It’s Friday, so what the hell: A tornado struck Brooklyn, N.Y., during rush hour yesterday, knocking down trees, destroying property and making many bro-happy residents feel like they were living in the unofficial sequel to Twister . Seriously, bro. Ahead, watch the NSFW reactions of a group of bros in a tornado. Smirnoff Ice not included.
Go here to read the rest:
Bros Icing Tornadoes: (Very) Amateur Director Captures Rare Twister in Brookyln
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged accidental, brookyln tornado, friday, global-warming, knocking-down, Movies, Nsfw, plan-keeps, tv guide
Former CNN anchor Miles O’Brien (no relation to current CNN special correspondent Soledad O’Brien ) slammed Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell as a ” Tea Party nutbag ” in a Tweet on Wednesday evening . O’Brien continued that he “forget [sic] her ignorant nonsense ,” referring to her defense of the creationist viewpoint during a 1996 appearance on his former network. O’Brien, who was let go by CNN in 2008 after they closed their science unit, linked to an article on the left-wing website Talking Points Memo after his attack on O’Donnell. The article, by Eric Kleefeld, highlighted an item by Dan Amira of New York magazine , who “dug up” the Republican’s March 1996 appearance with O’Brien and Dr. Michael McKinney of the University of Tennessee-Chattanoga. During the panel discussion, O’Donnell defended the creationism. Kleefeld labeled it as just another part of the social conservative’s ” religious right work ,” citing her apparent ” long career in anti-sex and anti-masturbation activism .” The former anchor’s Tweet is not surprising, gives his record of liberal bias when he was at CNN, particularly on the issue of climate change. On February 9, 2006 , O’Brien accused scientists skeptical of the theory of manmade global warming as being ” bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry .” Over two months later, he suggested raising gasoline taxes to “help pay for these alternative fuels.” During 2007, the then-CNN anchor insisted to former Republican Congressman J. C. Watts that the ” scientific debate is over ” on the climate change issue. O’Brien also dismissed critics of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” later that year. Less than a year before his dismissal from CNN, he compared manmade global warming skeptics to Flat Earthers . More recently, O’Brien, working a special correspondent for PBS’s NewsHour program, helped promote Dubuque, Iowa as a “city of a future” during a June 17, 2010 report, for its transformation from a former industrial center into a “green” capital, with the help of money from the Obama administration’s “stimulus” package. Outside of the global warming issue, the journalist conducted other left-leaning advocacy. He helped CNN promote the controversial “Death of a President” movie depicting the assassination of former President George W. Bush during an October 27, 2006 segment with director Gabriel Range. He labeled four American contractors who were kidnaped in Iraq ” mercenaries ” less than a month later . In April 2008, he tried to spin the 40% approval rating the Democratically-controlled Congress had at the time: “Democrats are marking 100 days of their congressional reign now, and they’re riding pretty high .”
Read more from the original source:
Former CNN Anchor O’Brien Attacks ‘Nutbag’ O’Donnell on Twitter
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged assassination, congress, congressional, culture/society, dan amira, democratically, environment, global-warming, miles, miles o'brien, new york magazine, party, social, tea parties, Twitter
A new school will be opening in Los Angeles next Monday that is named after Nobel Laureate Al Gore and Rachel Carson, the woman almost single-handedly responsible for DDT being banned in the ’70s. Even more delicious than the names associated with the new $75.5-million Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences is that it was built on land thought to be highly-contaminated with various chemicals which could pose a threat to students. As the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday: Critics say the campus’ location poses a long-term health risk to students and staff. School district officials insist that the Arlington Heights property is clean and safe. And they’ve pledged to check vapor monitors and groundwater wells to make sure. “Renaming this terribly contaminated school after famous environmental advocates is an affront to the great work that these individuals have done to protect the public’s health from harm,” an environmental coalition wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District. Making sure the school is safe “would be an even better way to honor their contribution to society.” Construction crews were working at the campus up to the Labor Day weekend, replacing toxic soil with clean fill. All told, workers removed dirt from two 3,800-square-foot plots to a depth of 45 feet, space enough to hold a four-story building. The soil had contained more than a dozen underground storage tanks serving light industrial businesses. Additional contamination may have come from the underground tanks of an adjacent gas station. A barrier will stretch 45 feet down from ground level to limit future possible fuel leakage. An oil well operates across the street, but officials said they’ve found no associated risks. Like many local campuses, this school also sits above an oil field, but no oil field-related methane has been detected. Groundwater about 45 feet below the surface remains contaminated but also poses no risk, officials said. You really can’t make this stuff up. Of course, readers shouldn’t miss the irony of Carson and Gore’s names being placed on a school that could end up being hazardous to the health of attendees. After all, Carson has the blood of millions nay billions of malaria deaths on her hands as a result of her paranoid book “Silent Spring” leading to the ban of DDT many years ago. As for Gore, if he ever gets his way, and nations around the world adopt cap-and-trade programs to limit carbon dioxide emissions, millions will likely die as a result of being kept from modern forms of energy creation. As such, it’s quite fitting a school be named after these two radical environmentalists that could end up harming the very students that attend it. On the other hand, one could make the case that if the toxic fumes don’t hurt these poor, unsuspecting young souls, the environmental nonsense they’re being taught certainly will. It’s like rain on your wedding day.
More here:
School Named After Al Gore and Rachel ‘DDT’ Carson Built on Toxic Soil
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged contribution, environmental, global-warming, health, Hollywood, labor, Los Angeles Times, politics, silent-spring, stars, sure-the-school, Underground, woman
The Boston Globe, long notorious as promoters of global warming doom and gloom — see Ross Gelbspan, for example — sometimes get embarrassed by the actual climate. On “The Green Blog,” the Globe’s Beth Daley projected that a “global warming double punch” could make Hurricane Earl much worse for Massachusetts — except when it actually passed by, it turned out to be a dud for Bostonians and it could be watched on the coast with a glass of wine: The large waves, storm surge, and flooding that Hurricane Earl will spawn as it strikes Massachusetts tomorrow night comes with an added dollop of trouble; Sea level rise. Very gradual — and in some cases accelerating — rises in sea level off our coast over the last century will boost the height of Earl’s storm surge — expected to be one to four feet — meaning the wall of water will be able to travel that much farther inland and over higher elevations to flood basements, streets, and other low-lying areas…. Sea level is rising, scientists say, in large part because of a global warming double punch: higher ocean temperatures that expand the volume of water, and melting glaciers that add water to the sea. So future hurricanes are likely to cause more widespread flooding. “Sea level rise is fairly insidious and one of those things that we think is in the background and not in our lifetime or our children’s lifetime but it keeps adding up,” said Greg Berman, coastal processes specialist with Woods Hole Sea Grant and Cape Cod Cooperative Extension. He said sea level rise in the last century has coincided with the mass migration of people to live near the coast, and while “we drew a line in the sand where the sea should stop, it’s not listening to us.” While the downgraded tropical storm Earl caused some coastal drama, the storm wasn’t dramatic enough in Boston, according to the Globe : Away from the Cape and Islands, the storm was decidedly less dramatic. In South Boston, Carson Beach was largely deserted late last night, except for three young women who decided to go swimming under a light but steady rain. “You get a hurricane like every 20 years,’’ said Amy McCarthy 23, of Dorchester. “So why not check it out?’’ Her friend, Rebekah Lehtonen, 23, of Connecticut, was unimpressed. “I wish it was a little bit more windy,’’ Lehtonen said. The storm was apparently calm enough that you watched it on the beach with a glass of wine: But as it became clear that the storm would be more like a nor’easter than a hurricane, many people ignored warnings and flocked to beaches to watch Earl arrive. At a beach in Oak Bluffs, as the wind picked up and waves swelled yesterday evening, Jane and Steve Edmonds of Sharon sipped shiraz, their backs to the churning sea. Suddenly, a wave sprayed Jane Edmonds, causing her to shriek. “I’m not moving! I’m not moving!’’ she said defiantly, covering her glass with her hand. Near the water, Irene Sherman and her husband, Marc Littlejohn, stood with their children, Maya, 13 and Zach, 10. Marc Littlejohn had heard the warnings that people shouldn’t watch the storm from the beach, but the prospect of seeing it up close was too enticing. “We couldn’t help ourselves,’’ Littlejohn said. “It’s pretty amazing.’’ Still, the family agreed, they were happy the storm was not as intense as what was forecast. “We don’t want a natural disaster,’’ Maya said. A news media eager to go looking for the peril of global warming in every tropical storm are going to occasionally end up with a little salty surf in their shiraz. But are they humble enough to admit when they’ve overdone it?
See the original post:
Boston Globe Sees ‘Global Warming Double Punch’ Worsening Hurricane Earl in Massachusetts — Whoops
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged Breaking News, global-warming, green, Hollywood, News, ocean
CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who was quick to blame Fox News for the 2009 murders of three police officers in Pennsylvania , treaded much more carefully on Wednesday’s Rick’s List as he covered the eco-terrorist who brought guns, explosives, and took hostages at Discovery Channel’s headquarters. Sanchez stated that Lee may have been ” well-meaning ,” but ” most watching this would argue he may have taken [his cause] way too far on this day ” . Most? The breaking news about James Lee’s standoff at the educational channel’s Silver Spring, Maryland dominated Sanchez’s broadcast. Twenty-five minutes into the 3 pm Eastern hour, during an interview of former hostage negotiator Tom Fuentes, the anchor summarized Lee’s manifesto: “He apparently wants the Discovery Channel…[to] broadcast certain commitments to save the planet…He’s apparently anti-war….He’s concerned about global warming, talks about Malthusian sciences, continues to come back to saving the planet.” He then asked Fuentes, “So…if you get my drift, Tom, he’s very concerned. He’s an activist, may be very well-meaning, but he’s now put himself in a situation where he, the police officers and his hostages’ lives are endangered . What do you do?” Later that hour, Sanchez again described the eco-terrorist as a mere “activist” but also added that he was a ” very dangerous man .” He also asked correspondent Josh Levs, ” How can a man claim to be for saving the planet, apparently a peace activist, so to speak, while at the same time be threatening to blow himself and other people up and carrying a handgun? ” Nine minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour, the CNN anchor skirted giving a definitive statement on the criminality of Lee’s actions: “For those of you just now joining us, we’ve got a pretty good bead on who this guy is. We understand what his concerns have been for some time. He’s a bit of an activist, a guy who truly believes, seemingly, in his heart that he needs to do all he can to save the planet. Most watching this would argue he may have taken it way too far on this day by endangering the lives of people in this building, as he seems to be doing right now .” Eleven minutes later, Sanchez did go so far to give a negative label of the eco-terrorist’s views: SANCHEZ: You have a right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, no matter how strange. There’s people who still say that they believe that there’s all kinds of stuff going on out there that may not be true. That doesn’t lead one to believe that any- on any given day, they’re going to take a gun or explosives and walk into a building and threaten the lives of people- although, I guess you must admit that even back then, you must have been taken aback. I mean, those theories seem- I’ll just say it- weird . Just before the bottom of the hour, the anchor went even further about Lee’s manifesto: “Police are trying to talk the guy out of the building by negotiating with him, by trying to reach some conclusion with him- that he’s achieved his goal of letting the world know what his concerns are about saving the planet, which are his concerns – albeit extreme – but those are his concerns and he appears to want to make sure that those concerns are heard.” During the last ten minutes of his program, it seems that Sanchez couldn’t make up his mind about Lee. At one point, he gave the following statement: “You hear of a lot of people who have causes. This particular person’s cause is saving the planet. But it’s how he goes about it, in a very unique way – even beyond what he’s doing here today, by endangering the lives of people stuck in a building with explosives, waving a handgun with hostage s- but what he actually says in his writings, in his manifesto that have certainly perked our curiosity and yours as well.” After Levs gave more background on the eco-terrorist’s views, he replied that it was a ” paradoxical theory, while it may be, and certainly, on this night, a dangerous one as well .” Sanchez was much more definitive on April 8, 2009, after three Pittsburgh police officers were shot and killed by a crazed gunman: ” That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon .'” When several congressmen asked for extra security after threats were made against them around the time of the vote on ObamaCare in March 2010, the CNN anchor repeatedly insinuated that Republican leaders and conservative media were to blame : ” Is there a possibility that that message isn’t getting out to the American people because these crazy talk show hosts that are so right-wing are out there using the most heated language and the most heated rhetoric that does, in fact, incite people to hate? “
Originally posted here:
CNN’s Sanchez Hesitant to Blame Left for Discovery Channel Terrorist, Says ‘Most’ Think He Went ‘Too Far’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged Cnn, concerns, environment, fringe, global-warming, james lee, labeling, pennsylvania, People, planet, police, rick's list, sanchez, save-the-planet
Wednesday’s CBS Evening News, without Katie Couric, uniquely amongst the broadcast network evening newscasts tied Discovery Channel hostage-taker/bomber James Lee to Al Gore and, even more miraculously, highlighted how Tony Blair, in his new book, describes George W. Bush as “intelligent.” Reporter Wyatt Andrews relayed in his story on the incident in suburban DC: In an anti-corporate protest two years ago, Lee was arrested while throwing cash outside of Discovery’s offices. He said in court he had been moved to save the planet, partly by Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Neither ABC nor NBC mentioned Gore’s inspiration. (ABC’s Pierre Thomas on World News: Lee “has protested at the Discovery Channel repeatedly, raising concerns about the environment and over-population.” NBC’s Tom Costello on Nightly News referred to Lee “handing out a rambling leaflet that called on Discovery to devote more programming to global warming and animal extinction.”) Later in the newscast, fill-in anchor Harry Smith squeezed in a short note about A Journey: My Political Life : “Tony Blair’s long-awaited memoir is out tonight and it includes the former British Prime Minister’s take on some of the famous and powerful. President Bush: ‘Intelligent,’ ‘knew exactly what he wanted’…” Washington, DC area viewers, however, didn’t learn who Gore inspired or Blair admired since WUSA-TV channel 9, CBS’s Gannett-owned DC affiliate, didn’t carry Wednesday’s CBS Evening News, electing to stay with local coverage of the Silver Spring, Maryland events.
Excerpt from:
Miracle on West 57th: CBS Ties Lee to Gore and Quotes Assessment of Bush as ‘Intelligent’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged al gore, british-prime, crazy, crime, deval patrick, environment, global-warming, harry smith, Hollywood, open thread, pierre-thomas, president-bush, save-the-planet, silver-spring
“It’s a free country,” the Massachusetts Governor said. ” I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country and we’ve got to respect that .” Relevant portion at about 1:12 (via Morrissey ): What could Patrick possibly offer as a defense of this statement? Any guesses on what the Governor will say?
Excerpt from:
Open Thread: Glenn Beck Makes Deval Patrick Wish It Weren’t a Free Country
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged crazy, deval patrick, environment, global-warming, governor, massachusetts, News, open thread, pollution, possibly-offer, president-bill, relevant, statement, wish-it-weren
James Lee, the crazed environmentalist that took hostages at Discovery Channel’s Maryland headquarters only to be shot and killed by police Wednesday, was “awakened” by Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” As readers are likely aware, armed with several bombs, Lee took three hostages at the Silver Springs facility. When negotiations broke down, police stormed the building killing the gunman (see Eyeblast reports here and here ). Before the incident began, Lee posted the following demands at his website savetheplanetprotest.com : The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY: 6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet! This was not the first time Lee protested Discovery. MSNBC.com reported Wednesday evening: Court records show that Lee was arrested Feb. 21, 2008, on the sixth day of a protest at the Discovery building. At the time of his conviction in March 2008, he was identified as being from San Diego. Police were called to the scene when a crowd that had gathered began growing “unruly” as Lee threw thousands of dollars of cash into the air, some of it still in shrink-wrapped packages, police said at the time. (Lee was found not guilty of littering.) Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.” This incident points to another inconvenient truth: despite the absurdity espoused by many liberal media members in the past 19 months that conservative talkers are inciting “right-wing extremists” to acts of violence, there are indeed disturbed individuals on both sides of the aisle that can be provoked by any number of things. As NewsBusters’s Melissa Clouthier noted Thursday: The left…has spent the last year and half trying to pin every act of terrorism and evil on the vast, white, racist, homophobic, bigoted Tea Party. They do it without shame. They impugn, malign and besmirch repeatedly. Best Tea Party sign? “You’ll say I’m racist anyway.” Lefties generalize from anecdotes unless the crazy person is one of their own (and yes, that was just a generalization). Then, of course, the crazy is an “outlier”. He’s a depraved individual. And often, there are compelling reasons for the outburst. Those compelling reasons demand more examination. And upon examination, well, it turns out the context is complex and nuanced. However, when their own crazy gets caught, they want the more reasonable and reasoned and logical response of not smearing a whole group of people (say, all people who watched and liked the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth). Indeed. To suggest that this incident was caused by Gore’s film is akin to the inanities put forth by the left about those on the right. As AOLNews opinion editor John Merline wrote Wednesday evening: It’s an unfortunate reflex these days among pundits and politicians trying to score cheap political points against their ideological opponents. Just find the thinnest thread to tie them to the actions of some deranged nut job who happens to espouse somewhat similar views. See how dangerous and extremist their positions are? So, liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann once blamed competing talk show host Bill O’Reilly for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Conservatives once tried to draw parallels between the Unabomber and Gore. President Bill Clinton attempted to connect the horrible Oklahoma City bombing to the rhetoric coming from right-wing talk shows. It’s all bad logic of the reductio ad absurdum variety. And we’d all be better off if everyone took this opportunity to forever swear off this pathetic rhetorical device. Yes we would, John, but if this man was a Fox News-watching Tea Party member whose demands were that the Discovery Channel stop showing programs blaming carbon dioxide for global warming, you can bet that every so-called news outlet in America would be proudly making this connection regardless of it representing bad logic of the reductio ad absurdum variety. As such, calls for sanity in the coverage of these horrible incidents are noble, but such good intentions will be completely forgotten the next time something happens that can be blamed on a conservative regardless of how absurd the nexus. Sadly, that’s just the way the liberal media work. Readers are encouraged to review Brent Baker’s ” Miracle on West 57th: CBS Ties Lee to Gore and Quotes Assessment of Bush as ‘Intelligent.’ ”
See the article here:
Inconvenient Truth: Discovery Gunman ‘Awakened’ By Gore’s Film
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged crazy, environment, global-warming, Hollywood, pollution, president-bill, time, TMZ
E-mail messages obtained by NewsBusters refute claims that multi-millionaire filmmaker James Cameron cancelled a debate with prominent global warming skeptics because they weren’t as famous as he is. As NewsBusters reported Monday, a debate had been scheduled and placed on the program for last weekend’s AREDay summit in Aspen, Colorado, featuring internet publisher Andrew Breitbart, Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) former communications director Marc Morano, and documentarian Ann McElhinney. Within the past 36 hours, event organizers have absurdly claimed that since Cameron wanted to match wits with either Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or Inhofe, he decided to pull out of the debate when this didn’t happen. E-mail messages between the prospective participants and Cameron’s representative paint an entirely different picture. To begin our story, Richard Greene, the man that negotiated the particulars with the skeptics, sent the following regrets to the prospective participants some time Saturday (h/t Big Hollywood ): Dear Andrew, Larry, Marc and Anne [sic], Here is the final decision in what has been, without a doubt, a very challenging road. There will be no debate as originally envisioned and discussed . . . for now. Instead, AREDAY and I offer the three of you (or two or even just one) the FULL platform – 5:30 – 7:00 pm Paepke Auditorium on The Aspen Institute campus . . .with FULL video and audio rights – to share “the other side” of the climate change and energy debate with the assembled notable in the environmental community. James Cameron will not participate. Again, this is my fault and my responsibility. Way back in April James authorized me to set up a debate with either Glenn Beck or Senator Inhofe. As Matt Dempsey will tell you, we tried very hard to get something done for Earth Day and then continued to talk. I communicated that the “denier” team was representing and indirectly chosen by Sen. Inhofe’s office (as Matt had 100% endorsed Marc for that role) but it somehow, given James’ travel, literally to Siberia, was not clear that Sen. Inhofe or someone of his public stature would not be involved. As a result, despite James’ total willingness to engage, he has been universally advised to wait for the time that Senator Inhofe or Governor Palin or Glenn Beck are willing and able to engage in this important debate. Best, Richard Greene For those unable to read through the lines, this was a classic CYA letter, although the A being covered wasn’t necessarily apparent. For some background, the “Larry” in the greeting is Larry Solov, Breitbart’s business partner. As for Greene, according to his biography at the Huffington Post: Richard Greene is an attorney, political and communication strategist, author of the Prentice Hall coffee table book, “Words That Shook The World: 100 Years of Unforgettable Speeches and Events” and Host of “Hollywood CLOUT!” on Air America Radio (Monday – Friday at 6 – 8 pm Pacific/9 – 11 pm Eastern, www.AirAmerica.com and on the air in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, Seattle, Santa Fe and elsewhere). He is also the Founder of a 501(c)(3) corporation that runs high school competitions to find and cultivate the next generation of great speakers and leaders in America. (www.WordsThatShookTheWorld.com). Greene has recently been collaborating with Cameron on Words That Shook The World events as reported by Bing Community and pictured at DayLife.com. With that as pretext, the following e-mail correspondence chronicles recent negotiations concerning debate rules and particulars (e-mail addresses scrubbed for privacy): In a message dated 8/16/2010 11:32:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, morano@xxxx.com writes: Hi Richard, Please give us your proposal for the format and rules of the proposed debate. The bios and press release are currently unacceptable as proposed. I have copied Andrew Breitbart’s business partner Larry Solov on this email to bring Breitbart directly into the loop. Let’s get this squared away. Thanks Marc Greene quickly responded: From: RHGreene@xxxx.com Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 3:36 PM To: morano@xxxx.com; larry@xxxx.com; annmcelhinney@xxxx.com Cc: info@areday.net; sally.ranney@xxxx.com Subject: Aspen Debate – Important Details Dear Marc, Andrew/Larry and Anne, Very much looking forward to our Sunday debate. Here are the important details as of this moment. Richard 1. Press Release In order for us to have press we need to get this out asap. Please get me, by 4:30 pm Eastern, the following: a) Any changes you need to YOUR bios. We will include everyone in the final release. b) A written sign off on the press release title and copy. See below for the current iteration that has attempted to incorporate Marc’s feedback. Notice the urgency: “In order for us to have press we need to get this out asap.” Sounds like a done deal, doesn’t it? As such, on Monday, August 16, this debate was all a go with some particulars left to be ironed out. Greene included the format of the encounter: Introductory 5:30 – 5:31 Welcome by Moderator 5:31 – 5:40 Introduction of “James Cameron Team” members and a 2 minute per member “Opening Statement” 6:40 – 5:49 Introduction of “Andrew Breitbart Team” members and a 2 minute per member “Opening Statement” B. The 10 Issues 5:49 – 6:34 Moderator will raise, one by one, a total of 10 issues and will toss each issue to one team for a 2 minute response, and then the other team for a 2 minute rebuttal. Each team will decide, on their own, the member or members that will use the 2 minute timeT slot. Time: :30 second intro of the issue, 4 minute debate time per issue x 10 = 45 minutes, total. C. Questions from the Audience 6:34 – 6: 54 Questions from the Audience. Each side will choose the people to ask questions in alternating fashion. The moderator will not make these choices. D. Closing Statements 6:54 – 7:00 Each side will get 3 minutes, total, for closing statements, to be distributed as one minute per member or 3 minutes for one member or however the side decides. Next, he added a press release: James Cameron vs. Andrew Breitbart “The Great Climate Debate” at AREDAY Conference in Aspen Looming man-made crisis or a manufactured crisis? Sunday, August 22 Aspen, COLO… AVATAR Director and Producer James Cameron will face conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart in what is being called “The Great Climate Debate,” on Sunday, August 22, at 5:30 – 7:00 pm in Aspen, Colorado, as the culmination of the American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY) Summit. Cameron and Breitbart will each be joined by climate and energy experts and advocates and will address questions of whether climate change is real, a horrific threat to humanity and, more specifically, whether human caused carbon emissions are responsible for extreme weather around the world, acidification of the oceans, the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers and other environmental phenomena. The panelists for the debate will be: (please edit your blurb) 1. James Cameron, Underwater explorer, having spent over 3,000 hours, in submersibles and scuba diving, observing the devastation of the oceans first hand. Writer and Director of the environmentally themed film, AVATAR. 2. Dr. Julienne Stroeve, Research Scientist for The National Snow and Ice Data Center, specializing in remote sensing of snow and ice in the visible, infrared, and microwave wavelengths. Personally conducted research on Kangerlussuaq Glacier in Greenland and presented her findings and research at the UNESCO international experts meeting in Monaco and many other forums and featured on The Discovery Channel and the History Channel documentary “Underwater Universe” Dr. Graciela Chichilnisky is a world renown economist and mathematician and the author of the carbon market of the Kyoto Protocol that became international law in 2005. She also created the concept of Basic Needs voted by 153 nations at the 1993 Earth Summit to be the cornerstone of Sustainable Development, and in 1996 created the formal theory of Sustainable Development that is used worldwide. The “Climate Change is Not Real and/or Not Significantly Man Made and and/or Not A Significant Threat to Humanity” Side: 1. Marc Merano [sic], Former Communications Director for Senator James Inhofe, Executive Editor, “Climate Depot”, a website dedicated to challenging the “Climate Con”. 2. Ann McElhinney, Irish Journalist, Writer, Producer of Documentary Film attacking Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”, “Not Evil – Just Wrong”. Most popular speaker (after Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) during 2010 CPAC Convention where she told James Cameron to grow-up, accusing the film Avatar of being an “anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-mining celebrity guest. 3. Andrew Breitbart – Climate Change denier, Conservative blogger (www.Breitbart.com), Columnist for The Washington Times, author, “Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon”, frequent Fox News Channel commentator and recipient of the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award during the 2010 CPAC conference in Washington, D.C., Keynote speaker at the First National Tea Party Convention in 2010 and the journalist who released the edited videotape of Shirley Sherrod’s allegedly racist speech. Notice some of the wording in the bios was less than flattering. For instance, Morano’s name was misspelled, McElhinney was quoted as bashing one of the featured guests, and Breitbart was credited for releasing the Shirley Sherrod tape. Not very gracious, wouldn’t you agree? On the other hand, both “captains” had clearly chosen their teams, and submitted bios to Greene. As he forwarded this proposed press release to Breitbart et al, isn’t it safe to assume Cameron and his participants were also kept in the loop? Greene was, after all, acting as the coordinator for this event. Wouldn’t it have been in keeping for him to apprise Cameron and Company of how this was going, and get their acceptance of the proposed press release? In fact, Greene later commented about how he was waiting on Cameron to approve the wording. As such, how is it possible that Breitbart, Sovol, Morano, and McElhinney knew on Monday who they’d be facing in this debate, but Cameron – who was having this set up by one of his representatives – didn’t? Regardless, Morano quickly responded: In a message dated 8/16/2010 2:27:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, morano@xxxx.com writes: For the title, let’s delete “looming.” How about: Global Warming: A man-made crisis or a manufactured crisis? My bio as follows: 1.Marc Morano, Senior Aide to Senator James Inhofe and Climate Researcher for Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Currently Executive Editor, For “Climate Depot”, a website dedicated to exposing the manufactured “Climate Con”. We would also like to have our own film crew present to tape the proceedings. As for debate rules, my only further suggestion would be not to be held to 10 points. If a topic is getting hot and showing great energy, let’s stick with it for another round instead of changing the subject. This of course would be at your discretion. Even if we only get to 7 or 8 questions, we would end up having better back and forth. I am not ready to sign off on press release yet. Greene responded the next day: From: RHGreene@xxxx.com Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:51 AM To: morano@xxxx.com Cc: info@areday.net; RHGreene@xxxx.com Subject: Re: Aspen Debate – Important Details Hi Marc, I agree about keeping things more open ended. A light went off when I received Ann’s revisions relative to the scope of the debate. Would like to suggest that, to make the debate even more relevant to the media and the country . . . and to keep it even further away from wonky, statistical, boring banter . . . that we focus mainly on the economic issues that are relevant to the Mid Term Elections, i.e., whether adopting “alarmist” climate change legislation will destroy jobs and the economy, the recent Harry Reid Senate energy bill, the $20 Billion Fund from BP and whether we should raise the cap on oil company liability (the Menedez Bill), and, also, a solution oriented discussion on how we deal with energy in the future. I’m going to assume that this is also right up your alley. Please submit some questions/issues on these areas that I can pose to the James Cameron side. Thanks. Pretty strange, don’t you think? This was supposed to be a debate about global warming, and suddenly the coordinator wanted to talk about the midterm elections, Reid’s energy bill, BP, and raising the cap on oil company liability. Apparently confused by this change in subject matter, Morano promptly responded: From: Marc Morano-ClimateDepot.com [mailto:Morano@xxxx.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:27 AM To: ‘RHGreene@xxxx.com’ Cc: ‘info@areday.net’ Subject: RE: Aspen Debate – Important Details Hi Richard, NOOOO!!!! Please not a wonky energy debate. The core of the debate should be about climate science, and the impacts of warming on the world’s poor and the impacts of alleged solutions to world’s poor. Please no gulf oil spill or energy bill. BORING! Let’s keep this to global warming with 25% or less devoted to energy, BP, etc! No policy debate! Let’s debate the state of global warming science in 2010!!! Thanks Marc After a phone discussion with Greene, Morano sent the following: In a message dated 8/17/2010 8:36:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Morano@xxxx.com writes: Hi Richard, After our phone call, my team is fine with this change in debate format. Let’s go ahead and finalize this and as the energy debate you suggest. Can we get out press release announcing this asap? We are confirmed for the changes you suggest. Thanks Marc The following day, Greene responded with an updated press release not much different than the prior one: From: RHGreene@xxxx.com Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:45 PM Subject: Hi Marc – Current Press Release To: Morano@xxxx.com Cc: info@areday.net, annmcelhinney@xxxx.com Hi. We’re just waiting for James to land from Siberia to approve the language. Here’s the current press release. Richard So, on Wednesday, Greene was just waiting for Cameron to approve the language in the press release. Nothing at all about him approving the participants. Yet, on Friday, after phone discussions with Solov the previous evening and despite the two sides appearing close to finalizing the deal, Greene again changed course: On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:56 AM, RHGreene@xxxx.com wrote: Hi Larry, Nice to talk with you last night. James has rejected the idea of NOT having video. He wants video. We are discussing another idea that I’d like to have you vet with Andrew which I think may even be better for everyone’s reputation, including Andrew’s, than the debate we have planned. What do you two think of an intelligent “Roundtable” where all 6 sit around with a glass of wine or coffee and have a serious conversation in order to try to find some common , ground. Instead of spinning around and around in an adversarial way with both parties claiming “victory”, what about honoring all the participants as “Thought Leaders”, fully listening to their perspectives and showing the American people that both Andrew Breitbart and James Cameron, in their own way and from an authentic perspective, really care about their country. It would even allow Marc Merano [sic] to be more understood and to be considered as such. It’s an easy adjustment. We all sit around and everyone gets their 2 minutes to share their perspective but the goal is to try to come to some joint way to move forward on these issues rather than a Gladiator approach trying to kill the other side. Thoughts? Richard A keen eye should detect mischief afoot. First of all, roughly 60 hours before showtime, the coordinator proposed completely changing the format. Suddenly, reputations are of a concern “including Andrew’s.” Greene wants to “[honor] all the participants as ‘Thought Leaders'” and “[show] the American people that both Andrew Breitbart and James Cameron, in their own way and from an authentic perspective, really care about their country.” So much for debate. Would this end with the participants singing “Kumbaya?” And what about this insult to Morano, “It would even allow Marc Merano [sic] to be more understood and to be considered as such.” For those that have seen Morano speak either in person or on video – I’ve witnessed both – he’s quite a commanding and effective orator that always makes his positions both interesting and understandable. Surpised by this correspondence, Solov replied three times in the next hour: On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Laurence Solov wrote: Richard – I have asked our “team” and will get back to you ASAP. I assume from your response/proposal that we can film it, too, but please correct me if that is not a correct assumption. Larry Solov On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Laurence Solov wrote: Also, is it moderated? By whom? Is there Q&A from audience? Is it each person gets 2 minutes to speak, then talk back and forth more free form, or questions asked by a moderator? How long? Larry Solov From: Laurence Solov Date: August 20, 2010 8:29:42 AM PDT To: RHGreene@xxxx.com Cc: Breitbart Andrew Subject: Re: James Cameron and Video/Roundtable Richard – I’ve talked to our “team.” Please call me ASAP. This is workable if we just nail down a few specifics – see my questions below. But, to make it happen, we need to “finalize” this by, say, noon PST. People have planes to catch, videographers to arrange, and the press release needs to incorporate the language changes we gave you and to get out, Chardonnay or Pinot or maybe a nice Bordeaux, etc. I do not have a phone for you in Aspen. So, please call as soon as you get this. Thanks. Larry Solov The “see my questions below” referred to Solov’s previous message wherein he asked: Also, is it moderated? By whom? Is there Q&A from audience? Is it each person gets 2 minutes to speak, then talk back and forth more free form, or questions asked by a moderator? How long? Readers should bear in mind that it was now late Friday morning on the East Coast, and folks scheduled to get on airplanes in less than 24 hours still didn’t know whether this event was going to take place. Sensing the growing urgency, Solov had several telephone conversations with Greene to finalize the particulars so that he could instruct the participants to head to Aspen. By late Friday evening his time – Solov is based in the Los Angeles area – he had ironed out the final details with Greene, and sent the following e-mail message to confirm everything: From: Laurence Solov Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM Subject: Aspen Debate To: RHGreene@xxxx.com Cc: Breitbart Andrew , Ann Mcelhinney , phelim mcaleer , Marc Morano Richard: You have revised your proposal to the following: 1. A private debate – no video or audio, no press, not open to the public (not even the conference organizers would be allowed tape it); A. Introductory 5:30 – 5:31 Welcome by Moderator 5:31 – 5:40 Introduction of “James Cameron Team” members and a 2 minute per member “Opening Statement” 6:40 – 5:49 Introduction of “Andrew Breitbart Team” members and a 2 minute per member “Opening Statement” B. The 10 Issues 5:49 – 6:34 Moderator will raise, one by one, a total of 10 issues and will toss each issue to one team for a 2 minute response, and then the other team for a 2 minute rebuttal. Each team will decide, on their own, the member or members that will use the 2 minute timeT slot. Time: :30 second intro of the issue, 4 minute debate time per issue x 10 = 45 minutes, total. (Richard – I will add, based on our previous conversation, that you told me you intend to provide the questions before the debate, no later than, say, 5:00 pm Saturday the 21st – Aspen time) C. Questions from the Audience 6:34 – 6: 54 Questions from the Audience. Each side will choose the people to ask questions in alternating fashion. The moderator will not make these choices. D. Closing Statements 6:54 – 7:00 Each side will get 3 minutes, total, for closing statements, to be distributed as one minute per member or 3 minutes for one member or however the side decides. (or, the more interactive format Marc suggested) 2. Romm to replace Stroeve; 3. A 20 – 30 minute exclusive interview by our side of Mr. Cameron that can be videotaped. Without rehashing the long history of trying to put this together, Andrew, Ann and Marc are disappointed that they were originally told they would be permitted to video a public debate, but are now being told that a condition of going forward is that the debate be private and that no video or audio will be permitted. Having said that, they will accept the invitation, and look forward to the event and the interview. Larry Solov At this point, Solov informed Morano and McElhinney that the debate was a go, and the former got on a plane heading to Colorado only to find out upon landing a few hours later the debate had been cancelled. On Monday evening, Environment & Energy News reported that someone involved in this event blamed the debate’s cancellation on the participants (subscription required): But Chip Comins, founder and executive producer of the event, said the details of the debate had never been confirmed and accused Morano of distorting the truth. Organizers had considered holding a climate debate pitting Cameron against high-profile foes like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, and FOX News hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, Comins said. “Morano is not at James Cameron’s level to debate, and that’s why that didn’t happen,” Comins said. “Cameron should be debating someone who is similar to his stature in our society.” Imagine that. After weeks of negotiations, it was decided that Breitbart, Morano, and McElhinney were not up to Cameron’s stature. Then why did Greene go through this tedious process with the prospective participants – including numerous e-mail messages and phone calls – if this were the case? Shouldn’t that decision have been made quite some time ago? According to Morano, Greene had initially contacted Inhofe’s office hoping the Senator would be interested in debating Cameron. As this was not going to work, Greene was referred to Morano. At that point, Morano recommended Breitbart and McElhinney as his debate partners, and the negotiations began. In his view, there was never any pushback from Greene after this point about Cameron wanting to match wits with personalities other than those already on the table. Instead, as he has written at Climate Depot, Morano was told by event organizers that once Climate Progress’s Joe Romm got involved in the discussion, he convinced Greene that having Cameron debate Morano would be a big mistake. As Romm got absolutely demolished by Morano in a debate last April, we can understand why he’d prefer nobody else on his side go up against him. With this in mind, Greene’s job appears to have first been to continually change the format of the debate while making more and more absurd demands hoping Breitbart et al would give up and quit. When this didn’t happen, the fallback was a preposterous cover story that the participants just weren’t up to Cameron’s high-standing in the society. What a crock! Of course, all of this points to the continued obfuscation concerning this issue by climate alarmists. For years, folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore, his minions James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Romm have been trying to convince the public the global warming debate is over. At the same time, climate realists nee skeptics have been arguing the debate hasn’t yet begun because those on the other side refuse to do so. This latest episode with Cameron et al acts to further prove this, for in the end there likely never was going to be a debate at AREDay in Aspen. As Romm demonstrated last April, his side looks foolish when their dogma is challenged by folks that aren’t members of the choir. The only possible victory for the alarmists in such encounters is for them simply not to happen.
Read this article:
Emails Refute James Cameron’s Reason for Cancelling Global Warming Debate
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged al gore, ann mcelhinney, director, Documentary, environment, global-warming, history, james-cameron, language, media, moderator, press, press-release, stars, time
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
