He has 140 people from 20 countries meeting to discuss a high school curriculum to train disadvantaged rural youth to plant a vegetable garden and then show them how to sell tomatos. I could do that out of the back of my car. He has a noble prize winner consulting with him on replacing kerosene and paraffin lanterns with solar lighting devices to combat global warming. What a joke! I could reduce green house gases more than that just by walking around the block. Visa is going to teach 10 million people financial literacy. I think they will learn plenty about finances when they find themselves trapped in a debt spiral.
This whole Clinton Global Initiative seems like a scam to me. It sounds good on paper but when you look at the details there is nothing there. It seems like another way for companies to give themselves big pats on the back while claiming business travel tax deductions. Thoughts?
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/N... Clinton who? I have lost respect for both of them.....I have never seen anyone who would go out of their way to destroy the Democratic party......Obama08!!!!!! And he does not need Hillary or her baggage on the ticket, just because she was first lady does NOT qualify her to LEAD this country........ when was the last time you volunteered to help disadvantaged youths learn a trade that could put food on the table for a lifetime?
When was the last time you actually used a device powered by solar panels?
I may not like Clinton politically, but don't bad mouth the man's programs when they are clearly designed to help.
You should try to be part of the solution and not the problem!
jackazz! Of course. Clinton has more lobbyists behind her than any other person in congress. They don't call her the Queen of Pork for nothing. She's not going to risk offending those lobbyists by introducing any legislation that could harm their bottom line. She's one of THEM, just like McCain is.
Ron Paul can't win, so Obama is our only hope of trying to break free of that ingrained corruption. So exactly what is your plan... you seem to have all the answers, why aren't you doing something to make this world a better place.
Everyone has to start somewhere, and just critisizing those who are doing something, no matter what it is , is not helpful.
If you are so smart.. come up with a better plan! Sounds great to me. You are just another sad Obama supporter trying hard to destroy the legacy of President Clinton in order to try to hurt Senator Clinton. Your efforts are both transparent and pathetic. It goes to show how little you know about the rest of the world. Believe it or not, its not all about you. I think its GREAT, what are you doing to help? IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING A...
Black Liberation Theologist as President and teaching blacks how to hate whites. Wow teaching youth business....how dare he do something positive in their lives then they can't mooch the handouts.
What a shame really! You my friend only represent "you" and nobody else. I'm sorry, is he running for office somewhere? Would you take this diatribe to a more topical board? The Clinton Family is starting to look like a SCAM.. If you can do so much better, how come I am not reading about your initiatives in the news? At least she is trying to plan something. What has Obama done? Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe
Climate Change and the Media
Today鈥檚 hearing is the fourth global warming hearing I have held as Committee chairman. We will examine the media鈥檚 role in presenting the science of climate change. Poorly conceived policy decisions may result from the media鈥檚 over-hyped reporting. Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate. We have seen examples of this overwhelmingly one sided reporting by 鈥?0 Minutes鈥?reporter Scott Pelley, ABC News鈥檚 Bill Blakemore, CNN鈥檚 Miles O鈥橞rien, Time Magazine, the Associated Press and Reuters, to name just a very few outlets.
There are three types of climate research: first, the hard science of global warming by climate scientists, second, the computer modelers, and finally the researchers who study the impacts. Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism 鈥?and I鈥檓 not the only one who believes this. Here are just two examples of believers in man-made global warming who have been critical of the media.
First, Mike Hulme, the Director of the UK based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research -- a group that believes humans are the driving force of global warming 鈥?chastised the media and environmentalists last month for choosing to use the 鈥渓anguage of fear and terror鈥?to scare the public. Hulme noted that he has found himself 鈥渋ncreasingly chastised鈥?by global warming activists because his pubic statements 鈥渉ave not satisfied [the activist] thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.鈥?
Second, a report in August 2006 from the UK鈥檚 Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research also slammed the media presentation of climate science as 鈥?and I am quoting again here -- 鈥渁 quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgment, heaven and hell, using words such as 鈥榗atastrophe鈥? 鈥榗haos鈥?and 鈥榟avoc.鈥欌€?The report also compared the media鈥檚 coverage of global warming to 鈥渢he unreality of Hollywood films.鈥?
In addition, former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw鈥檚 one sided 2006 Discovery Channel global warming documentary was criticized by a Bloomberg News TV review that noted 鈥淵ou'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program鈥?because of its lack of scientific objectivity.
The media often fails to distinguish between predictions and what is actually being observed on the Earth today. We know from an April 23, 2006 article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin, that 鈥渇ew scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions.) There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.鈥?
The New York Times is essentially saying, no recent weather events 鈥?including Hurricane Katrina 鈥?is because of man-made global warming. Yet most of the media fails to understand this fundamental point and instead focus on global warming computer model projections of the future as if they were proven fact. This is perhaps the easiest scientific area for the media to exaggerate and serve as advocates for alarmism. Climate modelers project all kinds of scary scenarios of the future and the media then erroneously presents these scenarios as a scientifically based. But these computer models are not hard science.
Clearly, we cannot today somehow disprove catastrophic predictions of our climate in the year 2100. But if the observations of what is happening today are not consistent with what global warming models predict should occur, than what we do know is that our understanding of the globe is incomplete. The fact is, the biosphere is extremely complex and startling discoveries happen every year. This point was driven home earlier this year when the Journal Nature reported that trees emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Trees are everywhere, yet we didn鈥檛 even know this most basic fact about our planet.
It is unfortunate that so many are focused on alarmism rather than a responsible path forward on this issue. If your goal is to limit emissions, whether of traditional pollution or CO2, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond.
The Bush administration鈥檚 Asia-Pacific Partnership is the right type of approach 鈥?it stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations including three of the world鈥檚 top 10 emitters who are exempt from Kyoto 鈥?India, South Korea, and China, which in 2009 will become the world鈥檚 largest CO2 emitter. What is disappointing is that the President鈥檚 program gets more positive press in other countries than it does here.
So the alarmism not just continuing in the media, it鈥檚 advancing. They are becoming more desperate because former supporters of their views are now changing their position. Former advocates such as David Bellamy, Britain鈥檚 famed environmental campaigner, and Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist and former Socialist Party Leader who is a member of both the French and U.S. Academies of Science. Allegre now says the cause of warming remains unknown and the alarmism 鈥渉as become a very lucrative business for some people.鈥?In short, their motivation is money. And he鈥檚 right鈥?its about money. |
