Former Fox Host Helps CNN Promote Glenn Beck’s Anti-Global Warming Agenda
Former Fox Host Helps CNN Promote Glenn Beck’s Anti-Global Warming Agenda
Last night, CNN’s right-wing pundit Glenn Beck — who has a history of making flagrantly false and offensive statements — aired a documentary on global warming entitled “Exposed: The Climate of Fear.” Beck concluded, “Al Gore’s version of climate change has no longer become science. It’s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic. … The debate is not over. I have a feeling it’s just beginning.”
Beck’s program mentioned Gore 32 times. As much as Beck would like to turn climate change into a personal attack, the scientific judgments of Gore are the consensus view of the world’s leading scientists. The IPCC — “history’s most definitive statement of scientific consensus on climate change” — recently released its main findings, stating global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
This morning, CNN continued to help peddle Beck’s agenda, giving him a platform on its morning show to help spread his uninformed views. Host Kiran Chetry, formerly an anchor of Fox and Friends and recently hired by CNN, conducted an interview worthy of Fox News, tossing softballs and teeing up some of Beck’s false claims. A sampling of her questions:
– [I]t appears that most people think that global warming is caused by man. And when you raise a different opinion, it makes for some heated debate. Let’s put it that way.
– Instead of the bible they are putting Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” at the nightstand. What do you think?
– Is the debate about — I mean, we have gone up — what is it — .7 degrees?
– So there is no denying it’s happened. But I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate.
Watch a compilation of the segment:
By giving Beck a platform to spout his junk science, CNN has helped promote ongoing efforts by the Bush administration, the oil lobby, and right-wing pundits to create doubt where none exists.
UPDATE: Media Matters has more.
CHETRY: And Glenn Beck joins us live now from his studio here in New York with more.
Glenn, good to see you this morning.
BECK: Good to see you. Welcome to CNN. I’m a big fan of yours. Glad you’re with us.
CHETRY: Well, thank you. Thank you. It’s great to be here.
You know, you raise an interesting point, because as we talked about in the intro, it used to be that, you know, a lot of people didn’t have any opinion on global warming, and now it appears that most people think that global warming is caused by man. And when you raise a different opinion, it makes for some heated debate. Let’s put it that way.
BECK: Yes. You know, I’m concerned. The reason why we did the special last night is I’m really concerned.
You know, I have a national radio program as well, and so many people have called me up and said, my kids have to make a decision on whether or not they can disagree with their teacher […]
CHETRY: You know, I don’t know if you heard this yesterday. There was a green hotel, I believe it was in California…
BECK: Yes.
CHETRY: … where instead of the bible they are putting Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” at the nightstand.
What do you think?
BECK: Kiran, I have to tell you, I think it is so appropriate. I think Al Gore should just start wearing a priest collar. I think we’re entering the dark ages here […]
CHETRY: A recent poll showed about 60 percent of Americans think global warming has started.
BECK: Yes.
CHETRY: And there’s a very small amount who think it’s never going to happen.
Is the debate about — I mean, we have gone up — what is it — .7 degrees?
BECK: Yes, about .7 degrees Celsius. Look, there is no…
CHETRY: So there is no denying it’s happened. But I think the cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate.
BECK: Yes. There are three — there are three questions — really, kind of four.
There’s — has the global gotten warmer? Yes, it has. It’s undeniable.
Is this a lasting effect or is this just a cycle? That’s still up for debate.
The next one is, is man causing it?
And the fourth one is, if man is causing it and the other three are true, then are we able to stop it? Even there, some scientists say it’s already too late. There’s a lot of debate. […]
CHETRY: And I guess I made a programming decision that we’re going to run it again at some point.
BECK: Oh, good. Go for it.
CHETRY: Glenn Beck, always great to talk to you. Thanks a lot.
BECK: Great to talk to you. Bye-bye.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
People like Glenn Beck are a cause for concern, but the greatest concern should be that so many people are dumb and gullible enough to believe them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmNot only are you proving his point, it was a very informative documentary.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmkevin — your dinosaur needs feeding…
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmI can’t wait to bang away at the deniers when the the big leaders of Republican party finally fall in line on this issue.
WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR FROM COMBATTING GLOBAL WARMING?
It will be a boom to our economy by introducing a new industry. It will improve our national security by getting us off middle east oil, and oh yeah, we might just save humanity in the process.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pmThe problem is that this whole thing is couched in terms of ‘debate.
When it comes to science, the debate is over, the facts are in, and lets move on. But, because there are one of two fringe lunatics or ’scientists’ still firmly in the pocket of the oil companies, certain media can continue to say that there is a debate.
This falls into the same general category as the moon landings. The vast majority of scientists agree that man has landed on the moon. There are still some people out there who think the whole thing was faked and man hasn’t landed on the moon.
I don’t see many hour long rants about the moon landing conspiracy on national news channels.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmGlenn Beck belongs in an insane asylum. I’m sure there are many people there who would believe his fanciful fairy tales.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pmVery interesting to hear these two people acting as scientists in this exchange feeding the public with unscientific but ‘political gossip’ data.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 pmBy giving Beck a platform to spout his junk science, CNN has helped promote ongoing efforts by the Bush administration, the oil lobby, and right-wing pundits to create doubt where none exists.
…well, imagine that…
oh, ted, why ever did you sell out?…
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 pmcan you take it back?… please? … someone?…
…
If the science of global climate change is “debatable” then why not err on the side of caution instead of stupidity?
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmBeck isn’t worthy of holding (and most likely sniffing) Gore’s jock strap.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmI watched five minutes of Beck last night before vomiting. He was going on about the Napa hotel that put an Inconvenient Truth in the room. Looks like the Freepers are the only ones that care about it. Somehow, to him, it proves a larger point. God only knows what it is, however.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmHere actual news that matters::
Honeybee Die-off Threatens Food Supply
BELTSVILLE, Md. - Unless someone or something stops it soon, the mysterious killer that is wiping out many of the nation’s honeybees could have a devastating effect on America’s dinner plate, perhaps even reducing us to a glorified bread-and-water diet.
Honeybees don’t just make honey; they pollinate more than 90 of the tastiest flowering crops we have. Among them: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, celery, squash and cucumbers. And lots of the really sweet and tart stuff, too, including citrus fruit, peaches, kiwi, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, cantaloupe and other melons
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ honeybee_die_off;_ylt=AvfXsHvDk9PM2_xwVI5k78Rhr7sF
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmAnd now CNN cares nothing about truth and news — only about ratings and ad dollars.
Expect more and more idiocy from the Crap News Network.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmBeck’s point in the documentary, was that the people that believe that GW is a man made issue and that we must radically change how we live (unless you are a liberal jet setter) to save the planet and is not up for debate. That’s the real issue. That if you don’t agree with the GW alarmist you get attacked.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 pm…CHETRY: ..[ Where instead of putting the Bible they are putting Al-Gore book “An Inonvenient Truth” at the nightstand ],
What do you think?.
Chetry asking Beck as if Al -Gore starting a new religion? !!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 pmyes, saywho, that is an especially important story…
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pmanother one that’s been trying to get attention for many years…
it will take a catastrophe before that happens…
are we there yet?…
and who’s gonna tell us?…
cnn?
Chetry asking Beck as if Al -Gore starting a new religion? !!
Comment by tarazan — May 3, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Isn’t he? Looks like he has some devoted followers.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pmkiran chetry is hot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmKevin,
the point is that we don’t have to “radically” change the way we live. We have the technology now to make huge advances in this. But unfortunately, the US auto-industry seems uncapable of doing what they must without legislation.
People can no longer say that people wont buy fuel efficient cars. Fuel efficiency is the reason that Toyota is now the worlds number 1 auto maker. SUV’s can still be driven. WE just have to get the auto makers to make a responsible engine for them.
What is the problem with pushing for cuts in carbon emissions that will get us off of foreign oil at least. Then we could give the middle east the proverbial finger as we walk out on them. Then when the money dries up over there, we can tell them to join us in a secular view of world politics instead of a staunchly religious one. Or they will stay isolated.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmPeople like Glenn Beck are a cause for concern, but the greatest concern should be that so many people are dumb and gullible enough to believe them.
Comment by Karp’s disciple — May 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
People like you are cause for concern! You happen to be dumb enough to believe that humans can solve this issue by spending money. You happen to be dumb enough to cast aside the fact that the entire solar system is getting warmer. You are the one who is dumb enough to listen to Al Gore inventor of the internet. You are dumb enough to believe that we can reduce energy consumption. Grow up!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pmhttp://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pmGlenn Beck is using a nasty smear tactic instead of honest debate.
By portraying Gore and other anti-global-warming people as dogmatic and putting Gore’s book on the bedside instead of a Bible, Beck is again resorting to the lies and smears that he uses constantly.
Beck wants to debate global warming but he’s breaking all the rules of civilized debate.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ article1720024.ece
“Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pmI still want Gore to run for president in 2008, but I thought a lot of the “science” in an Inconvenient Truth was at best overly simplistic and at worst speculative. I think it is beyond question that the earth is warming, that if it continues it will have catastrophic consequences for a lot of the human beings on this planet and that human beings are contributing to the warming that has occurred. Beyond that, I think the debate is wide open.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pmLet’s take a look at what the global warming deniers are doing.
Deniers like Beck, Inhofe and others are poisoning the debate with cheap shot smears, instead of debating the scientific facts and data.
And the Chimpy regime got caught censoring the scientific data reports in order to downplay the global warming threat. The guy who did the censoring was an oil lobbyist and resigned when he was caught.
I trust Al Gore a lot more than the other side. The other side are liars and smear-job artists.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmthey are just afraid he’ll run for prez. so they have their marching orders.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmComment by katy — May 3, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Holly molly we agree on something! I can now die in peace!
LOL
Humanity is pretty much doomed at this point! Party like its 1999 folks.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pmThere should be a web site created that lists the hiring authorities and their contact information and PHOTOS of those executives who hire the Beck’s of the MSM.
These executives should become recognizable public figures for they are directly responsible for our National Dialogue.
The common media consumer should be able to recognize the mid to upper level decision makers when in public.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmIs Kiran Chetry available for a ‘night stand?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pmwhat difference does it make whether the warming is caused by man or not? It is happening, and our species has multiplied to the point that the warming will mean famine and flood will kill a great many of us and make life quite horrible for the remainder– unless we take serious and even drastic measures to deal with and mitigate the effects. I don’t expect to live long enough to experience much of it. But I’m willing to make uncomfortable changes now, for the sake of posterity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm#15 # 17- Kevin
There are followers of everything in this world, but to link Al-Gore book to the Bible on nightstand is rather absurd…
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmwhat difference does it make whether the warming is caused by man or not? It is happening, and our species has multiplied to the point that the warming will mean famine and flood will kill a great many of us and make life quite horrible for the remainder– unless we take serious and even drastic measures to deal with and mitigate the effects. I don’t expect to live long enough to experience much of it. But I’m willing to make uncomfortable changes now, for the sake of posterity.
Comment by g.l.horton
It actually could have positive effects as well.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmBy doing some common sense things to fight global warming - drive more fuel efficient cars, etc - we are threatening the profits of oil companies and auto manufacturers. You can expect them to fight like dogs to protect their profits and prevent any of these common sense things from happening. What Beck is doing is only a small part of this campaign. Expect it to increase as the effects of global warming become more and more obvious.
It’s a shame CNN is an active participant in this. I used to have some respect for them.
As the Right likes to do, they’ll make it an issue of values. Hannity has said he’s proud to drive his SUV and doesn’t like the idea of someone taking it away from him. So we’ve gone from protecting the planet to invading Hannity’s personal way of life. It’s a good strategy that taps into American’s selfish attitudes. Too bad for our children!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmI wouldn’t lay a finger on that Kiran Chetry.
She’s a FOX News neocon whore. She probably has several STD’s.
And why do they all wear that doggie-ears hairdo?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmWow, a lot of debate over non-science. Who cares about Al Gore’s electric bill. Thankfully he has raised the issue to the forefront. Although he appears to be living high off the hog, so are a lot of Americans. We contribute 25% of the world’s CO2 and are only 4.5% of the world population. The earth is warming. It smells like man is a large contributor. We can’t live like we always have (this is how we got into this mess). We don’t live like the 1950’s do we? The U.S. government set the clock back on the U.S. car makers by letting them get credits for specific car models on the CAFE standards. U.S. cars get the same gas economy as they did in 1978. Come on, this is ridiculous. The sun is a contributor but not the primary cause. The eccentricity of the earth in combination with the sun seems to have the biggest impact on historic periods of glaciation. Research Milankovich cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) and solar irrandiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png).
Here’s a climate change attribution chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png).
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmI miss the good old days (what, 15 years ago?) when there wasn’t a “debate” about global warming…there were just calls to do something about it because everyone believed the scientists who reported on it. I watched Beck up until he talked to someone and made the point that he was a POLITICAL SCIENTIST and not a climate expert. (???)
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmThe market is driving the car industry to change. But the government forcing them to do so is wrong. Let the market take care of it. If people stop buying gas-guzzlers they the manufactures will stop making them. But the process does take some time. I’m all for using less gas. Want to cut down on energy cost. Let’s build more Nuclear power plants. Or make solar more cost effective to install. Make electric cars look cool. Make it so I can still drive a truck and haul stuff around without losing any power on the road. The market can do all of this without the government getting involved.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmSaywho, terry, Kevin:
What is your criterion for believing in man-made global warming?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmWhat sort of study would have to be done to satisfy you? How large, how comprehensive?
What scientist or group of scientists would have to come forth for you to believe that it is real?
Whom do you regard as a definitive scientific authority on this?
John M,
Do you have children? Do you care about what type of planet the next generation will inherit from us? Do you personally profit from Exxon’s record profits?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmI heard on the radio yesterday that we are consuming resources at 120% of the rate of renewability.
Of course some resources like oil are non-renewable. Once the oil is gone, its gone. (Although some whacko Reich Wingnuts disagree)
Our worldwide economy is not sustainable with our resources. Sooner or later we are going to crash and it will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like a picnic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmThere seems to be a glitch. I am only able to see comments 1-26. FYI to the moderator.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pmComment by g.l.horton — May 3, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
The entire solar system is getting hotter and the sun is at an extremely active point. In the mean time the human burning coal and oil causation of GW is pretty dressing for another problem that we can’t stop:
Global Warming is another way of saying “RESOURCE DEPLETION”
ta da.
We can’t feed 6.5 billion humans with out burning OIL/NG/COAL
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pmKevin,
The whole point about the market is invalid here. Exxon and others do not have to factor in the long-term damage to the planet in the profit/loss calculations. Their behavior is driven by short-term profit seeking.
One does not get paid for ethics or responsible behavior, which is why you ‘market driven’ people show so little of them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pmIt actually could have positive effects as well.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
And the tooth fairy could leave you a quarter.
Thomas Gale Moore, is a Hoover Institute wingnut. He’s not a climatologist a geologist, a biologist or any other scientific “ist” - just like YOU! This isn’t *science* you’ve linked to, it’s *science-fiction*.
Learn the difference - idi*t.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pmMUST READ
Excellent diary yesterday on DKos exposing Beck’s guests as shills of the very industries doing the most polluting
Bios and research on Beck’s climate “experts”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/2/18846/55511
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pmwill thinkprogress.org answer the question of why the same Liberals that today claim Global Warming in the 1970s were screaming about a Global Icing? what happened? you were wrong then, obviously you are wrong today.
or how about the Liberals who claimed in the 1960s that by 1990 the USA would be in a full blown civil war because of overpopulation.
yes, this is the fear tactics of the left, which they claim the right uses.
and let us not forget that Al Gore demanded that the debate be over about Global Warming since he, who has no scientific degrees of any kind, has claimed that Global Warming is official and caused by humans.
wait….the Liberals were claiming Global Icing in the 70s. Icing, warming, icing, warming, which one is it? hahaha!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm“The market is taking care of it.”
Yes it is. That’s why Toyota is the #1 automaker in the world, they are the #1 make of hybrids. And Honda, with the best fleet gas mileage, is doing well too. Toyota and Honda are building plants and hiring workers in the US and Canada. Union workers.
Meanwhile, the Big Three dinosaurs continue to market their huge gas guzzlers. They are all laying off and closing plants, and they are all at junk bond status. Mercedes is not trying to offload Chrysler.
Funny how the Neocons are big Adam Smith types, until its their ox being gored. The market is taking care of GM Ford and Chrysler.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pmHow many millions is Al Gore making out of the idiots that believe his lies about Global Warming and paying his company to do carbon footprint offsets.
Al Gore is laughing at these idiots all the way to the bank.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 pmIs the Hoover Institute one of the 43 organizations that Exxon-Mobil funded to produce reports denying global warming?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 pmMore reading: http://www.realclimate.org/
But wait! That’s a website run by climatologists. Obviously, they can’t be trusted because all they care about is funding for their research. We’re much better off getting our information from FauxNews. And Beck.
Never mind.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmUntil this asshat earns a Ph.D. in Environmental Science or Climatology, I think the world should turn a deaf ear…what a douche bag.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmAnd the tooth fairy could leave you a quarter.
Thomas Gale Moore, is a Hoover Institute wingnut. He’s not a climatologist a geologist, a biologist or any other scientific “ist†- just like YOU! This isn’t *science* you’ve linked to, it’s *science-fiction*.
Learn the difference - idi*t.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Did you read anything in it? Of course not, I’m sure it’s over your head.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmAl Gore is not lying. The troll is lying.
I caught the troll lying in a previous blog.
Go back under your bridge, troll.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmThe market is driving the car industry to change. But the government forcing them to do so is wrong. Let the market take care of it. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Why is that wrong? The government currently subsidizes the car companies NOT to change, with international military efforts to secure oil resources. You’re saying it’s OK to go to Iraq for oil to help companies, but not OK to help companies get off of oil? That’s just plain st*pid son!
If people stop buying gas-guzzlers they the manufactures will stop making them. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
If the government legislates minimal standards - the car companies will stop f*cking things up. See how simple that is? And NO WAITING!
But the process does take some time. I’m all for using less gas. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Yes, time that would have already passed if the GOP hadn’t blocked it.
Want to cut down on energy cost. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Actually there are several things we can do on that.
Let’s build more Nuclear power plants. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Nuclear is very expensive in both short term and long term - and cars don’t run on nuclear - Jake*ss.
Or make solar more cost effective to install. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
That’s a st*pid statement. Solar is already cost effective, it’s just capital intensive. If the US had spent the 2 TRILLION the Iraq war will cost us when it’s all done on capital - see that wouldn’t have been a problem either.
Make electric cars look cool. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Make car companies make electric cars.
Make it so I can still drive a truck and haul stuff around without losing any power on the road. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
So you want a *magic* car? How old are you - 6? You have such an undeveloped mind son.
The market can do all of this without the government getting involved. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Can and WILL are two different things. As long as wingNUTS like you keep let car companies get away with sh*t - they’ll never change. They’ll do just like Chrysler did, and whine for government bailouts as well.
You’re a loser Kevin - catch a clue! St*pid *ssh*les just like you run American car companies - that’s why they’re f*cking the world, and themselves! Because you can’t help yourselves!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmLiberals,
I take it Mars is warming up because those darn Martians are driving those darn Martian SUVs, right?
hey if Global Warming is so real, why is that the Democratic Presidential candidates flew into the debate last week in individual private planes?
If Global Warming is so real, why don’t these presidential candidates lead by example and fly commercial?
why did Hellary Clinton appear at a Global Warming event with a freaking 18-wheeler?
If Global Warming is so real, why did Hellary Clinton just by a gasoline guzzler of a private jet plane?
yes, liberals want to tell us how to live our lives, but they aren’t willing to make the sacrifice they ask of us. why? because they know something we don’t.
Human are not the cause of Global Warming. If it is as dire as Al gore claims in his jokek of a movie, why aren’t people that believe in Global Warming, why aren’t the politicians who believe in Global Warming making drastic changes to their life style?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmIs the Hoover Institute one of the 43 organizations that Exxon-Mobil funded to produce reports denying global warming?
Comment by Tom3
And what about all the grant money that exists for the supporters of global warming?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmDid you read anything in it? Of course not, I’m sure it’s over your head.Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Do you really think people don’t know who this “Climate of Fear” *ssh*le is?
Did you read the IPCC report? Of course not, who needs science, when you prefer science fiction! I’m sure it’s over your head though… I don’t blame you for avoiding *actual* science!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmKevin #36,
I hear you on the ‘letting the market do the work’ thing. But I’m afraid they haven’t responded to the calls. People want powerful cars, but I’m sure they would buy powerful battery operated cars first. Raising CAFE standards is something that Americans overwhelmingly support. Sometimes business and the ‘market’ need apush in the right direction. It doesn’t fix everything. If it did, we wouldn’t have had to pass child labor laws and the like.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pmBeck’s orifices, top and bottom, are the single greatest cause of greenhouse gasses. Plug his holes and save the planet.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ article1720024.ece
“Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.â€
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Poor dear st*pid child. This was already debunked by *real* scientists - not the *science-fiction* writers you prefer to read. I can see it’s more of the same for you. You can’t distinguish an *editorial* from a *scientific-analysis*. Poor st*pid child…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pmValiantthehater, I’ll ask you the same question:
What evidence would you require to acknowledge the validity of man-made global warming?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pmWho would you regard as a scientific authority that, if they said it is happening, you would believe them?
What would satisfy you?
More stupid arguments from the troll.
Thats the new tactic, dig up stuff on Dems using energy and use it to try and discredit the fact that global warming is happening and it is largely caused by man.
That bullshit won’t fly.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pmComment by Tom3 — May 3, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
So you agree that the market is doing the job. Glad to have you agreeing with me. Thanks Tom3.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmComment by pbg — May 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
pbg,
It is so simple. All mammals face extinction at some point! NASA launched SOHO a ways back and it has been helping with the study of the Sun. The Sun has been more active over the past many years than ever in recorded history. This is causing all the bodies in our solar system to get hotter. Our human pollution does not reach Venus but it is a few degrees warmer.
In the mean time we are out of energy to the point that we are willing to build more nuclear reactors. It was detected that 1000000 gallons + of high level radioactive waste hit the drinking water in Washington State. There goes the water. More than 60% of US bees are DEAD and that number is going up. There goes the food. Ghawar is an oil field in Saudi Arabia and its oil production rate is declining at over 8% per year. There goes the oil. Need any more??
The party is over!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmThe GM electric car EV-1 WAS cool. It was a sports car and could burn rubber.
But GM killed it. Probably Exxon told them to.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmI seriously doubt the troll agrees with me that Ford, GM and Chrysler are run by management idiots and are all going under.
Management idiots who are “conservatives” and voted for Chimpy twice.
Idiots like the troll.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmDon’t worry, Saywho. We won’t run out of food.
Repukes are all plump fattys. The other white meat.
Karl Rove on a spit with an apple in his mouth.
LOL!! 8^)
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmKevin, I asked you a question.
Whar would you regard as sufficient evidence to believe that man-made global warming is true?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmWhat study? Whose scientific authority?
The free market is as mythical as the free lunch. Its most vociferous proponents are social Darwinist ideologues who are lining their pockets. As a foundation for a just society, it is as deluded a choice as communism has proved to be. It has as much chance of mitigating global warming as the proverbial snowball.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmJust my opinion.
Do you really think people don’t know who this “Climate of Fear†*ssh*le is?
Did you read the IPCC report? Of course not, who needs science, when you prefer science fiction! I’m sure it’s over your head though… I don’t blame you for avoiding *actual* science!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I did read it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmHer hot air alone is probable cause of this callamity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmI want to know what people think about the current warming trends on Mars. They are experiencing similiar warming as us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ article1720024.ece
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmI want to know what http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 05/ 03/ beck-chetry/ #comments
Think Progress » Former Fox Host Helps CNN Promote Glenn Beck’s Anti-Global Warming Agendapeople think about the current warming trends on Mars. They are experiencing similiar warming as us.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ article1720024.ece
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
We think you should stop confusing *science-fiction* with science. There is no *trend* on mars - there’s an isolated incident. It would be equivalent of you saying - because it’s colder this winter in NYC, we have *global* cooling.
But thanks for *playing*, and showing the world exactly how *unscientific* you are - child.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmI did read it.
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
BAHAHAHA, sure you did - yet you still can’t tell the difference between science and science fiction. Like I said - too *complicated* for you understand!!! Stop lying, we both know you DIDN’T read it!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmOne of Bush’s biggest cheerleaders and bootlick to Rupert Murdoch, Australia’s Howard the Lame Duck Prime Minister has admitted Global Warming is not a myth and is backed up by scientific evidence.
Howard’s conversion came when the worst drought in a 1000 years threatened to turn Australia’s breadbasket into a dustbowl. The coral reefs down under are dying and the coastline has been battered by dozens of once in a century storms.
This sudden awakening, however, is unlikely to save Howard’s political skin as the country heads to the polls this fall. Howard is one dead duck. And Labor will likely take a different tack from being Bush’s other Commonwealth Cheerleader.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmSo you agree that the market is doing the job. Glad to have you agreeing with me. Thanks Tom3. Comment by Kevin — May 3, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
As opposed to fossil fuels, where the market is gamed by the US military control of international oil resources? If you free market theorists were what you say you are - you’d pull back the military. So much for practicing what you preach!
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pmSaywho, that’s not what I asked you.
I’ll ask it again:
What evidence do you need? What scientific authority would you acknowledge to admit human-caused global warming is happening?
It’s a simple question.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pmWe think you should stop confusing *science-fiction* with science. There is no *trend* on mars - there’s an isolated incident. It would be equivalent of you saying - because it’s colder this winter in NYC, we have *global* cooling.
But thanks for *playing*, and showing the world exactly how *unscientific* you are - child.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Not a trend?
“Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period”
You do see that the people that say this are *scientists* from NASA, but I guess we should trust you on this instead of them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmPeople like Glenn Beck are a cause for concern, but the greatest concern should be that so many people are dumb and gullible enough to believe them.
Comment by Karp’s disciple — May 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
People like you are cause for concern! You happen to be dumb enough to believe that humans can solve this issue by spending money. You happen to be dumb enough to cast aside the fact that the entire solar system is getting warmer. You are the one who is dumb enough to listen to Al Gore inventor of the internet. You are dumb enough to believe that we can reduce energy consumption. Grow up!
Comment by Saywho
What evidence do you have to support your statement that I “believe that humans can solve this issue by spending money”? I listen to more than Al Gore on this issue. I pay attention to reports issued by people regarded as the world’s leading scientists and journalists like George Monbiot. As for your statement about reducing energy consumption it seems many people believe we can. If you can tear yourself away from listening to the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and their ilk, you’ll find many responsible people holding that belief. Even your leader in the White House has made comments in that direction.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmComment by Tom3 — May 3, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Making jokes in the face of danger is good stuff! The denial of reality by posters here is mind numbing.
No bees= No food
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pmNo natural gas= No fertalizer= No food
No oil= No deep mining for uranium= No food
No energy= No 6.5BILLION people
Saywho:
I’m not denying anything. I’m asking you to answer a question for me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pmNot a trend?
“Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same periodâ€
You do see that the people that say this are *scientists* from NASA, but I guess we should trust you on this instead of them.
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Where’s your source, which *scientist*? Because the link I sent you to says the opposite. It in fact points out that temperature variations are SEVERAL DEGREES from year to year, because of wide scale dust storms. It also points out that mars is cooler since the 1970s, not hotter.
Where again is your source? I hope you didn’t pull it from a wingNUT site - they’re *notoriously* dishonest and good at duping gullible little *unscientific* children like you!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmNo bees= No food
No natural gas= No fertalizer= No food
No oil= No deep mining for uranium= No food
No energy= No 6.5BILLION people
Comment by Saywho — May 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Nonsense.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmIf you free market theorists were what you say you are - you’d pull back the military. So much for practicing what you preach!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Spot on, buddy. Spot on.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe Mars story is a red herring, based on one researcher’s opinion. It’s not the opinion of NASA scientists, however. Sorry, troll. It’s one Russian researcher and his theory was fairly well debunked two years ago.
Debunking: http://tinyurl.com/2ynr8n
Even those suggesting that solar warming plays a part in global warming are referring to 10-30% of the effect.
Red Planet=Red Herring
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pmWhere’s your source, which *scientist*? Because the link I sent you to says the opposite. It in fact points out that temperature variations are SEVERAL DEGREES from year to year, because of wide scale dust storms. It also points out that mars is cooler since the 1970s, not hotter.
Where again is your source? I hope you didn’t pull it from a wingNUT site - they’re *notoriously* dishonest and good at duping gullible little *unscientific* children like you!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Actually your link does not work and the article I posted the link to came from the UK Times Online, are you saying they are a right wing site?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pmI sent CNN an e-mail a long time ago telling them that as long as they associate with Glen Beck, I will not be associating with them. I also do this with advertisers. You would be surprised at some of the emails I have received back from advertisers. I think they are paying attention.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmSaywho, that’s not what I asked you.
I’ll ask it again:
What evidence do you need? What scientific authority would you acknowledge to admit human-caused global warming is happening?
It’s a simple question.
Comment by pbg — May 3, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I responded in detail and included science fact like the entire universe is getting warmer just for you because I’m down like that! I accept NASA’s findings. I also accept that if carbon emission from burning fossil fuel is a factor then there is no hope at all. Once oil is burned you can’t put it back.
Stop burning oil and we will starve! Burn oil and we will starve! I again mentioned that humans have clearly overshot the Earth’s carrying capacity by a large margin so the die-off will be that much more exciting from an out world view.
I’m not being obtuse. I’m being realistic. If I believed in the Bible we would be in the book of Revelations at this point. I just accepted the notion that all things come to an end and my wife knows I love her. The greatest thing humans ever did was land on the moon. Now we can hope that some of us can get back to the Stone Age.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmJohn M., would this Martian scientist be the same one who has seem pyramids and canals on Mars? Remnants of an ancient civilization. Is there a face in Martian stone staring out at us? They report, you decide.
NUTS.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmI don’t see the problem. Why can’t it be questioned? I thought there was no such thing as a stupid and pointless question.
So if people can’t question it and it turns out that it isn’t manmade, it will happen anyway.
We should focus on why it is happening because that will tell us where to focus our energies. If it is manmade, then we should do what we can to dissolve it. If it isn’t then we should be looking for alternitives. So stop your griping about who can and who cannot ask honest questions because it’s nuts to not question everything. It makes you smarter.
With enough research, even Glenn Beck may find that he believes it’s manmade… We’ll just have to wait and see.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmI agree #25. I think they are afraid that Al Gore may run, therefore, they will do their best to beat him down any means necessary.
As to CNN, I don’t watch it anymore.
As to Global Warning, the threat is there. What % man has done and what % is natural, our main concern at least for our children is to TRY to protect the earth and try to reverse the damage and try and stop as much as possible the continued damaging effect. God gave us the will and the intelligence to survive. Let’s use it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmThe Times (UK) is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmI would like to know who funds RealClimate.org, it does not state on the website. Does anybody know?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:20 pmJohn M., your link to the Times just goes to the front page. No story there. Besides, isn’t the Times owned by Fox’s Murdoch?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmActually your link does not work and the article I posted the link to came from the UK Times Online, are you saying they are a right wing site?
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
B*llsh*t, I just tested the link - it works fine. Sounds like your browser is simply broken. Go to realclimate dot org and search for mars warming. It’s p 192 in the url. The site is run by *real-scientists*.
I hate to inform you of this, but the UKTimes isn’t a *scientific* journal, and their coverage is terse at best. The story was also intentionally sensationalized - beginning with the title. Or had you missed that *fact*.
Just so you know, the scientist quoted has her research here where it was published in nature. It doesn’t say what you think it says *child*…
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pmOK, beckoner, the question that nobody else seems willing to answer:
What evidence would you need to acknowledge that man-made global warming is indeed happening? What sort of study would satisfy you?
Which scientist or group of scientists, if they made this assertion, would you acknowledge?
What would it take for you?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmI really don’t understand why they bother debating it anymore, okay, it’s f*cking going on and the only thing keeping it from changing is ourselves. There’s always that debate from the oil companies and republicans and whoever that going green is bad for business. Bullsh*t! People are good at making money, and even if all the oil dries up people will find a way. GE could make bookoo bucks by building fields of wind power generators. Idiots like Glenn Beck really do have this country in a stangle hold with their idiocy. If Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly just turned around tomorrow and said they were wrong and that we need to do something about this, something would eventually get done. I wouldn’t even give a crap if their only motivation was because they had millions invested in solar energy. I guess my point is I wish Glenn Beck would just be quiet and think about his own bottom line a little more.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmJohn M., your link to the Times just goes to the front page. No story there. Besides, isn’t the Times owned by Fox’s Murdoch
Look at post #22
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:29 pmI would like to know who funds RealClimate.org, it does not state on the website. Does anybody know? Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
So you won’t read it’s content, until you know who funds it? Typical conservative.
They’re independent scientists, and their blog has garnered awards from peer reviewed scientific journals.
Like I said, an unscientific *hack* like you, assumes everyone else is a *hack* for sale. Pure projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:29 pmOh JohnM, it’s a *blog*, you don’t need to *fund* a blog. You only need dedicated scientists willing to write for it in their spare time.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmOne of the Right-Wing’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. A 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.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism that Beck and others propose for global warming. But, yet again, the method has been exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”. This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on , five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm“We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work, but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen.” said Schmidt.
None of this seems to have troubled the right-wingers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
Look at post #22
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Oh, you might want to look at the individual credentials of the scientists that contribute to that blog. You know, things like NASA climate scientists - etc.,
What’s your reference again? Oh, right. A third party regurgitation of the actual story I sent to you. If Lori’s article is over your head, let someone know, and we can translate it to *little-boy* for you - OK?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmB*llsh*t, I just tested the link - it works fine. Sounds like your browser is simply broken. Go to realclimate dot org and search for mars warming. It’s p 192 in the url. The site is run by *real-scientists*.
I hate to inform you of this, but the UKTimes isn’t a *scientific* journal, and their coverage is terse at best. The story was also intentionally sensationalized - beginning with the title. Or had you missed that *fact*.
Just so you know, the scientist quoted has her research here where it was published in nature. It doesn’t say what you think it says *child*…
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I just did a little digging about realclimate and apparently it was started by somebody named Betsly Ensley, who also started webistes such as bushgreenwatch.org and womenagainstbush.org. Clearly somebody with an axe to grind. Talk about credible sources??????
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmThere was a time when a lot of people didn’t believe the world was round either.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmSo you won’t read it’s content, until you know who funds it? Typical conservative.
They’re independent scientists, and their blog has garnered awards from peer reviewed scientific journals.
Like I said, an unscientific *hack* like you, assumes everyone else is a *hack* for sale. Pure projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
You are so funny-look what you said about my links. Hypocrite.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pmWhat would it take for you?
Comment by pbg — May 3, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Listen Dude/Chick,
Just speak your mind or whatever. If you have empirical evidence then hang it out there. If not than accept that many do not agree w/ you. SOHO shows an active sun and other indicators show that the solar system is hotter. You can carbon down if you want and you will have a chance this summer in the USA when gas hits over $4.09 per/gal.
We make fertilizer by using natural gas and oil. Organic farming is great if you have time for field rotation. We can’t grow enough food w/ out nitrogen based fertilizer. Less bees means less food and less food means some people get pissed since they are hungry. Crop failure leads to even fewer bees the next time. GM corn is a big suspect but it made it to the wild.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:41 pmhttp://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmResearch is finally being conducted on the effects of the chemical cocktails created by the mixing of pesticides and herbicides.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pmResearchers have found that the combination of paraquat, a common herbicide, and maneb, a commonly used fungicide, creates the molecular equivalent of Parkinson’s disease.
A regional map of the extensive combined use of these two chemicals mirrors exactly a map of high incidences of Parkinson’s, cancer, and Alzheimers.
This is only one example of the ignorance with which modern corporate agriculture has bathed the environment with potential timebombs.
The combined effect of these assaults on natural systems could easily wipe out honeybees, which we are seeing.
The U.S. lost 25% of its honeybees this past year, 5 times the “normal” loss which has been steadily increasing every year.
For anyone to poo-poo the combined effects of climate change, environmental degradation, and chemical saturation is, well, pretty stupid.
You are so funny-look what you said about my links. Hypocrite.
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
What, to a story about the science, instead of the science? Boy, you’re really st*pid.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmhttp://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Talk about st*pid, if you had read the IPCC report - as you falsely claim - you would know that these criticisms were fully answered. You’re such a st*pid hack. Leave the science to people that understand the meaning of the word *science* - you idiot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pmI just did a little digging about realclimate and apparently it was started by somebody named Betsly Ensley, who also started webistes such as bushgreenwatch.org and womenagainstbush.org. Clearly somebody with an axe to grind. Talk about credible sources?????? Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Actually all of the *source* material is written by the scientists listed on the site - scientists that actually are *published*. The person with the axe to grind is you! So having someone be politically active as a pro environmental person in your book dismisses them as “having an axe to grind”? Then by your definition, your posts here are partisan, useless and should be dismissed - because YOU have the axe to grind.
See, how that projection works *son*? You’re such an idiot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 pmThe Science Bit
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established (since 1988) by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.
The IPCC also prepares Special Reports and Technical Papers on topics where independent scientific information and advice is deemed necessary and it supports the UNFCCC through its work on methodologies for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
WMO - World Meteorological Organization
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC - UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Have a look at the scientific basis report here.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmand this interesting graph here.
Talk about st*pid, if you had read the IPCC report - as you falsely claim - you would know that these criticisms were fully answered. You’re such a st*pid hack. Leave the science to people that understand the meaning of the word *science* - you idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Keep trusting your junk science.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 pmActually all of the *source* material is written by the scientists listed on the site - scientists that actually are *published*. The person with the axe to grind is you! So having someone be politically active as a pro environmental person in your book dismisses them as “having an axe to grind� Then by your definition, your posts here are partisan, useless and should be dismissed - because YOU have the axe to grind.
See, how that projection works *son*? You’re such an idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Why won’t you admit they are all bought? The whole global warming cabal is made up of political agenda that caters to the fears of morons like you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm“In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)
The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not. “
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmJohn M., just who is this Global Warming cabal working for? It’s not like the oil company scientists; there’s no particular group funding this. Indeed, the concern is that climate change will destroy our economies and cause widespread famine and population displacement. I guess you see that as a good thing?
There is no good science that doubts Global Warming. The only dispute is over whether things are bad, very bad, or catastrophic. And, since there’s such a long turnaround time for any human made solutions, the pressure is on.
We need to take a kind of Pascal’s Wager. If Fossil Fuels aren’t the cause of GW, we can burn them all we want until they run out in 2050. If they are the cause and we do nothing, we’ll all die of heat, hunger and thirst in 2050. Since we’ll have to find alternative energy by 2050 any way, isn’t it safer to bet that Global Warming is a fact and do it now? If it is a fact, there’s no saying “Oooops” in 20 years, because millions will die.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pmHow does anyone with a brain take a jackwad like Beck seriously anyway? THe other night he was having a circle jerk with the authors of the “Left Behind” books and a crazy fundamentalist minister, quoting bizarre interpretations of scripture. The guy needs some kind of anti-psychotic medication or something.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pmI plan to write them and tell them I have no intention of EVER WATCHING THEIR show so long as they have batwings as hosts.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmThere is no good science that doubts Global Warming. The only dispute is over whether things are bad, very bad, or catastrophic. And, since there’s such a long turnaround time for any human made solutions, the pressure is on.
Comment by david
Dissent against global warming is not allowed. It has taken on a life of its own. Which is why sites like realclimate don’t even allow any contradictory opinions from climate scientists that are disputing it. The money is there, for grants to political gain to tax money for regulations.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmSaywho, it’s a simple question.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmBeck’s show is #1 among Asperger’s sufferers and g.e.d. holders.
anyone see the movie “Idiocracy”, and then wonder why it was set in the future at all? we’re obviously already there, in terms of the profound ignorace that permeates our broken, bankrupt culture.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pmDissent against global warming is not allowed. It has taken on a life of its own. Which is why sites like realclimate don’t even allow any contradictory opinions from climate scientists that are disputing it. The money is there, for grants to political gain to tax money for regulations.
Comment by John M
Learn to read, please. Realclimate is a blog, and as such contains hundreds of comments disputing the writers’ claims. If you have actual data and research that contradicts that which is being posted there by actual climatologists, please feel free to comment or submit your own articles. If, as seems apparent, you have absolutely no way of judging the science other than ranting hysterically about “liberals”, then stfu.
Nicely, of course.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmKeep trusting your junk science.
Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
More projection. When your *junk-scientists* that you quote submit *peer-reviewed* science that backs up your claim, come back and talk child. Until then, the IPCC says you’re a *junkie* idiot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pmDissent against global warming is not allowed. It has taken on a life of its own. Which is why sites like realclimate don’t even allow any contradictory opinions from climate scientists that are disputing it. The money is there, for grants to political gain to tax money for regulations. Comment by John M — May 3, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
B*llsh*t. The site is a blog, you can dissent all you want. Just be aware that the scientists will point out what an idiot you are with *real* research - much like I have.
There’s plenty of money for *counter-research* - paid for by Exxon and friends. That’s where your *dissent* opinions come from child! The only problem is that NONE of them have come up with research that proves their pre-conceptions. Which is why you *flat-earthers* are such a treat to deal with…
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pmComment by gummitch — May 3, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Poor JohnM is mentally r*t*rded. He doesn’t know what a *blog* means.. . Poor little sh*the*d.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmGlenn Beck is right about Global Warming and you tree hugging liberal commie nut bags are wrong. Stop attacking people who don’t agree with you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmLearn to read, please. Realclimate is a blog, and as such contains hundreds of comments disputing the writers’ claims. If you have actual data and research that contradicts that which is being posted there by actual climatologists, please feel free to comment or submit your own articles. If, as seems apparent, you have absolutely no way of judging the science other than ranting hysterically about “liberalsâ€, then stfu.
Nicely, of course.
Comment by gummitch
People can comment, but the site does not allow any dissenting scientists to show their conclusions.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmPoor JohnM is mentally r*t*rded. He doesn’t know what a *blog* means.. . Poor little sh*the*d.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Keep projecting and protectig your junk science.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmGlenn Beck is right about Global Warming and you tree hugging liberal commie nut bags are wrong. Stop attacking people who don’t agree with you.
Comment by Lee Adama
That is all they know how to do, it’s a religion with many minions serving.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm“Dissent against global warming is not allowed. It has taken on a life of its own. Which is why sites like realclimate don’t even allow any contradictory opinions from climate scientists that are disputing it. The money is there, for grants to political gain to tax money for regulations.”
This argument is a red herring; decent is always allowed in science, which is part of the scientific method. RealClimate is a privately owned site, they can allow or disallow anything they want. Such comments are always welcome at JunkScience.
I hear this statement about scientists out for money, but what self respecting scientist would stake his reputation on an erroneous theory; simply put scientific suicide! This is just another unproven accusation. The science skeptics can publish anytime they want in a peer-reviewed journal, so far they haven’t.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pmThis argument is a red herring; decent is always allowed in science, which is part of the scientific method. RealClimate is a privately owned site, they can allow or disallow anything they want. Such comments are always welcome at JunkScience.
I hear this statement about scientists out for money, but what self respecting scientist would stake his reputation on an erroneous theory; simply put scientific suicide! This is just another unproven accusation. The science skeptics can publish anytime they want in a peer-reviewed journal, so far they haven’t.
Comment by Lore — May 3, 2007
The problem is that the scientific method was not followed with global warming.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pmIt is laughable that you guys ‘pro & against’ are arguing this issue.
Beck and Chetry interest were not the ’scientifc ‘and ‘non scientific’ one of this issue and never was….Their main goal was smear Al-Gore….
That’s what Beck’s does every night..find him a ‘punch bag’ to hit. Chetry was their to assist him…
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pmand Al-Gore happened to be his bag that night. Linking Al Gore to Bible and God is nothing but a sell that night to his audience.
The problem is that the scientific method was not followed with global warming.
Where are your references to where it has not? And please not the Nature “hockey stick” controversy.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmBeck has been on the Al Gore kick for sometime. A sort of unholy fixation, or possibly just a controversial whipping boy to bring up his ratings with the Right. He has even patterned his new speaking tour after “An Inconvenient Truth”, calling it “An Inconvenient Tourâ€. What is they say, “imitation being the best form of flattery.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmWhere are your references to where it has not? And please not the Nature “hockey stick†controversy.
Comment by Lore — May 3, 2007
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
“I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2