I like Stossel, missed him tonight though. I saw a clip on fox news the other day from his interview on O'Rielly. That was interesting. Schools really are brainwashing America's youth :(

I love how the parents of the first group of children he interviewed, suddenly pulled their consent for airing the interview on the show AFTER they were lobbied by environmental wackos.

What did Stossel do? Got a whole other group of kids for the interview! Screw those a-hole parents of the first group.

I didn't realize that a 'new religion' was being taught in our schools with a fervor that would put Elmer Gantry to shame.

Eric The(GoToHell!MotherNature)Hun[>]:)]

Does this means I can go outside and kill a tree now?  Thank you for the timely post.  I get to watch it in another 3 hours from now.  I get to watch some real comdey on ABC for once.

I, too, saw O'Reilly's interview with Stossel, and the father of one of the children in this ABC broadcast.  The man is indecisive, hypocritical, ignorant (he should have known FROM the interview what the broadcasted show would be like), and personally I don't think he knows exactly what he is talking about.  If Stossel was trying to relay to these kids that the environmental situation was getting BETTER, then why keep their minds clouded in WRONG knowledge about the Earth's situation?

I guess some people aren't Eee-vil...they're simply stupid.
[img]www.auburn.edu/~littlcb/E-vil2.jpg[/img]

Name the last time that someone had the balls to go againist the enviro-leftist and shove the same crap their throats.  Looking forward to watching the segment.  Sorry about the last post.  My brain is still fried from the 10hrs of sun I was expossed that work today.

Response to Sweep -

Yeah, like I said to my wife, 'Hell, Tonto, just don't pay your water and electric bills, and you can live exactly like your ancestors.'

Eric The(They'reNotCalledUtilitiesForNothing)Hun[>]:)]

That Stossel is amazing. How he ever manages to keep his job while ridiculing what his own network's bigwig news anchors do is beyond me.

The program he had a few years back comparing risk levels from different activities was a real eye-opener, and what really made me start paying attention to him.

Also he had a short thing the summer after the Columbine killings pointing out how our nation's schools are statistically safer than ever before. This while the rest of the media was talking about a "crisis" and congress was in a panic to cook up new gun restrictions. I remember throughout the segment he kept asking why the media was distorting the facts so badly, and plowed all around the gun control issue without ever saying the words. I think he is on our side, but if he ever said so directly he really would lose his job.

I have to say it was pretty fun to watch.  Not often do you get to see something common sense on primetime network TV.
Stossel to liberal "You are just a scare monger, why should we believe you?" LOL

You guys are such idiots.  CO2 is increasing, water levels are rising, Greenland is shrinking,  ocean currents are changing.  Of course, there's no problem as long as you can burn your firewood and drive your Suburbans.

Now, the eco-nuts don't understand that you can't fix a system that took 100 years to put into place overnight at no cost.  We've built a world that needs A/C becuase buildings are constructed without good ventilation.  We need cars because we've build a suburban society without mass transit.

The planet is sick and we need to fix it.  Ultimately, it won't matter.  Once we've killed ourselves off, the planet will heal.

You people that think Stossel is some kind of hero are all black helicopter seeing idiots. He and his kind are a threat to Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and global harmony. He should be arrested and tried before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and I call upon all former and current peacekeepers on this forum to petition the UN for his apprehension.

Yaworski- LOL

Stossel is the man.  Did you see his special on free speech, and how the leftists only want their speech to be free.  He also had a special on how capitalism and free exchange lead to prosperity for all, comparing the economies of the United States, Hong Kong, and India.  It was really good.

Stossel is the only libertarian doing any kind of reporting on tv, lord knows how he stays on the air, especially at ABC.

I remember him back in the early 80's as a liberal Rivera wannabe, anybody remember exactly when he made the change?  Just curious.

Now where can I get an irradiated apple?

I think that smack up side the head that a wrestler gave him must have knocked some sense into him. Or maybe now, he could have enough seniorty to push his own views. Back in the 80's, he was probably considered a rookie and had to kowtow to whatever story that they told him to cover. After getting his eardrum ruptured, his stories started to change. I guess if there is a chance that you are going to be physically attacked, you should probably be 100% behind your story.

I'd love to hear one of these scientific geniuses explain how global warming existed before man ever came along.

All of those massive glaciers that carved out present day land formations melted long ago. I'm pretty sure that the great lakes were formed by glaciers also.

That means that global warming has been going on for millions of years. I've also heard that a group of prominent scientists (that's an oxymoron) in Anartica have come to the conclusion that we're entering into a new iceage.

Here is a most excellent article on how the global warming thing has been pushed to being all out of proportion.  When you have faulty controls and questionable ways of gathering the data, it's no longer a science.

[url]http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.htm[/url]

Here's just a clipping of the article:

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

Click the link to read the whole thing, it's a decent article.

Here's a newspaper article from the Seattle Post:
Air pollution may help keep earth cool, researchers say. It increases cloud density, and temperatures drop

A University of Washington scientist has found that some airborne pollutants, rather than contributing to global warming, work to cool regions on Earth by increasing the density of the cloud cover. The UW's Robert Charlson, an atmospheric chemist, said climate modelers -- like the Joni Mitchell song "Both Sides Now" -- "really don't know clouds at all."

In today's Science magazine, Charlson and a team of international experts on the role of clouds in climate report that some of the chemicals being introduced into the air by human industry and activity tend to increase cloud density. The more reflective cloud cover deflects more of the sun's energy away before it reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere. "The temperature decreases can be dramatic," Charlson said.

He said scientists studying the Szechwan Basin in China, an area the size of the eastern seaboard, have recorded an overall cooling trend there since 1951 that appears to be due to increased human-induced air pollution and cloud formation. While some airborne pollutants such as nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide or methane -- the so-called "greenhouse gases" -- clearly contribute to the observed global warming trend, Charlson and his colleagues have found other chemicals like sulphates appear to contribute to these transient cooling trends because of increased cloud cover.

At any given time, half the planet is covered in clouds. Most scientists agree that clouds play the dominant role in regulating global temperature, but Charlson and his colleagues say the standard climate models used to forecast future changes depend upon a simplistic and inaccurate description of cloud behavior and chemistry.

None of this means that "we can pollute just right," he said, to counteract global warming. Charlson said it simply means we have a lot more work to do before we can claim to understand how the climate works and how it's changing. "There's no question the Earth is warming," he said, adding that most scientists agree the evidence for global warming is strong. But plenty of questions remain about why it's warming up and how. More importantly, he added, the question isn't just about temperature.

"Temperature change is the easiest thing to measure in climate research," Charlson said. But climate change can do a lot more than heat things up. It could change weather patterns, disrupting water distribution and agriculture. It could rapidly alter ecosystems, wreaking havoc on living creatures accustomed to slower adaptation. "There's a lot more at stake here than just a rise in global mean temperature," Charlson said. "The very habitability of the planet may be at stake."

But simply accepting that we have a problem, he said, is not the same as finding a solution. Adopting policies based on assumptions or political consensus, Charlson said, is equally unwise. "The problem is we're still putting too much faith in the models," he said. The primary point Charlson and his colleagues wanted to make in their report is to show the need for better experimental data and continued research aimed at understanding climate.

Clouds and airborne particles, or aerosols, are the major determinants of global temperature. Charlson and his colleagues showed that factoring some other common pollutants into the equation more than doubled the cooling ability of clouds. "We want to point out uncertainty to climate forecasting," he said. "We really don't know what the climate is going to do." This doesn't mean we should postpone efforts to diminish the production of "greenhouse gases" and other airborne pollutants, Charlson said. "The stakes are too high," he added.

[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22616[/url]

Defusing green booby-traps
By Gordon Prather

The polls say that Americans, by a margin of about two to one, think George II is doing a really good job as president. The media elite -- having told us that he isn't -- don’t understand why so many of us think that he is.

Well, for one thing, we don’t see him much on television, rushing off every day in Air Force One to the scene of every seven-car pileup or creek flooding its banks to feel our pain. No, the president and his bomb-squad have been busy in the nation’s capitol, searching for -- and sometimes defusing -- various booby-traps left there by the Gore-Greenies.

After only a few days in office, President Bush announced that he had no intention of complying with Al Gore’s Kyoto Global Warming Protocols. He had to do that to defuse one of the Kyoto booby-traps left by the Gore-Greenies at the EPA -- the Gore-Greenies had got Christy Whitman to propose regulating carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."

Power-generation facilities burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) do produce carbon dioxide and water vapor -- both of which are Gore-Greenie "greenhouse gases" -- but neither of them are "pollutants" as defined by the Clean Air Act. The Gore-Greenie plan was to use the Clean Air Act as a regulatory hammer to force compliance with the Kyoto Protocols, which would require us -- by 2012 -- to cut back our carbon dioxide emissions to the levels of 20 years before. If the Gore-Greenies had prevailed, not only would we not be able to build any more coal- or natural gas-fired plants, but we would have had to shut down all the plants built during the 1990s.

But the president’s bomb squad can’t relax just yet. Having lost that Kyoto battle, the Gore-Greenies at EPA are at it again. They want to drastically reduce the arsenic levels allowed in drinking water, from 50 parts per billion to 5 ppb. Actually, they have had to settle for reducing it to 10 ppb, but they wanted to reduce it to 5 ppb.

What do arsenic levels in our water have to do with Kyoto?

Well, a 1,000 megawatt coal-fired plant, producing enough electricity for a city of about 300,000 people, burns about three million tons of coal a year, and releases -- among other heavy metals (such as mercury and uranium) -- 450 pounds of arsenic!

So when you find a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking, don’t suck on it.

Now, coal-fired plant emissions are already suspected by the EPA of being responsible for the heavy metal "contamination" of lakes and rivers in northern states. According to the EPA, in Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. The amount of mercury in coal is much, much less than the amount of arsenic. If the EPA already suspects coal-fired plants of contaminating rivers and lakes with mercury, how much longer will it be before coal-fired plant operators are hauled off to jail for contaminating America’s lakes and rivers with arsenic?

So, perhaps the Gore-Greenie objective in setting the 10 ppb arsenic level in drinking water is not to drive cities and municipalities into bankruptcy, after all. It’s to force the shut-down of all remaining coal-fired plants, ala Kyoto.

But if we do that, the only remaining option is nuclear power!

Click the link to read the whole article.

 How many of you guy's like Charlton Heston ?
 How many of you have kids and expect to have
 grand children ?

 Some of Charlies best work ws in his flick
  " SOYLENT GREEN "
 Oh sure I know it was just a movie but come
 on .  Do you really think we can pollute
 the planet to our hearts content and not have
 consequences .
   

Ventilation? A wind ain't gonna do much good if it's 105 outside.
At least it's a dry heat.......
And I live in NY, somebody futher south might have a word or two about the joys of AC.

I stopped watching 20/20 because of the touchy-feely BS posing as news. Stossel's the reason I came back and that's exactly what I'm gonna tell ABC.

Sure pollution is bad, but we've already turned the tide. We aren't stuck in those 70's images of chemicals flowing into the ocean and trash floating on the seas. If even the EPA admits pollution's gone down, I think that's good enough. Funny how Stossel referred to the EPA findings as "government" studies to the kids - which to them implied Bush's "oil-men" were running the show - even though the EPA's always been run by enviro-nuts.