ANOTHER global warming march gets buried in snow

[glockmail]

I think that you misread MY post....I said, I do not DISAGREE with a word of that!

He's been having trouble reading lately.

 

[Gunny]

I think that you misread MY post....I said, I do not DISAGREE with a word of that!

Read up. I acknowledged that is in fact what happened.

 

[maineman]

Read up. I acknowledged that is in fact what happened.

understood

 

[red states rule]

'Stranded Polar Bear' Photo Taken Out of Context Says Photographer
Posted by Jake Gontesky on March 20, 2007 - 17:34.
Crossposted from Notes in the Margin

The "stranded polar bear" photo continues to grab headlines, even after yet another thorough debunking. In what has become the furry, cuddly symbol of all that is wrong with the climate change debate, the now ubiquitous photo was splashed across news pages worldwide, with captions such as this from the Daily Mail (click for article and image):

They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
See more articles with the same specious claims here, here, and the NYTimes version with photo caption correction appended here.

There was just one problem: the photograph was taken not of polar bears "stranded" on ice - far from it.


Rather, the bears were wandering around their natural environment as they do every day. Read the first-round debunking here and here.

But now there is more. Spiked.com has investigated further by going straight to the source to get the full story from the original photographer. As explained in Rob Lyons' The bear necessities of climate change politics on Friday (emphasis mine):

The student who took the photograph, however, gives a slightly different account: ‘They were on the ice when we found them and on the ice when we left. They were healthy, fat and seemed comfortable on their iceberg.’

Amanda Byrd, an Australian graduate student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), says she took the picture around three years ago - in the summer. The photograph was not ‘taken by environmentalists’ but as part of a field trip with the university.

Furthermore, the photographer wasn't even asked permission:

Byrd is clearly a little miffed that ‘the image you have seen around the world was distributed without my consent, and [with] the wrong byline’.

And logic and reason (aka science) is all but lost when cuddly polar bears are brought into this debate:

For all the polar bear stories, it is far from clear that these bears are an endangered species. Even if a warming world did make things more difficult for them, Arctic temperatures have been considerably warmer in the past – and polar bears survived those periods. It’s not even clear that polar bear numbers are in decline.

How many of the mainstream media outlets that used this photograph in stories on the new IPCC report or other climate change stories will publish a correction? How many will reveal that the photograph was not only incorrectly captioned, but also incorrectly attributed as portraying yet another direct impact of man-made global warming? I'm not holding my breath.

So why is this important? After all, it is just a photo, right? Not quite. It just so happens that it is a photo that has been viewed by thousands of people worldwide who now (incorrectly) associate it with global warming. It is part of a larger picture of alarmism that is continually supported by the mainstream media.

Even with this most recent thorough debunking, the myth carries on. The polar bear is now the mascot of yet another global warming alarmist website. Al Gore couldn't find any struggling polar bears, so he had to animate them. The US government is now researching their status as an endangered species. But they are not doing so based on the usual protocol set by the endangered species legislation, but instead in response to a lawsuit by environmentalists such as Greenpeace alleging as much. This story is far from over.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11545

 

[glockmail]

understood

Good job bowing down to your Keeper.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

how sad to have such a simple minded understanding about global warming that you would think that a snowstorm proves it isn't happening.

How sad that you would accuse him of thinking something he never stated.

I would rather be simple minded than an arrogant snobbish ass liberal

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What doesnt make sense is this.

Enviormentalists want reduction in burning of fossil fuels.

Price of oil/gas goes up, less gas is purchased, less fossil fuel burnt.

So why do the the hate Bush at all costs mongering liberal enviormentalists scream when the price of gas goes up, that its just the big oil companies and Bush making it happen to soak the consumers??

 

[red states rule]

It seems Pretty Boy Edwards in following the in carbon footprints of Al Bore


Mr. Edwards, How Much Does Energy Cost For Your Mansion?
Posted by Dan Gainor on March 20, 2007 - 12:56.
It was Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards trying to revive his ‘70s disco moves and he danced around every tough question CNN’s Miles O’Brien threw at him. Most notably, how much does it cost to pay for energy in the new 28,000-square-foot mansion Edwards calls home?

Edwards tried several answers during the March 20 “American Morning”:

“It’s actually not bad.” And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was.
“I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.”
Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”
Edwards also claimed he and his family operate the house in a “carbon neutral way,” though he wants to put caps on how much carbon dioxide businesses operate. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon neutral way which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards.

Such offsets have been big news lately and even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the whole nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.”

Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. “If more people do it over time, it’s a good thing,” said reporter Russ Mitchell during the “Early Show” on CBS February 22.

O’Brien asked about Edwards “getting Americans to conserve more.” Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. “One of the things that’s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11537

 

[red states rule]

New Yorker Editor David Remnick's Uncritical Idol Worship of Al Gore
Posted by P.J. Gladnick on March 20, 2007 - 20:40.
We can get a sneak preview of the MSM worship of Al Gore sure to follow his testimony before Congress tomorrow on the subject of global warming by reading David Remnick's glowing commentary about the former veep in the March 5 edition of the New Yorker. If you suffer at all from tooth decay, I advise you to skip over the rest because Remnick's idolatrous saccharine coated praise for Gore is sure to exacerbate your condition.

Without a trace of ironic awareness that a Saturday Night Live skit is mocking people such as himself who believe that a Gore win in 2000 would have led to an American paradise, Remnick longingly sets up the premise of the show in his You Know Me, Al commentary in the New Yorker:

“Saturday Night Live” is erratic in middle age but rarely cruel. An exception came late last spring, when, at the stroke of eleven-thirty, an NBC announcer gravely told the American people to stand by for a “message from the President of the United States,” and Al Gore, surrounded by Oval Office knickknacks, came into focus to deliver what could best be described as an interim report from a parallel, and happier, galaxy. President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences:

In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Nor was this the only problem. Although Social Security had been repaired, the cost had been high: the budget surplus was “down to a perilously low eleven trillion dollars.” The price of gas had dropped to nineteen cents a gallon, and the oil companies were hurting. (“I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.”) After winning the plaudits of a grateful world—and turning Afghanistan into a premier “spring-break destination”—Americans could no longer risk travelling abroad, for fear of “getting hugged.”


Earth to Remnick: The SNL skit was making FUN of people like YOU who think that an Al Gore win would have led to a perfect world. Instead, Remnick uses that skit as a segue into a What Might Have Been if only America had been worthy enough to have elected the all-wise Gore:

The cruelty here was not to Gore, who probably requires no prompting to brood now and then about what might have been, but to the audience. It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate. The attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his. But can anyone seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have meant, well, an alternate universe, in which, say, American troops were sent on a necessary mission in Afghanistan but not on a mistaken and misbegotten one in Iraq; the fate of the earth, not the fate of oil-company executives, was the priority of the Environmental Protection Agency; civil liberties and diplomacy were subjects of attention rather than of derision; torture found no place or rationale?

For Remnick the Alternate Al Gore Universe is something to pine for. Of course, with a President Al Gore we might still be debating whether to place economic sanctions on the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you think Remnick can't get any more sickenly sweet in the worship of his blessed Goracle, you would be wrong:

On the issue of climate change, of course, he has exercised visionary leadership. With humor and intelligence, and negligible self-pity, he dispensed with the temptations of political martyrdom and became a global Jeremiah. Beginning in the nineteen-eighties, he waged what was at first a fairly lonely campaign to draw attention to the problem; now, as a popularizing propagandist, he has succeeded in registering it as a crisis with nearly everyone, from field-tripping schoolchildren to reality-dubious members of the Administration. With his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore made the undeniability of the crisis a matter of consensus; thanks largely to him, an environmental issue will be an electoral issue. His secular evangelism has earned him an honored night at the Academy Awards and—almost as glittering—a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Concensus? Even the liberal New York Times has recently reported that there is something less than a concensus among scientists over Gore's apocalyptic global warming visions. Such skepticism doesn't even register with Remnick who goes on to yearn for the return of Gore in 2008:

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama start competing––warily at first, and then, inevitably, taking direct aim at one another’s weaknesses––Gore can stand unbruised, nursing the lingering glamour of his popular margin in 2000 and, perhaps, demanding by quiet inference that we take stock of a distinguished public career that began three decades ago, when Gore was a twenty-eight-year-old Vietnam veteran freshly elected to Congress.

The now extinct Easter Islanders can be forgiven their blind worship of the famous stone idols of their island due to their isolation from the rest of the world. However, what is the excuse of the supposedly sophisticated David Remnick, editor of the even more sophisticated New Yorker, with his uncritical praise for the Goracle? For a funny take in detail on Remnick's Gore idolatry, check out the DUmmie FUnnies.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11547