We Are All Going To Die!

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The global warming crap is coming at us fast and furious these days. Could it be a publicity campaign to help Al Bore win the Oscar?


GMA’s Alarmist Nightmare: ‘Will Billions Die From Global Warming?’
Posted by Scott Whitlock on January 31, 2007 - 12:37.
"Good Morning America" weatherman Sam Champion has accomplished the impressive feat of turning the morning show’s meteorology segment into an opinion piece. On Tuesday, he approvingly reported on a new study that blames humans for the effects of global warming. During a follow-up piece on Wednesday’s edition, ABC included one of the most alarming graphics to grace American television screens:

ABC Graphic: "Will Billions Die from Global Warming? New Details on Thirst and Hunger"

Billions? Could that be a slight exaggeration? Co-host Robin Roberts began the segment, which aired at 7:14am on January 31, by reminding Americans just how subjective Mr. Champion is on the subject of global warming:



[ABC Graphic: Global Warming: Global Warning]



Robin Roberts: "This morning, we're hearing new information from those landmark, closed-door sessions on climate change. Five hundred of the world's top scientists meeting in Paris, joining forces to tackle global warming. The report is due out on Friday. Sam has been following the story. You know how passionate he is about global warming. Headline news everywhere. And I think one of the big headlines is that we could feel the effects of global warming sooner rather than later."

[Second ABC Graphic: "Will Billions Die from Global Warming? New Details on Thirst and Hunger"]

Champion: "Yeah. That's what's in this report and why everyone is trying to jump this report that officially comes out Friday, Robin. There are big, new headlines and some of them are coming out of Australia in media reports. Now, they say that those scientists in Paris will estimate that between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people will suffer from water shortage problems by 2080. That's not your grandchildren, that's your children. And between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry. That means a very real possibility of food and water shortages much faster than we thought and even in today's 'USA Today' paper they’re talking about, uh, that the 2001 report said fossil fuel pollution by humans, used by humans-- likely. This report will say 99 percent sure."

Roberts: "How could the U.S. be impacted by what you just said?"

Champion: "Well, there are places in the map that we've all looked at in studies that say these are the places you'll see drought and problems. And you're talking about South America and northern India, western China, north-central Africa. In the U.S., It's Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, already suffering from low snow pack and could have water shortages by about 2080."

Roberts: "Of course, global warming, hot topic on Capitol Hill this week and a number of hearings in the House, accusations of a White House cover-up?"

Champion: "And they're saying some reports were edited by some White House staffers. And Rick Piltz's is the big one who, his report and his testimony brought it out. So let's listen to what he had to say."

Congressman Stephen Lynch: "Did you ever get a plausible reason why he would remove that warning to Congress?"

Rick Piltz: "He called it speculative musing."

Lynch: "Speculative musing?"

Piltz: "Speculative musing."


Champion: "And he's a former senior official in climate research in Washington and now has left that post, of course. Now, it is so serious to a lot of people, we'll be watching this report out, in Paris one of the neat things I think you'll see come out of this, is that they'll turn the Eiffel Tower lights out just to announce this report and kind of make that impact dramatic."

It should be noted that no one exhibited any skepticism or questioning about the study’s findings. Furthermore, Rick Piltz, who, according to an approving piece in the liberal American Prospect, is a "political scientist by training," also received no questioning. Finally, Champion commented about the "neat" fact that the Eiffel Tower will go dark five minutes before the unveiling. Click here to see the Greenpeace sign currently hanging from the tower and demonstrating once again the support that the hard-left has given this global warming push.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10523
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I read the title of the thread and thought, 'No news here...,' (yes Virginia, we are all going to die), but had to check. Why am I unsurprised that it was a political science 'weather specialist?'
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Reading this crap you may die laughing

But this global warming crap is getting old. Libs say the use of aersol cans destroy the ozone and increase global warming

It is 17 degrees here, I am ready to grap a couple cans, go outside, point them toward the sky, spray, and scream "Give me some heat!"
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The global warming crap is nothing more then the kook left's ongoing war on capitalism

Sen. James Inhofe Shows Real Data to CNN's Global Warming Alarmist Miles O'Brien
Posted by Justin McCarthy on January 31, 2007 - 17:05.
With NBC and ABC hyping the global climate change news in recent days, CNN jumped on the bandwagon on Wednesday’s American Morning. Miles O’Brien interviewed one of the leading climate change skeptics, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. After his previous combative interview, O’Brien attempted to disprove Inhofe’s skepticism with sound bites from various climate change believers.

Inhofe slammed O’Brien for cherry picking data to verify his theory exclaiming: "Now you won’t get the [fourth assessment from the IPCC] from scientists probably until May or Juen. But this summary is all you’re going to look at."

Miles O’Brien then cited the United Nations report with "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists." The Senator shot back about the Oregon Petition, signed by 17,800 scientists, who said that the increase in the earth’s temperature is part of a natural.

Senator Inhofe quoted to O’Brien, who once claimed that "skeptical scientists are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry,"a French geophysicist. This geophysicists said, "the cause of global warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money."

The entire transcript is below.

M. O'BRIEN: "And now 'Melting Point.' We begin our special ongoing focus on global warming, and we begin with a shift in the political climate. Just listen to the president in the State of the Union speech last week."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "America's on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "That was a first. And now the White House is promising action on global warming. We wonder what one of the leading contrarians on the issue is thinking, and so we invited him on the program. He joins us now from Capitol Hill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He is the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator, good to have you back on the program."

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: "Hey, Miles. The last time I was on the program I was the chairman. Not anymore."

M. O'BRIEN: "I know. Things change. Things change in an instant."

INHOFE: "Yes, but they change back, too. Remember that."

M. O'BRIEN: "That is true, too. That is very true. And we're there to watch it every step of the way. Let's talk about the science, first. We've got a big report coming out, this United Nations report, 2,500 of the world's leading scientists. It's being called a smoking gun report with a link between humans and global warming. Let's listen to what one of the leading scientists has to say about it."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES HANSEN, DIR., GODDARD INST. FOR SPACE STUDIES: "The human link is crystal clear. There's no question, the increase from 280 to 380 parts per million in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "That's James Hansen, one of the leading climate scientists. He says it's crystal clear. What do you say?"

INHOFE: "I'd say that that's James Hansen, who is paid $250,000 by the Heinz Foundation. I think he'd say almost anything you ask him to say."

M. O'BRIEN: "He's -- Senator, he's speaking for 2,500 of the world's leading scientists."

INHOFE: "Oh. Then why is he the guy speaking? Let me tell you what you're going to get. You're wrong in this respect, Miles. What you're going to get on Friday is not the fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June. But this summary is all you're going to look at. You're never going to talk about anything else. And that's -- and let me just read to you to show you that I'm right on this thing. On page four, it says, 'Changes in scientific work to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers will ensure.' These are politicians, these aren't scientists."

M. O'BRIEN: "No, no, no. They are scientists, sir. It's 2,500..."

(CROSSTALK)

INHOFE: "The policymakers? The policymakers -- that's a summary, Miles."

M. O'BRIEN: "But this report, this summary, which is for policymakers, is drafted by scientists. They're meeting in Paris right now, and these are leading scientists who make these claims and now say there is a certainty of this human connection. Do you still reject that certainty?"

INHOFE: "Oh, definitely. I was on a program yesterday with Art Robinson. He was one of the scientists in the Oregon petition, 17,800 scientists, that said that, yes, we understand that we are going through a warming period, but it's not due to manmade gases. And this is ten years after they came out with their report, and nobody ever talks about that. The recent findings up in Canada, when 60 scientists told the prime minister, Harper, if we had known ten years ago what we know today about science, we would never have asked you to sign on to the Kyoto. So..."

(CROSSTALK)

M. O'BRIEN: "Right. There were many scientists who unwittingly became a part of that. Let's move on, though. Let's talk a little bit about... "

INHOFE: "Well, no. No, we can't move on, because if you're talking about the science, the science is not settled. Let's move on."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. Let's move on now. Let's talk about the debate a little bit. It's interesting to see how corporations are acting right now. I know you saw this past week, right before the State of the Union Address, some real corporate heavyweights -- General Electric, Alcoa, British Petroleum, Duke Power, one of the -- I think it's the number three or four coal user in the country -- all signing on and publicly stating that they would like to accept, would prefer that there be caps on emissions of these climate-changing gases. Let's listen to what the head of Duke Power had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, DUKE ENERGY: "Our businesses and the national economy can grow, prosper, and compete successfully in a greenhouse gas-constrained world."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "It sounds like corporate America is ready to accept caps."

INHOFE: "Hey, let me, let me work into that -- it just takes me a second here -- my favorite quote of all the people who were on the side of saying manmade gas caused global warming was a socialist in France. He's a geophysicist named Claude Allegre (ph).He's a member of both the French and American Academy of Sciences. He says, 'The cause of global warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by' -- and listen to this now, Miles -- 'money.' Now, who do you think these guys are in corporate America? I would direct anyone who thinks that this is coming from their heart to read last Friday's Wall Street Journal, where they take each of the corporations you just mentioned and talked about how they can make money if we have to do away with coal gasification. Coal is responsible for over 50 percent of our energy in America. These companies have nuclear, they have hydroelectric, they have wind, they have -- and it's to their financial advantage to do away with it. Now who is paying for this?"

M. O'BRIEN: "Well, let's talk about that. That's an interesting point, because what you often hear -- and I've heard you say it, too -- that in putting these caps on, it would hurt the economy. What you're saying is, there's a good business here. These cooperation's can make some money by accepting these caps and developing new technologies. Why not go that route?"

INHOFE: "Well, if you go that route -- if you do away with 50 percent of our electricity in America, then those individuals who are generating less electricity by using some other means are going to jump in there and try to do it. The cost to the American people, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Wharton econometrics survey, would be astronomical. And these people all have money that they can make. Sure, if I were on the board of directors of GE, that's making solar equipment and wind turbines, I'd probably say, let's jump on this bandwagon and do away with coal-generated electricity. We'll make a fortune."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in the halls of Congress right now. Yesterday, the committee -- and now you're the ranking member of it -- sort of took, if you will, the temperature of the Senate, heard from some senators on this issue, and one of them you heard from was Senator John McCain. He spoke to me the day after the State of the Union. Let's listen to what he's saying right now about this."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: "This is one of the serious issues of our -- of, of the history of humanity. We've got to start reducing these greenhouse gas emissions before our planet is inalterably heated. And the consequences of that are catastrophic."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. The senator is expressing some sentiment that is, is out there. You've got Democrats in control of both sides of Congress right now. It seems very likely there will be some legislation making its way, maybe by this summer. The question to you, sir, is, if that happens, will you filibuster?"

INHOFE: "You know, I'm not sure about filibustering. I don't know what's going to happen with this. I would say this: The last time we had the McCain bill -- and I love John McCain, but Miles, you have to keep in mind, I've said before -- not on your program -- I belong to the most exclusive club in Washington. That is the United States senators who are not running for president. So I don't have any other agenda other than trying to get to the truth. Now, the truth now is that we have changed the committee structure. It's not me, it's Barbara Boxer who is running the Environment of Public Works Committee. She had the hearing yesterday. I don't know whether you got my part of the hearing or not. I had 12 minutes to speak, and I did. Several other members did also. But, you know, let's look at it and see. The last time the McCain bill was up, we defeated it, 60-38. It wasn't close, 60-38."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right."

INHOFE: "But because of what it would cost the people in America, the people that are watching this today..."

M. O'BRIEN: "You just got through saying there is money to be made in this, so there is an inconsistency there. Finally, sir, you're a very religious man. I know that. And I..."

INHOFE: "A what? I'm sorry?"

M. O'BRIEN: "You're a religious man. And I've noted, I've noted with great interest on that same week that corporate America was coming forward, evangelicals coming forward saying something has to be done."

INHOFE: "Not at all. Not at all true."

M. O'BRIEN: "Listen to a leading evangelical for just a moment."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. RICHARD CIZIK, VP FOR GOVT. AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOC. OF EVANGELICALS: "I think it's a fundamental issue here, a defining public policy issue which says for scientists it's the Earth. For evangelicals, it's the creation. And we have a biblical duty as evangelical Christians. That comes straight from the Bible."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "What do you say to that, Senator?"

INHOFE: "One of the problems, there's one individual. His name is Richard Cizik..."

M. O'BRIEN: "That was him. That was him."

INHOFE: "I know that. He's the guy that's out there -- and you talk about making money. There's a guy that's on the cutting edge, being sponsored by all these environmentalist groups to try to break into the National Association of Evangelicals. They have rejected him and what he has said. He's speaking on his own, not for evangelicals."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10530
 

Merlin

Active Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
405
Reaction score
61
Points
28
Location
Ponchatoula, La.
Yep - man has zero to do with the sea lions and birds croaking too....

You're right on the point there. Less things are dying now than ever before. The waters are more healthy than they have ever been. If it weren't for the farmers and the cattle raisers runoff, the water would be less beneficial to the wildlife and more would die. I've been living on a river all my life and it is cleaner that its ever been but the young officials are yelling "there's fecal matter in our rivers, we need money to clean it up so people can use it." Wake up and smell the coffee!!!! We need the fertilizer runoff to help make it grow and cure itself. All this hype because you have microscopes that can see smaller stuff now, but it's always been there and needs to be there.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
AI like the hypercritical libs who tells us how we are destroying the enviroment while they travel in their private jets, SUV's, and live in their mansions burings huge amounts of energy to heat and air condition them
 

Jimmyeatworld

Silver Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
227
Points
93
Location
America
Just to touch on a couple of things...

Between the Liberals voting and name recognotion, Al Gore probably will win the Oscar, just like Michael Moore won for his "documentary".

With global warming, the dramatic fear that is used by some is often funny to me. Whatshername on the Today Show sitting in New York saying how much she liked the warm weather, but knowing that "we are all going to die". Meanwhile, there are record lows in other parts of the country, and if I remember correctly the Middle East had it's harshest winter on record. I realize this is partly due to the New York smugness that makes them believe they are the center of the universe, and if it's effecting them it doesn't matter what happens everywhere else.

Anyway... I'm wondering how people can assume they know the natural progression of nature itself. The planet has been here for billions of years. We've been monitering the weather closely for... a hundred? To top it off, people seem to base their opinions on even the slightest weather changes that have happened in the last 50 years or so, ignoring the obvious lasting effects things like hurricanes can have on an area.

But then, I'm just rambling.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
181
Reaction score
17
Points
16
Well, if we’re going for antidotal - then you’ll be interested to know that the 9.5 month ‘red-tide’ we had here along the Southern California coast was found to be exacerbated approximately two and a half times in duration by run-off from commercial substances, like ‘Scots Turf Builder’.

:redface:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Another Scientist Slams Media’s Global Warming Myth
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 4, 2007 - 16:11.
Despite the media and Al Gore’s ad nauseum contention that there is actually a scientific consensus for the existence of anthropogenic global warming, the facts speak otherwise. Conveniently, the media never interview folks who disagree with their fantasy, thereby making it easy to promote.

Of course, those interested in the truth know of many outspoken members of the scientific community who are not being bullied by the politics of the situation. Another in a growing list of such skeptics is Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv who has been doing research for years to identify if there is any connection between rising levels of CO2 and rising temperatures. As reported by the National Post, Shaviv’s studies suggest otherwise (h/t Drudge), leading him to actually recant his previous position on this issue:

"Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

The article continued (emphasis mine throughout):

Dr. Shaviv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

What is that culprit?

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

Be careful, doctor, for you’re bringing science into the equation. Most of these advocates hate that:

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

His conclusions:

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Don’t expect to see Dr. Shaviv interviewed by Matt and Meredith anytime soon.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10604
__________________
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top