I Missed the Global Warming Moron-a-Thon!

Published on November 22, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Well, I have to thank talk radio for pointing this little tidbit out for me. Apparently, several of Hollywood's elite got together last Sunday to preach at the rest of us and demand that we lobby our congresspersons to sign the Kyoto accords. From what I heard, it was a moron-a-thon of mammoth proportions.

Now, to be fair, I have only heard soundbites of this claptrap. But those soundbites have been enough to make me roll my eyes until I'm deathly afraid they'll freeze that way. While this event was meant to draw attention to global warming, "comedian" Wanda Sykes (as oxymoronic a statement as "comedian" Janeane Garafaolo...but I digress) decided to do her routine about George Bush's Social Security plan, rather than staying on topic. She did a great service for the right, however, by stating OUTRIGHT the liberal mantra that Americans are too stupid to know what to do with their money and that they ought to give it to the government to protect them from their stupidity...but again I digress (in fairness, Sykes did it first).

Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, Junior, Will Ferrell, Bill Maher (who made asinine, completely false statements about the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere allegedly dropping to 9% and about all of the animals migrating northward, but as certain retired military personnel on this site have proven, who needs PROOF when you have RHETORIC on your side?) and the usual Hollywood liberal elite (none of whom, I might add, live in homes that draw their energy from solar and wind power or that reclaim greywater and otherwise minimize their impact on the environment, despite having ample funds to do so) preached about our responsibility to the environment and how we need to take personal steps to reduce our impact (I'll remember that at Oscar time when they pull up in Limousines that use a helluva lot more gas than a Prius). It was, for liberals, the perfect showcase of their bogus propaganda.

Now comes the punchline. Can you guess where the event was held? Did they open up the Biosphere in the Arizona desert? Did they deliver their propaganda from a self sustaining, off the grid intentional community? Nope...they went to the world's most fantastic monument to waste....Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas Nevada. This is a city of a million people that draws water from a region where it is desperately needed to fill canals on the rooftops of the Venetian, fountains at the Bellagio that spectacularly spray thousands of gallons in the air multiple times a day, much of which is lost to evaporation in Vegas' 100 plus degree summer heat, and put other similarly arrogant middle fingers in the face of every environmental and conservation movement. This is a city where the lights are on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, where the beacon at the Luxor can be seen from outer space, and where the glow of lights are visible some 60 miles away in the Nevada desert.

The liberals are right that we need to be environmentally minded. Although there is credible evidence that global warming is a myth (before you point to this fall's warmer than usual temperatures, check out The Old Farmer's Almanac's article in the 2006 on sunspots for a FAR MORE LIKELY explanation), we need to be responsible stewards of what we have. But until they hold themselves liable, until they hold communities like Las Vegas liable, they have NO BUSINESS preaching to me as I sit in my woodstove heated, 1200 square foot home, watching a 19 inch TV and doing everything I can to minimize our personal impact on the environment. Bad form, Hollywood libs!

Comments (Page 2)

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 24, 2005

My God. Look at this place. If I ever saw a right-wing ditto-head circle jerk, this blog post and those who have commented, are it!

That's interesting... If I follow the logic of this thread, it goes something like this: If a liberal (heaven forbid it's a liberal *celebrity*) makes a statement, it's propoganda, but I see some of you making claims like the "Kyoto treaty did more harm than good," without so much as a shred of evidence, we should take their word for it. I smell a double standard.

First of all, there are VOLUMES upon VOLUMES of evidence that global warming is indeed a real phenomenon, and not merely the childish nightmares of your so-called "tree-huggers" (to use your right-wing terminology). Anyone with half-a-brain knows and understands the Gaia principle. You can't dump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air without some kind of consequence. If a volcanic explosion can cause a cooling effect in the atmosphere, then certainly dumping greenhouse gases into the air would have a similar, but opposite effect. SIMPLE enough for you sheep to understand.

I think the real issue here is simple. You're threatened by Liberal Hollywood because *gasp* maybe they *do* know something you don't... and that bothers you. You're educated! You're tax-payers! How dare they! Please...

I'm positive you wouldn't be complaining if they were doing a benefit for childhood diabetes, or AIDs, or cancer, etc.. and trying to create awareness, but as soon as they say something that conflicts with the politics and principles of the George W. Bush Administration, watch out! It's time to gather-round and stick your heads in the sand.

Finally, Bill Maher, while I cannot prove/disprove what he said is inaccurate, being inaccurate is not the same as LYING.. which is what this current Administration has been doing for more than five years now. (e.g. Clear Skies Initiative = double-think right-wing hypocrisy.)

So chew on that sheep. Think for yourself for once! Do the research instead of letting the Limbaughs/Hannitys/O'Reillys/ and Coulters think for you.

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 24, 2005

One last thing... Las Vegas recieves electricity from the Hoover Dam, an ecologically friendly, and non-polluting source of power.

Kind of makes you feel stupid doesn't it?

Proof of bad science?

on Nov 24, 2005

So generally, all of you right wing "mee too" think those celebs don't know anything but I do people are right when for example "The Kyoto agreement has actually caused more damage then if nobody had followed it." WTH? Does even half of you know what the agreement is about, what it means etc. Or do you actually know only the name of the agreement?

As usual according to you, US of A knows better than every other country what is best for _our_ globe. Fuck everyone else as far as our number 1 position as a polluter isn't threatened. Let others cut their pollution by 5% so we can care even less.

And for the environmental scientists which at least 90% of you seem to be, you can probably rule out the possibility that this time the climate change is different than 500 years ago for example. Nature has adopted in the past, but now there's a little bit more of man made pollution floating in the atmosphere that climate change can accelerate itself. So instead of trying to slow it down even a tiny bit of that trend you are willing to accept that what the hell, well adopt. Well guess who is paying for all the storm, flood etc. damages in the future? Extreme nature catastrophes are only getting more common in the future. But yes, what the hell, it's not our problem. (those foreigners can try to save the world why should we care)

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2005

My God. Look at this place. If I ever saw a right-wing ditto-head circle jerk, this blog post and those who have commented, are it!

Were you born a moron, or just worked to get that way. I guess your only response is to spot your sheeple bleat. Ignoring reality.

nice try idiot.

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2005

First of all, there are VOLUMES upon VOLUMES of evidence that global warming is indeed a real phenomenon, and not merely the childish nightmares of your so-called "tree-huggers" (to use your right-wing terminology). Anyone with half-a-brain knows and understands the Gaia principle. You can't dump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air without some kind of consequence. If a volcanic explosion can cause a cooling effect in the atmosphere, then certainly dumping greenhouse gases into the air would have a similar, but opposite effect. SIMPLE enough for you sheep to understand.

No....."YOU" chew on this Mr anonymous.

No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down to the local papers, seems to be quoting the report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a U.N. - sponsored panel of 2,000 scientists, as "proof" that global warming is occuring, humans are responsible, the sky is falling, and "something must be done" to prevent a global catastrophe.

The Clinton Administration wants the U.S. to participate in a treaty to limit "Greenhouse Gases," with "quantified and legally-binding emission targets", an international emission trading system, and creation of a United Nations - type body that would monitor and enforce compliance. All "developing" nations, such as China, Mexico, etc. (132 out of 166) would be exempted from further commitments.

Clinton is quoted as saying "The science is sound," -- but IS IT? How did the IPCC arrive at its conclusions, and what exactly were the conclusions of the scientists who participated?

Over a year ago, the same claims were made in an article that appeared in the El Paso Times, written by Karl Rabago, a lawyer and Energy Program Manager for the Environmental Defense Fund, who also "served" as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Utility Technologies at the U.S. Department of Energy.

After reading his environmental propaganda, I was moved to write and publish on the Internet an article refuting his claims, and reveiling the truth of this "scientific report" published by the U.N.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rabago, a lawyer, seems to be accepted as an "environmental expert" by the media, who so willingly present his claims as gospel. If he is indeed an expert on environmental issues, then it seems to me he is purposely attempting to mislead the public concerning "Global Warming." (The same could be said for the Clinton Administration).

As a guest columnist in the El Paso Times, (Opinion, page 6A, Sept. 19, 1996), he claimed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "reported that global warming is a real threat to the quality of life on this planet."

Mr. Rabago attempts to have us believe "For the first time, the world's scientists have concluded that changes in global climate are more than just the natural variability of weather. Human activity... is changing the Earth's natural climate system."

The published report may have made that claim, but it DID NOT reflect the peer-reviewed research of the "more than 2,000 scientists from 130 countries," as Mr. Rabago claims. The report approved by the scientists concluded just the opposite, that IF the climate really is changing, and not just part of natural variability, no clear evidence exists that human activity has contributed.

The conclusions of the report were changed or deleted by someone, according to an article by Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.

In his article, "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming,'" (Wall Street Journal, 12 June, 1996, p. A16), he charges that "key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version... more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -- were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text."

Passages peer-reviewed by the scientists but deleted from the published version include:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence
that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the
specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part
[of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic
[man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change
are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the
total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Mr. Seitz states that "I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8, (but) the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility."

One of the lead authors of the IPCC report, Keith Shine, HAS explained the changes (from www.climatefacts.org/science/consensus.html). "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report."

Robert Reinstein, former chief State Department negotiator on the climate treaty under President Bush, agrees that the wording of the summary was negotiated at length by international delegations. "Because of this," he said, "the summary must be considered purely a political document, not a scientific one."

According to Mr. Seitz, IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view, just as Mr. Rabago wished us to believe scientific consensus supported the theory of global warming. Mr. Seitz warns that (if the U.N. and environmental groups are successful in implementing them) carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. "Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

Mr. Seitz concludes his article with the statement that "If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question."

In other words, U.N. reports are not credible sources of scientific data, because the final reports are produced by bureaucrats pursuing a political agenda, such as control of land and resources - producing environmental propaganda, not science.

Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund are apparently willing partners in this scientific fraud. While Mr. Rabago's suggestions for increased use of alternative energy, such as solar and wind power, certainly couldn't hurt, his dire conclusions on the effects of global warming are entirely conjectural: "IF climate change hasn't hurt us already, it PROBABLY will. The POTENTIAL of...global warming MAY lead to..." (emphasis mine).

PERHAPS global warming would give the arid Southwest MORE precipitation, and more CO2 MIGHT reduce crop water requirements, as plants grow faster and taller with higher concentrations of CO2. Plants NEED CO2 for their growth.

Perhaps it would be best if Mr. Rabago stuck with law, and UN bureaucrats and environmental groups quit accepting taxpayer money to produce propaganda. Leave the environmental science to the scientists, who, using the scientific method and peer-review, can best come to a conclusion concerning climatology and human activity.

Some of the facts science HAS uncovered are:

NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the past 18 years -- rather, they show a slight cooling trend.

Plant decay, volcanic activity, and other natural processes release around 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, compared to an estimated 7 billion tons produced by Human activity.

(Perhaps the EPA, if it needs something to justify its existence, could begin plugging volcanos. In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo blew two million tons of chlorine into the stratosphere in a day -- every minute it produced the equivalent of all CFCs produced in the entire world in 24 hours).

Mr. Rabago repeats the claim made by the Administration and environmental groups, that Western societies must scale back their industrial technology, (they have already accomplished that goal, have they not?... sending our industries overseas, our jobs to third-world countries, and giving away our technology to our enemies, such as China?) and adopt wind and solar power.

Are Wind and Solar Power really the best suggestions he can offer, after working at the Department of Energy? Apparently so - the Department of Energy has been with us for nearly two decades, and no modern technology has been developed for public use that I am aware of. What utility technologies were developed, while he was drawing his highly-paid salary?

In the latter days of WWII, the Nazi war machine was running almost entirely on fuel produced by coal gasification; yet, more than 50 years later, the U.S. Department of Energy is still studying the technology to see if it is feasible. (Clinton just denied the American people access to millions of tons of low-sulphur coal, so that we could "enjoy the environment" of our new Grand Staircase - Escalante "National Monument" in Utah).

The technology of Wind Power - windmill generators - is more than a century old, as is the internal combustion engine. Most "modern" technology is based on discoveries made decades ago, such as the transistor. Radio was invented over a century ago, television was developed in the 1930s. Yet Mr. Rabago, environmental groups, and the U.S. government would have us return to the technology of a century ago, and pretend no progress has been made. Where has all that taxpayer research money gone in the past decades, with nothing to show for it? Is there an agenda at work here, also?

Truly modern technology would drastically reduce pollution and energy consumption. Nicola Tesla, who invented the alternating current electrical distribution system, radio (a Supreme Court decision ruled his invention of radio pre-dated Marconi's), alternators, and much more, stated that energy could be broadcast without cost around the world. Though a U.S. citizen, his papers were confiscated by the Alien Property Custodian, an agent of the U.S. government, after his death in the 1940s, and have not been seen since.

Western civilization will need oil for some time to come, as it is used to produce many of the things we take for granted, besides its use as fuel and lubrication. We should develope all the sources of energy we have, and not lock them up just for the pretty scenery. The answer to pollution is MORE clean technology and development; not to go back to some romantic dream of the good old days.

Unlike what "you" seem to think...we are NOT sheep and we do our homework!

bakerstreet

on Nov 25, 2005

"So chew on that sheep. Think for yourself for once! Do the research instead of letting the Limbaughs/Hannitys/O'Reillys/ and Coulters think for you."

Cute little tykes. They grow up so fast... *sigh*. It's funny how they call us sheep, but they are the one allowing themselves to be herded into an angry mob by pop science and celebrity. I'm sure Beavis here has read volumes of hard data on this. NOT. I AM sure that some liberal bobblehead was juuuuust convincing enough to give him an ecological woody.

Look carefully at who is being whipped into a frenzy, and look carefully who ignorantly makes their minds up. Almost every person here opposing the Kyoto treaty admits there may be validity to the idea of global warming. Almost everyone here who opposes it feels that more can be done to clean up the environment; they simply refuse to be tools for political interests. Kyoto is trade warfare in an ecological costume.

The only knee-jerk, ignorant herd mentality here is from the people who feel that damn the consequences, damn the lack of certainty, we should believe those celebrities and obey tiny nations with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2005

Just likeI did to the poster before you, I'm going to throw a monkey-wrench into your works from my above post. You can argue this one to your hearts content. But according to "science" behind the statement, the Kyoto agreements are really not needed as badly as they would have you think.

NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the past 18 years -- rather, they show a slight cooling trend.

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 26, 2005

Dr. Guy,

How does your retort in any way prove me wrong? Besides you can't just come in here and call me sheeple. Sheeple are passive and accept whatever they are told, they don't go out of their way to post a 1000 word mini-essay in an attempt to educate the poor miscreants who think they know what they are talking about.

You can't ignore millions of pages of documented scientific evidence over the last thirty or more years just becase a vocal minority of scientists say "Wait a sec - there might be something else to this.." and who are those scientists working for praytell? Namely: Big oil, industry and the like...

You're just going to have to try harder in the future, my lad!

Balance-of-Power

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 26, 2005

bakerstreet

on Nov 26, 2005

BoP speaks millions of pages of evidence into existance, and they appear. Oh, no? He just referred to them in a kind of fuzzy, "believe me or be stupid" way. Well, we teach as we ourselves were taught, I suppose.

The answer to scientific dissent? Paranoia, they must have all been bought off. BoP couldn't POSSIBLY be misled, that's for sure. He's, BoP, after all, what reason do we have not to believe his authoritative perspective?

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 26, 2005

What do you need a road map Bakerstreet? In saying millions of pages I am referring to the large body of work that has been done on this subject since global warming came into the public consciousness. Should I have said hundreds-of-thousands of pages, would that satisfy you?

If you're going to win this arguement argue the -facts- though I know that may be difficult for you and the others on this board. My statement of "millions of books" is a truism like stating "the sky is blue" - I don't have to prove it because it is a known fact.

The greater point here is that those who claim Global Warming is bunk, are doing so based on biased and innaccurate reporting, as well as a small vocal minority of scientists who are not completely convinced by overwhelming evidence.

BoP

drmiler

on Nov 26, 2005

So you're going to argue "against" the hard physical data that NASA has collected over the years? And YES I'm saying global warming "could" very well be bunk. But then I'm basing my assumption on data gathered by NASA. Not on any biased or inaccurate reporting. And I think NASA "might" know just a little more about stuff like this than most people.....scientist or otherwise since they deal with it on a daily basis.

bakerstreet

on Nov 26, 2005

BoP: It is a proven fact that the Earth warms and cools in cycles naturally. You, and others, are saying the the current warming is unnatural. The burden of proof lies on the side that claims something new is happening.

It's easy just to say "Oh yeah, they proved it, you have to believe me." On the other hand you could make a real argument and offer some sort of proof to that effect. I don't have to prove that the Earth has cyclical temperature variance. In order to tie a tiny sliver of Earth's history to cataclysmic change, though, requires pretty solid evidence.

Like I said, you can claim your farts make it rain, but the rain is no proof. Neither is saying that millions of pages prove it if you can't even relate what they say or what they are. Wanna talk about sheeple? How about people who believe "millions of pages" they haven't read...

I'm sure you'll have no problem blowing idiots like us out of the water, though, please continue. OR at least start. Your argument so far is that "scientists say so". Not very impressive.

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 26, 2005

DrMiler,

My gooodness... you make it too easy. I followed up on the authoer to the article you posted. It seems the author is some hack from New Mexico. He's a certified computer Help Desk technician with his resume easily accessible on the internet. On top of that, this guy has a seperate site under a sub-folder called endtimes. This website is, for lack of a better word, unrepentently biased. His articles are all written with a Conservative agenda, and he makes no attempt at being impartial (so much for journalistic integrity). Therefore any rational person would doubt the veracity of his articles.

Furthermore, if you're going to (at least try to) prove me wrong, try to use unbiased bipartisan (or non-partisan) research to back up your claim. Science does not belong to any political party.

However, I am not surprised by the arguments by the other right-wingers who have posted thus far.. this argument reminds me of the non-debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design. Supporters of Intelligent Design don't have to *prove* that Intelligent Design is real, they simply try to suggest that Evolution as a theory is flawed. It's the ultimate right-wing tactic.. tell a lie enough times until it is virtually indistinguishable from the truth. Classic.

BoP

Balance-of-Power

on Nov 26, 2005

NASA's findings are only one piece of a very large puzzle, and I don't think it's conclusive enough at the moment. I would need to do further research. Besides, it's not like NASA has a reputation for being consistant. They have made plenty of gaffs in the past.

BoP

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!