Posted on 09/27/2006 10:59:20 AM PDT by blam
On March 19th of this year “60 Minutes” profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.
The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.
Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.
The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.
...
“60 Minutes” also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html
...
Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter million dollar grant form the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore’s Hollywood movie.
Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer of the group Environmental Defense accusing skeptics of being bought out by the fossil fuel interests.
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.
“Hot & Cold Media Spin A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming
That's alright. When I saw your reply, I was 'Oh, crap, did I screw that up trying to make a joke?'
So we both have red marks on our foreheads.
Thank you.
Please explain how they know the average temperature of the earth back further than the past 100 years or so?
Shoot the thermometer wasn't invented until the early 1500's and the Farenheit, Celcius thermomters weren't available until the 1600's.
Bogus data equals bogus forecast......
Hell, they can't predict the weather for the next 15 minutes let alone the next 15 years. Anyone remember Ted Danson in 1990 stating that we had maybe 10 years left before global flooding from melting glaciers?
Last time I checked is that we are still above the water line...........
I thought it was getting a little warmer, by one degree graduations, over the last three decades. My wife didn't , but I guess I was right.
Heck, even if its true, I'll be dead and gone. Bring it on!
To: martin_fierro
Alas Bunny, I spend nine years rooting out corruption, write a book -- even stumble upon the origins of the World Trade Center attacks -- (Hillary did it, no joke) nail 'em dead to rights, name names, do it all in less than 8 pages -- and a bunny with a pancake on its head says its too long. Such is life. Now go tell your friends!
9 posted on 03/16/2004 11:10:35 PM PST by chickens (imagine a chicken with a tiger by the tail -- there's a plan.)
The actual next glacial period is not expected to begin before about 50,000 years have passed, based on Milankovitch cycling.
It's possible but not likely that global warming might reduce or actually stop deepwater formation in the north Atlantic. This would cause a localized cooling event with effects most strongly felt in Europe.
The 30s were the second-warmest decade of the 20th century; the 90s were the warmest. Current temperatures are about the same as the peak temperatures of the 1990s. The summer of 1936 featured a phenomenal July heat wave that set numerous high temperature records.
Oxygen-18 isotope ratios with oxygen-16 are a reliable paleothermometer that is used to determine temperature records from ice cores. The 018/016 ratio varies with temperature due to the different kinetic rates for evaporation and precipitation for water with 018 atoms and water with 016 atoms.
Now, if the Gulf Stream were to shut down, it wouldn't bother me one bit to see the French freeze their buns off, but I would feel bad for my British friends.
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.