I guess anything can happen once.
Posted on 11/03/2009 9:33:19 AM PST by Justaham
Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer conducted a surprisingly tough interview with Al Gore on Tuesday, pressing him on profiting from global warming and whether or not climate change legislation is pointless in light of pollution-spewing countries such as China. She also forced the ex-Vice President to respond to a challenge from Glenn Beck.
Sawyer even pointed out the amount of methane gas created from the bodily functions of cows, observing that it's "20 times more damaging it is than CO2." The host, who will become the anchor of World News in January, then played a clip of Fox News' Beck mocking Gore.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
WOW. I almost fell out of my chair. Be still my heart.
There is nothing commies like Diane-Special-TV-Lens-SawYer hate more than "profit." I guess you Effed up Al G. You trusted her.
Credit where credit is due, but this is a mere fig-leaf cover so she can proclaim she’s non-partisan.
later look.
Amazing how far the anti-global warming denying Neanderthals have come. 5-years ago, Sawyer would have been fired on the spot for even questioning the logic of global warming since the science was obviously settled and we had to do everything possible to save our children.
I guess anything can happen once.
Gore Ping.
She once worked for Nixon.
Maybe, just maybe, some of these people are staring to wake up.
I read the transcript and it doesn’t strike me as particularly tough. She asked “tough” questions but she didn’t challenge his non-answers AT ALL. Where’s the “tough” in that?
If Media would get back to their natural function as a questioner of events and not a cheerleader for the “New World Order” we would all be alot safer and smarter.
“So, tofurkey for you,” she jibed.”
Only if it is deep fried and covered with chocolate...
algore made the mistake of getting rich.
algore made the mistake of getting rich.
People are way off if they think this was somehow actually challenging Al Gore with the objections Beck has raised.
She NEVER challenged him on the two basic falsehoods of anthropogenic global warming:
1. The science is not sound. The computer models being put forth to justify the drastic global warming regulation are wrong.
From one of Lord Monckton’s interviews with Glenn Beck:
LORD MONCKTON: Aha. There is one obstacle that they are going to face this they go down that route and they know it. It’s this: That we now know for certain by measurement that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature globally is less than 1/6th of what the UN says it is. This was a paper published just last month by the gallant professor Richard Lindzen of MIT who I’m sure you’ve heard of. He’s the Alfred piece professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences.
GLENN: We’ve had him on the program before, yes.
LORD MONCKTON: He is a lovely man and he is the guy who really understands what’s happening in the atmosphere. He has done a dazzlingly simple but dazzlingly careful measurement that was taken in 20 years, he’s been accumulating the data so that he could do it. And he’s just published the result. The amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space is supposed to reduce enormously as the temperature warms down here. That’s the official theory because of all the greenhouse gases getting in the way. What is actually happening is that nearly all of it is getting out into space just as before. So the warming effect of CO2 over the whole of the next 100 years is going to be well below 2 Fahrenheit degrees, just negligible, it might even be 1 Fahrenheit degrees. And now that that is known by measurement, all of the UN’s report on which this treaty is based are out of date, and the Supreme Court’s own judgment in Massachusetts V. EPA where they said CO2 was a pollutant because it might cause warming are now also out of date. Because the facts have changed, and it’s now been a measured result. There’s no argument with it. Nobody’s dared to argue with this paper.
GLENN: How does anybody argue with the fact that when sunspot activity was at its highest, the Earth was the warmest; and when solar activity is now at literally zero
LORD MONCKTON: Yes.
GLENN: It’s cold.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/32085/
2. The second point is that even using the UN’s (flawed) computer models of climate change, we could go back to living in caves for thirty years and it would still only forestall one degree fahrenheit of global warming.
A summary of Lord Monckton making this point on Glenn Beck: Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion, and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit.
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/
Her “attack” on Gore re China is not really an attack. Even Gore wants to put pressure on China to agree to CO2 controls. And the meat-eating/methane point is a side triviality.
If she really wanted to challeng Al Gore, she would raise one of the central objections to his claims that Lord Monckton has asserted.
AlGore..... for finding a niche and making people believe, even worship, what you say and making millions off of it.
Or Daiane Sawyer..... for proving that there is one thing left that will always come before their beloved globull warming; hate of capitalizm.
Both are elite limozine liberals with more money that I could ever imagine in three lifetimes so I say pox on the lot of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
