That\’s not what I\’m saying, smart guy. If Alan Combs had his own show on Fox, more people would watch it than watch Glenn simply because more people watch Fox than all of the other cable channels combined. You know, because they\’re fair and balanced.
It\’s really quite simple. Nuclear Winter, of course.
Seriously, read Michael Crichton\’s book \”State of Fear\” if you want a more balanced perspective on this global warming hoax. Extremely detailed bibliography in back and the afterword is a chilling read. It ain\’t no Jurrasic Park.
The reason the debate is so shrill is that there is mucho dinero at stake that goes to researchers vested in studying this \”problem\” to find a \”solution,\” and if they don\’t perpetuate the myth of andropogenic planetary warming the dinero does bye-bye.
The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.
Beck\’s show stinks, which is why his ratings stink. Chilly, you are right that network viewship spills over show after show. But talent has a lot to do with it too…which of course, is why Olbermans time slot is a shining light for MSNBC, but not much else is either before him or after him.
Oh, BTW David is a movie producer…I don\’t know about you people, but my wife likes to be known by her own job title, not mine.
What do you balance truth with, error? Does arsenic provide balance to a glass of water? I don\’t care one way or another about Glenn Beck\’s program and rarely watch it, but if he is right he\’s right.
The point is that there were no coal fired power plants or SUV\’s emitting \”greenhouse gases\” when the last Ice Age ended. The earth warms and cools based on several factors including ocean currents, cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and the effects of other planets on earth\’s orbit around that big burning thing in the sky, which is itself the major factor regarding earth\’s climate.
These are truths which some people may ignore or contradict till the cows come home, but it won\’t change anything.
The truth doesn\’t need balance, it needs acceptance. The problem is that falsehoods are crafted to perceptions, while the truth is just it\’s ol\’ clumsy self. Al Gore et al are using people\’s ignorance to fleece and control them. It\’s a shame that most corporations are so gutless as to let the stalinists run roughshod over them in this matter.
So in short, relax. Man has zero effect on the climate except that it\’s normally 2 degrees hotter in town than on the farm.
\’The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.\’ Why is that laughable? I daresay they have done more research than anyone making a post here. After watching Glenn Beck I rented \’An Inconvenient Theory\’. I watched it and came away with a somewhat different opinion of Al Gore. I appreciate what appears to be a longtime effort to bring attention to climate change. I was disappointed that he doesn\’t want discussion, and makes it clear. Nor does Laura David, wife of comedian Larry. They want to stifle debate, and with all thats at risk it smacks of censorship. Al mentions the Kyoto treaty. He doesnt mention that the US voted to not participate in 1998 when Al and Bill ran the show. The senate voted 98 to 0 to not join. I think that is relevant.
Good news. Despite the rhetoric, there will be very little change for a long time since nobody in the US will make any real changes until gas costs $6 a gallon, and we\’ll ease into what would have happened anyway. We should look to the environmentalists for all the answers – because of them we are dependent on foreign oil since they wouldnt allow nuclear power or domestic oil harvesting.
Hey Gill, I\’m all for robust debate on global warming. I have been pointing out for a couple of days Glenn Beck ain\’t a reputible source…he is a conservative shock jock that not many people watch. That\’s all…
Ya know Chilly often pipes in with lots of supposed facts and figures. I like that except I could do without his condencending \’tude. There are many people smarter than all of us who would think Chilly\’s convictions are pretty ignorant too.
I want to see the new IPCC report. I am curious to see how it compares/contrasts with \’an inconvenient theory\’, and how the \’Al Gore for president\’ crowd embraces/dismisses it. I wont be looking for compromise from them.
Gill, please let us know how it contrasts. Given that Inconvenient Theory was produced to refute Gore and the human impact on global warming generally, the outcome of your analysis is not really in doubt. But I\’m interested nonetheless.
Thanks.
PS…After 7 years, us Gore fans have pretty much let go of that dream, so you can quite supposing we haven\’t.
I don\’t doubt that we are experiencing climate change. Unlike half the country, I am willing to wait a few months or years to conclude how to move forward.
And unlike half the country, I am unwilling to shrilly cry \’the sky is falling\’. Good news – its not.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
That\’s not what I\’m saying, smart guy. If Alan Combs had his own show on Fox, more people would watch it than watch Glenn simply because more people watch Fox than all of the other cable channels combined. You know, because they\’re fair and balanced.
Is Air America still in the toilet?
It\’s really quite simple. Nuclear Winter, of course.
Seriously, read Michael Crichton\’s book \”State of Fear\” if you want a more balanced perspective on this global warming hoax. Extremely detailed bibliography in back and the afterword is a chilling read. It ain\’t no Jurrasic Park.
Also, here\’s an interesting link from his website – http://www.crichton-official.com/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf
Why\’s the world hate us? Who\’re \”us\”?
The reason the debate is so shrill is that there is mucho dinero at stake that goes to researchers vested in studying this \”problem\” to find a \”solution,\” and if they don\’t perpetuate the myth of andropogenic planetary warming the dinero does bye-bye.
The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.
Beck\’s show stinks, which is why his ratings stink. Chilly, you are right that network viewship spills over show after show. But talent has a lot to do with it too…which of course, is why Olbermans time slot is a shining light for MSNBC, but not much else is either before him or after him.
Oh, BTW David is a movie producer…I don\’t know about you people, but my wife likes to be known by her own job title, not mine.
What do you balance truth with, error? Does arsenic provide balance to a glass of water? I don\’t care one way or another about Glenn Beck\’s program and rarely watch it, but if he is right he\’s right.
The point is that there were no coal fired power plants or SUV\’s emitting \”greenhouse gases\” when the last Ice Age ended. The earth warms and cools based on several factors including ocean currents, cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and the effects of other planets on earth\’s orbit around that big burning thing in the sky, which is itself the major factor regarding earth\’s climate.
These are truths which some people may ignore or contradict till the cows come home, but it won\’t change anything.
The truth doesn\’t need balance, it needs acceptance. The problem is that falsehoods are crafted to perceptions, while the truth is just it\’s ol\’ clumsy self. Al Gore et al are using people\’s ignorance to fleece and control them. It\’s a shame that most corporations are so gutless as to let the stalinists run roughshod over them in this matter.
So in short, relax. Man has zero effect on the climate except that it\’s normally 2 degrees hotter in town than on the farm.
\’The reason the debate is so shrill is because people think Glenn Beck and Micheal Crichton offer balance. That is laughable.\’ Why is that laughable? I daresay they have done more research than anyone making a post here. After watching Glenn Beck I rented \’An Inconvenient Theory\’. I watched it and came away with a somewhat different opinion of Al Gore. I appreciate what appears to be a longtime effort to bring attention to climate change. I was disappointed that he doesn\’t want discussion, and makes it clear. Nor does Laura David, wife of comedian Larry. They want to stifle debate, and with all thats at risk it smacks of censorship. Al mentions the Kyoto treaty. He doesnt mention that the US voted to not participate in 1998 when Al and Bill ran the show. The senate voted 98 to 0 to not join. I think that is relevant.
Good news. Despite the rhetoric, there will be very little change for a long time since nobody in the US will make any real changes until gas costs $6 a gallon, and we\’ll ease into what would have happened anyway. We should look to the environmentalists for all the answers – because of them we are dependent on foreign oil since they wouldnt allow nuclear power or domestic oil harvesting.
Hey Gill, I\’m all for robust debate on global warming. I have been pointing out for a couple of days Glenn Beck ain\’t a reputible source…he is a conservative shock jock that not many people watch. That\’s all…
Ya know Chilly often pipes in with lots of supposed facts and figures. I like that except I could do without his condencending \’tude. There are many people smarter than all of us who would think Chilly\’s convictions are pretty ignorant too.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html
I want to see the new IPCC report. I am curious to see how it compares/contrasts with \’an inconvenient theory\’, and how the \’Al Gore for president\’ crowd embraces/dismisses it. I wont be looking for compromise from them.
Gill, please let us know how it contrasts. Given that Inconvenient Theory was produced to refute Gore and the human impact on global warming generally, the outcome of your analysis is not really in doubt. But I\’m interested nonetheless.
Thanks.
PS…After 7 years, us Gore fans have pretty much let go of that dream, so you can quite supposing we haven\’t.
I don\’t doubt that we are experiencing climate change. Unlike half the country, I am willing to wait a few months or years to conclude how to move forward.
And unlike half the country, I am unwilling to shrilly cry \’the sky is falling\’. Good news – its not.