The sad thing is this bit of pro-pollution propaganda was a CNN production.
CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck’s May 2 hour-long special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, purported to present the “other side of the climate debate that you don’t hear anywhere.” Introducing the show, Beck stated: “I want you to know right up front, this is not a balanced look at global warming.” Indeed, Beck relied heavily on people with energy industry ties and others espousing positions on global warming that have been soundly debunked or rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying climate change.
The most annoying thing about equal media time for this “debate” is that the scientific evidence is in favor of human involvement in climate change. Yet, as long as there exists even one dissenter his/her position is given equal weight to the overwhelming position of climate scientists that see human involvement.
Nature doesn’t lie. If the data says otherwise, it’s time to change your opinion even if you have emotional ties to a contrary position. Any reputable scientist will always change his/her position when the evidence shows that he/she is wrong. That’s how science works. To stick to a position no matter how weak it is only means that person is a quack, a charlatan or a fool.
A good starting point to read up on the position of real climate scientists rather than economists dressed up as scientists is http://www.realclimate.org.
I completely agree with what you say about balance.
There are some topics where the debate should be over and we should be taking action, like global warming and energy independence. Instead, because of GOP special interests and of the right wing’s constant whining that the media being too liberal, the debate continues and nothing gets done, making us all look stupid.
Nature doesn’t lie…
What poppycock! Of course, nature doesn’t lie. Nature wasn’t lying about the Cardiff Giant or the Piltdown Man. But some man was!
Any reputable scientist will always change his/her position when the evidence shows that he/she is wrong.
Apparently you’ve never heard the story of Ignaz Semmelweis.
A good starting point to read up on the position of real climate scientists … is http://www.realclimate.org.
You’re damn right it is! Nearly ever article posted is hit with a blizzard (no pun intended) of dissent.
If the debate were over, it would be over. Do you seriously believe that ALL the scientists that think “climate change” (known only months ago as “global warming”) is a crock of shit are all non - climate scientists AND Republicans, to boot?
How conveeeeeeenient!
Yeah, frank. Pretty much.
99% of hte anti-climate-change “scientists” are shills.
Why are Conservatives anti-Conservation?
So, if there were, say, 2,000 climate scientists on this planet, and, say, 10% (a little less than 2 SD’s) were disposed to think of serious, catastrophic “climate change” as nonsense, whatever its origin, that would represent about 200 climate scientists, and 99% of them, or 198, would be petrochemical industry shills.
Is that about right?
Suppose most scientists agree that there is something wrong with our atmosphere; AND that it has to great degree a human origin, but it is NOT viewed as potentially catastrophic. How would that set with you?
Now, suppose that most scientists agree that there is something wrong with our atmosphere; AND that it has to great degree a human origin, AND it is NOT viewed as potentially catastrophic, but only possibly so, but the cost of repairing it would be monumental in terms of direct expense, economic dislocation, and radical adaptation in lifestyle, so that hardly anyone would be willing to make the changes? Now how would that set with you?
Why are liberals so opposed to individual freedoms and rights?
Hey, CNN needs Glenn Beck. To quote Jon Stewart, Beck is there to say what people who aren’t thinking are thinking. Who’s going to stick up for them?
Global warming is REAL AND 99% MAN-MADE! And the president knows this. I have it on good authority that he’s had his two scrotal globes orally warmed repeatedly by his Secretary Of State.
The thing I realize more with each passing day is that conservatives are going to find themselves in roughly the same position on this issue as they found themselves in WWII. That is to say that many companies are beginning to realize that there is money to be made in supporting the environment. For GE, it is selling premium-priced CFLs. For GM, it will be selling premium-priced plug-in hybrids. For Chevron, it will be biofuels. For Bechtel and other international engineering firms, it will be massive solar farms. Suddenly, the ground is going to shift and hacks and charlatans like Frank and Glenn Beck will find out that the corporations are the ones backing the push to institutionalize global warming. And, as with so many other periods in history, the conservatives will be pushing an agenda that is proven to be historically wrong. I give it about 5 years.
“If the debate were over, it would be over.”
It is over, Frank. Among scientists there is a consensus of nearly unprecedented levels.
Granted, not everyone agree and there’s some debate on the details, but that’s true of all things scientific. After all, this is reality and not dogma.
Nobody knows if the current small spike upward in temperature is the result of all pure man made factors, all natural factors, or a combination thereof. To say the debate is settled (as here) or that careers of dissenters should be ruined (per Weather Channel) clearly emphasizes that the science is NOT settled and that man-made advocates must resort to threats and intimidation to win what should be a science argument. I think they are politically motivated and see this as a way to weaken the US/cpaitalism. Some also believe that what we do to respond to global warming would be good anyway, so why worry if the science cooked and on par with the global cooling scare of a few decades ago. There were once glaciers in Illinois (and they went away before man), Greenland was green. Over time, the climate has changed radically both ways - without man’s influence, but suddenly, now, adherents believe none of it is natural. Nature just stopped all at once.
“Nobody knows if the current small spike upward in temperature is the result of all pure man made factors, all natural factors, or a combination thereof.”
Except actual scientists.
It is over, Frank. Among scientists there is a consensus of nearly unprecedented levels.
Granted, not everyone agree and there’s some debate on the details, but that’s true of all things scientific. After all, this is reality and not dogma.
So stop treating it like dogma, and stop treating “deniers” like infidels.
I watched Glenn Beck’s special. Honestly, there was nothing especially pursuasive, just a bunch of loosely-connected counter arguments, supported by flimsy evidence.
Frank: as long as there are folks like you, who like being dicks for the sake of being dicks, the wrong side of the debate will ALWAYS have an advocate.
That’s why the debate isn’t over. Because one can always find some bitter loser who, at midnight on the equator, will argue that the sun is shining.
Zadura- Most conservatives already support the things you speak of, but for a vastly different reason. The development of alternative energy is a national security issue that would weaken the power of the middle east should the United States become more independent.
As far as the global warming thing- it’s funny how you absolutists want to shut down the debate as though climate cycles and the models that have been used to define this scare of chicken little proportions are such an exact science. (Even though the models themselves have not been able to accurately reproduce historical patterns of global climate warming and cooling as it has happened approximately every 1800 years.) Yet why is it that scientists are finding nearly identical global warming patterns on Mars?
“So stop treating it like dogma, and stop treating “deniers” like infidels.”
Waaah!
The data stands on it’s own and doesn’t care what anybody thinks.
Frank, Marty and Dugger like almost every conservative I’ve known, heard or read are notorious cherrypickers of facts. And when they can’t find the facts they want, they simply make shit up. That’s why conservatives are almost always wrong about everything.
RBG and Jimmmm:
Don’t you two realize how difficult you make it to believe this happy horseshit?
You sound like schoolyard bullies!
“Say it! Say it! Global warming is scary!”
Among scientists there is a consensus of nearly unprecedented levels.
As big a “consensus” as gravity? Atomic Structure? Genetics?
If it were proveable “beyond a doubt”, then there would be no doubt. But there is. Ergo, your statement is factually incorrect.
Much of the “scientific” resistance comes from industry-sponsored science - you know, the guys who said smoking is actually healthy because it controls weight. When their patronage runs out, they will wither away.
Conservatives who oppose global warming on the basis of this science are going to find themselves in the same position as the Old Right Republicans did in World War II. They will be supporting Axis powers while America has moved on. Luckily for Frank and his chorus of folly, there is always tons of other science to be wrong on as well.
Who is it out there that can state authoritatively if the current spike is permanent, is manmade entirely, and is not part of a much longer term natural trend (Greenland was green and there were glaciers in Illinois)?
Again, a bunch of scientists. Although the permanence angle is a red herring there, well done for slipping that in.
the leftists here truly have no understanding of science…have any of you actually had any formal science training in any discipline at all?
The flat earthers all made the same arguments, so did the “sun revolves around the earth” guys. People with truly strong arguments and hypotheses don’t spend their time denigrate the people that disagree with them as “shills”, they should have plenty of factual basis.
How much money has gore gotten from pro-global warming groups? How much money have all these pro warming scientist received?
Its funny, when we are talking about liberal bias in media, all you lefties screech “journalistic ethics”, but when it comes to scientists, a group that actually has a long history of ethics discussions, all that goes out the window…
You idiots just don’t even realize that you are arguing two sides of the same point do you?
“How much money have all these pro warming scientist received?”
Why are not asking the same thing about the industry funded researchers?
Or are you denying that such funding channels
exist?
Who nimmer? A bunch of scientists also say permanent man made global warming has not been proven.
Now, suppose that most scientists agree that there is something wrong with our atmosphere; AND that it has to great degree a human origin, AND it is NOT viewed as potentially catastrophic, but only possibly so, but the cost of repairing it would be monumental in terms of direct expense, economic dislocation, and radical adaptation in lifestyle, so that hardly anyone would be willing to make the changes? Now how would that set with you?
In that event, I would say that the “scientists” had stopped discussing climate and had taken up economics.
Although the permanence angle is a red herring there, well done for slipping that in.
Apparently, it’s gonna stay slipped in.
Why is it ’slipped’ in? the climate has clearly changed in major ways inthe past - w/o man made factors. Why is that not fully or partially the case now and this latest little blip impermanent?
Because in meteorological and climatalogical terms “Permanent” can mean a lot of things depending on context. Although of course you know that being LORD BIG SCIENTICIAN and all
“So stop treating it like dogma, and stop treating “deniers” like infidels.”
If someone comes up with a reasonable, peer reviewed, scientific argument against man being a significant cause of global warming, I will look at it.
If someone says Al Gore is like Hitler, I will ignore them.
So far I’ve seen a lot of the latter, but none of the former.
“Why is it ’slipped’ in? the climate has clearly changed in major ways inthe past - w/o man made factors. Why is that not fully or partially the case now and this latest little blip impermanent?”
We know why these things happened in the past, and we know that the situation today is different.
We know this because we have a tool called science.
On a side note, what would happen if we proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human were responsible for 30% of global warming? Would that change your position on what we should be doing?
In that event, I would say that the “scientists” had stopped discussing climate and had taken up economics.
I’m perfectly willing to admit that:
1) Humans play a role in global warming; AND
2) It is significant, but perhaps not catastrophic.
Now, let’s talk economics.
Now, let’s talk economics.
Go for it.
Frank, your “economics” are crowded little zero-sum games set up by the American Enterprise Institute. If you want to have a real conversation that deviates from their script, in the words of your man-crush, bring it on.
Well,let’s see: American Enterprise Institute is out.
I have a “man - crush” on Pres. Bush.
Since I have an unnecessary restriction, and you have none; and since I’m already accused of having a “man - crush” on someone who I just said yesterday I wasn’t crazy about, I’ll pass this time.
I don’t see a conversation thus arranged as having any value.
“Now, let’s talk economics.”
Sure. If the environment changes and the sea levels rise / ocean based storms increase in strength, that will cause a whole lot more damage to the economy that shutting off fosil fuels consumption completely.
And that’s not even what the environmentalists want.
Here’s an interesting if slightly off topic fact. Small family farms can produce pork at a lower cost to consumer and in a more environmentally friendly fashion than factory farms. The only reason factor farms are economically viable is because the government subsidizes them.
If the government stopped subsidizing environmentally unfriendly businesses, there would be no economic lose for anyone.
Exactly, Frank, you are too lazy to engage in a conversation about economics. You were hoping that by throwing out the term to the so-called leftists that you will have hit upon an issue beyond our comprehension. The truth is, you don’t really understand the economics at all.
Here, by the way, is the most authoritative report undertaken by a government body, Britain’s Treasury. I will not include the whole report, because I know for a solid fact that most of the conservatives here are too lazy to think beyond sound bites, so here’s from the ES:
[T]he evidence gathered… leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting. Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
Percentages don’t fully capture the impact. The lost GDP stems from arid land turning to desert, inland water bodies disappearing, increasing unclarity about weather conditions - in other words, chaos. The 1% GDP reduction from acting comes in the form of more efficient cars, buildings and homes, cleaner feedstock for power plants, factories and automobiles - in other words, things that allow us to maintain our lifestyle for the long haul.
So, I repeat my warning to all of the so-called conservatives here. If you continue down the path of denying global warming, you will end up exactly where Republicans were at the end of WWII - completely vanquished and out of work for generations.
First of all, if lazy is what you call it when you set preconditions on my evidence, and I have set none on yours, AND I am in no mood to debate, what, 16 guys, on this issue, then fine, “lazy” it is.
Secondly,Great Britain’s highest point is two- hundred - thirteen feet. A tidal rise of thirty feet would constitute a grave crisis. I believe the Thames is a tidal river, also.
But why should I go all over the Internet looking for data, when you can dismiss it by calling it “biased”? Of course it’s biased. It disputes your data. Do you want me to go find data that supports your argument for you?
Yes, the Republicans “completely vanquished and out of work for generations”: From a close tie with Dewey in 1948, two victories in 52 and 56, a close tie in 1960; to a handy defeat of Humphrey in 1968, and a landslide defeat of McGovern in 1972.
Or did you mean generations of fruit flies?