By saying "we'd like to hear his side of things", I may be incorrect, but I take it as such..

We (Bill Oreilly, and his viewers) would like to hear his side of things (personally, on the show...not to an outside interview).

I'm pretty sure he meant:

We (Bill Oreilly, and his viewers) would like to hear his side of things (personally, on the show...not to an outside interview) until we hear something we disagree with and cant rebut, at which point we will interrupt and cut his microphone, so the viewers get the 'fair and balanced' view of the right-wing position.

...and Bill O'Reilly's viewers have absolutely ZERO interest in what Al Gore would have to say about this.  If they were interested in weighing both sides of any controversial issue, well, then they wouldn't be watching O'Reilly now, would they?

If that were true, numerous Democrats - including Dick Durbin as I type - would appear on Fox News to express their views.

Sure, so they can be shouted down and called names, right? Yeah, real enlightening 'journalism', huh?

And I'm sure a republican senator appearing on KO wouldnt bear the same thing....please.

KO has WAY more class than Billy could ever hope to have. He would disagree with the con guest but he wouldn't pull an Orally on him. Sorry. Don't confuse KO with those nasty RW talkers... you know, the ones who routinely shout down any alternate viewpoints.

I've never seen Olbermann shout anybody down..... maybe I missed that show.

Please cite an example of KO ordering his staff to cut off someone's microphone.

What's that, you can't?  OK, well, thanks for playing.  Better luck next time!

Which, I guess, is why BO can say whatever he wants about Gore with absolutely no concern for whether or not it is correct. Thing is, there are people who watch him for the entertainment value and just to scream at the TV. Those folks have what is needed to call him on what he says. Doesn't he know this?

Sounds like you have a personal problem son.  Perhaps you need professional help.

This from a guy who gets his kicks inventing a fantasy lifestyle and posting it on a site about politics and media.

Columbus, grow up okay! You got your ass handed to you by other posters so you start name calling. The very fact that you people turn to uneducated and uninformed big mouths like Limbaugh and Hannity (both barel made it through high school and certainly couldn't cut college)adequatley speaks to your lack of critical thinking skills. Your ilk is directly responisble for the low opinion of the U.S. worlwide.

 

This is such a shame, that the inane unresolvable argument over "climate change" and "global warming" has side-tracked the real and substantive issue of Regulating and reducing fossil fuel emissions... and the shame becomes a crying shame, when the inane nonsense descends further, into a defense of Al Gore's electric bill.

Of all the National Policy issues we see debated in Public, this one is presently among the most off-topic and confused and worthless and ineffective.

 

This is such a shame, that the inane unresolvable argument over "climate change" and "global warming" has side-tracked the real and substantive issue of Regulating and reducing fossil fuel emissions

Actually, that is the point - there are no reasons for the reduction of fossil fuel emmisions and fossil fuels in general - if indeed there is no global warming, or they arent the cause of it.

 

Fossil fuels, despite your belief that they can be used forever, are a non-renewable resource. So, even if you think that they do not cause global warming, it is quite important to think about reducing the use of and eventually finding a substitute for fossil fuels.

That would be good and all - if we really didnt have enough to last for the forseeable future.

But then again, by your logic, we never should have started using oil in the first place.

You said there is "no reason" to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I gave you an important one. Ignore it if you wish.

oh he will, don't worry.

I don't consider it global "warming."  I think it's global "weirding" and we're already seeing the effects of it.  Nature is a delicate balance, and when you add too much of one thing, that balance gets out of whack and crazy things start to happen.  It's true in all aspects of our Earth.

Take, for instance, the wolves that have now been re-introduced into Yellowstone national park.  For years the wolf was near extinct in that area, and the result was a massive boom of herbivores who then gobbled up all the surrounding foliage and pretty soon the entire eco-structure started deteriorating.  They finally got the bright idea to re-introduce the wolves and now the Park is a thriving natural habitat.   Now how hard is it to imagine that pumping all that CO2 that was once locked in the Earth's crust into the atmosphere in a geological miniscule amount of time would have an affect on the balance of our climate?

So from now on, I'm calling it global weirding.

Back when my father was growing up in the Bronx before WWII, electric milk trucks delivered dairy all over the area. One day they disappeared. Big oil even back then felt threatened, I guess. Left to develop, electric cars might have been the standard today.

I guess the Troglodyte point here is that Rich people cannot be advocates for..... anything. Rich people are going to consume more of EVERYTHING than the average person. They have bigger houses, more cars, more televisions.... swimming pools, etc. They pay more for haircuts, meals, clothing, tips.

This is just more mindless bullsh*t designed to piss off the people who already hate Al Gore.

I don't give a rat's ass how much energy Gore consumes. It has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is a real problem, just as the price of John Edwards' haircut has no bearing on the plight of poor people.

Now, if you want to talk about hypocrisy..... let's go back and take another look at those Republicans leading Bill Clinton's impeachment.... you know, the ones who were having affairs and were on their third wives....? If that's not relevant, then neither is the size of Al Gore's house.

You forget, Nerzog, that through the Republican lens:

Liberal + rich = elitist, out-of-touch, crooked

Conservative + rich = successful, self-made, American hero

Holy crap you are so right. The typical double-standard of conservatives.

I don't give a rat's ass how much energy Gore consumes. It has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is a real problem, just as the price of John Edwards' haircut has no bearing on the plight of poor people.

I agree - I could care less what they do or how much money they have, or how they spend.  The bottom line is that they are trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, and make law of it.  But in the end, it does have bearing whether global warming is a real problem - because if its not, then its purely a risk to our economy and standards of living.

No, the bottom line is that you are paranoid - you think all those 'evil libs' are gonna come and take away your precious little toys just because some moron with a mic says so. Talk about being unable to think for yourself!

Here, Columbo.... we'll try it again. Gore's use of energy has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is real. Maybe it's real, maybe it isn't....its validity as a theory is independent of Gore's energy consumption.

You like logic; try this.....is the truth or untruth of the Bible determined by the hypocrisy of those preaching it?

I have been wondering, what is the right temp for mother earth?

The earth has had a wide range of temperatures. It still does. The range of temperatures that life can exist at is much narrower. The range that the current ecosystems can exist even narrower. I'd say if an average global temperature was 100F we would also have a major extinction event underway and accelerating. But thats just my guess.

Shall we wait till you agree that sufficient damage has been done before any actions are taken? How much damage would that be and how would verification of the data meet your standards?

I've been wondering = "I'm about to repeat something I heard on wingnut radio that sounded clever to me"

I am thinking it must have sounded way better on the radio.

Again witht he anit-Gore stuff.  Why has the right got their collective panties in a bunch over a retired VP in an election year?

Because he is the feature person in the unproved man-made "climate change" issue - and his views have directly effected the left wing presidential party....to the point that further damaging the economy and standards of living are worth fighting something that we arent sure is happening, or can be prevented.

So are 2000 scientists. Could you get them all on? Sorry, Bill likes to interview Weathermen. Besides, O'Reilly is an @sshole.

Well next time I need to know how to create the second Internet, we'll interview AG and ask him...

For your reading pleasure...

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Rabbit, are you saying Gore isn't the "feature person" for the internets?

Al Gore is a LIAR!

He claims that he invented the internet.

I know, thanks to Senator Stevens from Alaska, that the internets are nothing but tubes.

Tubes were invented by Hiram K. Ramses in Egypt in the year 6325 BC.

Therefore, he could not have invented these tubes through which we shout.

You really think you're the feature person of tube research, don't you?

Al Gore is a LIAR!

He claims that he invented the internet.

King, you're the liar.  Gore did no such thing.

Maybe you should read the entire post.

You are correct, SFNOMAD.

But you may want to have your sarcasm detector checked. It appears to be on the fritz.

It's too late Columbo, they've already started.  It's called "the Grid" and it's already making the traditional servers outmoded.

Don't believe me?  Google "The Grid" and find out for yourself...

And the next time I want a FAKE war, I'll dial up Cheney. Sounds reasonable. Gore invented the Internet, Cheney invented a war. I'll stick with Gore. And P.S. O'Reilly is still an @sshole. I think he invented being an @sshole.

As far as the Left-Wing Presidential Party---that has a nice ring to it. Thanks Columbus.  January, 2009  "THE END OF AN ERROR."

Apparently, the economy doesn't need global warming to damage it. Bush and his laissez-faire policies have done it quite nicely.

Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.

Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

Columbus wrote:

>>Because he is the feature person in the unproved man-made "climate change" issue 

Here we go again. Global warming is not "unproved," if by "unproved" you mean science does not back it up. In fact, Oreskes did a study on peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that over 600 papers supported global warming; none refuted it. (Technically speaking, nothing can be "proven" with absolute certainty except in math. Even Newton's laws on gravity had flaws which Einstein had to correct.)

So yes, global warming is very much proved in the scientific sense.

You also write that showing that global warming is a problem is "... further damaging the economy and standards of living are worth fighting something that we arent sure is happening, or can be prevented." What is ironic about this statement is that the best scientists in the world have shown that global warming is happening. Scientific theories, when they have as much data to support  them as global warming, usually prove accurate. But economic models hardly ever do. Further, can you possibly imagine the economic diaster that  will follow if we don't do anything about global warming and the ocean start rising?

Columbus: ... the unproved man-made "climate change" issue ... that we arent sure is happening, or can be prevented.

 Columbus, I was wondering what you do.  I am a scientist; bioinformatics with most of my training in theoretical physics, mathematics, and chemistry.  I talk to a lot of very well educated scientists.  I have never met a single well-respected scientist that was arguing the case that climate change is not an issue.

First of all, there is nothing proven in science.  NOTHING.  To say there is is stupid.  Things can only be disproven.  It is called falsifiability (a philosophy detailed by Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher of science.) Your use of the term "unproven" tells me that either (a.) you're not a scientist or (b.) your not a good scientist.

Secondly, there are movements outside of science to discredit scientific thinking.  For instance, intelligent design.  However, by and large these are not arguments coming from within the community.  When topics are brought up for debate, the ideas are tested and the more accurate theory prevails.  Sometimes people may be unsatisfied with the fact that their theories are bogus, and then they take it to political organizations that attempt to manipulate the bogus theory to gain public, non-scientific support for influencing policy.  This is the only debate present in biology and climatology on evolution and "global warming", respectively. 

 This morning I was reading a novel by Gregory Benford that had an awesome quote in it that pertains to this second point.  "Education can banish ignorance, but nothing can ban stupidity."  Unfortunately there are those that will use other's stupidity for political gain and point to any form of doubt as "reasonable doubt."  There is a reason we use the classification "reasonable" in our legal system, though.  The same goes with scientific ideas.

Thirdly, you may claim that science is elitist and should not be the reasoning from whence governing decisions are made.  I have no counter arguement here; however, if this is your stance, I'd like to hear what you think is better.  If you can convince me of the authority of the Bible, the Koran, or the Joy of Cooking, then I will support your position.  Otherwise I will mock you for making claims that sound scientific that have absolutely no scientific basis. 

Billy:

AWESOME POST!!!  And I notice that there is no response...

This is so laughable.  O'Reilly starts the piece by saying "on the pinhead front" and concludes with "so it looks like Al Gore is a pinhead" but he has "an open invitation to appear on the Factor."  Why on earth would anyone accept that invitation?  In one fell swoop O'Reilly has established that he has no intent of being fair, he has already ignored what Gore has to say on the subject, and he has already concuded for his discerning audience that Gore is a pinhead.  Gee, Gore must be falling all over himself to accept that "invitation." How does anyone watch O'Reilly anyway?  It is just a hatchet job that has no interest whatsoever in presenting issues in an adult manner.

Missleading headline. Gore HIMSELF, indeed did not respond to the question, a spokeswoman did. I wish he would debate some people head to head.

Does the Senate's leading denier, James Ihnofe, count?

Oops, Inhofe. Pardon me.

Damn company filter. It would say a lot if he would come out and debate people.

Behold O'Reilly begging to be spoon-fed his story rather than do the slightest bit of work.

Do some reporting, butthead.

Bill O'Reilly has an open invitation to appear on Keith Olbermann's show and discuss Andrea Mackris.

THANK YOU.

njguy93@yahoo.com

And why does O'Lielly continue to refuse to appear on Bill Moyers' show?

Perhaps someone should check O'Reilly's energy consumption.

O'Reilly wants Gore to come on his worthless show so that more people will tune in.  Then he can spend a few days rattling on about how powerful and studly his ratings are.  He can also selectively edit parts of the interview and make Gore look bad.  So why would Gore ever consider such an invite?

Off topic a bit but I have a problem with O'Reilly's use of the term "pinhead".  The word "pinhead" is a derogatory term used to describe persons with a medical condition called microcephaly. This condition is characterized by a smaller than normal skull and brain size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly

I don't understand commentators that feel the need to resort to slurs and slander when trying to make a point.

BTW, one of the most famous "pinheads", Zip the Pinhead, was not mentally deficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_the_Pinhead