What Global Warming?

[red states rule]

NBC: Garden for Global Warming
By Julia A. Seymour | August 1, 2007 - 18:49 ET
Are you getting sick of all those global warming reports on the network news? Well, now on NBC you'll know when to change the channel.

During global warming reports "NBC Nightly News" changes the color of the signature peacock logo to green. That's the color it was during the "fresh" urban garden segment on July 31.

“Finally tonight, a small solution being offered up in the fight against climate change – something you can do in your own backyard or at least very close to home,” said anchor Brian Williams.


Correspondent Kevin Tibbles praised urban gardens that have been springing up in cities around the country, but bashed the U.S. field crop industry in the process.

“We can’t always get our food from long distance,” Ken Dunn, founder of Chicago’s city farm, told NBC viewers. “It’s not good for us, by having been processed and transported and stored so much, and it’s not good for the planet.”


Actually Mr. Dunn, I can get my food from long distance -- by traveling a short distance to the grocery store. We have trouble growing oranges and bananas in Washington, D.C. So far I haven't been harmed.

These gardens may offer an “urban oasis of fresh vegetables,” but the selection pales in comparison to the selection supermarkets can provide.

They’re also not as self-sufficient as advocates would have you think, often relying on taxpayer funding. The Denver garden featured on the “Nightly News” is one of them.



“This red eggs beet’s short journey across town, not only saves on transportation costs, but also helps keep this garden growing,” said NBC correspondent Kevin Tibbles. “[P]rofits from sales to restaurants then subsidize the price residents in this low-income neighborhood pay for their garden fresh goodness.”


Yet, despite the challenges of urban agricultural endeavors, Tibbles advanced the socialist collectivist sensation created by cultivating urban gardens.

“A community garden gives space, gives hope, makes us realize how similar we are, makes us realize we have neighbors to get to know,” said an unidentified woman at the Denver Youth Farmers Market in the “Nightly News” segment.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-s...global-warming

[glockmail]

If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it

JC Whitney used to carry them. Good luck finding one these days though.

[red states rule]

JC Whitney used to carry them. Good luck finding one these days though.

I know

I will have to settle for a bumper sticker that reads

Global Warming Concert More Hot Air

[red states rule]

Genie Out of the Bottle: 'U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries'
By Noel Sheppard | August 1, 2007 - 10:34 ET

Climate change alarmism met the infamous Oil for Food scam at the United Nations Tuesday.

As a result, if you had any questions regarding why the U.N. has been the point-man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.

In fact, the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: "U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries."
As Jeffrey Jones was fond of saying in the movie "Amadeus" while playing the part of Emperor Joseph II, "Well, there it is."

More evidence that the U.N.'s interest is just to take money from wealthy nations - mostly America, of course - and redistribute it internationally was found all over the body of the article (grateful h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):

The first U.N. special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policy-makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.

Well, there it is:

[British economist Nicholas ]Stern, author of a path-breaking report last year on the economic consequences of climate change, said the global target for reducing greenhouse gases -- notably the carbon dioxide released by coal-fired electric plants and petroleum-powered vehicles -- should be a cut 50 percent by 2050.

"Because of reasons of past responsibility and better access to resources, the rich countries should take much bigger objectives than that 50 percent," he said. "They should be looking for around 75 percent cuts."

But here's the literal and figurative payoff:

That responsibility could extend to financing cuts in emissions in other countries, said Stern, formerly head of the British government's economic service and now at the London School of Economics.

How marvelous. So, America needs to cut its emissions by 75 percent, and, if one reads between the lines, can accomplish this goal in whole or part by sending money to other countries.

Can anyone say "Oil for Food?"

How likely will it be that the U.N. acts as intermediary for these funds as they pass from the rich countries to the poor, always taking their cut - or, paraphrasing Gastone Moschin in "The Godfather: Part II" as Don Fanucci, wet their beaks?

Let the shakedown begin!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...rich-countries

[red states rule]

Environmentalists Sign Petition Banning Water
By Noel Sheppard | August 1, 2007 - 13:21 ET

On a regular basis, anthropogenic global warming skeptics wonder how folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry climate change sycophants can so easily get seemingly intelligent people to buy their junk science hook, line, and sinker.

With this in mind, the comedy duo of Penn and Teller set out to see whether they could get people at an Earth Day rally called "WorldFest" to sign a petition banning water.

For those unfamiliar, this was the "6th Annual WorldFest, a solar-powered celebration of music, the environment, animals, health and social consciousness" held at Woodley Park in Encino, California, April 2006.

Penn Jillette marvelously described their intentions (absolutely hysterical video available here, grateful h/t to Gary Hall):

We sent one of our pals, Chris McGaughah (sp), to a rally to collect signatures for a petition. She's gonna ask people to sign a petition banning Dihydrogen monoxide. That's di-hydrogen-monoxide. Water. That's right, water. And she's not going to lie, or even stretch the truth. Not at all. She's just going to talk about what water is, and what it does, with vocabulary and tone of environmental hysteria.

So as not to give anymore away, I encourage readers to watch this three and a half-minute film, and get an understanding as to how easy it is to pull the wool over folks' eyes.

In the middle of the signature collecting -- which went remarkably well -- Jillette made the following spectacular observations:

Is passion supposed to replace common sense? We understand the desire to join up and do something important. It, it's sexy to save the world. But, you gotta spend a couple of minutes to find out if you're really saving the world and not just being herded around by some politically motivated a**holes who may not really care that much about the environment, but see this as some chance to raise money for whatever they think is a good idea. No end justifies the means of lying.

I couldn't agree more, Penn.

As an aside, this is not a recent video, as it was posted at YouTube last December. However, I imagine many of you are like me and are just now finding out about this wonderful exercise crafted by this great comedy duo.

Bravo, gentlemen! Bravo!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-banning-water

[medical 2933]

China has passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Qin Gang, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, again asserted China’s ‘right to develop’ - its entitlement to emit as much carbon dioxide on a per capita basis as do developed countries - by claiming that “China’s emissions are just at survival levels.”

[red states rule]

China has passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Qin Gang, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, again asserted China’s ‘right to develop’ - its entitlement to emit as much carbon dioxide on a per capita basis as do developed countries - by claiming that “China’s emissions are just at survival levels.”

Where are the enviro wackos? Why are they silent on China?

[red states rule]

Price at the pump driven by aging U.S. refineries
By Patrice Hill
August 2, 2007

Attention American motorists: It is not ExxonMobil or Middle Eastern oil producers who are driving the price of gasoline you pay at the pump.

It is shortages of gas and other problems at aging refineries in your neighborhoods.

While that has been true all year, oil analysts say, it has never been more obvious than yesterday, when the price of premium crude oil briefly hit a record $78.77 in New York trading even as gas prices continued to fall at the pump.

Gas prices have fallen from a record $3.20 a gallon in May to $2.86 yesterday afternoon, according to GasBuddy.com.

What drove oil prices briefly to a new high was news that refineries drew down their inventories of oil last week, leaving stockpiles stretched thin and raising questions about the adequacy of supplies. But the news was actually good for drivers, because it showed that more U.S. refineries are up and running after a rash of unscheduled outages this year, enabling them to draw down their oil stocks to make gasoline.

More plentiful gas is alleviating the pressure on pump prices seen earlier this summer when the need for maintenance and repairs at aging refineries left stockpiles at dangerously low levels.

"The refineries have finally gotten their act together," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "They're back to normal, almost." The Energy Information Administration reported yesterday that refineries are operating at 93.6 percent of capacity, the highest in more than a year.

American refineries are aging and prone to accidents and other problems that require extended periods offline to remedy. No new refineries have been built in 30 years, largely because Clean Air Act regulations make building new ones prohibitively expensive, oil analysts say.

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...108020053/1001

[Psychoblues]

Your idiocy exceeds your intelligence, rsr.

If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it

No love and warmth coming from this direction.

[red states rule]

Your idiocy exceeds your intelligence, rsr.




No love and warmth coming from this direction.

Hate to see the myth of global wamring and the rants of the left exposed to the light of day?

[Psychoblues]

Your loss is my gain, rsr. Have you ever studied science? I seriously doubt it.

[red states rule]

Your loss is my gain, rsr. Have you ever studied science? I seriously doubt it.

Libs are masters of the Science of Fear

The folks are ignoring the rants about gloabal wamring. It is a manufactured liberal crisis

[Psychoblues]

Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

[red states rule]

Science really does fuck you up, doesn't it, rsr? Give me a little of your science about fear. I've seen it demonstrated quite clearly for about 6 years now.

More important - the weather is not backing your side up

Record cool temps and snow where it has not snowed in decades

[red states rule]

During ‘Arctic Cold’ April, GMA Hypes Global Warming Study on Early Spring
By Scott Whitlock | April 6, 2007 - 12:37 ET
On Friday’s "Good Morning America," weatherman and liberal environmental activist Sam Champion hyped a new global warming study released on April 6. The ABC anchor also featured a representative from a left-wing environmental group and failed to identify the organization’s political slant.

Only minutes after reporting on the "arctic blast" of unusually cold temperatures that much of the country is facing, Champion touted a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that noted "we’re already facing earlier springs."

The GMA weatherman then went on to feature a clip from Brenda Ekwurzel, a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. Champion failed to mention, as did the onscreen graphic, the fact that the UCS has promoted liberal causes such as nuclear test ban treaties and even attacked the Media Research Center for casting doubt on global warming.

Champion prefaced his piece on "baking droughts" and dramatic temperature increases with a report on the brutally cold weather that is striking the East Coast this spring:

Sam Champion: "But it’s a shot of cold air and it’s opened the door for arctic air all the way through the nation. Call it about two thirds of the nation getting this push of arctic cold. This is normally a December, mid-December pattern. As this cold air goes, look at the shades of blue in just about all areas."


Without any sense of irony, Mr. Champion began his segment, which aired a few minutes later at 7:13am, by discussing the new report:

Diane Sawyer: "Well, I'm here with Sam this morning, because there's a brand new report out on global warming. And this one finally translates what all this means for humans."

Sam Champion: "Yes. The second of four expected reports. 450 lead authors of the world's top scientists have been hammering it all night and the results, the results just came out hours ago. Baking droughts in America's west, more waging wildfires in places like California and Texas. And swamped eastern coast lines. That's the future of our world, today's report says, unless global warming is stopped."

Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists): "The evidence is quite strong, and the time for action is now."

Champion: "These scientists say we're already facing earlier springs and losing ice. If global temperatures continue to rise, things could get worse. A boost of just 1.6 degrees from present average temperatures could lead to the extinction of 30 percent of species worldwide. A rise of four degrees, over half the world's species could be lost. Already, America's west is feeling the effects. In the midst of a 10 year drought. Look at this, Nevada's lake Mead, a pier to nowhere. What was the lake is 80 feet below normal levels. Seven states draw their water from the dwindling Colorado River. As the water levels drop, officials are scrambling to take action before it's too late."

Pat Mulroy (General Mgr, Las Vegas Valley Water District): "All of us in the Colorado River basin are headed for a much more conservative use of water."

Champion: "$2.5 billion in billion in water projects are already under way, among them, a proposed 280 mile pipeline across parched Nevada."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: " We are in desperate need."

Champion: "Governor's Schwarzenegger is proposing bonds for new water storage in California as well. The question is, is any of this enough? And how can we stop it? Well, their third report which comes out in May will detail their ideas, these same scientists ideas, on how to stop global warming."


During the piece, the ABC anchor allowed no dissenting opinions and didn't explain the financial cost to "stop global warming."

Mr. Champion has a long history of promoting liberal environmental causes, often in disguise. On April 2, the GMA weatherman hosted a segment on the new phenomenon of green weddings. One of the participants in such a ceremony just happened to be an employee of the left-wing Sierra Club. In January, he highlighted an earlier global warming report in a piece that wondered if "billions" will die from global warming.

In comparison, NBC’s "Today" show didn’t mention the new report at all. Over on CBS, "Early Show" reporter Mark Phillips hosted a segment in the 7am hour that covered much of the same ground, but without any liberal activists masquerading as neutral observers.

Chris Wragge: "Now to the latest report on global warming, and the news is not good. CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips is live in London with details this morning, Mark, good morning."

Mark Phillips: "Chris, well the first U.N. report this year dealt with global warming and how it meant that things were going to get bad. The second report deals with where the worst of that bad would be. And because this report is so specific, it was also extremely political. In fact, finalizing the report which was years in the making, came down to an all-night session last night, described as very contentious."

Rajendra Pachauri: "I am wearing the suit that I wore yesterday morning. And I've been sitting in a chair all night."

Phillips: "Every line had to be agreed not only by an international panel of top climate scientists but by governments as well, and that was the problem. Particularly, it seems, the governments of the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. But the major thrust of the report could not be watered down. It concludes that those who are already suffering most in this world are going to suffer worse due to global warming. Poor people in poor countries are going to be most affected as the climate warms in the next century. The already parched areas of sub Sahara Africa will get hotter, drier, and less able to support populations. And the low-lying areas of Asia, called the megadeltas, will be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise."

Pachauri: "It's the poorest of the poor in the world who are going to be the worst hit."

Phillips: "But the rich countries are not immune. The report warns of increased risks of brush fires in California, of insect infestations and of increased frequencies of heat waves in the American cities already prone to them. And the U.S. has its own low-lying areas in the southeast whose vulnerability will increase. And, so, the scientists have had their say. The question now is whether governments will buy into it. Global warming is an issue that is already moving away from science and into politics."


—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11880