UFOs as Important a Campaign Issue as Global Warming?
By Bill W. Tuesday Jan 22, 2008 4:18pmApparently our network news media thinks so.
The climate crisis is the biggest challenge facing the next president. But the nation's top reporters don't seem to think so. In 2007, they asked 2275 questions. THREE questions mentioned global warming! Sign the petition: tell reporters to focus on the human race, not the horse race. What Are They Waiting for?
MoveOn: "Reporters asked as many questions about UFOs as they did about the climate crisis-the biggest threat to our planet."
As Amanda at TP notes: In its "coal industry-sponsored" Democratic presidential debate on Monday, "CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming." Now, why ever would the msm keep avoiding an issue in which "60 percent of Americans believe “we must take action now or it will be too late to stop it” and 58 percent favor capping carbon emissions."
Is it too much to ask?
Login or Register to post comments.
Ah HAH! The savvy media has sussed out that it's the UFO's that are causing global warming!!
You should be reporting that Kucinich filed impeachment charges today against President Bush. Dennis kicked ass on the floor of the house today in a speech that'll knock your socks off. He reminded everyone that he's the candidate of ACTION. Hillary, Barack and John are all WORDS. They're not even in his league.
...Accusing the administration of lying about the need for the war in Iraq, Mr. Kucinich said he did not need to hear the president’s assessment. “We know the State of the Union,” he declared. “It’s a lie.”
He also fired a volley at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California who has maintained that impeaching Mr. Bush is not on the table for Congressional Democrats. “If impeachment is off the table,” Mr. Kucinich said, “truth is off the table. If truth is off the table then this body is living a lie.”
TPM has an article about Roger Stone's latest attack against hilary. While this is important, and Dennis' UFO will probably turnout to be a "secret" military airplane being tested, the slime bag's tactic getting the light of day over at TPM needs our attention more.
That's the problem with alien abduction: it's not the dead cattle, the strange tests or even the probing; it's the marginalization.
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, a dozen astronauts, hundreds of commerical and military pilots (and that's only the tip of the iceberg) claim to have seen unknown objects in the sky. Before anybody trashes the subject I'd like to know how many scholarly works (books, articles, films) they've read on the topic.
well let me say I think there are more pressing issues than global warming at the moment...
Lets all just agree to put a big fat tax on carbon consumption and move on to the real issues!!!
global warming is only a medium sized issue (@the moment)
Illegal war...impeachment...econonomy...corruption...loss of civil liberties ect..ect...
2012? My ass.
I'd hate to say, but more Americans swear they've seen a UFO, then know our dollar is getting dumped!
Who looks stupid????
Why bother signing that, they did give a fuck. Organize and surround Washington and politely escort every official out of office and send them home.. It is our right by the way.
Perhaps because global warming is seen as a problem by so many now, they don't think to ask about it.
Don't jump on my butt about this, it's just a suggestion.
As far as the UFO thing, who cares who has seen one and who has not? If someone has seen something in the sky they can't identify, that doesn't mean they think they saw a space ship for another planet filled with little green men.
Here's Dennis announcing his impeachment of President Bush! Go Dennis!
Video
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=53051&bw=
In his lengthy statement, the Ohio congressman said, "The President and Vice President lied and 4,000 of our soldiers died. The President and Vice President lied and a million innocent Iraqis died in a war that'll cost us two trillion dollars while people here in the states are losing their jobs, their health care, their homes, their dignity. Lies are weapons of mass destruction. Lies are also an impeachable offense. Monday, January 28th is the State of the Union. We already know the State of the Union, it's a lie."...
A reality check:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp
This is the last year that 1998 (the really warm year) can be included in the decade warming trend. Temps haven't gone anywhere since then. Sure 10 years is not a long time, but then again you have only a 20-25 year trend (1975-1998) where temperatures were really rising.
"Biggest Threat to Our Planet"? Give me a break. Is that because the media saturates the airwaves with fear-mongering reports? Ice melting? That has been compensated by accumulating ice in the Antarctic. South America has gone through one of its coldest periods in a long time. Ice melt happens for a number of complicated reasons. Now if you want to talk about real reason to reduce carbon based energy - pollution and energy security- then that is a worthy discussion based on solid facts. When are people finally come to the conclusion that climatologist's predictions are junk? Go google "2007 warmest year on record" and see how many people were "predicting" that 2007 would break all records. Now if Climatologist screw up the 6-month horizon, just think how bad their 10-50 year predictions are.
[Deleted. Off topic. Site Monitor]
did the candidates mention global warming or coal, or energy types, or renewable....? I wonder if they were told whether or not they could not discuss that? I wonder if there were rules for candidates because of the sponsorship?
anyone know? I am sorry, I can't watch politicians speak. I can read and it exempts me from having to listen. Sometime the act of reading it makes me ill. Watching CNN or any infotainment program now causes the worst of these reactions to become acute.
I am sorry to have become a lump of coal.
NEWSFLASH: 10,000 peeps saw a UFO over Stephensville, Texas on 1/15/2008. This was one of Larry Kings' topics of conversation on CNN last week. Those who saw it say it stopped directly overhead and described it as up to one mile in width. Aaaahhhh, not for nothin' , but could this turn out to have been the most profound question of all the debates so far? Just askin'. If they ever ask you for directions to Crawford, help them out!!
Of course lets remember to call it "Climate Change" and NOT Global Warming.
Isn't it priceless how we Liberals must carry the Scarlet Letter of Political Correctness,given that the Right Wing are the undisputed masters of language control?I submit that progressives usually tweak the language for the enlightenment and betterment of all(with the inevitable exceptions)where as the Right almost always rework the Lingo for wholly nefarious reasons.In the end,however annoying Liberal PC may seem to some people,it should not be forgotten that Conservatives also seek to control the language with much darker (IMO) designs in mind.
"radical islamic blood" wow! Obama is a third rate politician because he doesn't say anything factual or substantial. But to accuse him of having some kind of different blood is one of the most racially insulting things I have heard in a long time. I'm a whitey and it is sickening to me. It is an insult to all of humanity because we evolved from the same gene pool.
I hope that post is somehow distorted.
I guess its important to have a president who vows to always know exactly what they are looking at flying in the sky is... Environmental causes in general get practically no coverage in the main stream media.
As far as the statement by moveon.org about the climate crisis being the biggest threat to our planet, I think we should be realistic. Dont get me wrong, I do beleive that a huge reduction in burning of fossil fuels would benefit our earth tremendously in a lot of ways. Imagine if the same subsidies and government help was given to alternative energies that fossil fuels get. Imagine if we fought wars over windmills!! (joking of course) The types of changes that will really benefit the climate change cisis also benefit our atmosphere and water in other ways. I believe that climate change is a serious crisis that has brought environmental causes closer to the forefront, but when we lable it as the biggest threat to our planet it provides an opportunity for the nuclear industry to jump in and start greenwashing.
The nuclear industy is a far greater threat to our planet than global warming is.
First of all, nuclear energy would do practically nothing to reduce ghg emmissions. CFC's, which are a more potent ghg than co2, are released during the energy intensive enrichment link of the nuclear cycle. As a matter of fact, when one examines the entire nuclear cycle from mining to infrastructure to waste management, it becomes apparent that nuclear energy is a far worse threat to ouor planet than anything else. The vast amount of capitol required for nuclear development is ultimately money that is not spent on real renewables, such as solar, wind, geothermal,hydroelectric or tidal. The so called nuclear renaissance that has been a parasite on the well intended climate crisis is a diversion at best.
Don't believe me? Go to southern texas where uranium mining has pollutted aquifers. Go to rural illinois where people in trailor parks have to wash with bottled water. Go to Pismo Beach and think about the fact that youre 20 miles from a nuclear plant that is basically right above a fault line that has a history of earthquakes of 6 plus magnitude. 2400 families filed suit in the 3 mile island accident, yet the industry boasts that noone was harmed. Talk to American veterans from the first gulf war that were exposed to depleted uranium from nuclear waste weaponry. Think it is a good thing that the US has been exporting nuclear industry infrasrtucture to china? When its been shown that most of the nuclear proliferation to The US's enemies has been from civilian enrgy producing nuclear reactors?
We need to focus on real solutions, such as efficiency and reducing waste, as well as safe renewable enrgy.
The nuclear issue is one of the primary reasons I support John Edwards, over clinton and Obama - in that order. Edwards thinks the money should go to renewables. Clinton has stated that she is "agnostic" regarding nuclear, but her voting record shows that at least she did not vote for the second version of the 2005 energy bill which gave more huge subsidies and extended taxpayer backed insurance to the nuclear industry. Obama voted for this bill. Obama has recieved huge donations from Exelon corporation, which is a nuclear industry leader in the US. In fact, Exelon's donations to Obama's campaign represent his second largest source of campaign financing. Maybe this is what Obama is talking about when he lambasts the special interests groups influence in washington... (sarcasm intended)
Jesus! MSM media is useless! I'm a northern gal and guess what? We have no snow! Well, maybe I should invest in a bikini. It seems to be getting a hell of a lot warmer.
And I have to wonder if the stenographers they've got "covering the news" are actually capable of the kind of journalism we are looking for.
When you consider just how long the pervasive 'dumbing down' of the population has been going on.
I am afraid it has been far more successful than we would like to think.
pinkobait @ 16:
If the Sierra Club is using the term 'global warming' it can't be that progressively unPC.
P.D. @ 19:
It's obviously not about snow. We've had more snow than we've had in a really long time here in Kansas City... It's colder for longer periods. Why not research for yourself... I did.
www.weather.com
Actually, I think CNN is more interested if Clinton is really black or not.....
justabill @ 21:
Its in the Sierra Clubs interests to refer to it as Global Warming,rather than the much more benign "Climate Change".I hope you haven't missed the snarkiness of my previous post...
Zorro @ 13.....
Sometimes I just wonder how so much stupidity can be concentrated
in such a small space as some American's brains.....
zorro @ 13:
[Refers to deleted comment]
Surely being of the Islamic faith is not in itself proof of radical intentions?
WashStateBlue @ 25:
makes you really wonder about ol' gee dumbya, doesn't it?
I see that Doggiebobo is not here, but I wanted to tell him that he gave me another idea for what to do in the general election if the Clintons are the candidate. I will write in Kucinich.
Whenver I blog about climate change/global warming, I get zero comments. Zero.
I'm afraid Clinton is right. No one cares.
Why? In part because the television media never covers it.
I suspect that people just want the issue to go away. They don't want to think about carbon footprints or lightbulbs or doing the countless little positive things that can make a fundamental difference when multiplied by millions of people.
It's just like the smoker: I'll quit tomorrow.
Trouble is, tomorrow is too late.
Forget it. There are NO MORE issues at stake whatsoever in the election. Thanks to beltway bubble dwellers like Tweety and Joe Dumbassborough,, the election is now a cross between a boxing match and soap opera --
Its PRO WRESTLING.
Who gives a shit about solutions to serious problems when we can wax poetic over pantsuits.
CalGeorge @ 29:
The media never covers it? Please tell me you're kidding. If there's one issue that's over-sensationalized and over-exposed, it would be Global Warming. But recently the issue has disappered from the front pages. The language has change from "no debate" to "general" scientific consensus - whatever that is. Outlets such as the ny times and boston globe have recently had columns pointing out the curious absence of recent warming. Over-hyped predictions for global temperature and hurricanes in the past few years haven't helped the cause. What I suspect is the people so fervent about global warming - they are the ones who are desperate for the issue to not go away. Strange, we should all be happy the theory of global warming isn't panning out, yet we continue to hope for it's existence.
The media never covers it? Please tell me you’re kidding.
I said the television media. The topic of this post.
The N.Y. Times does a fine job.
Shovel. Sand. Hole. Head.
I don't know what it takes to wake people up. My dad watches network news and all the propaganda. He hates Bush more than I do but believed all the bullshit about Iran, except he didn't buy this recent Gulf Of Tonkin II, so I guess he's not totally out of it.
CalGeorge @ 32:
I would be willing to bet that the television news coverage of Global warming in the past few years is exponentially higher than some of our true pressing concerns such as global disease and poverty. The notion that Global Warming isn't getting its fair share of television coverage is frankly, ridiculous.
unfrozencaveman:
Give your nonsense a rest, as if people here haven’t seen garbage like yours a million and one times. CO2 is a global warming agent and scientists have shown, fairly easily, that increased CO2 emissions cause increased water vapor which in turn increasing the warming. Your South American cold winter garbage has been repeated so often…breathe. During the Ice Ages there were actually areas of the globe that were warmer than now. Is that proof that the Ice Ages didn’t happen?
If global warming were true the Atlantic currents would be, and currently are, severely disrupted & Europe would get colder. At that point, people like yourself would come over and claim that reality isn’t happening. Even the vast amount of global warming “deniers” (including Bjorn Lomborg) claim that CO2 emissions cause warming and that warming is happening. Even the “deniers” claim both are true. The reason they, begrudgingly, admit it is because it’s impossible to deny.
Tell us, since you’re CERTAIN that CO2 emissions don’t cause global warming (now THAT is a logical position isn’t it? You COULD claim the science isn’t 100% certain (because science never is 100% certain about anything) that the recent warming, which is longer than a “few” years, is caused by CO2 emissions, there’s NO WAY you could say for certain it isn’t. That would put you in the minority even in the “denier” community. Your bravado is completely unjustified). So, what is the cause of the recent global warming? Let’s see if you can provide an answer that hasn’t been debunked a billion times over elsewhere.
unfrozencaveman @ 31:
Thats pretty cynical of you to say.Personally I hope Global Warming IS proven to be a fallacy,because the predicted consequences are dire to say the least.I don't think any thoughtful individual would callously hope for Global Warming,or for that matter endless war simply to be proven correct.
I thought the whole idea of picture ID's was to keep aliens from voting.
Picard & Ryker 2008: Make It So.
What if ancient ET artifacts pointed to technology to obviate environmentally damaging energy sources-- AND our silly mystical religions? Would anyone want to cover that up? Connect the dots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ0JgY3DV9g
Global Climate Change right now is being contained by Global Dimming due to air borne particulates from human industry. Ice core samples show a sharp increase since the time of the Industrial Revolution to show it's not just due to volcanic eruptions, emissions, whether land bound or undersea.
One we get rid of of the particulates, a necessity for the health of the very young and the very old (visible smog), then Climate Change will hit with a vengeance.
Their really is no controversy other than how much money to spend, how it will impact the corporate economy (although future medical care due to climate change will shoot through the roof), and how long it will take to see any change for the better. Even if we started cutting back on our pollution tommorrow, it could take 10 years before we see any change.
Unfortunately American Presidents only serve for eight.
pepper @ 35:
There's a huge difference if CO2 atmospheric content increase has a .01% influence on climate and say a 10% influence. That it is proved in laboratory conditions is not the issue here. The only thing that matters is its influence in our actual climate with the thousands of other variables also bearing down. Whenever the actual temperature chart doesn't conform to the theory that CO2 isn't dominant, there's always the caveats - sulfur from factories (bonus being man's fault!) El ninos, La ninas and volcanos. Well you can't have it both ways. It is not my burden to prove what is causing the warming/cooling or non-movement of temperatures. It is up to the proponents of AGW to show why Co2 increases will result in increased temperatures. We cannot unprove their predictions far into the future. But we can show that near predictions not panning out and hint at their intellectual dishonesty.
Prominent people no longer deny global warming - on that I agree with you. Not because of the science but because of the bully attitudes such as yours. I did not source junk science webpages, I sourced the temperature bible from the NOAA. People can draw their own conclusions. I suggest you take a look at it - and you will see the "South America garbage" is in fact accurate.
The irony here being that the truely whacky people in the UFO community will tell you point blank that the aliens are very concerned about what we're doing to the environment on earth...
The fact that CO2 cause warming and that the Earth is warming aren’t accepted because of “bullying”, they’re accepted because science has shown (as certainly as it can) that CO2 IS A WARMING AGENT and the Earth is warming. Both are facts in which there is nothing to interpret. Bjorn Lomborg, who is the most articulate of the deniers, says as much. He claims that CO2 does cause warming, simply because it does, and the Earth is warming. Both are facts. What he, and most “deniers”, claim is that CO2 is one of many other warming agents, which by itself is a logical argument. What they haven’t been able to show is that other factors now are so out of whack with historic occurrences to explain the warming. Literally every argument put forth is shot down as not being sufficient. Not by bullying, by scientific argument backed by facts and logic. You saying that “it is not my burden to prove” is therefore nonsense. IF global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, and to this point there is no argument that can show other factors have at least as much a cause in that warming, it IS your burden. The costs are too big for us to sit back and do nothing and, as you said in an above, pollution is none the less happening. Given the costs and the absence of a better argument it makes the most logical sense to move forward assuming it is true. If you are wrong, and sitting here despite what you say that is more likely than not, the cost to human civilization would be vast and irreversible.
If I’m angry it’s because people who have little to no knowledge of the science of global warming spout off all the time about the “hoax” of CO2 emissions. They have no clue if what they’re saying is factually true, they have an ideological objection to it being true (the damn hippie tree huggers & environmentalists would win) and aren’t interested in learning about the science of the issue. Again, given the costs there is no excuse for that willful ignorance.
My point on South America is that weather is complex. While the Ice Age was happening certain areas were warmer, much warmer, than now. Saying that it is colder in certain regions while global temperatures are rising, which again everyone agrees is the case, does not help your argument. It’s too early to know why regions of South America are cooler (for instance certain crop techniques in Brazil have been known for centuries to cause cooling, who knows, given the complexities of civilization how long it will be before there is a scientific explanation). Until there is an explanation you might as well consider it obsolete as far as your argument is concerned. Again, unless you want to claim that the Ice Ages didn’t happen.
There ARE other non-natural causes to the warming and almost all of them have something to do with human activity and industry (for instance deforestation). If you want to deny that we are part of an ecosystem and, if we over consume, we disrupt how the ecosystem functions (over a long enough period of time causing collapse) be my guest. Just do it by yourself in an isolated part of the world. Don’t be part of a chorus calling for the destruction of the ecosystem we all live in.
Why doesn't Chris Matthews talk about the UFO encounters which Ronald Reagan the famous actor playing the role of president seen. No, this would make the story of Kucinich not look as foolish as Mathews wants it to look. How about the sighting of the many people in Texas around a week ago. There was a police person, along with an airplane pilot along with many other people. Many times before there have been astronauts, airplane pilots , police officers , from other professionals , many working Americans and no one has tried to commit them to the nut house.
I don't see why democrats and independents do not start their own news media where Americans can receive real facts and honest news reports of events and what is happening in our government and around the war.
You would think that the American people would be sick and tired of the corporate news media censorship , lying , tabloid news , BS , Propaganda and having our government pull all its criminal corruption under the table and under national security.
unfrozencaveman @ 40:
Well you certainly drew your own conclusions. Like stating that this is the last year that 1998 (the really warm year) can be included in the decade warming trend. Temps haven’t gone anywhere since then.
1998 was the second highest temperature increase. And these anomalous temperature changes have been going up since around 1975 (graph from the NOAA page you referenced).
I suggest you read analyze what you link to and not simply "look" at it.
UFO's are an extremely important/relevant topic as is space exploration and most importantly reason/science versus creationism.
Reagan battled the UFO question during the 1980 primary. C&L favorite Bill O'Reilly has been railing all week against the two Texas men who witnessed a sighting. Our planet has been visited by extraterrestrials with the guest frequency of an I-95 roadside Holiday Inn.
We live in a +15.5 billion year old ever expanding universe within a minor galaxy of 100 billion stars competing with 100 million other galaxies on a tiny planet circling a third rate star. Intelligent life is as abundant throughout our universe as birds in our sky or fish in our seas. Just ask Neil de Grasse Tyson as we have recently discovered planets outside our solar system that can support life.
In 10 billion years our Sun will grow to dwarf stage Earth having already been extinguished 4 billion years earlier. The habitable life zone having moved further out as the Sun heats up to nova stage burning/engulfing our planet. The time is now to colonize our solar system and from there the nearest galaxy.
Personally, I would only trust a candidate who believes in reason and scientific fact. Let's ask Clinton or Obama if they believe in the following;
Existence of aliens?
Creationism fact or fiction?
What is your administrations plan for space exploration, direction of NASA and private space exploration corporations.
And yes, I have witnessed a sighting.
Global warming exists, even for the Bush EPA, which states:
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
I just wanted to say one more thing, which I forgot to mention. CO2, like many other substances on Earth, has been around and was created naturally by living organisms for billions of years. Some species on this planet need CO2 for survival. Vladimir Vernadsky book “The Biosphere” (which I would recommend reading) does a brilliant job of showing how much of the world wide ecosystem that we need to survive was actually created by living organisms. Oxygen was created by bacteria & later also plants over millions of years, eventually allowing more complex organisms to form. The Ozone layer itself wouldn’t have formed like it has, shielding us from violent radiation, if it weren’t for organisms creating oxygen. The Earth itself can be considered a self regulating organism in that way. When we consume and use carbon based energy we are consuming the suns energy, built up in previously living organisms over hundreds of millions of years, releasing FAR mare CO2 into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution than nature would have created itself. It’s completely illogical to conclude that that activity wouldn’t cause great harm to the worldwide eco-system. When a forest is torn down in China we do feel indirect effects. When Chinese coal is burned we see the soot building up in the California mountains. When we release more CO2 than would be naturally created we are negatively effecting the environment and steps need to be taken to reverse that. If we can’t come to terms with the fact that we belong to an ecosystem we SHOULDN’T control we have no hope for the future.
unfrozencaveman @ 12:
Global warming has not stopped. Cherrypicking 1998 as a starting point is very disingenuous since 1998 had very strong El Nino thereby pushing temperatures way above normal. No serious scientist makes that argument. If you do some basic statstical analysis on the temperature data you will see that the trend is a steady increase.
Here are some by mathematician and blogger Tamino:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/hit-you-where-you-live/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/down-under/
Ice melting? Yes the summer sea ice in the arctic is rapidly melting much faster than any predictions. The Arctic sea ice is very important to Earths climate since dimnisihing sea ice means even stronger global warming. Antarctic sea ice is pretty much steady as the models are predicting. The Arctic is predicted too warm more rapidly than Antarctic (which it is). Yes ice melting happens for a number of reasons and one of them is increasing temperatures
Quoting from the NOAA source you linked:
Global warming does not even make the top 10 in my list. Sure the earth is warming. So what? There is nothing we can do to reverse it and those silly enough to believe we can are simpletons. There are too many factors for us to control and population is one of the major ones (there has to be a reason for all that deforestation and cars on the roads and cows belching methane). Besides it would be an utter waste of money to simply go after "global warming". How about just focusing on getting us off oil under the guise of getting us out of the Middle East? How about developing technology for energy independence that might give us a real economic boost instead of an artifical one ala Bush and Co. Why do we need to worry about a colorless and odorless gas that plants use? Plant more f-ing trees then. I could care less about the small overall change in CO2.
Still not convinced? Well, if we do not get our fiscal house in order we won't have money to fight the eviliness that is "global warming" err climate change (see if it gets colder everyone is covered because it is climate change! Even though the climate always changes - nothing is ever static - but don't let anyone know that - it can be our secret).
Fiscal responsibility, medicare/medicaid, and social security are all more important than climate change. That is why no one cares and besides it is winter in North America and I am freezing in Kansas City. In fact, in the ten years I have lived here this has been the coldest for the longest time that I can remember. Damn that climate change.
one big reason for a disparity such as this has to do with our real media police, the republican talk radio monopoly. as with many issues, their corporate funded "think tanks" hire people to monitor the news and keep limbaugh and co up to date. the radio loudmouths just have to mention the stories, reporters, outlets that dare to write about global warming or criticize bush etc. and thousands of brainwashed dittoheads are soon calling, faxing, and emailing the publishers and editors and producers. and just ask dan rather what happens when you really step out of line. that is how real political correctness works in american media- it starts with the coordinated and uncontested repetition only possible on RW talk radio.
The "MSM" as we know is contemptible. Kucinich was a worthy person and the UFO question strictly persona
assasination by the MSM. Yet, here we are wasting our precious moments discussing it. For Kucinich and
all others who have been attacked and wounded by the wretches, the Mathews, Blitzers, Couric's ,
etc., etc., etc.,
You have my sympathy. I never 'got' Kucinich, but I do recall that he simply said that whatever it was
he saw, he could not identify it. Therefore, its a UFO. I see them everynight. I see lights in the sky that
I assume are planes. Almost certainly planes...but, on the other hand I can't actually say I 'identified' them.
I guess I am some sort of wacked out nut. Shameful stuff.
In the past eight years I have grown to feel, more and more, our once great nation is being pulled down
and the bad thing is I feel utterly powerless to stop it. Global warming or not...we are in trouble.
Does anyone NOT think so? If so, please tell me the reasons to be optimistic. For me, the only really
great good thing is the unfettered communication of the internet.
Send in the CLOWNS............
(this unisex, generic comment also applies to discussions about the Rethuglican candidates for president, or any gathering of Bush administration officials, anywhere in the known universe......)
its better to ask if he believes in evolution,that is 10 times more important than ufos...
The aliens in the UFO's were actually looking for Crawford. They wanted to "find that son-of-a-bitch that's destroying the universe".
Thing Fish @ 44:
No. When you combine atmospheric and ground surface temperatures, 1998 was the warmest year hands down. Or are you only using ground temperatures? We are talking about the greenhouse effect right? Yes temperatures have been going up since 1975, I did not deny that. But since 1998, the trend has stopped.
pepper @ 42:
Isn't it intresting when a push against global warming is made, the retort eventually breaks down down to evironmental responsibility and the precautionary principle. Where did I say I did not care about the environment? Look, at the end of the day the whole argument hinges on the 1975-1998 rise in global temperatures being out of the historical range of natural fluctuations. But if you want an apples to apples analysis, you can only go back 150 years. If you know anything about statistics and robust samples - 150 years within the history of the earth does not cut it. Beyond 150 years, you have proxy measurements which moves you into the realm of apples and oranges analysis.
I agree with you that climate is complex, yet you tie yourself continually to the simplicity of the AGW explanation. A much more humble approach to climatology would include the concession that we really don't understand how the whole system really works.
.
I'd much rather vote for a man who has the vision to see the consequences of the decisions he's making, rather than for a wo/man who regrets the consequences of the decisions they have made.
Now, why should I believe any of the "TOP THREE" that they will end the occupation of Iraq and change course on this WAR of TERRORISM when they have shown the inability to make the right decisions along the way?
Isn't the barometer for future performance based on past performance?
Now, who can you trust versus who tells you that they are trustworthy... only when elected?
.
http://realclimate.org
I could post 500 links to debunking the denier arguments, but the sledgehammer is stuck in the brick wall at the moment....
Also....before using a NCDC link to 'make your case for climate change statistics', you might want to examine that it is part of the well known panderer of con-servative economic causes, a Republican policy stalwart, the 'chamber of commerce' is a form of business network.
They pimped NAFTA like no other organization....
So again....you can look at the 'statistics' from organizations tied to 'business interests'....or to pure science statistics from NASA, IPCC, and others (who unlike con-servatives & deniers want you to believe) aren't 'doing' it for the grants, etc. They're doing it, because they are scientists...the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
Its your choice folks....like Thom Hartmann says...he'll take your '400' James Inhofe approved 'scientists' (cough - economists, lobbyists, AEI/CEI operatives) and raise you 2300 scientists.... Don't go to Vegas with the Deniers...they're betting against the 90% certainty...not good odds on their side...
Also...if you're still stumped....ask yourself...what's the worst that can happen if the deniers are wrong or the scientists are (90% folks)....
Don't buy into the BS myth that it will 'hurt the economy' if we transition start an apollo program for sustainable/renewable energy....to that...tell those deniers/economists...to check out the economies of Germany, UK, Switzerland, EU (in general), Israel, hell...towns/cities in U.S. that have begun implementing tennants of Kyoto....Eugene Oregon, Portland, Seattle, Chicago....I think they're doing just fine (oh...while you're at it...check out the minimum wages in each city...didn't 'break their economy'). Note***while I don't think Kyoto is all its cracked up to be***the next treaty will be signed by a Democratic president...and its about time.
Sorry...Department of Commerce...
Which is practically the same thing under this president...
unfrozencaveman: The trend did not stop in 1998. Even cherrypicking the anomalous warm year of 1998 as starting date then analyzing the trend shows a warming trend.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
right wing hater @ 58:
Yes, realclimate.org is a good site. Yes, I agree it is happening. BUT, in reality I doubt we can actually do anything about it. I also would rather focus on technology development for the sake of producing innovation for real economic stimulus and getting us out of the Middle East than CO2.
What you have to understand is that even though there is a mountain of science behind global warming most people could care less - they do not think beyond a day, a week, a quarter, maybe even a year. You do not sell this with gloom and doom. You sell it with what people can grasp and that is the pain at the pump and worthless conflicts in the middle east. You sell it by how it will benefit the economy and not decreasing CO2 from 0.03 to 0.029 percent of the atmosphere.
Sure they can grasp that it might be warmer in the summer and there is a drought here or there but in reality there have always been changes in climate (as geology and science have shown us) when there were far fewer humans around and there is really only so much you can blame on global warming. Many of the recent disasters are really due to humans fundamentally changing their environment through poor land use planning and development, like building in flood plains and on steep slopes and not managing forests properly and trying to control rivers and streams.
Cite or quote whatever you want. Based on what I know I do not think we can reverse any current trends. It is folly to think we have that much control over Mother Nature. Stop the fear mongering. Change the message so that the everyday person can see the solution will benefit them (mainly in the pocketbook) and there will be much more support behind alternative energy solutions.
My last plug for why I think this crusade against climate change is waste of time and money is this - There are over 1 billion people on this planet without access to safe drinking water. If we cannot even provide safe drinking water to 1 billion people what makes us think that the international community can control the climate?
unfrozencaveman @ 12:
I'm not a scientist, but I assume it's easier to make long term predictions than day to day. To use a sports analogy, it's a pretty good bet that the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees will be two of the winningest teams in baseball in 2008. You could easily say with 95% confidence that by year's end they'll have each won at least 80 games.
But it may be more difficult to predict how they'll do over the span of one game or one week. Your odds of being correct will plummet pretty spectacularly.
It's also like flipping a coin -- if you flip it once an hour over the span of 50 years, there's a very, very good chance that if you predict a close to 50/50 ratio of head and tails that you will be accurate. If you flip the coin only 10 times and try to guess the exact number of heads and tails, you could be way off.
Guys - it's the sun, look it up, all the beautiful hills and valleys around my home were caused by the recseding glaciers a few (maybe 8 thousand years ago)
How much of it is that the reporter's employers who are ignoring important issues or forbidding any discussion of them?
unfrozencaveman @ 55:
You don't deny temperatures have been going up since 1975. But then assert the trend stopped in 1998. Which is it?
No. Don't bother to answer. Because I'm certain it will be more unsubstantiated claims that you feel it's my responsibility to refute. I only decided to comment on this thread after your comment claiming others of "intellectual dishonesty."
Pot meet kettle.
BTW. Global Temperature Anomalies: 2007: 2007 was the second warmest year since 1880. Warmest was 2005. 2007 tied with 1998 as the second warmest. And this in spite of it being at the end of the Sun's sunspot cycle. So much for the theory that the Sun is causing warming.
marbotty @ 62:
Weather/Climate predictions are not binary - the coin analogy is not correct. Climate has thousands of variables (many unknown) with even less uncertain % influence on the outcome. It becomes even more complicated when the variables begin to interact with each other creating a whole new layer of complexity. That's why climate models suck, not because scientist are not brilliant, and not becuase we don't have amazing computers, but simply because the complexity of the system is way beyond our current capabilities.
But let's go back to the baseball analogy becuase that one is better. The day to day win's or losses are random noise. But taking the whole year, we can say with some confidence how the Yankees or Red Sox will do. We know the annual player budgets, rosters (barring injuries) etc. Weather is somewhat like this. If there is a large volcanic explosion, it could cool temperatures for the year, and we'd know that with some confidence. Now try to predict Red Sox or Yankee performance 25 years from now - pretty hard right? So many external variables can come into the picture, over so many years that we can do no better than purely guess. Even if you believed that C02 was a major driver in climate (which I am very skeptical), you would have to have the baseline equation for climate worked out. The point is future climate predictions are guesses for all intents and purposes. By the way, even the 6 month to one-year predictions in weather are pretty bad. I'd much rather bet on the 2008 baseball season.
Thing Fish @ 65:
The NASA numbers and NOAA numbers are in conflict. The readers can decide which organization is more objective. My grammar is not the best, perhaps I could have written more clearly. The bottom line: since 1998, almost 10 years, temperatures are no longer rising. Take away 1998 (I'm not trying to cherry-pick) if you want, the trend is flattening. You cannot dispute that. The trajectory of the rhetoric continues on its rise, but the temperature record is diverging in its own direction.
unfrozencaveman, once again, CO2 is a warming agent & has been building up in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Claiming otherwise puts you even in the extreme minority in your own camp. You'd frustrate THEM with your willful ignorance, even though you'd be a "useful idiot" for their cause. The planet is also warming and most of the "deniers" admit there is a link, although they think that other causes are just as, if not more, the reason for the warming. This is where the argument begins, not before admitting the planet is warming. I asked you to provide your opinion as to why the planet has been warming and you've made a series of bad arguments saying that it isn't, when the evidence is strong enough (again) that the warming isn't really a point of contention for the majority on both sides of the debate. If you're still around, I'll ask again: Just, for arguments sake, pretend that the planet is warming for a second, pretend you live in reality. What do you claim is the cause of the warming? Read anything that puts forth a good argument other than CO2 emissions or does your whole argument rest on the fact that the planet isn't warming?
I can’t get inside your head, but I’m guessing that you’re ignoring the question and denying the warming because you know that any reason you’d give as the reason why the planet is warming has been shredded and you’re dead set on countering the environmental movement, whom you apparently think believes in a series of myths and use scare tactics to further their cause. Like I said above, if you are wrong (and despite what flimsy argument you post here it’s much more likely than not) the damage done by inaction would be so great and irreversible that people like yourself would be responsible for ruining the only habitable planet that we know of yet in the universe, and for sure within many light years from here. If people are angry it’s because they understand the issue and know what’s at stake, and they see people like yourself (who appear to know very little about the science of the issue) shouting over people who know what they’re talking about.
There’s nothing wrong with people not agreeing with the standard picture of the planetary warming. Science is always about questioning the orthodoxy with new ideas. It isn’t about people pretending to know science, because of their political or economic ideology, sticking their noses in debates they know little about. Based on your posts here I’d say you have, at best, a superficial understanding of the issue and aren’t open to admitting you could be wrong. If the country continues to do nothing on the issue and people like you are wrong I hope karma does a dance on your head.
If we now have NASA scientists complaining that the Federal government is censoring their reports and comments on the climate with political appointees redrafting them, not scientists, what are the odds the NOAA is being censored as well?
On 60 Minutes last week they had a RETIRED NASA scientist interviewed with a federal government official looking on like a KGB Minder. But under Putin a FSB Minder.
Ysbaddaden, there’s much more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/science/28brfs-006.html?_r=1&ref=envir...
“A few weeks before hurricane season, the Commerce Department blocked the release of a document describing possible links between global warming and hurricanes, according to a news article today in the journal Nature.”
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060326_noaa26.33812d4.html
James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was quoted in The New York Times in January as saying he had been threatened with "dire consequences" by some NASA political appointees (not scientists) if he continued to call for limits on emissions of gases linked to global warming.
Many climate scientists at the NOAA may no longer take calls from reporters, the story went on to say, unless the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, D.C., and is conducted with a public-affairs officer present.
… Last month, retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., the NOAA's administrator, issued a statement saying that the media reports about muzzling NOAA scientists are incorrect. He urged the NOAA's scientists to speak freely and openly.
He was almost immediately contradicted by Jerry Mahlman, a former director of one of the NOAA's top laboratories in New Jersey, who said climate scientists at the NOAA have, "indeed, recently been systematically prevented from speaking freely to anyone outside NOAA" about "our inexorably warming planet."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=CarmeyiaGillisEmailO...
Journalist Brian O’Malley contacts NOAA climate scientist Thomas Knutson to request an interview for an op-ed piece he is working on that will be published in the New York Times. Knutson forwards the request to NOAA public affairs officer Jana Goldman, who then checks with NOAA Public Affairs Director Jordan St. John. In her email to St. John, she concludes, “Knutson and I are concerned that Knutson’s science may be used to advance a policy position.”
Words
pepper @ 69:
Alright, last post becuase you are obviously not really reading what I am writing. I never said the earth was not warming. I said the warming trend has stopped in the last 10 years or so. I showed the temperature graph as a point of data that we can all generally agree on. My whole argument is the tailoring of the temperature graph to the story of CO2. If one is going to take the leap from CO2/temperature correlation to CO2 causing temperature rise - then there's a lot of explaining to do.
It's funny you ask for my opinion on what is causing the warming. I have no idea, but then again, neither does anybody else. That is intellectual honesty. If we did know what was causing the warming, then we would probably also be able to explain why and how ice ages occur. It would be quite odd if temperatures were static given what we know about our geological history.
Finally, its not about being wrong or right but our degree of uncertainty. Life rarely has certainties, instead we must make our best guesses on the data we have. I'm sure you agree with me on that, though in the opposite way on AGW. Somewhere along the way, science began to feign certainty on global warming. The assumption among the general public is the smoking gun was found and conclusively linked our warm period to Co2. That is not the case, but if it does happen, I would certainly pack it in. Until then, I will take the fear-mongering and belittling of those who still question with a cynical eye.
Arguing Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam again?
Dennis is the ONLY candidate that:
HAS consistently voted against the Iraq War and its funding
HAS a plan to bring the troops home now HR 1234
HAS the only Healthcare plan that is really universal - HR 676
HAS solid programs to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
HAS the courage to cancel NAFTA & bring back jobs to the United States
WILL restore habeas corpus and protect our Constitution
Isn't it time we choose a candidate who truly represents the interests of the U.S. people?
Dennis Kucinich has no corporate strings attached and is free to create real change for the United States!
Use your voice and your vote!
Help a real Democrat become President.
KUCINICH for President
STRENGTH THROUGH PEACE
http://www.kucinichtv.com/
www.dennis4president.com
Please sign the petition:
http://wexlerwantshearings.com/
unfrozencaveman, people like you don't get belittled, you have to come up with a coherent argument that could be verified or denied based on a logical investigation. You haven't done that and your arguments don't rise to the level of having to publicly refute. If you were to go in front of a public forum and argue with scientists, who you claim are doing biased/junk science, saying what you’ve said here they’d eat you for lunch. You’re posting cookie cutter arguments (which I’ve seen countless times) anonymously on a web page. What you're doing isn't any logical investigation, you've made up your mind, obviously because you have a negative opinion of environmentalists, and be damned with the rest. The right wing websites that you apparently get your talking points from don’t exist for the scientist doing the research on the subject, they exist for people like you to come here and post your non-sense, hoping that it will influence others to be equally willfully ignorant on the subject.
As I said above, I am not attacking you because you disagree. I’m attacking you because you disagree using arguments that are easily countered and you seem like an intelligent person, so it isn’t outside your capacity to question YOUR basic precepts. Of all the scientists working within the “denier” community I haven’t encountered many who don’t have connections to either “free market” think tanks (who ideologically would be opposed to any solution that would handle the issue, since it would involve a central non-private authority) or the energy industries effected. Knowing what we know about past instances when similar interests were involved with issues that affected their bottom lines, I’d say that what they have to say is at least as suspect as what you’re claiming from the other side and if you weren’t so set in your ways you’d see it for what it is.
You saying that warming hasn’t occurred since 1998 by the way is a tired talking point that has been answered countless times. Just google your claims, see how many cites exist saying (almost word for word the same EXACT thing) and tell me there isn’t coordinated propaganda campaign behind all of this. All these web pages, run by people who have little to no scientific knowledge, posting anything that comes along that they claim contradicts the standard arguments and they haven’t a clue if what they’re saying has any factual backing. Coldest winter in South America in x amount of years. Dinge, 90 pages, word for word, “global warming hoax”. No perspective, no understanding that there could be a scientific understanding that doesn’t at all contradict the standard argument (just like the fact that there were areas of the world that were warmer during the last Ice Age than now), it’s colder than usual in South America and global warming is supposed to be occurring. Obviously these scientists are liars. THAT is the type of nonsense I’m sick of hearing.
Login or Register to post comments.