Let’s see how many errors we can count. I’m guessing (based on past performance) we’ll see between 5 and 10 major errors. Maybe even a rehash of polar bears.
from Time.com
Tom Brokaw’s New Global Warming Documentary
For someone who supposedly “retired” in 2004, Tom Brokaw has kept plenty busy. He filled in as moderator of Meet the Press after the death of Tim Russert, pitched in on campaign coverage for NBC and completed a documentary on global warming in 2006. Covering the environment isn’t a fad for Brokaw — the South Dakota native is a longtime outdoorsman, often fly-fishing near his home in Montana and hiking with green friends like Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard. The former NBC Nightly News anchor just finished a new climate change documentary — Global Warming: The New Challenge with Tom Brokaw — which airs on the Discovery Channel on Mar. 18. Brokaw spoke to TIME in New York shortly after his return from a biking trip to Africa. Apparently semi-retirement isn’t so bad.
Tonight March 18th 10 PM EST and 10 PM PST on the Discovery Channel.
Feel free to note any errors seen here.
For those that missed the first viewing, see the additional air times here
What I find most interesting is that when you go to the main page of discovery.com you find that the site is sponsored by an oil company – Shell.
Looks like Discovery Channel is in the pay of “Big Oil”. Gosh! I’ll await the pronunciations from the usual suspects like Joe Romm.
Royal Dutch Shell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell is planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/you-can-be-sure-of-shell.html
The socialistgreenwarmists are miffed. Long may that continue. Linda Cook, who heads Shell’s gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
I watched it. What a crock!
I hope many such pronouncements are archived and used to call the alarmists to account five or ten years down the road. A documentary could/should be put together using video-clips to condemn them out of their own mouths.
Hmmm I guess the ethanol people didn’t pay off the right people… bye bye ethanol…
Shell ( http://www.midsun.uwaterloo.ca/www/sponsors/bronze/ ) has contributed to solar car races for decades. — John M Reynolds
I couldn’ ring myself to wach–I can’t afford a new tv. I sent my thoughts to Discovery viewer relations site ahead of time.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/agw-alert-time-to-boycott-discovery-channel/
Reply: Caution, linked article contains profanity ~ charles the moderator
Shell has given up on renewable energy citing it being too expensive and takes about five generations just to break even lol
Two articles in the Guardian yesterday, one by Monbiot, expressed their anger that they could not force a business to follow their religion.
And an extra slap in the face for the Revolucion Guardianista, Shell said they’ll develop biodiesel instead of wind, solar and excrement power.
All the egocentric Marxists who post on their comments section cried “Shell only cares about its shareholders!!!!!!”
I don’t think Marxists realise that most shareholding in the world is regular working folk. It’s not all rich Jews and Anglo-Saxon Protestants aka grey haired white men whom Communistas detest to much.
Anyway, more fear factor from the Guardian today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/18/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt
earth is so much bigger and so much more powerful than people stuck in cities have ever imagined
Precisely! They’re stuck in cities and imagine the rest of the world is also warm and packed with people. Whenever I have flown across the States or Asia, even Britain, and looked out of the window I was amazed to see how devoid of life our planet is. Wildlife, trees and plants are not as common as some think. They’re mostly common where there is development, an observation that pisses environmentalists off no end, because when humans have a need for something they make sure lots of it is brought into existence.
Life is lucky to be here in the first place. They should be celebrating human colonisation as a means to expanding life on Earth. But we’re constantly blamed for destroying the planet just because some Brazilians need to cut down some of their trees.
In the future we’ll be using genetic engineering to create more simultaneous life forms than Mother Nature could have imagined. Some will be extinct brought back from the dead. Some will be rescued from the brink of extinction. New species can be created to serve specific purposes. Then we’ll have cyborg species, even day to day appliances with biological parts. Imagine for a moment an appliance or even a vehicle that did not need electricity because it has a digestive system that can process leftover food.
Visionaries will set us free from the lunatic environmental movement.
You lot have to read the comments below this article. It is no joke. It is a perfect example of alarmist mass hysteria breaking out with no basis in reality at all…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate
Profitable big oil is a good thing. “Big Oil” is everyone that owns stock in these companies. A lot of regular people own these stocks which are also bought by retirement funds, money market funds and other secondary investors. They all share in the profits. People that do not like Big Oil are those who don’t own those stocks and cry like babies because they don’t to share in the profits. It’s the “if I don’t have it nobody should have it” attitude.
Extra CO2 makes ragweed grow in New York…eeek..but world harvests will decline
Feel free to archive such things here: http://whatcatastrophe.com
See the Data Repository section. Just need to register so proper ownership can be established.
We live in a fascist society now. Big media are part of the governing fraternity, and Brokaw is part of big media. Why do you think General Electric owns NBC news? Why, because they need a huge government investment in otherwise uneconomically feasible “alternative” energy products, and the only way they will get them is by using their media power to get the right people elected. Brokaw is a useful idiot in this, as the only real asset God gave him in life is his good looks, even NBC may be in the category of useful idiot, because all GE has to do is select the right idiots to run it, then close oversight is not needed.
“The financial backing seems surprising — I would have thought the invisible hand of Soros at work here.”
Soros’ funding of the underlying “research” that Brokaw uses will be on hand. Shell gets to deflect public outrage at Big Oil – while fanning the warming flames that will again raise petro prices.
The real tipoff is there is as yet one single MSM broadcast questioning party line AGW. This confirms the total lack of real journalists (George Will excepted) as there are always one or two news outlets that run counter. Clearly profit motive has been ruled out as journalistic driver since a balanced MSM program on AGM fraud would be a ratings bonanza. Time for Fox to lead the charge?
OT, sorta:
“A Modest Proposal”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-modest-proposal-to-prevent-the-pernicious-warming-of-our-fair-globe/
I expect the CMS (Medicare) bureaucrats are hard at work on this proposal, as we speak.
/Mr Lynn
I tried to watch it but five minutes is all I could endure before changing the channel… and ran to the bathroom to puke…
Watched 30 minutes of South Park.
Laughed a lot.
Watched 5 minutes of Brokaw.
Laughed a lot. 🙂
WakeUpMaggy (21:05:11) , great post. I’m a city boy who’s well aware of how precarious human life is outside the extremely un-“natural” state we call civilization.
A bit O/T (but not too much, going from Brokaw to Hansen)
Here’s another Hansen pronouncement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
“The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working.”
Perhaps he’s thinking of an undemocratic processes. A Dictatorship of Gaia perhaps? Ever notice how, when someone has insight into The Truth, insight not shared by us great unwashed masses of peasants, his proposals gradually shift towards non-democratic ideas?
tom in Florida has it right
For all those who bash Big Oil as being overly profitable, please consider this list.
This shows the average return on equity (investment) for various industries as available from finance.yahoo.com. All of these industries are more profitable than major integrated oil companies, Big Oil. Why is there no similar bashing of these industries?
Industry Return on Equity, Percent
Long Distance Carriers (phone) 78.90
Information & Delivery Services 64.90
Aerospace/Defense – Major Diversified 55.70
Publishing – Periodicals 48.00
Cigarettes 44.50
Diversified Computer Systems 35.20
Cleaning Products 34.20
Agricultural Chemicals 33.70
Application Software 32.30
Personal Computers 30.90
Restaurants 30.20
Auto Parts Stores 30.20
Management Services 30.00
Metal Fabrication 28.20
Processed & Packaged Goods 26.80
Industrial Metals & Minerals 26.50
Food Wholesale 26.10
Dairy Products 26.00
Trucks & Other Vehicles 25.60
Personal Services 25.40
Electronics Stores 25.40
Insurance Brokers 25.10
Beverages – Wineries & Distillers 24.90
Major Integrated Oil & Gas 24.00
On the Discovery website, I clicked on the link labeled “Global Warming 101“. It explained it thus:
I am now a believer, ’cause absorbing more sunlight is clearly the problem.
Look at what NOAA is publishing… a Climate Leteracy book. http://climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=/education/edu_index.jsp&edu=literacy
Those people are going insane and way ahead of themselves and science.
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/GlobalWarming_Vodka_500.jpg
We don’t get TDC (perhaps that is a blessing), but here’s a Q&A by Bryan Walsh about it.
This “interview” alone is enough to make one barf, so I can only imagine how bad the actual program is.
They continually conflate issues, such as pollution, which have little or nothing to do with either C02 or climate change. For example:
“Do you sense that we’re moving towards a consensus in America that global warming is real, and that we need to take action?”
“It’s complex. I think that the vast majority of the scientific community — and much of the public — believes that it is real. It’s a matter of consequence, how we’re going to deal with this. There are a lot of complex parts. We haven’t arrived at a common intersection of those parts yet, but that’s not surprising given the nature of the issue we are dealing with. (See pictures of the world’s most polluted places.)”
It ends with:
“Given all that you’ve seen in a lifetime of reporting, are you hopeful that we’ll be able to tackle climate change?”
“I’m not sure. I’ve seen a lot of good things. When we used to go to the Black Hills as a child, to the creeks near the Homestead gold mine, and my parents would warn me away from the water because it was so polluted from the runoff. But it’s gotten much better since then. We’ve cleaned up the air in Los Angeles. I really do detect a big appetite now for making profound changes.”
So, we get that he’s “concerned about the environment”.
Who isn’t, and how does that make him an expert on “climate change”?
Of course there’s the complete non-sequitur in equating real pollution with “global warming”, obviously meaning CO2.
Every time I hear the phrase “tackle climate change” I just have to puke. It’s such a weasel phrase.
Leon Brozyna (09:50:56) :
A bit O/T (but not too much, going from Brokaw to Hansen)
Here’s another Hansen pronouncement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
“The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working.”
Hansen is particularly unhappy with “corporate lobbyists” but he and his group of protesters are certainly lobbyists by this definition: lobby: a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group’s special interest. Lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process. It’s one important way that an electorate can be informed. My lobbyists are good, yours are bad.