An Inconvenient Truth

I gave the wrong website. It is www.climatecrisis.net
I couldn't tell how many kids were there, it was too dark and people were bundled up! My daughter said she liked the movie. She didn't know too much about it, until last night. I know it started her thinking about what we can do as a family, as a starting point!

It was a very eye opening film and that is coming from someone that has a strong environmental industry background.

If I could sum up what I took away from the movie in one sentence, it would be a slight twist to John R's signature line.

We all live downstream, and our kids will live downstream from us.

Diane Rehm's show today was on global warming. You can listen to it on NPR.org.

You can listen to any of the current or past Diane Rehm shows at this website:

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/01/08.php#12636

D. Rehm has guests representing a diversity of legitimate viewpoints.

It is refreshing to listen to her open minded programs in comparison to the corporate media which filters, sensationalizes, and distorts the news.

The mass media does not accurately represent the true seriousness of global warming because their sponsors such as Big Oil and auto manufacturers would not like it.

Ms. Rehm?s goal seems to aspire to a high journalistic standard in stark contrast to Fox News which is owned and influenced by a neo conservative ideologue.

You can listen to any of the current or past Diane Rehm shows at this website:

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/01/08.php#12636

D. Rehm has guests representing a diversity of legitimate viewpoints.

It is refreshing to listen to her open minded programs in comparison to the corporate media which filters, sensationalizes, and distorts the news.

The mass media does not accurately represent the true seriousness of global warming because their sponsors such as Big Oil and auto manufacturers would not like it.

Ms. Rehm?s goal seems to aspire to a high journalistic standard in stark contrast to Fox News which is owned and influenced by a neo conservative ideologue.

Uh..yeah. Who would EVER consider NPR left wing? heehee. Let's see...we can watch FOX for propaganda and MSNBC for a slant. Hmm...that sounds bipartison!

Uh..yeah. Who would EVER consider NPR left wing? heehee. Let's see...we can watch FOX for propaganda and MSNBC for a slant. Hmm...that sounds bipartison!

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate.

Surveys show that those that watched / listened to PBS/NPR are better informed. They were more skeptical of attacking Iraq and were less likely to vote for ?W?.

If you consider a news source that is more factually accurate biased then you have a peculiar view of reality. But then again ?W?s grasp of reality seems a little shaky too.

By the way you might want to check your spelling of ?bipartisan?.

B&Jdarg and supermom26.2 thank you for your comments. Jen and I worked on this event for a couple of months. Jen stopped working two weeks before the event and devoted all her time to getting it together. She did this for free because she cares about her community. Your comments and the many others we received last night made it all worth while. It is important to keep the dialogue going on the issue. I encourage everyone to talk to your friends and family about it.
Just an F.Y.I., we will continue communicating with Waste Management on Monday. We hope to get a blue bag program started until the curbside recycling begins end of 2007 (thank you to the woman who suggested this). We will also be discussing a "freecycle" program. These programs already exist in various places around the country including Gainesville FL. With freecycle residents could drop off materials they no longer need or want, or pick up any materials they could use for free.
We will also continue speaking with Aaron Bradshaw about possible green energy alternatives.
There were handbills at the event last night listing 13 quick steps you can take to reduce the waste in their home. I have worked with people who have been able to reduce their electric bills by as much as $75 a month by implementing just a few of the steps. I will put the stack of handbills in the Seaside post office so anyone can reach them day or night. Please give them to friends and family as well. For any "do-it-yourself" folks feel free to contact me via SoWal with any questions. I would be happy to give anyone a how to session.

A Zalace, so great to hear about the turn out. As you know I was in AZ and had my "wonderful replacements" at the event. In addition to your hand bills, I composed a quick list that was available at my booth of items I'm currently doing in my own home to work toward a more sustainable future. If anyone is interested, I still have those available. Also, I wanted to remind everyone, in continuation of this important discussion for our community, there is another very informal gathering I'd like to invite everyone to on Jan. 18. 6:00 at Larder, South Walton Meets Green. For more info. please visit http://sustainingsowal.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/south-walton-meets-green-ii/

For those who are a bit cynical and think this is just "greenwashing" please keep in mind, we have to start somewhere and raising public awareness is just the beginning to implementing positive change. Networking and bringing people together is the foundation for creating the future we'd like to see here.

Cheers!!

Enjoyed the event tonight - a little chilly, but Amore Pizza warmed us up after the movie. I'm curious how many other SoWal members were there ......?
___________________________________

The hubby told me he met some friends of mine!;-)

The problem I see with this particular type of movie is the lack of a presentation of the opposite view which still exists in the scientific comunity. Consider the movie by Oliver Stone, JFK, which made up it's own facts based on the application of "artistic license" and being exposed as such. That film is still the foundation for the belief by most Americans, according to various polls, that JFK was assasinated via conspiracy and not by Oswald. Yet if you ask anyone of those who believe this conspiracy theory if they have ever read the Warren Commision report you usually get a befuddled look. Point being that a theatrical presentation will always trump any detailed research or opposing view points that need to be explored before making such a conclusion.

Do a search of Global Cooling and you will find opinions, charts etc that have presented this opposite point of view in the past. I wish I could locate the Time and Newsweek articles from the 1970s that discussed Global Cooling being the paramount climate problem of the time. This link mentions this "old theory" briefly: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

The question one needs to ask is how can scientists from one era be completely at odds with the latest point of view. Were they completely wrong then or now or is the answer somewhere in between?

I will see the movie someday, but I plan to look at it with a great deal of skepticism, as it is a Hollywood presentation, which we know generally distorts facts for effect and the lack of credibility by the presenter (Al Gore who has made up some off the wall fabricated nonsense in the past--Did I say I invented the Internet? )

The Warren Commision was formed by LBJ, which was as an ill advised move as the lies spread about U.S. warships being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin to promote the Vietnam war. The longest serving director of the CIA was one of six members. Curiously LBJ ordered the files of the Warren Commision sealed for 75 years. I believe the findings of the Warren Commision as much as I believe the CIA intelligence selling the Iraq invasion to the U.N. It's just more manufactured lies. Stone and Moore are making a living over a healthy skepticism of a dishonest Federal government. Instead of reading the Warren Commision Report, try reading President Eisenhower's last speech on Jan. 17, 1961 to the American public, warning us of the military-industrial complex. The very leader of D-Day warning us of an out of control federal government manipulated by lobbyists for the arms industry. We are living that nightmare now with another Texas President.

B&Jdarg and supermom26.2 thank you for your comments. Jen and I worked on this event for a couple of months. Jen stopped working two weeks before the event and devoted all her time to getting it together. She did this for free because she cares about her community. Your comments and the many others we received last night made it all worth while. It is important to keep the dialogue going on the issue. I encourage everyone to talk to your friends and family about it.
Just an F.Y.I., we will continue communicating with Waste Management on Monday. We hope to get a blue bag program started until the curbside recycling begins end of 2007 (thank you to the woman who suggested this). We will also be discussing a "freecycle" program. These programs already exist in various places around the country including Gainesville FL. With freecycle residents could drop off materials they no longer need or want, or pick up any materials they could use for free.
We will also continue speaking with Aaron Bradshaw about possible green energy alternatives.
There were handbills at the event last night listing 13 quick steps you can take to reduce the waste in their home. I have worked with people who have been able to reduce their electric bills by as much as $75 a month by implementing just a few of the steps. I will put the stack of handbills in the Seaside post office so anyone can reach them day or night. Please give them to friends and family as well. For any "do-it-yourself" folks feel free to contact me via SoWal with any questions. I would be happy to give anyone a how to session.

Thank you for all your hard work. The Cub Scouts Pack 562 are having a lesson on recycling next Thursday at 5 pm at St Rita's portables. Is there some one who can come and give an age appropriate (7 & 8 yr olds) talk?
Maybe you can tell me who to contact? I was thinking about your example of reducing the electric bill - keeping a journal for 30 days, listing the appliances that can be unplugged (computers, hair dryers, cell phone chargers etc.) and compare it after. I don't know if they could keep up with it but I bet the differences would be eye-opening.

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate.

Surveys show that those that watched / listened to PBS/NPR are better informed. They were more skeptical of attacking Iraq and were less likely to vote for ?W?.

If you consider a news source that is more factually accurate biased then you have a peculiar view of reality. But then again ?W?s grasp of reality seems a little shaky too.

By the way you might want to check your spelling of ?bipartisan?.

Who needs spell check with you around? Besides, you listen to NPR so you're smarter

Supermom26.2- I think I have the perfect people to come give an age appropriate talk. I will send a private email to your account today as soon as I speak with them and get their contact information. As for the journaling project, I think it is an excellent idea and I would love to brainstorm with you on different ways we could do this. I recently had an eye opening experience in my own home. My kitchen sink became severely clogged. After disassembling all the plumbing I placed a five gallon bucket under the drain to catch water while I worked on the sink. We wash our dishes by hand, and try to be very careful to keep the water at a trickle. By having the 5 gallon bucket under the sink we were able to measure exactly how much water was being used this way. Washing a sink completely full of dishes took 12 gallons of water. I was shocked. Now we plug the sink, fill it with about 3-4 inches of water, and then wash all the dishes in this same soapy water. We only turn the water on to rinse the dishes clean before putting them in the rack. Doing things this way uses only about 1-1.5 gallons of water, and it isn't more difficult.

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate. ...

You are right. Thank God we have a Republic form of government. Maybe our founding fathers knew that we Americans would be more concerned with Budweiser and football, rather than politics.

You are right. Thank God we have a Republic form of government. Maybe our founding fathers knew that we Americans would be more concerned with Budweiser and football, rather than politics.

I think the founding fathers were into Sam Adam's homebrew and pitching horseshoes:lol:

I am posting this for general consumption and consideration without any comment other than that I found this interesting. It is from the US Senate website.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel?s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel?s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen?s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society?s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

Cullen?s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen?s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine?s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568


Cullen?s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC?s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen?s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air?s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute?s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man?s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A


Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f339c09a-802a-23ad-4202-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8F5C9829-C459-4D17-89BB-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC?S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1997BFAC-3722-416E-9FB8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ?UNSUSTAINABLE?

###

I am posting this for general consumption and consideration without any comment other than that I found this interesting. It is from the US Senate website.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel?s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel?s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen?s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society?s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

Cullen?s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen?s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine?s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568


Cullen?s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC?s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen?s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air?s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute?s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man?s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A


Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f339c09a-802a-23ad-4202-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=8F5C9829-C459-4D17-89BB-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC?S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1997BFAC-3722-416E-9FB8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ?UNSUSTAINABLE?

###

There was going to be a seminar on this subject today in LA but it was cancelled due the the snow flurries they were getting.

There was going to be a seminar on this subject today in LA but it was cancelled due the the snow flurries they were getting.

He's baaaaack.....:wub:

He's baaaaack.....:wub:

....and badder than ever!

....and badder than ever!

You been saving up?

You been saving up?

Yep...i was starting to get "blue brains".

Yep...i was starting to get "blue brains".

STOP!!

We need to stop hijacking this thread. But I guess the bright side of a thread hijack is the bump back to the limelight...

Don't be fooled by the big oil global warming denial propaganda machine.

The Bush administration has also altered scientific testimony to contribute to this misinformation tactic.

Please see article below.

http://environment.newscientist.com/

Insight: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
19Jan07

REMEMBER the days when tobacco companies denied there was a link between smoking and cancer? Litigation put an end to that, but the tactics live on elsewhere. The US Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that misinformation and denial continue when it comes to global warming. This time it's the world's biggest company, ExxonMobil, that has been fingered as the bad guy.

UCS, a non-profit organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has published a 68-page report accusing ExxonMobil of exaggerating uncertainties over the causes of global warming. UCS says ExxonMobil has done this by funding 43 bodies critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom based in Washington DC, in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicizing has been shown to be wrong. "They gave life to views discredited by the scientific community," says the report's main ..

Don't be fooled by the big oil global warming denial propaganda machine.
The Bush administration has also altered scientific testimony to contribute to this misinformation tactic.

Please see article below.

http://environment.newscientist.com/

Insight: Oil giants' money fuels a climate of suspicion
19Jan07

REMEMBER the days when tobacco companies denied there was a link between smoking and cancer? Litigation put an end to that, but the tactics live on elsewhere. The US Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) says that misinformation and denial continue when it comes to global warming. This time it's the world's biggest company, ExxonMobil, that has been fingered as the bad guy.

UCS, a non-profit organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has published a 68-page report accusing ExxonMobil of exaggerating uncertainties over the causes of global warming. UCS says ExxonMobil has done this by funding 43 bodies critical of claims of climate change, such as Frontiers of Freedom based in Washington DC, in the apparent expectation that these groups will propagate disinformation about global warming even when what they are publicizing has been shown to be wrong. "They gave life to views discredited by the scientific community," says the report's main ..

I think the point is not to be fooled by any propaganda machine, regardless of who is greasing the wheels. Silencing voices on either side of the debate is wholly contrary to the scientific method.

"One who hugs trees too long...may get splinters."--Chinese proverb

I'm impressed! Someone actually speaking contrary to environmental propaganda! :clap_1: