Russ Gibb at Random
webcasts

saturday rant

February 10, 2007

Your point of view:
Government pork
Church of the Environment
John Burl Artis
Health Hazzard - Shopping carts
Man and the Environment
Chaos Theory
War and Peace
Naughty Democrats
Naughty Republicans
Political Parties
Who will be The new President of the USA


Change video format to: Windows Media Quicktime

OTHER RECENT NEWS
<< Previous Article: Limousine Jet Liberal Democrat
>> Next Article: Hey , It's all in the Family.

18 Comment(s)


Mr. Gibb, this is a great article on the reality of the global warming "religion." It was written by Jeremy Clarkson, a British Television Presenter of a Car Show on the BBC. He has a long history of standing up against environmentalists, and has even gotten a pie by radicals who do not agree with him. Anyways, I thought you might enjoy reading it.

Take this you environmentalists

--by Mark Skwarski on 2/10/07   Lives: Michigan  

Hi Russ,
The heavy artillery against environmentalism is one of those things I do not understand about my fellow conservatives. Can we really protect our planet too much? Is it logical that burning and chopping down the Amazon forests, poisoning the watersupply, leaving trash, burning oil, ruining wetlands, overfishing, and in general, overspending our earth will eventually lead us into trouble? My answer would be a resounding OF COURSE. We can easily feed and supply the needs of billions, but it is all the extra stuff we all want now which will be the death of us. And I don't know where those of you who oppose good stewardship of the environment think we are going to go if we have polluted ourselves out of this world. No, the earth ought to be a common denominator for conservative and liberal alike! It is, after all, the only one we have, and it is not that big either...!
God Bless you Russ, and thanks for this forum.

--by Dearborn on 2/11/07   Lives: Dearborn  

While it is quite obvious that no matter what the problem there will be people and/or companies that will profit from it, what is more disheartening is that people assume it is the reason for pointing out the problem itself. People make money off of polluting the earth, just as people will make money off of keeping it cleaner. Why would this need to be pointed out? When there is a serious problem the environment is facing you have to get the message out. Using the media is a must. Are there going to be people who take advantage of it? Of course. Regarding getting the message out about shopping carts being saturated in germs, seeing how they are rarely if ever cleaned, this is also a good idea. Getting the word out about preventable colds and disease is also a good idea. I also don't know why it was so important to point out to us that Nancy Pelosi requested a jet large enough to fly her non-stop to ger home district when Republicans such as John McCain are now exploiting campaign contributions from special interests after going on and on about how we need to get rid of them. Same exact thing.

--by Looking For A Hydro-Electric Lawnmower on 2/11/07   Lives: Detroit area  

I get really irritated when politicians bring up the panic about "We have to do something about Global Warming!" It reminds me in a similar manner of how our Conservatives in office speak about terrorism. By making an undefinable, unbeatable enemy the government can create a situation that both unifies and subjugates Americans out of fear and a need for safety and protection. I think Al Gore sat long and hard in a think tank somewhere, wondering "What could be worse than nuclear bombs?" And then it hit him, "HAH! I got it! The sun is going to cook us and we'll all drown!" It's surprisingly biblical, too, coming from such a fellow...

Whether it's communism, terrorism or Global Warming, our government has a history of creating issues out of things that are not "winnable" nor necessarily useful to throw our money against constantly. In foreign policy we ignore diplomacy for rhetoric in order to help create these situations for political reasons.

In Global Warming, however, we're actually unifying the world under this green banner because it is a "global problem", and to me it's a very dangerous movement against the sovereignty of nations. When nations have to unify under one banner for too long and more substantially than the UN already does, then we're starting to blur the lines between one nation and the next. Especially since most of this involves economic factors, when the money mingles too much we could end up with an even messier situation with foreign infringements on American sovereignty than ever before...

--by Irritateted on 2/11/07   Lives: Dearborn  

Russ,

I'm glad I found your podcast show. I am a former Dearborn resident who now lives in Plano, Texas. I love your opinions and life knowledge.
I too am a political independent.

Peace,

John A.

--by John A on 2/11/07   Lives: USA  

I agree with 'ol Russ. I think that cigarette smoking isn't bad for you either. It is just these health freaks that want you to quit like the global warming crowd.

--by still chain smoking on 2/11/07   Lives: Dearborn  

Hey russ, He was only a Kid.So we must forgive him. Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who has formally announced his bid to become America's first black president, long ago admitted taking both cannabis and cocaine while he was a teenager. In a 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father, he wrote: "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack [heroin] though." gee, no smack?

--by Dope is OK, ? on 2/12/07   Lives: Detroit area  


President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl] From Druge report feb. 12 07


--by President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity on 2/12/07   Lives: USA  

I suppose the media reporting on, and warning about second-hand smoke being danderous to peoples health was not true as well. After all, they are people that dispute it! Must mean it is not bad for us! I mean, who is a poster going to pull out next? Former Russian astronaut? CEO of Franks Nursery and Crafts?

--by Dig Harder on 2/12/07   Lives: Detroit area  

The Valentine's Day bouquet — the gift that every woman in the USA and Canada will be waiting for next week — has become the latest no, no among environmental campaigners. Seems
flowers are transported via air from all over the world and every environmentalist knows that air-o-planes spew out bad bad gases. . Therefore, Saint Gores, Decipales of the Church of the Enviroment have said ,Stop It ! Out damn Valentine, OUT

--by Truth seeker on 2/12/07   Lives: Michigan  

Dig harder, Just in case you forgot, Al Gore is a politician not a scientist.

--by student. on 2/12/07   Lives: Michigan  

Truth Seeker,
You may want to see somebody about your babbling problem. There are going to be people that are for and against all kinds of aspects relating to keeping our environment healthy. It is obvious you don't think that there are any consequences at all to anything we do to the environment. Or maybe you feel that there are consequences, but that they aren't global warming. You don't know what they are, you just know that it isn't global warming. Or is it that you feel we can't be doing any harm to the earth we live on because somebody affiliated with a political party other than the one that you are affiliated with is trying to being attention to it?

--by i know you are, but what am i? on 2/12/07   Lives: Michigan  

Berry is suppose to be a Vocational school for kids to learn a vocation. But instead, it's a school for the privileged who have the best of everything.

The Dearborn superintendent says it is a vocational school, but instead virtually all clasees are advanced classes for the privileged. It holds smaller classes of 15 students (versus typical over crowded classes of 30-35 at DHS and FHS), and only admits the kids from high profile parents.

And, if you don't like the final grade, the superintendent will gladly change it.

--by Want A Fair System on 2/12/07   Lives: Dearborn  

How is John Artis changing school borders between Dearborn High and Fordson to accomodate overcrowding? Will Edsel be affected?

--by Don't Want to Move on 2/12/07   Lives: Dearborn  

Just to clarify some of the misconceptions about the Berry Career Center. It is for students to go and explore different careers. For example, it offers dental hygiene or medical assisting. Any one who wishes to join one of those programs can join. However, it is a commitment for the whole year. The advanced classes for the over acheivers are held at DCMST, the kids who go there are the highest acheiving students academically. Do your homework before you go on a blog and start giving the wrong information out to people.

--by The Tractor on 2/13/07   Lives: Dearborn  


Anil Anand

New Delhi, February 11, 2007

Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and and not on the spot research.

--by Experts question theory on global warming on 2/13/07   Lives: Another country  

I'm kind of surprised to hear that ol' Russ is reluctant to believe in or about Global Warming partly because people have something to gain by bringing attention to it. What should be paid a lot more attention to is the fact that some people have a lot more to lose by the message getting out. As far as thr glaciers go, do you not believe satellite imagery either? You don't need to work ON the glacier to see it shrinking.

--by NOT STANDING ON AN ICEBERG on 2/13/07   Lives: Michigan  

Russ, may not be standing on an iceberg, But he has more common sense than the followers of Al Gore and the global warming HYPE.

--by Mr. R .Roberts on 2/14/07   Lives: Michigan  

Post a Comment:

From:
I live in:
Comment:
Number: Please type number 29

Newest Webcasts

Search

Archives

RSS

Copyright 2019