Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

Skeptic Terminator or Chicken?

Skeptic Terminator or Chicken?

By Noel Sheppard

Multi-millionaire filmmaker James Cameron on Sunday backed out of a global warming debate that he asked for and organized.

For those that haven’t been following the recent goings on concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite money-making myth, an environmental summit was held this weekend in Aspen, Colorado, called AREDAY, which is short for American Renewable Energy Day.

Ahead of this conference, Cameron challenged three noted global warming skeptics to a public debate where he was going to personally “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.”

One of the invited skeptics, Ann McElhinney of NotEvilJustWrong.com, wrote about Cameron’s surprise cancellation Sunday…

Read the rest at Newsbusters.

37 Responses to Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

  1. Rob N. Hood August 25, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    The Silent Majority

    Has become

    The Violent Minority.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 6:13 am #

      What are you talking about? What violence? Who, what, why, where, when?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

        I guess if you have nothing to say, why not just throw out a lie? Typical Left Wing tactic.

  2. Hal Groar August 25, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    If you make movies for a living, you live in a fantasy land. No need to say anything else.

  3. paul wenum August 25, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Where’s the violence? In your perceived mind? Examples are needed for your rants.

  4. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 26, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    http://climaterealists.com/?id=6183
    “The unreliability of tree-ring data has long been known. Nevertheless, the hockey-stick graph was embraced enthusiastically by Mr. Gore and the global-warming crowd, for it conveniently dispensed with two significant climate events: the Medieval Warm Period (10th to 13th centuries) and the Little Ice Age (14th to 19th centuries). The former saw temperatures in the North Atlantic warm enough that vikings could settle and flourish in a lush Greenland, the latter temperatures so low that people routinely ice-skated on a frozen River Thames. Both of these climate events, for which there are masses of historical evidence, began before the Industrial Revolution and therefore are unattributable to man-made carbon emissions.”

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    I actually have not seen Avatar. I will not either, ever. There have been several tv shows that I will not watch anymore now because they started spouting off the AGW mantra. Why would I want to go to a movie that the story revolves around a Leftist environmental agenda? I don’t care how good the special effects are, that would make me want to get up and leave anyway.

  6. Rob N. Hood August 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    Wow, ok Neil. It’s only entertainment, not exactly propaganda. They just couldn’t think of anything more original, that’s all. But you can be that paranoid if you want to. What about all those war movies… it’s not really a left-wing thing, war. You could then make the same argument that all those movies are right-wing propaganda, correct?

    Oops, there I go again being logical and rational. Sorry about that.

    Current political trends bode badly for the planet. If Congress couldn’t pass climate legislation while are in Democrats control of the House and Senate, there’s little hope that lawmakers will step up when facing opponents who don’t believe in climate change.

    In other words Neil… you might benefit from being happier about the right-wing domination, of not only this country but most of the world. Oh, that’s right… you beleive just the opposite regardless of course the bald face of reality. But it’s not so bald or real in your paranoid mind.

  7. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Not exactly propaganda? Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
    Avatar is propaganda for environmental alarmism. It’s not exactly entertainment in my book.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 28, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

      It’s not just me saying that either:
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100020721/avatar-the-most-expensive-piece-of-anti-american-propaganda-ever-made/
      “Avatar is more than just a 160 minute-long cinematic thrill-ride. It is an intensely political vehicle with a distinct agenda. In fact I would describe it as one of the most left-wing films in the history of modern American cinema, and perhaps the most commercially successful political movie of our time. While the vast majority of cinemagoers will simply see it as popcorn entertainment, Avatar is at its heart a cynical and deeply unpatriotic propaganda piece, aimed squarely against American global power and the projection of US economic and military might across the world.”
      (“Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.”)

    • Rob N. Hood August 30, 2010 at 7:38 am #

      You forgot the word “systematic” from your flawed logic. How is one movie systematic of your paranoia about environmentalism? I expect an answer.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 30, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

        Are you kidding? Yeah right, like there is nothing systematic in the process of making a movie, or advertising, or distributing a movie? I’m sorry but that is about the most inept question ever!

        • Rob N. Hood September 1, 2010 at 7:25 am #

          Systematic means more than one in this instance. Meaning more than one movie, etc. A system of varying outlets, methods, or repetitive themes. You are really paranoid and susceptible to extremist propaganda.

          I am aware of the theme of Avatar, saw the movie. Be that as it may, your defintion of systematic does not apply to one item, such as one movie. Sorry. Now you can talk about how Liberal Hollywood is and how there are and have been more movies like Avatar. That would be “systematic.”

          However, then I could just as easily point out a preponderance of right-wing themed movies, etc. So don’t bother.

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 29, 2010 at 6:07 am #

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
    “1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
    2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
    3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
    4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.
    5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.
    6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.
    7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.
    8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
    9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.”

    And you think I’m paranoid?

  9. paul wenum August 29, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Thanks Neil.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 29, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

      I aims to please!

  10. Rob N. Hood August 30, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    The glaciers aren’t melting…!!! Or, well, one is…

    EDMONTON, Canada — A melting Canadian glacier has given up the well-preserved body of an American climber missing 21 years, Canadian media reported Saturday.

    Two hikers on a day trip found the body of William Holland, 38, of Gorham, Maine, on Aug. 15, the Ottawa Citizen newspaper said.

    Holland disappeared while hiking a treacherous route known as Slipstream, a frozen waterfall on a 11,338-foot peak called Snow Dome on the Columbia Icefields in April 1989, CBC News said.

    Parks Canada rescue specialist Garth Lemke told The Canadian Press news service that the glacier ice that covered the body had melted, leaving an eerie scene.

    “By the time we got there the body was fully exposed. We didn’t have to chip the body out at all,” Lemke told the news service. “He was generally skin and bones, having quite a mummified look to him. His clothes and gear were relatively intact, and if you look at where he was, he was basically in a deep freeze for the last 21 years.”

    • brent August 30, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

      If glaciers stop melting, there’s a good chance we’re in an ice age and I’m gonna pray for lots more global warming! Why do you hide behind a fake name?

      • Rob N. Hood August 31, 2010 at 9:12 am #

        Gee “brent” why do you? And thanks for your incredibly childish evaluation of the topic at hand.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

      Ok. So what? We have covered this topic before on several occasions. There are many factors that determine glacial growth and shrinkage, temperature is only one of them. As much as you’d like it to be, this is not a smoking gun for AGW.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
      There is too much there to post here, but it has everything you ever wanted to know about glaciers. I was wondering too, and they did not mention this in the full story, here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38900691/ns/world_news-americas/ ,just how far from the area that he went missing was he found? If you drop something into a glacier it will eventually travel along with the glacier to its terminus… where it will be deposited.

  11. Rob N. Hood August 31, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    I didn’t say anything but report on a glacier that has been melting at a relatively fast pace. That’s all. Did I say it was a smoking gun? Nope. You’re obvious hysteria in response to a simple statement of fact makes anything you say or believe to be suspect however.

    I guess in your mind the people who are very familiar with this particular glacier are liars. They did not indicate the body was “deposited” at the terminus. They said what they said about the body and the glacier, and what you are in effect saying is that they are lying. That is your right, I guess, but it is very hysterical if you ask me.

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 31, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Well, first off. Why would you post that particular article if not to infer an influence from, or proof positive of (smoking gun), AGW? This is globalclimatescam.com, not missinghikers.com, or meltingglacier.com, after all. Plus, the first sentance of the story says “melting Canadian glacier”!!! The inference is clear.
    And how do you get that I’m calling anyone a liar? I just asked a question because the article did not mention something that I thought might be an important detail. Period.
    Nice trick though. I didn’t recognise it as such until you posted the above reply, to my reply to your original post. This is just a thinly vailed attempt to call into question my logic, and reasoning as evidenced by this statement: “You’re obvious hysteria in response to a simple statement of fact makes anything you say or believe to be suspect however.”
    It is obvious to me that you can’t argue with my point, so you have to resort to calling my response “hysteria” and saying anything I say or believe to be suspect.
    And do you know what is just hillarious? I just now went back to the original story, and at the bottom was a tab that said “more text”. I had missed this the first time I read the story, so I clicked on it and there the story continued for a few more paragraphs, and the first few lines were:

    “Holland’s body had moved down the mountain with the glacier, Lemke told The Canadian Press.
    “Glaciers are constantly moving,” Lemke explained. “What starts at the top will eventually work its way out at the bottom.”

    So that right there answers the question I had, and what is even sweeter, totally confirms what I knew to be the case when I said it!!! “If you drop something into a glacier it will eventually travel along with the glacier to its terminus… where it will be deposited.”

    So what was that you were saying about hysteria, and being suspect?

  13. paul wenum August 31, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Neil, nice comeback. Kudo’s!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 1, 2010 at 5:00 am #

      Rob laid a flaming poo bag on my doorstep. But I think he’s the one that stepped on it;-)

  14. Rob N. Hood September 1, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    Yeah, right. Good one. He said THE GLACIER’S BEEN MELTING. His words not mine. You are still calling the guy a liar by making up all sorts of theories of your own about the nature of glaciers. BTW they move VERY slowly, that is when they are growing and not melting.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 1, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

      All sorts of theories of my own? What in the world are you talking about? What theories are you talking about? Can you list them? You must be able to, since there seem to be all sorts of them, according to you.
      And about what “he” said. I am assuming you are talking about Garth Lemke. I have read the text of the article you posted several times, and nowhere in it does he say what you just claimed he said. What he did say was,

      “Parks Canada rescue specialist Garth Lemke told The Canadian Press news service that the glacier ice that covered the body had melted, leaving an eerie scene.”

      He’s saying that the glacial ice that covered the body had melted. He did not say that the glacier’s been melting. If you can’t discern the distinction between the two, It would not suprise me, and in fact would explain a great deal about why you believe what you believe.
      But I digress because I really don’t care if the glacier is melting or not! I just like to watch you make a fool out of yourself. It’s fun!!!!

  15. Hal Groar September 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Not only fun but free!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 3, 2010 at 5:49 am #

      Did you know that glaciers move backwards every third sunday in a leap year? And did you know that some glaciers, when no one is looking, will actually stand up and dance a jig? Yes, these are just some theories of my own about glaciers!!!

      • Rob N. Hood September 4, 2010 at 9:08 am #

        I’m the fool? Alrighty then. And no I cannot make out the distinction referred to above. Please enlighten me.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

          Of your own doing yes.
          It is not my place to enlighten you. enlighten yourself.

          • Rob N. Hood September 5, 2010 at 10:14 am #

            You made the statement, not me. What, you cannot explain yourself? I am admitting I don’t understand something and asking for the person making the statement for explanation. Very simple, and yet you hesitate even fully avoid it. Why is that?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

            I’m not hesitating to answer you, I was refusing to answer you. If you don’t understand the difference between the glacier is melting, and the ice around the body has melted, and it is quite a simple concept, then why should I bother?
            But since you seem to really want to know, I’ll tell you.
            First, you have to look at how the story was written. The first line of the story is:

            “EDMONTON, Canada — A melting Canadian glacier has given up the well-preserved body of an American climber missing 21 years, Canadian media reported Saturday.”

            This immediately gives the impression that the glacier is melting due to climate change, because they don’t mention the fact that the glaciers began retreating there 12,000 years ago, or the fact that the glaciers have reduced their size dramatically in the last 100 years with most of the shrinking occurring before 1940.

            Midway through the story it says:

            “Parks Canada rescue specialist Garth Lemke told The Canadian Press news service that the glacier ice that covered the body had melted, leaving an eerie scene.”

            This sentence is also worded in a way to imply that the whole glacier is melting, but at the end of the story Lemke says:

            “Glaciers are constantly moving,” Lemke explained. “What starts at the top will eventually work its way out at the bottom.”

            So this is the important question, did the body of this poor, unfortunate hiker “eventually work its way out at the bottom”? Or is the glacier melting at such a rapid pace the the hikers body didn’t have time (21 years) to “eventually work its way out at the bottom”, and show up halfway down the glacier?

            So, the distinction is this: It’s either melting at the end (terminus) or, the entire glacier melted revealing the hiker’s body.

            When a glacier ends, or terminates, it melts. That’s the nature of them. If they didn’t melt they would continue on until they did. So when Lemke says “the glacier ice that covered the body had melted, leaving an eerie scene”, did he mean the terminus of the glacier, or the entire glacier itself melted? I think he meant the terminus of the glacier because of his last quote “What starts at the top will eventually work its way out at the bottom”. Pus, if the whole glacier had melted, don’t you think that would be a bigger part of the story?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

            Pus, if the whole glacier had melted, don’t you think that would be a bigger part of the story?
            I meant PLUS. I’m not calling you a pus!!!!

  16. paul wenum September 3, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    I love to watch the glaciers calving. Cool! Nature at it’s best! Nothing to do about global warming/climate change. It occurs naturally daily.

  17. paul wenum September 6, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Gentlemen, suggest that you go and watch nature at it’s best which is natural. Glaciers calving, retracting, expanding has been going on for thousands of years. Book a trip and see first person then, maybe then, you will find that it “is natural.” Enough said. OK, don’t call my dog names! Please get back on subject.

  18. Rob N. Hood September 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    Oh well ok then… why didn’t I think of that?! Gee is my face red.

  19. paul wenum October 17, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    Your face should be. You have never been there nor done that. I have. There is a difference between reading versus doing/seeing/experiencing.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.