Summary: On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated that Al Gore is using "the same tactic" in his efforts to fight global warming that Adolf Hitler used to
mediamatters.org
Google News: global warming
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
May 1, 2007
Beck said Gore using "same tactic" in fight against global warming ...
Media Matters for America, DC
Summary: On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated that Al Gore is using "the same tactic" in his efforts to fight global warming that Adolf Hitler used to...
mediamatters.orgrelated articles
Google News: global warming
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
Summary: On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated that Al Gore is using "the same tactic" in his efforts to fight global warming that Adolf Hitler used to
mediamatters.org
Google News: global warming
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Glen Beck is correct. Never have I seen such a one sided debate.
While I will give the right wing some leeway in terms of their points, it must be clear that the portion of global warming caused by human activities is a cause for concern.
Anyway, using a Nazi analogy is well known for being an admission of defeat in any serious discussion. Glen Beck loses for not having a real point to say instead of throwing out Nazi tactic comparisons.
Bzzt. Please try again...
C'mon get real, when the Global Warming crowd started throwing around 'Denier' as akin to 'Holocaust Denier' to anyone who dare question their theories shows so much unadulterated desperation to stifle any debate and keep it all one sided,that it is a sure sign that their own arguments are weak and full of holes.
Hey frankie,
You have a point there, but maybe it's time to get past the hyperbole and start thinking for ourselves?
For example, I don't think it's fair to lump everyone into "the global warming crowd" as you have. I'm sure there are radical nutbag global warming people just as their are nutbag people in denial.
To restate, my belief is that the portion of global warming caused by humans is cause for concern. While the amount caused by people can be argued, it can't be argued that we are not having an effect.
Why not focus on the real issues instead of being sidetracked by political babble, of either stripe.
There is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
Hi Frankie,
You are partially right, but again, your comments are drawn from a political purpose.
There is no arguing with science and the fact that various gases, such as CO2 and methane, cause so-called greenhouse effects.
There is also no arguing with the fact that mankind is spewing all kinds of pollutants or byproducts into the atmosphere.
So, even if you wish to totally discount all science, then you are still left trying to argue that it is better for mankind to be spewing crap into the atmosphere instead of being responsible and finding a way not to mess with the natural state of the planet.
Think about that.
What exactly do you think you are arguing for? Surely you don't intend to argue that we should be polluting and changing the atmosphere.
Once again, prudence and wise risk management would demand that we proceed with caution concerning the effects that manmade activities may be having.
Any, and I repeat, any, large scale environmental changes that are being caused by mankind are dangerous, whether or not the effects are currently provable or entirely agreed upon.
We can't assume that we will simply have no effect on the planet no matter how much crap we do to it.
For example, do you know that rice grown in the USA has trace amounts of arsenic in it, apparently due to the fact that arsenic based pesticides were used when current rice fields were used to grow prior cotton crops?
The things we do have effects that we don't always understand. We don't even need to know what those effects are, or prove them conclusively, to know that we should be reducing unintended side effects.
This goes for poisons, pesticides, chemicals, pollutants and so forth. It's simple common sense. The global warming issue is no different... although there is certainly disagreement about the scope of mankinds contribution.
You are mistaking pollution with greenhouse gases, nobody in their right mind would condone the polluting of the earth. The environmentalists’ extreme tactics are what is at question.
In the big picture, somehow the population has been incensed to believe that polluters and pollution is getting worse and worse, this is not the case.
Industry has been getting cleaner for many years, that is just man's evolution of betterment, man moves forward.
Maybe not at the pace the environmentalists want but forwards just the same.
I was around for all the other dire predictions from said scientists the last 30 years, and they all have two similarities: 1) Dire consequences for humanity. 2) They are always wrong.
I have very skeptical reasons for the whole one sided debate,( that being one of them.)
When the UN plagued by scandal and corruption, and looking for a way to redistribute wealth with poor countries dives into this with such glee. That many of the top scientists that were involved with the original project have left in disgust at the IPCC's unscientific handling of affairs.
That unproven theories are being accepted and taught as fact. That only man could be making the temperature rise slightly in the last hundred years, and use Co2 to prove that, when it doesn’t even correlate with the rise.
Occam's Razor: Why is it that the sun, that we were taught heats the earth, is not responsible in some way, when the sunspot and solar flare activity is much more in line with temperature fluctuation than Co2 levels.
Co2 levels have been much higher in the past when the temperature has been much cooler.
There are so many more reasons to be leery of the Global Warming- OOPS I mean Temperature Change crowd (We had a cold winter so they changed the wording).
The worst part is the young kids that have been taught that it's all going to end in just a few years, the sea is going to swallow us the oxygen is going to disappear, and we're all going to burn up.
Nice culture of fear to be brought up in. Then he lives through it and finds it was all baloney, and for what, no more trust in science that's for sure.
The time being wasted is unconscionable, the biggest threat to this planet right now is that food fish will be gone from the oceans in the next 20 years. Ninety percent are gone now, why is nothing being done about the situation, perhaps because the UN can’t find a way to profit from it.
Actually, I'm not mistaking pollution for greenhouse gas, I'm trying to illustrate a point using pollution as an example.
Pollution did not go away because of some kumba-ya betterment of mankind. It went away because people fought against it tooth and nail. To this very day there seems to be a bitter battle between industry and the EPA. It is not a one sided issue.
Greenhouse gases, vehicle emissions, coal plant emissions and other large scale manmade emissions are a form of pollution just like any other... except they don't seem to have direct toxic effects that are often associated with prior pollutants.
I will agree that the UN has many problems and issues, but that does not mean that we have to ignore the UN completely, nor does it mean that everyone that agrees with some UN reports is in cahoots with the UN.
If you've been paying attention, you'll see that the UN is held up as an example when it suits our purpose, and it is held up as corrupt and useless when it is against our purposes. The UN is like any other human endeavor, riddled with power, scandal, hubris and politics.
I have to laugh at silly antics like talking about a cold winter. Come on, if you have serious points to make, please learn to stick to them. Things like the "cold winter" issue are just laughable. You and I both know that if the world warmed by some small degree over a couple of years that winters would still be pretty much as cold as ever.
Let's get serious!
As for a culture of fear, I am afraid that it has been promoted by news organizations and government agencies also, for as long as anyone can remember. However, luckily, along with our culture of fear is a parallel culture of arrogance. Maybe they are opposing balancing forces?
Once again, as you seem to skip the point each time, if humans were to reduce their impact on the planet, it would only be a good thing. This way, if there was endogenous warming, due to the sun or any other reason, we wouldn't have to worry about being at fault.
The only real reason I can see anyone promoting the current status quo is because there are many billions of dollars to be made by energy providers. Who else could be behind the arguments against reducing our impact on the planets regular processes?
I also don't by the argument that trying to make changes would crush world economies. The world has undergone many large scale economic shifts and technological changes in the past. We'll make it through another as well... as surely this is in fact going to happen at some point, if not now.
As for food fishing, which might seem to be somewhat diversionary to the topic at hand (heck, you can certainly go and pursue that isue), there are some countries acting fairly responsibly. Canada, for example, pretty much gutted it's own fishing industry in response to this issue.
Seriously, settle down, let go of the political babble and crap, and just think about mankinds footprint in general. It's the same issue. We should not destroy fish stocks. We should not greatly change the composition of the atmosphere. We should not pollute and destroy ecosystems.
Not even in a box with a fox!
All I'm trying to relate to you is the jig is almost up on this scam, you will admit it one day, and then you can try to justify why you failed to see the lies that have made up the entire Climate Change Swindle.
At least you can go back to this blog and stare in awe at how you were deceived by the powers you once trusted.
LOL!
You may not have noticed, but this blog carries stories both for and against. Basically, whatever shows up in the news.
You may also not have noticed, but my own viewpoint is fairly moderate... where does that leave you?
I did notice that you continued to avoid the one issue that I asked multiple times. Is that a symptom of you having no answer and mindlessly repeating a politically fed stance that you don't fully understand?
You seem to not fully understand the enormous negative impact that all this doom and gloom driven scenario will bring.
You think that it's all okay even if it all turns out to be proven false because at least something was done about taking more care towards the path we are taking on this planet.
You are absolutely wrong, like usual the very poorest people will suffer the most. The big oil will profit the most; economies will suffer because the cost of everything is going to skyrocket,
FOR NO REASON.
Let me give you an example of something perhaps you have not thought forward enough about.
Where I live there are some coal fired generating stations. They are the main cause of all the smog and pollution in the area. Council has decided not to install scrubbers in the smokestacks because it won't help eliminate Co2 emissions.
Don't you get it, the real damage done far outweighs anything good that will come out of this scheme the UN has come up with.
Of course it is prudent to reduce our impact on this earth, but at what cost, unneeded cost. you seem to think at any cost.
Frankie, you complain about gloom and doom tactics, but you've swallowed them whole yourself... read your latest comment and then try to tell me otherwise.
You've got to understand, nowhwere have I said we need to stop being a commercial society. I'm sure there are radical nutbags out there that may want to take crazy steps, but most people don't.
Try to relax yourself... I think the gloom and doom you are spouting is getting to you.
Anyway, all large socioeconomic changes come with a burden. Change is always difficult and causes people to incur stresses. Heck, even free trade has displaced a lot of people who then have to retrain and learn new jobs.
Post a Comment