HorsesAss.Org

An inconvenient bestseller

by — ,

When the New York Times bestseller list comes out on July 2, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth will sit in the number one spot atop the Paperback Non-Fiction category… that according to publisher Rodale Inc. Meanwhile the hit film of the same name has just become the tenth highest grossing documentary of all time, with $7.3 million in sales after only four weeks in release.

Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com calls the film a sleeper hit that he predicts will continue strongly as it expands into theaters.

Pandya says the audience for the movie skews older, and adult ticket-buyers don’t always rush out to a film on opening weekend.

Brandon Gray of BoxOfficeMojo.com says Truth could “could double what it has” by the end of summer and cross into the top five documentaries of all time, surpassing Super Size Me, Mad Hot Ballroom and Winged Migration. […] Few documentaries make more than a couple of million dollars in theaters before moving on to DVD and television.

An Inconvenient Truth may not become a blockbuster like Fahrenheit 9/11, but both the film and the book are certainly achieving their goal of educating a large, mainstream audience about the scientific consensus over global warming. If you haven’t already seen it, I urge you to see it now.

Comments

  1. 1

    From the USA Today article,

    In Salt Lake City, the movie is playing in three theaters. “These movies sometimes preach to the choir, but this film seems to be reaching beyond that because it’s not divisive,” says Tori Baker, executive director of Salt Lake Film Society, which runs the Broadway Center Theatre in downtown.

    I would urge anyone who wishes to criticize the movie to see it first. Much of what you’ve been led to believe by Gore’s critics is incorrect. See for yourself.

  2. 2

    You kidding? Ask republicans to actually consider a fucking fact before running to the Lush Flimbaugh or Faux News website for a talking point? That’s like asking a fox to guard a henhouse. The right continually applauds policy that is against their interests. They are so drunk on the Kool Aid that they won’t even consider seeing the movie. And I will tell you one of the biggest reasons they won’t go.

    THEY ARE AFRAID! They are VERY afraid. They don’t want to hear the TRUTH. It would make it impossible for them to reconcile their moronic views. All I can say is that it’s a great movie and the fact that it pisses off the knuckledraggers on the right makes it even greater!

  3. 3

    You kidding? Ask republicans to actually consider a fucking fact before running to the Lush Flimbaugh or Faux News website for a talking point?

    Many can be convinced. For too long the left has allowed the right’s extremists to go unchallenged. When the American people see that they’ve been manipulated, I’m convinced many will support the Democrats. You are correct that there are many others who will ignore or deny basic facts and common sense, but that’s life. We have to make the effort to reach out to those willing to think. It won’t be easy, and it will take time, but the days of the right having free rein to just make stuff up are coming to an end. We should welcome our prodigal brothers, sisters, sons and daughters back into the reality-based community.

  5. 6

    Another TJ @ 3
    Good point. If we listen to rightwing radio, or read the posts of the resident trolls here, it’s easy to become disenchanted and believe that all of those who voted for Bush or call themselves Republicans are impermeable to factual discussions. Such disenchantment heightens when we see evidence of so many people struggling financially who vote against their own economic interest by going with the Republicans because of so-called “values” issues or the right’s fear tactics. In reality, there are undoubtedly many Bush voters who have had enough and are open to Democrats on at least some issues. Raising the minimum wage seems like a good appeal, for instance. We’ll never get JCH or Mark the Redneck to listen to reason, but others on their team are most certainly still open to persuasion.

  6. 7

    This is big! All Democrats must stop driving cars, SUVs, boats, and quit ruining the ozone by flying in airplanes! Show you care! Quit buying gasoline and heating oil in the winter!! [hehe]

  7. 8

    “Raising the minimum wage seems like a good appeal, for instance.” hehe……………Why not raise it to 50 bucks an hour? Them we’ll all be rich! Demand benefits for all!! Free health care and housing and food stamps for everyone!

  8. 9

    Another TJ posted “Many can be convinced. For too long the left has allowed the right’s extremists to go unchallenged…”

    Spot on and very important to remember when those people are talking about this issue with you. Ignore the Flush Flimflaw noise machine.

  9. 10

    Is it possible that we could figure out a way to have global warming kill off the righ wing trolls – NOW?

  10. 11

    5 – That was a stunning presentation. Someone should show this to Peter Goldmark or whoever is running against Do-nothing Hastings.

    Highly recommended. Blows corn ethanol out of the water.

  11. 12

    11.

    I thought the low amount of energy needed to refine the fuel, even the hydrogenation, was amazing.

  12. 13

    Another TJ,

    It isn’t a matter of convincing…… There is nothing you can fucking do about the temperature of the Globe.

    Washington State just passed a law outlawing phosphates in dishwashing soap…. What they didn’t tell you is that less than 5% of the phosphates in the rivers are from dishwashing soap…….. the biggest majority of it is from fertilizers.

    But the last legislature hailed it as being pro rivers and environment. No, it’s not, it’s pandering. Both sides are guilty as sin about it.

    The politicians will scream for everyone to get out of their cars and ride mass transit while they ride in chauffeur driven limos and Lear jets…….

    I want to sit in my living room and play poker online, but some freak politician in Seattle thinks that should be a class C felony.

    Fuck them! What will be – will be!

  13. 14

    6

    “Raising the minimum wage seems like a good appeal, for instance. We’ll never get JCH or Mark the Redneck to listen to reason, but others on their team are most certainly still open to persuasion.’ Commentby proud leftist— 6/23/06@ 11:14 am

    JCH and Redneck are out of touch with the American people on minimum wage. A Pew poll showed 83% of Americans support raising the minimum wage by $2 an hour, and even 76% of Republicans support it.

  14. 15

    Good heavens, you can’t be serious about raising the minimum wage, can you? Next you’ll start thinking these people should be allowed to do things like cast votes that matter. We can’t have that.

    Besides, if you raise the minimum wage there will be that much less money for me. Stop this insane palaver right now, I say!

  15. 16

    13

    Is this the new rightwing talking point? We’re all doomed, so we should continue doing things that harm the environment that sustains our survival?

  16. 17

    “here is nothing you can fucking do about the temperature of the Globe”

    Are we supposed to take the word of a 13-year old inbred moron on this subject?

    If that’s the thinking then how about this. Iraq has been at war for 12000 years. There’s nothing we ca do about it so how about we get the fuck out NOW!

  17. 18

    No, Roger, we shouldn’t do things to harm the environment. We should be realistic. Both parties are guilty as sin about ruining or saving the environment. They support it as long as it doesn’t hurt themselves or their buddies. We should also elect representatives who have a damn clue.

    The wind turbines off of the East Coast are a good example. The rich and famous didn’t want them in their view of the Atlantic… We built big dams to harness the energy, now people are crying over the fish. You cannot have it all, somethings have to be comprimised.

    You cannot stop volcanic eruptions, we couldn’t stop Saddam from burning hundreds of oil wells for months, you cannot stop the Sun from having solar storms.

    I am NOT going back to a horse and buggy. I am not giving up my house, nor my truck.

    Our reliance on fossil fuels should have been stopped decades ago…………

  19. 20

    14.

    Irony alert: The following is a criticism of the text in itallics

    They know what to do about that:

    Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers–by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly–by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless–by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

    This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

    Meaning the people who throw elections, limit voting, install Diebold electronic voting machines and the US Supreme Court are really doing us a big favor. They’re “freeing” us by protecting us from ourselves.

    When your job goes to China, you are more free!

    When the jobs you can get pay too little, because they can always get someone at a poverty wage. You’re more free — improve your skills — go to China!!

    When you die because you have no health care, you are now as free as you can be!

    That Ayn Rand Institute, they’re always thinking!

    Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, California. Send comments to reaction@aynrand.org. Copyright © Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

  20. 21

    I’ve never played poker, I just resent being told what the hell I can do on my computer………. And I resent the reason for the felony law, which was pushed by lobbyists for casinos and poker parlors……….

  21. 22

    Mac — since you’re new around here, I’d like to take this opportunity to educate you that the dams merely finished off what habitat destruction and overfishing started. That’s right, most of the salmon runs were lost before the first dams were built. The two big culprits were:

    1) Early settlers cleared logjams to open rivers for navigation, cut riverbank ancient-growth trees, and drained lowland wetlands for agricultural — in the process destroying the spawning habitat that produced billions of smolts annually; and

    2) The invention of canning to preserve food in the mid-19th century opened distant markets to Northwest fishermen, and the salmon fishery was quickly overexploited, resulting in a crash of salmon populations by the 1890s.

  22. 23

    The Columbia River dams were not built to produce electricity. They were built to create construction jobs during the Depression, and provide irrigation water for farmers. The Columbia Plateau of eastern Washington has rich agricultural soils (due to the region’s young volcanoes) but is arid and doesn’t grow crops unless irrigated. The electricity was a byproduct of the dams that happened to come in real handy when World War II broke out and the U.S. suddenly needed lots of aluminum and power for nuclear reactors. It is not wrong to say the Columbia River dams indirectly won the war for America. But the need for this electricity was not foreseen when the dams were funded by Congress.

  23. 24

    An Incovenient Poll…

    “ A little-publicized ABC News poll suggests that Americans are not buying this media hysteria over global warming. Although 59% tell the pollsters they are “convinced global warming [is] under way,” only 33% “think it will affect [their] own life” and 38% “favor immediate government action.” “

  24. 25

    Roger, I don’t know the history of dams, I grew up in Southern Cal & Nevada and I have toured the Hoover Dam and was up close to the turbines that light up Las Vegas.

    The news stories all seem to indicate that the dams caused the big problems along with pollution. I don’t have a problem with saving Salmon, but I would prefer not to spend billions doing it. It seems that everything in this state is to the “extreme.”
    Every public works project has to a Taj Mahal art project. We have to have a tunnel for the viaduct, the 520 has to have a landscaped lid on it and we have to have 120 million dollars worth of critter bridges on I -90.

    This is by far the most environmental friendly state that I have ever lived in and if you believe the blogs and letters in newspapers you would think the whole state is the pollution capital of the world.

  26. 27

    I’ve never played poker, I just resent being told what the hell I can do on my computer………. And I resent the reason for the felony law, which was pushed by lobbyists for casinos and poker parlors……….

    Following up on my earlier post, with which sgmmac took issue in part…

    First, I was not confining my point to environmental issues, though I believe there is tremendous opportunity for Democrats in this area, particularly in the western states. Democrats do not have the media machine of the Republicans. It’s going to take time to develop our counter-weight, but that process has already begun, and the internets are on the forefront of that effort.

    Second, sgmmac, you have a point, in part. Both parties have their failings. At the national level, it’s clear that the Dems can’t win elections, and the GOP can’t govern. We don’t have the machine, and they don’t have the ideas. At the Washington state level, the Dems have neglected their “farm team” for too long. That’s changing with efforts like (for instance) Progressive Majority and the DNC’s renewed interest in building state organizations.

    For me (and, frankly, any thinking person), the Democratic party is a means to an end. I’m a partisan, but I’m not blind to the party’s failings. There is a strong movement underway to reform the Democratic party – to make it more representative of the people it serves and to focus on winning elections and producing good public policy. If the Dems fail now and then – and they will – it’s because we have a long way to go before we have fixed what has become a calcified, “comfortable” organization. So, sgmmac, don’t give up on the Dems; there are many within the party who are working for change, and, more importantly, we’re winning.

    Also, sgmmac and anyone else who wants to see if there’s anything the Democrats can offer that is worth giving them another look, there are many areas where I believe the Dems are better. One in particular is in the area of privacy. For a good discussion by one of the more thoughtful bloggers, here’s Digby’s take:

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....7315280914

  27. 28

    27.

    This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 2-5, 2005…

    An Inconvenient Truth expanded from 4 to 77 theaters that day.

    Thanks for the baseline data.

  28. 29

    28

    The Northwest salmon fishery was a billion-dollar industry that supported thousands of jobs. The dams obviously don’t help the fish runs, but it appears salmon can co-exist with the dams, albeit in reduced numbers, given careful management. The salmon are worth saving because of their large economic value, and the tribes arguably have a legally enforceable treaty right to a harvestable population of salmon.

    So, how much is it worth to prevent the extinction of these runs? Part of the cost involves giving up some electricity and irrigation water to maintain river flows at critical periods. Thre are also direct expenditures for operation of hatcheries, barging fish around dams, and habitat protection and restoration.

    The 100-million-fish runs of the past are gone; what we’re talking about now is saving the 2% or 3% of those historic runs that still survive. Development won, the fish yielded; preserving our salmon seed stock is a cost of doing business that is rightfully borne by those who use the river for power, irrigation, navigation, and other commercial purposes.

  29. 30

    let me clarify my point.

    I do not think he is supporting a lie. I think the movie represents one side in a scientific debate. The fact is that credible scientific research has been used to refute many of the movies conclusions.

    The movie should do well to encourage research and debate, because there is no consensus.

  30. 31

    In economic terms, it is important to remember that salmon feed in the ocean, and anadromous fish runs up the rivers produce 50 to 100 times as many pounds of fish meat as can be produced from fish living in the reservoirs.

  31. 32

    The deep thinking, philosophy, ideas and plans of todays progressives, {snicker} liberals and d’RATS…

    An inconvenient shithead:

    howcanyoubePROUDtobeanEVILfuckingchristianistBITCH -Commentby Rujax206— 6/23/06@ 2:04 pm

    Thanks for the point-proving yet again rugrat… you rock as the GOP’s best advertisement!

  33. 34

    Gosh, speaking of polls…
    http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

    NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 9-12, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).

    When it comes to protecting the environment, which party do you think would do a better job: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or both about the same?
    Democratic 49%
    Republican 12%
    Same 22%
    Neither 13%
    Unsure 4%

    CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 4-8, 2006. N=1,241 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
    Asked of those who answered “have heard/read a lot” or “some” about global climate change or global warming:
    “Do you think global warming is an environmental problem that is causing a serious impact now, or do you think global warming isn’t having a serious impact?”

    Serious Impact Now 66%
    Not a Serious Impact 30%
    Unsure 4%

    Convenient enough for you?

  34. 35

    “Every public works project has to a Taj Mahal art project. We have to have a tunnel for the viaduct, the 520 has to have a landscaped lid on it and we have to have 120 million dollars worth of critter bridges on I -90.”

    Gee, from my viewpoint I see the opposite. I came to this area from Tennessee, over 25 years ago, and one of the things which struck me was the relative prosperity of this area, even before the arrival of Microsoft and the internet millionairs/billionairs. It seemed like just about every middle-class house was 2000 square feet, and had a boat or RV in the driveway. Yet the Tennessee and Washington tax systems were just about identical (which just goes to show that a particular tax policy, by itself, doesn’t create wealth).

    But in spite of such prosperity, the Pacific Norhtwest was particularly parsimonious in its public works. The Kingdome was one example, although King County might be forgiven because the “multi-use stadiums” was the vogue at the time. But what gave with the Seattle Public Safety Building – using blueprints from a building in Florida, for heaven’s sake, just to save a few bucks! For every great idea (Freeway Park), you would find other examples where they would later end up spending a dollar to make up for a couple of penny’s saved earlier.

    Personally, I don’t mind paying more for a public project which my grandchildren can look upon later, and I can say (with pride), “MY GENERATION helped build that. We paid the price and made sure we did it RIGHT so you can enjoy it now, and not have to re-build it in your lifetime.”

  35. 36

    Dang. Deleted part of teh above. From the NBC poll:

    “From what you know about global climate change or global warming, which one of the following statements comes closest to your opinion? Global climate change has been established as a serious problem, and immediate action is necessary. There is enough evidence that climate change is taking place and some action should be taken. We don’t know enough about global climate change, and more research is necessary before we take any actions. Concern about global climate change is unwarranted.”
    Immediate Action 29%
    Some Action 30%
    More Research 28%
    Concern Unwarranted 9%
    Unsure 4%

  36. 37

    Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    .

    “Do you think George W. Bush is doing a good job or a poor job in handling each of the following issues as president? How about protecting the nation’s environment?”
    Good Job 33%
    Poor Job 55%
    Fair/Mixed 9%
    Unsure 3%

    Everybody knows he’s crappy.

  37. 38

    Rove, Satan plot GOP fall campaign strategy

    White House adviser, Prince of Darkness resume longtime collaboration.

    Compiled from Times wires
    Published June 23, 2006

    At a joint press conference today in Washington, White House adviser Karl Rove said that he would be plotting the Republican Party’s fall election strategy with his longtime comrade-in-arms, Satan.

    The Prince of Darkness, wearing his traditional red horns and cape and carrying a smoldering pitchfork, appeared to beam as Mr. Rove, his protege, talked about how much he was looking forward to working with him on the fall campaign.

    “Every time Satan and I get together, good things happen,” Rove said, adding, “Or should I say – bad things happen!”

    The two of them then dissolved in laughter, demonstrating an easy collegiality that has made them an unbeatable team in past GOP campaigns.

    Satan’s partnership with Rove goes back to 1994, when the two of them teamed up to orchestrate George W. Bush’s first election as governor.

    But their work together reached its apogee, perhaps, during the 2004 presidential election, in which Rove and Satan devised the infernal “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign.

    While Satan let Rove have most of the spotlight in the hour-long press conference, he did take the microphone to say that he had been “relieved” recently when the White House advisor was cleared of all charges in the CIA leak investigation.

    “I can’t imagine running a Republican campaign without my buddy here,” he said, giving Rove a bear hug. “There are plenty of Satans out there, but there’s only one Karl Rove.”

    Elsewhere, Dan Rather retired from CBS after 44 years there but said that he would remain active in news and misinformation.

    http://www.wonkette.com/politi.....182902.php

  38. 39

    33

    You are wrong, sven. There indeed is a scientific consensus on global warming and the role of human activities.

    The key thing to remember is that natural climate changes occur over geologic time, allowing animal species (including humans) ample time to adapt to altered physical landscapes and changes in habitability of land areas, whereas human-induced global warming is compressing this time scale to a few human generations, which is not enough time to reconfigure the global distribution of the human population. We are not just talking about rising sea levels and coastal flooding; a major portion of the world’s agricultural activities would have to be relocated if there are major alterations in seasons, average temperatures, rainfall patterns, prevailing winds, and so on. If melting polar ice alters the Gulf Stream, we are looking at very major climate changes in the northern hemisphere.

  39. 40

    Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    “With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” Options rotated
    Environment 52%
    Economic Growth 37%
    Equal Priority 6%
    Unsure 4%

  40. 41

    Turns out not veryone is as confused as Sven.

    Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view, is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, generally correct, or is it generally underestimated?” Options rotated
    Exaggerated 30
    Correct 28%
    Under-estimated 38%
    Unsure 4%

    “Just your impression, which one of the following statements do you think is most accurate? Most scientists believe that global warming is occurring. Most scientists believe that global warming is NOT occurring. OR, Most scientists are unsure about whether global warming is occurring or not.”
    Is Occurring 65%
    Is Not Occurring 3%
    Scientists are Unsure 29%
    No Opinion 3%
    .

    “And from what you have heard or read, do you believe increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to the effects of pollution from human activities, or natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities?” Options rotated
    Human Activities 58%
    Natural Changes 36%
    Unsure 6%

  41. 42

    28 and 32
    Setting aside the issue of what role the Columbia and Snake River dams played in the diminishment of our salmon and steelhead runs back around the turn of the last century, they most sure represent an obstacle to recovery of the runs. One of the more significant impacts is the lengthened time which smolts now face in making the trip downriver from their natal homes. When the Columbia had its natural flow, smolts would make the trip through what is now Lake Bonneville in a couple days. The stillwater of the lake now means a trip of a month or more. All the while, the smolts are the targets of many predators–squawfish, heron, otters, etc. For Snake River fish, the trip downriver may take 6 months when before it was a matter of weeks. So, far fewer fish make it to the ocean in the first place. Given the extremely small percentage of fish that make it back up to spawn in any event, diminishing the base makes recovery of runs without dismantling the dams an unlikely proposition.

  42. 43

    I’ll call your eco-nut diety and raise you 17,000 legitimate scientists…

    More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition
    sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National
    Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore’s claims that global warming
    is human-induced. The petition states: “There is no convincing
    scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray, in a recent interview with Discover Magazine (which has advocated the theory of human-induced global warming), says: “This human-induced global-warming thing… is grossly exaggerated… I’m not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was global cooling in the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical… about this global-warming thing. But no one asks us.” (Gray was described by Discover Magazine’s editors as one of “the world’s most famous hurricane experts.”)

    Commenting on the misuse of science to support political agendas, Harvard’s Dr. Malcolm Ross concludes of such folly, “Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.”

  43. 44

    Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, is a bit less nuanced about Gore’s claims: “[Global warming] is a hoax.”

  44. 45

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....5702/1686#

    The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts containing the keyword “climate change,” all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The essay found that not a single one of the studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.

    The essay was written by University of California professor Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University’s Department of History and Science Studies Program.

    According to Oreskes, “None of these (928) papers argued that [current climate change is natural].”

    “This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies,” Oreskes wrote.

    “Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect,” she added.

    “The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen,” concluded Oreskes.

  46. 47

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Dec25.html

    “Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It’s time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.”

  47. 48

    Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray

    The same Dr. Gray who compared Al Gore to Hitler? He sounds like a reasonable, responsible spokesman.

    On the other hand, the alternative is Coulter, so I guess he just might be the sane one.

  48. 49

    46, 47

    You’ve proven yourself to be an outrageous liar, at the least a manipulating bastard, right here on this very thread.

    You have no credibility. I can’t trust anything you post, because your intent is to mislead.

  49. 50

    46

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140013
    It seems Media Matters sees your “petition” and raises some facts (notable excerpts here):
    “in an April 20, 1998, statement, NAS clarified that ‘this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.’ The statement added that ‘[t]he petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.'”

    ‘The AP reported Robinson is “a physical chemist” who “acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming,” and PR Watch reported that “[n]one of the coauthors of “Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher.” PR Watch also noted that “[Robinson’s] paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere. … It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.” ‘

    ” “[w]hen questioned in 1998, … Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, ‘and of those the greatest number are physicists.’ ” The AP article reported the total number of signatures on the petition as of April, 1998 to be approximately 15,000. The AP reported that Robinson ‘acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded’ to the petition, and though the names of the signatories are listed on the OISM website, many of the entries lack academic credentials, none lists a city of residence, and none lists an academic institution with which the signer is affiliated.”

    Um, there IS more at the link…

  50. 51

    Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report not peer reviewed but designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz’ article.

    Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

  51. 52

    Roger,

    If you like I can post links that refute the movies presentation.

    I dont really want to heaviliy engage it here, but it is a fact that the conclusions of the movie are disputed by real scientists, not just hysterical conservatives and fundamentalists.

    And as I said, I welcome the debate and research to settle the question, for the benefit of all.

    But I would prefer it be reasoned debate, not media driven hysteria.

  52. 53

    Goodness, howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS, you are one champeen liar.

    The head of an august scientific organization prostitutes himself and distributes a bogus study, clearly to be able to use the NAS imprimatur. The signatories, however, are unknowns. For all anybody knows they all work for the fossil fuel industry.

    How much of the $12 million that Exxon has spent since 1998 on this drummed up “skepticism” have you gotten?

  53. 54

    re 8: We’re not asking for anything for free. We instead plan to tax corporations at 45% and the uber-rich at 70%. Don’t worry about them. They’ll still have plenty of money to leave to the Paris Hilton’s of this world.

  54. 55

    RR you need to understand that a righties only sees a consensus when Faux News, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on something.

  55. 56

    Let’s have all the “scientist” you can name skeptical of global warming.

    Just run them through the search page at ExxonSecrets first, would you.

    Just key the name into their search box and send the results along with the name, would you.\

    It will save a lot of time.

  56. 57

    re 55: How much longer will you be able to post your links if your side gets rid of net neutrality?

    Not long…

  58. 59

    Encouraging debate…

    Sven, regarding the reality of global climate change, there is no debate. I AM referring to the opinion of actual climatologists. There are disagreements between actual climate specialists as to the eventual effects of said warming, mostly about the assumptions used by various models and the error bars and such. These differing methods lead to things such as predictions of “x degrees avereage global temp by 2050” that vary somewhat. But will it be significantly higher? Everyone agrees it will.

    There are aslo disagreements about what shoudl be done to mitigate this condition. I think we might be able to agree that
    A) Things will in all likelihood never get as bad as the worst-case predictions
    B) The cost of mitigation will in all likelihood (based on other such attempts such as pollution controls) never be as onerous as the conservatives suggest.

  59. 60

    Is it possible that Copernicus was mistaken? Let’s “debate” the issue , Sven.

    My opinion of you is that your goal is to confuse people enough so that corporations can continue to ruin the earth and pass off the damage they do to the general population and future generations.

    What could it hurt for you to discuss my opinion of you further? It could only serve to enlighten!

    I expect silence of you.

  62. 63

    If you want to have a scientific debate, go here.

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    You can debate with people who actually study the science.

    There is a cottage industry of people with scientific degrees who are prostituting themselves to the fossil fuel industry.

    Now when study of 10% of the peer reviewed, published scientific literature on the subject finds no study that finds a reason for global warming other than human activity, I think that pretty much ends any debate that could go on here.

    HA is pretty much a political board, so we are talking about the
    policy that should evolve, once you are conviced, because we
    lefties think the populous is ready to act.

    Even if you aren’t.

  64. 65

    There is a cottage industry of people with non-scientific degrees who are prostituting themselves to the left-wing wackos and the democrat party.

    By the way – if the earth’s temperature is the hottest it has been for the last 400, 1000 or 2000 years, what caused it to heat up before?

  65. 66

    64.

    Wow, Canada, that’s convincing Roy Spencer is even identified in the article as associated with Exxon-Mobil.

    Good job, I need look not further, exept:

    In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface. In August 2005, three papers appeared in Science to challenge their findings. Mears & Wentz’s paper in particular addressed what they considered a large source of uncertainty in Christy and Spencer’s satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric temperature trends. Spencer and Christy have implemented new corrections to their method; as a result their temperature trends have risen slightly from +.09 to +.12 deg. C/Decade — still below the RSS estimate of +.19 deg. C/Decade as of mid-2005.

  66. 67

    Global warming is hogwash. Since the progressive left’s arguments do not stand on their own (i.e. without the supports of Cheka or some version thereof) they must conscript Mother Nature. The thinking goes like this:

    See? Mother Nature herself is pissed at world-gobbling capitalism. Greedy corporate overrach and individual wasteful consumption is destroying the earth. Throw everything in reverse! Mother nature herself demands we scale down to an economy based on bakeries, baskets and bookbinding; The earth just cannot sustain the free development of individuals maximizing their potentials as happens in capitalist societies. Mother Nature won’t breathe easy until we form drum circles and dress in hemp from dreadlocks to sandals. Only then will we be able to appease the wrath of this nature Goddess whose global heat we feel bearing down on us in punishment for our evil individualist-oriented, wasteful, capitalist lifestyle.

    Something like that…

  68. 69

    My opinion of you is that your goal is to confuse people enough so that corporations can continue to ruin the earth and pass off the damage they do to the general population and future generations.

    Oh yea, that’s me. An insignificant chatter on a left wing blog page, secretly yearning for world domination.

    Thanks, I haven’t laughed so hard all day.

    What could it hurt for you to discuss my opinion of you further? It could only serve to enlighten!

    I expect silence of you.

    Commentby P. W. Herman

    Should I expect you to live up to the deeds of the person whose name you bear? Expectations are dangerous.

    But to address your comment, I would expect that any opinions you have of me are based on your perceptions, not reality. Were you actually interested, you not use ad hominem attacks and assumptions, you would ask questions.

    But that does make the point doesnt it? You are not really interested in this as a debate, it is a game, one of conservative baiting, and you are missing your target sir, because I am not a conservative.

    In the case of global warming, I am interested in the debate because I don’t like seeing how politics is subverting science, regardless of whether it is the administration cherry picking facts or Gore’s movie that contains refuted assumpotions.

    And it is a fact that the global warming discussion is in dispute, and there is a vigorous debate under way. And I enjoy that debate.

  70. 71

    re 70: We don’t live in a free-market capitalist society. We live in a corporatist society where large corporations control everything and have bought the U.S. government so they can deregulate themselves — but not you, the individual! You are hemmed in everywhere by corporate hegemony.

    Don’t believe me? Try starting your own oil company.

  72. 73

    re 70: Do you really think that solar power is not advanced enough to power an auto or produce enough energy to run your home?

    You don’t have these things because a RICH OLIGARCHY THAT LIVES OFF YOUR TOIL DOESN’T WANT YOU TO HAVE THEM.

    What do you think the space stations run on? Premium unleaded?

    You’re a dope.

  73. 74

    Poor lucy whose head lies in a shoebox of her own making. I am a free man in a free society, not rich, but loving it!

    and, for the record, I have tried starting my own oil company, and it is going good so far. Cheers…

  75. 76

    re 72: You don’t have to be a billionnaire to be an apologist for billionnaires.

    So, at your suggestion, I will ask you a question: Are you an apologist for billionnaires?

    And , in addition, if your lowly blog comments are so ineffective, why are large corporations seeking to silence you by getting rid of net neutrality?

    Answer me this: If you pour a bunch of marbles into a box that is tipped on a corner, where will the marbles inevitably roll?

    If corporations own the media and a large group of people are successfully voicing anti-corporatist views, what will the corporation do to defend itself? This is not a conspiracy theory: It is a sociological explanation of a power phenomenon that relates to large corporate entities owning the public’s airwaves.

    Capiche?

  76. 77

    re 77: The refreshing thing about horse stalls is that when you smell it, it’s always the real thing.

    Unlike yours,das!

  77. 78

    re 72: You don’t have to be a billionnaire to be an apologist for billionnaires.

    So, at your suggestion, I will ask you a question: Are you an apologist for billionnaires?

    Well, I buy Microsoft Software, so Bill Gates might think so, but in truth, I am an apologist for no one but myself.

    And , in addition, if your lowly blog comments are so ineffective, why are large corporations seeking to silence you by getting rid of net neutrality?

    Well, thats not even on my radar as a topic, so whatever. The fact we are having this discussion is proof enough that we can have this discussion. Ipso facto.

    When we cannot discuss it, I will worry about it.

    If corporations own the media and a large group of people are successfully voicing anti-corporatist views, what will the corporation do to defend itself? This is not a conspiracy theory: It is a sociological explanation of a power phenomenon that relates to large corporate entities owning the public’s airwaves.

    And my thoughtful considerate answer is…So? It has nothing to do with this debate.

    Capiche?

    non neppure fine

  78. 79

    lucy sans tete,

    What is wrong with billionaires? Sure hell, I’ll defend them. I like having lots of billionaires around, especially in america where they reivest their dough – unlike Latin America. I’d rather have them around than mad narrow ideologues like yourself with a head full of marbles like “power phenomenon” (Oooo, just saying it makes me feel smart!) and other colorful nonsense jargonzolas that you picked up in Poly Sci 101 or Soc 101 and haven’t yet had the good sense to throw out with the other crud under the car seat.

    Your own hatred of corporations might itself be a corporate planted tactic; I mean if you were the head of a corporation wanting the average Joe or Jane to cleave to your services then conscript a bunch of rabid, seething hemp-headed, upper-middle class youth to denounce you and your evil company…

  79. 80

    D’Ass@82 Sure, I’ll let ya defend them billionaires, d’ass, but do it is desert camo will’ya? And while you’re at it get thos billionaires to pony up some to the Helmet Project.

  81. 82

    Take a good look at the Liberty City Florida “7″: Looks like a DNC/NAACP Democrat felon voting block

  82. 83

    re 85: Is that your sister in the background, Rep. Pat? You know, the one with the satisfied, Mona Lisa smile?

  83. 84

    I mean you really know you’re living in a rich prosperous country when oodles of well-off prosperous citizens take it on themselves to denounce the rich. I don’t get the left’s hatred of the rich. Chase and abstraction. Why waste your life seething against people who have more money than you do? Festering with resentment towards people richer than you. What a waste of life. Money isn’t the only wealth in life; try stocking your mind with beauty love poetry travel friendship music…

  84. 85

    Speaking of NYT bestsellers, did you moonbats see the Coulter’s latest book is still on top?

    And speaking of moonbat religion, how’s that solar warming thing coming? Say, can any of you explain why EVERY FUCKING PLANET in our solar system is warming? Is it because I drive a luxury SUV?

  85. 86

    das – let me explain… moonbats hate wealthy successful people because it reminds them what miserable failures they are. They have few skills, little money, little power, they have to fuck fat ugly women (because they have no money or power) and their lives are just one fucking dreary day after another where they careen from one disaster to the next.

    They really don’t understand how to be successful, so they concoct all these wild tales about how The Producers screw The Takers. In desperation, they seek to elect Robin Hood democrats who try to steal the life energy of The Producers under some kooky notion that they are “entitled” to help themselves to the fruits of others’ work.

    That’s why it appears to be emerging that Librulism is actually a mental disorder.

    Understand now?

  87. 88

    Looks like Mark The Cowardly Redneck is in trouble. Several of his republcian buddies in the US Senate today said global warming is REAL. I guess they don’t get a copy of the crazy Kool Aid drinkers digest like the Cowardly Redneck does. HE HE!

    By the way Mark, your daughter says hi!

  88. 89

    LT – From now on, let’s call it “solar warming” on account that THE FUCKING SUN is what makes the earth warm.

    Also, let me know how it’s going on that analysis of current temps compared to natural variation. Do chi squared if you want, or whatever method of your choosing. But don’t cite some bullshit website…. build a spreadsheet and do the math yourself.

  89. 90

    das @ 90 – glad to be of service. keeps those questions coming. I’ll fill ya in on their mental illness.

  90. 91

    It really is amazing how the wingers continue to engage in the Big Lie on global warming. It doesn’t matter how often you refute their bogus science — they continue to dish it out under the hope that less educated folks will be duped.

    Truth be told, this tactic is partially working (albeit not so much on this blog due to the excellent efforts of Harry, Daddy, Roger and others).

    Folks like Das and MTR are the George Wallace’s of our time. History will show them to be completely wrong on global warming. The only question is whether at some point in their lives they will have the class to acknowledge this.

    I’m not optimistic on that score. One of the key qualities of HA’s resident wingers seems to be that they are strikingly lacking in self-awareness, humility, and the ability to adapt.

    Consider, for example, MTR. Imagine what he will be like when he gets old. I picture someone who is a cranky, rigid blowhard who no one wants to be around. Glad you’re (supposedly) rich, MTR — you’ll need it!

  92. 93

    Here’s a little tid-bit for the Redneckfucktard, the EvilfuckingchristianistBITCH, and das, the amazing typing ventriloquist dummy (and I do mean DUMMY):

    (from YahooNews)

    “WASHINGTON – The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are “additional supporting evidence … that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....al_warming

    I remember when DDT wasn’t toxic, assholes. You’re wrong again. Oh and EVILBITCH…YOU are why the GOP is in trouble. You greedy fascist intolerant bigot.

  93. 94

    ho hum the rugrat is trying out the big words he heard the grown-ups use … isn’t that cute?

    Go to play somewhere else now rugrat, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation here.

  94. 95

    Notice how proud (97) didn’t address the substance of Rujax’s link. The National Academy of Sciences is as credible as they come, and yet proud completely avoided its findings.

    Why? Because proud is a propagandist. He refuses to debate in good faith. He refuses to consider evidence that questions his political agenda.

    In short, proud is anti-science.

  95. 96

    nice post rugrat… one problem though…. how the fuck do they know the temperatures from the last two thousand years? The answer is “they have no fucking idea”. None. For any of this bullshit to have any statistical validity, the historical temp data needs to be within a tenth of a degree. The historical wildass guesses they make are at least 100 times less acccurate than that.

    Fucking idiot.

    Drink the kool aid. Worship your god Algore… but don’t attempt to pass this shit off as science.

  96. 97

    MTR, you haven’t addressed the real question: Will you continue to be a cranky, rigid blowhard in your old age? Will you be the kind of guy that all of the attendants at your nursing home refuse to work with because you’re such an arrogant asshole?

  97. 98

    1. they’ve only been recording temps for the last 150 years
    2. recording SURFACE temps mean nothing… it’s atmospheric temps that are the best (and sadly for the eco-nuts) predictors.

  98. 99

    see green, that’s the difference between moonbat libs like YOU and RUGRAT… you ASSume all will be in nursing homes, while those of us productive in our lives KNOW WE WILL NOT.

  99. 100

    Thumb – I’m just asking a simple fucking question. Real basic. Get this wrong and the whole argument falls apart. That’s why you guys REFUSE to answer… are current temps within range of natural variation? yes or no question. Easy to answer if you have the data.

    Just answer the fucking question…

  100. 101

    PS… I hope you find a good one with your favorite flavor of koolaid… er, jello.

  101. 102

    HEY RUGRAT: Today Is National Mental Health day!

    You can do your bit by remembering to send an message to at least one unstable person……

    (Well…my job’s done!)

  102. 103

    Only the proven liars left.

    Ho hum. They never provided a single rational argument.

    Nitety night, nut cakes.

  103. 104

    An inconvenient truth about ASS and the Redneck bet-welsher: they are brain damaged – their brain cells are permanently altered by addiction to right-wing propaganda.

    They can’t help it.

  105. 106

    Clueless, I think they CAN help it. They aren’t just addicted to right-wing propaganda — they are part of the machine.

    MTR won’t deviate from his script because he is not allowed to. He is a puppet on a string. So is proud.

    Neither are “real” men who can say what they think, and mean what they say. They have sold their souls to the right-wing noise machine.

    Both are like the burger flippers at McDonald’s. They have a job to do, and they do it the same way, every day. Flip, flip, flip. Another round of propaganda up!

  106. 107

    nice post rugrat… one problem though…. how the fuck do they know the temperatures from the last two thousand years? The answer is “they have no fucking idea”. None. For any of this bullshit to have any statistical validity, the historical temp data needs to be within a tenth of a degree. The historical wildass guesses they make are at least 100 times less acccurate than that. Fucking idiot. Drink the kool aid. Worship your god Algore… but don’t attempt to pass this shit off as science. Commentby Mark The Redneck Kennedy— 6/23/06@ 9:46 pm

    Thumb – I’m just asking a simple fucking question. Real basic. Get this wrong and the whole argument falls apart. That’s why you guys REFUSE to answer… are current temps within range of natural variation? yes or no question. Easy to answer if you have the data. Just answer the fucking question… Commentby Mark The Redneck Kennedy— 6/23/06@ 9:52 pm

    The resident, arrogant and ignorant MTR will never give up spreading very cramped and inaccurate distortions of incomplete data that coming from Exxon-Mobil paid scientific whores. The answer is NO, they are not within historic norms.

    Reviews of all the data make clear that Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years; global warming is a reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that the recent year, decade, and century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the last 600, and most likely 1,200 years. It appears that the global warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.

    A very clear and complete article on this very subject (done this year, so it includes the most current data) can be found here. It also discusses the limitations of paleoclimatic measurements and how recent studies have dealt with them.

    I have no doubt that MTR will arrogantly continue his fools mission, sucking the cocks of Exxon execs, but the peer reviewed science by those working in the area of climatology is clear.

  110. 111

    109.

    Typical liberal arrogance at young high school kids who work in fast food flipping burgers. These kids learn work habits and service skills like courtesy and efficiency and teamwork. And they earn money. It’s not a lifetime job but it’s a stage along life’s way. I get so tired of this liberal put-down of the fast fook industry. Why do you put this down? What shame is there in work?

  111. 112

    It’s a nice day today, so in honor of Algore’s new religion, I’m gonna go out and wash my luxury SUV.

  112. 113

    http://www.motherjones.com/new.....t_hot.html

    So this is where the liberal moonbats get their “Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.” from.

    “Holy Cow Batman, liberals have to get their thoughts from the Internet. No causation for independent critial thinking”. “You are right Robin. Liberals need to reassure themselves every morning from their moonbat websites.”

  115. 116

    Now here’s a lib paper that has it right! Why isn’t Al Gore running to China and tell them to stop polluting. They pollute more than we do. Their land mass is just a s great yet they are now the #2 user of oil and they have no pollution controls on their vehicles. Why Al Why?

    We need a moonbat patrol from HorsesAss to deliver a strong non-pollution message to China.

    I nominate For the Clueless, Green Thumb, Harry the Voter Advocate Tuttle, Left Turn, PW Herman, Headless Lucy, Daddy Love – All with Impressive Moonbat credentials, along with David Goldstein as the leader, as the Northwest Delegation to meet with the Chinese Environmental Ministry. Since Al Gore won’t do it you should go there and make Al Gore look like a HorsesAss!

  117. 118

    More inconvenient truth you morons on the left:

    From the UN – I noticed at the UN web site they didn’t redo the study. Chicoms got pissed I bet.

    Air pollution – A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about 30% of China’s total land area. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China’s coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution.

    Where is Al Gore?

  118. 119

    Here is what the Chinese think of their environment:

    http://www.chinaenvironment.com/index_e.html

    无法找到该页
    您正在搜索的页面可能已经删除、更名或暂时不可用。

    请尝试以下操作：

    * 确保浏览器的地址栏中显示的网站地址的拼写和格式正确无误。
    * 如果通过单击链接而到达了该网页，请与网站管理员联系，通知他们该链接的格式不正确。
    * 单击后退按钮尝试另一个链接。

    HTTP 错误 404 – 文件或目录未找到。
    Internet 信息服务 (IIS)

    技术信息（为技术支持人员提供）

    * 转到 Microsoft 产品支持服务并搜索包括“HTTP”和“404”的标题。
    * 打开“IIS 帮助”（可在 IIS 管理器 (inetmgr) 中访问），然后搜索标题为“网站设置”、“常规管理任务”和“关于自定义错误消息”的主题。

    Hmmm… Page Not Found?

  119. 120

    Liberal HorsesAssinines: http://www.mongabay.com/extern.....t_2004.htm

    # Water and waste pollution

    * Per capita, “China’s resources are among the lowest in the world and concentrated in the south, so that the north and west experience regular droughts.”
    * Even where water exists, it is rarely clean due to poor treatment facilities: “around half the population, or 600m people, have water supplies that are contaminated by animal and human waste.”
    * China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) “found 70% of the water in fice of China’s seven major rive systems was unsuitable for human contact.”

    # Air pollution
    * China has 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities according to World Bank figures and “estimates suggest that 300,000 people a year die prematurely from respiratory diseases.” – But they are commies so libs don’t care
    * China has the “world’s highest emissions of sulphur dioxide and a quarter of the country endures acid rain” largely due to China’s reliance on coal-fired power stations for energy.
    * China will soon face pollution from burgeoning car ownership — a phenomenon that is just gathering pace — and “hopes that China will ‘leapfrog’ the West with super-green cars are naive, since dirty fuel messes up clean engines and the high cost of new cars keeps old ones on the road.”
    # Desertification
    * Dust storms in 2000 traveled as far as North America.
    # Erosion
    * Erosion of valuable topsoil clogs hydroelectric facilities, interferes with navigation, and ruins fishing on major rivers throughout China.
    # Deforestation
    * A massive reforestation campaign combined with a partial logging ban has slowed China’s deforestation.

  120. 121

    Some more inconvenient truth you liberal morons:

    PLUGGING a cigarette into his mouth, He Shouming runs a nicotine-stained fingernail down a list of registered deaths in Shangba, dubbed “cancer village” by the locals. The Communist Party official in this cluster of tiny hamlets of 3,300 people in northern Guangdong province, he concludes that almost half the 11 deaths among his neighbours this year, and 14 of the 31 last year, were due to cancer.

    Mr He blames Dabaoshan, a nearby mineral mine owned by the Guangdong provincial government, and a host of smaller private mines for spewing toxic waste into the local rivers, raising lead levels to 44 times permitted rates. Walking around the village, the water in the streams is indeed an alarming rust-red. A rice farmer complains of itchy legs from the paddies, and his wife needs a new kettle each month because the water corrodes metal. “Put a duck in this water and it would die in two days,” declares Mr He.

    http://www.economist.com/busin.....id=3104453

    Damn, I’m just getting started inconveniently for you libs!

  121. 122

    And some more inconvenient truth for the moonbats here:

    “First, China’s problems are not its alone. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on a given day, almost 25 percent of the particulate matter in the smog above Los Angeles can be traced to China. And no border or ocean will stop the impact of China surpassing the United States as the top greenhouse-gas emitter within a decade.”

    What say you Al Gore?

    http://www.pacificenvironment......hp?id=1417

    Hey Clueless – Are they right wing?

  122. 123

    More from the above article: “American consumers’ demand for cheap commodities is currently being supplied by China. And behind the made-in-China label is a peasant who doesn’t have access to clean drinking water, and certainly does not reap the benefits of China’s startling growth.”

    Since liberals claim they represent the poor, I represent the pollution problem is caused by liberals demanding we get cheap products from the sweat factories of China. Since you all represent the welfare crowd wanting their 50 inch wide screen TVs, I represent the libs are the ones who are getting big payola and using it to feed the DNC with money. Sure you libs decry working conditions over there, but you all caused it. Another inconvenient truth exposed!

  123. 124

    “Environmental damage is costing the government roughly 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, estimated Zhu Guangyao, deputy chief of the State Environmental Protection Agency. China’s GDP for 2005 was US$2.26 trillion.” Liberal moonbats, this means in 2005 pollution cost China $226 Billion. No wonder they keep buying our debt. They need it to finance their pollution. Interest inconvenient truth here!

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/c.....609350.htm

    Then look at this air pollution in China: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/p.....625079.htm

  124. 125

    You know, it’s not really warming per se that is the problem. As others here have noted, the globe has been warm at other times. But the rate of warming is pretty much unprecedented in scientific knowledge. As since we built our civilization in a cooler, stable time, this raises significant questions about the efdfects this rapid warming will have on agriculture, fisheries, and other systems we rely on to maintain our race. I am not saying that humanity is in danger of dying out, but that there will almost certainly be many aspects of the warmer globe we are about to inhabit that we will find very unpleasant.

    Hurricanes are among them. You know it’s not global warming but global climate change. So some places that were wet will be dry and vice versa, some places that were cool will be hot or some places that were hot will be much hotter, and some climatic effects that were rare will become common and vice versa. The climate the way it was was very good to us; will the new climate be so kind? I don’t think so.

    All fo this bullshit dispute of the reality of anthropocentric global climate change is a smoke screen, and a distraction. Mitigation is our task, and we fail to take it up at ur peril.

    Hey, Chine WILL be a top greenhouse gas emitter. The question then arises–how do we persuade them to adress this issue? By denying the truth and withdrawing from international accords? Very persuasive. Not.

  125. 126

    Where in Al Gore’s movie is this covered? NO WHERE

    ” He said China has experienced 76 environmental emergencies since serious pollution of northeast China’s Songhua River on Nov. 13, 2005 – one in every two days on average.”

    http://english.people.com.cn/2.....60577.html

    I love the URL: english.people.com.cn

    See how ignorant you libs really are to the world in general? When you take Al Gore at his word he selectively covers topics he knows you will drink as the kool-aid drinkers you all are. Now I will travel to another country and deliver inconvenient truths.

  126. 127

    So Daddy Love you mention something important – Where is Al Gore or as one said in another thread Alberto Goridiot on Chinese pollution and the environmental damage done by them? Inconveniently he is missing!

  128. 129

    Again, I nominate For the Clueless, Green Thumb, Harry the Voter Advocate Tuttle, Left Turn, PW Herman, Headless Lucy, Daddy Love – All with Impressive Moonbat credentials, along with David Goldstein as the leader, as the Northwest Delegation to meet with the Indian Environmental Ministry. Since Al Gore won’t do it you should go there and make Al Gore look like a HorsesAss!

    http://www.indiastat.com/india.....38;level=2

  135. 136

    For the Clueless, you vehemently accused Puddybud of using right-wing web sites to further his cause. I DARE you, DOUBLE-DARE you, spew the same venom towards me. I am distinctly using lefty URLs to disprove your arguments. Left-wing bats unite. All this inconvenient truth and no where to go to get more lies!

    Isn’t many of the EU activities in the Brussels area? Look at the dot for Paris? I thought the French were spewers of polluted hot air! Look at western Germany and northern Italy. There is the dot called Madrid. But they signed Kyoto and they are ignoring it!

  137. 138

    Europe like Al Gore has no clue. http://www.planetark.com/daily...../story.htm

    Okay moonbats we’re firing up the polluter and going out for breakfast. When I come back please present some “good” refutes to these left wing web sites that present inconvenient truths about leftists and their demonstrated continual polluting ways!

  138. 139

    29 posts unrefuted! Moonbats go outside and enjoy the sunshine!

  139. 140

    Daddy @ 128 – So it sounds like you agree with me that current temps are really not out of the range of natural norms. Welcome to the world of rational reason. But you state that rate of temp increases is “pretty much unprecedented”? Really? How do you know that? Since you agree that THE FUCKING SUN causes the earth to be warm, why do you think that current rates of temp change are not within historical ranges? I think we’ve established clearly that the historical temp data is flaky at best… are you prepared to say that the first derivative of temp change is somehowe reliable even though the underlying data is crap? If so, what leap of religious faith did you do to get to that?

  140. 141

    I’m really glad that I read HA, because otherwise I’d never have found out that some “redneck” who doesn’t even have a doctorate has more knowledge about global warming than literally a thousand of the world’s leading climate scientists.

    MTR, this is really an honor. I can’t believe that you even have the time to bother with this piss-ass little blog. Why aren’t you at some international conference right now, presenting your latest paper?

  142. 143

    Is that you MTR (No. 145)? If you’re going to dodge my point, you might want to a better job of it.

    Everything you want to know about this the study you cite is summed up by one simple fact: It was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

    This institute has been funding quite a few studies over the years that — surprise! — challenge the prevailing scientific concensus on global warming. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

    In case you’re not getting my point, let me spell it out for you:
    Oil money = findings that support the oil industry position.

    But, of course, it I’m drinking the koolaid to believe the oil industry hacks instead of the National Academy of Sciences, or the IPCC?

  143. 144

    A quick search of scientific sites found that three of the authors in the study you cite (No. 145) have long-standing ties to the fossil fuel industry, and their work has been strongly challenged.

    For example Sherwood Idso has been spewing his denialist rhetoric since the early 1990s.

    I suppose we could play a cat-and-mouse game all day, where you come up with yet another denialist study, and we show that it has been discredited in scholarly circles. That won’t change your opinion, because you guys are here to propagandize rather than learn anything. And I, unlike at least some of you, am not being paid to be here. So I’m going to turn my attention to prosaic activities like mowing the lawn.

    Fortunately, the consensus on global warming is so strong that HA readers can by and large assume that a denialist does not have much, if any credibility within mainstream climate change scholarly circles.

    It’s actually pretty rare in science where that level of consensus has occurred.

    I guess that’s why you guys have to lie so blatantly.

  145. 146

    Yeah, Sherwood Idso and his sons Craig and Keith are bought-and-paid-for shills for the Western Fuels Association.

  146. 147

    Did I mention that Craig Idso’s “scientific ” training is in Geography? Those guys really know climate, those geographers.

  147. 148

    Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

    Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

    Climate Change 2001: Mitigation
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

    Read them closely boys. This is what ACTUAL science looks like.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a global scientific body that constitutes the “gold standard” of climate science. In the IPCC’s first assessment report, published in 1990, the science remained open to reasonable doubt. But the IPCC’s second report, completed in 1995, concluded that amid purely natural factors shaping the climate, humankind’s distinctive fingerprint was evident. And with the release of the IPCC’s third assessment in 2001, a strong consensus had emerged. “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science,” wrote Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy in a 2001 editorial.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.