Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

[Nekhrun]

registered Democrat all my life.

I stopped reading after this. Can someone give me the executive summary?

Didn't finish it. Anyone who begins a letter to Glen Beck with those words is another fruitcake loon who shows up at townhall meetings and says things like Obama's a terrorist.

It's better to lock the opposition out and not give them a voice at all, huh?

Ideally I would say the opposition should have the opportunity to express a viewpoint. Now it's all just name-calling, lies, misleading behavior, and yelling over each other. That's not going to get any philosophy or point-of-view across, it will just stall any progress, which I guess is what they want. Fuck 'em.

[SandRider]

NOT one of the points I agree with, might I add.

Look, global warming/climate change is heavily politicized, and what we should *do* about it is a matter of intense debate. But is the jury still out on global warming itself?

No. No it isn't. The science is clear.

HBJ

well, now hold up there, Sparky.

The only people who think the science of global warming is clear are the scientists.

Rush, Beck, Hannity, Savage, all the other college-dropouts on FOX say it's all bullshit.

who're you going to believe ? Climate scientists & NASA or pundits with failed legal
& political careers ?

[SandChigger]

I'm gonna believe whatever the Starseeds tell me. Through their spirit channeler changelings.

(Huh? Say what? OK, got it!)

They say global warming is being caused by an increase of spirituotemporal energy in the vicinity of the Earth caused by an alignment of the Solar System and the galactic core, which is funneling energy from the core through your anus...

(Through their anus? Are you sure? ... OH! The planet! D'oh!)

Sorry, from the core through Uranus.

[Freakzilla]

NOT one of the points I agree with, might I add.

Look, global warming/climate change is heavily politicized, and what we should *do* about it is a matter of intense debate. But is the jury still out on global warming itself?

No. No it isn't. The science is clear.

HBJ

well, now hold up there, Sparky.

The only people who think the science of global warming is clear are the scientists.

Rush, Beck, Hannity, Savage, all the other college-dropouts on FOX say it's all bullshit.

who're you going to believe ? Climate scientists & NASA or pundits with failed legal
& political careers ?

Solar scientist have been predicting our CURRENT cooling trend for years.

[SandRider]

according to Glen Beck ....

[Freakzilla]

You're drinking the cool-aid, man...

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

[Omphalos]

You're drinking the cool-aid, man...

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

I credit Obama for this.

[Drunken Idaho]

You're drinking the cool-aid, man...

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

Hmmm, well I guess that settles it then. Thanks to that enlightening article, we can all get back to driving hummers and burning coal without a shred of guilt...

Ah, but if you do a little research into this Henrik Svensmark you'll find that his theories have been ridiculed numerous times by his peers. Most climate scientists seem to consider his work junk science, the main argument having to do with there being no real "mechanism" for solar rays to affect clouds. It's a lot of crazy cloud science but I sort of managed to grasp it. Here's an article that refutes Svensmark's claims:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... w-clothes/

Here's the conclusion, which touches upon the kind of bullshit scientific practice Svensmark demonstrates:

I also think that Svensmark’s claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article. I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as “The Skeptical Environmentalist“, which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don’t fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification. Furthermore, it is only a lack of respect for the readers to publish an article that doesn’t provide all relevant sides to the story. I hope that Svensmark reads my comments and responds to them here at RealClimate. I also hope that this is read by scholars and journalists who start asking the critical questions. I do not know the answer to the questions that I pose here, so I’d be interested to hear your view.

Also, here's a review of Svensmark's book, "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change." The review is written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30103

And a similar criticism of Svensmark's methods from that review:

The common thread that is running throughout the book is that since GCRs must affect climate, it is just a question of finding the evidence. If one tack does not pan out, it is discarded and the next one picked up. This is a recipe for being led astray by spurious correlations and turns normal scientific practice on its head.

He sounds like a hack to me. I really wouldn't recommend taking scientific information seriously from a website that specializes in conservative news. Seems to me that it's always rather self-serving.

NOT one of the points I agree with, might I add.

Look, global warming/climate change is heavily politicized, and what we should *do* about it is a matter of intense debate. But is the jury still out on global warming itself?

No. No it isn't. The science is clear.

HBJ

And yes, in the last few years the climate change debate has become extremely politicized. I'm positive that there are plenty of politicians out there (both liberals and conservatives) who exploit the argument for their own agendas, whatever they may be.

But I recall a time when climate change wasn't exactly the hot topic in Washington (long before Al Gore's famous powerpoint presentation ). Remember when George W. Bush was the only leader in the G8 to oppose the Kyoto protocol, thus blocking it from ever becoming a reality? At that time, he claimed that there wasn't nearly enough evidence about climate change and what causes it. You see, having a stance that God is responsible for the climate is awfully convenient when all your buddies are rich oil-burners. At that time, those who knew something must be done about climate change (myself included) were of a minority, armed only with the overwhelming majority of scientific opinions. In those days it was all science and no agendas, and believe me I'll trust a majority of scientists over any group of politicians. Besides, just ask Frank Herbert about climate change, he'll set ya' straight.

The bigger picture here is that lobbyists descend upon Washington in a higher volume than ever right now. There is too much money to be made in the private sector, so major reform isn't going to happen without a vicious and bitter fight. Think of what happens if Washington becomes too environmentally cautious. The auto industry, coal, big oil, they all suffer dearly. These groups are immensely powerful, and will stop at nothing to ensure their annual profit gain. Now, think of what happens if healthcare reform is passed. The insurance companies (who are also huge) will be dealt a blow. This is the reason lies are being spread so much about universal healthcare, with Glenn Beck doing his part.

This is the essence of what I call Monster Capitalism. There seems to be this highly corporate notion that profit can be infinite. It's just not true. These giant CEO's seem to be blind to the effects they're having on the planet, and they justify what they do by calling it Free Enterprise. Or maybe they do realize it and are too greedy, concerned only with their retirement. Take the money and run.

I'd much rather ensure that the planet will be livable for my children, than protect my right to drive a Hummer. I'd also much rather accept a universal healthcare plan, than see 50-million people unprotected.

In summary, Glenn Beck is a puppet for an ultra-conservative media conglomerate which is clearly in bed with big oil, big insurance, and I don't even want to know who else.

[Freakzilla]

You're drinking the cool-aid, man...

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

Hmmm, well I guess that settles it then. Thanks to that enlightening article, we can all get back to driving hummers and burning coal without a shred of guilt...

What's that comment supposed to mean? That since I don't believe the global warming propaganda that I don't care about the environment? In my eye's you're no better than Glen Beck.

Sure there is global warming... there is global cooling too. It's a natural cycle. What politicians sell is fear, and I'm not buying it.

[GamePlayer]

I'm not sure the debate over global warming is all that important anymore, at least, not when you look at it from a sociopolitical angle. I'm not excusing ignorance, so don't misunderstand, but it seems to me global warming serves the same function for human society as say, the bible.

Some people need religion as a mechanism by which they can be convinced to lead a moral life. Call it guilt, call it worship, call it whatever. It doesn't matter if gawd exists or not; that people believe in gawd (and the consequences of that belief) is enough to fulfill the motivation for action that they should otherwise possess, but do not. Hence, these people will try to lead moral lives.

Some people need global warming as a mechanism by which they can be convinced to lead environmentally conscious lives. Call it awareness, call it responsibility, call it whatever. It doesn't matter if global warming exists or not; that people believe in global warming (and the consequences of it) is enough to fulfill the motivation for action that they should otherwise possess, but do not. Hence, these people will try to lead environmentally conscious lives.

The lie that exalts us is dearer than a thousand sober truths, as Pushkin would say

[Freakzilla]

I'm not sure the debate over global warming is all that important anymore, at least, not when you look at it from a sociopolitical angle. I'm not excusing ignorance, so don't misunderstand, but it seems to me global warming serves the same function for human society as say, the bible.

Some people need religion as a mechanism by which they can be convinced to lead a moral life. Call it guilt, call it worship, call it whatever. It doesn't matter if gawd exists or not; that people believe in gawd (and the consequences of that belief) is enough to fulfill the motivation for action that they should otherwise possess, but do not. Hence, these people will try to lead moral lives.

Some people need global warming as a mechanism by which they can be convinced to lead environmentally conscious lives. Call it awareness, call it responsibility, call it whatever. It doesn't matter if global warming exists or not; that people believe in global warming (and the consequences of it) is enough to fulfill the motivation for action that they should otherwise possess, but do not. Hence, these people will try to lead environmentally conscious lives.

The lie that exalts us is dearer than a thousand sober truths, as Pushkin would say

Good point, maybe that's why I don't want to buy into the hype. I've always felt that if I can't decide what's right and wrong without a guide, it's a lost cause.

[Drunken Idaho]

In my eye's you're no better than Glen Beck.

Ouch... The comment you're referring to was meant as a lead-in to the entirety of my post. I know your positions Freak, and I don't think you're part of the problem. My issue is with the article, not your opinions. I'd never try to hurt your feelings, Freak. I just love you too damned much.

The difference between myself and Glenn Beck is that I'm not fake. I don't pretend to cry about the issues I preach about. And furthermore, I believe in the things I say, unlike Mr. Beck who just says what he's told to. Once again, I direct your attention to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2mhpqCPpuE
I realize you're probably at work, but watch it at home when you get a chance. You'll be glad you did, as it's pretty entertaining.

Sure there is global warming... there is global cooling too. It's a natural cycle. What politicians sell is fear, and I'm not buying it.

You really should check out the links in my post... These are scientists who respect proper, replicatable, non-biased scientific method.

As for my own decision-making process as to what's right and wrong, I gotta go with hard science. The good stuff.

[Freakzilla]

Well, thank you. But what I meant was...

Just because I don't buy the hype that doesn't mean I believe we should/want to go on destroying the planet.

For me, that is not what the global warming issue is about. I don't need a reason to stop polluting.

But that's what the pundits (like Beck) and the politians want, to polarize us. "If yer not fer me, yer aginst me!"

[SandRider]

I don't want to buy into the hype.

but you are buying into the hype.

you're buying into the hype that the "global warming" issue
is a concoction of the extreme Left, the godless communists,
the anti-capitalists, etc.

you say you don't trust either side, but you're consistently
siding with the fascist right against the forces of unicorns & rainbows ...

[A Thing of Eternity]

I don't want to buy into the hype.

but you are buying into the hype.

you're buying into the hype that the "global warming" issue
is a concoction of the extreme Left, the godless communists,
the anti-capitalists, etc.

you say you don't trust either side, but you're consistently
siding with the fascist right against the forces of unicorns & rainbows ...

Hey, leave my unicorns and rainbows alone!

[Freakzilla]

I don't want to buy into the hype.

but you are buying into the hype.

you're buying into the hype that the "global warming" issue
is a concoction of the extreme Left, the godless communists,
the anti-capitalists, etc.

you say you don't trust either side, but you're consistently
siding with the fascist right against the forces of unicorns & rainbows ...

I don't think the left has concocted it, I think they are using it to exploit people's fear.

And I think rainbow unicorns are delicious!

[SandRider]

in the same way the right is using the health care debate and obama's race
to scare people into displaying weapons at town halls ?

kindalikethat?

[Freakzilla]

in the same way the right is using the health care debate and obama's race
to scare people into displaying weapons at town halls ?

kindalikethat?

No, Obama's doing that on his own. Who is telling people to bring guns to town hall meetings? Not that they are breaking any laws.

One thing I've gathered from the Democrats actions in Congress and these town hall meetings is our representatives don't have a clue what they're doing or give a fuck what the people want.

Obama’s job-approval rating fell 3 percentage points, to 51 percent from 54 percent in July, within the survey’s error margin of plus-or-minus 2.5 percentage points. His rating stood at 61 percent in June.

Led Zeppelin RULES!

[Hunchback Jack]

That since I don't believe the global warming propaganda that I don't care about the environment? In my eye's you're no better than Glen Beck.

Sure there is global warming... there is global cooling too. It's a natural cycle. What politicians sell is fear, and I'm not buying it.

Well, let's be specific, then. By "global warming" (or more accurately, "climate change", since the effects vary), I'm talking about a destructive effect on climate caused by mankind, through increased CO2 emissions (industry, cars, cows burping) and decreased CO2 reductions through defoliation.

Science or propaganda?

HBJ

[Nekhrun]

in the same way the right is using the health care debate and obama's race
to scare people into displaying weapons at town halls ?

kindalikethat?

No, Obama's doing that on his own. Who is telling people to bring guns to town hall meetings? Not that they are breaking any laws.

I seem to remember people being arrested a couple years ago for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at his town hall meetings. Wherever the president goes falls under federal jurisdiction. The Secret Service should be making examples of those assholes.

[Crysknife]

in the same way the right is using the health care debate and obama's race
to scare people into displaying weapons at town halls ?

kindalikethat?

No, Obama's doing that on his own. Who is telling people to bring guns to town hall meetings? Not that they are breaking any laws.

One thing I've gathered from the Democrats actions in Congress and these town hall meetings is our representatives don't have a clue what they're doing or give a fuck what the people want.

Obama’s job-approval rating fell 3 percentage points, to 51 percent from 54 percent in July, within the survey’s error margin of plus-or-minus 2.5 percentage points. His rating stood at 61 percent in June.

Led Zeppelin RULES!

Every president loses favor when he starts to tackle the tough issues in his first term. That's nothing new.

I think the American people decided what they wanted by giving the Dems control in the House and Senate, and by electing Obama. And what do the people want? They want health care reform and science playing a role in the govt. once again.

[Drunken Idaho]

Some people need global warming as a mechanism by which they can be convinced to lead environmentally conscious lives. Call it awareness, call it responsibility, call it whatever. It doesn't matter if global warming exists or not; that people believe in global warming (and the consequences of it) is enough to fulfill the motivation for action that they should otherwise possess, but do not. Hence, these people will try to lead environmentally conscious lives.

GP, this doesn't make much sense to me at all. For what other reason would anyone choose an environmentally conscious lifestyle? To save the rainforest? For love of the animals? It's all the same thing to me, man. It's all about sustainability, and mankind's impact on his own habitat. Climate change, deforestation, air pollution, ocean degradation, freshwater shortage, animal extinction, these are all interconnected as parts of the strain that humanity is putting on the very ecosystem that keeps us living. In a world dominated by Monster Capitalism, all of these concerns fall by the way side, as a handful of corporate elites who own most of the world's money rape the planet for all it's worth. What environmentalists do is rather Fremen-like, conscious of exactly how each of their actions affect the future of their planet, and doing it all with a positive goal in mind. But what no one sees coming is that this Fremen dream might interfere with a universe addicted to melange, or a world addicted to oil. Frank Herbert knew what was up almost 50 years ago.

in the same way the right is using the health care debate and obama's race
to scare people into displaying weapons at town halls ?

kindalikethat?

No, Obama's doing that on his own.

I kinda' feel like Obama is the only democrat who gives a cares (or knows anything) about the healthcare bill. With the exception of Barney Frank and Hilary Clinton, of course. I'm pretty sure his main reason for this is to end all the nightmares of the uninsured middle-class. There are too many people getting screwed out of something that is far too important.

Led Zeppelin RULES!

You're finally making sense!

[Freakzilla]

That since I don't believe the global warming propaganda that I don't care about the environment? In my eye's you're no better than Glen Beck.

Sure there is global warming... there is global cooling too. It's a natural cycle. What politicians sell is fear, and I'm not buying it.

Well, let's be specific, then. By "global warming" (or more accurately, "climate change", since the effects vary), I'm talking about a destructive effect on climate caused by mankind, through increased CO2 emissions (industry, cars, cows burping) and decreased CO2 reductions through defoliation.

Science or propaganda?

HBJ

One volcano has more of an effect on the environment than we ever will.

[Crysknife]

That since I don't believe the global warming propaganda that I don't care about the environment? In my eye's you're no better than Glen Beck.

Sure there is global warming... there is global cooling too. It's a natural cycle. What politicians sell is fear, and I'm not buying it.

Well, let's be specific, then. By "global warming" (or more accurately, "climate change", since the effects vary), I'm talking about a destructive effect on climate caused by mankind, through increased CO2 emissions (industry, cars, cows burping) and decreased CO2 reductions through defoliation.

Science or propaganda?

HBJ

One volcano has more of an effect on the environment than we ever will.

Well yeah, an asteroid could hit the earth next month and destroy most life, doesn't mean we should help it along.

As a fan of science fiction, I find it hard that you can believe that.

[Hunchback Jack]

Well, I'm not sure that's relevant (or even true).

If you mean that a volcano has more impact on climate change than we do, I don't believe it. A volcano may spew thousands of tons of junk into the air, but it's generally of solid form rather than gas, so it disperses and settles out of the air relatively quickly. Mankind's CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere, so the effects are much longer-term, and they accumulate. The processes which break down atmospheric CO2 are much slower than the time it takes for volcanic ash to settle. In any case, the CO2 volumes are *much* larger. The amount of CO2 we've generated from over 100 years of industrialization and agriculture far outweighs the volume or mass of ejecta from a single volcanic eruption.

But in any case, even if the impact of one volcano were greater than our impact to the environment, that doesn't mean we should ignore our impact to the environment. Any impact we have will be *in addition to* whatever other causes of climate change there are.

To use an analogy, just because plane crashes account for fewer deaths per year than car accidents doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve aircraft safety.

HBJ