CNN's Miles O'Brien pushed tired liberal talking points in a recent interview with Inhofe: "The concern, of course, is ice that goes into the water, because ultimately that is what leads to -- from the land to the water -- leads to a rise in sea levels. And that's the big concern. And that's what they're talking about here. You don’t discount that?"
O'Brien drools at the prospect of devastation, telling Inhofe "This is 'The Day After Tomorrow' scenario that we're talking about." It's incredible that global warming alarmism is so prevalent that a major media man like O'Brien can whip off such a statement without so much as blinking.
Let's assume, for a moment, that O'Brien and hard-left counterparts are correct, that sea levels are rising. Would the levels rise fast enough for total destruction of coastal cities, as portrayed in the film "The Day After Tomorrow", a fictional horror story?
The question is a litmus test. If you answered, "Yes," you've succumbed to the hype or you can't distinguish between what is and what you want. If you answered, "No," then you understand the absolute worst-case scenario for global warming, that a slight rise in sea levels is easily managed because it would creep up very, very slowly.
Now, when you consider that global warming is occurring incredibly slowly, if at all, and that it's almost certainly not anthropogenic (caused by humans) based on millions of years of global temperature fluctuations, the arguments of O'Brien, who tried to scare us about a coming ice age in 1992, are faulty, at best.
I applaud Inhofe for standing up to liberal fearmongering. I would speculate that the whole "global warming" scare, often called "climate change," is based on a very old battle socialists (liberals) are waging against capitalism. Who stands to lose if the global warming agenda succeeds? Who stands to gain? Here's a hint: The United States is the most populous, fully industrialized nation.
Here's an excerpt of Inhofe's Sept. 28 speech on the Senate floor:
In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth’s climate. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=258659
You don’t have to take my word for the program’s overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted “You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program” because of its lack of scientific objectivity.
Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter million dollar grant form the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore’s Hollywood movie.
Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer of the group Environmental Defense accusing skeptics of being bought out by the fossil fuel interests.
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.