The palm tree is going two feet under water

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

Can anyone tell me how much CO2 a major city gives off minus the vehicle traffic? People, pets, A/C units. Building Heaters, dry cleaners, laundromats, machine shops, paint shops and painting in general- ETC ETC They all add to the soup in one way or another, We always seem to have people who want to pluck the low hanging fruit. Here's a question How did some European countries solve their homeless problem?

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

BTW, "sacrifice for the common good" is a hall mark of Communism

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy   BTW, "sacrifice for the common good" is a hall mark of Communism And a really good idea. Not communism, but generally speaking. It doesn't make any difference what socio-economic system you prefer. Contributing to the common good is a high moral principle that benefits all. [Edited on 4-27-2023 by SFandH]

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH   Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy   BTW, "sacrifice for the common good" is a hall mark of Communism And a really good idea. Not communism, but generally speaking. It doesn't make any difference what socio-economic system you prefer. Contributing to the common good is a high moral principle that benefits all. [Edited on 4-27-2023 by SFandH] Yes, for sure it is good. When the govt. controls your level of contribution it is bad.

Quote: Originally posted by surabi

The solutions start with accepting that if you want to be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem, that we can't continue to live the way we have been living. We need to not consume as much as we're consuming, we need to walk or bicycle the four blocks to the store instead of jumping in the car, and shop more locally. We need to rideshare, carshare, give up some of our toys. We need to eat what is produced locally in season, not indulge ourselves in thinking we are entitled to have oranges available all year in areas where oranges don't grow, that are shipped from across the planet. The problem is humans being unwilling to sacrifice anything about their lifestyle and habits for the good of all, and the solution is to change our expectations and the way we live. That's the basic thing that needs to happen. If you want a gas powered car, because it would be "inconvenient" and boring to sit at a charging station, that makes you part of the problem. Accepting some inconvenience so you can stop consuming fossil fuels is part of the solution. And the people like the ones here who keep idiotically pointing out that the climate has always changed, as if the world's foremost scientists and everyone else is ignorant of that fact, need to get a brain. What we are seeing now is unprecedented, the rate of climate change is unprecedented, the disasters it is causing are unprecedented, and we know damn well it's because of human activity, so stop denying that it's a problem we need to solve, just stop. [Edited on 4-27-2023 by surabi]

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

1) Why the change in name to Global Climate Change from Global Climate Warming?

Quote: Originally posted by surabi

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy   1) Why the change in name to Global Climate Change from Global Climate Warming? They had to dumb it down for the simple-minded who don't understand that "global warming" doesn't mean it's steadily getting hotter everywhere at the same time. [Edited on 4-27-2023 by surabi]

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

BTW, "sacrifice for the common good" is a hall mark of Communism

Quote: Originally posted by caj13

JZ Was this also science? [/rquote] No JZ It wasn't science - turns out it is a fake magazine cover some MAGA climate deniers fabricated up because they had n o science or fact to back their denier claims. a 30 second google search would of told you that - instead you chose to post this complete and utter BS because you wanted to believe in it. Facts and science JZ - not Political posturing and inventing BS

Here's the real Time cover from 1977 in question:
https://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/





[Edited on 4-28-2023 by SFandH]

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

I'm willing to bet that no one will read the entire speech by Sen Inhofe in the Congressional Record from 2006 It sets the record straight and settles the arguments here but alas none of the climate alarmists will read it and learn how far off base they really are. ITS VERY LONG VERY DETAILED WITH NOTABLE QUOTATIONS Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time. It is the word that gets everybody upset when you say it and the word or the phrase that many politicians are afraid to say, and that is ``global warming.'' I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches I have made on this subject, as I focus not only on the science, as I have many times before, but on the media's coverage of climate change. Global warming--just the term--evokes many Members in this Chamber, the media, Hollywood elites, and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the Senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I will address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in this issue. And, of course, I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' Let's keep in mind, I do chair the committee in the Senate called Environment and Public Works, the committee that has jurisdiction. I recall so well when I first became chairman of this committee, almost 4 years ago, I was actually a believer that because I had heard it so many times there must be something to this thing, until I started looking at the science. But I have talked about that before. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and global warming scares during four separate [[Page 19155]] and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930s, the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s, they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the last 100 years--and every time just as hysterical as the time before. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which links every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely on into global warming advocacy. First, I will summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects the United Nations, environmental groups, and the media have promoted as the ``smoking gun'' of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called hockey stick temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann from Virginia and some of his liberal colleagues. This graph purported to show that temperatures in the northern hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, and then spiked upward as we moved into the 20th century. And that spike would be the ``blade'' on the hockey stick. They say this was due to human activity. Mann, who also copublishes a global warming propaganda blog--reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group--had his hockey stick come under severe scrutiny. The hockey stick was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the hockey stick. The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warming Period. That was from about 900 AD to 1300 AD, and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to approximately 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity and it could not have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland. We all remember reading about that. That was a period of time when the Vikings, all of a sudden, because it became warmer back around 1000 AD, started inhabiting Greenland. They flourished up there, until the Little Ice Age came along in 1500, and most of them died at that time. Now the climate alarmists have attempted to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Demming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify firsthand about this effort. Dr. Demming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. He says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank: We have to get rid of the medieval warming period. When the ``hockey stick'' first appeared in 1998, it did exactly that. This guy, Michael Mann, turned around and ignored the fact that we had this medieval warming period and then went into the little ice age, which changed it. The media has missed big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the 1-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase in the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the 1-degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement in living standards, life expectancy, food production, and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend. Here on the chart you can see during this period of time, when things were flourishing and they went down, it was far more prosperous during the medieval part. Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the little ice age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove manmade global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the little ice age is like comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend. In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that CO2 has been the driving force in global warming. The alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the little ice age in about 1850, long before manmade CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then in about 1940, just as manmade CO2 emissions rose sharply-- about 80 percent, with the largest increase in the middle of the 1940s--the temperatures began a decline, and that lasted until about the 1970s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. I am saying that this increase in CO2 emissions did not precipitate a warming period; it precipitated a cooling period. If CO2 is the driving force of the global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths? My skeptical views on manmade catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the past few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder, and ice is growing. And a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the Sun was responsible for 50 percent of the 20th century warming. Now, that is shocking: the Sun is responsible for warmth. Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the Sun's output. It is going to start getting cooler again. A letter that was sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of the scientific knowledge on global warming. Keep in mind, these 60 scientists were the ones who recommended back in the 1990s that Canada sign onto the Kyoto Treaty. They wrote this to Prime Minister Harper: If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded that it was not necessary. The letter also noted: ``Climate change is real'' is a meaningless phase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from the natural ``noise.'' These are scientists talking. People realize that these cycles go on. God is still up there, and we have the cycles every 1,500 years or so. Every time this happens, alarmists get this out and say we are all going to die. One of the ways alarmists have pounded the mantra of a ``consensus'' [[Page 19156]] on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models that project future calamity. But the science is not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel--they started like most bad things do, with the U.N. Back in the 1990s they came out with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Dr. Gray said: The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models. Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, AK, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than ``science fiction.'' That is not Senator Inhofe talking. That is the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, who ought to know a little bit about the Arctic. In fact, after years of hearing about the computer-generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models. This threat is originating from the software installed on hard drives of the publicity-seeking climate modelers. It is long past time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria. One final point--and there are many. We have made seven talks, averaging about an hour apiece, about the flawed science. One final point about the science: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask: What if you are wrong, Inhofe, to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol? My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of them came true. Yet it never stopped the doomsayers from predicting a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco- doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scare mongering on climate change: scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen; former Colorado State climatologist, Roger Pielke, Sr.; the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy; Virginia State climatologist Patrick Michaels; Colorado State University's William Gray; atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer; Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Oregon State climatologist George Taylor; astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few. You never hear about these well-established scientists. More important, it is the global warming alarmists who should ask the question: What if they are correct about manmade catastrophic global warming? They have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades they have been hyping this issue. If the alarmists truly believe that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis. It is long past time for them to separate symbolism from fact. Let me show you this. This is a chart I used on the floor before. A very prominent Senator from the Northeast who bought into this hoax called global warming--after he researched this chart, found it was true. This chart says in the event that everything is true that they have said about global warming, and if all of the countries--I am talking about the developing nations, as well as the developed nations--adhere to or achieve Kyoto goals, this is the difference it would make by 2050. It is not even measurable. A final point on the science of climate change. Again, I am approached by many in the media and others who ask what if you are wrong? I think the answer is that they have been wrong all along. The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. Keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the ratifying nations. Fifteen European nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and 13 have not made their goals. So they are not going to be able to do it. Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain. Legislation that has been proposed in this Chamber would have even less of a temperature effect than Kyoto's undetectable impact. And more recently, global warming alarmists and the media have been praising California for taking action to limit CO2. But here again this costly, feel-good, California measure, which is actually far less severe than Kyoto, will have no impact on the climate, only the economy. Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis. In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, such as Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is fine, but to somehow imply that we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd. Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis. But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world's poor that is being lost in this debate. The Kyoto Protocol's post-2012 agenda, which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases, could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions such as Africa, Asia, and South America, where some of the Earth's most energy-deprived people currently reside. Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the Green Movement as a threat to the planet's health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death. If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policymakers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world, billions of people will continue to suffer. Last week, my committee heard testimony from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed leftwing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that the movement preached was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called ``The Skeptical Environmentalist'' and has organized some of the world's top Nobel laureates to form the 2004 ``Copenhagen Consensus,'' which ranked the world's most pressing problems. Guess what. They place global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet's priorities. The ``Copenhagen Consensus'' found that the most important priorities for our planet include combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made a lot of trips to Africa. A lot of people know I have had a mission there for well over 10 years now. Once you see the devastating poverty--we think we have poverty in this country. Well, if you saw their poverty and the kids running through the junk piles and rats biting at the heels of their bloody feet, you would realize that these fears about global warming are severely misguided. I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so [[Page 19157]] much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions, such as the Kyoto protocol. One of your favorite Frenchmen, Mr. President, Jacques Chirac, the French President, provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, when in 2000 he said Kyoto represents not climate change but represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Furthermore, if your goal is to limit CO2 emissions, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more effective technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond. The Bush administration and my Environment and Public Works Committee--the committee I chair--have been engaged in these efforts as we work to expand nuclear power and promote the Asian-Pacific Partnership. This partnership stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations, including three of the world's top 10 emitters-- China, India, and Korea--all of whom are exempt from Kyoto. Keep in mind, even if all these charts were true and everyone is going to comply with this, we passed in this Chamber just a very short while ago, by a unanimous vote, 96 to 0, legislation that said if you come back with any kind of treaty where we are going to treat developing nations differently from developed nations, we are going to oppose it. So it is unanimously opposed. Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and have instead become committed advocates for the issue. Here is a quote from Newsweek. You have to listen to this, Mr. President. This is very important. I am going to quiz you later. This is a quote from Newsweek magazine: There are numerous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. A headline in the New York Times reads: Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output. Here is another quote from Time magazine: As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climate upheaval. All this sounds very ominous. That is until one realizes that the three quotes I just read are from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek magazine and the New York Times, and Time magazine in 1974. They were not referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age. The same people who were hysterical back then are using the same words to describe what is happening today. Let me repeat: All three of those quotes were published in the 1970s warning of a coming ice age. An ice age is coming; we are all going to die. In addition to global cooling fears, Time magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example: [Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right . . . weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer. Before one thinks that this is just another example of the media promoting former Vice President Gore's movie, one needs to know that the quote I just read is from Time magazine and not a recent quote. It is from January 22, 1939. Yes, in 1939--9 years before former Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time magazine began hyping a coming ice age, and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming. Time magazine, in 1951, pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming. In 1952, the New York Times noted that the ``trump card'' of global warming ``has been the melting glaciers.'' But the media could not decide between warming or cooling scares. There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares. They don't really care. They just want to scare you. They want to make sure you are scared, and then they are satisfied. Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching ice age: Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again. That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995. A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.'' The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its existence against the cold.'' An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared: Ice Age Coming Here. By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming. This is the 1930s: America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise. That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada. The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and Switzerland would be ``entirely obliterated.'' A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.'' The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.'' These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of the former Vice President's brand of climate alarmism, an alarmism he believes will put him back in the White House. After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom. Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented today can be found in a publication entitled ``Fire and Ice'' from the Business and Media Institute. Which raises the question: How has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge. On February 19 of this year, CBS News's ``60 Minutes'' produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast that he barely got off an iceberg before it collapsed into the water. Mr. President, ``60 Minutes'' failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass and that, according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. If you see this film, they will say it is the warmest it has ever been. It is just not true. By the way, around the edges of ice caps there is a phenomenon known as [[Page 19158]] calving. So when it becomes thicker in the middle, it melts a little on the outside, but the overall volume density increases. On March 19 of this year, ``60 Minutes'' profiled NASA scientists and alarmist James Hansen who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen. The ``60 Minutes'' segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democratic Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the leftwing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. I guess she is Teresa Heinz now. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for the presidency in 2004. He is a political activist. This was never mentioned in the ``60 Minutes'' segment. Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely failed to note Hansen's huge grant from the leftwing Heinz Foundation. The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money. Mr. President, ``60 Minutes'' also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of ``Natural Science'' that the use of ``extreme scenarios'' to dramatize climate change ``may have been appropriate one time'' to drive the public's attention on the issue. In other words, it is all right to lie in order to drive the public's attention to an issue that you want them to have and to that opinion. Why would ``60 Minutes'' ignore the basic tenets of journalism that call for objectivity and balance in sourcing and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News Web site that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of ``Holocaust deniers.'' This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled ``The North Pole Was Here.'' The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be ``easier to sail to than stand on'' the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting the aspect of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at our kids. In April of this year, Time magazine devoted an issue to global warming alarmism entitled ``Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.'' This is the same Time magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in the 1920s before it switched to warning about global warming in the 1930s, before it switched again to promoting the 1970s coming ice age scare. The April 3, 2006, global warming special report of Time magazine was a prime example of the media's shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan leftwing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism. Headlines blared: ``More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought.'' ``Earth is at the Tipping Point.'' ``The Climate is Crashing.'' Time magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views of scientists skeptical of this alleged climate disaster. I don't have journalism training, but I daresay calling a bunch of environmental groups with an obvious fundraising agenda and asking them to make wild speculations on how bad global warming might become is nothing more than advocacy for leftwing causes. It is a violation of basic journalistic standards. To his credit, New York Times reporter Revkin saw fit to criticize Time magazine for its embarrassing coverage of climate science. So in the end, Time's cover story title of ``Be Worried, Be Very Worried'' appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried--they should be very worried--of such shoddy journalism. As to Al Gore's inconvenient truth, in May, our Nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time. Former Vice President Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' in addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press, and of course they had the elitists, from Hollywood. On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared: ``Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.'' The article quoted only five scientists--two thumbs up, five scientists. They were praising Gore's science, despite the Associated Press having contacted over 100 scientists. The fact that over 80 percent of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore's brand of climate alarmism. Let's keep in mind, they said it is thumbs up, 100 percent of the scientists, and it was only 5 out of the 100. I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science, and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President's film and in his book of the same name. Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT, has written about ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' He is talking about Al Gore and his movie. This is a scientist, Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT: A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. That is exactly what Al Gore is doing. What follows is a brief summary of the science the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way: He promoted the now debunked ``hockey stick'' temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate. He attempted to minimize the significance of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. He insists on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist. He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer than they are today. He claimed the Antarctic is warming and losing ice but failed to note that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice. This is the Antarctic. He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing. He erroneously claimed that the icecap on Mount Kilimanjaro is disappearing because of global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame ice loss on local land-use practices. What they are talking about here is they had deforested the area down below. That was the reason. It had nothing to do with CO2, obviously. He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific consensus and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature. He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing. He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits. He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving. [[Page 19159]] He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. That was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie. There wouldn't be enough time to deliver the speech today. So along comes Tom Brokaw. Following the promotion of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' the press did not miss a beat in their role as advocates for global warming fears. ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment. In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth's climate. You don't have to take my word for the program's overwhelming bias. A Bloomberg TV news review noted: ``You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program'' because of its lack of scientific objectivity. Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter-million-dollar grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore's Hollywood movie. Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer, of the group Environmental Defense, accusing skeptics of being bought out by fossil fuel interests. The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by 3 to 1. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to $7 million spent by the oil and gas industry through political action committees in the 2004 election cycle. I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is always: Not enough, especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns. Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and the author of a 2004 Science magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100 percent consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Al Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' However, the analysis in Science magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser. Peiser also pointed out that less than 2 percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called ``consensus view'' that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view. Oreskes called 2 percent, 100 percent. But despite this manufactured ``consensus,'' the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism. As the dog days of August rolled in, the American people were once again hit with more hot hype regarding global warming, this time from the New York Times op-ed pages. A columnist penned an August 3 column filled with so many inaccuracies it is a wonder the editor of the Times saw fit to publish it. For instance, Bob Herbert's column made dubious claims about polar bears, the snows of Kilimanjaro, and he attempted to link this past summer's heat wave in the United States to global warming--something even the alarmist James Hansen does not support. Finally, a September 15, 2006, Reuters News article claimed that polar bears in the Arctic are threatened with extinction by global warming. The article by correspondent Alister Doyle quoted a visitor to the Arctic--now listen to this, Mr. President--a visitor to the Arctic who claimed he saw two distressed polar bears. According to the Reuters article, the man noted that one of the polar bears looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted. The article did not state the bears were actually dead or exhausted, they merely looked that way. Have we really arrived at the point where major news outlets in the United States are reduced to analyzing whether polar bears in the Arctic appear restful? How reporting such as this gets approved for publication by the editors at Reuters, I don't know. What happened to covering the hard science in this issue? What was missing from the Reuters News article was the fact that according to biologists who study animals, polar bears are doing quite well. Biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, which is a territory of Canada, refuted these claims in May when he noted that--this is a quote. Keep in mind I am quoting the biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government. He said: Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present. Sadly, it appears that reporting anecdotes and hearsay is now fast replacing the tenets of journalism for many media outlets. It is an inconvenient truth that so far 2006 has been a year in which most major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare to question the premise of manmade catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and their research funding dry up. The media has so relentlessly promoted global warming fears that a British group called the Institute For Public Policy Research--and this from a left-leaning group--issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what they termed ``climate porn'' in order to attract the public's attention. Bob Carter, a paleoclimate geologist from James Cook University in Australia, has described how the media promotes this kind of fear: Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ``if,'' ``might,'' ``could,'' ``probably,'' ``perhaps,'' ``expected,'' ``projected,'' or ``modeled,'' and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts or principles, that they are akin to nonsense. He concluded this in an op-ed in April of this year. Another example of this relentless hype is the reporting on the seemingly endless number of global warming impact studies which do not even address whether global warming is going to happen. They merely project the impact of potential temperature increases. The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming-linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media's addiction to so-called ``climate porn'' has failed to seduce many Americans. According to a July Pew Research Center poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it is from natural factors or not happening at all. This is significantly down from the previous polls. In [[Page 19160]] addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise. It is nothing short of a miracle and amazing that the American people are not buying this alarmism. It is all they see on TV. It is all they hear about. I would rather believe the American people know when their intelligence is being insulted and they know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left. The American people deserve much better from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue. Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific ``consensus'' of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. I used to get this all the time from the left. They say: Well, the consensus is already there; we don't want to talk about science. No wonder they don't--because most of the science since 1999 has refuted everything they are asserting. After all, there was a so-called scientific consensus that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted. I am a realist. I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, stop ignoring legitimate voices in this scientific debate, and stop being used by the hysterical left. Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells and it is very profitable, but I really believe the issue is getting worn out. They have not been able to come up with anything to support their side. And as Winston Churchill said: The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may destroy it, but there it is. And it will be there, and we will understand. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________

Yikes!

Hey, I just posted proof that the magazine cover was fake after surabi's post showed the fake.

It certainly brought the few deniers left out of the woodwork.

Calm down, guys. And stop burning so much fossil fuel.

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

I'm willing to bet that no one Cliffy posts a giagantiic amount of useless drivel by a senator - with NO climate experience, no climate background - no scientific background as his Climate hero! way to go cliffy - good luck with picking your baker to do your next open heart surgery! I'm sure his level of expertise is suitable for you! _

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

Yikes! Hey, I just posted proof that the magazine cover was fake after surabi's post showed the fake. It certainly brought the few deniers left out of the woodwork. Calm down, guys. And stop burning so much fossil fuel.

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark

CA13, Goat, Too bad you can’t read and just check spelling! Read the Yale article and comment on that! I’m not denying anything. I’m saying that doing what you demand won’t solve the problem. The reason is that it doesn’t address the major sources of human and preventable natural pollution worldwide. The major source of CO2 is burning stuff not driving your car or running your AC. Both man and nature burn stuff. Nature has burned the wild lands for so long it has become a part of the natural renewal cycle. If the money spent on less important reductions was spent on technology and equipment to control unwanted fires and education about the environmental damage they cause much more would be accomplished. You could photo-op the celebs clearing brush rather than flying in jets to conferences about restricting the sale or use of stuff! [Edited on 4-28-2023 by RFClark]

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH   Yikes! Hey, I just posted proof that the magazine cover was fake after surabi's post showed the fake. It certainly brought the few deniers left out of the woodwork. Calm down, guys. And stop burning so much fossil fuel. Stop trying to redirect from the main point. What the meme purports to tell us, is that Lib's have been making utterly false predictions for 60 years and have in fact made 100% contradictory predictions.

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark

CA13, Goat, Too bad you can’t read and just check spelling! Read the Yale article and comment on that! I’m not denying anything. I’m saying that doing what you demand won’t solve the problem. The reason is that it doesn’t address the major sources of human and preventable natural pollution worldwide. The major source of CO2 is burning stuff not driving your car or running your AC. Both man and nature burn stuff. Nature has burned the wild lands for so long it has become a part of the natural renewal cycle. If the money spent on less important reductions was spent on technology and equipment to control unwanted fires and education about the environmental damage they cause much more would be accomplished. You could photo-op the celebs clearing brush rather than flying in jets to conferences about restricting the sale or use of stuff! [Edited on 4-28-2023 by RFClark]

Quote: Originally posted by David K

Folks, it was Newsweek, not Time.

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

I'm willing to bet that no one will read the entire speech by Sen Inhofe in the Congressional Record from 2006 It sets the record straight and settles the arguments here but alas none of the climate alarmists will read it and learn how far off base they really are. ITS VERY LONG VERY DETAILED WITH NOTABLE QUOTATIONS Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time. It is the word that gets everybody upset when you say it and the word or the phrase that many politicians are afraid to say, and that is ``global warming.'' I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches I have made on this subject, as I focus not only on the science, as I have many times before, but on the media's coverage of climate change. Global warming--just the term--evokes many Members in this Chamber, the media, Hollywood elites, and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the Senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I will address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in this issue. And, of course, I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' Let's keep in mind, I do chair the committee in the Senate called Environment and Public Works, the committee that has jurisdiction. I recall so well when I first became chairman of this committee, almost 4 years ago, I was actually a believer that because I had heard it so many times there must be something to this thing, until I started looking at the science. But I have talked about that before. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and global warming scares during four separate [[Page 19155]] and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930s, the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s, they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the last 100 years--and every time just as hysterical as the time before. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which links every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely on into global warming advocacy. First, I will summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects the United Nations, environmental groups, and the media have promoted as the ``smoking gun'' of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called hockey stick temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann from Virginia and some of his liberal colleagues. This graph purported to show that temperatures in the northern hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, and then spiked upward as we moved into the 20th century. And that spike would be the ``blade'' on the hockey stick. They say this was due to human activity. Mann, who also copublishes a global warming propaganda blog--reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group--had his hockey stick come under severe scrutiny. The hockey stick was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the hockey stick. The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warming Period. That was from about 900 AD to 1300 AD, and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to approximately 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity and it could not have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland. We all remember reading about that. That was a period of time when the Vikings, all of a sudden, because it became warmer back around 1000 AD, started inhabiting Greenland. They flourished up there, until the Little Ice Age came along in 1500, and most of them died at that time. Now the climate alarmists have attempted to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Demming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify firsthand about this effort. Dr. Demming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. He says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank: We have to get rid of the medieval warming period. When the ``hockey stick'' first appeared in 1998, it did exactly that. This guy, Michael Mann, turned around and ignored the fact that we had this medieval warming period and then went into the little ice age, which changed it. The media has missed big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the 1-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase in the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the 1-degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement in living standards, life expectancy, food production, and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend. Here on the chart you can see during this period of time, when things were flourishing and they went down, it was far more prosperous during the medieval part. Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the little ice age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove manmade global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the little ice age is like comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend. In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that CO2 has been the driving force in global warming. The alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the little ice age in about 1850, long before manmade CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then in about 1940, just as manmade CO2 emissions rose sharply-- about 80 percent, with the largest increase in the middle of the 1940s--the temperatures began a decline, and that lasted until about the 1970s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. I am saying that this increase in CO2 emissions did not precipitate a warming period; it precipitated a cooling period. If CO2 is the driving force of the global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths? My skeptical views on manmade catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the past few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder, and ice is growing. And a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the Sun was responsible for 50 percent of the 20th century warming. Now, that is shocking: the Sun is responsible for warmth. Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the Sun's output. It is going to start getting cooler again. A letter that was sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of the scientific knowledge on global warming. Keep in mind, these 60 scientists were the ones who recommended back in the 1990s that Canada sign onto the Kyoto Treaty. They wrote this to Prime Minister Harper: If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded that it was not necessary. The letter also noted: ``Climate change is real'' is a meaningless phase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from the natural ``noise.'' These are scientists talking. People realize that these cycles go on. God is still up there, and we have the cycles every 1,500 years or so. Every time this happens, alarmists get this out and say we are all going to die. One of the ways alarmists have pounded the mantra of a ``consensus'' [[Page 19156]] on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models that project future calamity. But the science is not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel--they started like most bad things do, with the U.N. Back in the 1990s they came out with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Dr. Gray said: The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models. Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, AK, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than ``science fiction.'' That is not Senator Inhofe talking. That is the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, who ought to know a little bit about the Arctic. In fact, after years of hearing about the computer-generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models. This threat is originating from the software installed on hard drives of the publicity-seeking climate modelers. It is long past time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria. One final point--and there are many. We have made seven talks, averaging about an hour apiece, about the flawed science. One final point about the science: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask: What if you are wrong, Inhofe, to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol? My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of them came true. Yet it never stopped the doomsayers from predicting a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco- doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scare mongering on climate change: scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen; former Colorado State climatologist, Roger Pielke, Sr.; the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy; Virginia State climatologist Patrick Michaels; Colorado State University's William Gray; atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer; Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Oregon State climatologist George Taylor; astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few. You never hear about these well-established scientists. More important, it is the global warming alarmists who should ask the question: What if they are correct about manmade catastrophic global warming? They have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades they have been hyping this issue. If the alarmists truly believe that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis. It is long past time for them to separate symbolism from fact. Let me show you this. This is a chart I used on the floor before. A very prominent Senator from the Northeast who bought into this hoax called global warming--after he researched this chart, found it was true. This chart says in the event that everything is true that they have said about global warming, and if all of the countries--I am talking about the developing nations, as well as the developed nations--adhere to or achieve Kyoto goals, this is the difference it would make by 2050. It is not even measurable. A final point on the science of climate change. Again, I am approached by many in the media and others who ask what if you are wrong? I think the answer is that they have been wrong all along. The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. Keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the ratifying nations. Fifteen European nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and 13 have not made their goals. So they are not going to be able to do it. Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain. Legislation that has been proposed in this Chamber would have even less of a temperature effect than Kyoto's undetectable impact. And more recently, global warming alarmists and the media have been praising California for taking action to limit CO2. But here again this costly, feel-good, California measure, which is actually far less severe than Kyoto, will have no impact on the climate, only the economy. Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis. In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, such as Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is fine, but to somehow imply that we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd. Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis. But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world's poor that is being lost in this debate. The Kyoto Protocol's post-2012 agenda, which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases, could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions such as Africa, Asia, and South America, where some of the Earth's most energy-deprived people currently reside. Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the Green Movement as a threat to the planet's health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death. If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policymakers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world, billions of people will continue to suffer. Last week, my committee heard testimony from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed leftwing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that the movement preached was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called ``The Skeptical Environmentalist'' and has organized some of the world's top Nobel laureates to form the 2004 ``Copenhagen Consensus,'' which ranked the world's most pressing problems. Guess what. They place global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet's priorities. The ``Copenhagen Consensus'' found that the most important priorities for our planet include combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made a lot of trips to Africa. A lot of people know I have had a mission there for well over 10 years now. Once you see the devastating poverty--we think we have poverty in this country. Well, if you saw their poverty and the kids running through the junk piles and rats biting at the heels of their bloody feet, you would realize that these fears about global warming are severely misguided. I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so [[Page 19157]] much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions, such as the Kyoto protocol. One of your favorite Frenchmen, Mr. President, Jacques Chirac, the French President, provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, when in 2000 he said Kyoto represents not climate change but represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Furthermore, if your goal is to limit CO2 emissions, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more effective technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond. The Bush administration and my Environment and Public Works Committee--the committee I chair--have been engaged in these efforts as we work to expand nuclear power and promote the Asian-Pacific Partnership. This partnership stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations, including three of the world's top 10 emitters-- China, India, and Korea--all of whom are exempt from Kyoto. Keep in mind, even if all these charts were true and everyone is going to comply with this, we passed in this Chamber just a very short while ago, by a unanimous vote, 96 to 0, legislation that said if you come back with any kind of treaty where we are going to treat developing nations differently from developed nations, we are going to oppose it. So it is unanimously opposed. Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and have instead become committed advocates for the issue. Here is a quote from Newsweek. You have to listen to this, Mr. President. This is very important. I am going to quiz you later. This is a quote from Newsweek magazine: There are numerous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. A headline in the New York Times reads: Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output. Here is another quote from Time magazine: As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climate upheaval. All this sounds very ominous. That is until one realizes that the three quotes I just read are from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek magazine and the New York Times, and Time magazine in 1974. They were not referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age. The same people who were hysterical back then are using the same words to describe what is happening today. Let me repeat: All three of those quotes were published in the 1970s warning of a coming ice age. An ice age is coming; we are all going to die. In addition to global cooling fears, Time magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example: [Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right . . . weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer. Before one thinks that this is just another example of the media promoting former Vice President Gore's movie, one needs to know that the quote I just read is from Time magazine and not a recent quote. It is from January 22, 1939. Yes, in 1939--9 years before former Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time magazine began hyping a coming ice age, and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming. Time magazine, in 1951, pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming. In 1952, the New York Times noted that the ``trump card'' of global warming ``has been the melting glaciers.'' But the media could not decide between warming or cooling scares. There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares. They don't really care. They just want to scare you. They want to make sure you are scared, and then they are satisfied. Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching ice age: Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again. That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995. A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.'' The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its existence against the cold.'' An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared: Ice Age Coming Here. By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming. This is the 1930s: America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise. That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada. The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and Switzerland would be ``entirely obliterated.'' A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.'' The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.'' These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of the former Vice President's brand of climate alarmism, an alarmism he believes will put him back in the White House. After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom. Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented today can be found in a publication entitled ``Fire and Ice'' from the Business and Media Institute. Which raises the question: How has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge. On February 19 of this year, CBS News's ``60 Minutes'' produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast that he barely got off an iceberg before it collapsed into the water. Mr. President, ``60 Minutes'' failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass and that, according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. If you see this film, they will say it is the warmest it has ever been. It is just not true. By the way, around the edges of ice caps there is a phenomenon known as [[Page 19158]] calving. So when it becomes thicker in the middle, it melts a little on the outside, but the overall volume density increases. On March 19 of this year, ``60 Minutes'' profiled NASA scientists and alarmist James Hansen who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen. The ``60 Minutes'' segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democratic Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the leftwing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. I guess she is Teresa Heinz now. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for the presidency in 2004. He is a political activist. This was never mentioned in the ``60 Minutes'' segment. Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely failed to note Hansen's huge grant from the leftwing Heinz Foundation. The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money. Mr. President, ``60 Minutes'' also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of ``Natural Science'' that the use of ``extreme scenarios'' to dramatize climate change ``may have been appropriate one time'' to drive the public's attention on the issue. In other words, it is all right to lie in order to drive the public's attention to an issue that you want them to have and to that opinion. Why would ``60 Minutes'' ignore the basic tenets of journalism that call for objectivity and balance in sourcing and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News Web site that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of ``Holocaust deniers.'' This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled ``The North Pole Was Here.'' The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be ``easier to sail to than stand on'' the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting the aspect of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at our kids. In April of this year, Time magazine devoted an issue to global warming alarmism entitled ``Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.'' This is the same Time magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in the 1920s before it switched to warning about global warming in the 1930s, before it switched again to promoting the 1970s coming ice age scare. The April 3, 2006, global warming special report of Time magazine was a prime example of the media's shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan leftwing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism. Headlines blared: ``More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought.'' ``Earth is at the Tipping Point.'' ``The Climate is Crashing.'' Time magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views of scientists skeptical of this alleged climate disaster. I don't have journalism training, but I daresay calling a bunch of environmental groups with an obvious fundraising agenda and asking them to make wild speculations on how bad global warming might become is nothing more than advocacy for leftwing causes. It is a violation of basic journalistic standards. To his credit, New York Times reporter Revkin saw fit to criticize Time magazine for its embarrassing coverage of climate science. So in the end, Time's cover story title of ``Be Worried, Be Very Worried'' appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried--they should be very worried--of such shoddy journalism. As to Al Gore's inconvenient truth, in May, our Nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time. Former Vice President Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' in addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press, and of course they had the elitists, from Hollywood. On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared: ``Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.'' The article quoted only five scientists--two thumbs up, five scientists. They were praising Gore's science, despite the Associated Press having contacted over 100 scientists. The fact that over 80 percent of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore's brand of climate alarmism. Let's keep in mind, they said it is thumbs up, 100 percent of the scientists, and it was only 5 out of the 100. I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science, and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President's film and in his book of the same name. Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT, has written about ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' He is talking about Al Gore and his movie. This is a scientist, Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT: A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. That is exactly what Al Gore is doing. What follows is a brief summary of the science the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way: He promoted the now debunked ``hockey stick'' temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate. He attempted to minimize the significance of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. He insists on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist. He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer than they are today. He claimed the Antarctic is warming and losing ice but failed to note that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice. This is the Antarctic. He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing. He erroneously claimed that the icecap on Mount Kilimanjaro is disappearing because of global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame ice loss on local land-use practices. What they are talking about here is they had deforested the area down below. That was the reason. It had nothing to do with CO2, obviously. He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific consensus and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature. He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing. He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits. He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving. [[Page 19159]] He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. That was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie. There wouldn't be enough time to deliver the speech today. So along comes Tom Brokaw. Following the promotion of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' the press did not miss a beat in their role as advocates for global warming fears. ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment. In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth's climate. You don't have to take my word for the program's overwhelming bias. A Bloomberg TV news review noted: ``You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program'' because of its lack of scientific objectivity. Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter-million-dollar grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore's Hollywood movie. Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer, of the group Environmental Defense, accusing skeptics of being bought out by fossil fuel interests. The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by 3 to 1. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to $7 million spent by the oil and gas industry through political action committees in the 2004 election cycle. I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is always: Not enough, especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns. Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and the author of a 2004 Science magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100 percent consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Al Gore's ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' However, the analysis in Science magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser. Peiser also pointed out that less than 2 percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called ``consensus view'' that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view. Oreskes called 2 percent, 100 percent. But despite this manufactured ``consensus,'' the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism. As the dog days of August rolled in, the American people were once again hit with more hot hype regarding global warming, this time from the New York Times op-ed pages. A columnist penned an August 3 column filled with so many inaccuracies it is a wonder the editor of the Times saw fit to publish it. For instance, Bob Herbert's column made dubious claims about polar bears, the snows of Kilimanjaro, and he attempted to link this past summer's heat wave in the United States to global warming--something even the alarmist James Hansen does not support. Finally, a September 15, 2006, Reuters News article claimed that polar bears in the Arctic are threatened with extinction by global warming. The article by correspondent Alister Doyle quoted a visitor to the Arctic--now listen to this, Mr. President--a visitor to the Arctic who claimed he saw two distressed polar bears. According to the Reuters article, the man noted that one of the polar bears looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted. The article did not state the bears were actually dead or exhausted, they merely looked that way. Have we really arrived at the point where major news outlets in the United States are reduced to analyzing whether polar bears in the Arctic appear restful? How reporting such as this gets approved for publication by the editors at Reuters, I don't know. What happened to covering the hard science in this issue? What was missing from the Reuters News article was the fact that according to biologists who study animals, polar bears are doing quite well. Biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, which is a territory of Canada, refuted these claims in May when he noted that--this is a quote. Keep in mind I am quoting the biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government. He said: Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present. Sadly, it appears that reporting anecdotes and hearsay is now fast replacing the tenets of journalism for many media outlets. It is an inconvenient truth that so far 2006 has been a year in which most major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare to question the premise of manmade catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and their research funding dry up. The media has so relentlessly promoted global warming fears that a British group called the Institute For Public Policy Research--and this from a left-leaning group--issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what they termed ``climate porn'' in order to attract the public's attention. Bob Carter, a paleoclimate geologist from James Cook University in Australia, has described how the media promotes this kind of fear: Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ``if,'' ``might,'' ``could,'' ``probably,'' ``perhaps,'' ``expected,'' ``projected,'' or ``modeled,'' and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts or principles, that they are akin to nonsense. He concluded this in an op-ed in April of this year. Another example of this relentless hype is the reporting on the seemingly endless number of global warming impact studies which do not even address whether global warming is going to happen. They merely project the impact of potential temperature increases. The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming-linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media's addiction to so-called ``climate porn'' has failed to seduce many Americans. According to a July Pew Research Center poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it is from natural factors or not happening at all. This is significantly down from the previous polls. In [[Page 19160]] addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise. It is nothing short of a miracle and amazing that the American people are not buying this alarmism. It is all they see on TV. It is all they hear about. I would rather believe the American people know when their intelligence is being insulted and they know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left. The American people deserve much better from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue. Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific ``consensus'' of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. I used to get this all the time from the left. They say: Well, the consensus is already there; we don't want to talk about science. No wonder they don't--because most of the science since 1999 has refuted everything they are asserting. After all, there was a so-called scientific consensus that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted. I am a realist. I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, stop ignoring legitimate voices in this scientific debate, and stop being used by the hysterical left. Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells and it is very profitable, but I really believe the issue is getting worn out. They have not been able to come up with anything to support their side. And as Winston Churchill said: The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may destroy it, but there it is. And it will be there, and we will understand. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________

An interesting news bit about panels and blades...

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

Or possibly someone who "identifies" as a sweet young woman?

I really like my induction cooktop!

Soon new home residents in NY state will be feeling the love too


New York becomes the first state to ban natural gas stoves and furnaces in most new buildings

CNN — New York is the first state in the country to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings – a major win for climate advocates, but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests.

Facing mounting pressure from environmental advocates and climate-minded voters, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic lawmakers, who control the New York Senate and Assembly, approved the new $229 billion state budget containing the provision late Tuesday night.

The law bans gas-powered stoves, furnaces and propane heating and effectively encourages the use of climate-friendly appliances such as heat pumps and induction stoves in most new residential buildings across the state. It requires all-electric heating and cooking in new buildings shorter than seven stories by 2026, and for taller buildings by 2029.

Thanks for the clean up!

Come burn with me!

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck

I'm really going to miss those backyard wiener and marshmallow roasts over a waste wood fire with the grandkids tho. And whats a camping trip without the campfire to sit around and share stories? It was hard enough adjusting to the fake propane fire pits....but electric?

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark

S, Actually you were forced to wear a mask. The police in Melbourne can be viewed clubbing anti-mask protesters in a number of places on the internet. In Los Angeles we were forced to wear masks, some businesses were closed and travel was restricted as well. BCS banned beer and liquor sales and then regulated sales hours. (GFE) [Edited on 5-10-2023 by RFClark]

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH   Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy   The problem comes in when it is a mandated policy for everyone to comply to. Have EVs been mandated anywhere in the US? Are mandates planned? If so by who, when, and where? Have you not been following the news?

Quote: Originally posted by Lee

In Loreto, police were harassing tourists who weren't masked. Didn't happen in LA. Snowflakes whining: I was forced to wear a mask. I didn't feel safe. Bet you lose sleep over this stuff.

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark

S, Hindsight is 20/20. I worked in Critical Care Medicine back then. Initially no-one understood what all the vectors were! As a result people died from receiving blood, blood fractions, blood derived products and just about any medical product or device that had a human component. That included contaminated equipment with multiple users. Initially almost everyone with symptoms died period! It was very scary! The total number of deaths from AIDS is more than 40 million and in 2022 deaths were still running 800K per year. The 2 epidemics are not in the same league. Yet the different approaches are amazing. [Edited on 5-11-2023 by RFClark]

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

I'd rather err on the safe side. Besides, switching to renewable energy sources is a smart thing to do for many reasons.

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

Petroleum fuels are dirty, cause air pollution. Always good to reduce or eliminate petroleum use where possible.

Quote: Originally posted by caj13

I have never understood this mysterious wasted money - and costing us money? seriously? I have repeatedly asked JZ, RC, etc -to educate me on these "costs" associated with green energy - and so far - for some unknown reason? they all seem to ignore my request to be educated with their secret facts and information sources! so i went solar - My energy bill is $0. the cost of my panels and the system install was offset in just 3.5 years - since then they system makes me money. (and it is charging my EV - so guess what - the car is very cheap to run - no fuel - much less maintenance . I made those decisions based on the benefits to the environment AND the economic gains I would get. How is that costing me money? and no - nope - no government ever demanded / required I did that. In the mean time - the economy has benefited immensely by green technologies - at the same time oil companies are reporting record profits (I know - I know - lets keep that quiet - how can we Blame Biden for our high fuel costs when the money is going into the oil companies pockets?) So for me - doing my part pays me real $ - it benefits the economy - and helps with the environment - how is that an issue for anyone? I know - Damn&d facts keep getting in the way of the MAGA Gospel you have bought into. I'm sorry for making your brain explode! v [Edited on 5-10-2023 by caj13]

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck

Elon Musk continues to drive price drops in EV's, especially the cheapest model, while the other manufacturers are driving prices up. The F-150 Lightning Pro was available to Californians for under 30,000 when it was first sold after rebates, so there must be a few people out there that bought at those prices. Unfortunately, it is now far more expensive as demand and availability drove price increases out of the reach of the majority.

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark

Goat, Most of the wood or worse for cooking and the slash and burn agriculture is done by poor 3rd world people as is most of the coal burning these days! But blame your political enemies is how it works.

Quote: Originally posted by TMW

I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use.

Quote: Originally posted by TMW

I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use.

Quote: Originally posted by TMW

I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use.

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote: Originally posted by TMW   I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use. Why should local govt agencies get free cars? That just increases car price for everybody else.

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Quote: Originally posted by TMW   I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use. Curious why you say that? Not disagreeing with you, but curious the rational. They are very fast.

Quote: Originally posted by TMW

I just think it would be a great public relations story and how better to insert thousands of EV cars into the the system. They would be on open display for the public to see how well they function.

Quote: Originally posted by TMW

Quote: Originally posted by JZ   Quote: Originally posted by TMW   I think the manufactures of electric vehicles should give all police and sheriffs departments ev's to use. Curious why you say that? Not disagreeing with you, but curious the rational. They are very fast. I just think it would be a great public relations story and how better to insert thousands of EV cars into the the system. They would be on open display for the public to see how well they function.

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

I see elec cars everywhere, the tide has turned, most people prefer e cars… new ice cars will be extinct in 15 years. [Edited on 5-13-2023 by mtgoat666]

Just bought my wife a Genesis GV70 for mother's day. 370hp. Went with forest green to help with the environment. Might go EV next time.






[Edited on 5-14-2023 by JZ]

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666   I see elec cars everywhere, the tide has turned, most people prefer e cars… new ice cars will be extinct in 15 years. [Edited on 5-13-2023 by mtgoat666] Just bought my wife a Genesis GV70 for mother's day. 370hp. Went with forest green to help with environment. Might go EV next time.

Quote: Originally posted by surabi

Quote: Originally posted by JZ   Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666   I see elec cars everywhere, the tide has turned, most people prefer e cars… new ice cars will be extinct in 15 years. [Edited on 5-13-2023 by mtgoat666] Just bought my wife a Genesis GV70 for mother's day. 370hp. Went with forest green to help with environment. Might go EV next time. What possible reason is there to post a giant photo of the shiny new car you bought your wife except to brag for attention.