As the public anxiously awaits the U.S. State Department’s final decision on the fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the discussion has largely ignored the elephant in the room: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.)
Thanks to NAFTA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, the State Department will likely be able to do little more than stall the pipeline’s construction. In its simplest form, NAFTA removes barriers for North American countries wishing to do business in or...
read more























Comments
It's been trending down for a while.....
People are getting tired of hearing the endless catastrophic claims about Climate change and the lack of mainstream media coverage reflects this fact.
Only the Joe Romm's of the world think that non-stop barrage of dire warnings will advance the issue. People just don't believe it anymore!
H.
media failure on climate change
The Media is owned by powerful corporations that have grown used to huge profits. That they are missing the biggest story of this century (and perhaps of all time) shows their corruption of reality and humanity.
With a public disengaged by a bad economy, by Brittany Spears Tits, and the love lives of the Kardashians- its a sort of an inertia of stupidity in the USA in 2012.
When the crap hits the fan- where will the Media be?
May I suggest debating?
If the warmist side would like to see more coverage of climate change, I would like to suggest that they agree to more debates. I think the single bigest thing that Al Gore could do to generate public interest in AGW would be to agree to a public debate with Christopher Monckton. Al Gore once generated a huge amount of interest in NAFTA by debating Ross Perot on Larry King's CNN TV show. Here are some other debates that I think would draw large audiences:
Michael Mann vs Steve McIntyre
Naomi Oreskes vs Joanne Nova
Joe Romm vs Peter Huber (both MIT alums)
Bill McKibben vs Philip Stott
Peter Gleick vs Marc Morano
George Monbiot vs Matt Ridley
Thomas Freidman vs George Will
Chris Mooney vs Anthony Watts
I don't think most of the figures on the right side of my list would need much convincing, to agree to debate. With the publics current low level of interest, what do the figures on the left side have to lose?
You don't understand how science works
Conman, you haven't a clue have you? Have you seen how dishonest deniers, Monckton, Plimer et al "debate"? They throw out lie after lie and do not give the honest scientist long enough to challenge the dishonesty they show.
Scientific debate is carried out by scientists in the scientific literature and at real i.e. not Heartland, meetings, by honest scientists.
Your bunch of dishonest cronies have nothing to offer, where are their scientific papers, their honest explanation of the facts? The reason they never discuss them is that they don't have any only lies, misinformation, misinterpretation and obfuscation.
Silly Conman...
Soo... What you're saying is that the guys who didn't go to the debating club in school are supposed to go and debate with the guys that did? To what end?
That's silly. I wasn't tought that in university. Its not even required. I took statistics and math... Watts took.... Monkton took... Hmm....
So what's in a debate?
http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html
"You do not win a debate with the biggest pile of facts."
Read the stuff on how to win... Eye contact... Very important. Not very fact based though. Decidedly that must be in your favor.
When you say, "debate", all I hear is, "I don't want to look at the facts."
By the way, there was a huge debate in my community about a construction project. One person drove the negative side of the arguements. Otherwise, there was no opposition. When that person would 'debate', the pattern was obvious. She would say something... expound on it... and as soon as you asked a question, she'd change the subject. In my eyes its the clearest evidence that you have nothing to back you up.
Conman... this is what you and your kind do. Yet you only need one real and solid fact. All you'd need to do is harp on that same one fact over and over to win. Yet you can't find one. You guys have been reduced to throwing stones at the messengers.
Public Debate
First...the public couldn't understand it. I can see the eyes glazing over now.
Second... the public really wouldn't understand it.
Third... you guys make stuff up.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/23/203589/copenhagen-consensus-climate-economics-debate-bjorn-lomborg-peter-huber-philip-stott/
This never gets old... Monkton debating Monkton... and loosing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueOxlERWXxs
Policy needs to be debated
If Monckton is as bad as that video makes him out to be, Al Gore should be able to annihilate him in a debate. Neither of them are scientists, but they are both well known public figures with a lot to say about policy issues relating to AGW. There are a lot of us in the public who are interested in the issue and would like to see how these two would respond to each others attacks and assertions.
As for making stuff up, a debate is an opportunity to confront someone with their alleged fabrications. I agree with Joe Romm that his side did not do very well in the Intelligence Squared Debate that he critiqued. So why doesn't he go and do some debating to show them how it's done. He just wrote a book on rhetoric, for Christ's sake!
http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/
Because...
Debating and science are unrelated...
One is based on eye contact, and one is based on facts.
It serves no purpose.
Another proposed debate
To my list of proposed debates, I'd like to add:
Peter Sincliar (Climate Crock of the Week) vs Elmer Bouregaurd (Minnisotans for Global Warming)