[aShepard]

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!

[coconutt2000]

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.

[fight_truth_decay]

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

[Always Right]

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

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.

[Global2010]

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