.

I like Glenn but he comes off as a little melodramatic sometimes. Hope he plays to his strengths.

I’m about to see if my 4 year old TV set can receive CNN.

Summary: A CNN press release declared that Glenn Beck's upcoming "special report" will "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth." Beck has repeatedly advanced falsehoods related to global climate change, cited debunked scientists to support his doubts that "we're causing" global warming, and regularly attacked Gore. During the May 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck will air an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: Climate of Fear" that, according to an April 30 CNN press release, will "deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming" and "question[] the accuracy of Al Gore's claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth of 20-foot sea level rises and the disastrous effects of increased carbon dioxide levels." As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck has repeatedly advanced falsehoods related to global climate change, cited debunked scientists to support his doubts that "we're causing" global warming and developed a pattern of attacking Gore.

MORE: http://mediamatters.org/items/200705020001?f=h_topic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

According to CNN, Beck will ask “Who’s responsible for global warming?” and then give some real, surprising answers as to “what can be done to fix it.” But Beck will raise a larger issue, why global warming skeptics are being “harrased for raising questions” about theories involving global warming.

Global warming supporters have claimed that critics of their climate theory are akin to Holocaust deniers, and have even demanded that academics and scientists who don’t buy into the Gore theory of global warming should lose their jobs.

“If you believe the mainstream media hype, you’d think that every time you drive your SUV, the Earth’s temperature rises six degrees,” Beck says about his upcoming program.

He also trots back in recent history to recall the last go-around of media sensationalism during the 1970s. Then the media was agitating over “global cooling” and a new, supposed “ice age.”

“The reality is that many respected climatologists have questions about both the problem and the solution. We should understand both positions more fully before committing to any solutions that could do more harm than good, both to our environment and our economy,” Beck adds.

Beck has in the past frequently questioned the cause of global warming and has presented scientists to support his doubts that “we’re the ones causing” global warming.
Recently, Beck asked rhetorically on his program: “Now, I personally believe in global climate change. Not disputing even that pollution and giant Escalades like mine certainly aren’t helping, but are they causing this?”

Among other segments in the forthcoming “Exposed,” Beck zeros-in on the accuracy of Al Gore’s claims in the Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” of 20-foot sea level rises and the catastrophic effects of increased carbon dioxide levels.

The program also targets the criticism some scientists, climatologists and academics have faced for even raising questions about the so-called “scientific consensus.”

Beck offers his own opinion that innovation — not government regulation — is the final answer to solving this problem.

Beck’s first “Exposed” series special about Islamic extremism won the second highest ratings in the history of headline prime in the critical 25-54 demographic.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/1/120012.shtml?s=ic

I thought it was a great program - I videotaped it. The audience for it should have been pretty large since even Rush mentioned it today on his radio show. I hope they re-air it. bttt

CNN HEADLINE PRIME
HLN
Channel 204
if Directv

The Other CNN.

I saved it as well, but I was not really impressed.

He needed more scientific folks and facts on to the debunk the whole notion of human Global Warming; what we got was a bunch of wantabe’s who were told to shut up because they had no political juice.

Could have been much more powerful!

The first step in conservatives moving into the global warming/climate change debate is for us to deal with the dirty, underhanded tactics used by the Left to silence all debate.

Once engaged, the second step is to bring in the scientists.

Bringing in the scientists doesn’t do any good until the public is engaged in and accepting that a debate is warranted and interesting. Once that is established, it is harder for the Left to silence scientists who question the Left’s assertions regarding global warming and climate change.

Consider how the Left has shut down critics of their positions on the War on Terror. Calm, rational critics of the liberals’ surrender policies are ignored in favor of Leftist sensationalism. Perhaps what we need are a few sensationalists of our own to get the debate jumpstarted again.

And yeah - Beck is very melodramatic, which makes him fun to listen to.

How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place

Bjørn Lomborg and his economist colleagues have produced a fascinating and unexpected consensus, which can start a debate about global priorities: Should we prioritize a costly and uncertain attempt to reduce effects of global warming in a hundred years time while millions are dying for lack of mosquito nets or condoms?
Matt Ridley, author of Nature via Nurture

“Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center has posed a challenging question: If we had an additional $50 billion to spend on mitigating global problems, how should we spend it? To suggest answers, the center convened a panel of eight distinguished economists to evaluate proposals by over two dozen specialists on problems ranging from AIDS and malnutrition to water shortage, civil war, climate change, and migration, among others. Their collective recommendation: focus on AIDS prevention, the provision of micronutrients to poor children, trade liberalization, and the control of malaria. Their choices were determined by the expected payoff, largely but not wholly in economic terms, that each of these programs could generate relative to its cost. Some issues, such as civil war, could not be evaluated in general terms and so were not ranked. The motivating principle of the exercise was that resources are limited, political leaders must make choices, and those choices should be governed by where the most good can be done for humanity — especially for those who are so poor that they cannot look beyond where their next meal is coming from.” -Foreign Affairs

Part of the show on priorities where the returns are greater for the money spent than on global warming.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=758

I disagree. I thought he did a very good job. Beck hit most the major points. The best job so far by any major network.

It was a very good show. He was very funny and the guests were very convincing.
Overall, it will never change a GW fanatic but its just more information to fight these nitwits.

DTT and Malaria

South Africa illustrates these limitations in practice. Facing pressure from environmentalists, the national malaria control programme abandoned DDT in favour of more expensive pyrethroid insecticides in 1996. Within three years, pyrethroid resistant A funestus mosquitoes invaded KwaZulu-Natal province, where they had not been seen since DDT spraying began in the 1940s. Malaria cases then promptly soared, from just 4117 cases in 1995 to 27 238 cases in 1999 (or possibly 120 000 cases, judging by pharmacy records). Other provinces experienced similar catastrophes, and South Africa was forced to return to DDT spraying this year. It had little alternative: no other insecticide, at any price, was known to be equally effective.

Clearly there was an effective de facto ban on the use of DDT. This ban was neither total nor totally effective but it was a ban nonetheless.

Monday, June 20, 2005
THE DDT HOAX HOAX

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2005/06/ddt-hoax-hoax.html

“There is a silent tsunami under way all the time in rural Africa. Every month, as many children die of malaria in Africa as died in the tsunami – about 150,000 children dying every month.”
Dr. Jeffery Sachs, director of the U.N. Millennium Project, Columbia University Economist
http://www.freedomfromhunger.org/landing/ffhmalaria.php?origin=12

Over the last 5 years a significant body of scientific research has concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal it is made out to be by self-proclaimed ‘environmentalist’ groups and opportunist politicians.

CO2 — Cause or Effect?

Below is a summary of this research evidence, with links to a review of each, demonstrating clearly that hysterical demands for carbon dioxide emissions reductions — together with the fuel duty hikes and climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands — are an environmentally pointless ‘King Canute’ exercise designed purely to restrict individual mobility, and exercise corporate energy control, through extortionate levels of taxation.

....an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped ‘cause’ of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that it cannot possibly be the cause.

http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm

Remember Ping

We watched gores film which debunked it for us and watching Beck and guests was just fun.

I thought this was only Ellen who said this. Is there more than 1. I find this type of thing as equally misleading as stuff the Drive-by-media writes about conservatives.

Just callin 'em as I seem 'em here.