Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!



S

ST

Guest
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990

February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -

As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Obviously I am wasting my time but:

Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?

Most people would say yes to at least two of these.

Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.

Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.

If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE" is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.

If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.

If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.

If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, then trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person with no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it out earlier. Too damn late.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.


By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree with
global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by the media
and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.
 
On Feb 19, 7:31 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Obviously I am wasting my time but:
>
> Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?
>
> Most people would say yes to at least two of these.
>
> Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.
>
> Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.
>
> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
>
> If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.
>
> If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.
>
> If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, then
> trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person with
> no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it out
> earlier. Too damn late.
>
> --
> patch70


Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's
greatest (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and
India will more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions
taken in the US.

We'd lose everything.


Fred
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:31 pm, patch70 <[email protected]
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Obviously I am wasting my time but:
>>
>> Do you have health insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance?
>>
>> Most people would say yes to at least two of these.
>>
>> Yet the vast majority don't actually need them.
>>
>> Problem is, if you do need them and don't have them, you're screwed.
>>
>> If > 90% of the world's climate scientists agree that "CLIMATE CHANGE"
>> is real, then it doesn't take much brain power to realise that we
>> should do what we can to reduce human impact on this.
>>
>> If we are right, our grandchildren will thank us.
>>
>> If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.
>>
>> If we procede as business as usual and CLIMATE CHANGE is real, then
>> trying to fix it up when it is too late is like being that person with
>> no insurance at a time when they really wished they'd taken it out
>> earlier. Too damn late.
>>
>> --
>> patch70

>
> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's
> greatest (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and
> India will more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions
> taken in the US.


It's a pity that valid points get lost in all the back and forth
partisan ********. There is short term benefit to doing nothing, so you
know that some will. There is an interesting discussion about how one
would go about minimizing the cost and maximizing the incentives to
action. If you don't solve this problem, everyone will cheat because
they think everyone else will (that's my obligatory cycling content, it
just happens to fit).

But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in the US.

We'd lose everything.

What the? A truly bizarre argument.

The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And smart CEOs would realise that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2 producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore offset any lost profits.

I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until China and India lead the way".
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
Tom Kunich said:
By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree with global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by the media and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.

Sure Tom, and the world is flat, the Easter Bunny is real, and cycling is free of doping...
 
S

ST

Guest
On 2/19/07 9:13 PM, in article
[email protected], "patch70"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] Wrote:
>> Lost nothing??? The Kyoto protocols would cripple the world's greatest
>> (ever) economy and yet accomplish nothing because China and India will
>> more than make up for any carbon-based pollution reductions taken in
>> the US.
>>
>> We'd lose everything.

>
> What the? A truly bizarre argument.
>
> The losses would be that a few very wealthy CEOs might have to accept a
> salary of 10 million pa rather than 15. And smart CEOs would realise
> that there is plenty of money to be made in going green. Someone has to
> make money selling clean energy just as those promoting 'dirty' (ie CO2
> producing) energy will have reduced profits if we go down the sensible
> pathway. If those fossil fuel sellers have half a brain, they will be
> the ones to put the money into the clean energy and will therefore
> offset any lost profits.
>
> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> China and India lead the way".
>



Are you stupid or what???
You think it is all just about a CEOs salary??

Remember Dumbass, fossil fuels are produced mostly in OTHER countries. Why
do you assbags think the angry white man in America is the cause/cure?

How about all the UAW union jobs?
And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??


Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might have
to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.

Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in Kyoto..
 
S

ST

Guest
On 2/19/07 9:22 PM, in article
[email protected], "patch70"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>> By all means demonstrate that 90% of the world's scientists agree with
>> global warming. That is a complete and utter lie promolgated by the
>> media and the Global Warming myth perpetrators.

>
> Sure Tom, and the world is flat, the Easter Bunny is real, and cycling
> is free of doping...
>



And we were coming into an Ice Age in the 1970s.......

That was the "flavor of the month" in the media at the time.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
ST said:
How about all the UAW union jobs?
And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??


Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might have
to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.

Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in Kyoto..

By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated in World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost their jobs.
 
N

need more sun

Guest
On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
>
> February 15, 2007
> Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
> By Alan Caruba
> (AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
>
> As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
> found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
> Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
> write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
> communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
> me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
> People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
> be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
> error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
> often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
> its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
> legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
> of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
> the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
> Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
> news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
> the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
> been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
> production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
> other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
> deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
> They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
> "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
> Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
> University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
> of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
> attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
> outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
> Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
> This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
> is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
> and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
> Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
> reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
> scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
> in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
> the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
> 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
> opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
> scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
> something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
> to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
> of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
> theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
> having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
> steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
> astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
> disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
> of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
> Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
> Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
> demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
> being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
> relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
> However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
> be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
> indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
> to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
> ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
> news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
> leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
> report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
> Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
> water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
> due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
> support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
> "could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
> words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
> actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
> is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
> dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
> for an alternative source of information.




More bull, like that propagated by your dear president. This kind of
horsesh*t was quoted by pro-oil businesses and their scientists (and,
of course, Bush himself) in trying to make out that global warming was
all nonsense. It's not, it's real, the icecaps are melting and there
is undeniable proof of all that.

>From environment.newscientist.com


Instant Expert: Climate Change

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the
future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in
disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of
Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods.
Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat
waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in
ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is
now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have
all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth
has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period
when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles
and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal
inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the
pipeline.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human
activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will
accelerate this warming.

-------


from http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2016244,00.html

Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice
caps


David Adam, environment correspondent

Monday February 19, 2007


A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be
inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are
preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and
Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50%
chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided"
because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the
scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and
inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging"
efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable
areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance
of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".

The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused
by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise,
and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as
the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including
London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.

The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming
and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's summary-
for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large
sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in
coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in
river deltas.

"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be
costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice
sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average
temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m
over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in
10 chance.

The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas
emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been
disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of
the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by
Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are
meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on
greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging
CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100
companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of
Pakistan and Greece combined.

This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of
climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be
responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average
temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions
continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a
declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology,
temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.

The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant
probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice
sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas
emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved
with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before
publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket
science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC
[science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to
do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of
how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for
hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to
decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said.
"Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very
much on which part of the world you live in."

Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona,
said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up,
but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring
sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much
harder for us to cope with," he says.

The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by
the end of the century. But that does not include the possible
contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too
unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.


-------

What agenda could scientists possibly have for faking such data? What
financial gain would be achieved? There is far more financial gain
possible for those who claim climate change is not real, that big
businesses can go on behaving as before, that oil companies don't have
to limit their production, that governments don't have to change their
policies. If any side has something to gain from untruths, it is those
who advocate doing nothing, who claim that all is fine.

Read the IPCC report, or articles about it. And stop writing ********
pretending that the problem doesn't exist. You are like an ostrich
with it's head in the sand...wake up, smell the daisies and look with
open eyes at what is a huge amount of evidence, plus an ever-growing
number of scientists that agree. You are a flat-earther, nothing
else.
 
N

need more sun

Guest
On Feb 20, 1:22 am, "ST" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
>
> February 15, 2007
> Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
> By Alan Caruba
> (AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
>
> As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
> found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
> Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
> write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
> communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
> me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
> People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
> be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
> error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
> often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
> its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
> legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
> of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
> the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
> Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
> news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
> the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
> been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
> production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
> other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
> deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
> They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
> "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
> Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
> University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
> of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
> attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
> outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
> Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
> This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
> is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
> and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
> Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
> reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
> scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
> in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
> the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
> 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
> opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
> scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
> something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
> to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
> of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
> theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
> having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
> steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
> astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
> disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
> of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
> Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
> Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
> demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
> being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
> relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
> However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
> be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
> indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
> to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
> ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
> news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
> leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
> report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
> Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
> water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
> due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
> support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
> "could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
> words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
> actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
> is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
> dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
> for an alternative source of information.



>From wikipedia:


Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, best known as a critic of
environmentalism and Islam and, in 1990, founder of the National
Anxiety Center, a think tank dedicated to debunking the idea that
there is global warming and damage in the ozone layer.

Caruba's business website states that his clients have included
corporations, think tanks, trade associations and others. Since the
late 1980s, he has been the public relations counselor for the New
Jersey Pest Management Association and, for 10 years until 2005, he
served as the Director of Communications for the American Policy
Center." [1] In the 70s he played role in the introduction of the
carbamate insecticide bendiocarb [2], which was later withdrawn from
the market by its manufacturer.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Views
* 2 Publications
* 3 Accuracy
* 4 National Anxiety Center

[edit] Views

Caruba writes extensively on a wide variety of topics that include
energy issues, education, the United Nations, and popular culture. He
has claimed that global warming is a 'hoax' [3], denied that CFCs
damage the ozone layer, and criticised many other claims made by
environmentalists. He has criticized Sourcewatch, who criticized him
in return [4].

Caruba initially supported the Bush administration's war with Iraq,
but has since written to express a note of caution regarding the hoped-
for outcome.

He believes that:

The whole of America, Europe and other nations that are the
engines of the global economy, has been under attack by the
environmentalists because an evil, corrupt United Nations wants to be
an unelected global government and we stand in their way. This is why
the worldwide environmental movement is directed from the United
Nations. Behind the United Nations are those who subscribe still to
the failed economic theories of Marxism and who hate the success of
the United States and others who have embraced capitalism...They are the
ones seeking to destroy the sovereignty of the United States by
stealth, creating a North American Union to merge our nation with
Canada and Mexico, sinking the individual protections afforded by our
Constitution into a morass of regulations over which there will be no
vote by Americans. Global warming is the mask, the charade, the Big
Lie by which the destruction of the United States of America is being
advanced. "Global Warming on Steriods" Jan. 3, 2007


[edit] Publications

Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", widely excerpted on
conservative news and opinion websites. He is, for example, a regular
contributor to CNSnews.com, the Free Market News Network, and
AxcessNews.com.

In 2003, a collection of his columns was published, "Warning Signs",
by Merril Press. In late 2006, a new collection titled "Right Answers:
Separating Fact from Fantasy" was published.

Caruba is the author of several books dating back to the 1970's and
has contributed opinion pieces to consumer and trade magazines, as
well as to newspapers including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The
Providence Journal, and The Washington Times.

Caruba is a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle and
maintains a website on new fiction and non-fiction, [5]. He is also a
member of the Society of Professional Journalists, American Society of
Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science
Writers.

[edit] Accuracy

The accuracy of some of Caruba's articles has been called into
question, but he has never withdrawn or altered any of his weekly
commentaries. One example is a January 2003 article about mercury [6]
which has been disputed.

[edit] National Anxiety Center

The National Anxiety Center identifies itself as "a clearinghouse for
information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public
policy and opinion." The Center maintains a website at www.anxietycenter.com.




Not someone I would choose to believe...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:23 +1100, patch70
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
>they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
>China and India lead the way".


I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that doesn't happen and soon. The
tipping point will arrive to where more is made from going green than
not, and most of those people that Kunich points to for support will
have crossed the room where the money is being made. One of them just
sold us a bunch of light bulbs.

I'm old enough to have grown up when we didn't have air conditioning
in cars even in Kansas and Texas, and the best part of the five and
dime was that they DID have air conditioning. Now they use air
conditioning in Maryland in the fall.

Being a godless liberal, I have faith enough in the intelligence of
humankind and the general direction of social evolution (Kunich
aside), that I believe that we are in the dither and blather period,
to be followed by the time when things are solved for the better. Its
not like we are talking about there not being solutions - the longer
looking arguments are about what will be the solution.

Well, except for Kunich and his ilk, which (pronoun chosen
deliberately, so don't give me a hard time) think that there is no
problem and no solution needed and everything is fine, but they
complain more than anyone else anyway.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
C

Curtis L. Russell

Guest
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:38:21 GMT, ST <[email protected]> wrote:

>Remember Dumbass, fossil fuels are produced mostly in OTHER countries. Why
>do you assbags think the angry white man in America is the cause/cure?
>
>How about all the UAW union jobs?
>And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??


Well, it isn't about where they are produced and more about where they
are consumed. We're right there in the lead on that one.

Your lack of faith in the U.S. is illuminating, but not surprising.
And, no, I don't think Kunich is an idiot, I think he is a closed
minded conservative that borders on being a crackpot. That makes the
issue of whether he is a stupid or foolish person a moot point.

And he is so repetitive that I would guess that many on this list
could write his replies for him.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
> one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
> another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.


And here all this time I thought we never have those discussions because
people like you are wankers and know absolutely nothing about the subject
except what your leader Al Bore tells you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

"Their views contrast with the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
change, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001"

Here's the significant thing about that - the RELEASE of the 2001 IPCC
report has been held up for three months so that they could change the
scientific reports to MATCH THE SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS. They have even said
that!

So explain how ANYONE could tell us how people oppose the scientific "facts"
when they aren't even available?
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> I thought the US considered itself a world leader. If they are, then
> they should lead on this rather than say "we won't do anything until
> China and India lead the way".


Yeah, let's see - it takes REAL leadership to jump off of a cliff sceaming,
"I'm doing this for humanityyyyyyyyyy!"

By 2015 China and probably India will be putting out more CO2 than the USA.
They not only are not part of the Kyoto Protocol demands - they are in fact
given a complete PASS in the text of the document. They not only don't have
to cut their production of CO2 but they have already said that they never
will.

But of course completely ignornant fools who like to march in "like, I
really like the environment" parades are the ones who should be making these
decisions for the USA. We're a democracy after all.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
>
> ST Wrote:
>> How about all the UAW union jobs?
>> And you guys really think Kunich is an idiot??
>>
>>
>> Lets all discuss our jobs we have and talk about the changes you might
>> have
>> to make if we make these pie-in-the-sky changes.
>>
>> Remember......... China, India, Brazil etal are not included in
>> Kyoto..

>
> By your reasoning, then it was a disaster that Germany was defeated in
> World War II because all those poor gas chamber operators lost their
> jobs.


You and ass crack can tell us what you do for a living and what effect
cutting fuel consumption for transportation by 60% wold effect you.

I'm waiting.
 
S

SLAVE of THE STATE

Guest
On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.


Can you explain why it is "bad?" The person who allegedly wrote it
put it out there to see.

Can you explain how ideas can be property, when ideas completely lack
the critical feature of property (that is, ideas are not rivalrous
scarcely; ideas can be replicated ad infinitum, unlike actual
property).
 
S

SLAVE of THE STATE

Guest
On Feb 20, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:


> You don't care about copyright at all, huh? That's bad.



Can you explain why it is "bad?" The person who allegedly wrote it
put it out there to see. ST never agreed, by contract or otherwise,
not to copy it.

Can you explain how ideas can be property, when ideas completely lack
the critical feature of property (that is, ideas are not rivalrous
scarce; ideas can be replicated ad infinitum, unlike actual
property).

_Against Intellectual Property_, N. S. Kinsella
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf