Please answer the question.
Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Thomas Huxley
I suggest that it the OP refuses to reply to my reasonable request, this thread should be closed.
Last edited by thalassamania; 03-21-2008 at 03:37 AM.
May all your dreams be wet ones!Visit us at Twotankedproductions.com
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
I, Papa Bear, do harrrrrr-by establish this here Pirate thread by request of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in hope that we can reduce or reverse global warming. But first, there be rules, maties:
1. You must always dress like a pirate when posting in this thread.
2. You must always use your best Pirate voice when posting here.
3. You may select a pirate name, if you wish.
4. You must comply to all wishes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless those wishes violate the first 3 rules.
5. You must drink copious amounts of rum.
6. You must hide the rum if a fundamentalist enters the conversation.
7. You must laugh, be merry, and say things like "Yarrrrrr" and "Avast!" a lot.
8. You must always stay focused on slowing, stopping, or reversing global warming, and realize that living your life as a pirate is the best way to accomplish such a thing.
Studies show that the decrease in pirates is directly related to the increase in global warming. Thus, we the members of this thread, have decided to live out our days as pirates, and bask in the glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster forever and ever. RAmen!
Now, get up here and swab the deck, you lazy curs!
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
I think my point has been made. PB's lack of response demonstrates his refusal to admit that which is perfectly clear, he is advancing a political, social, and economic view under the guise of science. Anyone who was participating in a rational discourse would have said, thanks for the new information, I was not aware of that and moved on.
Mods, please put these threads out of their misery.
There is an SEO contest for the phrase “GlobalWarming awareness2007.” I don’t really care too much about the contest, but there is something I have wanted to write About Global Warming for a while now and this GlobalWarming Awareness2007 contest is the perfect excuse. It’s this:
Claims of significant anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions are either overblown or completely unfounded. The greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind is this “Global Warming / Climate Change” tandem. Any doomsday scenarios concocted on these theories are a scientific embarrassment that have as much credibility as Creationism, Refrigerator Gnomes, or the Late Iraqi Information Minister.
Iraqi Information Minister says global warming will kill us all
The Global Warming scam was designed to
1. Scare people into giving time, money and power to charlatan scientists and sham politicians
2. Dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda
3. Oppress developing Nations
Sadly, the scam is working.
This fraud was dreamed up by intellectually dishonest scientific professionals coveting government grant money: Was latched on to by politicians and political groups that seek to expand their own influence as well as the size and scope of government and is perpetuated by the ignorant masses who do not have the capacity to refute what Hitler coined the “The Big Lie.”
Billions of dollars in taxes, private donations and political contributions are raised every year to fight the global warming boogieman. This sham has taken many otherwise intelligent and good intentioned people and turned them into quasi-religious zealots on a crusade for a bigger, more intrusive, more powerful world government.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
* Al Gore is trying to resurrect his political life with Global Warming Scare Mongering.
* Virgin CEO Richard Branson has pledged $3 Billion to fight global warming.
* Billions of Taxpayer and education dollars are wasted each year in the name of global warming.
* People like to believe in significant anthropogenic global warming because it makes them feel good and lulls them into a sense of intellectually superiority.
When you follow the money and politics, it’s easy to see why this charade of smoke and mirrors is occurring. The “why” of the scam is a thesis in and of itself. However, it’s more important for Global Warming Awareness 2007 to shed the light of truth on the debate to dispel many of the myths surrounding the climate change debate. Grab your popcorn or delicious this for later, because we have a few “incontinent Truths” of our own to cover and this is gonna take a while.
Global Warming Awareness 2007, Here comes the Science . . .
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 1.
The Earth is 1, 2, 5 or 10 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago.
Truth: At most we’ve had an average 0.6 degree C (and probably closer to 0.3 degree C) increase over the last 100 years.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 2.
“I know Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring because it’s warmer here in _____. I know it’s warmer, I can feel it.”
Truth: Just because it may be warmer where you are, doesn’t mean that the Earth’s temperature is changing globally; and it certainly does not mean that any climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Anecdotal testimonials in a microcosm are not scientifically valid.
As we pointed out, the average global temperature increase has been between 0.3-0.6 degrees over the last hundred years. That works out to 0.003-0.006 degrees per year; a change that is certainly imperceptible without instruments.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 3
CO2 levels and the average Global Temperatures are near all time highs in Earths history.
Truth: We have records of CO2 and temperatures going back *millions* of years, and we presently have some of the lowest CO2 levels in the same amount of time; before now, CO2 levels have been several orders of magnitude higher… all without human intervention. Also, the earth’s temperature was dramatically warmer. Guess what, doomsayers? The earth has natural CO2/temperature cycles and climate science is only just now starting to put some of the bigger pieces of the puzzle together.
Check out Milankovitch Cycles to learn more about these natural cycles.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 4.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 has led to a rise in Global Temperatures throughout millions of years of the Earth’s history.
Truth: Here is the graph of Temperature levels and CO2 Levels.
CO2 vs Temperature
The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years.
Can anyone explain to me why CO2 level rising lags about 800 years behind the temperature rises?
While correlation does not equal causation (contrary to what these global warming shysters would have you believe) the logical conclusion is NOT that higher CO2 Levels cause an increase in Global Temperatures, but rather that global temperature increases cause a rise in CO2 levels. These graphs also show that CO2 in and of itself is incapable of sustaining temperature growth.
If their “CO2 causes significant global warming” theories were correct we should see temperature levels increasing after rising CO2 levels - not the other way around.
It looks more like CO2 is what the planet uses stunt temperature upsurges and cool back off after an interglacial period.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 5
Receding Ice Sheets is proof that anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.
Truth: Here are some photos showing the shrinking of Glacial Ice Sheets.
They sure look like they are shrinking, don’t they? Problem is, those are pictures of the Glacial Ice Caps on Mars. Yes, they are shrinking, but one could hardly argue it’s because of some US soccer mom driving an SUV. There are no humans on Mars.
Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper.
The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by
A global warming trend happening on Mars (Source NASA)
The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth’s most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.
If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
Yea – like maybe the sun is a little bit hotter and brighter?
So, we know the sun is getting hotter. We know that it is warmer on Mars. It is also warmer on Earth. How does one look at those facts and come up with “I think the Earth is warmer because Jane drives a Hummer”? Get a grip people!
If there is Global Warming on Mars, doesn’t that indicate that a significant portion, if not all, of the 0.3-0.6 degree C increase in the Earth’s average temperature over the last 100 years is being caused by the sun or other cosmic forces that have nothing to do with humans?
Oh and by the way, Earth’s Antarctic Ice sheet is actually growing.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 6
CO2 is the most significant Greenhouse Gas in Earth’s Atmosphere.
Truth: More than 95% of the “Greenhouse Gas” effect comes from water vapor.
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 7
Only Bible Banging Creationist and big oil lobbyist deny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing significant global warming.
I am an Atheist leaning agnostic. Evolution is as good as fact in my book; there is no missing link. I don’t own a dime in oil stocks and have never worked for nor received any money from any lobbying group. I’m neither anti-environment nor against renewable energy ideas like Biodiesel or Solar Tower power stations. The world could go 100% solar powered tomorrow and I’d stay just as happy as a pig in ****.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 8
So and so says it’s true so it must be
Truth: Follow the money. In Science there is a saying “No Problem, no funding.”
I’ve read what the Royal Society has published about anthropogenic global warming. It’s an embarrassment: nothing but conjecture, glad-handing, postulates and guesses. Where is the Science?!? Where is the evidence that concretely demonstrates that an X increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a temperature increase of FunctionX on a planetary scale? Nowhere! Because this type of evidence simply does not exist. All we have are rigged computer models that fail at even the most rudimentary attempts to predict climate or weather changes and “scientists” referencing those models as if they were somehow bastions of truth and authority.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 9
Human caused C02 emissions will cause a temperature increase that will melt the ice caps and flood all coastlines in the next 50-100 years.
I call Bull****.
When someone can predict the temperature range (high and low) for the 50 largest cites in the world 30 days out to within a half of a degree of accuracy, then maybe I’ll listen to what they have to say about the average global temperature 50 years from now. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not these climatologists and meteorologist know what the hell they’re talking about.
You think these scientists can see 100 years into the future? 100 years ago, there was a different environmental concern. People worried that we needed to come up with a solution for all the horse **** from the increase in the number of horse and buggy carriages in major cities. Here are some of the great predictions of the past.
Trying to predict what’s going to happen even this year is an exercise in futility. Remember how 2006 was supposed to be the biggest hurricane season on record? How’d that prediction turn out? Thinking that one can predict 100 years into the future goes beyond the wildest stretches of absurdity into pure insanity. Alas! Fools seem to love giving these psychics their money; nothing I say is going to stop them.
For me, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and buy some nice beachfront property. Why don’t you global warming zealots put your money where your mouth is and buy a nice cabin in the mountains somewhere? Then in 50 years we’ll look at whose property is worth more to see who was right.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 10
If real we can do something about it
According to NASA, the average global temperature has risen only 0.3-0.6 degrees over the past 100 years. Even if 100% of this warming could be attributed to mankind’s CO2 emissions (which, as we have demonstrated, it cannot), none of the proposed “solutions” would decrease worldwide CO2 levels, none of them would stop or significantly curb this alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (if it is occurring) and most of these big government “solutions” would dramatically degrade the quality of life for the poorest and most impoverished people on Earth.
Indeed, the risks of handing power over to politicians who clad themselves in the global warming cloak to spread their socialist agendas far out ways any danger associated with anthropogenic global warming or “climate change.”
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 11
Global Warming is bad for the human race.
Truth: The Warming of the earth has coincided with prosperity and development. Periods of frost or cold have caused global famine, periods of stagnation and economic recession. A warmer earth and more CO2 means more plant life, greater farm yields and worldwide prosperity. It’s quite amazing how closely economic cycles have tracked increases and decreases in the average global temperature.
More interesting thoughts on Global Warming include Apocalypse canceled its referenced pdf, and Extra Terrestrials Caused Global Warming.
And before you throw out your ad hak attacks, the one thing I can say for those two intelligent people is that are not chasing Global Warming Funding Dollars or coveting political influence. Can the same be said for whomever you site?
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Conclusion:
The overwhelming evidence is that manmade CO2 emissions account for only a fraction of the mere 0.3-0.6 degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years – if at all. Even if mankind accounted for all of it (we don’t) and we could accurately predict (we can’t) that mankind would quadruple that temperature increase over the next 100 years (we probably couldn’t even if we wanted to), it would not be cause for concern. History has demonstrated time and time again that a warmer Earth will mean greater prosperity for mankind. So in fact, the best we can hope for is that these doomsday prophets are correct and that we will somehow raise the Earth’s temperature for the sake of our great grandchildren. Unfortunately for them, the bulk of the genuine scientific evidence suggests that these Global Warming charlatans are spouting nothing but hot air.
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
This is more evidence than we got from the UN and you didn't have to pay 3 billion dollars for it!
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
AIM Report: Media Promote Global Warming Fraud - March A
AIM Report | March 8, 2007
This document, which blames global warming on people, had no published science to back it up.
MEDIA PROMOTE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.
Our media want the public to believe that the same organization that gave us the oil-for-food scandal can be trusted on its dire predictions of calamity from alleged man-made global warming.
The media's conflict of interest can be seen in the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric, which owns MSNBC and NBC News, has joined with environmental pressure groups in the United States Climate Action Partnership in promoting an international U.N.-style bureaucracy to reduce the emissions blamed for the warming.
They claim evidence for their view in the recent much-publicized United Nations climate change report. But this document, which blames global warming on people, had no published science to back it up.
A front-page Washington Post story about the report waited until the 20th paragraph of a 21-paragraph story to mention that the "detailed scientific documentation" for the claim is not yet available and won't be released "for a few months." A New York Times account waited until the 40th paragraph of a 44-paragraph story to disclose that "thousands of pages of technical background," supposedly the basis for the alarming conclusions, would be released later in the year.
Faith-Based Science
Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet available?
The odds are that many people didn't get past the sensational New York Times headline, "Science Panel Calls Global Warming 'Unequivocal.'"
Clearly, we are supposed to accept all of this on faith.
In fact, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is officially sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program, which once organized an Environmental Sabbath project so people could pay homage to the planet. The program included an exercise for children to sit around a tree, hold hands, and meditate.
The coverage of the IPCC report demonstrates how mainstream journalists have abandoned even a pretense of objectivity.
This reflects the influence of such figures as Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who, at the recent so-called National Conference on Media Reform, said that the media should not cover both sides of the global warming debate.
Dissenters
However, some scientists are raising the alarm.
The IPCC's decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, "In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research." Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, "Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first."
A Google search of current news, however, turned up only two places where Motl's criticism of the IPCC was mentioned—a story carried by Fox News and attributed to Brit Hume and a CNSNews.com story. Hume cited the CNSNews.com report, which also quoted Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, as saying that issuing a conclusion before producing the evidence for that conclusion is completely improper and that a business which issued a report in such a fashion would be investigated by the government for fraud.
Senator James Inhofe, ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, called the IPCC report "the corruption of science for political gain" and said the process is completely lacking in scientific integrity. He noted that page 4 of "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC World" includes the following: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."
This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published.
Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.
Pandering to the alarmists, Samuel Bodman, the Secretary of Energy in the Bush Administration, accepted the IPCC report and urged "global solutions" to the alleged problem.
One such "global solution" is a global carbon tax, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, administered and even collected by the U.N. One U.N.-sponsored report suggests a global tax amounting to 35-cents a gallon.
An international conference to promote global taxes, dubbed "solidarity levies," was held in Oslo, Norway, from February 6-7. An international tax on airline travel is already being implemented. One of the biggest state delegations to the conference came from South Korea, whose foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, took over in January as U.N. Secretary-General.
A Global Carbon Tax
A supporter of "solidarity levies" to fund global causes before he became U.N. chief, Ban thinks the IPCC report requires an immediate response from the international community. A special climate change summit, where President Bush could be pressured to endorse a global carbon tax, may be held later this year.
The mass hysteria that passes for coverage of global warming infected Anne Applebaum, who used to be a moderate voice on the Washington Post's editorial page. She wrote a column endorsing a "simple" carbon tax to hike energy prices and added that "If a future American president wants to rally the nation around a patriotic and noble cause, then he or she has the perfect opportunity." Is this a plug for Al Gore?
She wrote that a carbon tax "should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a wealth of innovations to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a big chunk of money that could be used for other things," such as balancing the budget or fixing Social Security.
Did it ever occur to her that taking a "big chunk of money" out of the economy would slow economic growth and throw people out of work? That it would hurt the poor?
Her column included such gems as, "If the Chinese see that such a tax has produced unexpected benefits in America and Europe, they'll follow." But Applebaum, being a scholar and writer on the evils of communism, has to know that the communist Chinese government is pursuing its own national self-interest economically and militarily and that the regime's increasing production of greenhouse gasses is among the least of its worries.
This kind of analysis goes beyond silly. It reflects emotion, not reason, and wishful thinking, not serious argument. But that is what is driving much of the coverage of this issue.
She tips her hand when mentioning the "apocalyptic climate change rhetoric" that she accepts and believes should spur action at the national and global levels. These people really believe that we are on the verge of the apocalypse. For the acolytes of Al Gore, the apocalypse will come not because an Islamic terrorist or nation will use a nuclear bomb on the U.S. or the world, it will occur because Americans and Chinese are driving too many cars. They believe that a carbon tax, preferably at a global level, has the potential to save the world.
Media Support Carbon Tax
A new website, from an organization devoted to promoting a carbon tax, the Carbon Tax Center, points out that the New York Times and Washington Post are among the leading news organizations in the country in promoting higher energy prices through carbon taxes. "The Times has six regular editorial columnists, four of whom have supported a carbon tax," it says. At the Post, the paper has editorialized in favor of a carbon tax, and columnist Sebastian Mallaby has endorsed it. Applebaum can now be added to the list.
One of the co-founders of the Carbon Tax Center is a leader of a "bike-advocacy" organization.
We will be anxiously waiting for Applebaum, Mallaby, Washington Post editorial writers and those New York Times columnists to announce that they are personally combating global warming by riding bikes to and from work. But like Al Gore, whose "big fat carbon footprint" and frequent airplane travels have been thoroughly documented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we doubt that we'll see the global warming alarmists cutting back on their luxurious lifestyles.
Exposing their hypocrisy won't stop them because while this is a political movement that wants to control our lifestyles through government taxes, it is also religious in nature. Though presented to the public as a Southern Baptist, Gore wrote a book entitled Earth in the Balance, in which he wrote sympathetically about the Gaia hypothesis of an earth spirit. One chapter is entitled, "Environmentalism of the Spirit." Gore believes the Gaia concept is able to "evoke a spiritual response in many of those who hear it." In this context, he adds that "...the simple fact of the living world and our place on it evokes awe, wonder, a sense of mystery—a spiritual response—when one reflects on its deeper meaning."
The Earth Spirit
Some of the leading global warming "scientists" involved with the U.N. also believe in this approach. Gore endorsed a book by Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist who cited the Gaia theory in his own book on global warming. Schneider asked, "...is there a Goddess of the Earth?" He is one of several scientists who contributed to the 2004 book, Scientists Debate Gaia. A description of the book declares, "Despite initial dismissal of the Gaian approach as New Age philosophy, it has today been incorporated into mainstream interdisciplinary scientific theory, as seen in its strong influence on the field of Earth System Science."
This "Gaian approach" demonstrates why the "science" behind the man-made global warming theory, if it exists, has to be considered extremely questionable. What is driving the acceptance of the theory is not science but a mystical or "New Age" view of the world. It is their religion.
LIBERAL TV PERSONALITY ATTACKS AIM
General Electric's slogan used to be that it "brings good things to life." But under GE chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt, that has changed. GE owns a low-rated cable network, MSNBC, which features a wise guy former sportscaster, Keith Olbermann, who has made a spectacle of himself by insulting people, acting like a clown, and consciously imitating famous journalist Edward R. Murrow.
Last October, taking on President Bush as an unprecedented threat for the umpteenth time, Olbermann mimicked one of Senator Joe McCarthy's critics by saying, "Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?" Olbermann was upset that Bush had given a speech identifying the enemy and its apologists as defenders of a form of fascism, and had mentioned an Osama bin Laden letter in which he talked of "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."
Olbermann was outraged, having convinced himself that Bush was impugning the patriotism of the news media. And who would entertain such a thought? It's just that the New York Times has done its best to undermine the U.S. Government's most effective counter-terrorism programs. What's more, an NBC military analyst, William Arkin, wrote a column for the Washington Post web site attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq as mercenaries. He eventually apologized for the smear.
On February 6, Olbermann used his show to identify Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid as "The Worst Person in the World" for drawing attention to the racist comments of Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who has been leading the opposition to the Bush Administration's troop surge in Iraq, and the media's failure to hold him up to the same standard they apply to Republicans.
Olbermann Attacks AIM
It is tempting to dismiss Keith Olbermann's labeling of various people as "The Worst Person in the World" as a harmless and infantile prank. But AIM discovered that some people watch his show because they think they are getting legitimate news and information on current events. Olbermann has authored a book, cut-and-pasted from his show, on this topic. Most of his high-profile targets are conservatives.
From the point of view of the far-left, this clownish routine might somehow serve a purpose if there was some truth behind the charge. But the attack on Kincaid was based on a deliberate deception.
Kincaid was attacked because he had co-authored a column with AIM writer Andy Selepak drawing attention to the media double-standard on Senator Joseph Biden's racist comments about Senator Barack Obama. Biden had said that "you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." The AIM column said that "If a Republican had condescendingly referred to a black person as 'clean,' 'bright' and 'articulate,' he or she would have been branded as a racist and banished from public life."
Olbermann claimed to have uncovered a double-standard on AIM's part, commenting that, "Same day as Biden's comments came out, President Bush said about Senator Obama, 'He's an attractive guy. He's articulate.' So Mr. Kinkaid [sic], you're saying the president should be branded as a racist and banished from public life? Yikes!"
Olbermann concluded, "Cliff Kinkaid [sic] of Accuracy in Media, it's a brand name, not a description. Today's Worst Person in the World."
The Facts
Here's the background to Olbermann's false claim: On Fox News, Bush was asked by Neil Cavuto, "How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?" His response was, "Oh, I don't know. He hasn't gotten elected yet. He hasn't even gotten the party's nomination. He's an attractive guy. He's articulate. I've been impressed with him when I've seen him in person, but he's got a long way to go to be president."
Anybody familiar with the facts knew that Bush had not referred to Obama being the "first" mainstream black candidate to be articulate, attractive and "clean." That is how Biden described him, and that is why Biden, not Bush, had to apologize. Bush had not made the comments in a condescending manner, drawing a contrast with other blacks.
Nevertheless, several people had fallen for Olbermann's misleading attack, thinking that AIM was somehow guilty of failing to hold Bush to the same standard that it had applied to Biden.
One blogger, insisting that Olbermann had made a profound observation, said that "Olbermann pointed out that George Bush made similar comments about Obama the same day as Biden and wondered if Kincaide [sic] meant Bush should be labeled a racist." Another told me in an email that Olbermann was "promoting true accuracy in the media when he showed that Bush said the same thing as Biden."
It turns out that Olbermann was not the first to raise this phony comparison. New York Times blogger Kate Phillips had done a story about the Bush comments, saying that Bush "obviously had not been told about the controversy surrounding Senator Joseph R Biden Jr.'s take on Mr. Obama…"
This was an attempt to falsely suggest that Bush's remarks about Obama were similar to those of Biden, and that Bush, therefore, should be subject to the same kind of criticism leveled at Biden.
Biden's comments were significant not only because he singled out Obama, comparing him favorably to other black candidates, but because his comments were not the first racist remarks he had had made. Last year he made a disparaging comment about Indian-Americans, saying, "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
As AIM noted in the commentary that provoked Olbermann's ire and false attack, Biden's rhetoric suggests that he pays close attention to how members of minority groups look, smell or sound. However, it is also important to note that Biden did not really suffer politically for what he said. He apologized for the remarks but retained his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
By contrast, when then-Republican Senator and candidate George Allen called an Indian-American a "macaca" during a campaign rally, he was hounded by the media to the point where the controversy contributed to his eventual defeat. Republican Senator Trent Lott's joking comments that one-time segregationist Strom Thurmond would have been a good president were covered so extensively by the media that Lott was forced to step down from his post as Senate majority leader.
This was really the main point of our column—that Biden was NOT going to suffer the same fate as Allen or Lott because Biden was organizing opposition to the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq and his position had to be protected and maintained. For our media, destroying the Bush policy in Iraq takes precedence over making an issue of Biden's racism.
In attacking Kincaid for drawing attention to this double-standard, Olbermann was practicing damage control for one of the leading lights of the national Democratic Party.
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
Blog: Science Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
May all your dreams be wet ones!
Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/
Posting Permissions
