Glenn Beck is no Kennedy.

Bobby was relentless and right on target. This clown Glenn Beck really is a toadie.

Thanks for breaking this. Do you also have the video of Michael Moore on Keith Olberman from last night?

I am glad someone is setting an example of how to talk to the MSM fools and snap them out of having their heads up the bushie arse.

The MSM fools have been using false language lately, touting a neoCon talking point.

To debunk that myth, do the arithmetic.

The dems have 49 votes in the Senate and the repubs have 50 ... with Lieberman. But the MSM is constantly saying the dems have "Senate control".

The dems, contrary to this neoCon myth, do not "control the Senate", they only have the "caucus majority".

That does give them much power, because they have chairs of committees and majority votes on committees. That is why all the oversite, subpoenas, and trouble for the regime, since the last election.

However, dems do not have Senate control, which is defined as 60 votes. Next in the power heirarchy comes veto control with 67 votes.

So, to be fair the people gave them power in the last election because they have a caucus majority, but they need Senate control which is 60 votes, and veto control which is 67 votes.

Until then, we can only hope that more republicans will snap out of the hypnotic trance the neoCons have put on them, and vote with the dems.

The republicans have filibustered 43 times. The last time they filibustered Senator Webb's amendment that would require soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan to be at home equal to the time they were deployed. All 49 dems votes were for the Webb relief, but only 7 republicans went along with them, so the republican filibuster prevailed 56-41.

So, thanks to those "troop supporting" republicans, the troops can be home a week and have to go back even if they had been in Iraq two years.

Rest and recovery was what Webb offered them. He offered a bit more time for National Guard troops.

The republicans filibustered instead of supporting the troops. The republicans support the insane war, but lie and say they support the overstressed troops. Then blame it on the dems who they say have Senate control.

Maybe someone should recommend that Kennedy and Gore actually read the IPCC report as well, and go back to "An Inconvenient Truth" and revise it to accuracy.

Kennedy is the pot calling the kettle black. He is much like Gore, a pathetic limousine liberal.

If Kennedy cares about the environment, maybe he should sell his part of ownership in his Keeland Springs bottled water company.

As for a great American speech? This speech was about as factual as speeches given on Saturday Night Live.

As for Beck going back to journalism school? He's not a journalist, he says he's not a journalist and he makes clear his political leanings. He's a commentator, as much a journalist as Howard Stern.

As for questioning global warming, maybe Kennedy should read up on the authors of the IPCC reports and see how many have defected because their work was misinterpreted and cherry picked for only supporting statements while anything that disagreed with their political intentions was simply edited out. Many of these defectors had to sue to get their names taken off the list of contributors, some didn't, meaning the number of 2500 is inflated. Also, do we only have 2500 scientists in the world? No one else gets an opinion? Simply laughable, too bad the environmental extremist get more press than the reasonable, level headed environmentalist.

{Ed Note: I'm going to put some links here for y/our edification:

Extensive googling yields not the slightest support for your assertions about cherry picking and suits to have names taken off the list of contributors. Unless you can provide links to back up these statements your disinformation campaigning is not welcome here. --99}

I was just wondering, if this Bobby Kennedy speech got coverage on ANBCBSNNX...you know, like as much as they cover William Kristol on ANBCBSNNX?

Wake up! We're being brainwashed by ANBCBSNNX! Watch Democracy NOW! new! It's you civic duty!

Well, it says he DID appear on CNN...

But I would like to see overall comparisons of coverage of William Kristol vs. Bobby Kennedy...OVERALL, over a long period of time, on ANBCBSNNX. Did William Kristol ever hold any office? Why is this neo-con creep always on TV? I HATE that guy!

Dredd sed:

The dems have 49 votes in the Senate and the repubs have 50 ... with Lieberman

Just a small correction here, if I may - Bernie Sanders (I-VT) regularly caucuses with the Dems, so it's really a 50/50 split. But I agree with your overall sentiment regarding how the MSM reports on the "Dem majority" in the Senate.

Where are all these buttheads coming from? (#4)

Was there a new class of graduating students from the Leadership Institute lately ?

{Ed Note: Most are coming from the shill mills. Bobby scared them. So the fast and furious spin and disinformation is hitting the fan. I have to do a little more checking and the lies are going to get overwritten with the truth, and the liars banned. --99}

The MSM approval rating for congress at 24 and Dumbya at 26 and conclude that is bad news for the Democrats. Anybody who's mind function even a little bit should see those numbers as an indication that when the session ends those who are up for “reelection" might just as well pack up their bags and go home. Trying to win another term would be a complete waste of time. Few if any of them will not run and almost all of them will be “reelected”. The OtimumScams and the DRE's will take care of that for them while we are all busy voting in mass to though the Fascist bums out.

I don't think Beck's so hot, but RFK looks like he went off his rocker this last weekend at the live aid gig!

What, has the word passion lost its meaning and replaced by something else?

Stupidest comment I've read so far today:
"If Kennedy cares about the environment, maybe he should sell his part of ownership in his Keeland Springs bottled water company."

Erick,

A true "free market capitalist" would absolutely be frothing at the mouth to take advantage of the MASSIVE market available for "green, ecologically friendly, technology". The majority of the nay sayers, however would rather maintain the taxpayer subsidized tax break incentive oriented cash cow status quo. And those who wish to maintain the "status quo", make up the majority of the voices who "question, and thereby, delay, the economically sound ecologically friendly path.

Be a true conservative, instead of a mindless drone.

...sometimes I think the wingers get these two words mixed up, passion and masturbation

Did anyone notice how Glen didn't seem to think he has been pro-bush and pro-republican? He was representing himself as being extremely objective and fair. What a bunch of hogwash. He is definitely a talking points mouthpiece at times, even if he himself doesn't believe it.

this issue is your achilles heel brad!!
arguing for global warming can be an indicator that you believe it is co2 causing the alledged warming-- you must face the facts that our climate has never been stable and change is the norm-- or am i gonna have to write you off as one of those loons that actually considers the recent report that the sun has nothing to do with warming as credible?....say it aint so-- if any thing refuse to be sucked into their fake arguments of whether or not its occuring and choose a side-- either you think its co2 and the govt needs to save us or its a natural cycle that the govt needs to admit to and back off of their vain attempts of control at the cost of liberty and our unlienable rights-- anyone that thinks the warming is unnatural will also eventually support population reduction and eugenics!!

Thank you for reporting this story Alan. Thank you Robert for calling out these people for who they are and represent and most importantly work get out the human caused Global Warming Truth.
GBD

Thank you for reporting this story Alan. Thank you Robert for calling out these people for who they are and represent and most importantly working to get out the human caused Global Warming Truth.
GBD

Erick says, "As for Beck going back to journalism school? He's not a journalist, he says he's not a journalist."

EXACTLY! THAT'S WHY HE'S ON CNN!

THANK YOU! FOR BEING ON OUR SIDE ON THIS ISSUE!

I thought CNN was a "news" channel...

He should get me on his show. I'll tell him which it should be.

Nancy P has announced she is taking calls on impeachment today- see details at www.bcimpeach.com
phone numbers are there!

Patty P #7

The constitution gives 2 senators per state. There are currently 50 states, thus 2 x 50 = 100 Senators.

Democrats (49):

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Clinton (D-NY), Conrad (D-ND), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

Republicans (49):

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH). Warner (R-VA)

Independents (2):

Lieberman (I-CT), Sanders (I-VT)

49 + 49 + 2 = 100 Senators

Lieberman caucused with the dems to give them the caucus majority. Which gave them chair of all committees, and majority votes in all committees.

However on war votes, he votes with the republicans.

One democrat, Johnson, is incapacitated and does not vote.

So on war votes now: dems 48 + Sanders = 49, republicans 49 + Lieberman = 50.

When Senator Johnson can vote again, then it will be 50 - 50. But that may take a while and he could even have a relapse.

Either way the democrats do hot have control or even a majority, they only have "caucus majority".

Spread the word. Lets stop the "dems have Senate control" myths.

{Ed Note: Sorry. You don't get to make outrageous statements without some authority to back them up anymore. You're clearly trying to smear with disinformation people who are acting in good faith. FYI, Bobby lives in NY and so did not have to fly to the concert. All the performers at the concerts were chosen for their nearness so they would not have to fly. Some of the artists took the bus to the concerts. I don't know yet if all the concerts shook out carbon neutral but some of them sure did, and that was the aim. Anyway, you bring links to back up your comments, or you don't get to say them here. --99}

Brad, please tell your contact at Bobby's office to make sure all his appearances are taped also by someone on his side so that when they edit out what they don't want us to see/hear there's proof to be shown on the pipes... or maybe even on Olbermann.

I called Pelosi to ask her to put impeachment back on the table. She better.

http://www.lavoisier.com...rs/articles/landsea.html

http://www.opinionjourna....com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.reuters.com/a...le/idUSL1829984220070418

And since you required that I provide links, I would ask that you actually read the whole articles and argue specific points rather than simply sigh and complain that they are paid off/flat earthers/denialist etc.

BTW, your right, RFK didn't fly to the concert. For that mistake, I will now make this pledge. I pledge to never allow my carbon output to grow larger than that of Al Gore.

{Ed Note: Thank you for trying to provide links. We all know there are skeptics publishing. You have not backed up your assertion that signatories to the IPCC Report had to sue to get their names removed. You show here where one scientist was uncomfortable with his research being used by others to make claims about his findings and so therefore withdrew from the process of putting the report together. And if you'd pledged to help make alternative energy available years ago, Al Gore might not have had to get on all those pollution spewers to educate people across the globe about the dangers and how we are contributing to them. I know you'll say he should have to swim, but WHERE IS YOUR BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM ABOUT LAWSUITS TO REMOVE SIGNATURES? --99}

There is much more controversy here than the people on both extremes will admit. We should stop shouting each other down, listen and think.

For example, the often quoted sea rise if Greenland ice melts is 21 feet. I was curious so I did the calculation. Volume of ice divided by the surface area of the oceans, correct for density change - voila - I get 21 feet, but this it physically impossible since you would have to assume that shifting 2.4 trillion tons of ice have no effect on the earth's crust.

So if you take it one step further and correct for the enormous shifting of the mass from Greenland to the oceans and account for the rebound of the land and depression of sea floor the 21 feet is reduced to only 3 feet.

In an article in Popular Science ice sheet researcher Konrad Steffen quotes the 21 foot sea rise repeatedly, then at the very end of the article, when pressed for his best guess, says 3 feet by the year 2100.

This agrees pretty well with what I calculate, but they always resort to using the scary over statements.

I call this lying and it does not serve society well.

One of Erick's links is to a letter from Chris Landsea. From Wikipedia on Christopher Landsea, PhD:

Research
Dr. Landsea has published a number of research papers on cyclones and hurricanes. He is the author of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Tropical Cyclones: FAQ. He also has been the lead scientist in the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis since 1997.

Stance about the influence of global warming on hurricane winds
In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns. Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent". He strongly questions the accuracy of the historical global hurricane database for comparisons with current observations, citing an uncounted, catastrophic 1970 storm as an example. After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Republican administrators preferred Landsea over other scientists in NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change.

The now published SPM AR4 IPCC report doesn't specify the amount of enhancement in hurricane winds, and thus doesn't contradict Landsea's numbers.

Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who originally published Landsea's letter, expressed his opinion that the actual IPCC report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts."

Global warming and hurricanes
In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity." He went on to say "with the Atlantic hurricanes in particular, they're due to changes both in the ocean as well as the atmosphere. Just changing the ocean where it's a little bit warmer isn't sufficient. " As for climate change affecting Hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that "hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour."

Far cry from the claims you are making, Erick.

Opps - I just looked again at my calcualtor. The tonnage was 2.48×10^15 that's not trillion that's quadrillion tons.

Onyx

I'm not yelling, and I'm certain scientists are often wrong about a lot, but, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that all the PhDs who came up with the figures wouldn't have factored in the displacement by the ice?

Is everybody scared they're gonna have to ride the bus?

Scared people who put the health of our planet ahead of corporate profits will take power?

Or getting paid to pander to people's desires not to have to modify their behavior, not to have to think so hard, and just leave the responsibility to our governments?

99- If they factor in the movement of the crust it's not scary enough to get funding for research and for the powers-that-be to compel you to work for their interests.

Another thing they don't mention is the amount of heat that must be absorbed from the oceans to melt the ice. If the ice melts fast enough it will lower the ocean's temperature significantly and maybe be enough to reverse the CO2 increase - colder water will absorb more CO2. It's just a theory, but valid as far as I can tell.

We should use the earth's resources wisely. That requires an honest search for the truth.

Well, I firmly believe that honest searches have been being conducted for decades and will continue for the rest of our time on Earth. I believe also that those who are being called "alarmists" are acting in good faith, and their action is based on the soundest science, the best consensus from the scientists not being bought or coerced into slanting their findings. There is no earthly reason to come out and trash Al Gore or Bobby Kennedy for their efforts to get the attention to this emergency it would take to do what is humanly possible to mitigate or avert the cataclysmic changes in progress and ahead of us. I don't know if the ice caps melting would have a good effect overall, but it will kill the inhabitants, and the permafrost melt is releasing METHANE into the atmosphere, and that's way worse than carbon. So just standing idly by, waiting for the colder water to help reverse things sounds like a really dumb idea to me. The mass extinction event promised by all these awful trends ought to be enough to convince everyone that we should be trying our hearts out right now, whether or not we can prevent it. Even if the whole thing turns out not to have been as big a deal as so many EXPERTS think it is, there is NO downside for the planet in pulling together to fix this, just a few bent-out-of-shape plutocrats.

The powers that be pretty damn well are compelling us to work for their interests. If you want a paycheck, you work for them. Where you are not compelled, the government has removed the restrictions that would have prevented those who will work for their interests so that they can.

A huge percentage of our government officials are fascists. They are doing the bidding of the plutocrats, the corporatists. They are using the Constitution for toilet paper. Countless petitions by citizens all have been ignored. Our votes to oust them have been flipped. Flea-brained officials like Inhofe are screeching lies onto the Congressional Record, even in the face of proof that they are lying. The fascist-owned media is delivering the sound bites so citizens think there is some earthly reason to be skeptical of this avalanche of good science.

It makes me crazy that supposedly-sentient beings are opening their yaps to fight sense at this late hour. It's as though they are hypnotized by their tv sets or something. SNAP OUT OF IT! Everything could depend on it.

Besides, I know yer all KAOS agents anyway. Give up now! You don't stand a chance. I've used 86's shoe phone to call in reinforcements.

AND somebody give Davis Fleetwood a hummer!

99 - I don't disagree that you might be right.

I'm just not as sure as you. I demand evidence that I can verify and the deeper I look into the causes of global warming the more unsure I become.

Consider this: what about the experts that almost destroyed Yellowstone after it was set aside as national park? What about the experts in the 70's that were trying to scare everyone about a new ice age? What about the experts that assured us Iraq had WMD? What about the experts that said 911 was planned and executed by few radical Islamists? What about the experts that said MAD (mutually assured destruction) was sound policy? What about the experts that said the population bomb was going reduce the world to misery by now if governments didn't institute inhuman policies?

The one thing you can say about conventional wisdom is that it is always wrong. It usually contains some truth but it is always mostly wrong and those that try to expose it's misleading nature are always vilified.

Moderate skepticism of both extremes of the global warming controversy is justified not because it's safer to be in the middle, but becasue that is were the evidence leads. To be precise - sticking our heads in the sand is wrong AND claiming that we are doomed if we don't all jump on the band wagon is wrong. There is evidence to reject both.

But I guess somebody has to take those positions or there wouldn't be a middle ground - extreme positions are part of the landscape of opinion that we have to choose from.

I'm going follow the facts that I can verify and hope more people will join me.

Onyx

Okay. I admit "experts" was a very poor choice of words. And I agree that even the most purely-motivated experts can be and have been wrong on many occasions. THE salient point for you and those who think like you do on this issue is that your skepticism, middle groundedness, willingness to put into the public sphere your doubts on THIS issue, all could very well be murderously consequential. If you need what you need in order to bring yourself into alignment with the recommendations expressed by Gore and Kennedy and so many others, then you go about getting it quietly, on your own, until you are 100% convinced. Every reservation you have is slowing us that much more. Every reservation you express empowers those who wish this science to be ignored that much more.

There can be no cogent argument about Gore's or Kennedy's motives. It's like slamming them for advocating a cure for cancer. There is nothing whatever harmful or evil in their advocacy for cleaning up the planet, conserving energy, finding new and cleaner sources of energy and mandating their implementation. It means a healthier and safer planet, and booming economies, thousands and thousands and thousands of new jobs.... The only people who don't like it are those who profit from polluting, or those who see Gore and Kennedy as the enemies of conservatism, and neither of those excuses is remotely righteous when you put it up against the benefits they advocate ==> EVEN IF THEY'RE WRONG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

Do you, will you, take my point?

99 - your said there is no downside.

What if proposals to insulate the ice sheets are carried out(a grand enlargement of European efforts to conserve glaciers with blankets) actually prevents the melting of the ice sheets and thus short circuits the earth's natural mechanism for returning our climate to balance? Or what if the proposals to dump large amounts of iron into the oceans are carried out and actually succeed in fixing large amounts of CO2 as planned, upset the balance and send us into a deep ice age.

Its not nice to mess with Mother Nature, especially if you don't really know what you are doing. Let's keep moving forward deliberately and be willing to adapt to everything we learn along the way. That's how evolution works and that is how humanity has succeeded - so far.

And the traitorous media shills are making their living off this shit. Bobby stood up to the people who killed his father to call them out! THAT'S BEAUTIFUL. He's the one out of all of them with the balls to stand up for America, and "Erick" is sitting at his keyboard thinking up lies to spew against it.

Unbe-fucking-lievable.

Truly, Onyx, look up about the permafrost spewing tons of methane into the atmosphere. Give up on the natural mechanism notion long enough to factor that in. I have no doubt the earth will eventually recover, centuries, millennia from now, but humans are apt to be extinct or back to the stone age, and all the creatures extinct as well.

Let's keep moving forward deliberately and be willing to adapt to everything we learn along the way. That's how evolution works and that is how humanity has succeeded - so far.

That's what is being proposed by Gore and Kennedy and the Live Earth people, and that's what Beck and Hannity, et al. are fighting.

Its not nice to mess with Mother Nature, especially if you don't really know what you are doing.

That's what we have been doing throughout our entire history, and what is being proposed we stop.

99 - I should have mentioned biofuels. They very well might be a distaster in the making. Biofuel production will give rich countries the power starve poor counties by buy up all the food production capabilites to fuel their ecomomies. Also, some say, quite convincingly, that biofuels consume more energy than they provide. Indonesia has increase it's CO2 emission to #3 in the world due to increased production of palm oil for use as biofuel. More disasters await us if we move blindly forward on faith alone.

99 - I'm on your side. I think Kennedy is a great man, especially his efforts on exposing election fraud.

I'm not advocating doing nothing, I see the environmental movement exposing itself to ridicule if it is not careful. The hysteria being whipped up by fear tactics is going to lead us into things we all will regret, but then again maybe what we need is an avalanche of change. I don't know.

Time to go to bed. I look forward to reading your comments later.

The technology for using switchgrass is very close and growing that does not interfere with food crop production. There was a very good lecture on it at Princeton some months ago. You can find it on their lecture archive in video form. We need to be working as hard as ever we can on this stuff and the funding for the research has not been enough. The government has been working hard against it for over six years. The answers are out there, most of them known, and none of them going to do anything but uplift the poor countries. Brazil can grow enough --- without interfering with food crops --- to fuel the whole world. Do your homework.

Night night, Onyx.

al"chicken little" gores theory that the sky is falling has more holes than a sponge which is ironic considering he wants to soak up tax payer dollars to fund imaginary reliefs to create eroneous depts,beureaus and administrations to develop new ways to scam tax payers money-- but really ...why do you HAVE to believe in global warming in order to have an anti opec position? instead of worrying about new legislation to curb the industrial impact on the ecology why not just actually "ENFORCE" the laws that are already in place-- its just like the border fence scam-- which wants to divert large sums of taxpayer money to nonfunctional absurdities(show me a 20 ft fence and ill show you a 21 ft ladder) instead of actually enforcing the laws pertaining to illegals-- this is rediculous and a testament to the proliferation of tabloid journalism and its proponnents

talk about soaking up the taxpayer dollar SHEESH - Just one month of the (illegal) Iraq occupation would probably fund BOTH Al Gore's global warming remedy AND Michael Moore's health care solution.

I, though not a Glenn beck fan by any means, would have to say that RFK Jr betrays the fact that he is lying about global warning by his shakey voice. He didn't Shred Beck, I don't even think he nicked him.
Our use of fossil fuels, while a filthy filthy technology, is not causing global warming. Ice moons of Saturn and Jupiter are turning liquid and the Mars Polars caps are receding, and our cars and chimneys have nothing to do with that. Basic 8th grade Earth science tells me that Carbon Dioxide is a life giving gas, not a pollutant. The real environmental issue that face up are the fact the GMO food staples are toxic and cross pollinating with pure strains of Corn, Wheat and Soy, the Army just dumped tons of nerve gas in the ocean and due to to insanity of the Military Industrial Complex, we are allowing the salting of the Earth with Delepted Uranium. Deal with the real environmental issues that we can do something about, not a peak in the Solar output cycle that we can do nothing about.

Joe --- Kennedy's shaky voice is a congenital disorder, something he was born with, inherited. He has a radio show anyway. He's a brilliant speaker, and if you look more closely you might begin to see how badly he shredded that posturing and fuming fiend, even though a lot of it was edited to favor Beck.

Onyx said: "Its not nice to mess with Mother Nature, especially if you don't really know what you are doing."

99 said: "That's what we have been doing throughout our entire history, and what is being proposed we stop."

What Gore and others are doing is creating an enormous political machine, fueled by fear and hysteria, that can and will bulldoze over any facts that get the way. It's more of the same messing with nature. The only difference is that greedy corporate interests are replaced with a political movement to control people's choices.

Good points Onyx and 99, But I'm of the opinion that the Biofuel movement is a disaster in the making.
The farmers want it because of the demand increase will increase their profits short term.
The topsoil we have on the planet is finite, so if we use it all up now, with our endless (snark) supply of groundwater to irrigate those crops to grow fuel it's gone for future generations to use to grow food.
The same goes for switching to hydrogen which I think to be a great idea, except big oil wants to burn up all of our future heating stock to get it via natural gas and they're not so keen on moving to solar, even though they produce all of the solar panels in existance today.
What really bugs the piss outta me is that they make a huge solar/Natural gas powered hydrogen fuel cell that is big enough to power, provide drinking water and hydrogen fuel to a small town or small enough for an individual household and get everyone off the grid, but you never hear the power/water/oil companies letting that info escape.

...oh, and that fuel cell also produce some heat too for heating or cooling your home when it's on.
Them nasty bastards don't want you to know about this because it leaves them out of the picture, get it?

http://www.myspace.com/rfk_jr_for_the_usa

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/

http://draftrfkjr.blogspot.com/

Fuk man, I can hear the crickets chirping now

Well, I wish I could link to the specific Princeton lecture that would make you guys feel better about the future of biofuel... but, in fact, it's a scientist who is, of course, idealizing how it could be done by rational beings. Big flaw right there. So what's the point? I'll put my good glasses on and see if I can't pull up his name for you, if yer interested in spending a couple hours listening about the state of things with respect to alternative fuels and the ideas being bandied about for mitigating the poisons going into the atmosphere. Can't remember even what university he was from... I'm thinkin' Cal Tech, but I'm also thinking I'm wrong.

Onyx, is it not more useful to use people's fear to motivate them to do good rather than use it to make them do evil? I know it's not Gore's intent to terrify people, but to alert them to something bigger than all of us about which we can do certain things, and can do radically more if we put our minds to it. None of it involves killing innocent masses to fatten his bank accounts as we see other men and women making happen all around us now. I'm so seriously sick of the Rovian tactic of using every term that applies to this fiendish gang of thugs in office now, turning it around and using it on the opposition. And, whether you realize it or not, that's what you just did with Gore. It's so brain-numbing and it has obviously numbed too many brains. There is a huge campaign against being sensible out there and it has reached into every corner of our lives. Please. Free your head.

RFK, Jr. 2008

Have you spoken to Bobby about your little campaign? Are you aware that his father and his uncle, maybe even his cousin, were killed to keep them from being the leaders they were? Do you not realize that there is a real chance that he would be targeted by these same people? I would love to have him for president, but that's asking for him to be killed, since nobody bothered to take out the pigs who killed them. Chappaquiddick is the only reason Teddy's still alive. Without it, he'd be dead now too. If you don't come out with an airtight way to keep Bobby safe while you're stumping for him, don't you think you could be alerting them to the "need" to kill him too? I'd say that's Bobby's call! Don't you think you ought to at least try to deal with him privately about this first? Make sure he's willing to face all the assassination attempts before you go further?

Don't get me wrong, if he is, I would make myself into his body armor, but the more successful your draft campaign the more danger to him.

Onyx and Floridiot

Okay. Steven Chu, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Labs, March 30, 2006 on the Princeton lectures page. Really interesting stuff.

I have liked this blog for a while but never read the comments before. I like the intelligent people here and the moderation of outrageous comments.
I am not a scientist, but it is obvious to me that something is causing alot of ice to melt on this planet. I went to Alaska two years ago and saw the glaciers melting. We observed that in the last 20 years the melting has increased from 20 feet per year to 2000 feet per year. (that might not be the exact figure, but the magnitude was on the order of 100 times). I made the worker there show me where they got the figures I was so amazed.
One does not have to be a scientist to understand the logic of putting billions of pounds of CO2 in the air and its effect on the planet. I do not understand why people fight this either.

What's the point to this article? I would think a site like this would ridicule the nonsense and non scientific global warming hoax. Kennedy is even worse than Glen Beck( Who is about as pathetic as they come)because he knows this is complete propaganda designed to help usher in the one world government to save us from ourselves.

Again I ask, What is the point to publishing this article? It makes me wonder what Brad's real motives might be.

Wow. I think I agree with Glen Beck for once and I usually think he is a nutcase. Nice well meaning guy but Beck is a nut. RF Kennedy, Jr. is even worse in this. Terrible RFK. He didn't win that at all. Glen Beck KO'd with the oil comment and RFK said nothing to that.

99, here's the disaster that is bio-fuels...and they haven't even hardly started yet.
Link

I must have some native blood in me because I think it is sacrilege to grow food for fuel.

You gots you a bad troll problem here, yup, he scared them allright.

Run some more Moore pieces too guys, they're gonna stick around until they think the coast is clear on these two subjects.

If Bobby'd lost this little scuffle with Beck there wouldn't be all the trolls. They only come out when they've been made to look like total assholes... and then they compound the trouble. Sheesh.

I'm not talking corn for biofuel. If that's the route they want to take, I'm against it too. You really should catch that lecture I linked. Switchgrass, grown where food isn't, and possibly boosted with microbial help.

There's a lot of other really interesting things in there too. I just listened to it again, and found it heartening. He really makes a lot clear.

I hope that RFK starts talking about getting everyone off the fuel/electric grid eventually, that's the thing they're really worried about.
We could cut 50+% of our fossil fuel consumption and eliminate coal, nuke and gasoline distribution.
The technology IS there to do this right now, but if he starts talking about it, he might have to disappear I'm afraid

It's market driven, so yes, that's the way it will go. I'm afraid.
I'll watch that later, I'm watching Easy Rider right now

So you see this 'off the grid' problem clearly, that's why Carter had to go away because that's what he wanted to push through and that is one of the main reasons I don't like Capitulism either, they have the power to put new ideas on the market when it suits them financially and the power to keep them off the market at the same time when it doesn't suit them financially.
This pollution problem was solved for the most part thirty years ago.

...my above comment was aimed more at the trolls to let them know that some of us are wise to their disguise

Sheesh. One friend watching Blazing Saddles and another watching Easy Rider... while I'm watching videos about Israel and Palestine that have so totally ruined the arrangement of my face.

If anyone missed Moyers on Friday, it's rock 'em sock 'em on impeachment and y'ought not miss it. Or there's a clip on neufneuf with a link to the rest. We should be making Pelosi's life living hell until she sets the damn table. They identified in this show the missing ingredient in our government: statesmanship. Bobby Kennedy has more statesmanship in his little finger than any of them have in their whole bodies. Let's just hope it's only trolls coming after him.

heh, I'm waiting for Jack Nicholson to come on Easy now, he played that part so good I lmao @ him.

Just to let the goons know that I'm not bullshitting them.

After Carter was scammed out of the White house, the first thing Reagan did when he moved in was have the solar panel system removed from the roof...no, not just disconnected, they ripped it off and threw it away.
So you see how serious these fukers are

Couldn't keep him. We'd be off the sauce [oil] by now, or at least the ME sauce, if they'd let him stay. Couldn't have that! Oh, heck no! Buncha oil men with tin cups in the streets, doncha know.

Makes me smile to think of Jack in Easy Rider... in so many roles.

Jack on freedom

Jacks first drink of the day

I don't think Kennedy shredded Beck at all. I think Beck is an ass but that the people who watch him will walk away from this thinking that Beck put Kennedy in his place. Thinking people don't watch Beck - and people like Kennedy should not waste their time appearing on these shows or FNN. You're not going to change the idiots who watch this stuff - you just reinforce their misguided beliefs.

99 - I hope you and the others are not referring to me when you talk about all the trolls that have come out on this issue.

I checked your link to Steven Chu very, very interesting like you said, but you must have linked the wrong talk or you were smoking something when you listened to it.

What I got out of the hour and half talk was that there isn't much of a consensus, global warming has many causes, the degree that people cause GW is a subject of contentious debate, there are many problems to overcome, the path is not clear, and that he personally is advocating for research into synthetic biology to create new life that can convert sunlight to energy more efficiently.

In fact he bemoans the inefficiency of sawgrass and cites that it take 45% more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the gallon will produce. Despite this he thinks there is potential through genetic engineering to create plants that can do much better.

I think he makes my point very well. Much better than I could.

Onyx

I liked that lecture so well because he shows how, whether you believe in global warming or not, how important these things are to address. I liked that he was about as far from alarmist as one can be on this subject, and still managed to talk about the state of things. He did a great job of laying out what's in the works. It was over a year ago, and so the state has progressed, of course. He also talks about how the problem with ethanol can/will be remedied. Richard Branson, the billionaire of all the Virgin companies, has invested in a few of the technologies Chu was talking about there.

He was in fact talking about a dire situation, showed how humans have either brought it on or it's just a coincidence all this began precisely with the industrial age. This talk was given before the updated IPCC reports, and he did not mention about the permafrost problem. He was very clearly trying to head off screamers by repeatedly saying, "whether or not you believe in global warming"... as if belief in it bears on it at all. That irritated me about it, that he would let those who believe their lack of belief is sufficient to ward it off off the hook that way.

I'm remembering when we had water rationing where I lived, a really prolonged drought. I remember the people who ignored it, kept filling their tubs, flushing toilets, washing cars and watering lawns. They'd say stuff like:

~I've seen water in the reservoirs.
~We're not running out.
~It will rain.
~Maybe you can get clean on three showers a week, but not me.

Well, it didn't rain in time and we had to pipe in emergency water from the reserves in another county. Same mindset as LA draining Mono Lake and killing the Owens River with swimming pools, etc. Don't have water? Take it from someone else.

Same kind of head trips now about global warming. People too used to convenience and ease and pleasure to absorb the destructiveness of it, to let themselves absorb the fact that they need to modify their behavior, that they need to make their governments modify their behavior.... We're like toddlers! We rely on mother nature to provide, pull us out of our difficulties, right things. Naw, Mom'll fix it.

Onyx, I said good points, I would never say that to a suspected troll

Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya...swomp

99 - are you saying I'm part of the stick-your-head-in-the sand deniers? If so you have not been listening.

What I'm saying is that we should be organizing more along the lines of the responsible, cautious, scientific approach of Prof. Chu not Al Gore's fear mongering and misrepresentation of facts.

The only thing I can say about An Inconvenient Truth is that those that accept it on faith will run over any inconvenient facts that get in their way.

I'm committed to pointing this out anytime I see it.

BTW the issue isn't whether not not one believes in global warming but what is the cause and is it a problem. I don't think humans are major cause and I don't think it is a big problem, but I sure as hell want responsible scientists studying it and reporting on it in a truthful manner. And I'm going to make sure I know enough to tell whether they are lying.

Onyx, for the reasons I have laid out in my posts above, who has the bigger chance of lying to you ?

Onyx

I don't think you made your case about Gore. I think your purpose is more to dis Gore, more to call his motives into question than to get the emergency handled. Chu is in 100% agreement with Gore on all the facts presented in his slide show, as far as I can tell, and in fact helped put the information in the slide show out there for Gore's use. That he chooses to present the facts in a lecture to students he wishes to interest in working in this field differently than Gore chooses to present them in his lectures to people he wishes to convince of the gravity of this situation is purely a function of the purpose of the talk, not content manipulation.

Chu's exposition of how far out of phase CO2 is with the temperature compared to all the other warmings and coolings was indeed less strikingly illustrated than Gore's, but it was identical. Chu just waves away the questions, or states the questions can all work themselves out later, because he's trying to keep young potential climate scientists' eyes on the ball, not trying to convince governments and populations how urgent our attention to this matter really is.

So, yes, I think in a sense you are trying to keep your head in the sand.

Most people insist that fear is the best motivator, no matter how hard I try to fight that stupid and lowly and sick idea, but it actually seems that there is --- unfortunately --- merit in this argument.

I don't think you can question that Gore is genuinely alarmed. There are no nefarious reasons for him to sound the alarm. This in no way compares to the fear-mongering of the neocons to get us to let them loot the treasury and suck other countries dry and turn the whole world against us. So even if Gore were purposely trying to scare people, his motive is altruistic. His motive is for the benefit of humanity, not the enrichment of plutocrats.

You can say what you have to say on the subject of global warming and what we should do about it without dissing Gore, or Kennedy, or any of the people working their butts off to alert the peoples of the earth to this crisis. Impugning that work ONLY serves entropy... and that actually is a trollish pursuit... if you think about it.

99, did you see this one?

Link

No. I didn't. Thank you to little bitty bits for that link, Flo. I'm watching now.

Get it here first folks, Charlie Crist, Governor-R Fla is putting a new solar panel system on the roof.

I just put all nine segments of that wonderful Australian tv program that was the subject of Floridiot's link above on neufneuf for the convenience of anyone who'd like to get a better grip on the unvarnished facts.

I love that you put up one quote from RFK, Jr. that shows how he "shredded" Beck and that it is a complete fabrication and lie and no one calls him out:

fascism (from the American Heritage dictionary) - a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

RFK Jr's definition of fascism: "the domination of government by corporate power." Does it serve the public well to stoke the flames of hatred by name calling instead of entering a legitimate debate about whether we should spend our resources by buying offsets from third world countries or keeping that money to fund the most ingenuitive people in the world to actually solve the problem.

Going around calling people "fascist" without even knowing the definition reminds me of Macarthyism. You all are against that, right?

RFK Jr. said his definition came from Mussolini. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Fasci de Combattimento. They were later referred to as "Fascists". They were promoting the idea that business and commerce was the root cause of the current socioeconomic problems in Italy. Mussolini was hoping that class-struggle politics would eventually lead to economic and social collapse (sound familiar), creating the vacuum for him to some day step in as leader. His oppressive and brutal tactics have in the end become the current definition of fascism.

By that standard, Mussolini was a fascist dictator (much like Hugo Chávez is now). RFK Jr. has been quoting this Mussolini "definition" of fascism (saying it's from the American Heritage Dictionary) lately to justify his shouting down of climate change experts he does not agree with, saying they are "corporate toadies". It's in the AHD, but only as a historical reference to show how the word got it's meaning.

It looks like RFK Jr., Mussolini and Hugo Chávez may all have something in common (fascism).

Only if you're a half-witted troll who thinks people will believe your blather. Fascism (Oxford American):

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.


The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

Neither Kennedy nor Chavez bears as close a resemblance as do a great many current United States government officials... especially Republicans.

And I've closed comments on this thread now as it has become a troll magnet. Sorry.