What Global Warming?

[red states rule]

Now even some outlets in the liberal media are asking the same question I have been asking for sometime

What global warming?


What global warming? West Palm shows few signs of rising temperatures
By Mark Hollis | Tallahassee Bureau
July 25, 2007

TALLAHASSEE A study of new government climate data finds that temperatures across Florida are on the rise, but some places such as West Palm Beach are experiencing fewer signs of warmer-than-normal weather.

Those findings, included in a report released Tuesday by a Tallahassee-based environmental advocacy group that studied climate statistics, presents a mixed picture for parts of South Florida.

While ocean breezes, cloudy days and certain weather patterns can keep local temperatures from spiking, scientists say South Floridians still have at least one major reason to be concerned about global warming: The possible rise of sea level leading to the loss of local beaches.

"Moving to West Palm Beach to a condo on the beach may be comfortable from a temperature and lifestyle standpoint, but it may not be your best bet [because of sea-level rise]," said Jeff Chanton, a geologist and oceanographer at Florida State University.

for the complete article
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flftemps0725pnjul25,0,749955.story

[red states rule]

List of Global Warming Skeptics Grows, Media Couldn’t Care Less
By Noel Sheppard | May 16, 2007 - 13:30 ET
While global warming alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry sycophants continue talking about a scientific consensus concerning man’s role in “climate change,” the list of scientists that have grown skeptical of this nexus continues to grow.

Unfortunately, a media obsessed with advancing hysteria on the subject refuse to acknowledge the existence of such folks as they continue to pound the table about the imminent doom to the planet.

With that in mind, Sen. James Inhofe’s office (R-Oklahoma) is preparing a “detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria [that] will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.”

Inhofe’s communications director, Marc Morano, published a few of these names, as well as their backgrounds and conclusions, at Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog Tuesday:

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic.
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic.
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming.
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history.
Like many of you, I look forward to the full report being prepared by Sen. Inhofe’s office, and can’t way to see Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric begin their respective evening new broadcasts with these revelations.

Of course, I am not holding my breath.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12793

[red states rule]

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
By Noel Sheppard | July 7, 2007 - 10:19 ET
Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.

Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.

As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.

The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.

"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."


How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject – says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions. Surely he can’t be wrong:

A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.

Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.


Wait. Isn’t the debate over and the science settled on this issue? It appears not:

More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.

A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.

But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.


Incredible. And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:

Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.

"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.


Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?

No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

[red states rule]

Floods show global warming is here
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 28/07/2007Page 1 of 3

As Britain counts the costs of the worst floods in 200 years, Charles Clover argues the signs of global warming are now impossible to ignore

Big Ben, the London Eye and Westminster Abbey awash. The submerged streets of London indistinguishable from the Thames. Admittedly, the above image, arresting as it is, is the stuff of cinematic trickery. But could it happen? One day, if we are not careful, it just might.

Of course, nowhere in the country are flood defences built to a higher standard than in London, because of the value, strategic and otherwise, of what lies behind them, so Trafalgar Square is unlikely ever to be as vulnerable as Tewkesbury, even though most of the capital is on a flood plain.

But if the floods of this week have taught us anything, it is that few events can be more extraordinary than the weather - and there is plenty of reason to think long and hard about the extraordinary weather we have recently been experiencing.

It was on Monday last week, July 16, that Met Office forecasters studying computer models of what the weather over the Atlantic might have in store for us began to believe that this summer's second burst of exceptional rain might be about to strike somewhere in England and Wales, bringing with it severe flooding.

advertisement
Even though the Met Office did not have satellite images of the clouds forming until Thursday, by Wednesday night its computers had predicted accurately that severe weather would hit the south-west Midlands last Friday. By Thursday they knew we would be getting at least 4in (100mm) of rain.

The Environment Agency flood-warning centre, which works with the Met Office, went into action and from late Thursday duly began delivering its automated alerts to people in high-risk areas who had signed up for them. Only 40 per cent of those living in high-risk flood areas had, but 123,000 people were successfully warned.

By Friday morning, the agency's press office had arranged for Lady Young, its chief executive, to go on radio and television to make it absolutely clear that severe rainfall and flooding was expected in those areas later in the day.

But it was only at 2pm on Friday that the order was given to take the large temporary flood barriers that protect properties on the banks of the River Severn out of their store in Kidderminster and to take them north to Upton upon Severn.

They never made it. Even though the agency vehicles carrying them had police outriders as they raced up the M5, they were caught in a tailback. A flash flood had preceded them and the carriageway was blocked.

By the next morning the 30 houses that the barriers would have protected were awash. They would almost certainly have been over-topped anyway, given the force of the floodwater that, by the end of the weekend, had engulfed 10,000 homes and caused the loss of four lives.

It left insured losses worth £3 billion and uninsured losses to farmers and landowners likely to exceed those during the foot-and-mouth epidemic.

We now know that the storm of last Friday was the worst summer flood since the early 19th century. For the counties affected it was as bad as the spring floods of 1947.

But it was more exceptional than that because it happened in the summer. Meteorologists say that in the short term the rain was caused by the jet stream, the ribbon of very strong winds in the upper atmosphere that largely determines where weather systems will bring rain across western Europe.

For much of the summer the jet stream has been further south and stronger than in a typical summer.

This has resulted in many depressions crossing southern and central parts of Britain, interacting with very warm and moist air to the south and generating exceptionally heavy rain storms, while other parts of Europe are experiencing drought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/28/eaflood128.xml&page=1

[red states rule]

Cold Snap in Peru Kills 70 Children, Media Couldn’t Care Less
By Noel Sheppard | July 28, 2007 - 16:33 ET

By now, you've likely heard about the floods in England, and how the media believe them to be caused by global warming.

However, have you heard about the cold snap in Peru that has already killed 70 children?

You haven't? Well, how could you? After all, no American media outlet has felt it to be newsworthy.

Yet, the following was reported by the BBC on Wednesday, and, as amazing as it might seem, was republished by Press TV Iran's website Thursday (h/t NB reader Rolf Rothermel):

At least 70 children have died during a spell of freezing weather in the Andean regions of Peru, officials have said.

The children, all under five years old, died of pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses over the past three months.

They lived in rural areas at high altitude, where temperatures in some cases are reported to have plummeted to as low as -20C (-4F).

Sadly, this situation is expected to get worse before it gets any better:

Forecasters in Peru are predicting the cold spell will continue until September.

[...]

Many adults have also died during the harsh winter, and thousands of people are suffering from pneumonia and other respiratory infections.

This is one of the worst cold-related disasters in Peru's history. Yet, Google news and LexisNexis searches found no American media covering this story.

Think they'd be so disinterested if there was a heat-related disaster killing children somewhere?

No. I don't either.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/28/cold-snap-peru-kills-70-children-media-couldn-t-care-less

[gabosaurus]

I guess the only "real" conservative media outlets are Fox and the New York Post.
Who reads the news to you?

[red states rule]

I guess the only "real" conservative media outlets are Fox and the New York Post.
Who reads the news to you?

Still doing the liberal two step - unable to debate the facts; and right into the personal attacks and insults

Next you will say Al Gore is doing his part to conserve energy

[Spyder Jerusalem]

unable to debate the facts; and right into the personal attacks and insults

Said the pot to the kettle!

[nevadamedic]

Now even some outlets in the liberal media are asking the same question I have been asking for sometime

What global warming?


What global warming? West Palm shows few signs of rising temperatures
By Mark Hollis | Tallahassee Bureau
July 25, 2007

TALLAHASSEE A study of new government climate data finds that temperatures across Florida are on the rise, but some places such as West Palm Beach are experiencing fewer signs of warmer-than-normal weather.

Those findings, included in a report released Tuesday by a Tallahassee-based environmental advocacy group that studied climate statistics, presents a mixed picture for parts of South Florida.

While ocean breezes, cloudy days and certain weather patterns can keep local temperatures from spiking, scientists say South Floridians still have at least one major reason to be concerned about global warming: The possible rise of sea level leading to the loss of local beaches.

"Moving to West Palm Beach to a condo on the beach may be comfortable from a temperature and lifestyle standpoint, but it may not be your best bet [because of sea-level rise]," said Jeff Chanton, a geologist and oceanographer at Florida State University.

for the complete article
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flftemps0725pnjul25,0,749955.story

Global Warming is a scam to scare people into voting for Democrat's that can supposedly protect us. :laugh2:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Care to prove that?

Or is it just more republifascist conservatard shitspew?

[nevadamedic]

Care to prove that?

Or is it just more republifascist conservatard shitspew?

It's been posted on here by several people several times, quit being lazy anf look it up yourself.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Pardon me, but I'm a bit new.

Would you be so kind as to be a good hostess and provide that info when you bring it up?
Thanks ever so much, sweetie!

[red states rule]

Global Warming is a scam to scare people into voting for Democrat's that can supposedly protect us. :laugh2:

It is also an attack on capitalism by the left

[red states rule]

USAToday Reports More Bluster on Hurricanes, Global Warming
By Ken Shepherd | July 30, 2007 - 02:00 ET
The 1800s wrought mass industrialization and technological marvels. Weather satellites, obviously, were not one of them.

But that point didn't bear repeating until deep in Dan Vergano's July 30 article, "Study links more hurricanes, climate change."

Reads the lede:

The number of hurricanes that strike each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday.

It took to paragraph nine of the 13-paragraph story to bring around a dissenting opinion:

The new study drew criticism from experts who dispute the merits of combining data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when hurricane-tracking satellites didn't exist, with statistics gleaned from more modern technology.

"Looking for trends in noisy count data is fraught with problems," says researcher James Elsner of Florida State University in Tallahassee. "I agree with the message, but cannot recommend the science."

Of course for the liberal media, the message is more important than the science. For example, the fact that at least one 2007 hurricane forecast has been downgraded went unmentioned by Vergano, while 2006's relative quiet was dismissed as one that would have been considered "stormy" in 1906.

While it was appropriate and commendable for Vergano to find critics of the new study, it would have served the reader better for him to note the controversy in the lede and then to alternate the following grafs between supporters and detractors of the study's conclusions.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2007/07/30/usatoday-reports-more-bluster-hurricanes-global-warming

[red states rule]

Global Warming is a scam to scare people into voting for Democrat's that can supposedly protect us. :laugh2:

Will libs blame Pres Bush for Mars suffering from global warming?

Who the hell sent the SUV's to Mars?

[Nukeman]

Care to prove that?

Or is it just more republifascist conservatard shitspew?I for one feel they (scientific community) have not spent nealy enough time on this topic to say deffinitely one way or another.

Is the climate going through changes?? Yes! Are we to blame?? Some!! Are we the sole problem?? NO!

Every day new research come to light that disproves this or proves that. There just is not enough unbiased information. If we want to get to the real issues politcs needs to be removed from the equation..

[red states rule]

Global Warming Update: First Snow in Johannesburg and Pretoria Since 1981 and 1968
By Noel Sheppard | June 27, 2007 - 23:10 ET
As the worm has clearly turned on all this global warming hooey, it seems appropriate to begin recording COLD events across the planet not just to highlight the foolishness, but also to infuriate those still buying into the junk science.

With that in mind, it snowed in parts of South Africa Tuesday that haven’t seen the frosty white stuff in many decades.

Thanks, global warming!

As deliciously (and frigidly) reported by Bloomberg Wednesday (emphasis added to really irk the alarmists):

Johannesburg recorded its first confirmed snowfall for almost 26 years overnight as temperatures dropped below freezing in South Africa's largest city, grounding flights at its main airport...Snow last blanketed Johannesburg for a single day on Sept. 11, 1981.

[…]

Light snowfall was also recorded in Pretoria, the capital, which last had snow on June 11, 1968, the newswire said.


June 1968! Most of the hyperventilating hysterical probably weren't born yet!

So, do you figure that alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore will admit they’re wrong when cities around the world start reporting record snows and lows on a regular basis as this new cooling trend -- which began in 1998, for those that might actually being interested in facts! -- continues?

Or, will they maintain that colder weather and rare snowfalls are all part of “climate change” which is tied directly to CO2 emissions?

Yes…that was rhetorical.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13787

[red states rule]

Care to prove that?

Or is it just more republifascist conservatard shitspew?

Do Warming Advocates Care About Results?
By Debra Saunders

If you really believe that the planet is at the tipping point on global warming and the consequences will be fatal for people around the world, especially the poor, then all industrialized nations need to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States must sacrifice, so must China, which is fast emerging as the largest producer of industrial greenhouse gases on Earth.

Yet U.N. Secretary Ban ki-Moon, in a breakfast meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board Friday, suggested that industrialized nations -- read the United States -- have a "historical responsibility" to cut emissions, which are "almost to the saturation point," while China and India, two superpowers that were not bound to reduce emissions as part of the 1997 Kyoto global warming pact, "have their own positions."

As for the Democratic Congress, Ban said: "They have already begun moving. It's only the (Bush) administration" that has not. And, while he said he is not a scientist or economist: "The science is very clear. The economics is very clear."

I understand the social justice argument. America has produced more industrial greenhouse gases than any other nation, hence Americans should have to cut back more than other countries. But who knew in 1910 that global warming would be an issue?

"The few who did know about it thought it was a good thing," noted the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels. "And when global surface temperature declined from 1945 through the mid-1970s, the feeling was one of absolute alarm. The world was going to have a food crisis. The shipping lanes in the North Atlantic were cluttered with ice."

Remember global cooling? That's what the -- all bow -- scientists warned about 30 years ago. Now, bygone Americans are to blame for not foreseeing science's current end-of-the-world scenario, global warming.

Unlike Ban, I know many scientists who don't think the science is conclusive as to whether global warming is caused by man. But if the tipping point is near, you'd think Ban would talk as tough on China as he does with George W. Bush. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China's coal-fired plants are increasing their emissions annually by double the total emissions growth of all the world's industrialized economies combined. China's about to be Hertz, and Ban's focused on Avis.

"Given the emissions growth rate of China, if the United States drops its emissions 25 percent over the next 20 years, it simply won't be noticed," Cato's Michaels noted. "Everyone who's looked at this knows that." Everyone, perhaps except the U.N. secretary-general.

Greenhouse gases will have the same effect, whether they emanate from San Francisco or Shanghai. But politics, not science, keeps the focus on Bush, not Beijing.

You see, Bush had the audacity to refuse to support Kyoto. If he had been all lip service, like President Clinton -- if Bush had signed the treaty but not asked the Senate to ratify it, while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose to 14 percent higher than 1990 levels when he left office -- then the vaunted international community would approve.

Science is supposed to be about results, but global warming is about belief. President Clinton is good because he said he believed. If you say you believe, you don't have to deliver.

If global warming is facing the tipping point, then the United Nations should lean on China. Believers shouldn't put their politics -- United States a must, China a maybe -- before the planet.

If undeveloped countries will pay the biggest price for global warming, as Ban said, then that's more reason to make them curb their emissions -- not less.

If the economics are clear, as Ban said, he should not have to pressure countries and businesses, execs would be making the right changes without government pressure. And Ban would not have to ask the media for help, as he did Friday.

If results matter, Ban ought to be hectoring Democrats in Congress, who are about as likely as Bush to pass a carbon tax. But he's not.

And if results really were paramount, why aren't global warming advocates talking about the sacrifices necessary to meet their goal of 50 percent to 90 percent fewer emissions? Instead, they talk as if Americans can change their light bulbs, or drive a hybrid, not an SUV -- and that will do the trick.

It's as if they don't care about results, they only care if you believe.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/belief_not_results_matters_to.html

[red states rule]

Media Misrepresent Senators’ Global Warming Trip to Greenland
By Noel Sheppard | July 31, 2007 - 18:19 ET

As NewsBusters reported Monday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) was quoted in an Orange County Register article as saying about a recent trip by Senators to investigate Greenland's glaciers, "I think everyone who has seen this is changed."

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported:

"There is absolutely no disagreement that the greenhouse gas emissions are adding to climate change and global warming," [Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland)] said. "No one disagrees that it would be a healthy thing for our world to have less greenhouse gas."

Sadly, neither of these articles chose to get opinions from the two Republican senators on the trip. If they had, another picture might have been presented, as reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis added):

Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia traveled to Greenland over the weekend to get a firsthand glimpse at the effects of global warming.

The first-term Republican said the trip reinforced his belief that the United States should gradually move away from fossil fuels like oil and coal. But it didn't convince him that more urgent steps are needed.

Isakson said he remains unconvinced that the current warming is a departure from long-term natural cycles.

E&E News offered more of Isakson's views Monday (emphasis added, subscription required):

"Senator Isakson believes it's premature to start talking about any carbon cap proposal since we have not fully addressed the development of all renewable resources, especially nuclear and cellulose-based ethanol," Isakson spokeswoman Joan Kirchner said today. Isakson's office also released a statement that noted climate change "is natural and has occurred before."

Isakson added, "The question is: To what extent is carbon accelerating the changes? The answer to that question is: No one knows for sure."

Understand why the Post and the Register chose not to quote Isakson?

Not interviewing Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), the other Republican on the trip, was also a wise decision (also from E&E News):

"We're digging in to understand this issue in great detail so that we can play a meaningful role as it is debated," Corker said. "We don't want to react impulsively and enact something that we can't reverse in the future if there are unintended negative consequences or our understanding of this issue evolves."

The Shelbyville Times-Gazette published more of Corker's skeptical views Tuesday that the Post and the Register certainly wouldn't have been interested in (emphasis added):

Getting an energy policy in place "that is right" regardless of the impact climate change has is a goal that Sen. Bob Corker expressed upon returning from a trip to Greenland this past weekend.

But while they viewed glaciers and ice sheets that make up 10 percent of the world's fresh water, nothing he saw surprised him, saying instead it was the scientists that were the most informative.

"I am at the same place [opinion] when returning from the trip than I was going on the trip," Corker said.

That certainly wouldn't have supported Boxer's "I think everyone who has seen this is changed" claim highlighted by the Register, would it? Nor would the following:

"I don't think there's any question that our climate is changing, but that's been going on for thousands of years," Corker explained. He also reminded reporters that the country was first called Greenland by Viking explorers who farmed there.

Yes, the global warming alarmists all seem to conveniently forget that fact, don't they?

But, that's not the only thing ignored in this discussion, for in her press release concerning this trip, Boxer stated the following (emphasis added):

Here it is, straight from Arkalo Abelsen, the Greenlandic Minister of the Environment, who spoke to us on Saturday morning:

"Looking back at my own life, I can only confirm that the climate in Greenland today is very different from the time when I was a child. I was born and raised in the southern part of Disko Bay. The sea ice closed the bay... from December until the end of May. The hunters went on the sea ice with their dog teams to catch food. These days the sea ice is formed in March, and disappears just a few weeks later. Some years it is not possible to go by dog team on the ice at all."

"Until 15 years ago, the hunters in the Thule region could hunt walrus on the sea ice during a period of 6 months each year - today if they are lucky they can hunt on the sea ice for just 2 months. [W]e have had to give permission to kill polar bears, and polar bears with cubs, because they have wandered into towns and villages to seek food, because they cannot hunt on the sea ice."

Nothing like the views of locals that have been alive for about 60 years to impact a debate about centuries of climate data, wouldn't you agree? After all, according to the Greenland government's website, Abelsen was born in 1946.

Maybe Boxer would have gotten a better perspective of climate change in Greenland if she spoke to Abelsen's father and grandfather, assuming they're still alive.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/31/media-misrepresent-senators-global-warming-trip-greenland

[actsnoblemartin]

I think your analysis is briliant. And I really appreciate it.



I for one feel they (scientific community) have not spent nealy enough time on this topic to say deffinitely one way or another.

Is the climate going through changes?? Yes! Are we to blame?? Some!! Are we the sole problem?? NO!

Every day new research come to light that disproves this or proves that. There just is not enough unbiased information. If we want to get to the real issues politcs needs to be removed from the equation..

[Nukeman]

I think your analysis is briliant. And I really appreciate it.
Thanks I think if you poll most people you will find that a vast majority of them feel the same way.

I am not talking about the fanatics like Al Bore or his ilk or the complete other end of the spectrum that feel absolutely nothing is going on.

I think it is very unlikely that "we" have that big of an influence. I dont say we have none, but I think we need to do a whole lot more research unincumberd by politics to make "rational" and well thought out decissions...

[Sitarro]

Hey Red States.......

Get with it, didn't you know the fanatics have canned the whole "global warming" slogan and updated it to " Global Climate Change". This way they get to capitalize on the idiocy you hear every year from all of the nimrods that say each summer...... "Wow, it's really hot, I don't remember it ever being this hot!"........or in the winter......."Wow, it's cold, I don't remember it ever being this cold!". It's always been hot during the summer and cold during the winter....... at least in my lifetime.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Nuke is correct, follow the money and you will see what is behind the alarmist machine.

[glockmail]

Still doing the liberal two step - unable to debate the facts; and right into the personal attacks and insults

Next you will say Al Gore is doing his part to conserve energy Excellent slap down and follow through! :clap:

[glockmail]

I for one feel they (scientific community) have not spent nealy enough time on this topic to say deffinitely one way or another.

Is the climate going through changes?? Yes! Are we to blame?? Some!! Are we the sole problem?? NO!

Every day new research come to light that disproves this or proves that. There just is not enough unbiased information. If we want to get to the real issues politcs needs to be removed from the equation..

I agree, and am willing to err on the side of caution while we wait for the facts to come to light. That is why I'm an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

[red states rule]

Hey Red States.......

Get with it, didn't you know the fanatics have canned the whole "global warming" slogan and updated it to " Global Climate Change". This way they get to capitalize on the idiocy you hear every year from all of the nimrods that say each summer...... "Wow, it's really hot, I don't remember it ever being this hot!"........or in the winter......."Wow, it's cold, I don't remember it ever being this cold!". It's always been hot during the summer and cold during the winter....... at least in my lifetime.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Nuke is correct, follow the money and you will see what is behind the alarmist machine.

First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it is climate change

Libs can't keep their lies straight

[red states rule]

I agree, and am willing to err on the side of caution while we wait for the facts to come to light. That is why I'm an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

Every Earth Day I drive around all day with my muffler off

Does that count?

[glockmail]

Every Earth Day I drive around all day with my muffler off

Does that count?
I drove from Boston to The Cape one night like that. That must have been 1980 or so, in my 1972 Ford with the 351W V8, tuned to perfection. It was a warm summer night, so I had both windows rolled all the way down. I'd get it up to 80 or so, relatively quiet, then let off the gas next to a fancy little foreign job. The full throated backfiring would scare the bejesus out of them. The experience was truly exhillerating.

[red states rule]

I drove from Boston to The Cape one night like that. That must have been 1980 or so, in my 1972 Ford with the 351W V8, tuned to perfection. It was a warm summer night, so I had both windows rolled all the way down. I'd get it up to 80 or so, relatively quiet, then let off the gas next to a fancy little foreign job. The full throated backfiring would scare the bejesus out of them. The experience was truly exhillerating.

I would love to drive by a bunch of protesting enviro wackos and let them see the muffler off. They would try to come after me

Hey, I hear they do make great speed bumps

[glockmail]

I would love to drive by a bunch of protesting enviro wackos and let them see the muffler off. They would try to come after me

Hey, I hear they do make great speed bumps They use to make a cast iron tee with a butterfly valve on the branch that you could install on the exhaust, operate via cable from the driver's seat and bypass the muffler. It would work well for you, I think.

[red states rule]

They use to make a cast iron tee with a butterfly valve on the branch that you could install on the exhaust, operate via cable from the driver's seat and bypass the muffler. It would work well for you, I think.

If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it

[red states rule]

NBC: Garden for Global Warming
By Julia A. Seymour | August 1, 2007 - 18:49 ET
Are you getting sick of all those global warming reports on the network news? Well, now on NBC you'll know when to change the channel.

During global warming reports "NBC Nightly News" changes the color of the signature peacock logo to green. That's the color it was during the "fresh" urban garden segment on July 31.

“Finally tonight, a small solution being offered up in the fight against climate change – something you can do in your own backyard or at least very close to home,” said anchor Brian Williams.


Correspondent Kevin Tibbles praised urban gardens that have been springing up in cities around the country, but bashed the U.S. field crop industry in the process.

“We can’t always get our food from long distance,” Ken Dunn, founder of Chicago’s city farm, told NBC viewers. “It’s not good for us, by having been processed and transported and stored so much, and it’s not good for the planet.”


Actually Mr. Dunn, I can get my food from long distance -- by traveling a short distance to the grocery store. We have trouble growing oranges and bananas in Washington, D.C. So far I haven't been harmed.

These gardens may offer an “urban oasis of fresh vegetables,” but the selection pales in comparison to the selection supermarkets can provide.

They’re also not as self-sufficient as advocates would have you think, often relying on taxpayer funding. The Denver garden featured on the “Nightly News” is one of them.



“This red eggs beet’s short journey across town, not only saves on transportation costs, but also helps keep this garden growing,” said NBC correspondent Kevin Tibbles. “[P]rofits from sales to restaurants then subsidize the price residents in this low-income neighborhood pay for their garden fresh goodness.”


Yet, despite the challenges of urban agricultural endeavors, Tibbles advanced the socialist collectivist sensation created by cultivating urban gardens.

“A community garden gives space, gives hope, makes us realize how similar we are, makes us realize we have neighbors to get to know,” said an unidentified woman at the Denver Youth Farmers Market in the “Nightly News” segment.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2007/08/01/nbc-garden-global-warming

[glockmail]

If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it JC Whitney used to carry them. Good luck finding one these days though.

[red states rule]

JC Whitney used to carry them. Good luck finding one these days though.

I know

I will have to settle for a bumper sticker that reads

Global Warming Concert More Hot Air

[red states rule]

Genie Out of the Bottle: 'U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries'
By Noel Sheppard | August 1, 2007 - 10:34 ET

Climate change alarmism met the infamous Oil for Food scam at the United Nations Tuesday.

As a result, if you had any questions regarding why the U.N. has been the point-man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.

In fact, the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: "U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries."
As Jeffrey Jones was fond of saying in the movie "Amadeus" while playing the part of Emperor Joseph II, "Well, there it is."

More evidence that the U.N.'s interest is just to take money from wealthy nations - mostly America, of course - and redistribute it internationally was found all over the body of the article (grateful h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):

The first U.N. special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policy-makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.

Well, there it is:

[British economist Nicholas ]Stern, author of a path-breaking report last year on the economic consequences of climate change, said the global target for reducing greenhouse gases -- notably the carbon dioxide released by coal-fired electric plants and petroleum-powered vehicles -- should be a cut 50 percent by 2050.

"Because of reasons of past responsibility and better access to resources, the rich countries should take much bigger objectives than that 50 percent," he said. "They should be looking for around 75 percent cuts."

But here's the literal and figurative payoff:

That responsibility could extend to financing cuts in emissions in other countries, said Stern, formerly head of the British government's economic service and now at the London School of Economics.

How marvelous. So, America needs to cut its emissions by 75 percent, and, if one reads between the lines, can accomplish this goal in whole or part by sending money to other countries.

Can anyone say "Oil for Food?"

How likely will it be that the U.N. acts as intermediary for these funds as they pass from the rich countries to the poor, always taking their cut - or, paraphrasing Gastone Moschin in "The Godfather: Part II" as Don Fanucci, wet their beaks?

Let the shakedown begin!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/01/genie-out-bottle-u-n-climate-change-meeting-aims-rich-countries

[red states rule]

Environmentalists Sign Petition Banning Water
By Noel Sheppard | August 1, 2007 - 13:21 ET

On a regular basis, anthropogenic global warming skeptics wonder how folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry climate change sycophants can so easily get seemingly intelligent people to buy their junk science hook, line, and sinker.

With this in mind, the comedy duo of Penn and Teller set out to see whether they could get people at an Earth Day rally called "WorldFest" to sign a petition banning water.

For those unfamiliar, this was the "6th Annual WorldFest, a solar-powered celebration of music, the environment, animals, health and social consciousness" held at Woodley Park in Encino, California, April 2006.

Penn Jillette marvelously described their intentions (absolutely hysterical video available here, grateful h/t to Gary Hall):

We sent one of our pals, Chris McGaughah (sp), to a rally to collect signatures for a petition. She's gonna ask people to sign a petition banning Dihydrogen monoxide. That's di-hydrogen-monoxide. Water. That's right, water. And she's not going to lie, or even stretch the truth. Not at all. She's just going to talk about what water is, and what it does, with vocabulary and tone of environmental hysteria.

So as not to give anymore away, I encourage readers to watch this three and a half-minute film, and get an understanding as to how easy it is to pull the wool over folks' eyes.

In the middle of the signature collecting -- which went remarkably well -- Jillette made the following spectacular observations:

Is passion supposed to replace common sense? We understand the desire to join up and do something important. It, it's sexy to save the world. But, you gotta spend a couple of minutes to find out if you're really saving the world and not just being herded around by some politically motivated a**holes who may not really care that much about the environment, but see this as some chance to raise money for whatever they think is a good idea. No end justifies the means of lying.

I couldn't agree more, Penn.

As an aside, this is not a recent video, as it was posted at YouTube last December. However, I imagine many of you are like me and are just now finding out about this wonderful exercise crafted by this great comedy duo.

Bravo, gentlemen! Bravo!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/01/environmentalists-sign-petition-banning-water

[medical 2933]

China has passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Qin Gang, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, again asserted China’s ‘right to develop’ - its entitlement to emit as much carbon dioxide on a per capita basis as do developed countries - by claiming that “China’s emissions are just at survival levels.”

[red states rule]

China has passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Qin Gang, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, again asserted China’s ‘right to develop’ - its entitlement to emit as much carbon dioxide on a per capita basis as do developed countries - by claiming that “China’s emissions are just at survival levels.”

Where are the enviro wackos? Why are they silent on China?

[red states rule]

Price at the pump driven by aging U.S. refineries
By Patrice Hill
August 2, 2007

Attention American motorists: It is not ExxonMobil or Middle Eastern oil producers who are driving the price of gasoline you pay at the pump.

It is shortages of gas and other problems at aging refineries in your neighborhoods.

While that has been true all year, oil analysts say, it has never been more obvious than yesterday, when the price of premium crude oil briefly hit a record $78.77 in New York trading even as gas prices continued to fall at the pump.

Gas prices have fallen from a record $3.20 a gallon in May to $2.86 yesterday afternoon, according to GasBuddy.com.

What drove oil prices briefly to a new high was news that refineries drew down their inventories of oil last week, leaving stockpiles stretched thin and raising questions about the adequacy of supplies. But the news was actually good for drivers, because it showed that more U.S. refineries are up and running after a rash of unscheduled outages this year, enabling them to draw down their oil stocks to make gasoline.

More plentiful gas is alleviating the pressure on pump prices seen earlier this summer when the need for maintenance and repairs at aging refineries left stockpiles at dangerously low levels.

"The refineries have finally gotten their act together," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "They're back to normal, almost." The Energy Information Administration reported yesterday that refineries are operating at 93.6 percent of capacity, the highest in more than a year.

American refineries are aging and prone to accidents and other problems that require extended periods offline to remedy. No new refineries have been built in 30 years, largely because Clean Air Act regulations make building new ones prohibitively expensive, oil analysts say.

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/BUSINESS/108020053/1001

[Psychoblues]

Your idiocy exceeds your intelligence, rsr.



If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it

No love and warmth coming from this direction.

[red states rule]

Your idiocy exceeds your intelligence, rsr.




No love and warmth coming from this direction.

Hate to see the myth of global wamring and the rants of the left exposed to the light of day?

[Psychoblues]

Your loss is my gain, rsr. Have you ever studied science? I seriously doubt it.

[red states rule]

Your loss is my gain, rsr. Have you ever studied science? I seriously doubt it.

Libs are masters of the Science of Fear

The folks are ignoring the rants about gloabal wamring. It is a manufactured liberal crisis

[Psychoblues]

Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

[red states rule]

Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

More important - the weather is not backing your side up

Record cool temps and snow where it has not snowed in decades

[red states rule]

During ‘Arctic Cold’ April, GMA Hypes Global Warming Study on Early Spring
By Scott Whitlock | April 6, 2007 - 12:37 ET
On Friday’s "Good Morning America," weatherman and liberal environmental activist Sam Champion hyped a new global warming study released on April 6. The ABC anchor also featured a representative from a left-wing environmental group and failed to identify the organization’s political slant.

Only minutes after reporting on the "arctic blast" of unusually cold temperatures that much of the country is facing, Champion touted a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that noted "we’re already facing earlier springs."

The GMA weatherman then went on to feature a clip from Brenda Ekwurzel, a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. Champion failed to mention, as did the onscreen graphic, the fact that the UCS has promoted liberal causes such as nuclear test ban treaties and even attacked the Media Research Center for casting doubt on global warming.

Champion prefaced his piece on "baking droughts" and dramatic temperature increases with a report on the brutally cold weather that is striking the East Coast this spring:

Sam Champion: "But it’s a shot of cold air and it’s opened the door for arctic air all the way through the nation. Call it about two thirds of the nation getting this push of arctic cold. This is normally a December, mid-December pattern. As this cold air goes, look at the shades of blue in just about all areas."


Without any sense of irony, Mr. Champion began his segment, which aired a few minutes later at 7:13am, by discussing the new report:

Diane Sawyer: "Well, I'm here with Sam this morning, because there's a brand new report out on global warming. And this one finally translates what all this means for humans."

Sam Champion: "Yes. The second of four expected reports. 450 lead authors of the world's top scientists have been hammering it all night and the results, the results just came out hours ago. Baking droughts in America's west, more waging wildfires in places like California and Texas. And swamped eastern coast lines. That's the future of our world, today's report says, unless global warming is stopped."

Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists): "The evidence is quite strong, and the time for action is now."

Champion: "These scientists say we're already facing earlier springs and losing ice. If global temperatures continue to rise, things could get worse. A boost of just 1.6 degrees from present average temperatures could lead to the extinction of 30 percent of species worldwide. A rise of four degrees, over half the world's species could be lost. Already, America's west is feeling the effects. In the midst of a 10 year drought. Look at this, Nevada's lake Mead, a pier to nowhere. What was the lake is 80 feet below normal levels. Seven states draw their water from the dwindling Colorado River. As the water levels drop, officials are scrambling to take action before it's too late."

Pat Mulroy (General Mgr, Las Vegas Valley Water District): "All of us in the Colorado River basin are headed for a much more conservative use of water."

Champion: "$2.5 billion in billion in water projects are already under way, among them, a proposed 280 mile pipeline across parched Nevada."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: " We are in desperate need."

Champion: "Governor's Schwarzenegger is proposing bonds for new water storage in California as well. The question is, is any of this enough? And how can we stop it? Well, their third report which comes out in May will detail their ideas, these same scientists ideas, on how to stop global warming."


During the piece, the ABC anchor allowed no dissenting opinions and didn't explain the financial cost to "stop global warming."

Mr. Champion has a long history of promoting liberal environmental causes, often in disguise. On April 2, the GMA weatherman hosted a segment on the new phenomenon of green weddings. One of the participants in such a ceremony just happened to be an employee of the left-wing Sierra Club. In January, he highlighted an earlier global warming report in a piece that wondered if "billions" will die from global warming.

In comparison, NBC’s "Today" show didn’t mention the new report at all. Over on CBS, "Early Show" reporter Mark Phillips hosted a segment in the 7am hour that covered much of the same ground, but without any liberal activists masquerading as neutral observers.

Chris Wragge: "Now to the latest report on global warming, and the news is not good. CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips is live in London with details this morning, Mark, good morning."

Mark Phillips: "Chris, well the first U.N. report this year dealt with global warming and how it meant that things were going to get bad. The second report deals with where the worst of that bad would be. And because this report is so specific, it was also extremely political. In fact, finalizing the report which was years in the making, came down to an all-night session last night, described as very contentious."

Rajendra Pachauri: "I am wearing the suit that I wore yesterday morning. And I've been sitting in a chair all night."

Phillips: "Every line had to be agreed not only by an international panel of top climate scientists but by governments as well, and that was the problem. Particularly, it seems, the governments of the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. But the major thrust of the report could not be watered down. It concludes that those who are already suffering most in this world are going to suffer worse due to global warming. Poor people in poor countries are going to be most affected as the climate warms in the next century. The already parched areas of sub Sahara Africa will get hotter, drier, and less able to support populations. And the low-lying areas of Asia, called the megadeltas, will be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise."

Pachauri: "It's the poorest of the poor in the world who are going to be the worst hit."

Phillips: "But the rich countries are not immune. The report warns of increased risks of brush fires in California, of insect infestations and of increased frequencies of heat waves in the American cities already prone to them. And the U.S. has its own low-lying areas in the southeast whose vulnerability will increase. And, so, the scientists have had their say. The question now is whether governments will buy into it. Global warming is an issue that is already moving away from science and into politics."


—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11880

[red states rule]

I guess the only "real" conservative media outlets are Fox and the New York Post.
Who reads the news to you?

Gee, this from the "conservative Fox News"




Fox's Shepard Smith: 'We're Having Trouble With Many People' Denying Global Warming
By Ken Shepherd | August 2, 2007 - 16:03 ET
(h/t Allahpundit of Hot Air)

Sounding more like ABC's Sam Champion or Al Gore than a "fair and balanced" news anchor, Fox's Shepard Smith slammed Americans in general and his studio audience in particular in a recent "Studio B" interview with a British man who swam at the North Pole as a global warming-related publicity stunt.

See the YouTube video below the fold. Here's an excerpt of the exchange:

SHEPARD SMITH, host: “It’s hard to believe this, but there are people watching us right now, and I’ll get e-mails from hundreds of them, who don’t think we have anything to do with this. They refuse to believe it. They believe that what’s happening is they want to try to tax us on our carbon eventually, and that this is all a conspiracy to get us.”LEWIS PUGH, man who swam at the North Pole: “Well, you know, that’s an unfortunate situation.”SMITH: “It is unfortunate, but it’s the truth, they believe it.”[…]SMITH: “I think the place where we’re having trouble with many people in this country, is convincing people them that it’s our fault. That it’s not just one of those things. How do we do that?”
Sounds like Shep should do his homework. Carbon taxes are not some loopy conspiracy, they're being batted around by the left as a policy response to "climate change."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2007/08/02/foxs-shepard-smith-were-having-trouble-many-people-country-denying-glo

[red states rule]

Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

Global Warming Causes Drop in Supply of Bulgarian Prostitutes
By Noel Sheppard | August 2, 2007 - 10:24 ET
There appears to now be a double-secret, international competition to figure out new planetary ills that can somehow be tied - regardless of the seeming inanity - to manmade global warming.

This announcement out of Toronto could be the best yet: a warmer climate is causing stray cats - no, not Brian Setzer and the boys - to mate more frequently thereby resulting in an explosion in furry, feral felines.

On the other hand, the frontrunner has to be brothels in Bulgaria that are having a hard time finding employees because ‘the best prostitutes have moved to ski resorts, where they entertain tourists who cannot ski because of a lack of snow."

You really can't make this stuff up.

As reported Wednesday in Canada's National Post (emphasis added throughout, better stow potables):

An explosion in Toronto's stray cat population is the latest phenomenon being blamed on global warming, joining a growing list of evils that includes increases in hay fever and seal mating as well as decreases in the supply of maple syrup and Bulgarian prostitutes.

While climate change is frequently cited as the cause for hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts, not all of its alleged effects are Biblical in proportion. The Toronto Humane Society recently announced its shelter is filled to capacity and cited global warming as a possible cause of the overcrowding.

Brace yourselves for the hysterical explanation:

Lee Oliver, a Humane Society spokesman, said the warmer weather appears to be giving cats a chance to mate three times each year instead of the usual two.

"Cats are now copulating in February, which is supposed to be a really cold month," Mr. Oliver said. "But animals are getting out because it's relatively warm, their internal signals seem to be telling them that it is time to mate because the warm weather's coming, and so we're seeing an earlier litter."

Mr. Oliver said the February fornication produces a litter in late March or early April with broods following in May and August. And while each year's first batch of kittens used to be smaller, the Humane Society is now finding all three litters are roughly the same size.

"The less hardy cats who may have waited until the warmer weather are now mating sooner," Mr. Oliver said.

This almost reads like a beatnik poem, doesn't it? I can almost hear bongos in the background. How ‘bout you?

Speaking of tawdry bar scenes, I'm sure you're all dying to hear more about the brothel problem in Bulgaria:

But not everyone's love life has been improved by climate change. Brothel owners in Bulgaria are now reportedly having trouble attracting workers. The owners claim the best prostitutes have moved to ski resorts, where they entertain tourists who cannot ski because of a lack of snow.

"We have hired students, but they are temps and nothing like our elite girls," Petra Nestorova, who runs an escort agency in Sofia, told the United Kingdom's Metro newspaper.

I'm sorry. I can't type anymore. Talk amongst yourselves.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/02/global-warming-causes-drop-supply-bulgarian-prostitutes

[actsnoblemartin]

Here is what i think the problem is.

We are arguing over a name.

Whether its global warming or climate change, the reality is this.

Like any issue, we need to come up with smart, fiscally responsible solutions, that take into considerations all factors, including consequences and possible outcomes.

Conservatives and democrats realizing we can come up with solutions good, conservatives and democrats having a pissing contest to see who is right about the environment, not so good.

How about more oil refineries (in the usa) in the short term, to boost supply to the american market, and in the long term, try to actually become energy independant... if brazil can do it, why cant we, and oil independendance has been talked about for over the last thirty years, by different presidents, and im sure the different congresses. Solutions first, blame and name calling last.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think warmth and love have been in politics for over 200 years :lol:
Your idiocy exceeds your intelligence, rsr.




No love and warmth coming from this direction.

[nevadamedic]

I dont think warmth and love have been in politics for over 200 years :lol:

Huh?

[red states rule]

Here is what i think the problem is.

We are arguing over a name.

Whether its global warming or climate change, the reality is this.

Like any issue, we need to come up with smart, fiscally responsible solutions, that take into considerations all factors, including consequences and possible outcomes.

Conservatives and democrats realizing we can come up with solutions good, conservatives and democrats having a pissing contest to see who is right about the environment, not so good.

How about more oil refineries (in the usa) in the short term, to boost supply to the american market, and in the long term, try to actually become energy independant... if brazil can do it, why cant we, and oil independendance has been talked about for over the last thirty years, by different presidents, and im sure the different congresses. Solutions first, blame and name calling last.

We are talking about the long list of crap libs have sprewed over the decades

In the 70' we were told about global cooling and the next ice age

In the late 80's and early 90's we were told about global warming and how the Earth was burning up

Now it is climate change and how global warming will give us the next Ice Age

[red states rule]

I dont think warmth and love have been in politics for over 200 years :lol:

Libs made it an artform in the 90's with the Clinton mob

[red states rule]

August 03, 2007
Global Warming Propaganda Factory
By Christopher J. Alleva


have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). http://www.sej.org/ This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you're an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they'll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.


The SEJ was founded in 1989. The association is considered an indispensable resource among many reporters. The SEJ proclaims their mission to be the creation of a formal network of reporters that write about environmental issues. To that end, they maintain a website, run a listserv and send out regular email alerts to coordinate the coverage and make sure no one deviates from story template and action line. To reinforce this, they regularly conduct conferences and workshops teaching propaganda writing techniques and holding indoctrination seminars. To promote hands on discipline, they offer a "mentoring program."


In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.


The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest?


The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.


This year's annual conference is being held in the rarefied atmosphere of Stanford University. The conference agenda and featured speakers are a virtual who's who and what's what of the self -identified progressive movement: the likes of leftist radio personality Amy Goodman and the Weather Channel's chief global warming propagandist Heidi Cullen holding down the celebrity spots. The five -day conference is really a full immersion in the latest liberal tropes. To create the illusion of prestige and open debate they booked a token Republican, shelling out whatever it took to get former Secretary of State George Schultz to participate in a panel titled, "Clean, Secure & Efficient Energy: Can We Have It All?"

The panel description reflects the deeply ingrained bias of the SEJ and its members. "The race is on for commercialization of domestic fuels that shrink our carbon footprint..." From what I've seen this not a race for "commercialization" so much as a fight for government subsidies.


The conference offers several recreational field trips that would set any white liberal's hearts aflutter, including a kayak outing and a tour of California's wine country. But its not all play; to assuage their liberal guilt, they're planning an excursion to the East Bay area of Oakland and Richmond they call the "Hole in the Donut: Environmental Justice in the Heart of Ecotopia" The descriptive narrative of the trip speaks volumes.

"Amid the extraordinary wealth and environmental consciousness ringing San Francisco Bay, two communities at the center of it all wallow in poverty and pollution.


"The East Bay cities of Richmond and Oakland are the industrial entrepôts for the economy of Northern California and beyond. Both surround the massive Port of Oakland, the nation's fourth largest, which fouls water and air with toxics and exotic creatures and is suspected of causing sharply higher rates of asthma and premature death from other diseases. We'll explore the minority-majority neighborhoods that endure the ceaseless movement of trains, trucks and ships. Then we'll tour the port complex to see how goods are moved across the seas and how port officials plan to clean up their act."

The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html

[red states rule]

Global Warming Myth Exposed: Soot From Cooking Fires Melting Himalayan Glaciers
By Noel Sheppard | August 3, 2007 - 14:03 ET

Scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego published a paper in the journal Nature Thursday which put a huge hole in the manmade global warming theory espoused by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added):

Huge haze clouds over the Indian Ocean contribute as much to atmospheric warming in Asia as greenhouse gases and play a significant role in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, according to a study published Thursday.

Researchers concluded that the pollution - mostly caused by the burning of wood and plant matter for cooking in India and other South Asian countries - enhanced heating of the atmosphere by around 50 percent and contributed to about half of the temperature increases blamed in recent decades for the glacial retreat.

Obviously, this puts quite a crimp in the currently in vogue global warming myth that CO2 emissions are solely responsible for glacial melt. Furthermore, JunkScience.com's Steven Milloy pointed out Thursday a conceivably less intuitive chink in the armor (emphasis added):

Global warming alarmism is rooted in the idea that ever-increasing manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, cause global temperatures to warm. This idea, however, doesn't match up very well against real-world observations.

During the 20th century, for example, while manmade carbon dioxide emissions steadily increased from about 1940 to 1975, global temperatures cooled.

Global warming alarmists, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), try to counter this observation by claiming that aerosol particles in the atmosphere - like soot and sulfates from fossil fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions - can mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation back into space.

As such, not only are these airborne particles likely a key to glacial melt, the fact that they can warm rather than cool the atmosphere refutes the IPCC's explanation as to why global temperatures declined from 1940 to 1975 as CO2 levels rose.

Talk about your inconvenient truths!

Scientific American elaborated on the study's findings (emphasis added):

The primary culprit seems to be the black carbon in soot, which soaks up any sunlight it can, thereby warming whatever it touches. And the dominant source for all this black carbon is cooking fires, [Scripps climatologist Veerabhadran] Ramanathan says. All these cooking fires are, in effect, drying the region, both by contributing to the melting of glaciers that feed Asia's major rivers as well as by decreasing the evaporation that drives rainfall. Aerosols across the board, from black carbon to sulfates, appear to be increasing across Asia as it industrializes.

Wonderfully, the solution is likely much simpler than trying to reduce CO2 emissions, and doesn't require raising taxes or destroying economies:

But the problem can be solved by swapping other fuels and methods for the wood in cooking fires. "The aerosol lifetime is two weeks," Ramanathan says. "If the world pays attention and puts resources to it, we will see an effect immediately. I'm talking weeks, at most a few months, not decades or centuries."

That contrasts with solutions for CO2 emissions, which will require much longer periods to show effects. Because the brown cloud appears to be at least as important, eliminating it could buy time to implement more far-reaching solutions before catastrophic glacial melt and other climate change impacts occur, Ramanathan argues.

And, Ramanathan is willing to put his money where his mouth is:

Ramanathan and colleagues plan to demonstrate this on a small scale over the next few years in the Himalayas, over a 12-square-mile area in the foothills. "We want to create a black carbon hole," he says.

So, assuming they're right, and their plan works, we might in the end find - as many scientists believe despite protestations from the global warming alarmists - that CO2 has much less to do with climate change than currently being espoused by those with a political agenda.

Maybe more importantly, there are solutions that don't require raising taxes, destroying industries, and killing the economy.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be reporting this tonight?

No. I don't either.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/03/global-warming-myth-exposed-soot-cooking-fires-melting-himalayan-glac

[actsnoblemartin]

fear is not a bushism, fear has been used for many governments throught history, be fair my friend.


Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

[red states rule]

fear is not a bushism, fear has been used for many governments throught history, be fair my friend.

Fear is what Al Gore an company use to hype global warming

Fear is what they feel when the facts are presented that blows their hype out of the water

[red states rule]

Palm Beach Post: Using Global Warming Activist's Press Release as News Story
By Warner Todd Huston | August 6, 2007 - 02:39 ET
The Palm Beach Post was caught in a bit of deception by one of its readers over the weekend. At issue was another globaloney alarmist story the paper printed on July 25th, titled "This century hotter than last, group finds," supposedly by Post writer Dara Kam. Unfortunately for the reputation of Dara Kam and that of the paper, this "article" was merely a rewording of the press release of an environmentalist group calling themselves, Environment Florida. An alert reader who wrote in calling them on it also exposed several other papers across the country that did the very same thing.

Naturally, the article by Kam was all worried about how the summers are getting hotter and informing the reader of new globaloney legislation pending in the Florida state house in Tallahassee. It all seemed rather like our intrepid writer had done a whole bunch of research for this attempt at writing a “science” article.

But Post reader Gary Bokelmann wondered how this “article” could be nearly a word for word rehash of a press release put out by the environmental group and still be claimed an honest news article? And not only did the Palm Beach Post merely rephrase a press release, so did several other papers, Bokelmann found.

Said Bokelmann:

"My curiosity was piqued when a friend pointed out a story titled, 'Nevada Summer Getting Warmer,' in The Reno Gazette Journal, which appeared on the same day, and which was surprisingly similar in its tone and content. A quick, casual search online then revealed another - this time from the Arkansas News Group, 'Study: 2006 Temperatures in Arkansas Exceeded 30-Year Norm.' Then there was another from Florida, 'Global Warming Here, Group Says,' in The Pensacola News Journal. Then the Madison, Wis., Capital Times jumped on board with 'Average Temperature Higher Here Last Year.'"

Bokelmann wondered how all these papers could claim to be “reporting” anything when they just re-worded an activist group’s press release?

Mr. Bokelmann noted that some of the stories "refer to a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group called U.S. Public Interest Research Group. It is obvious that this is the group that was orchestrating the whole media blitz," he said, "apparently by helping its various state affiliates to customize press releases for their local markets and then distributing them to local reporters, who 'reported' their claims uncritically."

The Post, he said, apparently "talked to no one at all, outside of the group releasing the 'study'." He was "struck by one question when I read this story: All of these supposedly local studies used the period 1970-2000 as their base, and declared temperatures from that period to be 'normal.' The obvious question is why those years?"

Bokelmann had the perfect question to wrap up his observations.

Thus to his initial question Mr. Bokelmann added: "Were the editors of The Palm Beach Post simply unaware that they were being manipulated as part of a sophisticated national media blitz by an advocacy group - or were they willing participants in the campaign? Or is there another, alternative explanation for this flurry of nearly identical 'local' stories?"

In their answer to Mr. Bokelmann, the Post tries to squirm out of their failure to disclose the source of all the “facts” and “statistics” that appear in Kam’s story. Editor Paul Blythe tries to explain away their reasons, but one thing he never once addresses: Why is it that quotes do not appear in Kam’s story except for two paragraphs when nearly every aspect of the story is a direct reprint of the statistics in the activist’s press release?

Blithe gives his mae culpa at the end of their reply to reader Bokelmann with a limp and unsatisfactory plea. "Could we have done a better job? Yes. Will we do the same thing the next time? No. We'll be more critical, both for this and any opposing point of view."

Yeah, riiiiight.

We all know how lazy most "journalists" and their newspapers are. We see their lack of research, their poor prose and their opinion pieces so thinly disguised as news stories all too often. The good thing is, we are out here now to catch and expose their slovenly work. But, as often as we have caught them at this since the inception of the Internet, it makes one wonder how often in the past this sort of thing happened? And, one can't help realizing that it must have been far, far more often than anyone ever realized.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/08/06/palm-beach-post-using-global-warming-activists-press-release-new

[red states rule]

Global warming strategy debated

By JACOB FENTON
The Intelligencer

Montgomery County officials are looking into whether a bond can be issued to pay for greenhouse gas reduction projects as part of a larger strategy to fight global warming.

Although local governments regularly float bonds to pay for large long-term projects, it's not clear if cutting global climate change fits into a pre-existing category.

“The county can only do what the Legislature said it can do in writing. ... We just can't willy-nilly do whatever we want,” Montgomery County Commissioners' Chairman Tom Ellis said at Thursday's meeting.

Without a national strategy to cut greenhouses gases, state, county and local governments are going ahead with their own plans to curb climate change. Many have urged their citizens to do likewise.

Philadelphia has already adopted a greenhouse gas reduction plan, and Bucks and Delaware counties are both looking into doing so, said Steve Nelson, the county's deputy chief operating officer.

Global warming falls within the county's general purview of health, safety and general welfare because the potential effects include increased rainfall and flooding, as well as extremely hot days, Nelson said.


Armed with a graduate student's thesis about changes Montgomery County can make, a task force appointed in January is expected to report back on its recommendations by the end of the year. It will set emissions targets for 2012, 2017 and 2025.

Montgomery County's emissions history is not encouraging. From 1990 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions in the county grew 34 percent while population only rose 14 percent, Nelson said.

“As you can see, the trendline is not going in the direction we would want it to,” he said.

Robert McKinstry, a Penn State professor who has helped states figure out how to curb warming, said the U.S. needs to cut emissions of greenhouse gases at least 96 percent by 2100.

“That's a long ways off, but it's a big goal,” he said. “It's certainly achievable.”

The best approach to solving the problem is adopting a “Chinese menu approach” of choosing 10 ways to save money and reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-08042007-1388057.html

[Psychoblues]

Youi are so silly, rsr. Why are you trying so hard to be so mean?

[red states rule]

Youi are so silly, rsr. Why are you trying so hard to be so mean?

If mean is pointing out the crap that is global warming - I plead guilty

[Psychoblues]

I'll accept that, rsr, and also accept that you are only stupid and not subversive as I suspected.

[KarlMarx]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dQBGABAlL._AA280_.jpg

Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore

[Psychoblues]

If you check your definition against reality you will discover that your dictionary is pretty well fucked up. Pretty aspirations but very well dispelled by the present dictator and his former congress who exemplified everything other than your stated aspirations.

[medical 2933]

Cloudy days and certain weather patterns can keep local temperatures from spiking, scientists say South Floridians still have at least one major reason to be concerned about global warming.

[red states rule]

I'll accept that, rsr, and also accept that you are only stupid and not subversive as I suspected.

Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse To Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | August 7, 2007 - 00:12 ET

A former member of the Clinton administration, and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minneapolis last week.

I kid you not.

Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm - who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 - stated in a piece amazingly entitled "Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?" (emphasis added throughout):

I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search - and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are "looking at everything" including "the weather" - I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

Keep your seatbelts fastened, for it got better:

Melissa Hortman of the Minnesota House of Representatives "speculated that 90-plus-degree heat Wednesday and the above-normal temperatures of the past two summers may have been a contributing factor," and said "You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer." Or even if it was built to withstand heat, whether its structural deficiencies undermined the design integrity to a point where heat contributed to the collapse.

[...]

Some may object to even asking the question, "Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?" My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem - the same people who inevitably say "we can adapt to whatever climate change there is."

But, in my experience, those "adapters" are actually not interested in finding out what the impacts of global warming are. The Bush administration has blocked research into the impact of climate change on this country and muzzled climate scientists from discussing key climate impact issues, such as the connection between global warming and the recent increase in intense Atlantic hurricanes - which is obviously a central adaptation issue.

By the way, for those that have forgotten, CAP is the group headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta which in June outlined a Democrat assault on conservative talk radio. But I digress:

Those who argue against strong action today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - the adapters who are essentially saying to climate change, "Bring it on!" - cannot criticize those who then ask the obvious adaptation question - how will climate change impact this country and its infrastructure?

Certainly climate change will have the biggest infrastructure impact on our coastal cities, water and sewage systems, levees, and electric grid. But given that a remarkable 70,000 other bridges in the country are also structurally deficient, we should seek to learn whether such troubled bridges can take the ever-growing stresses generated by global warming. We need to be as prepared as possible for a changed climate - as the Center for American Progress has previously argued. Indeed, if the adapters have their way in blocking serious efforts aimed at prevention, we'll need to be prepared for the very worst.

Absolutely unbelievable.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/07/ex-clinton-official-did-global-warming-contribute-mn-bridge-collapse

[red states rule]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dQBGABAlL._AA280_.jpg

Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore

Make sure the energy being used is "green"

[red states rule]

Cloudy days and certain weather patterns can keep local temperatures from spiking, scientists say South Floridians still have at least one major reason to be concerned about global warming.

Al Gore Faces New Debate Challenge Expert



Battle of best-selling authors

CHICAGO, Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Best-selling author Dennis
Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is
promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery
have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite
conclusions.
The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme
rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and
researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author
Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S.
National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist),
Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT)
among others.
Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities,
and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global
catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past
warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations
in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.
"My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very
dangerous anyway," stated Avery.
"These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's
recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is
the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the
public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each
other," continued Avery.
Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president
of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists
tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists
do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than
$500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington
Times promoting a debate.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-06-2007/0004639709&EDATE=

[red states rule]

If you check your definition against reality you will discover that your dictionary is pretty well fucked up. Pretty aspirations but very well dispelled by the present dictator and his former congress who exemplified everything other than your stated aspirations.

In Two Segments, CBS's Harry Smith Raises Global Warming Alarm
By Justin McCarthy | August 7, 2007 - 15:00 ET
CBS’s Harry Smith led the charge against "global climate change," first with billionaire airline founder and activist Richard Branson and then in the health segment. On the August 7 edition of "The Early Show" at 7:49 AM, Harry Smith hosted the health segment on how to handle the heat with the current heat wave that is affecting much of the eastern half of the United States. With many Americans baking in the hot conditions, Smith appealed to their emotions with this editorial comment.

"Before we do anything else, there is in fact, global climate change. It really affects some climates much more than others, and it's really caused some real serious problems."


Resident physician Emily Senay affirmed Smith’s claim.

"It has, absolutely. And the last five to ten years we've seen serious illness and death, heat related. And, honestly, I mean, I think it's a sign of the times. We all need to get familiar with what happens during this, and do our best to prevent anything bad from happening to us."


Earlier in that half hour, at 7:31, Harry Smith spoke with Sir Richard Branson about his new Virgin America flight. Through the course of the interview, Smith hailed Branson’s attempts to fight global climate change. The relevant portion of the interview is below.

SMITH: It's interesting to me, because we've had occasion to talk several times over the last six months or so. Talk about global warming, of climate change, and everything else. Are you as passionate about business as you ever have been, or are these other issues more important to you now?


BRANSON: Well, some of the other issues are obviously more important. I mean, global warming is obviously incredibly important. But having said that, and if you can make -- you know, traveling for a whole nation a pleasant experience rather than a very unpleasant experience, you can make a big difference to people's lives. But, you know, as you said earlier, if we can make profits from Virgin America, the money is going to be invested into clean fuels.


SMITH: Right, because you've pledged all the profits from what you call your dirty businesses into finding alternative fuels.


BRANSON: Yeah, exactly. So, so what we're hoping is that we can have fuels that we can use on our planes and on trains and buses and cars. That we'll not damage the environment and that's where all our resources --


SMITH: In the end, not that you're completely altruistic, you're in the alternative fuel business too so --


BRANSON: And if we can come up with a fuel that replaces gasoline, than I'm sure we'll make a penny
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/08/07/two-segments-cbss-harry-smith-raises-global-warming-alarm

[glockmail]

It may hit 100 in Winston-Salem tommorow. That's very unusual for here.

[Psychoblues]

There is no explanation for your pitiful existence, rsr.

[red states rule]

There is no explanation for your pitiful existence, rsr.

Pissing off liberals with the truth is a good start

[red states rule]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dQBGABAlL._AA280_.jpg

Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore

Of course, if you dare to disagree with Al and the global warming nuts...........


Are Gore and Newsweek’s Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Accusations Coordinated?
By Noel Sheppard | August 8, 2007 - 11:11 ET

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek's current issue featured a cover story blasting anthropogenic global warming skeptics as "deniers," and pointing fingers at companies like ExxonMobil as participating in a coordinated misinformation campaign akin to the tobacco industry misleading citizens about the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Shortly after this new issue hit the stands, Al Gore told a forum in Singapore, "the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere."

This raises an interesting question: Is this a coordinated attack designed to incite anger in citizens that polls show are not as upset about this issue as the left and their media minions?

As reported by the Associated Press Tuesday (emphasis added):

Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world's largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking's harmful effects.

[...]

After the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of the world's top climate scientists, released a report in February that warned that the cause of global warming is "very likely" man-made, "the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere," Gore said.

"They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools," he said.

He said Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is one of the major fuel companies involved in attempting to mislead the public about global warming.

Notice the word "deniers?" This is what Newsweek published days earlier (emphasis added):

As [Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)] left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new [IPCC] report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

[...]

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Coincidence, or a coordinated campaign by the left to stifle the growing number of scientists around the world who are speaking out and writing articles refuting anthropogenic global warming theories whilst inciting the public's anger?

After all, neither Gore nor Newsweek chose to address the billions of dollars being spent by global warming alarmists to elicit international hysteria concerning this issue, and how such funds dwarf what is going to skeptical scientists and writers to add a modicum of balance to the discussion.

As Marc Morano, Communications Director for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), pointed out in his rebuttal to Newsweek's disgraceful piece, "proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by comparison."

Gore talks about $10 million possibly coming from ExxonMobil, which the oil giant has denied as "completely false." However, why do both Gore and Newsweek refuse to share information about funding going to the alarmists?

As Morano carefully detailed:

"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (LINK) Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'"

Certainly, it seems quite suspicious that Gore and Newsweek ignored actual funding data going to both sides of this debate while employing very similar language just days apart to point fingers at "deniers," as well as using the tobacco industry analogy.

Has the June failure of the G-8 to impose CO2 emissions caps, and the July failure of Gore's Live Earth concerts, scared alarmists about the future of their cause? Have polls consistently showing that Americans aren't getting nearly as hysterical about this issue as Gore and his sycophants in the media want discouraged believers to the point that a new tactic is being tested?

With gas prices still hovering around the $3/gallon level, and oil company profits quite healthy, this looks like an easy target. As the weather really hasn't cooperated this year - especially tropical storms which, for the second year in a row, haven't materialized anywhere near the hysterical forecasts - maybe a new campaign is needed to stoke the public's anger.

Think about it: the public's real interest in this issue was largely precipitated by Hurricane Katrina followed quickly by the expedient release of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore continues to claim that we've got ten years to act before there'll be irreversible damage to the planet. Of course, he's been making this claim for years, but nobody cares about that.

The reality is that barring additional catastrophic climate events, the public's interest in spending their own money on this issue is going to thoroughly disappear. As the recent Newsweek article pointed out about its own polling data:

39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today."

[...]

[L]ess than half [are] in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings.

As such, the public doesn't seem to be buying into the hysteria. And, if some major climate event doesn't happen soon, these public opinion numbers are going to make matters much worse for the alarmists.

As a result, maybe they feel they're running out of time, especially given the number of scientists who believe the current warming cycle peaked in 1998, and that we have begun a cooling trend. Might they be thinking a conspiracy similar to what tobacco companies did decades ago is just the tonic they need to rekindle the public's ire?

After all, Americans love a conspiracy theory, right? And, many hate the oil companies. So, maybe the new tactic being tried by the alarmists - since the current one clearly isn't working - is to create the appearance of a conspiracy concerning this issue all being funded by those nasty oil companies.

Now, to be sure, oil companies funding such activities is not a new concept. This industry is constantly in the crosshairs of environmental groups, and has been accused of funding anthropogenic global warming skeptics for years.

However, what seems new is the timing of this Newsweek piece coincident with Gore's statements in Singapore, along with skeptics now being referred to as deniers.

As such, this bears watching.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/08/are-gore-newsweek-s-climate-change-deniers-accusations-coordinated

[avatar4321]

Your loss is my gain, rsr. Have you ever studied science? I seriously doubt it.

are you a scientist now too?

Science is the problem with the global warming advocates. The science doesnt support their conclusions. That doesnt stop them from asking scientists not related to climate study to sign onto global warming and calling it a consensus of scientists.

[avatar4321]

It may hit 100 in Winston-Salem tommorow. That's very unusual for here.

unusual but not unheard of.

That is the key. There have been hot summers before. There have been mild summers before.

This isnt even one of the hottest summers. within the last century.

[red states rule]

unusual but not unheard of.

That is the key. There have been hot summers before. There have been mild summers before.

This isnt even one of the hottest summers. within the last century.

It happens every year. When we have a heat wave (like we have now) it is the result of global warming

In the winter when we have severe cold temps - it is the result of climate change

It is the weather folks. It is hot in the summer and cold in the winter

[red states rule]

I am waiting for Al to say "See I tolf you so"

Weather's withering heights
By David C. Lipscomb

The Washington area is expecting a 10th straight day of temperatures above 90 degrees today after record-breaking heat that exceeded 100 degrees yesterday and prompted the electric-power grid operator for the Mid-Atlantic region to urge customers to conserve electricity.

Record high temperatures were set at all three major local airports in the afternoon yesterday, according to the National Weather Service.

At the top of the chart, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport recorded a high of 102 degrees, which topped the 101-degree record set in 1930.

Temperatures at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport reached 102 degrees, beating the record of 99 degrees set in 1980.

And, Washington Dulles International Airport recorded 101 degrees, which beat the 1980 record of 98 degrees.


http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070809/METRO/108090078/1001

[red states rule]

August 09, 2007
Al Gore Slings Bogus Borrowed Charges
By Marc Sheppard

Mr. Gore went to Singapore and peddled a phony story, one he appears to have borrowed without attribution. Echoing nearly verbatim Newsweek's recent Hillaryesque hokum that there exists a vast right-wing corporate Global Warming conspiracy, the Delphic Goracle even went so far as to repeat the most brazen among the story's falsehoods - that "deniers" had offered bribe money to potential authors of articles specifically trashing a then-pending IPCC report.


Speaking Tuesday in the island nation, Gore shamelessly repeated point after nonsensical point of Senior Editor Sharon Begley's The Truth About Denial, apparently favoring credit upon neither the author nor the publication. Quite astounding, as the basis of his cerebral petty-larceny was ripped straight from the article's core contention that, in Gore's words, there lurks an organized campaign,

"[by] some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community."
Gore then feigned fair use by cueing up the weary marching tune of the left-wing's own genuine Global Warming conspiracy parade (of which he is the undisputed Grand Marshall) to the Singapore forum:

"In actuality, there is very little disagreement. This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/al_gore_slings_bogus_borrowed.html

[glockmail]

unusual but not unheard of.

That is the key. There have been hot summers before. There have been mild summers before.

This isnt even one of the hottest summers. within the last century. Its been the hottest here in a long time. We've been breaking records all week, today officially 101. I had to drive to Burlington and my dashboard indicator was over 100 for most of the day, up to 106 through Greensboro. Sure that's 10 lanes of traffic but we we all moving 70.

Its enough to make me stop burning coal and build a few more nukes. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Its been the hottest here in a long time. We've been breaking records all week, today officially 101. I had to drive to Burlington and my dashboard indicator was over 100 for most of the day, up to 106 through Greensboro. Sure that's 10 lanes of traffic but we we all moving 70.

Its enough to make me stop burning coal and build a few more nukes. :laugh2:

'Daily Show' Mocks Kennedy for Opposition to Wind Farm
By Julia A. Seymour | August 9, 2007 - 12:44 ET
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) earned the scorn of "The Daily Show" on August 7. Show reporter Jason Jones mocked the senator's opposition to a wind farm off Nantucket Sound.

With typical "Daily Show" sarcasm and melodrama Jones remarked:

"It looked bad for the native population, until one man stood up ... Yes. Ted Kennedy – noted man from Nantucket and co-sponsor of dozens of renewable energy bills – took a stand—against the wind farms."

Video can be found at the end of the post.

Jones interviewed "wind-hugger" Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now who suggested that the Kennedy's oppose the wind farm because of its proximity to the Kennedy compound.

"So you're suggesting the Kennedy's don't want this because it will ruin their view?" Jones asked.

Earlier in the segment, Jones interviewed Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Parker showed Jones a visual simulation of what the beachfront would look like if the wind farm is built.

As the picture flashed on the screen, Jones responded: "Oh dear God. Look at that. Wait, I'm sorry. Where are the turbines?"

"On the horizon," Parker replied. "They're quite visible."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2007/08/09/daily-show-mocks-kennedy-opposition-wind-farm

[glockmail]

'Daily Show' Mocks Kennedy for Opposition to Wind Farm.... I can't see where to play the video....

[red states rule]

I can't see where to play the video....

click the link and the links to the video are at the bottom of the page

[glockmail]

click the link and the links to the video are at the bottom of the page
Sill don't see it.

[red states rule]

Sill don't see it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2007/08/09/daily-show-mocks-kennedy-opposition-wind-farm

the link for video is at the bottom of the article

[PostmodernProphet]

try this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEaOkhWOZ1A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwatthead%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2007 %2F08%2Fdaily%2Dshow%2Dskewers%2Dcape%2Dwind%2Dopp onents%2Ehtml

[red states rule]

try this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEaOkhWOZ1A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwatthead%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2007 %2F08%2Fdaily%2Dshow%2Dskewers%2Dcape%2Dwind%2Dopp onents%2Ehtml

Thanks