanced technologies, a field that requires intimate knowledge of physics and chemistry, would appear to disagree with Beck's "personal stance". But then again one doesn't have a personal stance where scientific matters are concerned, and that is something that the religeous right and climate change deniers fail miserably to comprehend. Scientific method, for those of you out there who watch to much FOX, entails repeated experimentation, observation, annotation, and analysis. Rinse, wash, repeat. While individual scientists may favor one pet theory over another, scientific method requires constant review and revision by the same rigorous processes listed above. This isn't theology or philosophy where guys with long grey beards sit around half naked and postulate the existence of certain dieties, their functions, or the nature of human existence, plucking the lint out of their navels. This is science folks! How the f*%k did we manage to get to the moon or make the computers and internet via which we are all communicating. Climatology is a science. Its not a witch hunt, nor does it use such tactics. Science has had to defend itself, often physically, from such attacks. What Beck and his ilk are doing is irresponsible and unscientific. These people want to keep us all in the dark ages about a global catastrophe that will make Katrina look like a rain puddle.
Glenn Beck is not a Climatologist. He's not even a scientist, and probably failed basic 9th grade Earth Science class. Besides, who are you gonna believe, a former drug-addict, or thousands of people who have responsibly used their ample minds toward the betterment of not only themselves, but all of humanity?
Who are you gonna believe, a bunch of PR dicks from the Oil Industry (who's supply of product, by the way, is drying up fast), or a man who doesn't even want to run for president, but simply wishes to make people aware of the growing threats to their environment (Oh and by the way: yes, like it or not, Gore is waaaaaaaaay smarter than Beck could ever hope to be. Like, its hard to believe they are of the same species).
The oil companies are interested in maintaining the status quo of rampant consumption of their product, increasing ever more as developing countries industrialize their economies, precisely because oil is a rare and dwindling product - literally black gold.
[B]ecause of world population growth, oil production per capita already peaked since 1979, despite further rise in production (with a plateau 1973-1979)[44].We could argue that what is more important is the peak per capita,and not the absolute peak, and that the reason that it wasn't noticed is due to the socioeconomic inequalities of the planet.
Oil, for the intents and purposes of ephemeral human beings, is not a renewable resource. It takes millions of years to create. The supply is drying up, and the companies that make it are driven by the bottom line. Decreasing supply coupled with increasing demand means higher costs, higher costs mean bigger profits. Any increase in extraction costs will probably for the most part be mitigated by reduced refining costs due to...less oil to refine. Therefore, The Oil companies (behind closed doors, of course) find Peak Oil to be all to profitable, and until the product runs dry, they aren't gonna stop selling it.
ceo of exxon:
http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/exxon-ceo.jpg
ROFL.
Leatherhelmet, I have to take issue with your rating of global warming be caused by human's reckless consumption of fossil fuels as the "scam of the twenty first century." I believe that was actually perpetraed by the Supreme Court in placing a moronic, third rate mind to the office of the President, who has since degraded our prestige and respect around the world due to his infantile and petulant form of making his "deciders." The illegal fraud of a right-wing court has erased nearly every enlightened and progressive step this country had made for half a century, and you can only see the "scam" of the entire world's scientific community as rating as the worst thing we all face. Loosen up the chin strap, Helmet, you've cut off the flow of blood to your brain.
The greenhouse effect is responsible for keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life by keeping heat from dissipating into space. When you make more greenhouse gasses less heat dissipates. One hockey stick graph that is not in dispute is the rise in greenhouse gasses and the contribution by man thereof. Beck and his mentor Bush say how much it's going to cost us to implement Kyoto, but how does that work? Wouldn't it employ people to have a push to solve this problem, wouldn't our quality of life go up? Stand inside your closed garage for 8 hours with your car running and tell me how healthy emissions are. I just don't get what the denier's payoff is.
I see the clay pigeon is back.
Thousands.
You are as factually incorrect about this point as you are about everything else I see you post on here.
Wow. I cant believe someone as patently ignorant as you is calling me a clay pigeon. Someone so incredibly stupid that he doesnt realize that since Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars when Mars is closer to the Earth THAT means its closer to the Sun and that just MIGHT make it a bit hotter. Anyone so bizarrely stupid as to claim there would be no correlation between Mars being closer to the Earth and its getting hotter is far too dumb to be taken seriously. Get your money back from your 'special' school. You are beyond help. So you are recycling the Oregon petition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[10]
”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[11]
”
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“
Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said
Looking at your site I see Perry Mason is still listed. You do realize you arent very bright dont you?
I see the clay pigeon is back.
Thousands.
Wrong again (as you are about most everything). As you can see Solon cleans house with your assertion later in this thread. By the way I have yet to see you take me up on the invitation I extended a few weeks ago to post your concerns on Real Climate. No desire to engage in exhanges with real scientists who work on these problems on a daily basis? Please, please post there. I'm sure the exchange will be just fascinating.
Here's one from his list:
Robert G Weeks
A Vice president of Mobil Oil at the time.
Also, there are a lot of MDs on that list, and a few DDSs too. So I guess you get your teeth pulled by someone form NASA's Goddard Institute?
Beck, you're an asshole.
His comment should be flagged !