A new report entitled “Global Warming Censored” was released today by the Business and Media Institute (BMI) exposing the media bais and censorship surrounding the global warming debate.Â Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.
Read the report by visiting BMI’s website
I feel your pain, we’ve been censored, ignored, lied to, and boycotted as well.
These alarmist choose not to debate the issue. Somebody is making billions off of this scam.
I am new to the debate, but I really am interested in the science invovled. first, I am nonpartisan, unconvinced of either side (you could convert me). I have no idea how or why weather works, as of yet, and how human interactions affect, or don’t affect, the natural equilibrium. Examples are biodiversity loss happening around the world, or say top soil erosion in farm areas. Some things are bad, some things not, and there are degrees I’m unsure of. But, can someone argue that this loss of life is not happening? It might be plausible to say that we need much less biodiversity to sustain life and that humans could manufacture a way to live biologically without diversity, but as far as I have found out, thats not very plausible (I used to believe this).
It is certain though, in my mind, that human activty has affected other areas of biological life, and as the scale of our manipulation of our world increases, such as massive infrastructure building, that humans would be able to affect the weather, consciously and not consciously.
This means that humans could possibly be creating global warming, and at the same time, our cloud trails, both with special planes, and with normal aircraft activity, is creating global cooling at the same time? It could also be argued that with enough science we could understand the natural laws to prevent either an iceage or a heat up.
I find though, it is unreasonable to say that humans need do nothing and continue to live as we are. At some point industry and human economic habits will need to change to sustain life.
How can this be argued?
melmic [at] bethel [dot]edu
Humans cannot impact the environment. I live in Houston and it is IMPOSSIBLE to see anything within 100 miles that demonstrates the existence of these ‘humans’ rumored to exist by the gay agenda driven liberal media. Maybe some jerk throws a mattress in the Bayou once and a while, but that is it.
Those dirty liberals hate Jesus and they just want me to mow my lawn with an electric mower after 7 am in the morning, because they have to nurse their homo loving hangover from drinking and having sex all night. They can go to a strange hell and live with those funny curly light bulbs and what not.
Man can’t change crap and it is all gods will. Amen. Now they made me swear. Jerks.
Ah. The elusive, humorous, left-wing satirist makes an appearance. Very amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.
“Examples are biodiversity loss happening around the world, or say top soil erosion in farm areas. Some things are bad, some things not, and there are degrees Iâ€™m unsure of. But, can someone argue that this loss of life is not happening?”
Well, that’s life. There have been periods of mass extinction on the planet before–many, many times before. It’s migrate, adapt, or die. Bet you didn’t know that polar bear numbers are actually increasing, did you? Yet the media would have us believe that they’re on the threshold of extinction.
As far as Antarctica is concerned, it’s obviously not cooperating. I know the thing this week is that a huge chuck of Antarctica is falling into the sea. Again, huge exaggeration if not outright lie. Antarctica’s ice mass is INCREASING–it’s now a million square kilometers above the “norm.”
I’d like to point out that the planet has been much warmer than it is now, and within human memory. Look up Climatic Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period. You can look up Roman Warm Period, too. The problem with IPCC’s claims is that it is based on the Hockey Stick, which was totally and utterly demolished several years ago by Ross McKitrick–you can look up his papers online. (Others were involved in that, but he wrote the defining paper, I believe, and I can’t remember their names.) The Hockey Stick claims that the planet has warmed dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. Not so! In fact, the oceans have not warmed since 2003. At all.
The Hockey Stick fails to mention both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed it. For 500 years, from roughly 1350 to 1850, the Northern Hemisphere was in the grips of some very cold weather. (Look up Dalton Minimum). IPCC uses 1850 or thereabouts as a base year. Well, duh. If you take that as the base year, of course the planet has warmed up–but the bulk of that warming was completed by 1940. If you look at your local weather records, I’ll bet that the record highs were set either in the 1880’s (when temperature records were first kept) or the 1940’s. It also continues to insist that CO2 causes temperature rise when in fact no such thing has ever been proven. It’s more likely the other way around–that the temperature increases and THEN CO2 levels increase.
The sun drives climate on Earth. No doubt about that in my mind. There is a roughly 80% correlation between solar activity and temperature. That is statistically significant, and it’s something that Gore et. al. would like us to remain ignorant about. They do not explain why THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM IS WARMING–including Pluto. When you try to find a forthcoming explanation from the alarmists, all you hear is, “That’s crazy!” No explanation, no rationale for their refusal to consider the sun as the main cause of this warming. They actually had the gall–as though we’re really this stupid–to assert that Pluto’s warming was due to a delayed thawing. Please!
The first sunspots of Solar Cycle 24 were spotted this January. That means that the solar minimum should occur somewhere around June or July 2009. The results so far are not encouraging–we could be in for some freezing cold weather for the next 25 years or so, because this cycle is predicted to be pretty inactive. Less sunspots, colder weather.
Just out of curiosity…does anyone remeber hearing the bit about global warming actually causing a cool-down on earth? I can’t remeber the whole story; I don’t know maybe I dreamed it 🙂
MelMel is right. Global warming does cause global cooling by stopping the Atlantic conveyor system. It was also a crappy movie with Jake Gyllenhaal. Maybe if it had Leonardo Di Caprio in it, I could believe in it–he is sooo cute. I love global warming scientists trying to cover all the bases and then Hollywood trying to put it in a form us dumb Americans can understand.