NYT omits inconvenient truths in Gore attack.
By on Mar 13th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
NYT omits inconvenient truths in Gore attack.
Media Matters reports that — of the sources cited in today’s NYT article on An Inconvenient Truth — at least four have records of misinformation on the issue. “Though three of these were identified as skeptics or as having expressed skepticism, in all four cases, their past statements or studies questioning global warming theory have been debunked or discredited by the scientific community — which [the author] did not report.” RealClimate and Grist offer thorough debunkings.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Was one of them Michael Crighton?
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pmWatch this video about global warming.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:22 pmAw, let’s give the NYT a break.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pmThey’ve only been doing this since 1851.
Hand Banana sez:
By all means, do. Then, you can go here to see why it’s all B.S..
And then, you can come back here and thank “Hand Banana” for wasting 73 minutes of your life.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pmShoddy journalism from the MSM. WHAT?!? Color me apathetic.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pmOh, so seeing both sides is “wasting your time”? People should make their own decisions based on knowledge. You shouldn’t just listen to what you’re told.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:41 pmWhy are the NYT and WaPo both still supporting the Chimp?
Its not their news reporters, its their editorial writers. The WSJ has the same problem.
All these Chimpyloving Neocon editorial writers need to be sent off to the funny farm for Repukes who live in Bizarro World.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:42 pmCorporate owned media/press are paid to be stupid, so nothing more needs to be said about it.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pm“NYT omits inconvenient truths in Gore attack.”….BUT not on purpose. Pinchy, the Publisher, is a High Priest at the Goreacle Church. (It’s non-denominational.)
March 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pmYou shouldn’t just listen to what you’re told.
Comment by Hand Banana
Ok, I won’t listen to you.
I made up my mind based on the science.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pmHow’s that for something different?
“NYT omits inconvenient truths in Gore attack.â€â€¦.BUT not on purpose. Pinchy, the Publisher, is a High Priest at the Goreacle Church. (It’s non-denominational.) Comment by valiant venus — March 13, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
So now you’re a mind reader – st*pid c*nt? You know what was done *on-purpose*? You know that the Publisher was aware, or had control of this?
A High Priest at the Mann Coulter Church, mind reading, smearing, and casting dispersions. What a shock!
Why don’t you crawl back in to Mann Coulter’s *ss where you came from – you human piece of sh*t!
March 13th, 2007 at 8:53 pmHand Banana – the difference between “both sides” is that one (the FIRST one) is truth, and the other is trumped-up BS to discredit Al Gore. Simple enough for you?
March 13th, 2007 at 8:55 pmZooey,
You’re going to tell me that you read all the primary literature and understood it and came to your own conclusions? You must be a climatologist yourself then?
March 13th, 2007 at 8:56 pmBillN, all I wanted you to do is watch a 1 hr show. Can you do that? I don’t think it’ll change your mind. But, what’s the harm in it for you? Don’t you want to at least hear what some climatologists and atmospheric scientists have to say? I mean, one of the global warming dissenters in the film is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Won’t you listen to him at least?
March 13th, 2007 at 8:59 pmOh, so seeing both sides is “wasting your time� People should make their own decisions based on knowledge. You shouldn’t just listen to what you’re told. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:41pm
Project much – michael?
Knowledge is what the IPCC used to declare global warming is real.
Listening to what you’re told, is what you, and the Mighty c*nt known as valiant venus, the chick with a tiny p*n*s does.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:59 pmHand Banana sez:
There’s not ‘two sides’ here, HB. There’s the accepted viewpoint of thousands of environmental scientists the world over, and then there’s your propaganda piece, featuring arguments that have already been discredited and debunked, presented by “scientists” that range from industry insiders to disgruntled ex-GreenPeace members, by a producer who deliberately took a leading U.S. climate change scientist’s words out of context to buttress the thesis of this film (a behavior he has indulged in in the past, incidentally).
“Two sides”, indeed. Spare me.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pmZooey, You’re going to tell me that you read all the primary literature and understood it and came to your own conclusions? You must be a climatologist yourself then? Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
So first you say you should make your own decisions, then you belittle people for not being *expert-climatologists* in interpreting the results?
That makes you the dum best troll, with the st*pidest ‘argument’ of the day michael!
See, the *entire-world* formed a scientific research body, and put decades of research effort from thousands of scientists to come up with a conclusion based on facts and expertise.
What you’ve done is respond with rhetoric, ignorance and insults.
That means you win the st*pid c*nt of the day award, barely beating out the reigning recipient of that award – valiant venus, who tries to borrow Ann Coulter’s p*n*s so she fully becomes the 12 year old boy she *looks* like!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pmYou’re going to tell me that you read all the primary literature and understood it and came to your own conclusions? You must be a climatologist yourself then?
Comment by Hand Banana
It’s required that I read ALL of the literature, HB? Who requires that? You?
Is it safe to assume that you’re holding me to the same standard to which you hold yourself?
What are you qualifications?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pmJust to let you know, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, my name isn’t Michael. But your name is nice.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pmOh, so seeing both sides is “wasting your time�
Too bad the “other side” can’t produce research of a quality that can survive the peer-review process.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pmYes, it’s MY propaganda piece. I wrote it and produced it. I even uploaded it to google. Just watch the thing and then debunk it if you will. Maybe this website can post a point-by-point debunking of it. I’d like to see that, actually.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pmOy.
Too many question marks in #18 — I’m not Michael, I promise. :)
March 13th, 2007 at 9:06 pmBillN, all I wanted you to do is watch a 1 hr show. Can you do that? Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Losing an hour to propaganda can’t be time replaced.
I don’t think it’ll change your mind. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
That’s because the scientific community has decided this. Only Exxon and other Radical right wing groups still spread the debunked lies. That makes you a *fool* – dum bass!
But, what’s the harm in it for you? Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
The harm is it’s a waste of time, propaganda, and just another attempt to prevent the ecological collapse of the planet. That’s not significant – no wait, it’s YOU that isn’t significant – FOOL!
Don’t you want to at least hear what some climatologists and atmospheric scientists have to say? I mean, one of the global warming dissenters in the film is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Won’t you listen to him at least?Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
We know exactly what they say. The global *scientific* report was just released. It was peer reviewed by several thousand scientists. You you feel the propaganda you fcukfaces push out are even in the same league?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
You’re a fcuking idiot!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:06 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
Zooey was the one who said, “I made up my mind based on the science.”
March 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pmJust to let you know, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, my name isn’t Michael. But your name is nice. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Sorry, but you sound just like that fcukface – I don’t believe you. He’s a stupid old ignorant coward – just like you.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pmMad scientists extraordinaire and deluxe have literally crawled out of the woodwork since this shoddy administration began. It’s a mad, mad, ugly and nasty world, Virginia.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pmZooey,
You are the one that said you made up your mind “based on the science.” I, for one, haven’t made up my mind yet. Something tells me you really made up your mind based on a movie by Al Gore and what certain websites tell you.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pmIs Hand Banana the Norwegian Seixon? Just asking lol.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pmYes, it’s MY propaganda piece. I wrote it and produced it. I even uploaded it to google. Just watch the thing and then debunk it if you will. Maybe this website can post a point-by-point debunking of it. I’d like to see that, actually. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
And give a loser c*nt like you the time of day? Oh wait, maybe you’re Seixon. That closet case b*tch is an anti-science global warming m*r*n just like you!
Puhlease! Get a fcuking life, you ignorant sl*t!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pmHand Banana sez:
Soooo….let me get this straight. It takes a climatologist to understand the primary data, so laypeople must rely upon secondary sources.
Even if I hadn’t conclusively debunked your little film above, all you’re accomplishing with this line of logic is establishing that it’s impossible for laypeople to make any sort of conclusion about global warming….which is exactly your intention, isn’t it? Derail the argument with bogus “alternate theories”. Thanks, but no…I got enough of that during the whole “Intelligent Design” idiocy.
No dice, Hand Banana. We’re smart enough to make critical decisions for ourselves…and that scares the hell out of you, doesn’t it?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:10 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
You must have lots of friends.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:10 pmTP clock seems to be malfunctioning.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:12 pmNope. Only people that claim they made up their minds “based on the science.”
March 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, You must have lots of friends. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
You must believe your own sh*t – fcuking idiot.
Just because someone calls you out as the fcuking fool that you are, you think that means they can’t and don’t socialize properly? Ever think that maybe you’re getting an appropriate response for your Goebbels piece of sh*t you put out as *science*?
You and the rest of those insecure pr*cks you call your *base*, are a bunch of insecure little babies.
Stop crying just because you’re too st*pid to get published scientifically with your dum bass ideas m*r*n!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pmNope. Only people that claim they made up their minds “based on the science.†Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
As opposed to people like you that have made up their minds despite the science!
That makes you an id*ot. You know that – right?
Of course you don’t, you’re a fcuking idiot!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pmAre you afraid of watching a little movie on google? Does it scare you? I’m sure you’ve wasted much more of your life doing much less, especially on the internet.
Just watch the movie, and if you have a blog, post your debunking. I really hope Think Progress will post a point-by-point debunking. Or at least address some of the broader points that the interviewees made.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pmJay Randal sez:
I seriously doubt it, Jay….unless Seixon has let himself slide lately. This “Hand Banana” and his “documentary” took all of 73 seconds to debunk…one 60th of the actual length of the “documentary”. ^_^
March 13th, 2007 at 9:17 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
I already said that I haven’t made up my mind. And no, I’m no climatologist, which is the main reason I haven’t made up my mind.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:18 pmAre you afraid of watching a little movie on google? Does it scare you? I’m sure you’ve wasted much more of your life doing much less, especially on the internet. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Are you afraid of admitting you’re an anti-science id*ot?
Just watch the movie, and if you have a blog, post your debunking. I really hope Think Progress will post a point-by-point debunking. Or at least address some of the broader points that the interviewees made. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
The science has already debunked any of the sh*t you would post. Just STFU and kiss my *ss! That’s a better request – id*ot!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:19 pmTripMaster Monkey,
Please show me this debunking. It’s not the NewsHog post is it? One guy complains after the movie is made and that’s a debunking? There are at least a dozen people interviewed on this thing. I didn’t sit and count, but there are many top ranking climate scientists interviewed. And like I said, the friggin founder of Greenpeace.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmHand Banana sez:
Oh, I see…this ’science’ is some esoteric art that only the initiate can access and understand….initiates like the “contributors” to your “documentary”, for example.
Apparently, you missed the last part of my previous post. I’ll repost for you (I know how difficult it can be for non-scientists to work the scroll wheel):
Your arguments may work on the people you’re used to dealing with, but they won’t work here. You really ought to stay on the mat…if you get back up again, it’s only going to get worse.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
You’re very easy to talk to. I think you should be a therapist.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pmWell folks. This has been awesome, but I have to go. Don’t cry.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pmSomething tells me you really made up your mind based on a movie by Al Gore and what certain websites tell you.
Comment by Hand Banana
Hmmmm, something tells me you don’t know the first thing about me. Something else tells me you’re just here to whore your little film, so you really don’t care how I came to my personal conclusion.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmTripMaster Monkey,
This is hilarious. All I did was post a link to a video. At least 3 posters here go ballistic and assume and presume 1000 things about someone they don’t know. They’ve got this person all figured out. They’ve got life all figured out and they know the truth, dammit. Nothing’s going to affect that. I love the internets. Thank you Al Gore! Thanks for everything!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmWhat does “Hand Banana” mean? Does it imply a sexual thing or just a real banana in the hand?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmHand Banana sez:
Hey Hand Banana, don’t run off just yet.
Earlier, you asked for a debunking of your documentary. You can find a more comprehensive one here.
(P.S.: I encourage everyone to check this out, so they can judge for themselves why HB’s “documentary” needn’t be taken seriously.)
OK, HB…you can go now.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pmHand Banana is that same dipsh*t troll that went by the name Lewis a
March 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pmcouple of days ago. Go back to Fox, Lew. They love that ass-kissing,
condescending bullsh*t over there.
Hand Banana is a paid shill, most likely working for the fossil fuel industry or a right wing think tank.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pmHard times, Hand Banana, nobody’s buying anymore.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:36 pmWow. Ask, and ye shall receive. Thanks for the link TripMaster Monkey.
Still interested in denying the undeniable HB?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:39 pmHand Banana sez:
I agree. You’re a gas.
No, you posted a link to a blatant piece of industry propaganda. Be more specific in the future.
I can’t speak for the other posters, but you posted a link to a propaganda piece, and I called you on it. Plain and simple.
Thanks for the compliment, but in all honesty, you weren’t all that difficult to figure out. Run along now.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus, You’re very easy to talk to. I think you should be a therapist. Comment by Hand Banana — March 13, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
I remind you of *rehab*, do I? Too bad they can’t cure people like you that suffer from chronic *st*pidity*. Ignorance we can cure, st*pidity, not so much.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:41 pmChimpylovers live in Bizarro World. It is not the real world. It is a fantasy world of their own creation. This is called psychosis.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:44 pmAt least 3 posters here go ballistic and assume and presume 1000 things about someone they don’t know.
Comment by Hand Banana
I wonder if I was one of the ballistic?
Cuz I’ve been ballistic, and that ain’t it.
Hand Banana must be sensitive.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:44 pmIf this is Hand Banana’s (a synonym for d*ck)’s film – as he claims. That means he’s Martin Durkin. Who’s a *communist* and member of the Revolutionary Communist Party – an anti-environmental party!
How ironic is that!
Did you hear that Valiant Venus/Mighty Anorexia? You’re in bed with the *commies* now in your opinions! That must make your skinny Ann Coulter *sshead nearly burst!
Now that’s too funny!
Hand Banana and the rest of the right wingnuts behind this trash piece are a riot! Talk about a bunch of loser *ssholes!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pmHand Banana had to go play with his banana > lol. I just had to say that, but why do the trolls pick screen names that have sexual content?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pmHand Banana must be sensitive.
Comment by Zooey — March 13, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
It’s so funny how all of the right wing rhetoric is meant to *feminize* liberals – but how all of the right wingers are so sensitive, and *weak*. The negative *stereotype* of the feminine they’re trying to portray! Talk about projection!
What a bunch of self righteous wimps!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pmJust call yourself “Seixon Loves Bananas” and be done with it.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pmAt least 3 posters here go ballistic and assume and presume 1000 things about someone they don’t know. -Banana
I agree, yet people produce books about those they do not know and profit off unbased bias. FOX news assumes Democrats are, groupthink wise, and forcing their imagination upon others, Adolphists. (HITF?)
One book I have a huge problem with is ‘Godless’. Many people parrot that ludicrous mantra daily, and equate politics with religion and morals.
People who vote Democratically do not know God, whereas Republicans do. (HITF?)
Such is why I do not embrace such political bleatism. It’s so far from reality as to be UFOnic.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pm(yes I coined a new phrase BFD)
What a bunch of self righteous wimps!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Two of the most self-righteous wingnuts I know are my bro-in-law and his son, my nephew. These are two of the most fussy and effeminate men I’ve ever met. I don’t know how my sister sleeps with the guy. Gross.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pmHand Banana and the rest of the right wingnuts behind this trash piece are a riot! Talk about a bunch of loser *ssholes!
Please can we stop with blind opinions?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pmOh crap! I almost forgot!
DRxJ says HI TO EVERYONE. He’s been trying to post comments for a couple days, with no success.
Naturally, the trolls are able to post anytime they want.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pmWell…it looks like once Hand Banana saw I actually had the information to back up my allegations about his “documentary”, he turned tail.
A person who was genuinely interested in debating the issue would have welcomed the additional information. Hand Banana’s behavior proves he’s not interested in promoting discourse…only in stifling it.
Hand Banana, if there was anyone here who hadn’t managed to ‘figure you out’ yet, your precipitous departure sealed the deal.
Thanks so much, HB. See you in your next alias.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pmPI COT HORI
Is that a constellation?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:59 pmTwo of the most self-righteous wingnuts I know are my bro-in-law and his son, my nephew. These are two of the most fussy and effeminate men I’ve ever met.
There are many teens today where I live that fit that description. They are not gay, they are metrosexual and refuse to dirty themselves with hard labor and do not find interest in mechanical things. X-Box and play station, dying their hair, is their preference.
Yet they do not understand that things do not get fixed, or built thru hard labor and cannot fathom the physical effort required to do such.
Yet physical labor is key to societal needs.
Latchkey kids I suppose.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pmPI COT HORI
Is that a constellation?
Comment by Zooey
Is Eddie Crazy? =)
March 13th, 2007 at 10:04 pmPI COT HORI
Is that a constellation?
Comment by Zooey
Pisce Hori is another term.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pmPI COT ORION as well.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:07 pmLife in 2050, Professor Easterbrook, culled from various web sources:
“From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase.”
“Thanks to population growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions will likely double by 2050.”
“By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth’s land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction…. ”
“With the nation responsible for a quarter of all global carbon dioxide emissions refusing to limit its output by the merest fraction, levels will inevitably reach 550 parts per million – double their pre-industrial revolution figure – by about 2050.”
“Global warming will diminish the amount of water stored as snow in the Western United States by up to 70 percent in the coastal mountains over the next 50 years, according to a new climate change model.”
“Glaciers will all but disappear from the Alps by 2050.”
“Australia’s Great Barrier Reef will lose 95 per cent of its living coral by 2050.”
“By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages.”
“Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and “ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels…”
“Thanks to Climate Change, by 2050 America’s Breadbasket Will Be in Canada.”
“By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.”
“… the erosion of the sea ice in the Arctic could begin to rapidly accelerate starting in 2025. By 2040 or 2045, only a fairly small amount of thinner ice could be left… ”
“A recent study … projects a sea level rise of 15 to 19 inches by the 2050s in New York City. Adding as little as 1.5 feet of sea level rise by the 2050s to the surge for a category 3 hurricane on a worst-case track would cause extensive flooding in many parts of the city.”
“In 2050, up to six hundred million people will be hungry due to climate changes. Diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever ‘will run rampant.’”
March 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pmPisces Orion as well.
Heh.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pmYet physical labor is key to societal needs.
Latchkey kids I suppose.
Comment by PI COT HORI
Nope. Just spoiled by my sis and her hubbie. :P
This young man lives in Corpus Christi, and won’t go outside because it’s hot. I’m not kidding.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pmIs Eddie Crazy? =)
Comment by PI COT HORI
I knew it was you. Heh.
Thanks for the constellation info. :)
March 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pmThis young man lives in Corpus Christi, and won’t go outside because it’s hot. I’m not kidding.
Comment by Zooey
I know the type. Personally I despise working indoors.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:12 pmThis young man lives in Corpus Christi, and won’t go outside because it’s hot. I’m not kidding.
Comment by Zooey
Here they all work in Restaurants or indoors at Walmart or Target. I went to lunch with a friend and his wife (from a rural county) and she remarked at how many Gays worked at Applebees (sp?)
I had to tell her they weren’t gay, just effiminate =)
March 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pmI figgers you did =)
March 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pmZooey aint no dummy thats fer shure.
Is “hand banana” a form of “yellow journalism”?
March 13th, 2007 at 10:25 pm(Or is it just fun to type the word banana…)
Here they all work in Restaurants or indoors at Walmart or Target.
Comment by PI COT HORI
They’re taking all the high paying jobs! :P
I figgers you did =)
Zooey aint no dummy thats fer shure.
Comment by PI COT HORI
Heh.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pmThis young man lives in Corpus Christi, and won’t go outside because it’s hot. I’m not kidding.
Comment by Zooey
That’s a shame, because the bikini’s on the beach near Corpus Christi are HOT too, LOL
March 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pmIs “hand banana†a form of “yellow journalism�
(Or is it just fun to type the word banana…)
Comment by Raven
Yes.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pmCause, science is bad, Hand Banana? I didn’t know you home schooled weirdos were allowed on the internet.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pmThat’s a shame, because the bikini’s on the beach near Corpus Christi are HOT too, LOL
Comment by Wayne
I’m not sure my nephew has even completed puberty. :)
My youngest appreciated the view on the beach last time he was there — when he was 12. Heh.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pmHand Banana
When you explain to us the function of scientific review; hypotheses, experimental studies, testing prediction, repeating outcome, and getting theories published in a scientific journal we’ll watch your movie.
Until then why don’t you go eat yourself.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pmHand bananas are sensitive by nature.
Hand bananas are so sensitive that they usually end up being banana cream.
And then you have banana cream all over your hands.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pmAnd then you have banana cream all over your hands.
Comment by Tom3
Prematurely sensitive….
March 13th, 2007 at 11:01 pmBeware a woman’s scorn. Mother Nature does not forget her friends… or, her enemies.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pmMy youngest appreciated the view on the beach last time he was there — when he was 12. Heh.
Comment by Zooey
Oh,I noticed girls in bikini’s young. We lived near Newport Beach in Cali till I was 11, Then we moved.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pmMilitary brat life, moved at least every 3 years, sometimes once a year. hehe
And then you have banana cream all over your hands.
Comment by Tom3
Prematurely sensitive….
Comment by Zooey
LMAO
March 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAmerican journalists are physically unable to get the story/facts straight. It’s a genetic defect.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmMilitary brat life, moved at least every 3 years, sometimes once a year. hehe
Comment by Wayne
Me too, we moved A LOT until I was 7th grade, then managed to stay on the same base until I graduated. Dad alternated between the base to the USS Coral Sea a couple different times. Too cold to appreciate the beach view in the SF Bay area!
March 13th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThis is interesting wayne and zooey because it shows you not to be ‘nazi’ like according to FOX.
You, wether you know it or not, have taken a seat front center stage.
The internet is not anonymous as you might think. =)
March 14th, 2007 at 12:29 amLIES, LIES, LIES, MORE DAMNED LIES. TURN OVER LIKE A GOOD Bushland Uber Allies LAPDOG, NYT!!!!! JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY MY LEFT TESTICLE!!!!! I HAVE MORE INTEGRITY AND COURAGE(not to brag) IN MY SMALL TOENAIL THAN YOU MSM CREEPS HAVE IN YOUR WHOLE WORTHLESS CARCASES!!!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 12:40 am#2
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on the UKs Channel 4, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the UKs Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”. Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:05 amThe latest IPCC report on CO2 has already been exposed as a fraud by Professor Hans-Georg Beck of Goettingen University. In a review of over 100 years of peer reviewed (your favourite phrase of the month) papers, the atmospheric CO2 level was found to be higher than it is reported today, in periods when the average temperature was lower.
The cause of climate change is the SUN, not CO2. Why is elementary high school science so difficult for you Al Gore lovers to grasp?
Al Gore is a British agent, a hedge fund manager, and a genocidalist. He has no regard for the human suffering that his idiotic misrepresentation of science will cause to developing economies.
And you stupid Americans are being duped by the British Monarchy to shut down your own industries in the name of an invisible gas that has no discernable impact on global climate.
Do you want to return to the bad old days of global empire and free trade liberalism (slavery), or keep your Republic?
March 14th, 2007 at 8:21 am#94 The latest IPCC report on CO2 has already been exposed as a fraud by Professor Hans-Georg Beck of Goettingen University. In a review of over 100 years of peer reviewed (your favourite phrase of the month) papers, the atmospheric CO2 level was found to be higher than it is reported today, in periods when the average temperature was lower.
The cause of climate change is the SUN, not CO2. Why is elementary high school science so difficult for you Al Gore lovers to grasp?
Yeah, I see how a single ‘Professor’ can debunk a conclusion based on thousands of studies done by thousands of scientists. An using a factor that surely the thousands of scientists hadn’t in mind: the Sun.
/Must I say that this is sarcasm?
March 14th, 2007 at 9:18 amEvil Spaniard
Since when was science conducted by consensus, or by counting the number of people who support a theory versus the number who do not?
If you had any actual scientific competence, you would know that it is truth, not popular opinion, that is the subject of scientific enquiry.
Furthermore, if you had any actual understanding of how science and public policy interact, and the fact that the majority of scientists will not speak out on this issue for fear of losing their funding (not to mention the viscious attacks from the environmentalist lobby), you would realize how idiotic a statement that was.
All of this is leading our world into a dark age where the public will accept whatever the modern incarnation of the babylonian priesthood (in this case politically motivated scientific peer review committees) says is the truth, and ignore the mass of emperical evidence to the contrary.
Go and read what that famous “scientist” Dr Bertrand Russell said about convincing people that snow is black for further reference.
March 14th, 2007 at 9:28 amYou have to enjoy a religious thread.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amThe documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia.
“There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious,” he says with a chuckle.
“It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren’t so sad.”
See the film at:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only
March 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am#94 and #96
Thanks for the open mind on this global warming issue that media is totally overblowing, distorting, underreporting, and misleading folks on.
Not to say many other scientists, many who are not true climatologists, who keep referencing each others papers that continue to advance a belief that cannot be verifiec by other scientists due to either the refusal of the authors to provide the raw date and/or the modeling formulations that were used.
So what is true science ? We could start with establishment of facts that withstand repeated statisical tests by any number of other experimentors. Then, we can see if this global warming is truly significant in the geological time frame.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:43 amIceman
Science is concerned with finding the true cause of the events that we humans interpret as the reality of “sensory perception”.
The fundamental problem with a lot of the current global warming “science” that is cited by the misanthropic haters of progress and civilization who run some of our international NGOs, is that it is simply statistical mechanics based on linear computer models.
The truth behind all of this is that we are dealing with an international crisis of unbelievable proportions, in the ECONOMY, and that certain forces are moving to replace what remains of national sovereignty with WORLD GOVERNMENT (i.e. globalization).
The global warming issue is being used as a tool of economic warfare by the supranational institutions to smash the last vestiges of national independence, and put the world under their direct and unchallenged control.
To all the likely effects of this policy genocidal is an understatement, but then, that is precisely what they intend for the majority of humanity if we do not stand up and fight this with the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pmEvil Spaniard
Since when was science conducted by consensus, or by counting the number of people who support a theory versus the number who do not?
If you had any actual scientific competence, you would know that it is truth, not popular opinion, that is the subject of scientific enquiry.
Furthermore, if you had any actual understanding of how science and public policy interact, and the fact that the majority of scientists will not speak out on this issue for fear of losing their funding (not to mention the viscious attacks from the environmentalist lobby), you would realize how idiotic a statement that was.
All of this is leading our world into a dark age where the public will accept whatever the modern incarnation of the babylonian priesthood (in this case politically motivated scientific peer review committees) says is the truth, and ignore the mass of emperical evidence to the contrary.
Go and read what that famous “scientist†Dr Bertrand Russell said about convincing people that snow is black for further reference.
Comment by RAL — March 14, 2007 @ 9:28 am
First, not every loony defending an hypothesis in minority is a Galileo or a Copernicus. Second, your favored loony, has been proved wrong by a lot of independent scientific facts and climatologists. Third, most of your favored loonies have been proved paid shills for corporations interested in denying Global Warming to preserve economic invoices. Fourth, the modern communications and computer power permit to quickly prove hypothesis and debunk them if they are ilogical or biased. Your hypothesis has been proved wrong repeatedly.
Your last paragraph
Go and read what that famous “scientist†Dr Bertrand Russell said about convincing people that snow is black for further reference.
is worth a separate debunking:
First, why do you double quote “scientist”? From Dictionary.com:
sci·en·tist /ˈsaɪəntɪst/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhn-tist] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.
So, its a correct English term. Being a foreigner, I was fearing that “scientist” (sic) weren’t an existent word in English. But it’s not the case.
It’s because you don’t consider Sir Bertrand Russell a “scientist” (sic)? Let’s check the Wikipedia about him:
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell OM FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970), was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician and advocate for social reform. A prolific writer, he was also a populariser of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics, ranging from very serious issues to those less so. Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist for most of his long life, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.[1][2] Millions looked up to Russell as a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were extremely controversial.
Hey, I was thinking that a mathematician is a scientist. Silly me. But let’s continue with the meaning of the phrase you’ve quoted, or best, paraphrased or referenced:
Go and read what that famous “scientist†Dr Bertrand Russell said about convincing people that snow is black for further reference.
Well, the text of Bertrand Russell is a tirade against standardization and indoctrination in science. A very well written one. And I agree with him wholeheartedly. But maybe you’re the one that doesn’t understand the difference between sane skepticism (English scepticism), and simply ignoring the facts. And the GW deniers simply ignore the facts, and pretend that it’s skepticism, when it’s biased wishful thinking.
When you do logics, and not false sophisms, you’ll be welcome.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pmEvil Spaniard
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you?
Bertrand Russell was not a scientist, but yet another empiricist fraud. Which is precisely why I used the quotation marks.
Also, if you are trying to suggest that his point about snow being black has something to do with standardization I pity your school teacher for having wasted a good deal of effort on failing to teach you critical thinking skills.
What Lord Russell, the famous pacifist who authored the first policy of nuclear preventative warfare (against Russia, before they achieved the world’s first thermonuclear explosion), was referring to was how to use Sophistry to brainwash an entire strata of society into believing the utter nonsense that racist, evil malthusians such as him would like them to.
I cannot help your ignorance on these topics, would expect a little more humility from someone who has so little comprehension of the subject matter.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCarl is very clear about the CO2-warming connection and the prudence of reducing emissions. His concerns have to do with the accuracy of some of the projections of future impacts.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pmhttp://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf
March 14th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:29 pmA paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”. The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes – in this case in their arithmetic.
#102 I was trying to post a long text to rebuke yours but, it looks as if TP filter is eating it.
Well, in short. There are two reasons to explain why there is a consensus among the scientific community. One, as you point, there exists a giantic conspiration to hide what Global Warming deniers have to say. Two, that Global Warming is the truth, and the majority of scientifics see it and are trying to explain it to people.
Frankly, I’m with the ones that reject thinfoil theories. Reason two, you know.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThe “swindle” film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”
March 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThat letter from Carl Wunsch:
—–8
March 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm