The libs just can't handle opposing view points on "Man Made" Global Warming can they?

Question

A liberal web site by the name of Media Matters which was a big contributor to the firing of Imus is now going after another Radio Talk Show personality who opposes their view on Global Warming.

Glenn Beck had a CNN special on Global Warming with the disclaimer, "This is not a balanced look at global warming. It is the other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere. Yes, Al Gore, there is another credible side."

Now, this is HIS show in which he should have the RIGHT within government regulations to show what he pleases. The special was done incredibly well sighting information by very reputable scientists and climatologists.

What is Media Matters so worried about? Why do they feel the need shut down any opposing view? Talk about trampling on the constitution and freedom of speech.

Wouldn't it be a good thing to look at ALL of the information out there?

Travolta... WHERE DID AL GORE GET HIS SCIENCE DEGREE FROM? Please... help me on that one... I guess he shouldn't be talking science then... Also, had you watched the special or read the statement you would have seen that the information was provided by scientists.

What a great answer though! How's that kool aid taste?

truthisback... What a close minded foolish post. Hitler believed the way you do as well and he started to exterminate anyone who didn't have his views only.

BTW... I do believe in taking care of the earth. I also believe in using the materials GOD provided for us to use. I don't believe in wasting billions of dollars for fraud causes that have no real basis of factual content.

Tehabwa... most people can look it up all by themselves with a little work... but I'll give you a head start.

www.mediamatters.org

Just go to their little Global Warming page.

The story came to my attention through Newsmax, July issue

www.newsmax.com

Good enough for you?

Tehebwa... by the responses even in this Post.... people think that because Beck sites information from reputable scientists that show Gore to be wrong, it seems to be a problem for them.

More than likely a problem for you to. You would also have to have your head in the sand if you didn't think that this is Gore's little baby and YES he did majorly embelish his "facts" in his fakumentary.

Just answer my this, What caused the melt down period at the end of the ice age? Massive cave men burning... Oh I don't know... but what if it is all just part of a cycle?

Dana.. so funny how you dismiss a natural cycle... Your proof comes from where? As a matter of fact there is TONS of evidence for natural cycles. Again... no lib has been able to answer how the meltdown of the first ice age occured? Why was there scientific evidence of "global Cooling" just 20 years ago and what turned that around? Where do you get you hard data of what temperatures were on the planet hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Perhaps things are just following a natural cycle. And finally... where have you EVER seen that humans can actually have this much power over mother nature? Sure we can pollute a stream or a lake or pollute the air in and around big cities... but even with all the pollution our big cities produce you don't have to drive too far out of them to find clean air and pristine lakes or rivers. Should pthe amount of pollution and the location we get rid of wastes be monitored? Absolutely! AND WE DO... should we spend billions on a phantom issue..

.. that we have little effect on? I don;t think so. It's like saying beach goers who pee in the ocean are polluting our oceans to the point that they will no longer be usable within 10 years and all the fish will die. Perspective would be the key here.

Answer 1

And they claim Cons ignore science, yet when they are given opposing scientific views to theirs, they scream like little girly men.

Answer 2

Indeed "global warming" is the Libs new religion. It has all of the same hallmarks of many old religions: you can't prove any of it untill after you're dead, it calls for all of us to make drastic sacrifices right now that the movement leaders are, of course, exempt from having to make also (lowering carbon footprint, not driving gas burning cars, etc, etc.). The libs would rather live in denial of an imminent threat like Islamo-fascism that looms in our present time and is currently killing real PEOPLE that we can see. They would rather spend their childrens college funds and their retirement saving to "fight" an event that can't be proven, that most likely will not happen several humdred years from now. Just the same way Hitler said he was going to do everything he did BEFORE he did did it and very few choose to listen and believe him is the same way evil men of todIay are doing the same. Hitlers' book "mine kompf" translates to mean "my struggle". Doesn't "jihad" translate to mean the exact same thing? (No it doesn't translate as "Holy War". It translates to mean "struggle between good and evil") I might make some people upset by my next statement but this is an example of "woman thinking". "Let's feel good about doing something that might help save the children of tomorrow from some nebulous calamity that is sooooo scarey instead of actually confronting evil PEOPLE today that have already killed THOUSANDS! They feel powerless in the face of an actual opponant that is a person. They feel good about fighting a situation that has no face, nor tangible effect. It's really easy to wave my arms and say I'm doing something. I may be burning lots of calories and LOOK really busy but it's not the same as actually lifting a box and moving it from point A to point B. To them the FEELINGs are more important than the FACTS. Feeling good about saving the planet is more important to them than saving our hides. Sure I'm all for not polluting and cleaning up the environment but if I'm getting shot at while I'm planting trees I think somewhere the #1 priority has gotten confused. If we lay down and die for these people, you think they'll cherish the Earth and combat global anything??? Have you seen any of the countries these people come from? In my opinion, the Global Warming conspiracy/Cult is an anti-human, anti-capitalism anti-progress, sociatal suicide machine that will only serve to return human kind to the stone age. Isn't this the same mentality that brought 1000 years of the dark ages in Europe??? Maybe the survivalists were right after all. Hmm... on that note I have to go. I have to order that bomb shelter and start digging up my back yard. The liberals are coming and they are promising to let in all the killers and then take away my constitutional right to arm and defend myself while they take away my constitutional right to hear someone elses opinion and then to express my own. Then they will outlaw the kind of lightbulb I can use (because it has too big of a carbon footprint) and force my to pay an offset tax because carbon dioxide was been deemed a pollutant and I can either stop exhaling for the rest of my life or pay through the nose for my right to breath out of it.

Answer 3

Did anyone see the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Then please tell me exactly what proof Al Gore presented. To begin with Al is not a scientist and has no scientific background, all I ever heard him say was "A friend of mine said, blah,blah blah" and then he throws up his little chart to show the rise of carbon dioxide in the air, the portion of the largest iceberg that was shown melting is actually growing.

Here is the real problem, 25% of the Scientists believe that there is Global Warming, 75% disagree or have no opinion either way. The media only broadcasts the minority (those that say it is real).

Now I know that all of the liberals have to have a jackass to follow so they picked Al Gore and then the all preach STOP GLOBAL WARMING, the truth of the matter is that we need to do is

STOP GLOBAL WHINING!!

If you liberals want global warming to be true, tell your congressmen and women to NUKE IRAN NOW, that should raise the temperature in that area upwards of 175,000 degrees.

Edit: Note to Raoul Duke: It is time for me to take a CRAP!!

Funny, I have never heard any scientist say that they are a climate change scientist, they would say that they are a a geophysicist or meteorologist, how many cardiologists refer to themselves has a heart doctor or a heart doctor that specializes in stints, none, they would say they are a cardiologist specializing in angioplasty.
Needless to say I have doubts about your claim, you can say that you are anything that you want.

I think that lying and deceit comes to you very naturally as does the ability to swallow all of the B.S that you hear about global warming, your screen name seems to sum it all up, imagine have the name of a character that is not only a drug user also has a bottomless contempt for conservatives.

You can, but probably will not look at the links below that prove that global warming is a FARCE as are people like you
that claim to be involved in this research.

Answer 4

Contrary to conservative belief, science in general and anthropogenically caused global warming in particular is not a political issue.

Beck can say what he wants, but he is not qualified to evaluate the data – and he is wrong. Even the dim-witted Bush Administration has finally conceded that the scientific evidence for global warning is overwhelming. There has been a broad consensus among global climate scientists since the mid-to-late 1990s.

It is difficult to find an anti-warming scientist not on the payroll of either Exxon or the Western Fuels Association. Research funding for most scientists who have reported finding evidence for global warming typically comes from agencies that are not so result-driven, such as: the US National Science Foundation (NSF); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and Department of Energy (DOE).

It is worth mentioning that for the past 6 years the research money made available by these agencies and departments was appropriated by a Republican dominated Congress. It should be obvious that if there was even a hint that scientists were biasing their results in favor of a pro-warming position that the money would have dried up and you would have seen a parade of climate scientists appearing before Congressional committees to explain their research.

--------------
justgetitright –

Hey Nit-Wit, does lying come to you naturally or is it acquired?

Funny, I am a global change scientist (funded by the very agencies of the Federal Government listed in my answer) and if there is a 25-75 split, it the other way.

If you really think that you know more about this than me (difficult, since you obviously don’t know anything about it), email me a list of references of all your peer-reviewed published scientific research and I’ll email you mine. Time to sh!t or get of the pot, Clyde.

------------
edit –

Regarding the end of the last ice age – specifically the Younger-Dryas to Holocene transition – it appears to represent a cycle shift. The Holocene is unique from the Pleistocene and atypical of previous paleoclimatic periods.

There is no question that solar energy drives most of the variability in the earth climate system. However, that is not the argument. The issue revolves around the admittedly small percent that may have an anthropogenic cause.

The question is: Is that residual variance explained by human behavior and, if so, can it ‘tip’ a system that is varying (balancing) around some natural mean value?

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

justgetitright –

Meteorologists, generally, tend to study ‘weather’ as opposed to ‘climate’. The difference is one mostly of time and space variability. Geophysicists study the physics of the earth. These are not outside the study of climate change, but neither do they usually primarily focus on it.

Stossel is hardly an authoritative source. He is right, though, about some things, but wildly wrong about others.

If you have never heard anyone refer to themselves as a climate change scientist it is only because you do not know anyone studying it. It has become a common generic kind of term.
In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Major peer-review journal titles include: Climate Dynamics, Climatic Change, and Global Change Biology, among others.

The Federal Government maintains a US Climate Change Science Program. Climate Change divisions can be found at NASA, NOAA, USGS, and more.

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

scottdman2003 –

And, we all know how fair, selfless, and impartial the Petroleum Industry is, huh?

Answer 5

I notice you give no source, either credible or not so much.

Nor do you explain what you're talking about.

What do you mean "going after"?

My impression is that they have been catologuing his (and other people's) lies and mis-information for quite some time now.

Why do so many on the right keep saying that global warming is somehow Al Gore's idea?

Gore is simply publicizing what all credible scientists have been saying; Gore didn't invent the science, he's just one of the people telling us about it.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/

is a source of actual information, if you're so inclined (though I gather you aren't).

By "going after" are you referring to this report on the show?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707090005

I suppose to you it does seem that citing evidence showing a person is wrong DOES seem like "going after" someone, but to rational human beings it's called having a respect for truth.

Answer 6

I'm a liberal and I think that Glenn Beck should be allowed to say whatever he wants to, even if I disagree with it. Also, I didn't support the firing of Don Imus. However, I wonder why some conservatives are so hellbent on believing that we're not the cause of global warming. Is it because that would mean that we would have to break some really bad habits of ours?

Answer 7

Glenn Beck does not deny that the earth is getting warmer. It's the hysteria over the cause. It is a natural cycle and quite possibly... in the very minute way... we are slightly contributing, but not even nearly enough to cause any real change either way.

Until the cycle changes... get ready for the continuing onslaught of... SJY IS FALLING, SKY IS FALLING, SKY IS FALLING!

Answer 8

First mistake - global warming is not a liberal issue, it's a scientific issue. The USA is the only country where it's treated as a liberal/conservative issue. For example, France just elected Sarkozy (conservative) and his very first statement was that we must address global warming, especially the USA because Bush has undermined worldwide efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Global warming acknowledgers consider all the scientific data. There just isn't any plausible alternative explanation for the recent acceleration of global warming. It's not volcanoes, it's not "natural cycles", it's not cosmic rays, it's not water vapor, it's not the sun, and it's not pixie dust.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar5f3rbVBmo0v3lx0A68zLLty6IX?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX

Humans are to blame, and humans must correct the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 9

Awwwww man!

Now you know that because all the information put forth by all the credible scientists opposing man made global warming aren't credible in the eye's of liberals, because they aren't bought and paid for with OUR tax dollars by OUR government. Yet because of that, these people aren't even allowed to speak out in the major media, because the media is the same way. If it isn't government created, it isn't true.

We all know how well the government runs things don't we? We all know how honest and forthright the government is don't we?
The government wouldn't try and "create" another avenue for raising taxes would they?

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Answer 10

Media Matters is simply pointing out the lies and misrepresentations that Beck is renowned for, especially in this area. They note that his panelists are not the respected, reputable mainstream scientists who, by a large majority, agree that there is a man-made component to climate change. They note how he almost never has anyone on his show to present the accepted and proven viewpoint. They're just telling the truth, which, apparently, you, along with Beck, don't like.

Answer 11

Massive cave men burning LOL!

Liberals are confident to the point of arrogance that they are right, they are the supreme authority and arbiters of truth, that debate at this point simply gets in the way and benefits nobody. Debate to them is something that needs to be shutdown, not encouraged.

On the other hand, conservatives are confident that they are right so they dont mind debating and proving themselves right in the marketplace of ideas.

There are many experts in many things, but no authorities.