Here’s a video that’s going viral. When I first watched it on Tuesday, it had just over 3,000 views. Late on Tuesday it was posted on DeSmogBlog.com , and when I saw it there yesterday it was up to 18,000. This morning it’s up to 44,571. So if you’re interested in what a diehard Bill O’Reilly fan has to say after watching the documentary Chasing Ice, check out this video and then share it yourself:
*
Here’s the trailer for Chasing Ice. It is now showing in major cities across North America – go to their website, ChasingIce.com for details. For those of us who don’t live in any of those cities, I guess we’ll have to wait for the DVD. The film synopsis is:
Chasing Ice is the story of one man’s mission to change the tide of history by gathering undeniable evidence of climate change. Using time-lapse cameras…
View original post 22 more words
Wibble 
Uh, well, don’t miss this gem about Master O’Reilly: http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=8561
LikeLike
To be honest I really don’t know who this O’Reilly character is (your link suggests he may be a bit of a crank?). I didn’t realise there would be the potential for knee-jerkism in Christine’s headline (or I would have changed it). Whether he’s an oracle or a nutcase isn’t really the point of this post, as I see it, which for me is about the release of a powerful new film that may help to turn the tide of opinion against the slippery slope of inaction.
LikeLike
Here’s the trailer to the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4 and the lovely sad closing credits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB4UEQzUmWc
Bill O’Reilly is a television idiot on Fox News who has an unfortunately rapt audience that actually believe his lies. I never watch him and if he didn’t exist, no doubt somebody else would take his place; but he is important/dangerous in the way of any demagogue that sways large numbers of people without the ability to think critically.
I have to say it really frustrates me that these movies that will supposedly “help turn the tide of opinion” are so freaking hard to see! If you don’t happen to live in a major city and make it to the one theater where it’s showing you have to wait an awfully long time, and Chasing Ice and Dirty Lying Bastards aren’t the only ones. Why is that? Can’t they just have you pay to watch it streaming online? You’d think they would want as many people as possible to see. I guess it’s the movie game to win prizes at film festivals first, or something.
LikeLike
“Why is that?”
My guess is The Powers That Be don’t want to spark off the inevitable panic any sooner than they absolutely must. (And they probably figure they’re being noble, too.)
Thanks for the links :)
[edit]
I agree: those closing credits are lovely, and sad.
[/edit]
LikeLike
That’s pretty powerful! Can’t wait to see the movie.
LikeLike
Nor me! (The other one I would really like to see is Greedy Lying Bastards).
LikeLike
Unless a person who watches it is actually a real daily viewer of O’Reilly, then the video implodes on three easy-to-spot points and ends up undermining the global warming concern rather than helping it. If the lady had said the name “Sean Hannity”, she would not have dug a hole for herself that she likely now cannot get out of……
“Bizarre ‘Fox Lies’ video: Alleged “Climate-Denying O’Reilly Fan” Now Believes Global Warming is Real”
LikeLike
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. My tuppence on your stance is it’s a bunch of FUD and sophistry.
LikeLike
Thanks for allowing my first comment to appear when you could have so easily deep-sixed it.
But when astute readers see your reply, the first question that arises is, “So, you can’t refute what he says, correct?”
Not to worry on that, you are not alone. The person who shot the video seems unable to do so as well (language alert on his part: https://twitter.com/justin_kanew/status/274728627227222017 )
LikeLike
Had to update my article with a quote from a 60 Minutes interview of O’Reilly: “But what you don’t expect are his views, which sound more like they’re coming from a Democrat. …. “Government’s gotta be proactive on environment,” says O’Reilly. “Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn’t here. That’s ridiculous.” Transcript here http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-645202.html?pageNum=2 , YouTube short clip here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD39QY8ew3c .
Not a speck of fear doubt or uncertainty about Bill’s position there, correct?
LikeLike
OK, you’ve lost me. What is it you’re trying to prove, again?
LikeLike
That “Bill O’Reilly is not the strident anti-global warming guy the ‘tearful video lady’ portrays him to be. Q.E.D.”
Piling on here: http://junkscience.com/2012/11/30/bizarre-fox-lies-video-alleged-climate-denying-oreilly-fan-now-believes-global-warming-is-real/comment-page-1/#comment-81789
LikeLike
As I already said up top, I really don’t know who this Bill O’Reilly is, anyway. I think you’re forgetting that not everyone lives in the small part of the planet you appear to inhabit. I watched your ‘tearful lady’ once again. The message that came across to me, loud and clear, was:
I think what you need to do is to ask yourself what’s more important:
a) getting to grips with the damage we are causing the planet, or
b) protecting the reputation of some bloke called Bill O’Reilly.
I know where I stand. I think it’s also pretty clear where you do, too.
LikeLike
[bunches of waffle snipped]
Or if you refuse to undertake such elemental devil’s advocate due diligence, you’ll have to ask yourself what possible harm could happen from doing that. As I see it, there are only two kinds of people on the planet, those who are skeptical of man-caused global warming, and those who’d lean in that direction when they actually read detailed assessments from skeptic scientists along with analysis of IPCC methodology, and compare the entire lot to the IPCC side.
LikeLike
I see absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You redefine reality at a whim, and twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. Have a nice life.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised. The inability to participate in the arena of ideas is the hallmark of those who promote man-caused global warming. You may say anything you please, of course, it is a free country and this is your blog. But when you repeatedly fail to demonstrate how I’ve redefined the reality about the woman’s claim about being an O’Reilly daily watcher, you’ve lost the ball there, haven’t you, particularly when you have to start deleting portions of my comments? You loyal readers will begin to wonder what it was that I said which necessitated that move. The one more bit of evidence about O’Reilly NOT being a skeptic was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back? Or was it the suggestion that you run from debate?
Have a nice life as well. I’ve enjoyed the challenge of talking with you.
LikeLike
Yes, well… you’re keen on hallmarks. “It’s a free country,” you say: the hallmark of those whose minds are small. In case you hadn’t noticed, we live on a planet, not one country. I’m so glad you’ve ‘enjoyed the challenge’ of talking with me. It must be quite a challenge thinking up your nonsensical irrelevancies. Have fun in your crusade to prove that some bloke I’ve barely heard of is so vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly important that he deserves so much of your time defending him. Peace, out.
LikeLike
[p: Because I believe in the concept of ‘freedom of speech’, I have decided not to, as you would say, ‘deep six’ this post of yours. However, this is the last time I shall refrain, for the reasons stated below. Please do not waste your time in a response.]
Uh, oh. Folks will interpret – correctly or not – that your first remark means big minds do not want a free country.
[p: I believe that my meaning was perfectly plain: those whose remarks suggest parochial thinking are unlikely to consider the bigger picture. No doubt some will mistake my meaning: this is always possible. You, it seems to me, are intent on choosing any interpretation of my words that affords the greatest likelihood of provoking a rebuttal response — as, indeed, is the case here.]
I most certainly am aware we live on a planet, the embarrassment might be for you how I might be able to drink you under the table when it comes to save-the-planet efforts on extreme recycling, minimal energy use, minimal car travel when a bicycle will suffice, tree sapling planting, litter pick-up, etc, etc. It may be that I outdistance you on those points by miles and years, so much so that you’d never catch up.
[p: As you can have no idea whether your allegation is correct, I shall treat this attempt to gain the moral high ground with the contempt it deserves.]
On talking with you, as I noted in the comments which you chose to delete, there’s no challenge to this at all, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. In fact, I find it downright spooky, it shouldn’t be this easy.
Regarding O’Reilly, you hand me yet another gem on a silver platter – re-read your own words at the very top. You’ve placed all your eggs in one basket for the entire premise of your blog on the lady being “a diehard Bill O’Reilly fan”. Your knowledge of O’Reilly is completely irrelevant – shell game maneuver #1 on your part in your reply here – and your #2 maneuver is to say I’m defending O’Reilly, which any astute reader of this entire dialog will tell you I am not. If anything, one of the central bits in my own JunkScience article points to O’Reilly’s own ignorance on who the head of the IPCC is.
[p: My guess is that you refer to these words: ‘Chasing Ice: Fox News Fan Discovers Bill O’Reilly Lies About Climate Change’. And this is, I believe, the crux of the matter here. What you fail to realise is that these are not my words at all. In the interests of fair play I shall labour at an explanation: 1) WordPress recently implemented the ability to ‘reblog’ another’s post. 2) Seeing a post on 350 or bust which featured a video that I believed to be worthy of sharing, I made use of this ‘reblog’ facility. 3) As it turns out, ‘reblog’, as implemented by WordPress, does not afford the ‘reblogger’ the ability to alter the headline text. (and I thank you for having so clearly highlighted the dangers of this flaw). To reiterate a point you are unwilling to accept: I do not know, nor care, who this O’Reilly bloke is. My intent was to help, in my small way, to promote the video featuring a climate change sceptic who was clearly moved by watching the film Chasing Ice. 4) Believing that you had an ironclad rebuttal to what you read as the main message behind this blog post, and, further, mistakenly believing that this was the main message that I was trying to champion, you embarked upon a campaign to ‘prove me wrong’, totally oblivious to the fact that you proceeded from a false assumption.]
One day, the manner in which you toss out such unsupportable assertions will smack you in the head like a 2×4, where somebody else or you yourself will ask, “Why do you do that?”, and upon realizing you have no valid answer, you will thank me for the realization. I will say “you’re welcome” in advance and in the meantime also offer “Peace out” since you are the one putting out the arguably non-peaceful resistance to straight-up questions.
[p: pot, meet kettle.]
Me, all I’ve done here is point to an irreconcilable problem and say “what’s up with that?” But you and Christine over at 350orbust literally have no answer, nor do you lift a finger to dispute my evidence from Media Matters & 60 Minutes, a pair of places you should have no trouble endorsing. That’s a bug that never goes away, does it? Don’t think of it as a deadly virus, but instead a liberating ray of hope. There’s not a thing wrong with asking your own devil’s advocate questions to be sure what you hold to be true actually stands up to courtroom-style evidence presentation. You’ll be fine if it does. It it does not, then what?
Just askin’.
[p: just answerin’]
LikeLike