Fox News' Hemmer, Gallagher, Wilson baselessly suggest short-term weather impacts global warming debate
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Trace Gallagher and Brian Wilson cited the "irony" of snowfall in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the U.S. on the day Al Gore testified on global warming before a Senate committee, which Bill Hemmer stated was "making for an inconvenient forecast." But climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone an individual winter storm in January, bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
On January 28, Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher and Washington, D.C., bureau chief Brian Wilson cited the "irony" of snowfall in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the United States on the same day former Vice President Al Gore testified on global warming before a Senate committee, which Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer stated was "making for an inconvenient forecast." However, as Media Matters for America has noted -- but Fox News did not mention in its reports -- according to a March 2, 2008, New York Times article, climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone an individual winter storm in January, bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
On Fox News's America's Newsroom, Hemmer reported that Gore was "making his case to a Senate committee, pressing for U.S. leadership in fighting climate change. Now, the elements outside on the Hill today making for an inconvenient forecast as we tackle global warming." Wilson replied that "[t]here is a bit of irony in the fact that they're holding a global warming hearing on the day when much of the United States is in the middle of an ice storm."
Later, on Fox News' The Live Desk, Gallagher, discussing "[t]he weather situation around the country," said that "the irony here is the weather's terrible, snowing outside, but inside, Al Gore is speaking about global warming. They really don't use the phrase 'global warming' much anymore, because the globe really isn't warming much anymore."
In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." The IPCC report specifically rebuts the suggestion that nature is primarily responsible for global warming in the last 50 years.
As Media Matters has noted, despite overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming and warnings by experts that short-term weather conditions are not evidence for or against its existence, numerous media figures have previously suggested that winter storms are evidence against the existence of global warming.
From the January 28 broadcast of Fox News America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: Meanwhile, former Vice President Al Gore braving the snow in Washington to testify on global warming today. The environmental activist making his case to a Senate committee, pressing for U.S. leadership in fighting climate change. Now, the elements outside on the Hill today making for an inconvenient forecast as we tackle global warming.
Brian Wilson's covering that today. Good morning to you, Brian. Was this hearing postponed, or will it be? What's the truth on that?
WILSON: No, it was postponed. It was set -- scheduled to start yesterday, and they postponed it until today because of cold and icy weather in the Washington, D.C., area. There is a bit of irony in the fact that they're holding a global warming hearing on the day when much of the United States is in the middle of an ice storm, and in Washington, D.C., they closed all the schools, because it's too icy and snowy.
HEMMER: To that point, why now is there more discussion about climate change instead of global warming?
WILSON: Well, there are a few inconvenient facts out there that are causing some scientists to scratch their heads. For example, in 2008, the average temperature in the United States -- the lower 48 -- dropped a degree and one-third. It's now just a bit above century averages. Icelandic glaciers that were once said to be melting at an alarming rate are no longer melting at that alarming rate, but at a more normal rate.
So there are some people out there saying maybe we shouldn't talk about global warming, maybe we should change the debate and talk about climate change, saying that the erratic weather we're experience [sic] is somehow caused by man's impact on the environment.
HEMMER: Well, nice to see you outside anyway.
From the January 28 broadcast of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:
GALLAGHER: The weather situation around the country is a mess. Yeah, it's nice where [correspondent] Jonathan Hunt is, but take a live look at Boston -- the snow on the ground. It is a mess around much of the country. The reason we bring this up is for a couple of reasons. One is the airports situation from coast to coast is bad. If you're going to fly, keep that in mind. We've got the domino effect from New York through Chicago all the way to the West Coast there.
The other one, of course, is very big concern about ice storms in the Northeast and the Midwest tonight. That can be a major problem for the power problem across -- the power situation across the country. That's a live look, by the way, at Capitol Hill. Chris, over here. Where -- there it is.
And the irony here is the weather's terrible, snowing outside, but inside, Al Gore is speaking about global warming. They really don't use the phrase "global warming" much anymore, because the globe really isn't warming much anymore. Now they use the phrase "climate change." We'll keep you up to speed on that.
It's okay...FOX viewers are really, really stupid. FOX makes them laugh at those silly liberals. FOX is like Seasame Street for really, really stupid adults.
I believe you left out a word, Irony. I can't qwhite put my finger on it yet. Hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me...
I apologize for comparing Sesame Street with FOX News...Sesame Street has WAY more integrity. It's viewers are probably smarter, too.
Well it was, back in the Jim Henson days. Now Elmo's pretty much taken over.
Grated the show would never have survived had Kevin Clash's little red muppet not come in and changed it, consequently aiming it at a much younger audience, but after several years of raising kids, and hearing the "Elmo's World" theme song over and over, I'm waiting for an episode where the lesson is "Don't play with matches" and Elmo gets set on fire.
(You may disagree, or think I'm sick to say that, but unless you've gone to work and had the theme to "Elmo's World" stuck in you head for eight+ hours, you just haven't walked in my shoes!) ;)
Sorry - I'm not sure what that has to do with the show's integrity.
It's okay...Sesame Street is more honest than FOX News any day of the week...and probably smarter, too.
Hmmm...
this kind of stuff only illustrates the nonexistence of humor in liberals, most notably when it comes to this issue in which they guard like a parent over a child. So one isn't even allowed to make a throwaway comment like "irony" when it comes to commenting on the day of testifying on global warming is on the heels of a snowstorm? Good grief.
Or, how about the OTHER joke he said- 'They don't call it global warming anymore because the globe isn't really warming anymore..'! Comedy Gold!!
It might be funny if the underlying assumption of the very, very stupid people who watch FOX wasn't that Global Warming is a myth fabricated by liberals. I'm sure that didn't enter the mind of anyone at FOX while preparing this supposed-to-be-funny report.
But if you want humor and irony check out the other thread regarding the Wall Street Journal article of John Yoo, the Bush DOJ scholar who wrote the now infamous torture memos, in which it is revealed that John Yoo apparently hasn't even read the Army Field Manual which he criticizes as insufficient. Oh, wait...you mean we CAN use Good Cop/Bad Cop? Now that's hilarious...and ironic, too.
Otherwise, I would agree that the ignorance of FOX viewers is pretty funny...I can picture them gathered by their TV sets, tee-heeing at the preposterous idea that Global Warming is real. I wonder who told them that Global Warming was a myth created by liberals. Hmmmm...who could that be?
it's not only the stupid Fox viewers that feel that the urgency surrounding global warming is debatable and up for discussion. your blanket assertions that those who don't follow Al Gores lead are just stupid is asinine. If you have to call them that to validate your opinion, do it.
They ARE stupid... FOX viewers aren't even smart enough to believe "that the urgency surrounding global warming is debatable"... they believe it's a myth created by liberals...because that's what FOX News has TOLD them. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that is just plain stupid.
no baseless blanket assertions there.
My remarks are not baseless... FOX is mendacious; it's viewers are stupid to keep watching.
Also, they're not baseless because every single time I hear someone saying that global climate change is debateable, every single one of them is an avowed conservative/republican.
and every single time I hear someone saying that raising taxes is not debatable, every single one of them is an avowed liberal/democrat. See, it cuts both ways.
Oooh, that hurts... Go count your money...the tax man is coming. <That oughta scare him away.>
That's because we're fiscally more responsible that conservatives.
LMAO! BEst joke of the day!
I hate to interrupt a good laugh, but...
Don't confuse him with facts! Facts have a liberal bias!
...and which FOX continues to reinforce with pieces exactly like this one. Tee-heee...Isn't it funny how Al Gore is appearing before Congress to talk about Global Warming and there's a snow storm..which PROVES that Global Warming is bogus?
If you fail to see the stupidity of all this then perhaps you and FOX make a great match.
What's funny is Al Gore testifying about global warming. Al Gore is not qualified to testify about global warming and why is it Gore that is testifying? Why not some qualified scientists doing the presentation? That's just one reason the human caused global warming issue smacks of politics. Gore testifying about global climate change is like Joe Biden testifying about heart bypass surgery.
It's also like sigtek testifying about anything resembling truth.
I guess I've just been refuted but it didn't feel like it. Could you refute me just a little harder and a little longer next time? Thanks, in advance.
Agree. One big political football this issue has become. MMfA has a keyhole for it, that should tell you all you need to know.
Was that a Gulfstream 450 or 550 Rev. Gore flew into DC last week? :) I'm sure the indulgence was paid in advance! :(
Alfonso has got a carbon footprint the size of Oprahs left b*ttcheek. I'm not so sure he paid 'em in advance, Tbone. I'll bet he's got a stack of IOU's bigger than Tom Daschle's back taxes.
At least Gore seems to be knowledgeable about climate, weather patterns and the difference between climatology and meteorology.
Those who seem to deny global warming are usually people so out of their element that they have no business even giving their opinion on the matter. Most are pushing a conservative political agenda. I don't see the scientists who are qualified to make comments giving out political opinions, only scientific opinions.
Most of the scientist who are on the side of the deniers have a vested interest in energy companies. I'm not a scientist, but when I look at this I see that the scientists who are warning about man's influence on global warming have no monetary stake in the argument.
In any argument, the side that is supported by the status quo and the money interests is usually suspect.
and those who are pushing global warming and want to silence and discredit any opposition to that viewpoint, like calling them stupid, don't have their own liberal agenda to raise taxes and further control our lives with regulation and bigger government to curb this impending disaster about to befall us? give me a break. If you think one side is true and honorable and agenda-free and the other is just well, stupid, then keep believing that.
How is trying to save the place where we live some sort of political agenda? Only in the right wing world of rose colored glasses. To claim that it's snowing somewhere in January and that this shows that global warming/climate change is not happening is stupid. Just as saying it's hot in North Carolina in July would show that global warming IS happening.
Daily weather does not climate change make. That's the stupid part.
well let me tell you one climate that there is no will to do it in right now. And that is some huge government bureacracy for global warming alarmists to reach into our pockets for money, because don't kid yourself, that is always in the fine print and the end result goal they're out to achieve. the pockets are empty, it's only lint, and those who reach in there better be prepared to come up empty. come back another day.
Ooooh...they want your MONEY...your hard-earned money. They're reaching into your pocket right now. Better go count your money, again... right now. It's pretty apparent what your priorities are in life...
Wow! So changing the infrastructure of the planet so we won't kill it costs MONEY?!?! That's.., that's just plain CRAZY!! Why don't us libs go down to the local Mall-Wart and get the box that says 'Planet changer for the better- with a roll-back price of only $14.99!
Perhaps they should delay Gore's testimony until the next heat wave hits D.C.
Maybe that will shut these morons up, but I doubt it.
...and those who are pushing global warming and want to silence and discredit any opposition to that viewpoint, like calling them stupid, don't have their own liberal agenda to raise taxes and further control our lives with regulation and bigger government...
It's always about taxes with you guys, isn't it? Regardless of the subject... Do you Republicans think of anything else but money? Get a freakin' hobby...
If liberals had any plans that did not include their love of taxes then i am all ears, believe me I'd love to hear it. Tell me more.
liberals... their love of taxes
Yea...and we love to kill babies and appease terrorists...and we hate America and hate (especially) our military troops. Got any more cliche's?
Let's compare the economy under Bush (last republican president), and the economy under Clinton and see who did better.
That's unfair because Clinton had Gore - the man who invented the internet!!
Afterwhich the Nobel Comittee awarded him their prize in Cropolithic Social Circle Research. The mescalin pie was to die for at the pot luck. You wanna talk wired, whoosh!
Are you saying that climatologists have banded together to concoct some nefarious plot to raise taxes and increase regulation?
To go back to my point, how do they profit from the tax increases and the deregulation?
No...! He's saying LIBERALS want to take his money...right out of his pocket. And they're using Global Warming as the excuse. It's all a big conspiracy with the climatologists who get paid off in unmarked bills on the tail end.
-- the side that is supported by the status quo and the money interests is usually suspect. -- worrierking
Here's a little tidbit you might find interesting concerning funding of climate change research from the Marshall Institute:
-- Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
-- The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
The info is a little dated but it does serve to point out the disparity in funding for opposing research on climate change.
For many of those "pristine scientific efforts"...it's about perpetuating their existence and not about letting the science lead you to the facts...no man-made global warming...no more funding.
Wow, $35 to 50 Mil. That would have bought 35 to 50 mid level manager style houses.
Do you really want to insist that the only reason climate study exists is to prove that global warming exists? Scientists do not operate like hedge fund managers. The classic definition of two scientists is an argument.
No figures on corporate sponsered climate study? I recall an offer by them to euopean scientists. $10,000 to produce a paper debunking global warming. One every other month would be good yearly wages.
We can say that there is room for debate and say that short-term weather has no bearing on that debate at the same time.
i can live with that. also, using the term irony doesn't bother me in this context, but it does mmfa.
Because it suggests that short-term weather has some bearing on the debate. Otherwise there would be no irony.
it doesn't to me, but I don't feel the need to overanalyze it. Global warming discussion during a snowstorm, that in and of itself is ironic. it doesn't disrespect the debate or the issue, despite oversensitivity on the part of those who think so.
It's only ironic if one is gullible enough to think that the presence of snow somehow disproves Global Warming...which is exactly what FOX implies when it snickers about the snow in Washington, DC...or when Sean Hannity guffaws about snow in United Arab Emirates and asks sarcastically Global Warming?
nobody I know thinks that one single snowstorm proves or disproves anything.
Then what's so funny...or ironic? You accused liberals of lacking a sense of humor. And if you don't believe that one swow storm proves or disproves anything then let me put you in touch with many FOX viewers I know. In fact, call Sean Hannity and he'll set you straight.
like an overprotective parent over a child.
Oh, please...give it up. Go count your money...and hide it before liberals take it out of your pocket. After Global Warming runs its course we're going to have scientists say that Global Rain is destroying the universe...and then we're going to tax you some more and take the rest of your money.
well, at least you're honest.
I really think you need to think through some of these conspiracy theories. As the saying goes The only two things certain in life are death and taxes. No one likes either one but, unfortunately, they are necessary and inevitable. To suggest that global warming is some sort of liberal conspiracy designed to tax you is paranoia. On the other hand, as another poster pointed out, follow the real money trail to see who has the greatest financial interest, those who adhere to the legitimate science of climate change or those entities who would protect their financial interests by denying the existence of global warming and convincie others of the same?
Not Global rain...that was Acid Rain. Done been tried circa 77-80.
But the snowstorm has nothing to do with global warming. Do you really think that in the context of talking about an "inconvenient forecast" that there's no suggestion otherwise?
He thinks Fox News is just kind of sort of joking and, as such, liberals just don't get the comedic merit of its inconvenient non-ironic whimsy, so that makes it ok in this particular context.
If the channel were called "Fox Jokes" instead of "Fox News," he might have some basis for thinking so.
Talk about a lot of hot air. I expect my comedy to come from commedians, not reporters, and certainly not Dick Armey (outstanding comedy performance by him on hardball last night).
"this kind of stuff only illustrates the nonexistence of humor in liberals, most notably when it comes to this issue in which they guard like a parent over a child."
Is Fox News a news channel or a comedy network?
I know for certain it's not a legitmate news channel...but I can't speak to exactly what it is. Except bad...
let me try and explain the nuance of it like this. 99.99% of people who hear the "irony" comment shrug and maybe chuckle a little bit. On the contrary, mmfa and the resident global warming hysteria ridden liberals here analyze it to death, test it's contextual validity, stew over it, worry people will think global warming is just a myth and that people might think a snowstorm means no global warming and that is a catastrophe, call Fox viewers stupid, and fret that the whole pro global warming forces will be weakened as a result. Therein lies the lack of even the slightest bit of humor over this issue, and it's somehow above such disrespect. well it isn't.
FOX viewers ARE stupid...and I didn't read the rest of your post.
But let me be clearer about this... After following on MMFA the many, many instances of lying, distortion, deceit, mainipulation and partisanship of FOX News, and after personally witnessing the same over a long period of time, any person who regards FOX News channel is IMO stupid. It makes you wonder how any educated person could watch FOX for anything other than for amusement...but there are many forms and levels of stupidity
But now let me give you an exception...Dick Cheney. While VP, Cheney reportedly insisted that whenever a television was in his presence that it be tuned to FOX News. Dick Cheney is not stupid...far from it. Cheney watched FOX to see that the message was getting out...because Cheney is a lying sack of you know what just like FOX.
Should read: ...any person who regards FOX News as a legitmate news channel, a legitimate source of information and commentary, is IMO stupid. (got deleted somehow...)
Irony,
What you don't see is that you drink the MMFA kool aid, accepting without examining everything they write. IMHO you are exactly the same as those you criticize watching FOX only more so.
First off, your implied assertion that MMfA is anywhere near as dishonest/inaccurate as FOX would need a great deal of substantiation. Second, I believe you are just plain wrong. I'm pretty sure that he has disagreed with some items here.
Hey brab, if MMFA is so accurate with their reporting, I suggest MMFA start their own news agency instead of critiquing the work of others. That way, all the MMFA sheeple can get 100% accurate news on a daily basis without resorting to turning on their tv or radio. Imagine the time and money they'll save. Enough to buy a new pair of Birkensocks every month or take their wife to the opening of the next Michael Moore movie. If all goes well, they could move to Cuba and retire, knowing all of their health care needs will be met at no cost.
Is this anything like how I can't criticize the government unless I run for public office?
Monitoring and reporting are completely different in nature, and both have their own role in the public debate.
Do you have any concept of how unhinged you seem?
I'll agree with you on that point, brab, that you can criticize w/out participating, but my point was that MMFA does more than just monitoring. They limit the discussion to one side of the story and many people tend to accept only MMFA's view of things, hence the term sheeple. If you think I'm unhinged, ok, some of my comments go overboard. I try to dramatize my point of view because of limited time and space. More bang for the buck. I mean no harm.
Bullsheitz, AA... The dishonesty of FOX News is so well documented that it requires no defense of MMFA...I have witnessed FOX in action myself. But yet you defend FOX by questioning MMFA...that is laughable. Listen carefully, AA...FOX News is beyond defending...they are a worthless, dishonest excuse for a news organization that is poisoning the airwaves with partisan lies designed to promote the Republican Party and diminish the Democratic Party. Your defense of FOX speaks for itself about you...
Every on here must then agree that by applying your standard that MSNBC is not news eithr and anyone that watches men get tingles up their leg are more than just stupid. Shall we throw in NYT and WaPo while we are at it.
Too bad most people can't see past the attention grabbing soundbites and look to the underlying debates. IMHO - there is not one middle ground television news outlet in this country. If you want objectivity - even about the US - watch/listen to BBC world.
WordlyMrR,
I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to the news organizations. I don't argue that FOX News has a rightward tilt. It is just the same as MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NYT, etc., etc., all have a leftward tilt.
Too many here, in my opinion, only read the MMFA articles, which are as slanted as can be, to reinforce their pre-concieved opinions. This is a partisan, radical left-wing website. It leaves out in it's analysis, everything that might contradict it's assertions. People here constantly read only one side of the story as presented here and accept it as gospel. Because of that, they reject, without critical thinking, dissenting views.
It is easy to see as people who disagree are constantly villified and attacked with vitriol. Most here accept that as part of "reasoned" discourse. That and juvenile name calling and yet they still don't see how blindly over-the-top partisan they have become. Take Irony here. He has gone so far as to say that FOX's dishonesty requires no defense by MMFA. That is laughable. MMFA is accepted by most in the middle as so radical left and tied up with it's own agenda that it's accusations are basically meaningless. The nitpicking and parsing that goes on and the threads that have nothing to do with it's mission statement prove that daily.
Sorry. Maybe you are correct. I haven't listened to BBC. I'll have to keep that in mind.
It's very hard to take someone who links to rapture sites seriously on the matter of what's considered "radical left-wing" or who is in the "middle".
If you have evidence of deception on MMfA's part, you're perfectly free to point it out on these forums. That's very strange for a site which "leaves out...everything that might contradict it's [sic] assertions".
Agreed. It is a shame you have to go to the UK to get objective news even if they tend to lean left in my opinon. At least they give both sides of the story as a rule.
There is some equivilency between laughing about global warming and laughing about lynching someone. Cept the pain will last so much longer and affect numbers and whole populations the racists can only dream of.
That is a laughable analogy. You should be ashamed.
I'm not, deal with it.
Fair warning, all strawman agruments will be laughed at.
Fair warning, all strawman agruments will be laughed at.
Now that's just mean. Consistently playing by that rule will keep Bucktooth out of the game.
Optimist. :)
According to an article I've seen recently, the Global Warming for the next thousand years is almost set regardless of what we do. Improving technologies to combat the problem over time will be far more effective than anything we can do to stop it right now. Current technology isn't equipped to handle a problem of this magnitude.
In other words, future humans will have to deal with it under their technology structure because we cannot.
In my opinion.
Damn, if Salk wouldn't have found the polio vaccine, I could've done it. What you are saying is what your future humans might say...leave it for the future humans. At what point are there no longer a group called future humans and just the sizzling humans remain. IMO
It's undeniable that technology continues to improve rapidly, and our current civilization bears no resemblance technologically to when Columbus discovered America, or even 50 years ago. What is commonplace today was unimaginable not too long ago.
Problems that seem overwhelming and daunting at the present time may be much more solvable in 50-100 years or more., I'm pretty sure we'll still be around, arguing about it.
So you are saying that this isn't the "right" time to begin preparing. I agree that problems are much more solvable 50-100 years from now. mainly because of the research started in the past. These cures, solutions all evolve but must start somewhere. Is now the time?? I don't really know. Is now the time? It might be. And the discussion goes on.
I hope you're right, because we're adding a billion people to the world's population every 14 years. You think the demand for resources is high now? You haven't seen anything yet.
not if nancy pelosi's family planning initiatives get into the budget, that'll fix that :)
Oh, I'm sure if the neocons get their way we'll have another fine war to fix that problem...
Granny pelosi's plan will fall in line with the Chinese:
Forced abortions and sterilization in China
More left wing plans for "family planning"
Granny P already has her brood of five...It was good enough for her but not for YOU!
seems like a reasonable and sensible take on the entire issue. BUt that won't do for some, will it?
i can certainly see how you can compare research and curing disease with global warming and the urgency of both. They are practically interchangeable. and I thought alarmists lived on your side, pardon me.
According to an article I've seen recently, the Global Warming for the next thousand years is almost set regardless of what we do.
Bruce you just lost any credibility with me. Just two days ago (on Tuesday) you tried to make the same misleading argument here on MMFA, in the Drudge thread. Don't you remember? You claimed global warming was "set in stone". I posted a correction which you acknowledged. Now you claim it is "almost set". At least I am making progress with you. My posting from Tuesday is shown below.
====
But the article I linked to below my initial post indicates the next 1,000 years are set in stone.
See my post above. Your link gives very only a little material. The study shows that what we have done so far, will last 1000 years. Not that that the future climate is already "set in stone".
OKAY, I'll play along...Fox viewers are stoopid. Jamesb just to clue you in on the next money-grabbing idea of those damn libruls...here it is...
They have concocted this plan that a country in the Middle East has this crazy leader who has and will use nucloor weapons..insert a mushroom cloud here. Then, they are going to tell us that they have missles that can reach America...think BIG missiles.. which the USA could never detect with radar etc....this man can get those missles launched and on their way even thru a no-fly zone. Those sneaky libs are going to do this and spend trillions of dollars in no-bid contracts to the VP's former company. They may even mention that the Oil from that country will be used to pay for this little war. They will also tell you that this leader has chemical weapons which he will use whenever he feels like. Hell, those libs will even send the infantry in first to fight those biochemical weapons and nucloor weapons. The leader of the troops will be named Jack B.
So now you had been included into this little circle of libs who can only think in terms of votes and not care a hoot about this country and its ethics, morals and pride.
And they're gonna use your tax dollars to give billions of dollars of contracts to their friends...YOUR money. ;>)
Ya gotta love it! Comparing Global climate change to the sinking of the Titanic. The Global warming alarmist sheep are in full force today. "It's a little warmer this decade, president Gore. Please save us. You can let those non-believers drown cuz they didn't vote for you in 2000, but we did!" Then, Albert quietly leans over and gives Tipper a peck on the cheek and whispers, "you see, I am their lord and saviour."
I'm just guessing here, but I think you call this sarcasm. Bit heavy handed, which can cause some confusion. Some can say this, and you can tell they believe every word of it.
No sarcasm this time,ewe. This is parody and parody has, like most humor, an element of truth. Algore has wrapped himself in the swaddling cloth of global warming proclaiming humans(other than himself, of course) are responsible and it will take a genius like himself to rectify the matter. It will also take the immense mental faculties of Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Reid and the rest of congress, now that democrats are in control, to wrestle this monumental task into a takedown and eventual 3 count. All it will take from the willing sheeple is a majority of their hard earned money and the necassary bowing and scraping to satisfy a growing capitol hill ego.
sure short term weather changes are irrelevant, but it is still ironic to talk about global warming in a snow storm!!
No, it isn't. All one has to do is understand the concept.
What? You mean it will still snow in winter, even after gloabl warming. Gasp!
No, it's really not. Go look up the meaning of irony and ironic. It's not ironic that it's snowing during a hearing on global climate change, because unusual local weather has nothing to do with global climate change.
What do you guys make of this? (I cut out two paragraphs, but the link is below.)
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
There's a wiki entry for Dr. John Spencer as well. If anyone would like to check it out. the item that caught my eye is that he is a supporter of Intelligent Design.
Dr. John S Theon is quoted as being, in effect James Hansen's supporvisor. That's almost like being his supporvisor. Close enough for AA apparently.
No more climatologists in the list. Probably found on Inhof's list of important sounding people many of which do agree about global warming,but argue over some of the details.
Another SOP post on the subject by someone who only wants to help right AA?
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/01/john-s-theon-new-elderly-denier-on.html
Warning: Contains Hateful Ageism!
Yeah, he's not young, cool, hip, and apt to believe anything coming down the pike...He must be crazy!
-- What do you guys make of this? -- AA
I'll tell you what I make of it...The flat earthers religiously clinging to the eroding evidence of man-made global warming like a Jim Jones devotee...are dwindling.
Here's some info about their cult leader, James Hansen, since he made his dire predictions about global warming in 1988.
-- Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988...Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998....
an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F cooler globally -- icecap.us
Here is the chart.
Here is Algore from an inconvenient truth blaming short term events on global warming:
And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
How in god's name could that happen here? There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause. And one question that we, as a people, need to decide is how we react when we hear warnings from the leading scientists in the world.
Nice job PC...and here's another example of global warming alarmists working that side of the street. This is former senator Tim Wirth speaking to PBS:
-- We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact...So we called him up and asked him if he would testify...
We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it...
What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot... --
blaming short term events on global warming
Um, yeah - what?? There is not a single sentence, a single phrase, a single word in that quote blaming Katrina on global warming. That's just inane. I never cease to be amazed at the capacity of GWDs to hear whatever it is they want to hear in others' words.
The first paragraph stated a meteorological truth: Hurricanes get stronger when they pass over warm water. That is a simple, straightforward fact, one not in dispute.
The second paragraph says that the warnings about Katrina were ignored and, in effect, "look what happened." The quote then makes its point: What do we do when we hear warnings about global warming? Do we ignore them as was done with Katrina? Or do we heed them?
It matters not what you think about global warming; claiming this quote shows Al Gore saying it caused Katrina is utter nonsense.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Harry Reid democrat Nevada, "The war in Iraq is lost" followed by other democrat lemmings too many to count. Thanks badgirl2!
With friends like you three, the deniers are in little need of enemies. Still waiting for the first peer reviewed article that refutes global warming. Wesely can try to put the last one he said was such. The only trouble was the articles publisher said up front that it wasn't.
Pretend you speak for any sizable sane population. The last gallop pol indicates four states can be considerred Republican. Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. With Nebraska leaning in that direction. Nebraska's population is probably the size of any of the other two.
Reid said the war was lost if it continued on the path it was on. That's conditional, not an absolute as you dishonestly claim.