The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

[Shane Tuttle]

I don't see it because it doesn't happen on a constant basis. What you think are scientists turning around in their opinions is the process itself; different researches coming to different conclusions based on newer data and refining their knowledge of the issue. That is how science works. Just because you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg and acting like a few newspaper articles that you read frak knows how many years ago are somehow representative of the scientific community doesn't mean your claim has any validity.

Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.

Fact: I didn't believe it for a second. Of course, WE DIDN'T. Sounds like the opposite findings to me, ja?

This is one major of many, many examples that scientists were out in left field thinking that they can really predict mother nature.

Today, scientists are claiming GW as real only by seeing VERY recent "abrupt" changes in climate. That's called tunnel vision. Call it what you want. You can state they are having peer reviews. You can state that they are "gathering more evidence". But, just because it's happened only recently doesn't mean there's GW on the horizon.

Scientists are so set on reading one sentence that they fail to read the whole book.

So yeah, list them. It's spring break and there's nothing good on tv tonight. The egg thing is not a valid example. It's the punchline to a comedy routine made funny by the fact that most people have never actually looked into it. If you want to actually argue the egg issue then find the reports and read them.

I've given you one simple and a big blunder of one. Apparently unlike you, I have a full time job that commands more than just a 9 to 5 schedule. Also, I have more important things to do than utterly waste my time on reading from cover to cover all the published reports like having a life. Read post #29. I won't repeat it.

If you're the one to assert so much on providing stats, I think there's plenty here given as well as Jimpeel's links in past threads that blow just about every facet of GW out of the water.

I didn't say you were. But you're acting like these articles you're reading that are snippets of published reports or press releases are somehow binding.

Nope. Just proving that scientists keep contradicting themselves CONSTANTLY. Their suggestive reports change all the time.

So in other words, none?

Nope, none at all. I believe everything what The New York Times publishes... When you step out in the real world one of these days, you'll find out that you won't have time to research every piece of information of every arguable subject that hits the headlines. Common sense and rational reasoning can actually be more accurate than a bunch of scientists in lab coats trapped under a glass...

Unless you were actually reading the published reports yourself then you have absolutely no foot to stand on in claiming to know what scientists were and were not saying.

You don't trust the media when they report on guns but you'll trust them to report on food?

Who said I trusted what they said about eggs? Point anywhere in my posts that I believed what they said.

Maybe I have done my own reading and just maybe have a formed opinion. I don't need to waste my time to prove to you otherwise. Besides, it's only my opinion.

It doesn't matter if I've read two sentences or more reports than you. One of the key arguments here is that you claim over and over again it's overwhelming majority of scientists agree. Others posted here some stats and links to prove you otherwise that appear to be just as reputable and you flat out deny the findings. Looks like to me you use the IPCC reports as if it's The Bible. Now, to me, that's scary in itself.

Again, I'm not claiming anything is ironclad but the overwhelming amount of evidence is pointing to the same conclusion.

Bull! I'm calling you out on this. You stated GW is a FACT. Not in this thread, but you outright said it is.

Which graph? I've posted a number of them. But more importantly, I have actually read the IPCC report in its entirety. So I have actually made a concerted effort to understand the issue at hand instead of relying on news articles and talking heads to tell me what to think.

Post #70. Good for you. Just because I may or may not have read the IPCC report from cover to cover doesn't mean that I haven't made the effort to do the same. And again, where did I say that I allow news articles and talking heads to do my thinking?

I don't see it because it doesn't happen on a constant basis. What you think are scientists turning around in their opinions is the process itself; different researches coming to different conclusions based on newer data and refining their knowledge of the issue. That is how science works.

Well, there you go. You just supported my opinion. Different researches coming to different conclusions. Sounds like they contradict themselves, doesn't it?

But yes, one can make a claim of scientific fact if virtually all of the data examined by a whole gaggle of researches all points to the same damn conclusion.

No, they can't. Especially on GW.

1. Who's to say what climate is normal?
2. Who's to say that slow, steady climate change if acceptable compared to quick change is better? Maybe mother nature intends to have abrupt changes to cycle out certain species or perform its own "population control".

1. NOONE. Nobody knows what climate is normal.
2. NOONE. Just because nature isn't "intelligent" doesn't mean that it supposed to act/change a certain way that humans think it should.

That's the whole point of my assertion: The arrogance of most scientists.

B

ut we can't simply sit back and shrug our shoulders until generations hundreds of years in the future are able to say they know everything that could possibly be known about the Earth's climate. Right now the science points in one direction. Virtually all of the science in astrophysics point to the same conclusions about black holes and quasars. Virtually all of the science in human physiology point to the same conclusion about Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Virtually all of the science in biology points to the same conclusion about evolution. Virtually all of the science in geology points to the same conclusion about plate tectonics.

And in that same vein, virtually all of the science in climatology points to the same conclusion about climate change.

Yep, they're standing in Winslow Arizona and we're asking to point to Munich, Germany. Scientists are pointing east. Sure, it's east. But, they're also pointing to about 400,000 other cities as well....

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

When it's all said and done. The climate of the earth is a lot less stable and predictable then a great many people would like us to believe. For example why is it that we have had a "brown christmas" for the last 4 years then all of the sudden last Christmas we got 2 ft?

 

[mountainclmbr]

Why is it that we are in an unstable inter-glacial warming period between the normal condition of ice ages. Why is it that the cure for every perceived problem is socialism. Why was socialism proposed as the proposed cure when the UN was soliciting bids on global warming computer models and why was the contract awarded to the company who's model predicted the most warming? Inquiring minds just want to know!

 

[73 Jock]

Looks like to me you use the IPCC reports as if it's The Bible.

Of course. Unwavering belief in man-made global warming is supplanting abortion-on-demand as the number one unquestioned requirement for acceptance in the Democrat party.

 

[Bruxley]

This peer review thing seems highly touted as substantial confirmation. I would agree that when others taking independent measurements come to the same or very similar results and therefore conclusions, that there is bases for a hypothesis. But are the scientists finding that the measurements are NOT similar and NOT conclusive also NOT peers? Are the peer reviews that count only those that agree? I think not.

I also find amusement when I see the 'flat earther' and 'head in the sand' insults flung at those that aren't buying this GW thing. The flat earth folks of long ago were those that couldn't see past their own perceptions right? Higher CO2 being produced = GW because CO2 is a greenhouse gas seems to be the perception that can't be seen past despite credible evidence that the 2 aren't shown to have a correlation given available data. Head in the sand to the solar evidence that is very long term and thus far the only correlating data unless someone else knows of such correlating data that scientists are willing the call conclusive verses probable.

 

[nobody_special]

Oh, why oh why did I click on this thread? I"ve tried to avoid it for the past few days, but finally I couldn't help myself... thought it might be amusing. Unfortunately, this thread is not amusing; depressing is nearer the mark.

So I'll throw out one reply to a couple points made on the last page (all I've read so far).

Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.

No, that's not a fact. If you think it is, then find some supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal. (Hint: you won't find any.) There was an article in a mainstream news magazine. It was not a scientific article, and it was not supported by any kind of scientific consensus... not even a minority consensus.

They didn't award him a science prize because they knew the science was unsupportable.

No; they didn't give Al Gore a Nobel prize in science because he isn't a scientist. He did not do science for his movie.

 

[TheFacts]

Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.

No, SOME scientists made such claims and the media focused on such claims because the claim scares the sheeple (just like GW) and sells more newspapers, magazines, etc...

Fact: I didn't believe it for a second. Of course, WE DIDN'T. Sounds like the opposite findings to me, ja?

...just comfirms the consensus of others in the scientific community.

This is one major of many, many examples that scientists were out in left field thinking that they can really predict mother nature.

I listened to the weather report today and it said that it would be sunny for the afternoon (99.9999999% chance of sun). I`ll bet that you listen to the weather report from time to time. By the way, weather aka mother nature.

Today, scientists are claiming GW as real only by seeing VERY recent "abrupt" changes in climate. That's called tunnel vision. Call it what you want. You can state they are having peer reviews. You can state that they are "gathering more evidence". But, just because it's happened only recently doesn't mean there's GW on the horizon.

You love to generalize the scientific community don`t you. Not ALL scientists share this so-called view.

Scientists are so set on reading one sentence that they fail to read the whole book.

...and what makes you so different. At least Redworm took the time to read something other than TIME, NEWSWEEK, or PARADE :barf:.

I've given you one simple and a big blunder of one. Apparently unlike you, I have a full time job that commands more than just a 9 to 5 schedule. Also, I have more important things to do than utterly waste my time on reading from cover to cover all the published reports like having a life. Read post #29. I won't repeat it.

Maybe you should spend a little less time at the range (hey I wish I could spend more time there too) and a little more time with a high school level earth science textbook (ya might learn something).

If you're the one to assert so much on providing stats, I think there's plenty here given as well as Jimpeel's links in past threads that blow just about every facet of GW out of the water.

His stats are impressive but they just represent another facet of research that must stand the test of scientific time.

Nope. Just proving that scientists keep contradicting themselves CONSTANTLY. Their suggestive reports change all the time.

Thats the beauty of science and the scientific method. If it didn`t, then we would still be imprisoning the logic minded for religious heresey (spelling?)

Nope, none at all. I believe everything what The New York Times publishes... When you step out in the real world one of these days, you'll find out that you won't have time to research every piece of information of every arguable subject that hits the headlines. Common sense and rational reasoning can actually be more accurate than a bunch of scientists in lab coats trapped under a glass...

Excuse me...the essense of science IS COMMON SENSE AND RATIONAL THINKING.

Maybe I have done my own reading and just maybe have a formed opinion. I don't need to waste my time to prove to you otherwise. Besides, it's only my opinion.

It doesn't matter if I've read two sentences or more reports than you. One of the key arguments here is that you claim over and over again it's overwhelming majority of scientists agree. Others posted here some stats and links to prove you otherwise that appear to be just as reputable and you flat out deny the findings. Looks like to me you use the IPCC reports as if it's The Bible. Now, to me, that's scary in itself.

But, how can you be so sure that the IPCC is bullcrap?????? Is there research any more or less valid than other publications.

Redworm is trying to expand many of the minds on this board, regardless of the truth. Maybe you should do the same



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[MeekAndMild]

A large part of being an intelligent person is what you know. Perhaps a larger part is being able to separate what you believe from what you know. The older you get the less you know.

I believe that somebody gored Redworm's ox. Sorry Red.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

When it's all said and done. The climate of the earth is a lot less stable and predictable then a great many people would like us to believe. For example why is it that we have had a "brown christmas" for the last 4 years then all of the sudden last Christmas we got 2 ft?

If you're basing your opinion on the GW issue as fact based on the past four years, I think reevaluation is in hand. Just my own opinion of course...

Great point, Bruxley. I couldn't have said it better myself.

No, SOME scientists made such claims and the media focused on such claims because the claim scares the sheeple (just like GW) and sells more newspapers, magazines, etc...

You love to generalize the scientific community don`t you. Not ALL scientists share this so-called view.

Fair enough. Allow me to clarify, if that's permitted...

I did come off as lumping ALL scientists together. I do NOT. There are fantastic scientists out there that have brains that a genious would kill to have. But, there's many that I don't respect. My apologies for stereotyping.

I listened to the weather report today and it said that it would be sunny for the afternoon (99.9999999% chance of sun). I`ll bet that you listen to the weather report from time to time. By the way, weather aka mother nature.

Any Joe Blow weatherman can forecast tomorrow's weather. If this is your best rebuttal to my claim that nobody can predict the future of our climate, I'm thinking I actually am on the right track of thought. Anybody that spends five minutes of watching baseball can predict the next batter being Barry Bonds will do one of two things 78% of the time. He'll either strike out, or hit a home run. Now, how about predicting who will win the World Series in October before opening day...that's a different "ball game"...

...and what makes you so different. At least Redworm took the time to read something other than TIME, NEWSWEEK, or PARADE

First, to read and claim something that's fact when it isn't and mounds of evidence disputes such makes me different. How about if I stated that I read the Bible and spout the same parallel? Quite the scoffing I would get, wouldn't I? I don't read those periodicals to form my opinions. I do admit to using Time's article as one source of the claims of a possible Ice Age. My assertion is this though: Do you really think that Time just pulled the Ice Age article out of their hind end and stuck it on their front page without SOME kind of studies?

Maybe you should spend a little less time at the range (hey I wish I could spend more time there too) and a little more time with a high school level earth science textbook (ya might learn something).

No thanks. I'll take the range time every day of the week and twice on Sundays. My priorities are quite straight. I think I get more out of my life practicing my 2nd Amendment rights compared to spending hours on end reading and studying reports that MIGHT concur the earth actually warmed up ONE degree in the past ONE HUNDRED YEARS....

His stats are impressive but they just represent another facet of research that must stand the test of scientific time.

If this was said about the OP's topic, there wouldn't be such the mess of posts, too...

But,

how can you be so sure that the IPCC is bullcrap?????? Is there research any more or less valid than other publications.

Where did I say that the IPCC is bullcrap? I think it has some intriguing information. However, I don't think some of it is right. Just because the IPCC states something doesn't make it gospel. Seeing Redworm's posts from the get go always points to IPCC's and all others are rebuked instead of taking point of consideration.

 

[Wildalaska]

Any Joe Blow weatherman can forecast tomorrow's weather.

Not in Alaska.

WilditssunnyandfreezingandsnowedyesterdayAlaska ™

 

[TheFacts]

Any Joe Blow weatherman can forecast tomorrow's weather. If this is your best rebuttal to my claim that nobody can predict the future of our climate, I'm thinking I actually am on the right track of thought. Anybody that spends five minutes of watching baseball can predict the next batter being Barry Bonds will do one of two things 78% of the time. He'll either strike out, or hit a home run. Now, how about predicting who will win the World Series in October before opening day...that's a different "ball game"...

Hmmm...maybe I failed in making MY point. You seem to insist that predicting mother nature as you put it is a virtual impossibility. Yet the basis of scientific predictions are predicated on past and present data sets. This data is used as a proxy for anticipated results. Regarding climate change, the data sets are loaded in computer modeling programs which run sophisticated scenarios. Their level of accuracy is determined by statistical probabilities which can and does represent an asymptotic plot. To put this in basic terms, climate prediction for a particular region can be close to 100% over a period of days, ~95% over a period of weeks, ~80-90% over a period of years, and well you get the point. Now your thinking that I just proved your point...well, not really. I proved that climate prediction signifigantly loses its level of accuracy over a period of hundreds/thousands/millions of years. However, climate prediction models can and are highly accurate over a short term basis (days/weeks/months). In essence, I have "proven" that mother nature can be predicted and our techniques of prediction are becoming more and more precise.

First, to read and claim something that's fact when it isn't and mounds of evidence disputes such makes me different. How about if I stated that I read the Bible and spout the same parallel? Quite the scoffing I would get, wouldn't I? I don't read those periodicals to form my opinions. I do admit to using Time's article as one source of the claims of a possible Ice Age. My assertion is this though: Do you really think that Time just pulled the Ice Age article out of their hind end and stuck it on their front page without SOME kind of studies?

Your opinion is to be respected. After all, opinions are just like ass@#!$%, everybody has one
As for Time magazine, it is all too common for the media to cite selected articles and use those as an example of mainstream scientific consensus when that is not the case. If you notice, usually when you read or hear about a science-based article in the media, the media will not present a conflicting scientific viewpoint. The media will present that article as scientific fact when in reality it is just an hypothesis that must be tested and tested and tested. In conjunction, you will also notice that the media cites science that will "grab" the reader`s attention.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[nate45]

The disciples of the religion of Global Warning would prefer that we don't think about Al Gore.

Gee I wonder why?


Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat...

 

[TheFacts]

No thanks. I'll take the range time every day of the week and twice on Sundays. My priorities are quite straight. I think I get more out of my life practicing my 2nd Amendment rights compared to spending hours on end reading and studying reports that MIGHT concur the earth actually warmed up ONE degree in the past ONE HUNDRED YEARS

It is a real shame that the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery is treated with such repulsion. They say that "knowledge is power" but, I guess, just as long as it does not pertain to the natural world.

Where did I say that the IPCC is bullcrap? I think it has some intriguing information. However, I don't think some of it is right. Just because the IPCC states something doesn't make it gospel. Seeing Redworm's posts from the get go always points to IPCC's and all others are rebuked instead of taking point of consideration.

Agreed! the IPCC is not gospel. However, the IPCC represents a compendium of climate research from hundreds of scientists from multiple disciplines who have presented evidence to support a theory. Their theory will stand the test of time until another theory is proposed to challenge that consensus. Redworm uses the IPCC because the science is valid and cannot be dismissed as speculation. In summary, the IPCC presents a convincing scientific arguement that cannot be simply disregarded unless more evidence is presented which invalidates many of the IPCC`s findings.

By the way, I have read much of the IPCC`s report and the evidence presented does induce a compelling arguement. Notwithstanding, for the record:AL GORE IS A MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY...NUFF SAID!

 

[73 Jock]

In summary, the IPCC presents a convincing scientific arguement that cannot be simply disregarded...
Notwithstanding, for the record:AL GORE IS A MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY...NUFF SAID!

The IPCC did not receive a science prize either. The IPCC shares the Peace Prize 50/50 with the Major Embarrassment.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

If you're basing your opinion on the GW issue as fact based on the past four years, I think reevaluation is in hand. Just my own opinion of course...

If a person so desires a person can go back much further. like the 70's when the snow was higher then the fences or the 30's when a winter would pass without hardly any snow (not to mention the dust bowl out west..) so in summary extreme heat in the 30's, extreme cold/snow in the 70's, Then the 90's returned to the heat wave. Tell me again what has changed?...

 

[TheFacts]

The IPCC did not receive a science prize either. The IPCC shares the Peace Prize 50/50 with the Major Embarrassment.

The IPCC wants publicity for their findings and that`s what the Major Embarrassment represents for them. However, that does not mean that the scientific community respects M.E. for his insight into climate change. M.E. is to GW what Carl Sagan was to astronomy. As we all know, there is no such thing as "bad" publicity.





Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[buzz_knox]

As we all know, there is no such thing as "bad" publicity.

When it leads to a backlash, yes, there is. And there seems to be a backlash against global warming proponents coming, regardless of the science.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Their level of accuracy is determined by statistical probabilities which can and does represent an asymptotic plot. To put this in basic terms, climate prediction for a particular region can be close to 100% over a period of days, ~95% over a period of weeks, ~80-90% over a period of years, and well you get the point. Now your thinking that I just proved your point...well, not really. I proved that climate prediction signifigantly loses its level of accuracy over a period of hundreds/thousands/millions of years. However, climate prediction models can and are highly accurate over a short term basis (days/weeks/months). In essence, I have "proven" that mother nature can be predicted and our techniques of prediction are becoming more and more precise.

No, I think you did prove my point. You're stating accuracy to percentages. Well, statistical probabilities isn't predicting the weather nor climate. The further out you state, the more the laws of probability goes against all the data that's been collected up to date. So, for now, it is impossible to predict what nature has in store for us.

Also to keep on the level: I'm using several analagies to help explain my point...not necessarily for your benefit, but mine. (Don't communicate well through a monitor). So, when I use weather etc., I understand climate is different than weather in general...

As for Time magazine, it is all too common for the media to cite selected articles and use those as an example of mainstream scientific consensus when that is not the case. If you notice, usually when you read or hear about a science-based article in the media, the media will not present a conflicting scientific viewpoint. The media will present that article as scientific fact when in reality it is just an hypothesis that must be tested and tested and tested. In conjunction, you will also notice that the media cites science that will "grab" the reader`s attention.

And that's why I don't agree with most of the garbage that Time or many other "media" outlets put out. Again, I'm using general examples here...

It is a real shame that the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery is treated with such repulsion. They say that "knowledge is power" but, I guess, just as long as it does not pertain to the natural world.

Careful, now. You're assuming that I find the field of science repulsive. I actually take interest in science. I'm not knee deep in it as others may, but I do really like science. What I don't tolerate is people claiming GW as fact and think just because a group of scientists have gathered similar findings that may point to GW, doesn't conclude that GW exists.

To clarify my opinion of what the general definition of GW is: A drastic climate change that is causing unnatural acts of nature. Overall tempuratures over the entire earth will warm at an uncontrollable rate eventually killing every living being. This may follow by a rapid cooling over a short period of time resulting another Ice Age.

Here's my caveat: What's considered unnatural? Humans driving a 1969 Camaro every day to and from "polluting the air"? Seeing a temperature rise planet wide of 1.5 degrees in 100 years? Seeing the Ice Caps melting?

My answer: There isn't anything unnatural. Volcanos erupt. Humans advance in technology. Animals fart....methane no less.

Agreed! the IPCC is not gospel. However, the IPCC represents a compendium of climate research from hundreds of scientists from multiple disciplines who have presented evidence to support a theory. Their theory will stand the test of time until another theory is proposed to challenge that consensus.

Good. I'm glad we're getting somewhere. I have no problem with your statement because it is THEORY. However, there are other stats that have been generated that dispute the evidence the IPCC has presented or explainations to their findings...

Redworm uses the IPCC because the science is valid and cannot be dismissed as speculation. In summary, the IPCC presents a convincing scientific arguement that cannot be simply disregarded unless more evidence is presented which invalidates many of the IPCC`s findings.

No, Redworm uses IPCC's findings as fact. That's my problem. And, as stated, there are other stats that I think explain/argue IPCC's findings that point toward GW.

If a person so desires a person can go back much further. like the 70's when the snow was higher then the fences or the 30's when a winter would pass without hardly any snow (not to mention the dust bowl out west..) so in summary extreme heat in the 30's, extreme cold/snow in the 70's, Then the 90's returned to the heat wave. Tell me again what has changed?...

NOTHING. The earth's climate will change regardless of what we do. I think I jumped the gun on your statement. My apologies if I misconstrued your statement. I've gotten similar statements from GW proponents that they use to support their case of GW.

 

[TheFacts]

No, I think you did prove my point. You're stating accuracy to percentages. Well, statistical probabilities isn't predicting the weather nor climate. The further out you state, the more the laws of probability goes against all the data that's been collected up to date. So, for now, it is impossible to predict what nature has in store for us.

How can you still insist that nature cannot be predicted. I have just stated that the level of chance that a prediction could be right is based on statistics. Your statement that climate cannot be predicted is also rooted in statistics. I can make an educated guess that the planet will get warmer or colder, and you can make an educated guess that it is impossible to predict future climate. You tell me what the odds are that you will be right??? 90%, 99.99999999999999999999%...nevertheless YOU CANNOT RESPOND TO ME WITH 100% CONFIDENCE CAN YOU??? There is a concept in statistics called the null hypothesis which involves the possibility of no deviation (no change) from the current conditions. Your assessment is just that the null hypothesis (no change) is valid.

To clarify my opinion of what the general definition of GW is: A drastic climate change that is causing unnatural acts of nature. Overall tempuratures over the entire earth will warm at an uncontrollable rate eventually killing every living being. This may follow by a rapid cooling over a short period of time resulting another Ice Age.

Here's my caveat: What's considered unnatural? Humans driving a 1969 Camaro every day to and from "polluting the air"? Seeing a temperature rise planet wide of 1.5 degrees in 100 years? Seeing the Ice Caps melting?

My answer: There isn't anything unnatural. Volcanos erupt. Humans advance in technology. Animals fart....methane no less.

Your view of unnatural vs natural pertains more to the metaphysical than the physical. There is nothing wrong with that just as long as we all understand the difference.

No, Redworm uses IPCC's findings as fact. That's my problem. And, as stated, there are other stats that I think explain/argue IPCC's findings that point toward GW.

At this point, I think Redworm should help to clarify our conflicting views.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[73 Jock]

The IPCC wants publicity for their findings and that`s what the Major Embarrassment represents for them......As we all know, there is no such thing as "bad" publicity.

Well....yes there is. Getting busted cloaking a political agenda as fact; generally results in loss of credibility. Unless of course, one is shamelessly attempting to influence the masses; who will pay attention only until "American Idol" comes on.