Bjørn Lomborg and Dr. Roy Spencer to be in Fox News special tonight on climate skepticsm and green agenda

This should be good. From Fox news, video follows.

Bret Baier travels across America, revealing rogue regulators, tracing the truth about the president’s environmental agenda and exposing programs that could devastate our economy!

Check out a sneak peek of the special below, and tune in on Sunday at 9p ET to watch the full ‘Fox News Reporting: Behind Obama’s Green Agenda’ on Fox News.

Dr. Spencer writes in an email today:

Tonight at 8 p.m. CDT (9PM EDT/6PM PDT) I’ll be on a FoxNews special entitled “Behind Obama’s Green Agenda”, hosted by Bret Baier.  They have not decided when it will air again…FNC probably will announce that in the next few days.

link to video here

UPDATE: – here is an Email from Dr. Spencer tonight:

Well, for those watched…no Roy. They used a couple animations I gave them (early in the show), but the direction of the show was quite different that they envisioned a few months ago, when I spent half a day with them.

Oh, well…it will save me from being harassed over what I said on-camera…for now. ;) Maybe they will do something more climate-specific later.

About these ads

83 thoughts on “Bjørn Lomborg and Dr. Roy Spencer to be in Fox News special tonight on climate skepticsm and green agenda

  1. Good to see Bret Baier doing this – I consider him among the most balanced of Fox’s newscasters. His interviews tend to be penetrating and reasonably thorough, without the partisan snarkiness so often seen on Fox. He did the Climategate 1 hour special in 2009. I’ll be tuning into this….

  2. This is good news. The debate on Climate will finally be addressed in a “fair and balanced” report without all the preconceived notions and ridiculous presumptions that are frequently in play behind the scenes. (That said, the Spencer Michaels report wasnt all that bad.)

    I’m going to check it out also. Brett Baier is an excellent reporter and commentator.

  3. I also got an email that Peter Wood from the National Association of Scholars would be appearing to discuss the Sustainability focus on campus.

    Second Nature wants Sustainability to be the focus of all campus courses. Such a good use of that Heinz money.

  4. Au contraire,

    I found Brett Baier to be a gigantic [trimmed] during the presidential debates. His job was to be the debate MODERATOR and instead he took part in the debate and was openly hostile to Ron Paul and his views.

  5. Fox ought to do a show on America’s 14,000 inoperative windmills. Call it “No Longer Operative,” which will slyly allude to the greenies’ promises that were made about them before they were built. Those promises should be quoted and shown, if videotaped versions are available.

  6. Kudos to Brett Baier, so there are actually a few honest investigative reporters out there brave enough to tackle the almighty but flawed consensus. Sure hope the content reflect this.

  7. This is excellent news, especially with Roy Spencer on the programme adding a strong even-handed and sober scientific voice. The only problem I see with airing it on Fox is that the people they most want to reach probably don’t watch that channel for its sometimes ‘extreme’ views and right-wing bias. At least that’s how Fox is generally perceived here in NZ. Loonie lefties wouldn’t be seen dead watching it.

    In any case, it’s great to see another major vent for the sceptical/rational side of the climate debate and I’m sure it’ll stir up the usual outrage from the warmistas. Too bad!

  8. Saw Lomborg, but either I was looking the other way at the time or Spencer wound up on the cutting room floor. Decent summary of the general environmental regulatory arena, but not much on AGW.

  9. Unfortunately Fox News is such a joke that even in Australia we have heard about it. But maybe this will be a first step to a more respectable News porgramme.

  10. I had to step out for a few minutes. Did I miss Dr. Spencer? I was really looking forward to listening to him speak.

  11. rogerknights says:
    October 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    Fox ought to do a show on America’s 14,000 inoperative windmills. Call it “No Longer Operative,” which will slyly allude to the greenies’ promises that were made about them before they were built. Those promises should be quoted and shown, if videotaped versions are available.
    ================================================================
    To the tune of “Where Have All The Flowers Gone”
    by Pete Seeger

    Where have all the windmills gone?
    Long time failing
    Where have all the windmills gone?
    Broke long ago
    Where have all the windmills gone?
    Poor plan doomed them every one
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Long time failing
    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Broke long ago
    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Made in Finland every one
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where has Solyndra’s cash all gone?
    Long time passing
    Where has Solyndra’s cash all gone?
    Long time ago
    Where has Solyndra’s cash all gone?

    Ours to theirs it’s been transformed

    When will we ever learn?
    When will we ever learn?

  12. RoHa says… and yeah he says, but he doesn’t check the facts:

    According to these stats, MSNBC is the joke. They are even more of a joke than Comedy central……But these stats are only the number of viewers.. and the number of viewers doesn’t matter. sarc.

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    THURS. OCT. 4, 2012

    FOXNEWS O’REILLY 4,280,000
    FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,908,000
    FOXNEWS GRETA 3,248,000
    FOXNEWS BAIER 2,243,000
    FOXNEWS THE FIVE 2,310,000
    FOXNEWS SHEP 2,243,000
    CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,841,000
    FOXNEWS FOX&FRIENDS 1,741,000
    CMDY COLBERT 1,456,000
    MSNBC MADDOW 1,286,000
    MSNBC O’DONNELL 1,193,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 1,109,000
    MSNBC SHARPTON 1,044,000
    CNN COOPER 645,000
    CNN BLITZER 624,000
    CNN PIERS 598,000
    MSNBC MORNING JOE 576,000

  13. Seems the show was more about EPA abuse rather than climate ‘warming’. RoHa, Fox may be a joke in Australia, here in the US it’s just slightly left of center. You want a joke, check out MSNBC.

  14. @ Paul Westhaver

    “RoHa says… and yeah he says, but he doesn’t check the facts”

    The joke is that Fox news doesn’t have any facts to check, not that they don’t have any viewers.

    “Fox may be a joke in Australia, here in the US it’s just slightly left of center.”

    Fox has the reputation of being a mouthpiece for the warmongering neocons. If that is “left of center” in the US, then Ghenghis Khan would count as a dangerous socialist.

  15. Too bad about Spencer being cut out, but the expose had to be a shocker to the many who haven’t known about the U.S. Sustainability Oligarchy of the religiously Liberal minded. AGW fraud is, of course, but a part of the religious effort that reaches from Presidencies through your government kindergarten. Hopefully, Nov. 6 can make a difference – certainly FOX and sites like WUWT have – to their unique extent. As has been known and, as Baier shared, the Oligarchy cares nothing if it’s ends has to justify the killing of millions to something like malaria, or anything else.

  16. Roy Spencer says: “Oh, well…it will save me from being harassed over what I said on-camera…for now. ;) Maybe they will do something more climate-specific later.”

    Oh well, I guess they’ll just have to make a scandal about what he did not say on air. About the fact that he was even interviewed.

    I mean the man denies climate ever existed from what I heard.

  17. @RoHa,

    The reputation of Fox News that you cite is sourced mostly from MSNBC, CNBC and CNN who are getting their buts kicked in the ratings by Fox and who will do and say anything to bring Fox down.

    From what I have seen of MSNBC, most of their hosts / anchors likely think Stalin was right wing.

  18. Tsk… RoHa got pwned.

    As the man said “…the number of viewers doesn’t matter. sarc.” Enjoy your little bubble of reality. It’s safe, it’s cuddly, and you don’t have to think for yourself.

    Personally, I don’t watch Fox that often, but If there is a news story that needs to be viewed, I get less tripe from Fox than any of the others.

    So.. go ahead, believe what you wish. We will sit here and pity your ignorance.

  19. Ro Ha – A major UCLA journalism study covered US media outlets, addressing their bias and/or balance in citations. Their published study, actually recorded the citations that varied in time, but were over 5 years of records in the case of FoxNews. FoxNews Special Report was the most balanced, but it was just a tiny bit liberal at .503 in their verifiable citations. ABC World News was much more liberal biased at .65, followed by even more liberal media groups USA Today .67, NBC .71, LA Times .73, CBS Evening News .74 and the New York times was the most biased at .79 or basically as they say, “completely in the tank.” They were measuring the “Fraction Liberal” so that .5 would be perfect balance, and FoxNews came in at .503. It turns out that what some complain about as conservative bias in the actual news reports by Fox News Special Report is actually balanced coverage. They covered both sides, or multiple sides of issues, which included major stories and analysis that most of the other media outlets are censoring from the public.

  20. RoHa says:
    October 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm
    “Fox has the reputation of being a mouthpiece for the warmongering neocons. ”

    I’d call that an argumentum ad populum if people actually had told you that, but you have only heard it in the Australian MSM, so it’s an argumentum ad verecundiam.

  21. Let’s see RoHa, you say FOX has no credibility, is war-crazed but agree that it has the largest U.S. cable viewership, but you sure can’t get any more of a centralized government figure than a ruthless dictator, can you? Sir, I fail to witness your rationale.

  22. “Fox may be a joke in Australia, here in the US it’s just slightly left of center.”
    an’ Dick Chenney was a dangerous liberal , right?

    All depends what your idea of “center” is.

  23. There’s an old joke that Rupert Murdoch found a niche market for Fox, half of America.
    ================================

  24. I’m always amused when someone starts spouting the “FoxNews is a right wing mouthpiece” stuff. The FACT is that FoxNews is the only balanced media. I hear both sides of everything on FoxNews. There is not another media outlet that even pretends to be in the middle.

    Yes, there are rabid right-wing supporters on FNC, and there are rabid left-wing supporters too… and even some of those rabid centrists.

    However, CNN and MSNBC are ONLY the rabid left-wingers. And they’re pitifully biased. That’s why we call them the communist news network, and MSDNC. One-sided reporting is morally wrong and reprehensible. Ask any right-winger… they’d rather hear BOTH sides than live in a one-sided echo chamber.

    That is why FoxNews beats the others in viewership. People actually don’t WANT to be told what to think, they’d rather hear both sides and figure out where they stand, all by themselves.

  25. i have just watched the show on fox in oz.it was good and we should have more like it.what it did show me is that you in the us have got just as many green nutters there as we have here.they are like a plague but like all plagues we will find a way to end them.

  26. I can’t stand MSNBC and I’m not a huge fan of CNN, but the thought of Fox News being to the left is laughable.

  27. Hubby and I watched the debate. Then we went to MSNBC to hear ALL liberal commentary. We turned to FOX and heard the same liberal commentary AND conservative commentary. So, at least in the case of the debate, we witnessed balanced reporting on FOX and no balance on MSNBC.

  28. You all might like this… I sorta thought about it a couple of times… an interesting take on our leader.

    Political Twins—Nixon and Obama

    Posted Saturday, October 6, 2012, at 6:05 AM

    The personalities, policies and political philosophies of Presidents Richard Nixon and Barack Obama are indistinguishable.

    Both presidents are poster children for narcissism and arrogance, believing their executive power trumped the separation of powers.

    Nixon: “Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which the president personally exercises his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by another branch of government.”

    Obama: “In the absence of any action from Congress to fix our immigration system,” the president enacted, what some would call unconstitutional, a two-year temporary version of the “Dream Act” which failed to get passed in Congress.

    Each president had his own secret “enemies list” while campaigning and governing. Both presidents had an obvious disdain for any press coverage that was critical or negative.

    In 1971, Nixon said “The press is your enemy.” “Treat them nice…..but don’t help the bast**ds.” Nixon had approved secret investigations into the press, anti-war protestors, and people in the Democrat party.

    The President over the past four years has been available for all the major Sunday news talk shows, except for Fox. The last appearance President Obama made on Fox News Sunday was April 27, 2008, as a senator. He told Chris Wallace in closing the interview, he would definitely be back. That was over 1,600 days ago. Obama, since becoming our defender of the “free press”, said Fox News is a threat; “It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country.”

    Nixon once directed his counsel, John Ehrlichman to have the IRS secretly investigate the tax returns of all Democratic presidential candidates in order to look for dirt. He actually joked, “There’s a lot of gold in them thar hills.”

    In April, 2012, the Wall Street Journal criticized the Obama campaign for attacking private American citizens who donated to Mitt Romney. Here’s an excerpt:

    “So you engage in your democratic right to send a check. Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign…shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.”

    Nixon’s administration established The Environmental Protection Association, while Obama’s administration has used the EPA to enforce his green energy agenda and reward his donors.

    Stanford University professor, Peter Schweizer, author of the book, “Throw Them All Out”, said there were 31 Obama bundlers and big donors whose firms received more than $16 billion in clean energy loans and grants. Oklahoma billionaire and Obama campaign bundler, George Kaiser, was the main investor in Solyndra, which received $573 million taxpayer dollars, and eventually went bankrupt.

    President Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, Salt 1, in May of 1972.

    President Obama and Russian leader, Dmitri Medvedev, in 2010 signed START, a nuclear arms reduction treaty. The treaty shrinks each nation’s nuclear arsenal by two-thirds.

    Nixon, in 1972, was the first U.S. President to visit the People’s Republic of China. His visit to China warmed the relationship with the U.S, and helped isolate the Soviet Union.

    President Obama tried to warm up to China by throwing them a lavish state dinner with Hollywood A-listers and prominent business people in 2011. Yet, now in 2012, the United States has become isolated. China and Russia have become allies.

    And finally, Nixon made an appearance on television’s comedy show, Laugh-In, and infamously said the trademark line, “Sock it to me.”

    President Obama has appeared on The View, Oprah, the Tonight Show, Late Night, the Daily Show, SNL, ESPN, American Idol, the Today Show, Lopez Tonight, etc.; He’s been crowned “The Celebrity-in-Chief.” Do we really want four more years of a cool, “Pop-Culture President?”

    Richard Nixon was forced to resign on August 9, 1974.

    Barack Obama will be forced to retire on January, 20th, 2013.

    http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/piercey/entry/49806/

  29. On RoHa and Fox – it’s always amusing when someone uses a “reputation” to make a case, when it’s also obvious that they have never taken the trouble to watch Fox for themselves. Much easier to accept the “reputation” as fact, isn’t it? If “everyone has that opinion”, who am I to dispute that and see for myself?

  30. JonasM

    ‘Good to see Bret Baier doing this – I consider him among the most balanced of Fox’s newscasters. His interviews tend to be penetrating and reasonably thorough, without the partisan snarkiness so often seen on Fox. He did the Climategate 1 hour special in 2009. I’ll be tuning into this….’

    Well, he might have done the climategate special but he’s still a neo-con, that doesn’t make him balanced and reasonable. Will he comment on Romney’s commitment to perpetual war, or his pending contribution to the bankruptcy of America by being pro-bail out, pro stimulus and pro Bernanke? Will he tell you that welfare spending is always the highest under a republican govt, despite their phony baloney free market rhetoric. Will he discuss the gross distortions presented by the press and The Commission on Presidential Debates? (The omissions are more egregious) …and so on.
    just saying.

  31. Sam G

  32. RoHa says:
    “…….. have heard about it…….”

    Thanks WUWT

    This is a great unbiased site which allows people to post erroneous thinking.
    I can’t recall Mann allowing any of my statments to be posted except the few days after Climate Gate broke. The tree Ring Circus crowd is all about censorship.

  33. Fox News Reporting: Behind Obama’s Green Agenda

    Missed this and cannot find it on-line anywhere (only 2 minute preview). Cannot find it on cable either.

    Any clues on where/when I can watch it?

  34. FOX news is pretty clearly centrist/center left. To many people use the political scale of stalin is a moderate and hitler was rightwing to determine left/right. When using the science scale of collectivism/individualism fox new is clearly centrist.

    Another issue is the fact that fox news has a lot of commentators on it. Fox news never claimed that say glenn beck was a hard news person… yet groups like MNSBC claimed that oblermann, chris mathrews, etc was/is hard news. When one removes the commentators and stick solely to the news generally that news is center left on fox news.

    If you want to see a center-right/rightwing network I would suggest fox business news. They are clearly center-right/rightwing. Its hard not to find a day when someone is not openly calling obama a spade… aka a socialist on that network. Getting someone on fox news even the commentators to call obama a socialist is near impossible.

  35. ****
    CodeTech says:
    October 7, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    I’m always amused when someone starts spouting the “FoxNews is a right wing mouthpiece” stuff. The FACT is that FoxNews is the only balanced media. I hear both sides of everything on FoxNews. There is not another media outlet that even pretends to be in the middle.
    ****

    Exactly. When the MSM has been leftist for decades, any balanced coverage will seem rightist by comparison. Anyone that says FoxNews is rightist is ignorant of newsmedia history since the late ’60s. Walter Cronkite tried to stay impartial, but the floodgates opened when Dan Rather became the leftist’s propaganda darling.

  36. OpenMind says:
    October 8, 2012 at 7:02 am
    Fox news:
    You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you go after.

    Once again, we see the danger of being so OpenMinded that you’re brain falls out.

  37. ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, PBS, NY Times: You can fool most of their audience all of the time and those are the ones who believe crap about Fox News. /sarc

  38. rocknblues81,

    I get the impression you don’t like Fox news. I do not watch TV, except for some football and an occasional movie, so I am curious: what TV network news do you think presents the news in the most unbiased manner, reporting fairly on both sides of an issue?

  39. beng October 8, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Did you mean to say that Walter Cronkite “tried to seem impartial” vice “tried to stay impartial”? A recent Douglas Brinkley biography on Cronkite suggests he was not impartial and was even worse behind the scenes. To me and others watching him, he did seem impartial, but that was largely because there were no centrist counter views in the media to contrast to.

  40. Well, D… I make an effort to not watch any of it on a consumption basis… I like Anderson Cooper and John Stossel I would say. I really can’t stand Sean Hannity or MSNBC. After that, it gets pretty iffy with me.

    As far as TV overall, it’s mostly NFL, NBA, Forensic Files and crime programs. Things like that. And the occasional Sanford and Son, All in the Family and Married with Children rerun. =)

  41. I don’t watch TV news much at all but I do check Foxnews.com and MSN.com frequently. I’ve seen stories that were not probama and not proCAGW on Fox but rarely if ever on MSN.

  42. About the program itself. Too bad Dr. Spencer ended up being edited out. But I thought the program did give credit where credit is due. In the early days of its existence the EPA did a fantastic job. And the U.S. air and water are much cleaner today for that effort. In those days their targets were real pollutants.

    I don’t think the main problem is “mission creep” as the program kept saying. Although there is always some of that. I always say the regulators have kids to put through college too, so they want their jobs to continue. I think the main problem is that it became a mature government agency. It seems inevitable that as government agencies mature, politics overrides whatever the mission is.

    I worked for an EPA contractor in the mobile source area from the beginning of EPA. For the first 15 years or so they were just interested in the facts. As time went on they became more and more interested in making the facts fit the politics. By the turn of century the facts didn’t matter; only the politics.

  43. “””””…..Kiwisceptic says:

    October 7, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    This is excellent news, especially with Roy Spencer on the programme adding a strong even-handed and sober scientific voice. The only problem I see with airing it on Fox is that the people they most want to reach probably don’t watch that channel for its sometimes ‘extreme’ views and right-wing bias. At least that’s how Fox is generally perceived here in NZ. Loonie lefties wouldn’t be seen dead watching it……”””””

    Well given a choice between watching Fox “news”, as a right wing raid the hen house channel, and the CNN (izzat Clinton news network, or Communist news network) , I’d usually prefer the former. In fact I WON’T watch the latter, and I avoid flying anywhere, including to NZ, because that propaganda socialist network is all over every airport.
    Actually, I just discovered for the first time yesterday (Sunday) that my T&V rabbit ears can now pick up the Bay Area’s CH-2 which is Fox. No you don’t think I’m actually going to pay money for somebody to send me 500 channels of shop at home; when I can get Jewellery Television for free, and also now the WWE(F), and also for free, I get the 24 hour English Language Communist Red Chinese World News station, with its various and sundry white guy shills, trying to con me, they are on the level. Yes I do get a lot from CCTV, but I am always mindful that I am getting what the People’s Liberation Army wants me to get.
    For News of America, then I watch the two Spanish Language Channels because I get better local news from Mexico City, than from San Francisco or San Jose, and I have a built in family translator, if it gets out of my range.

    I’m still reeling from having had to spend 90 minutes of my time watching Dave Letterman’s favorite evening comedy guest (Barbara Wahwah’s too) trying to act the role of POTUS, after having spent four years trying to actually do the job of fixing up what the previous Democrat Controlled Congress messed up, and GWB failed to squash. In that four years, I never spent a total of even 90 seconds, watching the Teleprompter reader in chief; so having to endure 90 minutes was a torture.
    Fortunately I was able to save last weekend, watching the six hours of Gotterdammerung from the Met, all the way up to when the fat lady finally does sing, what we spend that six hours waiting for.

    So in alphabet soup news, I do now have Fox, and CBS, but mostly I watch the Commies. At least I know I’m being conned there.

  44. I have to laugh whenever I hear so-called “liberals” yawping about “neocons” and “rightwingers.” Today’s “liberals” are the real right wing – they’re reactionaries, clinging to inhumane ideas long since discredited and wanting to go back to the bad old days of tyranny and slavery.

    A real life example: Old money, authoritarian impulses, the hoi polloi shall bow and scrape, and rules I make for you don’t apply to me – who have I just described? How does Al Gore grab you? Uses 10 times as much electricity in his house as the average American household uses – mostly fromm coal-fired power plants – and flies hither and yon in a private Boeing 727 (the ultimate gas guzzler among commercial aircraft) – and then criticizes John Q. Public for driving an SUV. Hypocrisy, effrontery, mendacity, sociopathy a la mode.

    The AGW freaks and “liberals” who talk about “neocon warmongering” should stop and think about the new Holocaust that will result if they get their way – millions of avoidable deaths due to economic disruption and perpetuated third world poverty. But of course that’s what they want – millions of deaths as “a necessary step in reforming society,” as one of my former history professor colleagues said in regard to Stalin’s murder of 80 million people. Who are the REAL warmongers here?

    AGW is a war of aggression against science and against civilization and AGAINST HUMANITY.

  45. Roha et al., Australia is not a democracy. You voted for Rudd and got a Gillard that is not a democracy. US and Fox far more advanced than anything in Australia. Go home.

  46. Eliza says:
    October 8, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Roha et al., Australia is not a democracy. You voted for Rudd and got a Gillard that is not a democracy. US and Fox far more advanced than anything in Australia. Go home.

    Sigh…

    Australia is a representative democracy, just like the USA. The people vote for representatives, and the representatives then (in theory) represent the views of those who vote for them. In neither case do the voters vote directly in either running the country or in who is the senior political figure (President in the USA or the Prime Minister in Australia). In the USA, voters elect delegates who are the ones who vote for the President. While this is close to being a direct election of a President, it’s not difficult to find examples in history where it has failed – ie. the President who had the most Electoral College votes was NOT the candidate who had the most votes.

    Australia doesn’t have the equivalent of the President. The USA has three branches of government – the courts, Congress and the executive. Australia has two – the courts and parliament (the Governor-General in theory is a third branch, but in practise they’re generally not involved – the dismissal of the Whitlam government being a noted exception).

    The Prime Minister in Australia is simply the leader of the party that is in power in the lower house of Parliament. The only Australians who voted for Rudd were those in his electorate… and he continues to represent them, so the representative democracy is still working. The elected representatives are the ones who vote for who will be Prime Minister, just like the the delegates in the Electoral College vote for who is President. The difference between the two systems is that in Australia, those that voted to make someone the Prime Minister can change their minds, while those in the USA can not.

    RoHa is accused of ignorance when it comes to the reality of Fox News. All I can say is that Eliza has clearly demonstrated a similar ignorance when it comes to the government systems of USA and Australia.

  47. Graeme W says (October 8, 2012 at 3:51 pm): “In the USA, voters elect delegates who are the ones who vote for the President. While this is close to being a direct election of a President, it’s not difficult to find examples in history where it has failed – ie. the President who had the most Electoral College votes was NOT the candidate who had the most votes.”

    Um, it didn’t “fail”. The system worked exactly as it was supposed to. The American founding fathers didn’t want presidents (and Senators, originally) elected directly by the voters, and so set up an indirect system. It can be changed by constitutional amendment, but strangely nothing has been done about this “failure” for over 200 years. I guess most Americans don’t see it as broken.

  48. There have been four instances in US history in which presidents were elected without receiving the most popular votes: John Quincy Adams, 1824; Rutherford B. Hayes, 1876; Benjamin Harrison, 1888; and George W. Bush, 2000. In addition, the following presidents received less than 50 percent of the vote (a plurality only, not a majority) Abraham Lincoln, 1860; Woodrow Wilson, 1912; John F. Kennedy, 1960; Richard Nixon, 1968; Bill Clinton, 1992.

    These were not failures, except perhaps in the case of Hayes, who came into office via a corrupt deal with the Southern states in which the federal government backed away from protecting the rights oif the freed slaves; and it has now been proven that Nixon actually did win the election of 1960 by about 85.000 popular votes, due to voter fraud in Illinois and Louisiana and probably at least two other states, which cost him enough electoral votes to cause him to lose the election. In Illinois alone, at least 120,000 Republican ballots were not counted.

  49. Bjorn Lomborg is actually ”Hagar the Horrible” After the Copenhagen flop – he should have put a brown paper bag over his had; Unfortunately, he is a person with no shame….

  50. Gary Hladik says:
    October 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Graeme W says (October 8, 2012 at 3:51 pm): “In the USA, voters elect delegates who are the ones who vote for the President. While this is close to being a direct election of a President, it’s not difficult to find examples in history where it has failed – ie. the President who had the most Electoral College votes was NOT the candidate who had the most votes.”

    Um, it didn’t “fail”. The system worked exactly as it was supposed to. The American founding fathers didn’t want presidents (and Senators, originally) elected directly by the voters, and so set up an indirect system. It can be changed by constitutional amendment, but strangely nothing has been done about this “failure” for over 200 years. I guess most Americans don’t see it as broken.

    I never said it was broken. I was just pointing out that in neither system do the voters directly elect the leader of their nation (which is what Eliza was implying happens with the comment about Australia not being a democracy), though I did acknowledge that the USA system is closer to a direct elect than the Australian system. My comment about failure was when comparing the existing system to a direct elect system. Whether a direct elect system is worthwhile is a completely different discussion :)

  51. stefanthedenier says:
    October 8, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    “Bjorn Lomborg is actually ”Hagar the Horrible” After the Copenhagen flop – he should have put a brown paper bag over his had; Unfortunately, he is a person with no shame….”

    For a “horrible” person he has written a rather fine book, namely The Skeptical Environmentalist. Which stays THE must-read for every Malthusian on the planet.

  52. DirkH says:
    October 9, 2012 at 3:33 am
    “For a “horrible” person he has written a rather fine book, namely The Skeptical Environmentalist. Which stays THE must-read for every Malthusian on the planet.”

    …and not because it is a Malthusian book but because it is the cure for Malthusianism…

  53. Found the video!

    In case you missed it like I did, here is the link:

    MODS: May want to provide the link as an update too so it is easy to find.

  54. Ben says:
    Ro Ha – A major UCLA journalism study covered US media outlets,

    Ben – second call for a link. Do you have one?

  55. To TonyG says:
    October 9, 2012 at 6:21 am

    I don’t know if this is the study that ben is exactly talking about since in the last 10 years or so, dozens upon dozens of studies have come out stating the same thing. Outside of the studies of course are the people leaving position in newspapers and such like the recent quote from the NYT in which the ombudsman stated “the NYT bleeds liberalism” or roughly along the line.
    The BBC both internal and external reviews of say israel/midest coverage in general have found the BBC is a joke. Its sad when even your own reviews have a hard time covering up the fact your bias.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

  56. I watched the show with the hope that a more detailed revelation of this pseudo-agenda’s planned goal for American property owners would finally be televised. While “sustainability” was mentioned, it was never equated with the United Nation’s Agenda 21, which finds its genesis in the 1976 Vancouver Declaration on Habitats, and its growth spurt beginning with the 1992 Rio Accords signed onto by George H. W. Bush. It was later implemented by Clinton through his establishment via executive order of the President’s Council of Sustainable Development, and further enhanced by the Obama E.O. 13565 establishing the White House Rural Council. The idea is to force Americans into “walkable/sustainable/monitorable” urban environments under the guise of false environmental concerns. This article reveals the ultimate goal of the “greenies,” (or, if you prefer, the “watermelons”):
    http://www.heartland.org/editorial/2003/11/10/ceaucescu-father-smart-growth?art%3fId=13577
    Here are a few more articles from credible sources that further expose the agenda:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49198
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49174
    http://www.green-agenda.com/sustainabledevelopment.html
    http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com
    Along with a few that demonstrate what many State and local governments are doing against it:
    http://www.wnd.com.2012/06/u-s-rebellion-ignited-against-u-n-s-globalization
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/townhallcomstaff/2012/05/31/alabama_fights_a_un_landgrab

  57. Graeme W says (October 8, 2012 at 10:19 pm): “My comment about failure was when comparing the existing system to a direct elect system.”

    In other words, an apple is a “failure” if it’s not an orange? WUWT?

  58. Gary Hladik says:
    October 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Graeme W says (October 8, 2012 at 10:19 pm): “My comment about failure was when comparing the existing system to a direct elect system.”

    In other words, an apple is a “failure” if it’s not an orange? WUWT?

    Context is important. The original post that I was responding to tried to claim Australia wasn’t a democracy because it allowed the change of leadership partway through a term. I was trying to point out that in neither the USA or Australia do people directly elect their leader, though I conceded that the USA’s system was close than Australia and that’s the context of the apple/orange situation. But the basic point is still true – in neither case is the leader directly elected by the voters. In the case of Australia, the system allows for those who elected the leader (the representatives that the voters DO directly elect to represent them) to change their minds and elect someone else partway through a term. It’s nonsensical to thus claim that Australia was not a democracy, which is what the original poster was trying to claim.

  59. Graeme W, I have no problem with your main point about indirect election of leaders, only with the claim that an indirect system is a “failure” if it works as intended but the result doesn’t match the popular vote. Whatever the context, your original statement was pretty apple-orangey.

  60. DirkH says: “For a “horrible” person he has written a rather fine book, namely The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

    Hi DirkH,
    Lomborg is Hagar the Horible; no doubt about it – he is after lots of loot money, from the western countries. On the local TV he said: -”GLOBAL warming is for real, but needs 100 billion a year from the western countries; to help in Africa the suffering from the global warming”

    Didn’t say that: the spoils will go to the jetseters, worrying themselves to death, with lobsters and chardonnay, in 5 star hotels, for the starving African children,, . That’s why the active Warmist are risking of going to long-term in jail ; for telling all those lies – they are hoping to share the spoils They don’t intend to build few dams with those money, to save storm-water – so that people can produce food in dry days / years. Because: if they build dams, dams improve the climate / dams are built by working people ==== the parasites hate work and good climate. Lomborg should be in the same jail cell with Bernard Madoff. Using the non-existent GLOBAL warming for extortion,.. I wish I’ll be in the jury, when he gets on the witness stand, under oath. Cheers Dirk. .

  61. Gunga Din, you post good stuff, but this time you bit a big one by citing that song:

    Gunga Din says:
    October 7, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    ================================================================
    To the tune of “Where Have All The Flowers Gone”
    by Pete Seeger

    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Long time failing
    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Broke long ago
    Where have all the Teslas gone?
    Made in Finland every one
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Um, those would be Fisker Karmas. Fisker was hired on, as a famous designer, to design the Tesla Motors’ Model S body. But he turned in successively lousier designs, and was canned. He immediately popped up in Europe (I’m so tempted to use “Urp”!) at the head of a new company with a far better shell design. TM alleged he’d planned that all along, and stole drivetrain info, etc. Their lawsuit failed, possibly because Fisker wasn’t enough of an engineer to do a competent swipe — and the Karma showed that unequivocally. Certainly nothing of value of the S tech made it into that car!

    The 2000+ Roadsters Tesla made had body shells of carbon fibre built for them by Lotus, in UK, based on their Elise. Their Model S, by contrast, is entirely made in the US in-house, starting with rolls of aluminum (in the huge ex-NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA, which Toyota sold to it for $40 million in stock) except for the Panasonic batteries, small 18650 format, which are assembled on-site into its uniquely effective ESS powertrain. First deliveries have begun, to rave reviews, unlike the Karma, which Consumer Reports panned as heavy, slow, loud, cramped, and with a computer control interface which is an ergonomic disaster.

    The Tesla is a pure BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle), and the Karma is a hybrid.

    At the very least do a few minutes research at their site at TeslaMotors.com .

  62. Clarification: the “theirs” here: “… their Elise. Their Model S …” refer, respectively, to Lotus and Tesla.

Comments are closed.