Sorry to get all OkieFunk.com on everyone, but if you want an angry good laugh then you have to read this Inhofesque Oklahoman editorial at NewsOK.com. Here are some blurbs from it:
While many Americans may not know it, there’s considerable disagreement in scientific circles with the view that humans are the major cause of global warming…
The naysayers have credible arguments. A number of climate experts think Gore exaggerates the warming threat and humankind’s contribution. They take issue with the methodology of the United Nations’ panel that periodically releases reports predicting dramatic climate change…
“The whole process is a swindle,” writes Vincent Gray of New Zealand, a climate scientist and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s expert reviewers’ panel. “The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide ‘evidence’ that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to ‘prove’ their case.”
So is Gore right, or does he wield the biggest megaphone? Are humans causing global warming, or does that notion have exaggerated acceptance because so many environmentalists, activists and government bureaucracies are pushing it — with philosophically aligned, awards-giving groups like the Nobel committee and Hollywood following them?
Our state newspaper, ladies and gentlemen! I hope it makes you proud.
Anyway, you would think with all the “considerable disagreement” and “naysayers with credible arguments” out there in the world, that the Oklahoman could maybe do better than quote some random scientist from New Zealand. You would think that, but then you would realize that you are reading The Oklahoman, where logic and common sense really don’t matter. Hell, maybe next week they’ll write an editorial touting “Intelligent Design” over evolution or possibly something regarding the scientific “debate” on if the world is round. After reading the garbage found both above and throughout their editorial section, there is nothing that would really surprise me.
It kind of reminds me of a essay written by a 5th grader. You all catching that vibe too?
this is the first i’m hearing about global warming…
I hate those damn “awards-giving groups” such as Hollywood and the Nobel Committee.
I heard that the world’s largest megaphone was just discovered underneath where the Greenland ice sheet has receded. Maybe Inhofe and this Kiwi should go there, recover it, and then their argument would get the most attention.
Gan? Is that really you?
I know all those Christians are retarded. I wish they would just stop believing all that ridiculous stuff about God creating the world. How stupid are they for believing that stuff? I wish they would open their eyes and believe that something came from nothing.
Maybe you guys should just stick to the comedy and stray away from the political. Maybe that would be a good idea.
Suddenly Lost Ogle is not the happy snarky place I’ve grown accustomed to.
Perhaps a few days of ice and no electricity has blackened your souls.
Is this what it sounds like when doves cry?
you guys don’t know who vincent gray is? seriously. i expected more from you. especially you, gan.
If the Oklahoman and Traber think something is a myth, that’s good enough for me.
Now, if we could just find out how Mike Gundy feels about it, that would be great.
Why don’t Oklahoman editorials credit a writer? When the New York Times publishes an editorial, people can refer to it by saying, “Paul Krugman wrote…” But with the Editorials at The Oklahoman, it just says “Editorial” in the byline. I have some theories, but my main one is that if they actually credited the individual writer, individuals would get held accountable for propagating Gaylord’s garbage.
Anyway, one thing I liked about this article online is that there was a guy who left like three comments in support of the points made in the editorial. He was pointing out that the Nobel Peace committee has no credibility because they gave an award to Jimmy Carter (I guess building homes for the poor and arbitrating a peace accord for the most bitter land dispute on Earth doesn’t impress this guy). Anyway, the guy was from Dumas and his name was Ron, so next to his post it says: “Ron, Dumas”…which I thought was appropriate after remembering the commercial where the job applicant was corrected by the interviewer, “It’s DOO-moss.”
If that editorial makes you angry, it probably coincides with the amount of global warming kool-aid you’ve been drinking. How does it make you feel when Gary England busts on the “humans cause global warming” bandwagon?
Of course its me. What kind of idiot would take the moniker of Gan M. so that they could blindly post comments with no accountability? Besides, of course, the editorial writer at The Oklahoman.
Kudos for “Inhofesque” and for actually taking the time to read an Oklahoman editorial.
Gary can bust on it all he wants as the creator of the weather.
If you’re talking about Kool Aid, though, it’s the global warming deniers. You’re trying to tell me it’s a bandwagon to watch factories pump millions of tons of chemical into the air as people in Hummers drive past and think that might be messing with the natural order of things?
If you want to say that An Inconvenient Truth went overboard, I’ll agree. Gore was calling for action, and you don’t get that by showing the best case scenario if things go on, as is. But denying that there is any relevance is what I call “the Chocolate Diet”. If someone were to say you could eat whatever you want as long as you eat a couple chocolate bars a day, people would do that diet because they wanted to believe it’s true. Of course people want to believe we aren’t culpable in ruining the environment, but just like finding out the chocolate diet isn’t going to work when you’ve gained 100 pounds, waiting until mankind is extinct from ecological change isn’t the best way to figure out global warming isn’t a myth.
But I’m crazy in that I like to play it better safe than sorry.
I know. I agree. It must have been the hummers back when we came out of the ice age as well.
Stupid hummers.
Didn’t Gore win the Nobel Prize like 2 months ago? I know the Oklahoman is always a day late and a dollar short, but why is this editorial even written? Or did this random Vincent Gray person just issue a report and it’s getting picked up by other news organizations? No. Not even the Wall Street Journal (where the Oklahoman steals 99% of their editorial material) has a story about him. But, a quick google search does show Vincent Gray appears to be one of Exxon-Mobil’s favorite “climate experts.”
HINT/HINT: The crumbling “consensus”:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Or, “My Magma ran over your Dogma”:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
Sorry the Jokelahoman couldn’t lay out the entire argument in their newspaper. I just don’t get why they wouldn’t publish the IPCC’s 1,000+ page report.
But what if Inhofe is right and there is serious disagreement on the topic? What if Gore intentionally misled people in hopes to scare the crap out of them?
The IPCC report that lowered their prediction for sea level rise compared to their last report? That IPCC report?
I’m sure there is no financial incentive to say what Exxon-Mobil wants to hear.
You boys need to cool your heels! This global-warming crap is hogwash - even Rip and Tootie can see that!
There is no financial incentive for those that want global taxes on those they deem harmful to the earth? This thing is about money. You would think the ‘Inventor of the Internet’ could set up a mass video conference rather than burn the fuel flying thousands of people to a plush resort in Bali. LOL
Wow, the Daily Oklahoman editorial writers keep up with Inhofe’s blog and write editorials based on it. Shocking. I assumed the RNC just wrote the editiorials, sent it to them and they just cut and paste.
I’m pretty sure Mr. Monday writes all the editorials.
Hi everyone. I’ve been out doing real work today, so I am sorry I haven’t been able to reply to each comment. Not that I would have, but I think a sorry is nice.
Walleye,
I think you’ve got it. It’s the exact same way the DNC writes editorials for the Gazette.
Flow,
Yep, that’s the one. Funny thing is, neither this year’s report, nor last year’s report, contained the terrifying 20+ foot rise in sea levels that Mr. ManBearPig professes in his movie. Definitely NOT scare tactics, definitely not at all.
Clark,
Is there any financial incentive to say what Greenpeace wants to hear? In politics, you can always accuse the other side of taking money from people you don’t like, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re part of some grand misinformation scheme.
I’ve got nothing to add other than a slight defense of the Oklahoman.
It’s quite common for newspapers to publish unsigned editorials on the op/ed page. Indeed, the New York Times does it. Their columnists have a byline, but the editorials representing the views of the editorial board are almost always unsigned.
blah. blah. blah. blah……….
I will form my opinion after NewsOK’s “Ladies Room” tackles the topic, gets to the core of the issues and tells me what I should think.
@A Republican
Are you saying that Greenpeace has the kind of money to compete with multinational oil corporations? Because that is just ludicrous. Big oil has a history of being one of the main lobbies in Congress and is incredibly influential in determining government policy. And if a politician was supporting Greenpeace’s views, that politician would immediately be deemed as a radical. Especially since Greenpeace and similar environmental groups qualify as terrorist organizations under Homeland Security guidelines.
Why are you so opposed to combating global warming? What incentives are there for you? Honestly? There wouldn’t be that big of an impact on individuals, it would have the most impact on the mega corporations who are making money off of excessive consumerism.
The global warming debate reminds me of the nuclear winter debates of the 70s-80s. So many people argued on both sides, but in the end people were reasonable and fell back on a trusted concept - the precautionary principle. If there is even the slightest possibility of nuclear winter, why risk it? Because of this we have been able to establish a number of arms control policies that were very effective in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world and reducing Cold War tensions.
If you can give me some reasons why you are actually opposed to global warming activists, I’ll be happy to respond to all of them. As it stands right now, it appears to me that you only support this because you are a Republican and feel that you need to adhere to partisan politics, even though the elites in charge of your party ,not you,stand to benefit from this.
Stompi, I oppose anyone who wants to define my needs for me. I oppose anyone who wants to dictate what car I can drive, what light bulbs I can use, what food I eat, what substances go into my body, who I can marry, what guns I can own, what books I read, what I can do on my own property, etc.
You get the point? Environmental extremists are no better than those on the right who would define the terms of how I live my life.
An example? Those new trendy fluorescent bulbs, the ones being mandated into homes? They contain mercury. Why should I take seriously someone who would force me to put a toxin in my daughter’s room?
If there is a better way, if there is a more efficient way of living, then market it, sing it’s praises, convince other people.
But don’t use the regulatory power of the state to force free people to live as you see fit.
Ogles, sorry if that was a bit long.
Well…thanks for the comments everyone. Hopefully we can all agree that the Oklahoman still pretty much sucks.