"Glenn Beck is CNN's chief corporate-fascism advocate."
-- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. [Trustfund-wealthy enviro-idiot]"Finally! A guy who says what people who aren't thinking, are thinking."
-- Jon Stewart [Look who’s talking - the host of a fake news show.]"Satan's mentally challenged younger brother."
-- Stephen King [Famously flaky author of supernatural tales.]"There's something about him that suggests that, one night, he'll say something that will cost him his career...."
-- Keith Olbermann [Never heard of him.]"Glenn Beck shouldn't be on [the air]."
-- Al Franken [Envious host of a liberal talk radio show with a double digit audience.]
Beck’s book ought to be a winner. My order is in.
Glenn may only be on the second CNN channel, but at least that is on standard cable.
ReplyDeleteOlberman is on MSNBC, which doesn't even make the cut for basic cable, being pushed out by Treehouse and HGTV.
Now he's trying to be the cool talking head on NBC SNF. It didn't work on MNF with Dennie Miller or on ESPN with Rush, both of whom are more entertaining and know more about football than Obie could ever hope to be.
Boy, an intellectual giant like Glenn Beck weighing in on Global Warming?
ReplyDeleteThat will be almost as illuminating as the forthcoming book by Angelina Jolie on the finer points of neurosurgery.
What is it about science and scientists (particularly the most eminent ones, as they are supportive of the large consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the overwhelming majority as witnessed by the statements of the National Academies of Science) that this chorus of consipracy theorist right wing low iq types hate so much? Is it so simple as resenting that which they are not possessed with, i.e. the intelligence to carefully and systematically evaluate?
Red: "You're either a liar or an ignoramus."
ReplyDeleteOr, as Cranky hints, maybe just too cheap to subscribe to a channel that carries his lame program. Googling Olbermann reveals a venomous lefty loudmouth (surprise, surprise!) - which probably explains why you're such a devoted fan. Anyway, all the more reason to buy Beck's book.
Anon, I'd be willing to bet big that you're a great admirer of that other great scientific genius, Al Gore. The so-called "concensus" you're so impressed with is irrelevant to good science. There are many 'eminent' climate scientists who, for good scientific reasons, haven't signed on to the Algorite AGW political bandwagon.
Well, "JR" you refer to a spelling mistake that isn't even there - not an auspicious start. If you look at my post, "consensus" is properly spelled. Yeesh.
ReplyDeleteInstead of focusing on the evil Al Gore, I suggest that you do a little reading of some of the publications of the National Academy Of Science, which is the body to which the top scientists in their respective fields are selected for membership through a lengthy and arduous process by their peers. Thus, they do in fact represent the top of their respective disciplines and perhaps, just perhaps, what they have to say on these and other issues might have a little more pertinence and importance than the rantings of an idiot blowhard talkshow host.
Now, perhaps I err and you are in fact a member of the National Academy of Science and thus have something of interest to share.
There are a few, very few, who are contrarian, and they get an awful lot more ink and attention on a relative basis, though they do not seem to be capable of convincing any of their peers of the wisdom of their perspective.
You see, it might be an elitist approach, but when I want the best information, I go to the broadest and best possible sources for that, which in this case is the top peer-selected body for their discipline.
On the other hand, you appear to prefer to source your information on a massively complex scientific issue from a blowhard self-confessed former drug addict and alcoholic talk show boy.
Hope that works out for you.
Anon, The quotes were not meant to point out a misspelling but were a reference to a word you used. Yeesh!
ReplyDeleteAnd here's another: climate change certainly is a "massively complex scientific issue". Climate science is young, very young, and very, very complex. There is much that is poorly understood and the models are incomplete and chock-full of arbitrary variables. So the certainty claimed for the AGW thesis is hardly warranted. Much more study is needed before doing things that risk wrecking the global economy. What we don't need is the hyper-politicized scare-mongering of David Suzuki, Al Gore et al, not to mention the UNIPCC executive summary writers.
I expect that Glenn Beck, unlike Al Gore, would agree that he's blowhard. It's what he does and he's honest about it. He doesn't claim to be a climate expert but he is a messenger for a skeptical viewpoint. That he's an admitted "former" doper and drunk is irrelevant except perhaps that, once again, it goes to his honesty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - you have clearly made your mind up about what, or whom, to believe.
ReplyDelete50 years ago in climatology class I believed the climate change literature, published in peer reviewed journals, that demonstrated unequivocally that the 30 years of temperature trends were historically anomalous, were entirely the fault of industrial activity, and were certain to lead to the extinction of our species. This was serious stuff at the time.
It is STILL serious stuff, only today the direction of the temperature change is upward whereas in the early 1970s it was downward. Of course, CO2 was not the culprit then, it was particulates and aerosols, but you could read it all in the scientific literature so it had to be true.
Open your mind. Temperatures are rising. Previously they were falling. Before that they rose, and before that, well, you can guess the pattern.
The causes and implications are not understood, but many scientists are doing their best to figure it out.
Real scientists expect and welcome challenges to their findings. Politicized scientists want to stifle debate. Which kind are you?
Sorry, mis-typed. 35 years ago in climatology class, not 50.
ReplyDelete//Halfwise
Just do some reading. That's all. Who said anything about Suzuki, Gore et al? All I said was read some of the many, many volumes done ont he subject by those who know more than most. I am not saying IPCC, I am saying National Academy of Science.
ReplyDeleteThe science of climate change is not that young any more.
Do you include the insurance industry and the actuaries that serve it when you speak of hyper-politicized scare-mongering? They have been including the real risks of climate change into their risk models for some time.
Oh, and halfwise, I don;t really think you could call the NAS "politicized".
ReplyDeleteAnon: "Just do some reading. That's all."
ReplyDeleteYou might try following your own advice, and Halfwise's to "open your mind" - starting here, then here.
Halfwise, excellent comments, thank you.
JR:
ReplyDeleteThank you for making my point for me (by completely missing it - not too quick on the draw are we?).
The point is to do some reading of PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT - i.e. the leading scientists in their field (explained previously - National Academy of Science).
To point to the rantings of pathetic psuedo-pundits like Foster and Corcoran - who aren't even well-versed enough in their own supposed domain of expertise to have ever in fact even created or run a business - is to completely miss the point entirely.
To add Manley - an average minister under an annoying and too partisan PM (Chretien - though Haarper is beginning to make him look like an amatuer in the partisan category) is similarly useless.
Again, perhaps you would like some tips on neurosurgery from Angelina Jolie?
Here is a start from Science Magazine:
"the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Then you can go deeper into their sources.
Or you could seek out the opinion of some blowhard pundit (and they are on BOTH sides of this debate).
I wonder which was would produce the more reliable answers....
Gratuitous sneers at the messengers (Corcoran, Foster, et al) who publicize views and science that challenge conventional wisdom do nothing to bolster your arguments.
ReplyDeleteIf you had read the posts linked in my last comment you’d have found references to credible climate scientists whose work raises serious questions about the so-called “consensus” view. Lawrence Solomon’s “Deniers” series (now up to Part XXXVIII) references a good many more.
These views may or may not be correct or if correct may or may not be significant. But they all raise valid questions that deserve serious consideration. So, in the true scientific tradition, keep an open mind.
this is an article by the scientist who craeted the weather channel, unlike most scientist he is not dependant on outside money to fund his research.
ReplyDeleteCOMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com
it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
Anon.
ReplyDeleteNot to be charged with piling on here, but let me simply ask one question. Perhaps you can check with the scientists who are all in one accord about this topic. IF global warming is occuring, notice I said if, then please explain why the earths temperature has flatlined over the past ten years? If you and all the fearmongers out there are right, we should see a small but steady increase that reflects the quantifyable increase in Co2 gas, and yet while Co2 continues it's upward trend, the worlds average mean temperature has stopped climbing. So I'm really curious to find out why that is, especially if man made global warming is as certain as you seem convinced that it is.? Just thought I'd ask. oh BTW, I'm a right wing blow hard talk show host too. Thought you might like to know that.