Posted on 06/17/2008 8:32:46 AM PDT by Rufus2007
A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate.
Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins:
“[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
Gore...Lie down with pigs..wake up in garbage! Follow the money, as always!
GW PING!
We need a windfall profits tax on Anthropomorphic Global Warming Alarmist books and speeches.
Why Your "Skeptical" Comment on Climate Change Got Deleted
Alex Steffen
June 16, 2008 3:49 PM
Climate "skepticism" is not a morally defensible position. The debate is over, and it's been over for quite some time, especially on this blog.
We will delete comments which deny the absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, just as we would delete comments which questioned the reality of the Holocaust or the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups. Such "debates" are merely the morally indefensible trying to cover itself in the cloth of intellectual tolerance.
So, if you're a climate skeptic, you may be well-intentioned and you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but we're not interested.
Thanks.
But there is no media jihad against BIG SCIENCE or BIG GREEN like there is against ‘BIG OIL’.
We subsidize oil companies maybe fifteen cents a gallon (which is not a tax break but rather the ability of the oil companies to deduct their exploration costs as expenses on their corporate taxes - something most industries already enjoy. It’s not as though Congress is literally paying Exxon each year to sit around with their thumb up their collective (bleeped).)
We subsidize ethanol at least $1.51 a gallon. And the ethanol Nazis have the nerve to sell their product for the same price as crude-based Unleaded.
But in the hilarious world of unintended consequences, the liberals in league with Dwayne Andreas(the Godfather of ADM, who has been a sponsor of Tim Russerts show for decades) to make corn the new crude. And we’ve built 117 new ethanol refineries this decade (compared to the ZERO we’ve built for crude refineries since the 1970s). But with 45% of our corn crop being burned annually for ethanol, the price of corn has quadrupled and now the refineries can’t buy corn cheap enough to make the ethanol (even with the huge subsidies) less expensive than the crude which arrives at the same gas stations. So 117 ethanol refineries are on the brink of disaster despite Congress literally forcing Americans to buy BILLIONS of gallons of this stuff in 2008 and 2009.
Funny. Except for the fact that inflation is now at 1.4% a month because of oil and food (corn inflation) price increases. And Congress can claim credit for all of this since they pretty much got exactly what they wanted - a recession under Bush, lowered consumption of ‘oil’ because of astronomical gas prices and a booming ethanol industry to counter ‘Big Oil’. Of course, all those people who end up in poverty because they can’t afford to buy food or gas anymore are just a necessary list of casualties in this war against American consumerism and Global Warming.
I can hear Pelosi now - “I love it when a plan comes together!”
Really?
Being a man of firm convictions, I can NEVER be bought.
However, for that kind of money, I can be rented on a per diem basis for a minimum of 50 speeches to say whatever you want me to say. :-)
I wish it were that simple. What he overlooks is that for many of these people, including Obama and maybe McCain, it's about their belief that the US is using too many of the world's resources and that we must be punished/taxed in return. For still others, they just hate the US and it's success and want to take us down a peg or two and they believe that a radical president and a compliant Congress is the way to do that. And they are right about the latter; it will happen if they come to power.
The global warming (and ethanol)fraud may be loosing steam, but the politicians are still fretting over how to steal as much of our money as they can using those venues.
Well, the Moderator of that blog does have a point. Climate CHANGE cannot be argued against.
The climate changes every single day arond the World and has changed every single day around the World since time immemorial.
That's why we have cute weather girls .... To tell us about the daily change. :-)
If you can’t trust Al Gore and Robert Kennedy Jr., who can you trust?
But...
...but...
He won the Nobel Prize!
Right?
right?
Hello?
You can confirm the fad peak at Google Trends by searching on "global warming". This also shows the regions that are doing most of the googling. Surprisingly it is heavily third world countries and locations in the southern hemisphere that have little to worry about. Why would those mostly living in mud huts have such a strong interest?
This is no surprise. There is no money in telling the government that the weather is changing and there isn’t anything you can do about it. The alarmists who screech at the rooftops are the ones who get the attention when they should be dragged down and thrown into mental wards.
There are unintended consequences...
... and then there's plain stupidity or fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
