With great fanfare, in March, Al Gore took Capitol Hill like a conquering hero as he testified on Global Warming before both houses of Congress. Fresh from conquests at the Academy Awards where his adoring Hollywood elites showered him with coveted golden statues for spreading their favorite propaganda, Gore was determined to turn his personal conquest into draconian federal law and ultimate human misery.
Gore's words to Congress were predictable. The earth is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. Polar bears are on the run. And it's man's fault. Solution? Ban or control human activities. The mantra of the religion of Global Warming is getting a little boring. It's quite possible, however, that Gore's appearance on the Hill actually represents the beginning of the end of his influence on climate policy rather than the start of a legislative tsunami.
Why? Because even after the Global Warming storm troopers, armed with billions of dollars, the backing of the Hollywood elite, the news media and most of academia have done everything possible to threaten, bully and force their one-sided propaganda on us, the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change. As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism. Here are just a few of the latest developments.
Item: Just days before Gore's charge up Capitol Hill, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner. Before the start of the debate, held in New York City , the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a crisis. But following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. Conclusion - when people hear both sides they can easily judge for themselves what is truth.
Item: On March 13, The New York Times, one of the most adamant promoters of the Global Warming gospel, published a landmark article stating "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."
Item: French scientist Claude Allegre, a prominent French Socialist and supporter of Global Warming dogma, recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money.
Item: One of Israel 's top young scientists, Nir Shaviv, recently reversed his opinion, declaring that the link between emissions and climate variability has nothing more that "circumstantial evidence."
Item: The United Kingdom 's famed environmental activist David Bellamy also recently converted to skepticism, as did Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who has switched from the 1970's global cooling scare to a global warming skeptic.
Item: A report by the Heartland Institute, entitled "What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming," exposes the weakness of the "consensus" claims of Global Warming shock troops. To reach its findings the report examined two surveys conducted among climate scientists; the first in 1996, and the second in 2003. Both surveys confirm scientists are divided on the issue. Says the report -
More climate scientist "strongly disagree" than "strongly agree" with the notion that climate change is caused by humans.
Most climate scientists do not believe "the current state of knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability" over 100-year periods. Only 2 percent of climate scientists surveyed "strongly agree" that modeling programs designed to predict climate changes are accurate, and Almost all climate scientists agree that climate change could have "positive effects for some societies."
Item: After Global Warming propagandists rushed to declare that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report proved conclusively that Global Warming was caused by human action, (a report by the way that won't be released until May) the just released summary predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.
Item: New research by international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."
As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) sums it up, "The usual suspects will still insist that there is a 'consensus' of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but rank and file scientists are now openly rebelling.
As real debate finally forces fact over headline-making one liners, the truth will become ever more inconvenient to Al Gore and his Global Warming zealots.
Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 342-8911 E-Mail: apcmail@americanpolicy.org
Good thing Gore lost as President. He's just a lyin' ho spouting gloom and doom and raking in the cash. Gee, the sun might have more to do with global warming than us humans...what a stretch
I think we still have to watch what we are doing, but to take these measures that will cost billions and cost jobs makes no sense when we cant stop it anyway.
Warming and cooling is a natural event that has happened for eternity and will continue on despite us peons who think we are alot more powerful than we are.
Whether or not Global Warming is fact or fiction seems now to be rather secondary to the idea that Mr. Gore and others have provided themselves with gainful employment through it.
Some here will remember Global Cooling, and the fear of a new Ice Age, Nuclear Winter, and a lot of doom and gloom scenarios that cause some of us to want to examine the evidence ourselves rather than take someone else's word for it.
What is amazing is how politically incorrect it quickly became to want to decide for one's self.
>> The American Policy Center is a far-right wing think tank run by PR man Tom DeWeese.
The American Policy Center (APC), located in suburban Washington, D.C., is a privately funded, nonprofit, 501 c (4), tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government regulations over commerce and individuals. <<
From EXXONSECRETS.ORG, "Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics":
>> A far right organization, APC particularly focuses on the issues of "environmental policy and its effect on private property rights; national federal computer data banks and their effect on individual privacy rights; the United Nations and its effect on American national sovereignty; and federal education policy and its effect on local schools and parental rights." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/about/main.htm) APC is concerned with global warming, both as a treaty viewed as threatening national sovereignty and as laws with economic impacts. Among other anti-climate science writings, APC has published an article by Fred Singer arguing that the earth is cooling, not warming and an article accusing Al Gore and his "theory of global warming" of genocide. (http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/climatecatastrophes.htm abd http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/algore.htm) APC publishes two newsletters and a periodic action alert entitled "Sledgehammer." American Policy Center was a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition <<
>> • The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry, anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy." The APC is also the publisher of a report titled "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions," which says EPA regulatory initiatives rest on "shaky scientific ground." It also publishes a newsletter called EPA Watch, edited by Bonner Cohen, which accuses the EPA of everything from destroying the U.S. economy to trying to stop people from taking showers. A Philip Morris strategy document describes EPA Watch as an "asset" created by PM funding allocated "to establish groups ... that have a broader impact for PM." Another strategy memo discusses plans to promote "EPA Watch/Bonner Cohen as expert on EPA matters, i.e., regular syndicated radio features on EPA activities ... news bureau function, speaking engagements, whatever can be done to increase his visibility and credibility on matters dealing with the EPA." <<
>> The American Policy Center is a far-right wing think tank run by PR man Tom DeWeese.
The American Policy Center (APC), located in suburban Washington, D.C., is a privately funded, nonprofit, 501 c (4), tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government regulations over commerce and individuals. <<
From EXXONSECRETS.ORG, "Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics":
>> A far right organization, APC particularly focuses on the issues of "environmental policy and its effect on private property rights; national federal computer data banks and their effect on individual privacy rights; the United Nations and its effect on American national sovereignty; and federal education policy and its effect on local schools and parental rights." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/about/main.htm) APC is concerned with global warming, both as a treaty viewed as threatening national sovereignty and as laws with economic impacts. Among other anti-climate science writings, APC has published an article by Fred Singer arguing that the earth is cooling, not warming and an article accusing Al Gore and his "theory of global warming" of genocide. (http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/climatecatastrophes.htm abd http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/algore.htm) APC publishes two newsletters and a periodic action alert entitled "Sledgehammer." American Policy Center was a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition <<
>> • The American Policy Center (APC), headed by longtime PR pro Thomas DeWeese, weighs in on what can safely be called the loony fringe of the sound science movement. One issue of the APC's newsletter attacks longtime environmentalist and author Jeremy Rifkin as "anti-industry, anti-civilization, anti-people" and accuses him of preaching "suicide, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy." The APC is also the publisher of a report titled "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions," which says EPA regulatory initiatives rest on "shaky scientific ground." It also publishes a newsletter called EPA Watch, edited by Bonner Cohen, which accuses the EPA of everything from destroying the U.S. economy to trying to stop people from taking showers. A Philip Morris strategy document describes EPA Watch as an "asset" created by PM funding allocated "to establish groups ... that have a broader impact for PM." Another strategy memo discusses plans to promote "EPA Watch/Bonner Cohen as expert on EPA matters, i.e., regular syndicated radio features on EPA activities ... news bureau function, speaking engagements, whatever can be done to increase his visibility and credibility on matters dealing with the EPA." <<
Personally, as a non-scientist, I find the argument that most if not ALL current global warming is NATURALLY occuring and NOT man made, makes alot more sense than the Gore/Suzuki spin. Makes them some big bucks, though.
That is not to say I do not support conservation and lessening of the human footprint. I just do not support the misleading lies and hysteria that fools like Gore and Suzuki are spouting. The science does NOT support their claims. They, personally, do not walk the walk, they only talk the talk. No credibility in my book.
If that makes me a raving heretic, so be it. I'm comfortable with that label...I've been called much worse
>> The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. <<
>> The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive.
This comes as no surprise considering the FOS has been linked to some of the most notorious oil money-backed scientists in the US <<
That is not to say I do not support conservation and lessening of the human footprint. I just do not support the misleading lies and hysteria that fools like Gore and Suzuki are spouting. The science does NOT support their claims.
Much of the science does. Look, I don't worship at the altars of Gore and Suzuki but I *do* think they're pointed in the right direction. Whenever I read an article such as the one that started this thread, I want to know where these people are coming from. A lot of "credibility" is lacking on *both sides* of the argument. From everything I've read on the subject, my gut tells me that there's probably some middle ground that would benefit our grandchildren and those who come after them. Simple.
Personally, as a non-scientist, I find the argument that most if not ALL current global warming is NATURALLY occuring and NOT man made, makes alot more sense than the Gore/Suzuki spin. Makes them some big bucks, though.
That is not to say I do not support conservation and lessening of the human footprint. I just do not support the misleading lies and hysteria that fools like Gore and Suzuki are spouting. The science does NOT support their claims. They, personally, do not walk the walk, they only talk the talk. No credibility in my book.
If that makes me a raving heretic, so be it. I'm comfortable with that label...I've been called much worse
We should be able to have the debate without resorting to name calling or labels. The science will speak for itself, given time.
I agree with paddyboy that we should attempt to keep our effects on the planet as small as possible, but I do think the Chicken Little side has chosen some representatives that are not as credible as they could be. Add to that the fact that for the longest time, the "Bury our Heads in the Sand" side didn't even seem to have any talking heads until recently, and it's another nice mess you've gotten us into, Ollie.
Why does this right-wing fringe politics stuff get posted on here? We could dump all sorts of left stuff too, but what's the point of either. And it always seem to be the same re-gurgitated material from the same right-wing PR machine. How about some independant thought?
>> The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. <<
>> The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive.
This comes as no surprise considering the FOS has been linked to some of the most notorious oil money-backed scientists in the US <<
Much of the science does. Look, I don't worship at the altars of Gore and Suzuki but I *do* think they're pointed in the right direction. Whenever I read an article such as the one that started this thread, I want to know where these people are coming from. A lot of "credibility" is lacking on *both sides* of the argument. From everything I've read on the subject, my gut tells me that there's probably some middle ground that would benefit our grandchildren and those who come after them. Simple.
Again, for me, the attempt to discredit a viewpoint by referring to the funding source is an attempt to discredit the source and ignores the science. I don't care who funds these guys if the science is sound. Gore/Suzuki is spin science from what I can see, designed to make them rich and famous. It's working, too. Are you willing to bet your grandkids futures on the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki? Now THAT'S scary. Ask yourself why they are doing what they do. Then ask yourself why these OTHER, lesser known scientists do what they have been doing for a lifetime. Who's getting rich?
As far as the funding red herring goes, how much of the grants that the gloom and doom "scientist" get is directly related to the theory that global warming is man made? If these guys say that yes indeed global warming IS a natural phenomenon, their funding dries up. It's in their best interest to continue the charade of gloom and doom. It pays the rent.
The suspicious funding "argument" works both ways and is irrelevant.
God is pissed off! Now, who's gonna stand in that guy's way when the blood is up?
It's true! It's in all the papers! It's on the Radio. It's on TV!
And that, dear hearts, is an actual, other position held by waaaaay too many people.
I've read about that...scary sh!t. I sure as hell hope the making of Jack Daniels doesn't break some emissions laws or Kyoto 'cause that'll be fightin' time!!!!
What is really significant about this debate is ...THERE WLL BE NO DEBATE!!! I casually raised the issue at a dinner party last weekend and was told -by everyone at the table, that I was ill-informed and just another right wing denier (politely of course, or perhaps "smugly") I responded (equally politely) that I merely needed to see more of the other side before I made up my mind. I explained that what we have now aren't scientific FACTS, which are indisputable. Until all parties agree it's not science, it's dogma . Didn't matter. Agitator. Off with his head....
What is really significant about this debate is ...THERE WLL BE NO DEBATE!!! I casually raised the issue at a dinner party last weekend and was told -by everyone at the table, that I was ill-informed and just another right wing denier (politely of course, or perhaps "smugly") I responded (equally politely) that I merely needed to see more of the other side before I made up my mind. I explained that what we have now aren't scientific FACTS, which are indisputable. Until all parties agree it's not science, it's dogma . Didn't matter. Agitator. Off with his head....
Thats really my whole problem with this issue as well. As you say, if you bring up the "other side" of the issue, you are a communist wife-beating pedophile all of a sudden. I find it quite perplexing. What's going on?
Thats really my whole problem with this issue as well. As you say, if you bring up the "other side" of the issue, you are a communist wife-beating pedophile all of a sudden. I find it quite perplexing. What's going on?
Are you sure its not a "conspiracy" (theory)? Which Canadian political party is making great fodder out of this?
It's easy to target the Dems in the US because of Gore. But it's strange that the nay-sayers all seem to be from the far right of the political spectrum.
Give me a break. There is more science to support global warming as there is to say it's not happening. Look for it and you will find it. Or spout off about the small handful of scientists who are against it, but get the most press. The fact of the matter is that in our narrow minded, look for controversy media world, finding the naysayers is more interesting than talking to the thousands of scientists that support the idea and the huge amounts of data that show greenhouse gases are effecting the planet. They have gone up immensly in the last generation. Sure our climates change, but not that drastically over such a short period of time. Yes there is a middle ground, but I never understand this vehemt argument against it? Why? Because it effects your life? Because it will cost companies a bit of profit? Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? And do you honestly believe it's all about money for David Suzuki? Sure he is in it to make a buck as well. But to say he's coming up with this theory only for the money is like saying George Bush went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people restore democracy.
Give me a break. There is more science to support global warming as there is to say it's not happening. Look for it and you will find it. Or spout off about the small handful of scientists who are against it, but get the most press. The fact of the matter is that in our narrow minded, look for controversy media world, finding the naysayers is more interesting than talking to the thousands of scientists that support the idea and the huge amounts of data that show greenhouse gases are effecting the planet. They have gone up immensly in the last generation. Sure our climates change, but not that drastically over such a short period of time. Yes there is a middle ground, but I never understand this vehemt argument against it? Why? Because it effects your life? Because it will cost companies a bit of profit? Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? And do you honestly believe it's all about money for David Suzuki? Sure he is in it to make a buck as well. But to say he's coming up with this theory only for the money is like saying George Bush went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people restore democracy.
I don't think anyone said global warming wasn't happening. Is it all man made and can we stop it?
There's the question. If we only contribute 1% of the CO2 produced by the earth, can we make a difference IF that's the problem in the first place?
If it's the sun and a NATURAL phenomenon, maybe we just have to make the best of it...soon the earth will COOL naturally.
It's like saying we can stop earthquakes and hurricanes by reducing CO2.
Reducing CO2 isn't a bad thing but it won't stop global warming...humans don't have that power.
I agree with you that global warming is a natural trend. In the past there have been natural, and sometimes very quick, drastic changes to the environment. But the fact of the matter is that in the industrial age, and especially since the 50's, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has gone up at an extremely alarming rate. Human impact (burning fossil fuels) has produced these gases faster than our systems (plants) can soak them up. We are ripping down rainforests and trees.
And I am no saint either, I drive a car. And I know that even if we completely cut out our C02 production, it still wouldn't be enough to stop the warming. But that is not a reason to not try and to say that it's all a bunch of bunk and faulty science. The science is there, just look for it. it's not hard to find real, balanced facts from credible, nuetral sources. Not a biased, incredibly right wing narrow minded article. Let's face it the reasons for making change are 99% of the time noble, and because people are worried about the planet (yes there are people also making money from environmental causes). The reasons for not doing anything are based on inconvenience and the allmighty dollar.
"But the fact of the matter is that in the industrial age, and especially since the 50's, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has gone up at an extremely alarming rate."
From 1940 to 1975, there was a documented cooling of the earth to the point that scientists in the '70's were predicting an ice age by 2005.
"L.A. Times" in 1978: "No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere".
"TIME" magazine`s big spread from 1974, asking "Another Ice Age?"
"Newsweek" said global cooling evidence had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it."
There was a time when they thought the earth was flat too, but science has progressed just a little bit in the last 3 decades. There was a lot less data in 1974 or 78. It's obvious that there is a lot of exaggeration being used on both sides and we can probably both throw article links up that say whatever we both want them to say. I agree that we should not take anything on the internet, or from the media at face value. There is always an agenda.
Once again, I think we agree that there is a middle ground here. But to just blow off global warming as a myth based on principle is a scary thought. If we are going to make any difference, even if it is tiny, (and why wouldn't we want to?) it has to start sooner rather than later.
"...If we are going to make any difference, even if it is tiny, (and why wouldn't we want to?) it has to start sooner rather than later...."
Okay. You tell the emerging nations they can't develop. I'm going to wash up for dinner after I take out the garbage.
There is an incredible arrogance in the position that suggests if the first-world nations gut their economies, this will be, somehow, "good" for the planet.
Maybe God is wheeling into another one of Her self-loathing rages about screwing things up - again.... and is going to take it out on, oh... I dunno....US!
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Logged
Male
