The Morning Meeting: Is everything global warming?

  • Anonymous

    Love you guys, but really wish you wouldn’t tape the prayers in your meetings. It just… feels…. inappropriate.

  • tho_as

    You can actually control that portion of the meeting that is recorded by the MUTE, CURSOR FORWARD etc just like you do the commercials on a dvr’d show. No biggee, you are the master of yourself. That is not inappropriate for you.

  • bumpkin

    DISAGREE! I LOVE the prayers! They have a RIGHT to pray! Sad you feel a right is inappropriate! I had some clown tell me once when I prayed over a meal with my family in a restaurant, (and he admitted he couldn’t even HEAR what was said!) that it was inappropriate. I told him he was inappropriate for trying to step on my rights. It irritated the snot out of him that we got still and bowed our heads and mumbled! OMgsh! Moron-alert!

  • bumpkin

    Yep. and if you are seeing the show on your TV, if you have DVR, just pause the show just before, during a commercial, then when you get tot he prayer, if it bothers you, click the fwd button on your remote. Oh, puleeze! If you don’t have DVR, there is this thing called a volume control… While I am really glad you love GBTV The Blaze, it seems you are not listening…. people have rights. They are SACRED. RIGHTS ARE SACRED! They are as sacred (maybe more so!) as your toes… you don’t want people stomping on your toes when they walk near you, and people with rights are the same- they don’t want people stomping on their rights. Keep off the rights, keep off the toes, and we all get along.

  • Anonymous

    Agreed, bumpkin, they definitely have a right to pray. And I’m thrilled to know they DO pray at their meetings. However, it just feels like I’m a voyeur during a private, sacred event. It’s like peeping in on someone having a heart-to-heart conversation on an intensely personal matter with their spouse. So, in the future, I’ll be taking the advice of you and Tho_as’ and will turn down the volume.

  • Anonymous

    What an intolerant thing to say. If you don’t want to pray with them, press the stop button.

  • russellmuscle1

    I don’t really know what about that is inappropriate. They aren’t in a mosque, they aren’t forcing you to watch them. Standing way too close to people in line is inappropriate. Talking during a movie is inappropriate. Maybe it just feels inappropriate to you because this society has demonized Christians so much. You need to really think about why that seems inappropriate to you.

  • Anonymous

    If the Obama administration is so concerned about “anthropogenic climate change” based on greenhouse gas emissions, then why are they importing millions of foreign workers from low per capita carbon footprint countries into the USA with its higher per capita carbon footprint? And, if the Obamaites want to reduce the USA’s carbon footprint, why isn’t the Obama White House rounding up and deporting all the illegal aliens back to their lower per capita carbon footprint countries, thus reducing global carbon emissions?

    Since it requires around 17 tons per capita in greenhouse gas emissions to provide for people living in the USA, Canada and Australia, but only 1-5 tons per capita for Central Americans and Mexicans in their respective countries, if the Obama administration truly wanted to reduce “anthropogenic climate change” due to CO2 emissions, shouldn’t we be only importing foreign workers (and other immigrants) only from Australia and Canada?

    Just think about it for a moment. If we deported all the illegal aliens back to their homelands (mostly Mexico and Central America), we could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by around a half BILLION tons per year — in perpetuity! If we only accepted immigrants in smaller, more traditional numbers (say, 200,000, as opposed to 2,000,000) and only from countries with similar per capita carbon footprints (like Australia and Canada), we could “save the world” from the boogy “anthropogenic climate change” that the Left is so worried about.

    Remember, Mr Holdren, I+PAT — Impact (on the environment) equals Population X Affluence (of the population) X Technology (necessary to deliver the affluence to the population). So, why reduce the affluence and the technology of the American people who have already voluntarily reduced their population growth to a net zero — just to artificially expand the population of cheap labor for corporate fascists and cheap votes for Democrats?

  • jackie cox

    where is the discussion of restoring fair customs and duty making importers pay the same accrued taxation as american industry—like we were before our manufacturing infrastructure were exported into slave nations, when combined with our closure of small family businesses free trade is responsible for exporting near 100 million american jobs, replacing them with the goods and services where more than 80 % of american jobs pay near or below minimum wage

  • GUEST

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    “here is an incomplete list of respected organizations that have concluded that
    anthropomorphic climate change is occurring.”

    The National Academy of Sciences

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18373&am

    Union of Concerned Scientists

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fig

    NOAA

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

    American Meteorological Society

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

    American Chemical Society

    http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpol

    Society of American Foresters

    http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/jof_cctf.pd

    IPCC

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_F

    NASA

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    EPA

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.ht

    National Geographic Society

    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environm

    ConservAmerica
    (Growing a Greener GOP From the Ground Up)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weathe

    Skeptical Science (Discusses “Hoax” arguments)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    But I’m sure you all know better…..

  • Anonymous

    No question, the global warming crowd has taken over the “scientific organizations because they are all hungry for federal grants. Many scientists who have retired and are now speaking the truth because they could not do so before because that would have thrown a wrench into the grant money machine Richard Lindzen had it right. It’s really all about the money. I find it humorous to read the profiles of climate realists on Source Watch, a left-wing web site. These are the nutcases who think they have discovered that it really is all about the money and that anybody who disputes the alarmist claims must have been bought off by the fossill fuel industry. Most of the claims are falacious or misleading. But the REAL story is that the amount of federal grant money funding global wwarming research dwarfs the fossill fuel money funding so-called skeptics by a factor of more than 2700 to one (roughly $90 billion to $30 million), and that’s just in the U.S. So, it really is all about the money (and religion), but the money’s all going to the global warming religionists.

  • Anonymous

    The whole AGW argument is fallacious once you dig down a little. Consider this: The only period of the 20th century in which temperatures and CO2 went up simultaneously was from about 1978 to about 1997. Before 1945, CO2 was not much of a factor, and from 1945-1978, temperatures went down in the face of rising CO2. Since 1997, temperatures have remained relatively stable in the fce of rising CO2.
    The consider that the temperature rise in the period 1978-1997 was about one-third of a degree Celsius according to land-based recording stations (and probably less according the satellite measureents). And according the IPCC, temperatures went up about 0.74 degrees Celsius for all of the 20th century. The factors affecting climate include solar activity, the earth’s positional relationship to the sun (elliptical orbit, axial tilt, precession wobble), the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations, volcanic eruptions, and a minor trace gas–CO2. Anyone who claims they can detect the impact of carbon dioxide from among these mega natural forces in a vastly complicated climate system with a temperature increase of barely one-third of a degree Celsius is engaging in speculation at best, and politics at worst.

    But the reason is obvious. Only CO2, among all these natural factors, can be used as a means of controlling the human population. We can’t very well send Al Gore or Michael Mann to the sun with fire extinguishers, or hockey sticks, can we? O.K., I admit, I’d like to give that a try. And they can take Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxworks, Ed Markey, John “Lurch” Kerry, and…drum roll please…Barack Obama with them

  • Sam Fox

    If Co2 were poison or something like it, why do we exhale it? Why doesn’t it kill cows & plants? And every thing else? Did Nature’s God make a mistake? Of course not.

    It’s just a game of hysterics. It’s all about scaring people into thinking we need more govt & less freedom. It’s about big $$ & govt control.

    Guest, who put up a list of places where we could cut budget funding & save $$, is full of….well, stuff. :-)

    Guest is just another easy to manipulate Homer Simpson.

    SamFox

  • Anonymous

    In the 70s it was global cooling, now global warming! They just can’t seem to keep their story straight!

  • Anonymous

    Yes , and all of them are filled with leftists who want Global Warming to exist to further their control over human life and no scientific proof !