I Thought the Debate was Over.

Posted by Duane Lester on Jun 30th, 2007 • 54 views Clicks

James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute, has a stinging op-ed peice in the Chicago Sun-Times concerning Al Gore and the threat of Global Warming:

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. [source]

Seems the debate is over only in Al’s world. Or should I say church?

Duane Lester is an ex-Navy journalist turned blogger and podcaster. He is the lead writer and editor for All American Blogger. You can also find him on StumbleUpon, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Blog Talk Radio and Newsvine. You can contact him by clicking the "E-mail this Author" button below.
Email this author | All posts by Duane Lester | Subscribe to this author's RSS Feed

13 Responses »

Laura on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am:

Hi!My name is Laura, I'm studying journalism in Barcelona and I need to have an interview with an american blogger about Obama's next government for my final project. Please, it would be great if you were interested, it will take only five minutes answering a few questions, and you can have your voice heard in my university! Thank You!

John Lester on January 8th, 2009 at 6:47 am:

This is all great nuts and bolts talk about Obama's plan. Has anyone else got a solution instead of "knee capping" the current guy simply because of his political affiliation…..even though he hasn't even taken office yet.

I have done everything the way i was supposed to. My child was diagnosed with a chronic, incurable disease. We racked up nearly $500,000 dollars in medical bills in 5 days. The current running total is nearly $2million for a little over two years. We have spent literally hundreds of hours on the phone with the insurance company and another company they hired (a group of doctors whose job is to find ways to deny our claims). We had to go to the insurance commission and wrote all of our representatives. They helped, but the simple fact is this: We are all one serious illness away from financial ruin regardless of our insurance situation. Medical costs and medicine costs are far, far out of control. The insurance companies fight each and every large claim with vigor. We witnessed multiple families in the same situation at the Hospital billing center.

Those who have not experienced this situation seem to think that health care is just fine, it works, leave it alone. Those that have been in this horrid situation know that it DOES NOT WORK.

I have been working all of my adult life. I have always had health coverage and always followed the rules. I am here to tell you that we, in the U.S. are the only civilized country in the world without a "proper" health care system for the people…..that is responsible enough to pay the claims and actually function properly when needed.

I am paying $870.00 per month for myself, my wife and my daughter for health insurance.

For those of you that comment, if you are going to disagree, I certainly hope you are speaking from experience and not just regurgitating bits and pieces of things you have heard or read.

E!! on January 8th, 2009 at 8:15 am:

Test

jcook on January 8th, 2009 at 8:54 am:

John,

Your story illustrates the necessity for government oversight of the insurance industry, but not control and administration. No one should have to pay $870.00 a month for health care, and still get bills. Actually, I have a problem with the amount, also. I've seen the American medical system at work. I pretty sure you didn't get your money's worth.

We can use the existing infrastructure to make sure insurance is available to everyone at an affordable rate. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Andrew Riley on January 8th, 2009 at 10:01 am:

Since we're only ten TRILLION dollars in debt (and sinking) I'd like to know who's going to pay for this?

Duane Lester on January 9th, 2009 at 2:34 am:

John,

There was an alternative solution. John McCain's health care plan involved allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, meaning a guy in New Jersey could buy a plan in Iowa or Kentucky, where it might be cheaper because there aren't as many mandates on the insurance policies.

It also involved tax rebates to the individuals, allowing them to buy their own plans.

CNN wrote that McCain's plan could have amounted to "$11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care." Your insurance plan, by your numbers, costs $10,440 a year. And that's before allowing competition between the states. You could have been covered.

So yes, there was a solution apart from Obama's socialist takeover of a substantial part of the American economy. It was called freedom.

Derek Clark on January 9th, 2009 at 5:49 am:

I agree that the health insurance sucks, i don't think that the government taking control helps anything. They mostly waste money and are inefficient with everything they do. I have no reason to believe that they would do a good job with health care.

John L. on January 12th, 2009 at 5:25 am:

Well, you answered how we will get better premiums, but the biggest problem is when actually have to USE the insurance. That is when the problem really begins for most. We waited in the pharmacy for 4 hours on our way home from the hospital for a prescription that the doctor required we have prior to taking Karen home. The delay was caused because the office within the insurance company that had to approve the prescription had released all employees for the day. We nearly had to return to the hospital due to this.

Most can buy health insurance, the problem is what happens when you need it. That is why I stated that unless you have actually experienced this, then, it seems, the prevailing opinions are based entirely on getting lower premiums….this is missing the point entirely.

Duane Lester on January 12th, 2009 at 6:17 am:

John, what makes you think that a plan that involves the government taking over the health care industry will make things smoother? When has that ever happened? What government agency has lead you to believe this?

Canada has health care run by the government. Their quality is lower than ours:

A broad range of other countries — from Spain to Korea to Finland — has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.

The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It says that while definitive and comparable data on waiting times is unavailable, Statistics Canada surveys of patients in 2001 and 2003 are worth noting.

Those surveys suggested Canadians waited, on average, 47 days for non-emergency MRIs in 2003 — up from 39 days two years earlier.

The results were better for CT scans, with patients waiting an average of 31 days in 2003, compared with 35 days in 2001.

Great Britain refuses patients treatment if they are fat, smoke or old. Or if the treatment is just too expensive.

The other countries are just about the same. They pay far more in taxes and everyone's health care is of lower quality than ours.

Again, the solution isn't more government, but more liberty.

Duane Lester on January 12th, 2009 at 6:17 am:

Canada has health care run by the government. Their quality is lower than ours:

A broad range of other countries — from Spain to Korea to Finland — has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.

The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It says that while definitive and comparable data on waiting times is unavailable, Statistics Canada surveys of patients in 2001 and 2003 are worth noting.

Those surveys suggested Canadians waited, on average, 47 days for non-emergency MRIs in 2003 — up from 39 days two years earlier.

The results were better for CT scans, with patients waiting an average of 31 days in 2003, compared with 35 days in 2001.

Great Britain refuses patients treatment if they are fat, smoke or old. Or if the treatment is just too expensive.

The other countries are just about the same. They pay far more in taxes and everyone's health care is of lower quality than ours.

Again, the solution isn't more government, but more liberty.

Duane Lester on January 12th, 2009 at 6:20 am:

Canada has health care run by the government. Their quality is lower than ours:

A broad range of other countries — from Spain to Korea to Finland — has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.

The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It says that while definitive and comparable data on waiting times is unavailable, Statistics Canada surveys of patients in 2001 and 2003 are worth noting.

Those surveys suggested Canadians waited, on average, 47 days for non-emergency MRIs in 2003 — up from 39 days two years earlier.

The results were better for CT scans, with patients waiting an average of 31 days in 2003, compared with 35 days in 2001.

Great Britain refuses patients treatment if they are fat, smoke or old. Or if the treatment is just too expensive. While you may have, and I mean may have, improved your situation, you are lowering the bar for the rest of us. That's what socialism does. It spreads the misery around.

The other countries are just about the same. They pay far more in taxes and everyone's health care is of lower quality than ours.

Again, the solution isn't more government, but more liberty.

Duane Lester on January 12th, 2009 at 6:20 am:

Canada has health care run by the government. Their quality is lower than ours:

A broad range of other countries — from Spain to Korea to Finland — has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.

The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It says that while definitive and comparable data on waiting times is unavailable, Statistics Canada surveys of patients in 2001 and 2003 are worth noting.

Those surveys suggested Canadians waited, on average, 47 days for non-emergency MRIs in 2003 — up from 39 days two years earlier.

The results were better for CT scans, with patients waiting an average of 31 days in 2003, compared with 35 days in 2001.

Great Britain refuses patients treatment if they are fat, smoke or old. Or if the treatment is just too expensive.

The other countries are just about the same. They pay far more in taxes and everyone's health care is of lower quality than ours.

While you may have, and I mean may have, improved your situation, you are lowering the bar for the rest of us. That's what socialism does. It spreads the misery around.

Again, the solution isn't more government, but more liberty.

Duane Lester on January 12th, 2009 at 6:21 am:

Canada has health care run by the government. Their quality is lower than ours:

A broad range of other countries — from Spain to Korea to Finland — has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.

The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It says that while definitive and comparable data on waiting times is unavailable, Statistics Canada surveys of patients in 2001 and 2003 are worth noting.

Those surveys suggested Canadians waited, on average, 47 days for non-emergency MRIs in 2003 — up from 39 days two years earlier.

The results were better for CT scans, with patients waiting an average of 31 days in 2003, compared with 35 days in 2001.

Great Britain refuses patients treatment if they are fat, smoke or old. Or if the treatment is just too expensive.

The other countries are just about the same. They pay far more in taxes and everyone's health care is of lower quality than ours.

While you may have, and I mean may have, improved your situation, you are lowering the level of quality for the rest of us. That's what socialism does. It spreads the misery around.

Again, the solution isn't more government, but more liberty.

Latest Reader Comments

Archives


What Next?	Other Posts Like This One
Comment On This Freep This Digg This Del.icio.us This