Olbermann named Beck "runner-up" in "Worst Person" for claiming the "globe was the hottest" in 1934
During the October 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for claiming that "the globe was the hottest" in 1934 on the October 24 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, as Media Matters for America documented. According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 1934 was the hottest year on record for the United States, not the globe. The hottest year on Earth was actually 2005, according to a temperature analysis by the GISS. In fact, the GISS does not even rank 1934 among the globe's five warmest years.
Olbermann has frequently named Beck during his "Worst Person" segment, as Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Olbermann also named a CNN executive "Worst Person" for hiring Beck to host his CNN Headline News show.
In awarding Beck the "runner-up" on his October 26 broadcast, Olbermann said that Beck is "now being used to try to deny global warming." While Beck has asserted that the Earth is, in fact, warming, he has said that "there's a disagreement on why." For example, during his May 2 hour-long special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, Beck stated:
Anyway, the bottom line is, no one is denying that the globe has warmed. It has, 0.74 degrees Celsius.
But there's a disagreement on why, and there's even more disagreement on if it will be catastrophic or not. The tactics Al Gore uses in "An Inconvenient Truth" deserve an Oscar. We all have to remember: There's a difference between science and science fiction.
In addition, on the October 25 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck argued that he is "not willing to say that the globe is not warming, because it is warming," before adding: "I believe it may be natural, but even if man caused it, I think what the scam is, is us having the audacity to say that we can fix it."
From the October 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Runner-up, Glenn Beck. He's now being used to try to deny global warming. Telling his sheep that the hottest year in global history was 1934. Actually, 1934 was the hottest year in American history. As for the globe, where all of us live, the hottest year was 2005. Followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006. I mean, I know facts aren't mandatory in what you do, but isn't it embarrassing when you get them wrong every day?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I really don't think this is to the level of a lot of other jerks out there that could've been mentioned on Keith's hit-list. We all know that Beck stretches it quite a bit, but even as an exagerrator, he could just be misinformed or mistaken on semantics.
Not being a Beck apologist; would just like to see more bad guys on the list instead of political enemies.
it's not semantics. he was wrong.
I know. It would be easy, although wrong, to assume that 1934 was the earth's hottest on record because it was America's.
what then is your belief on present global warming? mostly natural, mostly man made?
I think climate change is occurring, the Earth on the whole is getting warmer, and we aren't helping. Doesn't have anything to do with Beck, though.
Beck is a tool... set on blathering falsehoods at every step. He burned up his 'free pass' a long time ago (in my mind). Being ignorant is no excuse.
I agree totally! If someone is on the tube, telling people what to think and believe, they should at least have their opinions based in accuracy.
When mistakes are made, they should then do a retraction. But, as we've seen over and over, these right wing broadcasters, without exception, spew crap and NEVER correct their misinformation.
We are the ones left to explain to their loyal followers that they spewed crap yet again.
I agree totally! If someone is on the tube, telling people what to think and believe, they should at least have their opinions based in accuracy.
We are the ones left to explain to their loyal followers that they spewed crap yet again.
Therick
Exaggerating and being inaccurate didn’t stop global warming high priest Gore from producing an exaggerated and inaccurate film that requires umpteen disclosures warning that the film contains inaccuracies and exaggerations to even be shown to school children in the U.K.
If anyone needs to explain to their loyal followers why they spewed a bunch of crap it’s Priest Gore.
Why the double standard?
well put. :-)
The nine disclaimers are for Gore's representations that are out of the scientific mainstream. If the same rules were applied to the skeptics, nearly everything they say would have a disclaimer. Not much of a "gotcha".
BTW, in the ruling, the Judge described An Inconvenient Truth as:
It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
one of the "disclaimers" was that gore could not "prove" that the glaciers on mount kilamanjaro in africa are melting due to man made warming. on the other hand, temperatures are increasing at an unprecented rate, and glaciers are melting all over the world. kind of like saying one can't prove smoking killed someone, when they smoked three packs a day.
Dex, this is yet another example of the cross promotion between MMFA and Olby. Beck was wrong yet but so is Tucker Carlson and Tweetie matthews and Olby never says a word about them. He also never said a word about Imus all those years Imus spewed racist hate. You can not take Olbermann seriously, if he is going to mock everyone who does not work for MSNBC.
I don't really blame him for not going after MSNBC folks; the man's gotta keep his job.
I guess, just shows he is a corporate lackey, GE and NBC have decided to go after CNN and FOX and he does the dirty work. By the way we discussed this on Thursday . But as I said earlier Olby needs to be promoted and MFMA needs Olby to use their material.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710250006?f=h_latest
Wow, two progressive voices cross promoting each other in the vast media forest. I'm shocked, shocked.
Indeed.
Contrast that with the synergy between, say...Fox News and The New York Post (and other print outlets under the Murdoch umbrella.)
There's a lot of "you lie and I'll swear to it" going on there.
Anytime the NY Post prints something outlandishly partisan and/or false, I can pretty much guarantee Fox will report it with their patented "some people are saying" caveat.
Global warming is perhaps our most challenging crisis facing the planet. When Beck tells millions of Americans something that is simply untrue, it’s important to shine a spotlight on the falsehood. It is as boring as it is strange to use the forum as a place to complain and moan about so-called ‘cross promotion’. The truth is being exposed, no apologies for the inconvenience.
Millions? Really? Millions? God have mercy on our souls...
Beck is a liar.
Just like Randy Rhodes?
Thanks for stating the obvious. If KO did that he would be posting on this blog with us the next day. He doesn't have to tell me about Tucker or Tweety I know about them. Once KO gets the chance he will take care of them in good time.
Sure, way to promote Bush's policies by denial. Beck misinforms, people believe him (the same way they believe the WH web site) and then we have arguments over global warming based on lies.
Sure, no problems there. Want a real global warming skeptic? Read what you can about Michael Shermer and his forums on the subject. I find that even the scientifically-challanged reference him, and as it turns out...
Oh, just use The Google in the tubes and see how even intelligent skeptics deal with science. I'd rather Beck stuck to fluff pieces, and not serious issues.
Ever run into a Beck fan? They do not understand or want to understand facts... they get in the way of their desire to be entertained. Some even think he is funny. I tried watching this buffoon and listening on the radio, and I can't stomach more than 15 minutes of his annoying voice, but less than one minute when he lies.
I wish I lived in Lake Wobegon, "where all the children are above average", then Beck would be off the air.
(Thanks for keeping the topic on Beck)
Ever run into a Beck fan? They do not understand or want to understand facts... they get in the way of their desire to be entertained. Some even think he is funny.
Some even think he is smart. I know such fans. When it comes to Islam or immigrants they think Beck is right on. When I bring up his worst statements they claim they never heard him say that, and besides he is right most of the time.
Have YOU ever run into a Beck fan? I am one, and we all CRAVE the chance to debate liberals. Unfortunatley, liberals have to behave like children and should people off of stages if they don't like the opinion or facts presented to them. Ahmedenijad was APPLAUDED when he complained about being attacked prior to his speech at Columbia, yet these same liberal activitist shout those they oppose of of the stage.
If you can back up your opinions with facts you should welcome debate, not stifle it.
I don't really understand why we start taking names as far as climate change before we had decent satellites anyway....1934 would then be irrelevant even for America's history.
Well gee, my grandmother said that she had to dig a tunnel from the farm house to the barn in the Winter of '19. Is this the coldest year on record in the world?
Your posts on this issue are irrelevant. No really, they are. Please go look for a topic you have some understanding of, and feel free to post there. It is obvious you know nothing about global warming.
I don't mind skeptics, but I may as well be arguing with GWB about physics at this point.
Well gee, my grandmother said that she had to dig a tunnel from the farm house to the barn in the Winter of '19. Is this the coldest year on record in the world?
And my posts are irrelevant? Go back to bed and get up on the right side.
well, you made the statement that any comparisons before satellites are irrelevant. why?
I said if we changed the standards, it would be. Satellite temperature-gathering is not as accurate as radiographs on the local scale, but it is the most accurate measure of the globe as a whole.
Maybe you are mistaking me to be insinuating that 1934 could've been the hottest on record for the Earth? My insinuation is the opposite.
there are surface measurements available going back for many years before satellites.
what do satellites have to do with temperature measurements?
Satellite temperature measurements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That. I was wrong though, they didn't start becoming very effective until the late 1970's. My point, completely missed by Scooter, was that even IF Beck had a point about 1934 (which I don't think he has), we should think twice about the statistics coming from 1934.
you're talking about temperatures in the atmosphere above. surface temperatures are a different subject.
Read the first headlined paragraph about reconciling the data to achieve accurate depictions of the surface temp. It also DESTROYS the skeptic talking point about "Oh we thought there was global cooling in the 70's." Yeah, but that's because we stunk at combining the data; once we figured it out, the discrepancies disappeared.
"Climate models predict that as the surface warms, so should the global troposphere. Globally, the troposphere should warm about 1.2 times more than the surface; in the tropics, the troposphere should warm about 1.5 times more than the surface."
Easy math then to see what the surface temps are.
don't we know what the surface temperatures are?
Glenn Beck: "I'm a THINKER!"
I doubt Rodin ever had Glenn Beck in mind...
(10/27/07 show; regarding California fires)
Beck:
"Burning forests are a natural phenonomen. They have been with us for thousands of years."
He went on to point out that fires are needed for forest regrowth.
Of course there has never been forest management and thinning and removal of dead underbrush over the centuries, but in the case of the recent California fires, Beck says that now the devastation was due to ENVIRONMENTALISTS who stand in the way of "sensible" forest management-the clearing of dead underbrush and small vegatation!
Of course, blaming environmentalists is easy to do when you are a wimp who is afraid to point the finger at the real culprits!
The fire devastation was caused by idiots who oppose MANDATORY fireresistant building codes!
codes which require:
slate or concrete roofs
fireproof stucco, concrete or ALUMINUM siding (not vinyl) with heat resistand, insulated backing
neighborhood underground water storage tanks which fill up during periods of rain
heat sensitive or manually opened sprinkler systems which not only water the lawn, but spray the HOUSE !
Most homes were destroyed by flying embers from the close proximity of burning neighbors' homes-NOT from relatively distant embers from the burning forests!
Who are the idiots who oppose these obviously needed codes??? Should we take a look at DEVELOPERS who look at fires as a good source of income?! What about BUILDERS?!
Michael Corman
misterfact@yahoo.com
Glenn's email: me@glennbeck.com
Glenn's writer: stu@glennbeck.com
I think this was a shameless plug for developers and for MrFact's email address, but my head hurt too badly halfway through reading it to be sure.
if you would have read it, then you wouldn't see it as a plug for developers. he pointed out that materials are being used to build homes that make them vulnerable to fires.
don't forget that the forest management that environmentalists opposed wasn't clearing brush and shrubs, it was because the lumber companies also wanted to cut down as many trees as it took to pay for the loss of income the clearing program would cost.
I think the curious tell here was the time depth suggested by Beck: "thousands of years>" Why just thousands of years?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
For anyone who believes Al Gore and company, here is another viewpoint outside of the scientific 'consensus'.
Hmmm, a government run and funded lab, that specializes in nuclear physics research, released "peer reviewed" documentation on global warming, which has nothing to do with nuclear physics.
So all you can do is try to discredit it instead of read it? Why can't you tolerate debate?
your link is to a senate site run by senator james inhofe of oklahoma, who represents the huge oil and gas industry in his state.
So you don't dispute the facts? The article is sourced to peer-reviewed research at Harvard and so on. I'm just trying to show that there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the IPCC and its conclusions.
give me some "facts". you post a link and that's supposed to be it, end of story.
Well, there are several sources of research linked to in the article, some of which are lengthy. I encourage you to consider some alternative evidence before dismissing it entirely.
cite some
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
you as in....you. not the link, tell us a couple of the sources you find so compelling.
Well here's one piece I liked.
Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained how miniscule mankind’s CO2 emissions are in relation to the atmosphere.
“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website www.IceCap.US. (LINK)
“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.
He's with the Fraser Institute, which is funded by ExxonMobil.
Do you have proof of that? And by your rules, you can't post something if the website or the source is affiliated with or has received money from a pro global warming entity.
I don't recall having any rules. Joseph D'Aleo is with the Fraser Institute which is funded by ExxonMobil.
And man-made CO2 is NOT a main factor in global warming.
boy oh boy, that settles it.
hmm. this recent link says that excess carbon dioxide is turning the oceans more acidic, so maybe they are not quite as able to absorb more co2 as your boy claims.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/245
Your link is to an environmental activist website.
you are denying the figures quoted?
Do you deny mine?
you quoted a guy who said that there's no problem because the oceans have a far greater capacity to absorb co2 than is generally accepted. i provided a link that quotes exact figures on how co2 is turning the oceans more acidic, and that is going to be a problem for marine life like mollusks and reef building corals.
Again, the point in this case is not whether CO2 has damaging effects, it is rather a question of how much of an impact man has on the CO2 levels.
Less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributed to man.
the link i provided shows co2 levels in the ocean have risen by 30% since the start of the industrial age.
27 billion tonnes per year DOGRUN. Tell us how that is good for anything.
DOGRUN:
As you attempt to minimize harmful levels of anything, you should know that .00007 of a gram of arsenic in your body would be a FATAL LEVEL. That's seven ten-thousandths.
Our ecosystem is in a balance, one which Human Beings have grown to trust for life itself. While it may be true that a degree or two temperature change, or a few percents more of CO2 in our air or water would be "survivable" by us, the real problem will come from areas which will both surprise and devastate.
For example, honey bees. We humans depend on them for our food supplies and much more, but they do their work out of plain sight for most Americans. Plus, they are fragile creatures, in that they cannot thrive unless conditions are right. If conditions shift EVEN A LITTLE, they move on, or they die off.
Rightwing ecological "tough guys" are big on minimizing the effects of global warming, or the "relatively small" changes in our climate, applying the "just wear a heavier (or lighter) shirt" STANDARD to scientific announcements about such changes.
But it won't matter WHAT weight shirt you're wearing, if the crops are massively failing because they aren't being pollinated. And there the Rightwing environmental "tough guy" will be standing, wearing his heavier shirt, saying, "Uh, I didn't think about THAT."
And at that point, an "Ooops. Sorry." won't hack it.
Obstruction to environmental sanity is rooted entirely in the bottom line PROFITS of current industries. Taking precautions, says the Rightwing, would impose "unacceptable" inconveniences on the flow of profits. Industry has a huge financial motive to squash any environmental concerns.
Perhaps all the profit-taking now might assure that extremely rare food supplies in the future, MADE RARE BY THE ACTIONS OF THESE POLLUTING BUSINESSES, will be available to that top 5% wealthiest, while the rest of us starve. Alarmist? Perhaps, but it's alarmism based on the consensus of scientific studies and minds.
On the other side, there is GREED and MONEY, to promote ignorance and denial. And the rallying of the Rightwing sycophants to cries of "encroaching socialism," to obstruct any and all restorative actions.
check this
Holy crap. Bought and paid for 'science' from a bought and paid for politician.
Bet when Al Gore puts out a documentary, we are supposed to believe that he has no agenda?
Inhofe believes that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. He assures us that warming is due to “natural changes” and that “God’s still up there” so we don’t need to do anything to curb man-made pollution. He also receives huge campaign contributions from big polluting industries. He is bought and paid for.
Posted by Marc Moran. [link to conwebwatch.tripod.com]
Among other principled stands, he supported George Deutsch, the NASA flack who lied about graduating from college.
You know, Al Gore gamed you completely. You hate him so much that, when he waved the red flag of An Inconvenient Truth in front of you, you ran right at it. Only, in true Bugs Bunny fashion, there was a brick wall behind it.
You're now yelling insults at every major scientific organization in the world, and metric tons ofdata. You have now set yourself up along side the UFO theorists, The Dean drive proponents, the Hollow Earth theorists, and--oh yes--the creationists.
There once was a time when scientists regarded themselves as conservatives, mainly due to hippies and war protestors. But you've managed to change all that.
The globsl scientific community despises you as a bunch of illiterate yahoos, with no experimental data and without the hard-won expertise to interpret it in any case. All you've got is a microphone--and, of course, the backing of the oil companies and the Republican Party. You don't even know how to dispute the data, but you don't let that stop you.
It's a good thing you're going down in 2008, or severe and long-term damage could be done do America's scientific reputation--and its standing.
Shriek at the scientists, yahoos, and the scientists will go away. And then, when Japanese astronauts are orbiting the moon and the European Union has a stem-cell based cure for Alzheimers unavailable in the US because of you, well, then, you can jusat lok across america and look at all those lovely church steeples and hoppe they'll be a tourist attraction for visitors from the advanced countries.
DOGRUN,
You send a link to Senator James Inhofe (this guy believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old) as some kind of disputable fact against Al Gore!!
Are you mad?
Did you read the sources at all? Don't attack the messenger before you've even looked at his evidence.
so we can take the word of the american enterprise institute, which is quoted in the link, that there's no man made global warming.
they are the recipients of 1.6 million from exxon mobil. completely unbiased of course.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
Complete tripe devoid of merit.
You can stay in your own little box if you like, where it is safe and warm and no one can upset your worldview, but there are two sides to this debate whether you like it or not.
You readily eat up anything the highly politicized environmental movement spews out, yet dismiss the growing number of scientists who dare to say Gore's movie is not accurate.
Read some scientific studies that you disagree with and tell me why they are wrong.
As Mefirst requested up-thread, please provide a couple of the sources you find so compelling from your link.
Why do you believe there are 2 sides to this debate?
You implied that Al Gore might have an agenda, what do you believe the agenda is?
Do you deny that big oil definately has an agenda?
If man made co2 levels are the equivolent of 1/8" in a 100 story building (1/8 ince = linoleum), who reviewed these findings?
You are right, there are two sides to this debate. On one side you have the academic worldwide scientific community who first told us (years ago) that the earth is getting warmer and you guys found evidence that it wasn't. When it became indefensible that the earth is getting warmer you guys now say that man plays no part in it. O.k. Now then, on the other side you have a small scientific community who says tht global warming is not a man made problem. The funny thing is that by and large this small community is linked to or funded by energy companies or conservative think tanks. the proof is in the pudding. Our side was right about the earth warming years ago and now we are right about WHY the earth is warming. Of course, once this is proven it will be the flat earthers job to show how a warmer earth has really improved life on the planet. Can't wait for that.
"...it will be the flat earthers job to show how a warmer earth has really improved life on the planet.--achrispage6992
Sadly, they've already started doing that.
Ahh, now the latest skeptic talking point is 'peer reviewed'. Isn't it amazing the veratible onslaught of 'peer reviewed' articles coming out now that are skeptical of MMGW. Out of nowhere. Simply amazing. BTW, all these 'peer reviewed' articles still can't seem to come to a consensis on whether the earth is actually getting warmer or not. Maybe all these 'peer reviewed' articles should at least try to get on the same page before they attempt to express a credible opinion. ROFLMAO.
Ahh, now the latest skeptic talking point is 'peer reviewed'
Mghamma
Now this is funny! A few months ago MMFA had another man-made global warming thread and all you moonbats could say was that none of the material debunking the theory had been “peer-reviewed”. This was your golden standard…the good house keeping seal of approval for liberals. Now that there are plenty of peer-reviewed studies debunking the global warming swindle, peer-reviewed study means nothing. So typical of liberals to move the goal post when their theories start to fall apart.
And you idiots who sit there and say the source of funding disqualifies the peer-reviewed material debunking man-made global warming while ignoring the fact that the scientist who’s studies support the theory are receiving tons of money to perpetuate the hoax are just blind to the truth. You can’t disqualify the study on one side of an issue because they receive funding from certain groups who might have an agenda while accepting the study of another group who are receiving funding from other groups that might have an agenda.
My parents taught me at an early age that if you’re looking for a hustler, look for the one who’s trying to get his hands on your wallet. That would be the man-made global warming crowd. Carbon offsets anyone?
Gee, all these articles about Glenn Beck are becoming redundant. Perhaps, MMFA should cease reporting Beck's numerous erroneous statements and simply let us know one day when he gets something right.
Irony, I like your suggestion. Another suggestion would be to gather up all the Beck stupidity for the week and post in one thread. I get tired of reading about this braindead buffoon day in and out. I can't even get up the enthusiasm to write a limerick about him. But then it might be a really long thread.
If a picture is truely worth a thousand words, then the picture of Glen Beck that Keith uses when this pinhead makes his list.......
It seems to show Beck's level of intelligence......
If CNN ever wakes up and rids itself of this brain disease, I'm sure FOX would make room for him, he'd fit right in!
For the love of God! Why do we need to know about Olbermann slamming Beck? Who cares, honestly?
Because having anyone take on the Axis of Weasels is inspiring.
I think it is admirable when anyone tries to set the record straight and point out false or misleading information. Glenn Beck may have gotten his facts mixed up on this story.
I also think it is wrong when people use the same tactics they claim to deplore against those whom they disagree with. This is why I am disappointed with your personality profile of Glenn Beck. If you are interested in truth in media, please tell the whole truth.
You claim Beck called Mexican immigrants “dirt bags”. You display this prominently. What you do not display prominently is that he only said this about immigrants who break the law. If you read the whole story (from 4/28/06), you will find the quote of him saying: “Well, how could I possibly want to hurt the people who are hungry, who want a better life? How can I possibly demonize those people? I can't.”
In the same story he also lamented the fact that immigrant workers are paid sub minimum wages and work in unsafe conditions. He wanted to go after employers who subject workers to these conditions. This doesn’t sound like a man who thinks immigrants are “dirt bags”. If your coverage of Beck were to be fair, you would have quoted him as calling illegal immigrants who break the law “dirt bags” or the people in the corrupt government of Mexico “dirt bags”.
You also claimed he called Katrina victims “scumbags”. If you read the whole report (from 9/9/05) it’s clear that Beck is only referring to the victims who are behaving badly. In fact, Beck says of the Katrina victims (as well as the 9/11 victims): “there's about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody.”
Please be fair about your portrayal of other people so that you are not guilty of the same things you are accusing them of doing.
Phillip, thanks for the well-written post. However, your energy was wasted because ost of the posters here couldn't care less about opposing viewpoints. They only want to jump on those they disagree with. Very few members actually can engage in legitimate debate. Most default to ad hominim attacks.
Great post though.
I agree. Great post, Phil!
right - and you think this repartee is about only 10 people.......Yep, comprehension problems, anyone can see, even though he SAYS it's only about 10 people, lol, that he is talking about all of them. 10 people do not constitute a riot that causes the place to be shut down.
How many times does he have to say, "it's only about 10 people"..."it's not everyone in New Orleans" before it sinks in for you that HE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE IN NEW ORLEANS?
I think you might be the one with comprehension problems LoreLIE.
OLBERMANN: "As for the globe, where all of us live, the hottest year was 2005."
Really? Hottest year in the 6-billion year history of the planet? Based on temperature records?
That's a pretty neat trick, Keith.
I'm guessing you and your sheep aren't the least bit embarrassed by that statement. In fact, I'll bet you're pretty damned proud of it. Aren't you?
LOL!
Heck, I'll even bet you and your sheep don't even understand why it's such a stupid statement.