Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/10/2009 9:56:31 AM PST by Reaganesque
If you're curious to see how the mainstream Washington, D.C. press views the global warming debate, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift may have tipped off the public off.
On the Nov. 29 edition of "The McLaughlin Group," host John McLaughlin asked about the prospects of a Copenhagen climate change treaty and its possible impact on the U.S. economy. MSNBC and "The McLaughlin Group" regular Pat Buchanan gave some spot-on analysis on global warming alarmist about former Vice President Al Gore and how it pertains to the climate change issue.
"Well, I don't think it's going to have any impact, John, because I don't think it's going to get through the United States Senate," Buchanan said. "And there's a reason for that John, and that's Al Gore's moment has come and gone. The truth is they're changing the name to climate change rather than global warming for a reason."
Buchanan pointed to several anecdotal examples of not global warming, but global cooling and that this issue won't get much traction during economic downtime.
For 10 years, the earth has been cooling - 1998 or so was the hottest year. The polar bear population is doing fine. Antarctica is growing, the ice cap is growing. The Arctic ice cap has stopped shrinking. You take a look around the United States, you're having record cold trends and you got this tremendous real problem in the American economy as opposed to this mythical problem of global warming."
The real reason behind this global warming scare according to Buchanan is to reshape the global power structure.
And for these reasons John, I think it's not going to get through the Senate and I think the, as I say, Al Gore's moment has passed. This whole thing was a bit of a hoax designed to transfer power from individuals and wealth to governments and from governments to trans-national, international corporations, global institutions. And that time has come and it has gone."
Later in the show, Buchanan reiterated his point that global warming wasn't going on and said there was no proof that any of the warming that has occurred in recent history was caused by man.
"It was warming, John," Buchanan said. "It's not been warming since '98. Secondly, there's no known proof it's because of man and there's no known proof it's a great danger."
However, Clift felt inclined to responded, rather emphatically. She said she believes U.S. policy should be proactive toward the issue. Her view is arguably indicative of the mainstream media's sentiment on the debate, and she equated it to blind faith when she told Buchanan there's no proof there's a God either, which didn't mean global warming wasn't a danger.
"It's no known proof there's God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?" Clift replied. "Oh, it is a danger. It's a danger in many places."
I would say to her that belief in a God that can’t be proven does not cost a dime, affects nobody but myself, and requires no federal intervention.
If there was no God, that fool wouldn’t be breathing.
Has anyone ever taken Eleanor Clift seriously?
Oh what I wouldnt give to be a fly on the Pearly Gates when this beach goes
We always knew what the libs were;and now they’re proving us right more and more every day.
Well that is great. How about this:
Just in case there is a God that will judge us, lets stop abortions. Lets be proactive just in case.
Clift appears to be admitting that Global Warming is based on faith rather than science. That Christianity is based primarily on faith was already understood (by Christians and non-Christians). GW has been sold as science — so this admission is rather groundbreaking.
SnakeDoc
Poor Eleanor. She is such a schlub.
Geez...are the editors on strike over there, or what? The piece is so poorly written it distracts from the points the author attempts to make...I’m not sure what she is saying...but, I suspect, neither does she...
I think she gets around on a broom.
Let’s compare the e-mails from East Anglia to The Gospels!
A dead soul like Clift merely confirms that AGW is a religion to the dead soul liberals. No proof is needed with their faith-based mindless sycophancy to liberalism.
Yup, classic liberal debate technique, dingbatesque.....as in Edith Bunker.
Except the evidence of the historicity of Christ and his resurrection in the form of eyewitness testimony quickly reduced to writing and widely reproduced and shared far and wide exceeds the raw evidence provided by the scientists to support global warming.
Further, unlike the evidence for Christ which has not been falsified, what little evidence that has been disclosed by the scientists was immediately shown to be a hoax and to be false.
I’m sure that Clift would defend the idea of separation of church and state. Thus, she should also support the separation of AGW and state.
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.