Anti-Gore ad yanked from YouTube
You know that I’ve had plenty of experience with YouTube shenanigans and abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by speech-squelchers. Now, my friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are experiencing it.
Sam Kazman, CEI’s general counsel, e-mails:
Michelle:
As you might know, two weeks ago we released a 60-second public service spot criticizing Al Gore’s proposed energy policies. We posted the ad on YouTube and began broadcasting it in several cities with a small ad buy totaling $30 thousand.
Most of the ad consisted of stock footage which we purchased and a bit of footage that we shot. But, based on our legal research concerning fair use, we took, without permission, 7 seconds of video from an 8-minute documentary created by a trade association about bringing electricity to a town in Haiti. The association itself had posted the full documentary on YouTube. The association also gave us a DVD of the documentary for free, from which we took the actual footage that we used.
The trade group is now claiming copyright infringement, and just got our ad pulled off YouTube with a takedown notice.
We think we satisfy every Fair Use criterion there is: educational purpose; miniscule amount of material used; no impact on the copyright owner’s market (since they themselves give away the DVDs and posted the film on YouTube); transformative use, etc…
…What’s really going on is that this group, which gets significant govt. $, has a politically correct image on global warming that they think we somehow threaten.
Coincidentally, Gore is now reportedly 1-2 weeks ago from launching his mega ad campaign to raise the profile of the global warming issue. Frankly, I’m not sure that’s physically possible.
Our press release on the dispute, with a new link to the disputed ad, is here.
Here’s the CEI video via blip.tv:
More:
CEI’s public service ad on the importance of affordable energy was unveiled on March 11. The ad documents the hypocrisy of jet-setting global warming alarmists who advise others to reduce their energy use and points out the vital need for more energy in the developing world. The ad, which aired in a dozen cities in the last two weeks, comes just before Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection launches a $100 million ad campaign for his global warming proposals. Electric co-ops receive massive government subsidies, and the association’s move appears motivated by global warming politics.
“NRECA’s claim of copyright infringement is without merit,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Our use of this miniscule amount of material – from a film which NRECA itself posted on YouTube and distributes freely –meets every criterion of Fair Use. It seems the association’s real goal is not to protect its copyright, but to protect its politically correct image on global warming.”
James V. DeLong, noted intellectual property scholar and Vice President of the Convergence Law Institute, stated of NRECA: “They’re trying to suppress important political speech, which lies at the core of Fair Use.”
I hope CEI files a counter-notice. Will keep you up to date.
Make sure to watch the vid. And make your kids watch it, too.
***
Update: Yes, indeed, CEI has filed a counter-notice. Here’s the letters exchange between CEI and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association :
FIRST LETTER FROM NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
From: Steiner, Tracey
Sent: Thu 3/13/2008 6:04 PM
To: Sam Kazman
Cc: Lavigne, Patrick
Subject: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NRECA-OWNED VIDEO FOOTAGEBY EMAIL, FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Sam Kazman, General Counsel
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1001 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036Dear Mr. Kazman:
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) learned through your March 11, 2008 press conference and related announcements that Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is intending to launch a major advertising campaign focusing on the impacts of global warming policies. Your broadcast advertisement, “LightBulbs,” contains 10 seconds of footage copied from an NRECA-owned video.
As you know from speaking with NRECA’s Director of Media Relations, Patrick Lavigne, this video footage features NRECA International Limited’s rural electrification efforts in Haiti. This 2006 video, for which NRECA claims ownership and copyright protection, has been posted on the www.nrecainternational.org web site, as well as on YouTube, among other places. We have circulated hundreds of copies of this video, and shared it with U.S. Congressional members, our donor organizations (USAid, etc.) and many within the international cooperative community.
Imagine our surprise and distress to find the most compelling footage from our video incorporated in a CEI advertisement. Not only did CEI did fail to obtain permission from NRECA to use the footage, but the video posting on our web site contains a copyright notice, so there can be no justification for CEI’s infringement of the video.
We demand that you immediately do the following:
* Remove NRECA’s footage from your advertisement;
* Notify and provide replacement advertisements to all media outlets to which you have provided the original LightBulbs
advertisement; and
* Publicly announce the availability of the replacement
advertisement through a press release, notice on your web site and any
other appropriate venue.NRECA will be sending takedown notifications pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to have the infringing material removed from the Internet.
Please confirm in writing that you will comply with this letter by March 18, 2008. If you fail to comply with this demand, we will not hesitate to take all appropriate actions to enforce our copyright in the video and are in consultation now with our intellectual property litigation counsel.
Sincerely,
Tracy Steiner
NRECA Senior Corporate CounselCEI RESPONSE, emailed Fri. 3/14/08 9 am
Dear Ms. Steiner:
Your letter overlooks the plain fact that CEI’s use of your footage is valid under the fair use doctrine, as set forth in the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 107, in relevant court rulings, and in the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (2005). Our use satisfies every element of that doctrine:1) it involves an incredibly small amount of footage: by my count, seven seconds of film from your 7:36 documentary. (You claim we use 10 seconds, but we needn’t quibble at this point) We used no more footage than was necessary to make our point;
2) our use is for a nonprofit, educational purpose;
3) because your film is a documentary rather than a work of fiction, there is more leeway for fair use of excerpts;
4) our use has no adverse impact on any commercial market that may exist for your documentary. In fact, there may well be no such market, since NRECA has deliberately posted the full documentary on YouTube and is distributing the DVD without charge. (That is how I obtained the DVD we used. Contrary to your letter, by the way, neither the DVD nor NRECA’s YouTube posting carries any copyright notice);
5) our use is transformative, since we are using footage about a rural streetlight to illustrate a different point than that of your film—specifically, the impact on developing countries of global warming-related restrictions on energy use.
Based on these elements, courts have upheld the fair use of significantly longer pieces of footage. See Hofheinz v. AMC Productions, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y., 2001); Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F. Supp. 2d 442 (S.D.N.Y.,2001); Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996). (As some of these cases indicate, CEI’s ad may be protected not only as fair use, but as de minimus infringement as well.)
Are you aware of any court ruling, statute or other legal basis that suggests that CEI’s action does not constitute fair use? If so, please bring it to our attention and we will reconsider our position. If you have no such basis, be aware that any attempt by you to restrict our fair use rights (such as the takedown notices that you threaten in your letter) may well be malicious, opening you up to monetary sanctions under section 512(f) of the Copyright Act.
As I told Mr. Lavigne, we are willing to credit NRECA for the footage, through notices on our website and in our YouTube posting. From my conversation with him and from your letter, however, I gather that, for certain reasons, NRECA wants no association with CEI’s film. But if you are concerned that our use of your footage somehow implies your cooperation or endorsement of our position, that could well be handled by appropriate notices as well.
I am out of town today, but would be glad to discuss this further with you on Monday.
Sam Kazman
General Counsel
Competitive Enterprise InstituteCEI RESPONSE TO SECOND LETTER (Mar. 20)
Dear Ms. Buckingham:
In regard to your letter of March 18, I’d like to respond to several of your points.
1. You state that CEI’s ad “is a purely commercial endeavor” whose “true purpose… is to raise funds for” CEI. This is an outlandish characterization. The ad was intended to highlight and stir debate over Al Gore’s energy-restricting proposals and it has done that, receiving over 16,000 hits on YouTube as well as significant media coverage. The ad contains no fundraising pitch. It directs viewers to our website, where they can find a huge amount of original material on global warming and other issues. (CEI, by the way, has been involved in global warming issues for over a decade.).
It’s true that our website screens have a small button soliciting support for CEI, and that CEI, like the vast majority of nonprofits, relies on its activities and reputation to gain financial support. You imply that, for this reason, all nonprofit activities are “purely commercial”. By this logic, nonprofit organizations would essentially be barred from claiming that they were engaged in nonprofit activities under the Fair Use doctrine.
2. You claim that the seven seconds used by CEI are the “heart” of NRECA’s video, and that without that footage the video “would have no meaning”. This is simply incorrect. NRECA’s eight-minute video is a highly informative account about bringing electricity to a Haitian village. It contains a number of interviews with those involved in this endeavor and many scenes about the village and the work. Absent the seven seconds that we used, the video would, for all practical purposes, be just as informative.
Consider NRECA’s other electrification video about southern Sudan. It does not have a similar scene; there is footage of people applauding some diplomats, but not of a crowd cheering as the lights are turned on. But you could hardly characterize the Sudan video as “having no meaning” because it lacks such a crowd scene, could you?
Just as importantly, the point is irrelevant. In the Harper & Row case that you cite, removing the “heart” of the work at issue was impermissible because it destroyed the commercial market for that work. But here, as you agree, there is no commercial market for the NRECA video. This brings me to my final point.
3. You argue that CEI’s use injures not NRECA’s ability to market its videos, but its “ability to compete … in the marketplace of ideas” by fostering the mistaken view that NRECA endorses CEI’s views.” As far as I can tell, this incredibly speculative injury has no connection to the concerns of the Fair Use doctrine. I would greatly appreciate any court rulings you might have to the contrary. You give the example of the “comments” section of our YouTube posting. I have gone through those comments, and I have not found a single reference to NRECA. In fact, in following discussions of our ad in both the press and on the internet, I haven’t found a single mention of NRECA.
If you are in fact concerned about your supporters thinking that CEI’s use of seven seconds of NRECA footage somehow implies NRECA’s endorsement of CEI, it seems that this could easily be remedied in several ways, such as a notice by CEI on its YouTube posting or a letter from NRECA to its supporters. I would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail.
Sincerely,
Sam Kazman
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- YouTube Pulls Anti-Gore Video « Bob’s Bites
- ecotyrants.com | Al Gore forces critical ad off of YouTube
- Michelle Malkin » Al Gore, Pat Robertson, and Al Sharpton on a beach
- Is It Getting Warmer? » Anti-Gore ad controversy
- The American Pundit » Google Rejects Lieberman, Claims It Stands Up for “Free Speech”
- snapped shot
- [snapped shot] YouTomb | Old Dominion Blog Alliance
- Privacy, copyright and libel: Free (or not) to be me « Stringing Words Together
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Al Gore, Enviro-nitwits, YouTube
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
UTube shenanigans will eventually make them irrelivant. I suggest people check out junk science (do your search) and see why Gore is just spouting politics not science. In the 60s and 70s it was DDT (banning it cost millions of lives). In the 70s and 80s it was nuclear power. Now it is global warming and the green house gases. The aim was to make CO2 a polutant. Rubbish.
ManBearPig makes me sick. If he only knew how affordable energy in Haiti would help these poor people he would do more with his billions. More of his “I have mine they don’t need theirs” crap from the biggest hypocrite circumnavigating the planet.
C’mon soap dont hold back tell us how you really feel….
Not enough of us have Fallen.In.Line., I suppose. Rich people who cause more harm than good are the worse kind of evil. How much is too much Mr. Gore?
I’m going to go into the backyard and cut down a few trees.
when you have to stop here to weigh yourself like Al(fatfarm)Gore has to.
gore stop
Isn’t it interesting how a piece of legislation called the DMCA was billed as a means of stopping college students from illegally sharing files (MP3s back then, mostly videos now) has utterly failed in preventing such acts from happening. Just visit any campus dorm and see what kids with a fast connection are doing.
On the other hand, the DMCA has opened up another avenue for the suppression of free speech. Imagine if you were to broadcast clips of a sermon that spewed hate and instigated murder (Christian, Muslim, black, white, purple, w/e) and you posted the offending clip on Youtube for all to see. You’d be doing the public a service but then you could get in trouble because you disseminated information you had no right to.
Get rid of the DMCA. It has failed it’s intended purpose and is now used to police free speech.
aj, you crack me up!
Add AIDS to the annals of junk science. We now know that it poses a demonstrable threat only to those first identified as high risk 25 years ago, and that numerous scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, have challenged its central hypothesis.
I guess The Pine Tree had to wait until after the worst winter in decades before he could launch his big $$$ Global Warming farce.
Has it dawned on anyone in the MSM that PineTree’s carbon credit scheme is effectively a way to let the wealthy maintain their flamboyant lifestyles whilst us peons will have to pack ouselves into golf carts to get to work?
Maybe they have realized it, and that is exactly what they want, since some of them are now pulling footage critical of the whole Global Warming fantasy.
It amazes me how this Global Warming snake oil salesman and his minions shape our world on the total BS findings by the world’s most renowned junk scientists. YouTube continues to support Jihadist and GW propaganda while squelching free speech by opposing views. I have to agree with MisterP the more they pull this type of shenanigans the more they will make themselves irrelevant.
…but the damage is done. Kids in grade school today already believe that the planet will be destroyed by GW.
ManBearPig has helped brainwash kiddies by the millions for what – money. Like the idiots who took away DDT and allowed millions upon millions to die for no reason, their day will come if there is a GOD and, there IS!
Boomer, where is the “free speech” issue relative to youtube? It’s a private enterprise, and I don’t see the “state action” necessary to raise free speech issues. Or are you using the phrase “free speech” in a generic way? When Michelle bans posters or deletes comments is she not impinging on “free speech” as you have used that phrase?
Ooooh, Soap coming with the indignant fire and brimstone talk! Preach it soap, preach it brotha.
What’s a “youtube”? I guess I’m getting older or more conservative. I don’t spend any time on these fads. Now I see that I am once again justified.
anAL GOREtentive
Soap – why does Leona “only little people pay taxes” Helmsley come to mind here?
Aren’t we seeing record low temps and snow fall this winter?
Yeah, I’m not quite ready to panic.
The solution is to make it a point to talk to the young people in your life and refute the hype with facts. Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” is a good start- it is an excellent suspense novel and it cites factual references to refute the misinformation being peddled in schools.
Why isn’t Goracle over in China beating his drum there? Pictures of Beijing on TV have them all wearing masks, for pete’s sake. Talk to them instead of forcing us to put food in our gastanks. What a bunch of crap.
I see dakine is now giving us a lesson on the 1st amendment. Wasn’t yesterday’s lesson on economics and Article II enough?
Personally, I take solace in the fact that I am producing carbon Dioxide every minute of every day.
Have no fear, this global warming/ climate change fiasco will end soon enough. and as a bonus Goreba the hut will explode from excessive weight the big bag of gas is gaining.
If CO2 contributes to global warming please give-me-some-mo! I’m freezing my butt off here.
Concerned Citizen, happy to help. Let me know if there are any other subjects where I can educate you, and I’ll see what I can do.
dakine, could you please demonstrate how to cancel your account?
Nice. I see you have no problem with kids being brainwashed. Do these same kids know the death toll on Mars where their ice caps are melting as well? There is a special place in hell for people who bring fear to kids over lies – for MONEY. You may not believe it and, personally, I don’t give a care about what you think or think you know. I care about the kids.
As for DDT, I am sure the few people who brought the scare over DDT will join them. Millions have paid with their live and the death toll rises daily.
But, hey, who cares when your concern is I may be preaching.
Clown.
My daughter came home from 4th grade the other day and was real sad. I asked her what was the matter and through tears she said the polar bears are all dying because humans are destroying the earth through global warming. I spent some time having a discussion on the issue and trying my best to ease her fears.
Aside from what her teacher (public school) told her about GW she also mentioned a Discovery Channel show she saw that backed up the whole issue.
On top of this indoctrination my daughter told me the teacher was also teaching them about the best way to protest this and other injustices like all the dying whales. I’m thanking God I can afford private school for her next year (but I’m not convinced it will be much better)
Ditkaca,
Careful. You said GOD in your post and may suffer the wrath of the dakine. Not about the real issue of your frightened daughter and the bogus crap of a seed they planted in her that you now must destroy. They tried the GW crap on our girls. I showed them study after study about how GW was a hoax. It seems that all but 12 of the original scientists who signed on to the GW is cause by man hoax have bailed. The universe revolves around the earth – oops our sun – oops just we revolve around the sun. The world is flat. The sky is falling. Fire can’t melt steal…….Science has its place when it gets the facts right. There is no science in GW to support that it is man made. If there is GW, it is cause by a big yellow ball we see during the daytime.
That being said:
Preach it!
They only believe in free speech if the speech says that America is the problem. Other than that, you can’t say anything about anyone or any religion or any country.
Generally speaking, logic and reason will eliminate a lie’s ability to compete in the market place of ideas.
Ditkaca:
Same story here, except it was my daughter in 3rd grade. We were coming home – at night – and had left the front porch light on. She had a literal screaming fit about how we were killing polar bears by leaving a light on.
Needless to say, we spent the next (quite a) few minutes finding out how she got that idea, then trying to tell her how it is important to practice conservation, but not to believe everything somebody tells you – even (especially, in this case) your teacher.
I’m trying to figure out how to get the mmoney together to send her to private school – or maybe I’ll try to get her into our local home schooling co-op.
dakine:
Don’t your billy goat and bridge miss you?
I have a theory about global warming (which I actually think is more valid than the one Al Gore spews):
It would be impractical for God to use his powers to brand the foreheads of people with “Hello, I’m stupid” given the lack of human forehead “real estate” and the numerous languages of humans. Granted, it is sometimes easy to spot such people as they self-identify with Che Guevera shirts, Mao Tse Tung man-bags and Berkeley, CA home addresses, but they often just blend in. Therefore, He sent Al Gore to spew his false prophecy of global warming/climate change.
This gift allows us to casually make a joking comment about global warming to someone and if we hear any signs of agreement with the “theory” we will be alerted to the person’s lack of critical thinking skills and likely be able to head off tragic consequences. If nothing else, we can certainly avoid a “banging your head against the wall” moment by simply smiling and walking away to find someone who is capable of having a rational conversation.
AL Whore has become so freaking special that anything criticizing him can get pulled. He’s become a demi-god to the nitwits of the media. I guess when you got people controlling your “bad press” then why worry about things like opposing viewpoints or truth, huh?
Well hey, my cousin who has much more college education than I do, told me GW is a fact & says we should ALL see The Inconvenient Truth, yet she is the same cousin who also told me I was stupid for believing what I read on the internet. So I guess it’s OK if it comes from AG & his movie but not if I read it on the internet. But what if I were to see Inconvenient on TV………..? Would then I be stupid to believe it? hmmm
I teach my kids conservation and recycling. We help out each year picking up trash on the beach in Dana Point. We watch our use of heating,air conditioning, and lights.
But because I don’t drink from the GW chalice I’ve been labeled anti-environment and that I dont care about the planet or “the children”.
I also believe we need more nuclear power in this country and that it will actually be better for the environment to have more nuclear power available.
But I didn’t see “A Inconvenient Truth” so I’m uniformed.
It’s nice to know that the anti-Church/religion brigade of bandidos like dakine (there are some other atheists and secularists inhabiting this blog)to use GW to accuse one of preaching. Laughable.
I guess Soap, Boomer and CC are on Dakine’s ever-growing “hit list.” Hey guys, welcome to the club! Did you insert religion into the debate and annoy Dakine? Darn it you beat me to it!
Perhaps, you can show us, Dakine, how to manage an overinflated ego…ala Al Whore. Oh, okay…maybe not you might contribute to GW.
soap, all this from a guy who believes a supernatural being in the sky blinked its eyes once a day for 6 days 6,000 years ago and created the universe and everything in it. How credible is anything you have to say on any subject supposed to be when you’ve convinced yourself of the above? C’mon, you’ve got to be kidding.
I’m sort of in agreement with Ditkaca on this subject. I think conservatives gave away the environment as an issue and that was a big mistake. Gingrich has some interesting takes on this matter. GW is something that needs much more research. However, far too many very serious and unbiased experts see GW as a potential problem to label it a “hoax” or “brainwashing”. That sort of thinking is just as dangerous as hysterical thinking on the other side.
governmentdrone, how original. Your handle is more than appropriate.
How credible is anything you say when you often identify with trolls? How credible is anything you say when the best you can do in reply to what Soap said was if you believe in a religion then you’re a dupe (I guess this also goes for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, etc)? I would say that billions of people would disagree with you. I don’t go to church much but that doesn’t mean I should sit on my high horse and have the gall to criticize others’ religious practices (unless they’re not of a tolerant faith).
Yet you’re also labeling those who practice any kind of faith to be dupes (brainwashed) or the faith itself a hoax. How’s your take any better? While you’re at it… leave the thinking to the “professionals.” Your reasoning is full of contradictions.
Personal assumptions yet again, Dakine? I thought we’d got beyond this. You’re no better than the “visitors” that you defend. Let out some of that hot air, you may feel better, okay?
Dakine,
I really wish you hadn’t suspended the revocation of your privileges. I find you to be highly offensive and completely egotistical. By what authority do claim to have the omnipotence required to say without question that there is no God? The majority of people who post here believe that there is a God in heaven. And you’ve unnecessarily offended every last one of us with your statement
30 – I don’t take any offense at what dakine has to say. I reckon my God is well able to take care of himself, and that someday dakine will have to acknowledge Him. It’s not my place to judge anybody, good or bad.
cpodug,
There are times when you have to tell someone when they are on the wrong path. Whether or not they choose to heed the warning is up to them. I reckon that our God is one in the same. So, I completely agree that He is well capable of taking care of Himself.
dakine,
Can you prove there is no God?
dakine:
First, if you have no idea what the Jewish/Christian faith really teaches (and what it doesn’t) you really shouldn’t open your mouth. “Better to keep your mouth shut and be presumed stupid than to open it and be proved stupid.”
Second, if you really read my post on this or any other thread, you would know just how far off you are in interpreting my handle.
Third, I have read enough of your drivel to KNOW that you are most definitely a troll in the truest “blog-sense” of the word.
Oh, and dakine:
Please don’t come back at me with the first few verses of Genesis. This is neither the time nor the place for a religious discussion. If Michelle ever opens an appropriate thread, I’ll be more than happy to discuss theological issues with you. But this is a thread on global warming (or the lack thereof). Please try not to take the discussion any further off-thread.
Oops. Sorry.
This is a thread on the issue of the global warmers and how they consistently try to silence the voice of any opposition to their “religion”.
Sorry all. I’ll try to keep my posts on topic.
But Global Warming is practically a religion. It has its dogma and saints and followers who require no proof or evidence.
Lawyers making money!
You are so clever. Yes, I do believe as you say.
It beats what I am expected to believe.
Science:
The moon was created by volcanic activity – oops – sorry we were wrong. We don’t know how it was created. Here is a theory. A big something or other slammed into the earth billions of years ago and the collection of the fragments formed the moon (the latest theory). So, over time in a vacuum, a perfect sphere can be created out of jagged fragments. It is there and I can’t prove it did not happen this way so, it must be fact.
Comets come from the Ort cloud. There is no way to prove that it does not exist. I have to believe it because the proof is, we have comets.
The Manhattan man and his entire family were drawn from a single tooth. Turns out the tooth was from an extinct pig and then it turns out that the pig is not extinct.
DNA is so complex that the idea it can form on its own in the given time of the age of the earth is so beyond possibility, it takes greater faith to believe it happened. Forget about the idea a single cell forming with ability to reproduce and mutate in order to form higher forms of life all by random forces. I am supposed to believe this. Can’t be proved but we are here so it must be true.
Seeding – yeah, that’s the ticket. The earth was seeded by a meteor and that is how life came about. Still can’t prove that it did not happen this way so it must be fact.
You have a problem with what I believe? You are laughable.
Thanks for catching my back peeps. I am #1 on the dank’s hit list and I am good with it.
…and GW being man made is a religion. It takes great faith to believe it to be true.
Soap:
The current “theory” is that life sprung forth when a pool of mud was struck by lightning. The lightning animated the mud, and viola! Next thing you know, man was walking around.
I’m NOT kidding. This really is another “theory” making the rounds.
Sorry. “Scientific theory”.
My preview button isn’t working today.
Drone – where did the lightning come from?
Al Gore’s arse.
Any theory on the origins of life is by definition outside the realm of science. The scientific methodology consists of:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Steps 4 and 8 are impossible unless you have a machine to go back in time. Thus, all you end up with is hypothesis and observational data. Claiming something as scientific “fact” in lieu of repeatable and verifiable experiments is not science.
Incidentally, that’s why GW fails as a science since there are not repeatable and verifiable experiments that can be performed.
Beat me to it.
GRRRRRRRRR8888888888888TTTTT
I was just getting used to the idea my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents were apes and now I HAVE to believe they were mud pies?
Please don’t inject religion into the Global Warming issue! The media loves nothing better than portraying non-GW scientists and supporters as religious zealots to be dismissed out of hand. Worry about our children being lead astray from truth and logic not only by green “a good person loves trees and whales” agenda teachers but “education” media as the Discovery and National Geo channels and Live Science/Space.com — and maybe even NASA (again — why so damn silent on the Mars/Venus temp and solar science probe data??)
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I’m reminded of a line from Gettysburg where a group of Confederate generals were discussing the “theory of evolution”.
General Pickett:
“There are some who believe that they are descended from a ape. There are some who believe that I am descended from a ape.
But I defy anyone to tell me that General Robert E. Lee is descended from a ape.”
Oh, I think the scientific process has changed a bit.
1. Get people hooked on stupid Reality TV shows so there is no need for them to think.
2. Tell kids lies early and often and subject them to reality TV shows so they will not care or have to ability to think beyond what they are told.
3. Make crap up and teach it as real. Since they already think Reality TV is real, they will believe anything.
4. Repeat as often as it takes until there is no longer a need for science.
5. Call anybody (especially a teacher) a harlot (or worse) if they question the “consensus”. Discredit them and try and get them fired. If you cannot succeed, make their life so miserable they give up teaching.
6. Put kids in front of oncoming trains and talk about how we are killing them unless we bow down to the lies which are now fact because so many people say so and – it is on TV so, it must be real.
7. If someone finds out the truth, make sure that it is buried and create another reality TV show so, after a little time, they will forget the facts.
8. Make sure someone will pay money for something that does not exist in order to perpetuate your lie and give it credit.
9. Exaggerate your credentials. It helps if you can globe trot and call yourself the President of a country. Facts here are irrelevant as well as the people have succumbed to the belief that anything said might just be real.
10. Make sure to repeat as often as possible: “theory is fact unless someone can prove it wrong.”
11. If it happens to leak out that your theory is not fact, make up another theory and repeat statement in 10.
12. Make sure the NEA follows this program. Facts are irrelevant because you will not get your bonus money unless kids can pass their standardized tests.
So, you see, science is now a 12 step program with the higher being left out as not to offend.
I hope this helps! Sorry so long. I just was having some fun!
For a Group of so called Slam Dunk, 100% proven, no question about it Lobbyist for the Global Warming Fraud…they sure are afraid of words, video, debate or comments that are in opposition.
If I had 100% concrete proof of something the way they claim to be….. I would “Welcome” the challenge to have a smackdown debate with the opposition and to beat them like a rented mule with facts….
Evidently, THEY aren’t to convinced of their facts…or else they would not run and hide, suppress, and threaten people in the manner of the “Nazi Brownshirts” that they truly are…..
Thanks pgTips. As a former science teacher, I can say that you hit the nail right on the head. I would tell the kids that evolution was an incomplete model of the origin of species. As such future discoveries would alter the model. At some point that model may even change drastically. It requires no faith, since one does not have to accept the model as true. Models have assumptions and logical consistencies and in almost all cases holes.
Requiring faith in a model is religion and has no place in science.
Of course they pulled the ad. They are upset that there was something blasphemous against the high priest of the church of global warming. Heretics all, we are.
GW does.not.exist. *sigh* This is all theory based on theoretical models that are continuously being found to contain problems (I recommend the entire article):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Michelle, I wonder if this is more about censorship than anything else. The left loves to censor the right. Berkeley free speech movement — what a joke. Free speech for them, not for those they disagree with. They will shout them down, and do whatever they can to silence them. This is just another example of that. Misusing the law to silence others. The ends justify the means, they believe. Do whatever it takes to save the planet, by any means necessary, fair or foul. If you have to lie and cheat, do it. By the way I see you use an image of a pen in your masthead. Sounds like copyright infringement to me. May have to shut down MM.com completely! If you go to sensitivity/diversity training for 6 weeks, we may let your site live! But stop messing with the left!
To me the biggest hint of B.S. in regards to Global Warming is only the “First World” nations will be hit with carbon taxes etc.; China, India, Mexico, Brazil etc will not be compelled to clean up their filthy coal plants or pay carbon taxes.
Just for kicks what would be the blowback if YouTube decided to make the hostess of this site “persona non grata”?
Following is my layman’s understanding of how the DMCA works:
To be fair, when a Internet Service Provider or Internet Application Provider gets a Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice from a copyright owner, the ISP/IAP must
disable access to the noticed work to avoid potential infringement liability.
The entity which posts the alleged infringing work can contest the DMCA Notice at which point the ISP can restore access to the disputed work;
at this point the copyright owner can seek a court order/temporary restraining order to get the alleged infringing work taken down.
Thus YouTube has no choice but to take down the video described here even if the copyright owner is grossly over-reaching with regards to their rights.
Now some ISPs may take a conservative approach to DMCA drama where once something posted gets taken down under the DMCA, they will not allow it to be re-posted even if the poster challenges under Fair Use and may cancel service (even if there’s a contract involved) to anyone whose activities generate 3 or more DMCA Notices.
This too appears to me to be required under DMCA (discontinuing service to repeat infringers).
The global warming hysteria is just that – hysteria. At this point, the science on the subject is unclear as to whether carbon dixoide increases cause gloval warming, or whether warming itself (from whatever cause) causes an increase in carbon dixoide. Until that little riddle is solved, it would seem that any effort to drastically change any aspect of society is premature.
The various studies out there note that man made carbon dioxide contributes anywhere from .11% to .2% to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is not only less than 1%, it is one tenth to two tenths of one percent.
And the hysteria over the models that show an increase to 350 parts per million of carbon dixide in the atmosphere is based largely on prehistoric times when the carbon concentration was roughly the same. The theory goes that if we see our atmosphere with the same carbon level as seen in the time of the dinosaurs, our Earth will look roughly the same in the future as it did then. Again, was it the warmer earth that generated higher levels of carbon, or was it the higher levels of carbon that warmed the Earth?
One significant factor that the warming crowd does not really account for is the effect of water vapor on warming. A higher level of water vapor in the atmosphere is by far a more significant cause of warming.
The other significant factor that the warming mongers do not account for is the impact of the sun on the Earth’s temperatures. The sun is not a static power source, and goes through minimum and maximum periods of activity. During increased periods of solar activity, historic record shows, remarkably, that the Earth’s temperature rises (as do the temperatures on Mars and other planets). And when the sun’s heat increases on earth, the atmosphere shows a higher level of water vapor.
One recent revelation scientists have had is that the earth seems to compensate for increased warming by cooling itself. The models used by the warming alchemists never accounted for this and always assumed that the Earth would remain static.
There are a couple of recent and good articles pointing out the major issues with the global warming hysteria. Unfortunately, they were not widely distributed or seen in the US.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
If you ask why the other side is not being heard, it may have to do with the fact that global warming has become global big business. Al Gore is Chairman if a company that makes its money by advising other companies on warming friendly investments. They also manage a fund called the Global Equity fund which includes a good bit of pension fund money in its $5 billion portfolio.
Wall Street is also in on the act. Bank of America announced that they are setting aside tens of billions of dollars for warming friendly investments, as have other wall Street firms.
Nations are enacting laws aimed at reducing CO2 emissions that will cost their countries trillions of dollars.
So many people have gone so far down the global warming path in so short a time that the momentum of deniability is strong for any evidence that refutes global warming and the impact of CO2.
In the Australian article linked above, it would appear that warming stopped 10 years ago, and since that time we have experienced global cooling. That view is supported by data we are now getting back from a NASA satellite launched in 2002. And data coming from research on the sun’s impact on warming.
But no one is listening. There have been too many Oscars, Nobel Prizes, laws and careers staked at the global warming altar.
Al Gore is a Mayan King, telling his people that he controls the sun and the moon. To prove it, he periodically makes the sun disappear by having the moon move in front of it. And after hearing the cries of his frightened subjects, he makes the sun reappear. And he will make the earth cooler, if only we make the appropriate sacrifices of slain carbon credits at his green altar. He is an amazing guy!
That’s why it’s no longer called Global Warming but is now referred to as Climate Change.
A huge part of Global Warming hoax is all about how way too many people are worshiping government as the all powerful, all knowing force in their lives that can solve every problem.
The sad part of it all is so many have chugged too much of the GW coolaid that not even a screaming sermon by Rev Wright about how GW is all the US’s creation would cause many to pause in their rush to embrace this hoax.
My Dad’s quite elderly and out of touch. But when I asked him what he thought of global warming, he replied “People concerned about global warming are self-involved”. I concur.
Really, been asking this; can someone recommend a good issue-neutral/Conservative friendly Google alternative? Tried Jeeves, Excite, and Alta Bista, but sadly they don’t seem to have Google’s scope.
Thanks
James Greenidge
Queens NY