Glenn Beck and NewsBusters Expose Global Warming Bullies
Last week, the BBC ran an article talking about how global temperatures haven't increased since 1998--an objective fact. But facts don't matter to the environmentalist wacko crowd. Angry about the article, an activist threatened the BBC reporter who caved almost immediately and censored himself. ...For anyone who thinks the media is anything but incredibly left-wing biased. The is one of the most insane cases of media social engineering I've ever seen. Of course it undoubtedly happens all the time; this time they just happened to get caught.
Hmmm...I went to the WMO website (Beck says that the Secretary General of the WMO was the one who announced that temperatures were going to be cooler). I couldn't find the reference to next year's temperatures being cooler. So I looked further.
Several other news releases and articles on the WMO website mentioned things like the period between 1996-2007 being the warmest decade on record, and there were lots of references to adjusting to climate change. So I went to the BBC website and then I found the original article that Beck was referring to. It did indeed say that La Nina would continue and next year's temperatures would likely be cooler. And another paragraph further along said: "But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases" and "...researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend."
So I went back to Glen Beck's video. He says in the beginning of his piece that the article "proves that the science of global warming is irrelevant."
And he declares that the media has it all wrong? Well, he got that right! Ain't he a part of the media? Moral of the story; before you get too excited and start pronouncing anything, read the next few lines. That's should be the media's responsibility.
[For the record, I'm listening to all sides of this issue. All I want are facts.]
the day Al Gore mothballs his home swimming pool and stops jetting around North America AND David Suzuki stops criss-crossing Canada in a diesel spewing bus telling us to save the planet, THEN I might take this whole global warming thing seriously. with our weather of late, i'm TOTALLY buying into the global COOLING phenomenon.
More questions than answers but on Earth it's as simple as too much CO2?
I'm not buying it.
I wouldn't think it's all about CO2, but I would say that as a factor in the conditions we're starting to experience doing something good like not polluting the earth is a positive thing no matter which side of the fence you sit on global warming. Just doing more so the oil companies and oil greed aren't the cause of most wars and taking the control out of the oil companies hands is a good thing IMO.
Is Glen Beck a good source for learning about environmental issues? Perhaps, he is pandering to flat-earth people who believe that science is work of the devil.
We should be sceptical about unsupported statements from alarmist environmentalists but equally sceptical when media whores use junk science to encourage absolute denial. For the sake of our children, we must err on the side of caution when we choose courses of action. We cannot be wrong.
Suggested readings:
New Scientist, an international weekly science journal, explores 26 myths that claim to disprove theories of global warming.
Environment Canada published a lengthy National Report on Climate Change. This government is hardly alarmist but they state:
“The scientific consensus, as reflected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is that incremental Green House Gas emissions caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution are having a discernible impact on the climate.”
Seems everybody has an agenda and a group of spin-docs to advance it. I mean, who's got it right - Conservatives, Liberals, New Dems, Greenies, Pinks, Taupes.....? Very few can argue a cleaner environment is the way to go, but I feel the CO2 debate is still wide open.
Plus, journalists arrive with a position, as well.
It's our expectation of balanced journalism that is flawed.
Is Glen Beck a good source for learning about environmental issues? Perhaps, he is pandering to flat-earth people who believe that science is work of the devil.
We should be sceptical about unsupported statements from alarmist environmentalists but equally sceptical when media whores use junk science to encourage absolute denial. For the sake of our children, we must err on the side of caution when we choose courses of action. We cannot be wrong.
Suggested readings:
New Scientist, an international weekly science journal, explores 26 myths that claim to disprove theories of global warming.
Environment Canada published a lengthy National Report on Climate Change. This government is hardly alarmist but they state:
“The scientific consensus, as reflected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is that incremental Green House Gas emissions caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution are having a discernible impact on the climate.”
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Logged
Male
