- Clean energy breakthrough
- Letters should not be changed
- Bush adopts “my way or the highway” attitude
- Severance tax piece misses the point
- SCHIP 2.0
- Things must be far worse in Iraq
- Citizens need to take back freedoms
- Apathy in the U.S.
- Military heroes should be on front page
- Post’s Moore misleads on ‘Scoundrels’
Rosen excels at spinning by omission
Local radio talk-show host, Rocky Mountain News columnist, apparent climate expert and a regular on the Colorado Media Matters Web site for his many inaccuracies, Mike Rosen is very good at spinning by omission (“Al Gore’s ignoble Nobel,” Oct. 19).
Rosen invokes British High Court Justice Michael Barton who correctly points out errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but conveniently leaves out that portion of the ruling that states the documentary was “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.” The judge also said he had “no doubt: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.’”
Rosen also neglects to mention that many of the global warming contrarians he aligns himself with are scientists affiliated with ExxonMobil, who, according to a FoxNews report on Jan. 3, 2007, spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to put out information to advocacy groups that seek to deliberately confuse the public on global warming science.
So the next time you hear the Limbaughs and Rosens of the world prattle on about global warming, remember they are talk-show hosts and are not qualified to give serious opinions on such complicated issues such as global warming.
Cecil Moxon, Northglenn
So Cecil those "Experts" that trumpted Global cooling only 35 yrs ago, the same scientist and professors and politicians they must have been wrong too.
I think all rational Humans will see that this latest fad of global cooling will pass after all of the resent "Experts" get there pot of gold and their own personel JET.
oh dumcil why is it that algore refuses to have an open debate British High Court Justice Michael Barton? if it is true the Barton is wrong and algore is telling the truth, why will he not debate the issue to set things straight? is it because he can not defend his lies in person as algore himself knows its all bull?
what part of expert is algore a member of? the bs crowd is looking good.
cecil you should be outraged as they misspelled your last name by putting an 'x' inplace of the ' r '. I am very sorry they could not spell your name correctly but that will be our little secrete.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 06:46 AMAs the poster on Nov. 1 at 06:19 AM suggested, Al Gore is supposed to be viewed as someone who is “qualified to give serious opinions on such complicated issues such as global warming” as long has he advances the hysteria which makes school kids believe they will drowned to death or bake to death, but if someone who has also studied the issue but comes to a different conclusion they are suddenly “not qualified to give serious opinions” on the issue and are never to be considered worthy of listening to.
To those who worship Al Gore and who crusade for the theory that man causes climate change are delusional in their belief that the debate is over and that dissent is not to be tolerated.
Cecil, you have every right to believe every crack-pot speculation you like. But you must understand that other have every right to debunk that speculation.
The fact that Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and Vanderbilt Law School suggests that he might have below average intelligence. And since Al was the son of a Tennessee U.S. Senator, it is questionable that he was admitted on his own academic merits--and he demonstrated that twice.
So how does this qualify Al Gore as an expert on climate change and global warming? And wasn't it the "experts" who predicted the "Coming Ice Age" back in the 1970s? I'm still waiting.
It seems to me that the whole arena of climate has become infested with a bunch of snake oil salesmen, flim/flam alarmists and hypocrites who are looking to peddle "carbon credits" or recieve government funding. There has been a convenient marriage of both liberal politics and zealot frauds who are trying to scare everyone into adopting their religion and while cashing-in (attacking your wallet) during this process. Meanwhile, we are looking at $100 p/b. Can $5 at the pump and monthly heating bills of $2,000 be that far behind?
"Elmer Gantry" was a great movie, but I never thought that I would ever see it played out in real life. Al and Elmer have a lot in common.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 07:15 AMAl Gore may not be the best person to represent any scientific idea, but at least he got people talking about the issue.
Even if you don't believe in Global Warming, you have to believe that humans have been doing serious damage to this planet for many years. There's nothing wrong with doing the things that can help leave the Earth in better shape than we got it.
Is that to hard to understand?
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 07:20 AMCecil claims that those opposed to Al Gore and his lies are bought and paid for. With 16 million dollars going to propaganda in an effort to discredit facts that are wrong in the first place. I ask Cecil how many of those pro Gore experts have been paid for and how many times more money has been used to promote Al Gores inconvenant lies?
Posted by on November 1, 2007 07:21 AMIt's seems pretty simple to me. If Al Gore flunked out of some school or other, it stands to reason that there is not now and will never be any global warming, particularly if he is living in a big house.
Posted by Truth on November 1, 2007 07:35 AMBillionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen. Hansen, a "leading climate modeler," is named in several of Soros' financial statements. The story is all over the net, I first saw it in Investors' Business Daily.
$720,000 buys a lot of cooked data, and like most of the global warming moonbats and flim/flam artists ("experts"), Hansen stuffed his pockets. This Hansen data has been the bible of the tin-foil-hat wearing, global warming crowd and its since been exposed as road apples. The cooked-up "data" has also been discredited by the scientific community. You would think that some of the environuts and weatherbats would have gotten the word.
P.S. That was me at 7:15 A.M.
Posted by Hank on November 1, 2007 07:53 AMI wonder how much Bush paid for Iraq's WMD information...
There are other scientists that talk about Global Warming. You may think one's information is "flawed"., but what about the others?
Have you seen the weather report lately? Did you notice that the average temperatures are always less than the current temperature?
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 08:05 AMAL GORE...VANDERBILIT DIVINITY SCHOOL...ELMER GANTRY....GLOBAL WARMING.
Can we connect the dots?
The zealot snake-oil peddler started his own religion (after being rejected) and is now cashing in on the guilt of the gullible by selling them indulgences. And he borrows a little from Islam by calling those who are onto his phony scam as "deniers" (aka global warming infidels).
Not only is Gore a not-too-bright zealot and religious fanatic, he's dangerous too.
Posted by Hank on November 1, 2007 08:08 AMShoot the messenger in spit of the message, right hank?
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 08:23 AMGore's goal is to feed the alarmism by exagerating the science ie 20' of rising oceans instead of 2". Then create carbon trading firms in the US and Australia to make money on trading carbon credits. This while man caused GHG from the USA is only 0.04% of total. This is like 1.7" on a 100 yard football field. We have a global energy crisis, not a global GHG crisis. China is the #1 GHG producer and installs a new coal fired plant every 10 days and gets a pass. Ice core data shows CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and part of the natural earth cycle. It's all a hoax and we need to get this train stopped!
Posted by PAK on November 1, 2007 08:28 AMhey bear Bush didnt have to pay for WMD infor it was given to him by the previous admin who ranted about it but did nothing.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 08:31 AM08:31, brainwashed by Fox News?
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 08:44 AMI'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of the people who do not believe human activity has an effect on the global climate regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News to get their "facts".
Posted by on November 1, 2007 08:58 AMBear,
Why do you use capital letters (Global Warming rather than global warming)? Is it a divine entity, as in capitalizing letters for God, i.e. Him, His, etc?
You are expanding the argument out of proportion by saying things like, “Even if you don't believe in Global Warming…” It’s not about whether or not the climate is changing, Bear. The debate is about what is making it happen.
It’s a good indication that someone doesn’t have a very strong argument when they have to manipulate the topic toward “I wonder how much Bush paid for Iraq's WMD information...”
But since you brought it up, George Bush had the very same information on Iraq’s WMD that Bill Clinton had, that Madeleine Albright had, the same information that the Israeli intelligence agencies had, that the Russians had, that the French had, that the British had, that Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards had.
You wrote, “Have you seen the weather report lately? Did you notice that the average temperatures are always less than the current temperature?”
Really? The average temperature is now ALWAYS less than the current temperature? That’s not even close to being right. And who says that the “average” temperature is really the average that the Earth has experienced for billions of years? How do we know that what we consider to be average may actually be below average for the history of Earth? How long has man been enhabiting Earth, and how long during that time period have we been able to accurately measure temperature?
When I was in scouting we had a motto: "Be prepared".
Posted by on November 1, 2007 09:25 AMIt is always a joy to watch the right wing sanctimonious frauds get into a righteous sweat about Al Gore and his correctly won Nobel. Good sport. Well done Cecil.
Posted by ruphus on November 1, 2007 09:29 AMFunny how all the neocons posting here have spun the letter about Rosen into trashing Gore. It's obvious they have learned a great deal from listening to Rosen about the art of the spin.
Posted by GK on November 1, 2007 10:01 AMGore is white trash. GK & Bear are fart sniffers.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 10:20 AM"those "Experts" that trumpted Global cooling only 35 yrs ago, the same scientist and professors and politicians they must have been wrong too."
This is a widely debunked myth.
"To those who worship Al Gore and who crusade for the theory that man causes climate change are delusional in their belief that the debate is over and that dissent is not to be tolerated."
"So how does this qualify Al Gore as an expert on climate change and global warming?"
"The zealot snake-oil peddler started his own religion "
Once again for the cheap seats people. You don't have to believe Gore is an expert on climatology to accept the conclusions of nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientist on this planet in regards to GW.
By the way this is also a myth:
"But since you brought it up, George Bush had the very same information on Iraq’s WMD that Bill Clinton had, that Madeleine Albright had, the same information that the Israeli intelligence agencies had, that the Russians had, that the French had, that the British had, that Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards had."
Read the senate report on the matter. The WH willfully chose to ignore and hide info from Congress that they had that didn't support their case for war with Iraq.
Take the tinfoil hat off, google stovepipe and cheney, and get an education on the matter.
Equally funny that none of the geniuses trashing Cecil or Al Gore here are daring to go after all the CU and CSU scientists who are sharing the Nobel Prize for their global warming work, upon which Gore based his presentations. Out of your league, eh? Or are you just too cowardly (like Rosen) to go after people who live a bit closer to home?
Posted by BillM on November 1, 2007 11:32 AMhere you go billm read this like to get better informed. please bring algore to the debate table or is that out of his league? eh
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Posted by on November 1, 2007 11:35 AM11:35 - Bush burns more energy in one AF 1 flight to Taxas than most American famlies consume in serveral years. Burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel to get to his "green" house doesn't cut fiend.
Posted by Texas Fry 'em on November 1, 2007 12:34 PMCecil if you are taking information from Media Matters as fact, you are a lapdog to the leftist smear machine. Check your facts from a non-partisan source.
Then you say:
"Rosen also neglects to mention that many of the global warming contrarians he aligns himself with are scientists affiliated with ExxonMobil, who, according to a FoxNews report on Jan. 3, 2007, spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to put out information to advocacy groups that seek to deliberately confuse the public on global warming science"
PROVE IT, with names and verifiable associations.
That paragraph makes your letter even more of a pathetic joke, all of you pro AGW honks use these false statements to further your mortally wounded agenda.
Those who are against the policies being drawn up by your crowd are getting louder and louder everyday and debunking many of the myths being spewed by your lover boy algore and his ilk.
Oh, yeah I'm paid by the oil industry as well as Rosen's references are- what a joke.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/589551,CST-EDT-HUNT05.article
I suppose these guys are all oil lackies also?
Gores excuse for not reponding to these guys for a debate?
That the so called "debate is over" and it is time to move on to solutions.
Yeah like buying carbon credits from his company, higher energy prices to deter you from using any, and extreme taxes on energy, production and on and on.
This thread exemplifies the state of so-called "conservative" thinking in today's America.
There is not a single refutation in any one of these posts of any of the science relating to the global warming phenomenon.
Please all you flame throwers, let's get down to the nitty gritty and actually talk about the science you dispute.
What specific theory about global warming are you in disagreement with and why?
...
(crickets)
...
(tide rises)
Posted by on November 1, 2007 01:55 PMCharles is that you?
By questioning the information of GW, people are therefore againsts conservation, alternative energy, and activities that better our world in general.
When putting forth arguments attributed to GW discussions, you and others question that information rather than look it up yourself. I know you are a busy person, but 30 seconds of your time would greatly add credibility to your discussions and questioning of facts.
When questioning the "facts" put forth by Mr Gore and questioning his credibility and sincerity as it pertains to GW, Mr Gore becomes the sacred cow and is above reproach. People on here have stated that there are others that talk of the same information as Mr Gore. Why dont people use others that walk the walk as the spokesman? People that WOULD have voted for Kyoto, those that try to live a "green" existance, at least part of the time?
The science has been discussed in the past. But when people can not agree on who is credible and who is not, then the battles usually commence
Whats wrong 1:55? Why does it take an overbloated hypocrit to get you off of your ass to do something about conservation, alternative energy and living green. All I see here is a bunch of handwringing and telling people to do something. Well a lot of us are doing just that.......and a bunch of us are Conservatives. Maybe not republicans, but conservatives all the same. Why wait for govt to run your life for you. Do it your damn self. Ask to join up or volunterr to set something up. You would be surprised on the political makeup of people that would join in. Might even be fun if we stick to goals rather than partisan BS
Posted by bwr on November 1, 2007 02:20 PMCan anyone give me the definition of peer review as it relates the credibility of sources?
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 02:46 PMI'm in the alternative energy industry. My family owns a small renewable energy hydro power plant. We have a minus 593-ton per year carbon footprint. For those of the Global Warming faith that means we produce 600 MWhrs per year of carbon free power (which displaces 600 MWhrs of coal fired power) while using on 7 MWhrs of energy. I am doing more for the Earth's CO2 balance than the entire Sierra Club. I believe that we should use as much economically viable renewable energy as possible. We should conserve as much as possible. I also happen to believe that man made global warming is a hoax. I believe that the earth goes thru natural cycles. Sure the glaciers in Montana are shrinking, but the glacier that formed Long Island New York disappeared and it had nothing to do with manmade CO2.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 02:47 PMYes. If you believe in Al all mighty, you are credible. If you don't, you are not. Anyone that questions anything about manmade global warming is a mouth breathing, bible thumping moron. Anyone that believes is a Noble Scholar.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 02:53 PMPosted by on November 1, 2007 02:47 PM Hey thank you for your post. Would love to talk with you and pick your brain on ideas for more alternative energy and "green" living.
Also my brother worked in the construction industry that built $$$$$$ mega homes (2nd or 3rd or 4th house)for the same people that are screaming to do something about global warming. Nothing was green about them intentionally except the color of money that it took to build.
Posted by bwr on November 1, 2007 03:04 PMBillM,
Long before you spout off about Rosen and calling him cowardly, you ought to do some homework. When he had Christopher Monckton on his radio show, he also invited Kevin Trenberth to join in on the discussion. Mr. Trenberth is the senior scientist at the climate analysis center at the Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. He rejected the invitation. So not only was Rosen “courageous” (if indeed it takes real courage to debate the global warming issue) by inviting someone he knows would disagree with him, but it turns out the real coward is Kevin Trenberth who would not accept the challenge of a debate on the radio.
So, Rosen has a different viewpoint on the issue of climate change than your position. But I’d be willing to bet that you would never have the courage to call his show to debate the issue with him and will continue to call him cowardly.
So Cat, do you think Monckton, journalist and politician, is a credible voice on climate change?
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 03:56 PMSorry that this is way, way off the topic of this thread, but…
11:04 AM,
“The WH willfully chose to ignore and hide info from Congress that they had that didn't support their case for war with Iraq.”
I realize that’s the favorite cop out for Democrats who first were in agreement with Bush but are now claiming they were not informed, but it’s a specious argument. In October, 2002, Senator Jay Rockefeller, (D-WV) said, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We should also remember we have ALWAYS (his emphasis) underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.” Harry Reid said, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the president is approaching this in the right fashion.” After being asked, “Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?” Hillary Clinton said, “I doubt it. I can support the president; I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long term interest of national security.” January, 2003, John Edwards said, “Serving on the intelligence committee, seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons…he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”
Heck, Hillary Clinton said nothing in this piece about WMD. She just said that a regime change in Iraq is necessary for our national security. Now she claims that she was ill-informed.
Click on http://www.koaradio.com/pages/shows_rosen.html, page down and click on “Democrats Confirm WMD” to watch a video of most of the Democrat politicians I mentioned in my other post. They use the very same terminology that the White House used. Essentially, they all said that Saddam cannot go unchecked.
Posted by Mountain Cat on November 1, 2007 04:17 PMJay,
Your only input is to question credibility. What credibility do you have? Have you every paid a utility bill? Do you know how to produce power? Are a still in high school or are you in college? Is your major math, science, engineering or are you a liberal arts or journalism major?
Mountain Cat,
Now that is just not playing fair. How dare you use facts and actual quotes to make a point? Certainly Jay will feel compelled question the credibility of those videos.
Cat...again....yo'ure not understanding the point. See the Senate Report on the WH's build up to war and you'll figure out that Congress was assuming that the info they received from the WH in regards to Iraq was COMPLETE and CREDIBLE. It turns out not only was neither the case...but that the WH knew of the quality of that info before presenting it to Congress.
I guess your point is that next time Congress shouldn't trust a Republican administration to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth right?
cruton at 4:19...if you do'nt like folks question the credibility of far right wing sources...try using credible sources instead...should solve your problem.
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 04:32 PMJay,
Monckton is not a journalist, nor a politician. He was the first person in the cabinet for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who advised her on climate change. That was way back when the topic first came onto the radar screen. I think he has considerable standing.
Oh, I forgot…since he is a “denier” then there is no possible way he could know what he is talking about. What the heck am I thinking?!?!?!?!
Jay, what in your mind makes you believe that Al Gore is a more credible voice than Monckton? Is it simply because he says things you like to hear? And, thus anyone who says things you don't like to hear, such as Christopher Monckton, you cast off as someone who is not credible?
Posted by Mountain Cat on November 1, 2007 04:34 PMMountain Cat stated: Jay, what in your mind makes you believe that Al Gore is a more credible voice than Monckton?
What makes Mountain Cat think Monckton is?
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 04:48 PMJay,
I DO get the point. It's still a specious argument. There are many other sources that the Senate and Congress use to get information about foreign relations. You cannot tell me that they only rely upon the WH for that kind of information. Intelligence agencies all over the globe said the very same thing Bush said about WMD in Iraq. Where do you think much of his information came from? Where do you think Bill Clinton got much of his information about Iraqi WMD? And surly you know that Clinton passed his intel on to Bush, right? So, why is it suddenly Bush who is the liar about the subject?
And judging from how the Democrats change from one day to the next as to what they are for or what they are against, it should come as no surprise that they are flip-flopping and tap dancing around that issue. What works in their favor is that there are plenty of forgetful people that don’t’ recall what they said a few years ago. You must be in that category.
FW said ”So Cecil those "Experts" that trumpted Global cooling only 35 yrs ago, the same scientist and professors and politicians they must have been wrong too.”
Actually it was Newsweek, not the scientists.
Nice try though, I can see how you could confuse Newsweek with Nature or Science or the National Academies of Science. I mean, they all just look so similar, don’t they?
The bigger question though, is why you would dismiss current science based on what was found to be wrong before. Are you holding out for the perfect science and the whole truth before you are willing to act?
Is that how you actually live your life, and would you prefer that we use no science until no possible doubts exist?
You may be in for a long wait, since science is a human endeavor, but at least one that actively tries to reduce bias and error, and to learn from mistakes.
For the record:
Christopher Monckton has no training as a scientist. He has a degree in journalism.
Posted by Charles B on November 1, 2007 05:53 PMcecil moran,check the facts before you write instead of repeating liberal hearsay or in an another word,lies.
Posted by Keith on November 1, 2007 06:56 PMcecil moran,check the facts before you write instead of repeating liberal hearsay or in an another word,lies.
Posted by Keith on November 1, 2007 06:59 PMMountain cat: "Intelligence agencies all over the globe said the very same thing Bush said about WMD in Iraq."
When people don't know what they are talking about, they tend to speak in absolutes, such as "intelligence agencies all over the globe". That saves them from having to name specific intelligence agencies, which would require them to know what they are talking about and would open the door to asking for sources.
You won't find a single statement coming from any government official in France, Germany, Russia, Italy, or Spain saying that any of those governments thought Saddam had WMDs before the invasion. All of the statements you see to that effect come from people in the United States who are defending Bush.
"THE Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative has disclosed.
But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set. The disclosure, made in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes program due to be broadcast late tomorrow, adds to earlier accusations that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively as it built its case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime."
Feb. 24, 2003: "France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."
Doesn't sound like they were all that worried, does it?
Bear in mind what the Bush administration said that Mountain Cat falsely states was also said by someone else:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
George W. Bush
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
No one connected to Germany, France, Italy, Spain, or Russia made any statements like that.
Posted by Truth on November 1, 2007 07:08 PMI assume that about 1/3 or more of the population is liberal. Yet in the morning I’ve only seen may be one or two bicyclist. If you believe that man caused global warming with CO2 emissions, than I want to see your fat asses by the hundreds on the road pedaling. Until than just shut up about it.
Posted by Uno on November 1, 2007 08:27 PM"Monckton is not a journalist, nor a politician."
Always happy tutor:
"Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a retired British international business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
"Intelligence agencies all over the globe said the very same thing Bush said about WMD in Iraq. "
Yet another myth
"Where do you think Bill Clinton got much of his information about Iraqi WMD?"
From his respected military advisors...and right before he destroyed the last remnants of Iraq's WMD program with the 98 cruise missile strikes. The horror.
"Jay, what in your mind makes you believe that Al Gore is a more credible voice than Monckton?"
Again....you misunderstand my point. I believe that Al Gore...Like Mockton is simply a representative of the consensus that they represent. one the one side...Gore and nearly every single peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet....and Mockton and the oil companiesw.
In my mind there's no question...the real issue here is why you chose the side you did.
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 10:09 PMWhat mind jay?
Posted by on November 1, 2007 10:26 PMThere are other scientists that talk about Global Warming. You may think one's information is "flawed"., but what about the others?
Have you seen the weather report lately? Did you notice that the average temperatures are always less than the current temperature?
Hello? Whenever someone uses the word "always" they make themselves liars.
Here are some facts for the AGW believers. The highest yearly temperature occurred in the 1930s. The highest recent yearly temperature was in 1998. In the meantime, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 12%.
Al Gore told us that hurricanes season would be getting worse because of global warming after the 2005 record breaking season, only to see 2006 and 2007 come in lower than the average season for storm numbers and severity.
Global warming is occuring--on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto.
The basic "proof" the proponents of AGW have is the following. The globe has warmed over the last 30 years. We can't account for that. CO2 has gone up over the same time period. CO2 is a green house gas, therefore, it must be the culprit.
This is a very weak argument, but when the politicians started to pick up on this, billions of dollars started to go to scientists who would support this theory in grants.
Jay,
"Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a retired British international business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor."
Okay, if you’re are such a competent tutor, then where does it say that Monckton is a politician or a journalist?
It’s not a myth that intelligence agencies from all over the world reported on Saddam’s WMD.
But here is a myth: That Clinton destroyed Iraq’s WMD program with missile strikes. You simply don’t know what YOU are talking about.
If you are concerned about someone that you feel is only a politician and/or a journalist being a spokesman about climate change, then why are you listening to Al Gore, who truly IS only a politician? At least Monckton has been deeply involved in the issue from the mid-1980’s. He has far more standing on the issue than does Gore.
“Gore and nearly every single peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet..”
Now, there is a myth. I know that is the popular belief by people like Jay, but it simply is not even close to the truth. The “peer review” you are so fond of referring to is the 2,500 scientist which were consulted by the IPCC so that they could make a political issue. 2,500 scientist is hardly a true representation of the entire climate science community on Earth. Get a new line. The old one doesn’t hold water.
Jim:
Here are some facts for the AGW believers. The highest yearly temperature occurred in the 1930s.
Here's a fact:
You're wrong
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
Global warming is occuring--on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto
Well, Jupiter gives off much more heat than it gets from the sun, so it's temperature is largely due to internal processes. Pluto recently made it's closest approach to the sun in it's long and highly elliptical orbit.
So how the heck are those related to the earth's temperature?
Posted by CL on November 2, 2007 09:11 AM"That Clinton destroyed Iraq’s WMD program with missile strikes. You simply don’t know what YOU are talking about."
Now you're just making a fool of yourself.
Get some education on the matter and come back and see me.
"Now, there is a myth. I know that is the popular belief by people like Jay, but it simply is not even close to the truth. The “peer review” you are so fond of referring to is the 2,500 scientist which were consulted by the IPCC so that they could make a political issue. 2,500 scientist is hardly a true representation of the entire climate science community on Earth. Get a new line. The old one doesn’t hold water."
lol...do you think that only the 2500 scientists behind IPCC count? How about the academies of scientists from every major industrialized country on the planet? Again...you're making a fool out of yourself and it's kind of hard to watch.
Posted by jay on November 2, 2007 09:32 AMJay:
You might find it hard to watch, but I find it quite funny to see people like MC pitting themselves against people who are actually trained in the sciences. I find it revealing that he/they will never answer your question "why do you pit yourself against the scientific consensus"?
I'm pretty sure it's because their agenda(s) are purely political. To paraphrase Bush defenders, I think they are suffering from "Al Gore derangement syndrome".
Posted by Charles B on November 2, 2007 10:06 AMCharles that's a great point.
Why in the world would you allow theological or political tendencies and loyalties to cloud your judgement on matters of science?
Posted by jay on November 2, 2007 10:36 AM"Why in the world would you allow theological or political tendencies and loyalties to cloud your judgement on matters of science?"
Excellent question!
First, There is still a great deal of conflicting information out there regarding man"s influence on global warming or the actual causes for global warming.
Second, When looking at an issue being disputed by two separate groups, I ask myself who has the most to gain by proving their point. I am always skeptical if one group stands to benefit financially, while the opposing side has really nothing to gain.
If a Ford salesman is driving a Chevy I have to ask myself "Why is he trying to sell me a Ford when he drives a Chevy"? He can tell me all the benefits of driving a Ford, but I have to question his motives for trying to sell me a Ford. while he is driving a Chevy.
When Al Gore is no longer getting filthy rich pushing his agenda, then I may start to look at his side a little more objectively.
Posted by jgd777 on November 2, 2007 11:11 AMjgd777:
As others have asked, why not just take Al Gore out of the loop and look into the hard science?
Posted by Charles B on November 2, 2007 11:15 AMMy problem is the actions that are being called for by the global warming factions, I have no problem with helping to clean our air and making this a cleaner world. My question is to what extend do we harm the economy to accomplish this goal?
In many cases the "hard science" has come to conflicting conclusions. That is if you look at both sides of the "hard science"
It is difficult to take Gore out of the equation because he is the one running around the world presenting half truths and outright lies in an attempt to frighten the general public and getting filthy rich in the process. Many points made in Al Gore's movie have been proved wrong and distorted. So what is the "hard science"?
The point I am making is why are we so eager to destroy our economy on information that is still in dispute.
Posted by jgd777 on November 2, 2007 11:54 AMCharles B,
This issue is like an armored car driving down the road with the doors open. Everyone gets to grab a piece. The biggest corporations in the world GE, Halliburton (KBR), Conoco Philips, etc will make billions by fixing this problem. Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, WRA and EDF are packed with lawyers that stand to make millions in lawsuits. Consultants and elected officials will gain power and influence. The media loves a great scare. If you are a scientist and you want funding for anything related to AGW you have a great shot at getting it. Without a AGW component you stand zero chance. I am not saying this a conspiracy. The groups are too dissimilar. But if you, as jgd777 correctly suggests, follow the money, everyone on the pro AGW side can and does benefit from fixing this problem.
Do you believe that BP, Exxon and Conoco Phillips, all oil companies that have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for the good of the planet? Do you feel that these and other corporations, the CEOs of which would send jobs to slave labor markets to improve the bottom line, care about reducing AGW?
I look at the known facts and don’t rely on easily manipulated computer models.
1. The Earth has been hotter and colder in the past and these events had no manmade component.
2. Manmade CO2 is a small fraction of the total CO2, which is an even smaller fraction of the total GHG make up.
3. Some of the most objectionable classes of humans are adamant that we must spend trillions to fix it, politicians, attorneys and major corporation heads
4. The environmentalist had the solution renewables and conservation, they just needed a problem
5. No dissent or questioning of AGW is allowed
6. Everyone promoting AGW stands to gain
7. Scientist, even well meaning scientist often use linear models that are not valid for long due to unforeseen changes. Having gone to high school and college in the 70s, were we to have already run out of oil? The science at the time had reached a consensus. They ignored conservation; higher mileage cars and new oil recover techniques.
8. When the main spokespeople for the cause do nothing to change their CO2 foot print or reject sound alternatives (nuclear power with electric cars) something tells me they really don’t believe.
9. AGWs parallels to religion should at least give you pause. There are tens thousands of doctors of all religions that study their subject. Billions are spend trying to convert non believes. They all require an act of faith or at least suspending critical thinking to fully swallow. They require sacrifice. They are true believers and there are those that will use their faith to dupe others. In traditional religion god is all-powerful. In AGW man is. We can turn the global thermostat up and down. The glacial advances and retractions, ice ages, hot periods that have gone on since the beginning of time have met their match. We are going to collectively decided what the global climate should be and will the planet to comply.
jgd777:
You're making the assumption that the remedies to Global Warming would have a long-term negative effect on our economy based on what?
Also, you maintain that there is still significant doubt about Global Warming among hard scientists. Would you care to name them and provide their credentials on a case by case basis?
Lastly, there is some incongruity in your statements. You lament the damage you think Global Warming fixes would have on our economy, yet begrudge Al Gore making money off the phenomenon. Why would Al Gore's bottom line benefit from something that is supposedly going to have such a negative effect on the economy?
There's a ton of money to be made by addressing the threat of global warming.
Are you familiar with the story of Easter Island? Do you suppose they cut down the last trees on the island because they feared a negative effect on the economy if they quit cutting them down? You might say they couldn't see the forest for the trees.. How'd that work out for them long-term?
Posted by Charles B on November 2, 2007 12:44 PMLetter writer Cecil Moxon says that Rosen "excels at spinning by omission" .As a Democrat Cecil should know because the Democrats have been doing this on the gun and all other issues for years.If Rosen did "spin" an issue welcome to the world that you and your "sock puppet" mainstream media friends created decades ago.
Posted by An American on November 2, 2007 12:48 PMI suggest everybody listen to Rush and all talk show hosts and decide for yourself who is doing the spinning.After listening to talk radio for about 18 years and reading and watching the mainstream media I can tell you it is the Democrat party and the mainstream media doing all the "spinning".
Posted by An American on November 2, 2007 12:58 PMCharles, you state:
"Also, you maintain that there is still significant doubt about Global Warming among hard scientists. Would you care to name them and provide their credentials on a case by case basis?"
Are you asking for this in a Word document, Excel or Oracle database program?
Are those that contend alternative reasoning to GW be included? Wanting to know if they count to the Global Warming solution?
What do you plan to do with this? Are you willing to compare this to those supporting Manmade GW?
I want to make sure we get this in the right format for sufficient and productive use. No sense wasting all of the btus and CO2 in this endeavor of computer time and storage of all of the arguments.
**** "The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready" Henry David Thoreau *** Quote within the book "IT'S EASY BEING GREEN"
You coming or not?
BWR,
I'm the guy with the small family hydro power plant. If you would like to discuss green options and how an individual can be involved my e-mail is pungitore@msn.com. Be aware I am not a poster boy for the green movement. I believe that sustainable technologies must also be economically sustainable. Production tax credits and the like are great for getting a new technology started, but in the end the solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or what ever must be competitive stand on their own. It is however great to be able to say I'm greener than Al Gore.
Jay and Charles B.,
Your condescending comments do not prove that you are correct. So park the uppity attitude and try to find a bit of humility and respect.
Charles B. wrote, “For the record:
Christopher Monckton has no training as a scientist. He has a degree in journalism.”
For the record, Monckton has a DIPLOMA in journalism, not a degree in journalism. If you are as smart as you try sounding, you would know that there is a big difference. But so what! He is capable of reading and understanding English, thus is able to understand what he reads about climate which is written by scientists.
Hmm, what are your credentials, Charles. What standing do you have in the scientific community?
To presume that only scientist can have an education on this issue is about the weakest argument I have yet to hear on the topic of global warming. I suppose that if that is the only criteria to go by then you should never have an opinion about the war in Iraq unless you have gone to West Point and the War College, and that you should never express your feelings about healthcare unless you have a PhD in medicine, and you should not ever make any demands pertaining to our education system until you become a teacher yourself.
Laugh all you want. But your arrogance is all telling. It says a lot about your insecurity. You two think you have THE answers, but yet will quote Wikipedia (Jay) as if it’s a reliable source of accurate information. Maybe you are unaware that anyone can go into Wikipedia and make changes on subjects.
You both make wild assertions as if every climate expert in the world believes that man causes global warming and that we can actually do things to change the climate. Jay keeps bringing up “nearly every peer-reviewed” study as if to say that they all come to the conclusion that global warming is caused by man when in fact it’s just that nearly every climate expert believes only that the climate is getting warmer, not that they all conclude that man is causing it.
The major part of the global warming issue is CO2 emissions. Not once have either of you proven that a rise in CO2 precedes rises in temperature. That is because you can’t. That’s because CO2 rises occur AFTER the temperature has already begun to fall.
Many people think that we should do something “just in case” man causes global warming. Well, when we look at the history of doing some things that environmentalist believe were good ideas out of a just-in-case attitude, what jumps out several times are the unintended consequences. Malaria is rampant and has killed tens of millions in many parts of the world due to the fact that environmentalists forced an agenda which eliminated the use of effective insecticides. They have been successful in doing the very same thing with regard to insecticides which are effective against the pine beetle. Now we have enormous areas of dead trees in the Rocky Mountains which the environmentalist don’t want cut down, nor do they want any of fallen trees and the thick undergrowth cleared out. The result is uncontrollable fires such as the Hayman fire in 2002. The killer fires in California can be blamed in large part to environmentalists and their theology which mandates doing things just in case...
Charles asked what economic harm would come from taking measures that environmentalist are demanding. It’s not that hard to find information about that if you really are serious about wanting to know. But since you still have to ask the question, then you are not really serious about wanting to know.
Mountain Cat,
You brought up a good point about people like Jay and Charles B. When someone has to resort to school-yard taunting you can bet that they are not very comfortable in actually debating an issue on a respectful level.
Mountain Cat likes to make stuff up:
"Your condescending comments do not prove that you are correct. So park the uppity attitude and try to find a bit of humility and respect."
Please cite comments I have made that are condescending or uppity.
"To presume that only scientist can have an education on this issue is about the weakest argument I have yet to hear on the topic of global warming."
That's not what I'm saying. I think you would agree that in general people trained in the sciences have a better understanding of the sciences no? It's about how much weight you give their opinions, not about whether they should have opinions or not.
"You both make wild assertions as if every climate expert in the world believes that man causes global warming and that we can actually do things to change the climate."
No I didn't/don't.
"Charles asked what economic harm would come from taking measures that environmentalist are demanding."
I maintain that the long term the consequences of addressing global warming would be a net gain for the economy. I ask what the harm would be because I don't think the individual who claimed there would be great harm to the economy has really studied the issue.
You claim I'm condescending but it is I who am willing to presume that the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue are correct. Humility is the understanding that there are others who know more than I do. The only thing I know for sure is the extent of my ignorance...
Posted by Charles B on November 2, 2007 03:10 PMCharles B.,
Comments like this one:
"You might find it hard to watch, but I find it quite funny to see people like MC pitting themselves against people who are actually trained in the sciences."
So am I to then assume that you are one of the “people who are actually trained in the sciences”? What credentials to you bring to the table? How are you more qualified than me to express an opinion?
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of condescending. And you don't seem to understand that I am just as entitled to my views and the expression of them as you are.
I'm not doing anything that is much different from what you are doing and that is to agree with scientist who have studied the climate. Just because I have an opinion that differs from yours apparently you feel that gives you the green light to make those kinds of comments.
Again, do you think that if someone has no training in a specific field of study that they are not allowed to provide their side of the issue? Don’t you think that there are people who are capable of understanding what they read from scientists?
Mountain Cat:
The major part of the global warming issue is CO2 emissions. Not once have either of you proven that a rise in CO2 precedes rises in temperature. That is because you can’t. That’s because CO2 rises occur AFTER the temperature has already begun to fall.
The ice cores do show that the previous warming periods had temperature increases leading CO2 - but nobody working in the climate field claims the changes were caused by CO2 , so why would you expect CO2 to lead temperature?
Modern conditions are different however - we are in a currently in a period where the CO2 levels are leading the temperature increase, which deviates from the previous natural cycles.
Posted by CL on November 2, 2007 05:59 PMJgd777 asked ” There is still a great deal of conflicting information out there regarding man"s influence on global warming or the actual causes for global warming.”
Indeed, so what should a person do when the information is conflicting?
You could ignore the whole thing and wait to see what settles, but you could bow to authority – which is what people usually do. You look to see what the authority on the matter is, and adopt their position until or unless something changes.
In this case, who is the authority and what are they saying?
” When looking at an issue being disputed by two separate groups, I ask myself who has the most to gain by proving their point. I am always skeptical if one group stands to benefit financially, while the opposing side has really nothing to gain.”
That tells who you would prefer to trust, but not who is right.
Somebody can have very strong opinions and have no financial stake in something at all, but still be wrong.
Some people have an ideological barrier to an idea and will fight it to the death.
If I were reading loads of research reports in the science journals that cast doubt on the argument that human activities are driving global warming, then I would certainly have doubts about it, but you can go check the publications in your local library or online for yourself - The number of confirming research reports is just amazing, and contradicting reports are pretty much nil.
You shouldn’t let Gore dictate your position like this.
Take him out of the equation entirely, he is just distracting you.
CL, btw, if you don't get it already, there is a newsletter you might enjoy at http://www.bobpark.org
Remember the Democrats are not above making up "facts" to fit how they "feel'" things should be so you will be wasting your time reading their postings.
Posted by An American on November 3, 2007 07:16 AMMountain Cat:
That's the best quote you could come up with to support your contention that I am condescending?
You claim that I don't think you should express your opinion, but I never said or implied such a thing.
Perhaps you are a bit too sensitive?
Am I trained in the sciences? No. That's why I defer to those who are, the vast majority of which hold an opinion contrary to the one you cling to. I find that amusing as well as inexplicable.
Posted by Charles B on November 3, 2007 09:09 AM"nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientist on this planet in regards to GW."
Now that is a good example of a MYTH
British Justice Mr. Barton agreed that Mr Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration". In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.
Decide for yourself but I think Cecil is also "spinning" The main point according to the justice is that the movie is "politically partisan".
I have recently bought a hybrid car because it will save me money, if that will also save humans great, I'm not convinced it will though. Any other ideas how humans can save themselves from global warming?
btw, I have been trying to find ideas but they all lead to buying something rather then giving info
Posted by brain on November 4, 2007 09:33 AM