Willard Scott suggested weather "in Denver and Colorado" casts doubt on global warming
SUMMARY: On NBC's Today, Willard Scott attempted to call global warming into question by stating that "the folks out in Denver and Colorado ... [are having] the coldest winter they've had in years." But as Media Matters has noted, local weather conditions are not indicative of whether the Earth is warming.
On the January 2 edition of NBC's Today, weather reporter Willard Scott introduced his weather report by asking co-host Meredith Vieira if she was "a global-warming fan" and whether she "believe[d] in global warming." Vieira responded that "something's going on, 'cause it's warm here" in New York City. Scott then suggested that recent temperatures cast doubt on the existence of global warming: "From Savannah all the way up to Boston, we're having unheard-of warm weather, but ask the folks out in Denver and Colorado. ... [They are having] the coldest winter they've had in years. So it all depends on which side of the Mississippi [River] you're hanging your hat."
As Media Matters for America noted when conservative radio host William Bennett mockingly claimed that "half the people in the country" will "have to fight through snowstorms to watch this global warming thing," weather in a portion of the United States is not indicative of whether the Earth is warming. As the National Climatic Data Center noted in its preliminary 2006 report, "[f]ollowing the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880." That report also noted that "the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) will likely be 2°F (1.1°C) above the 20th Century mean, which would make 2006 the third warmest year on record."
Additionally, Scott's question about "belie[f]" in global warming ignores that organizations representing thousands of scientists share the consensus view that, according to the June 2006 National Academy of Sciences report, "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming" of the planet, as Media Matters has documented.
Scott's statement recalls comments by CNN host Miles O'Brien and CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, who also discussed purported doubts about global warming on the January 25, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, as Media Matters noted. O'Brien transitioned from a report on global warming to a weather forecast by describing Myers as "a little bit of a skeptic on global warming." Myers denied the label but then promoted the so-called "heat island" theory, which had been debunked by several recent studies.
From the January 2 edition of NBC's Today:
SCOTT: Well, listen are you a globing -- a global-warming fan? Do you believe in global warming?
VIEIRA: I'm not a fan. No. No, sir.
SCOTT: Well --
VIEIRA: But I -- something's going on, 'cause it's warm here.
SCOTT: Well, now, wait a minute -- that's it; it's warm here. From Savannah [Georgia] all the way up to Boston, we're having unheard-of warm weather, but ask the folks out in Denver and Colorado --
VIEIRA: That's so.
SCOTT: -- the coldest winter they've had in years. So it all depends on which side of the Mississippi you're hanging your hat.
Take THAT, scientists of the world!! Willard Scoot has called you OUT!! You all just got served!!
By the way...I hang my hat on the side of science and reason and methodology...which, apparently, Scott has never heard of...
We're talking about a guy who started his career as Ronald McDonald.
Not only is it painfully obvious that Scott and Vieira don't even understand the most basic facts about global warming, but they're both too foolish to let that keep them from speaking about it on national television.
means nothing. antarctica is the coldest place on earth and averages a couple inches a year.
i wasn't clear. just because denver has two snowstorms does not disprove global warming.
Warm and fuzzy good ole' Uncle Willard is the first (or second) example of wild unfathomable conservative misinformation out there? His thoughtful scientific opinion on global warming rates a mention here, at all?
Come on, it was more a lead in harmless comment about Denver and their two recent blizzards than any anti-global warming tirade on his part. So let me get this straight, not even a morning weather guy can utter an off the cuff remark about global warming without hauling out a slew of scientific research to back up his "belief" statement? Come on.........keep digging, there has to be more than this??
he disputed meredith's contention that "something is going on". the holidays did not improve your reasoning or reading skills.
Scott has NO scientific credibilty and he is saying global warming is in DOUBT because of a few snow storms...he is an idiot and should be called on it, tommy!
He's a weather/entertainer - not some serious expert or pontificator on anything. Anyone, besides many of you here, that take his comment proving or disproving the issue of global warming is ridiculous. To call him an idiot is even more ridiculous.
the debate is not what he is. it's what he said. try to keep up this year.
and no one knows better than a liberal that "words" are so damn painful...... Watch it Tommy, might hurt his poor little feelings..... and then he will file a lawsuit of call Americas Communist Liberties Union. awwwwwwwww
a few days off did not raise the level of your arguments. pitiful.
Hey, if they're good enough for Limbaugh...
And Scott is SPREADING MISINFORMATION by making his IDIOTIC remarks on NATIONAL television...if he were just some bozo next to me at the bar I wouldn't shout across the room that there is a misinformer in the house, I would gently prod him with a little quid pro qou to engage in a reasonable debate, but he is seen by many, thus his false statements must be dealt with...
Where are the FACTS on Global Warming? I am jsut asking, because I hear yes, I hear no. Well, what will it be? Where are the facts. You can not dispute facts, right?
Google 'Global Warming + Science'..that's a start...
He lied about Denver having one of its coldest winters ever, when in fact the month of December was warmer than average for this city, snow storms and all.
A weatherman who makes such a claim without first doing simple research is an idiot.
Denver had weather two degrees COLDER than normal.
[link to www.weather.gov]
Hey Leather next time you give a link give a link that actually works. As for your assertion that Denver's temps were 2 degrees above normal you are only offering half of the story. Any scientist (in the this case meteorologist or hell for that matter anyone who has taken one meteorology course) would tell you have to include all data. Of course the reason you didn't is because the facts disprove your point.
While the average high in december was 2 degrees below the average, the average low was 5 degrees warmer and the mean temperature was 1.4 degrees warmer overall and 1.6 degrees warmer than 2005.
All that aside just a little research on global warming will show you that this warming can cause extreme heat and cold as well as extreme dry and wet conditions.
In case you haven't been here for very long, Leather is one of MMFA's largest sources of entertaining opinions. He's big on lying with statistics. He will, of course, be the first to tell you that anyone can prove anything with statistics, then he proceeds to prove his point by using statistics to lie. This is a subset of the Republican adage that government can't do anything right, and to prove their point, Republicans get voted into office then do a terrible job. As we both know, it's all about who's behind the numbers, or who's in office, and self-fulfilling prophecies are a dime a dozen, at least since Bush took the oath of office and depressed the market.
Leatherhelmut's hypocrytical use with facts. But I had the feeling that if I didn't put that actual facts out there someone like Tommy would say you shouldn't take Leatherhelmut seriously because he isn't a real expert and come on who could ever believe anything said by a non expert that never happens.
It just occurred to me that I left a bit off of my previous post. Using one month as a standard to prove or disprove global warming, is at best, fraudalent. Notice that when there is talk about the warmest year on record other years are included as a comparison.
You're right, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.. if it weren't being repeated by the hacks on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto.
[link to thinkprogress.org]
now "weather reporter" but still a clown.
With a single off-hand comment he's spreading misinformation to millions. How is that not worth mentioning? Neither of them have a clue what they're talking about, but they both repeat and reinforce the false argument that the temperature of some random place at any given moment is a sign that global warming does or doesn't exist. It's an idiotic idea, but it's one that we will hear repeated endlessly unless we highlight and refute such statements. That's why it's worth mentioning.
First off you say this > "With a single off-hand comment he's spreading misinformation to millions"..........then this > "It's an idiotic idea".
I am confused? If his comment is spreading misinformation to millions, yet is so idiotic?...then what is your beef? Who in their right mind would believe something so idiotic from a morning weather host?
I think you just answered your own concern.
can be idiotic. they are not mutually exclusive. do i need to explain more?
that is if you want to get into a debate with a george who has never had a problem with putting out falsehoods and hates the Constitution.
It's obviously not an either/or. People believe and repeat idiotic ideas all the time. What planet are you from?
Idiotic ideas, as you claim in your patented bias one-sided view, die before they see the light of day to thoughtful, reasonable people.......they are of no threat to anyone of substance.
If Willard Scott says the moon, or any planet, was made of cream cheese - an idea I would suspect you would claim as idiotic, would you worry about the millions of people who are receiving that misinformation?
I doubt it. Your paranoia continues.......
You know who is the BIGGEST spreader of LIES concerning Global warming..? Do 'ya? Huh? Do 'ya? The answer: EXXON!!!! They constantly spead LIES to keep their shareholders happy, the earth be damned...LIES are some peoples' only way to make a living and other people BELIEVE lies when they are repearted, and repeated, and repeated, so much that in peoples' heads, it IS the truth...take some psychology courses, Tommy, and read up on current affairs of big businesss..check out Project Censored (1995 to present), Salon, Harpers magazine, BBC, Democracy now, etc...
Many thanks for your recommended study courses and books for me to read.......I'll run to the local community college, and a stopover at the library on the way, and get right on it.
because facts are handy to have when arguing...also, you say idiotic ideas will die in the light of day, yet many people deny there was a holocost, that there HAD to be WMD in Iraq, that blood letting was a viable cure for illness, that 'germs' are a fairy tale, that there is an american car that is affordable AND practical AND reliable, that you can cure yourself of AIDS by deflowering a virgin girl, and so on...but they are all WRONG!!!
unfortunately, rational/reasonable people seem be lacking in number this day and age. Hence the threat of making such irrational claims.
If Willard Scott says the moon, or any planet, was made of cream cheese...
The difference is that Scott isn't a lone voice out there saying what he's saying. There's an orchestrated effort, with a bunch of idealogues repeating the same misinformation about climate change out there, and for reasons that have more to do with their personal gain than science.
Scott's intent may have been humor, but it's out of place for a meteorologist (assuming he is one by now.) Heck, even conservatives seem to be on board in understanding the FACT of climate change. The controversy these days is, "Is man is a factor in that change?" So Scott is not only wrong, but he's an argument or two behind the rest of us.
So Scott says something demonstrably false and you attack me as being biased and one-sided for calling his nonsense idiotic? I don't "claim" his concept of global warming is idiotic; it very plainly is idiotic.
Pointing that out is not biased or one-sided, just as pointing out that the moon isn't made of cream cheese is not biased or one-sided. But I do find it hilarious that you "suspect" I would call the cream cheese claim idiotic. Gee, you think? And I suspect that you would bitterly defend Scott if he were to claim that the moon was made of cream cheese.
I have seen so many absolutly ludicrous assertions and ideas regurgitated in true propaganda parrot fassion on this site alone it is amazing you can even say something like that. On a global warming thread a wingnut told us that global warming itself was bunk because if all the ice in the world melted it wouldnt raise the ocean levels one inch. An idea so utterly ridiculous it would embarrass the most feeble minded person I can think of, his evidence was that if you let the ice in a glass of ice water melt it wouldnt raise the level of water in the glass. This of course ignores the very pertinent FACT that most of the worlds ice isnt IN the ocean but on LAND. Many of the wingnut variety dont do ANY actual thinking about information at all the only PARROT it. Your assertion is without merit.
Well it didn't snow for Christmas here in Massachusetts. And it's been unseasonably warm.
We've all been *joking* that IF this is due to global warming...we love it!
*JOKING* being the operative word.
I gotta agree with Tommy here, THIS was just silly banter by a guy pretending to be a meteorologist. No one with an IQ over 60 is gonna think he's an expert on the topic.
BTW, I spent the past week posting over at News Hounds...great bunch of people over there. The Liberals were especially nice to me 0:-) I'm gonna see IF I can swing both sites.
Their trolls would knock your socks off!! Be grateful, the so called "trolls" here at MMFA are TAME compared to what's over there.
Anyway it was fun, BUT it's nice to be home ;-)
Please jeter, I beg you!!......don't leave here!! Your voice of reason and unbiased views are needed, (at least by me).........if you abandon us I will be forced to hunt you down in Mass and block that "other site" from your computer.
Thanks for your opinions, and Happy New Year!!
Happy News Years to you too!!
I'm NOT going anywhere! I just took a sort of "busman's holiday" by posting over at News Hounds during MMFA's Christmas break. My FIRST allegiance is here [ok other than you that MIGHT make a few others happy]
I'll probably post over at News Hounds on occasion, BUT MMFA is HOME...
*Now you gotta promise me YOU won't take off either!*
But I love both you guys. Just so we dont misunderstand each other its still on.
when gilligan's island was on, there were people who called the coast guard to report a group of people stuck on an island. there are going to be a certain amount of people who listen to him. it is clearly misinformation. do you deny he is disputing global warming, or at least creating doubt about it?
When you start using "Gilligans Island" as backup for your argument?............it kinda strains your credibility, just a tad. What's next - investment advice from Mr. Howell? Hey I know, let's ask the Professor about global warming..........after all, the batteries in his portable radio lasted three or four television seasons - he must have done something right.
try staying on the subject. i asked him whether or not scott was denying global warming. you or he can answer.
PROOF, Factual Proof there is Global Warming?
that you would ever, by any stretch of the imagination, accept.
sadly
to deflect from your buddy tommy. i await his answer.
Evil, I'd lilke to challenge you to first, watch Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", then second, come back here and point out where he is wrong.
This is not a matter of faith, the facts are right there for all to see.
I will do that.
The idea of "proof" is not one that, generally, is of concern to science. Attorneys, detectives, and logicians (and blog trolls ahem) focus on proofs; scientists are interested in formulating theories that explain phenomena in the real world.
A good theory should be testable; that is, there should be a "model" of the climate that should produce a reasonable depiction of our current climate given historical data. That model could then be used to provide predictions of how the climate would behave in the future, given certain conditions.
None of this rises to the level of "proof" one would expect of, say, crime shows and courtroom dramas. However, when all the science is going one way, just what should the threshold be before taking any action, any action at all?
Is there any evidence to show the risks of taking action outweigh the risk of doing nothing? I know of none.
Wwll pu, thanks. I believe that we are affecting the earth in some way, no doubt. But to think in 20 years we will not breath is rediculous.
The news says, "Dont burn fires tonight"
WTF? Pay PG&E instead? BS. I am not going to listen to that crap. The world is allowed to change without our permission.
...are both ridiculous. I don't know who is saying we won't breathe in 20 years, but I agree that overstating the issue is not helpful.
Unfortunately, we have a far bigger problem with people making light of the situation. Willard Scott is far from the only problem in this regard, but I think it is worthwhile to react to even such an innocuous comment.
Even if the science is entirely wrong, acting now is like buying an insurance policy you didn't need in the first place. Better, because at least in this case we get cleaner air for the money.
Which is a good thing regardless, isn't it?
for oil and other companies who claim that 'proponents' of Global Warming as much as say things like not being able to breath in 20 years. In other words it is a lie, and of course idiotcon and tommy the terrorist and needs a helmet have no trouble at all in passing on lies.
which aired on NATIONAL radio...the point is many people believe what they hear with thinking critically..
And still you beat me to it, sorry I guess I should have read the whole thread.
Talk about missing the point.
The panic caused by Orson Welles reading War of the Worlds on radio. Its actually a fairly famous book. I guess saying we are being invaded by Martians ISNT idiotic?
Are you pulling my leg? [when gilligan's island was on, there were people who called the coast guard to report a group of people stuck on an island]
Ok well there are a certain number of imbeciles among us I guess ;-)
IMO, Willard Scott was joking around about Global Warming--just as we did here in Massachusetts because of the lack of snow and high [for winter] temperatures. He never actually gave HIS opinion--and I think it's a stretch to say he's denying/disputing it exists simply because he asked Vieira if she was a "global warming fan" because of the *odd* weather in some locals, and the *normal* weather in others.
the point was there are a lot of people who believe whatever they see on tv. and if he was not disputing global warming, why did he phrase the questions the way he did? if you don't see what he was doing as questioning the theory of global warming, we must speak two different languages.
Did you watch the video clip?
There really was NOTHING nefarious in the way Scott asked the question. And I think the weather lately [here on the East coast] does beg the question --is it due to Global Warming? BUT then you see VERY normal winter weather on the other side of the Mississippi and think...Global warming? Where?
I'm afraid you & I are just not gonna come to an agreement on this topic.
I don't think Scott was pushing any agenda. Or even offering a PERSONAL opinion.
i'm not. i'm reading what he said. he expressed doubt about global warming because there were two snowstorms in denver. listen to what he said, read it, it doesn't matter. he's expressing doubt about global warming.
I read it first, then watched the video.
All the guy did was POINT out the obvious. And without projecting his PERSONAL viewpoint. He said, and rightfully so, that blaming the weather conditions on Global warming probably depended on where you lived. And he was chuckling. THIS was NOT a serious discussion.
I've been on the East coast my entire life. We've had warm winters & we've had blistering cold snowy winters. This has been going on since I was a kid.
I think accusing Scott of denying that Global warming exists because of this rather benign banter during this short segment is a s--t--r--e--t--c--h
it's a stretch to say because he was chuckling that meant he was not serious. he used the words "global warming" and then when on to basically say nothing to worry about because it's warm here but it's cold there. meredith pretty much said she bought into the idea of global warming and he tried to say this is all pretty normal. you cannot predict global warming by one or two events, but he went out of his way to dismiss the idea of global warming. i think it's a stretch to see it any other way.
not when on.
Then he said ..In my OPINION it calls global warming into doubt? If not he was asserting facts not in evidence and this is the very basic definition of misinformation.
"BUT then you see VERY normal winter weather on the other side of the Mississippi and think...Global warming? Where?"
No, you don't think that if you've done even the most cursory research on global warming. And even asking that question illustrates exactly why Tommy is so wrong when he claims that false ideas about global warming don't take hold with the public.
Normal winter weather does not disprove global warming, nor should it cause any reasonable person to question whether or not global warming is real. And by the way, I have no idea what "VERY normal winter weather" is. How can something be very normal?
I'll readily ADMIT I'm not an expert on Global warming AND I have NOT even done any real cursory research on the topic. I normally SKIP threads that deal with it. It's not a subject I've been terribly interested in. Now THAT probably makes you conclude I'm an ignorant person. Think what you'd like.
This thread deals with whether Scott was attempting to DENY Global warming exists. I believe all he was doing was just some benign bantering...NOT spreading ANTI-Global warming propaganda.
Some here are wound soooooo tight they can't tell the difference anymore between light-hearted banter & serious disscussions.
...because it spreads demonstrably false information and gives those who deny the science of global warming a dishonest way to put forth their argument. Just because it was a lame attempt at a joke doesn't make what he said harmless and it certainly doesn't prevent others from repeating it as fact. The premise of his joke ("Are you[...]a global-warming fan? Do you believe in global warming?") is complete nonsense. What if he asked her if she believed in evolutionary science? His message is clear. He believes that the science is still up for debate, and he clearly believes that cold winter weather is evidence that disputes the science. He's wrong on all counts, and a chuckle doesn't make it any less wrong.
Well, there you go...did Scott's words contribute at all to your perception of the winter being normal west of the Mississippi? If so, then he contributed to to a misperception. The Denver snow storms have been anything but normal.
The last time Denver had back-to-back snow storms was March of 1990. (...and I recall that those two snow storms were much smaller.)
December 2006 was the snowiest since 1913.
The last snow was unusually wet (high water content) for December. That's probably not readily verifiable. All I can offer is my first hand experience.
Does all the snow mean that Denver is getting colder? No. As another poster noted, the average mean temperature for December was higher than average. The higher temperatures are actually more conducive to precipitation. Thus, Denver typically receives more snow in March and April than it does in December.
I guess one might wonder if all of this unusual precipitation is really a good thing. If you're concerned about forest fires, then - sure - it's great. However, don't mention that to the folks on the plains who are (still) receiving air drops from the National Guard because the delivery trucks couldn't reach the grocery stores.
Adding energy to a system leads to more variability. Coping with that variability may very well be a significant unaccounted cost of global warming.
Gee, you know, there should be standards for news programs. Even when doing the weather. You know, maybe they could call 'em ... I dunno... journalistic standards?
Let me know if you have any attribution or if it's just urban legend.
"Save them, save them, none of the Professor's schemes ever work!!"
if you're asking me. it's something i read years ago said by one of the actors in the show. i have also read that people go to minneapolis and ask where mary's house is. and the answer of course is that mary tyler moore's house is a sound stage in hollywood.
There are way too many "warm and fuzzy" commentators popping off about stuff they don't know anything about.
On a positive note, the only people watching this program are the elderly (hence all the prostate, and incontenance ads) who are not long for the world.
Scientists do not apply opinions when they have data. Right wing-nuts use opinions as a source fact, since they are incapable of generating data or understanding data.
>>>"So let me get this straight, not even a morning weather guy can utter an off the cuff remark about global warming without hauling out a slew of scientific research to back up his "belief" statement? "<<<
Um, no one said Scott had to haul out researh. Just maybe a science-based opinion, or no opinion at all.
But hey---it's not as if the Today Show had an audience of millions, eh what? Not as if these viewers would expect an expert opinion from one of the nation's top, most trusted weather forecasters, right Tommy?
We couldn't do anything about fire and floods not too long ago...luckily "man" didn't give up, something to do with that line about the mother of all inventions.
what the dickens is a 'global warming fan'...I wish I came up with that because it is (unintenionally, on Scott's part) a clever pun, on several levels...
Just as pro-choice is re-framed as 'promoting' abortions or when defending a black person makes us 'n****-lovers' to racists.
The funny thing is that even in Denver, CO, temperatures in December, the month of the two big blizzards, are 1.40 degrees Fahrenheight WARMER than the average. The mean temperature in Denver, for December was 31.7 degrees F, which is 1.4 degrees warmer than the average historic temperature for Denver on the month of December.
The narrative for Denver reads:
So the claim by this person that "Denver and Colorado ... [are having] the coldest winter they've had in years", is simply false.
[link to www.crh.noaa.gov]
From the National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office.
A whole 1.4 degrees hotter then normal. I guess the earth is not allowed to change without worry?
...is not that interesting, and proves nothing. Long-term data is more instructive, but even that, by itself, is not sufficient to come up with a model of future climate. A theory that takes into account multiple factors (say, solar variability, urbanization, etc.), attempts to attribute them to a cause, and includes testable hypotheses, is much more useful when discussing climate change.
In short, I don't care if it's colder or warmer in Denver than it was last year. Weather is a chaotic system, you are going to have lots of interyear variability.
Look at the long-term data, if you feel you must, but at least try and understand the science before either defending or attacking it!
you are to damn reasonable! :0)
I know I'm boring and pedantic on this... I just take it so seriously that I feel like I can't even afford to bloviate (well, much anyway).
I'll get all snarky and snotty on something else... O'Reilly maybe. Just not on this subject.
I suggest you look into things before you soud off like this and sound so dumb a one degree average temperature change is significant. Now in the context of a month it might not mean much but overall it is a significant change
[link to oceanlink.island.net]
In 1816 (the year without a summer), the world experienced slightly less than a one degree Fahrenheit loss in temperature because of a volcano eruption. During the course of 1816, there was frost in New England in July, worldwide crop failures and many other problems relating to the very small drop in average temperatures.
COLDER.
The average temperature is what matters here.
Ping pong balls in outer Mongolia. Get back to us when you have something relevant to say.
Shorter Willard Scott:
Global warming is a farce promoted by "fans", and he can disprove it because--at any given time and in any given place--the weather will be colder than normal.
That settles that.
comes out of a bottle of Jack Daniel's.
MMFA took it for granted that it was true that Denver residents "are having] the coldest winter they've had in years, perhaps assuming that there were two big snowstorms, therefore it must have been one of the coldest winters ever". But this is false.
MMFA did a great job in explaining that local temperatures do not indicate a global trend, but if we look at the data, we can see that as recently as 2005, December was colder than it was in 2006. Expressed in Degrees Fahrenheit:
December 2005: 30.5 December 2006: 31.7
and even 2001 December in Denver was as cold as 2006 (31.7), and 2000 was even colder with an average temperature for December of 28.3 degrees.
There is a drop down menu which allows you to pick any month of any year and see related temperature for that city, in this case Denver/Boulder, CO, on any given month. [link to www.crh.noaa.gov]
the weather says that global warming exists... it's been in the 80s, which is not normal holiday weather - even for FL....
Howdy howdy MMFA and good posters! It is unusually warm here in the south (even in these cool appalachian mountains) but Willard doesn't mention this in his poo-pooing of global warming remarks. I wouldn't give too much credence to his off-the-cuff banter (have to go with Tommy on this one, sorry) though it is technically misleading.
Happy New Year MMFA! I salute you for your efforts to expose all the willful media misinformation in 2006! I think there has been a decent turn-around in media responsibility since November elections, thank goodness. Keep up the good work in '07! Plenty of misinformers will continue to give you reasons to challenge them, unfortunately. Congrats in Colorado too!
Maybe this year Congress will do its job (they should impeach, imo!)
Yes, but it's sad that the media will follow political directions. The media should be focused on fact-checking on both sides of the isle, not playing "follow the leader."
and I have to agree with comments decrying sleaze and titillation in the news, the tabloid type hype, tho its been around since the -80's.
media matters for off the cuff banter that is still "technically" misleading. can you get on that right away?
did not mean to rebuff MMFA (or you). Global warming is a real problem and it is so much a part of public consciousness that anytime the weather is weird, folks make "jokes" about it. Hey I saw "An Inconvienent Truth" and it is terrible how politicians in America have lagged in the world's answers to the problems. Industry has thwarted science for our dollarocracy for too long. The message is getting thru tho.
Is the SUV makers, the oil companies, or General Electric? Give up...? It's GE! GE does about everything, let's look...
* GE Commercial Finance o Capital Solutions o Corporate Financial Services o Healthcare Financial Services o Insurance o Real Estate * GE Industrial o Consumer & Industrial o Equipment Services o GE Fanuc Automation o Inspection Technologies o Plastics o Security o Sensing * GE Infrastructure o Aviation o Aviation Financial Services o Energy o Energy Financial Services o Oil & Gas o Transportation Systems (Formerly GE Rail) o Water * GE Money also known as GE Consumer Finance * GE Healthcare * NBC Universal o Network o Films o Television Stations o Entertainment Cable o Television Production o Sports/ Olympic Games o Theme Parks
Notice how they do OIL, GAS, ENERGY, AVIATION! So of course Willard Scott thinks global warming is a myth, he likes his job, and he looks like hell on camera. Gotta do something for the boss, right?
Has this guy ever read a paper?
And what, exactly, do weathermen know about the weather anyway?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. "
Willard Scott is useless.
I happen to live in Denver. I can tell you it is unusual for us to get this much snow. Usually it is very dry. We had also had a blizzard in '03. Last year we had record highs during Christmas-65 degrees on Christmas if memory serves. We had record highs over the summer. We also had record lows last January. It is ridiculous to point out this snowfall in Denver as a way of discrediting GW. Currently it is 50 plus degrees here-above normal. Global warming is going to be the greatest threat to humanity in the next two decades. When cities start disappearing under water I believe you will have economic disaster. I bring up economics bc it seems that garners the attention of some on the right. Compare Gore's stance on GW and Bush's. I think history will look back and be quite harsh on these disavowers of mountains of scientific evidence. The next IPCC report, I believe, is due out in a few months. The last one was in '01.
..to the wingnuts.
They don't believe in global warming for the simple reason Al Gore does.
That's it in a nutshell.
That's how stupid they are.
global climate change HAS BECOME a worldwide catastrophe the right-wing propagandists will have figured out a way to blame it all on Bill Clinton.
That time is here RIGHT NOW!
[link to drought.unl.edu]
Right now, the biggest humanitarian disaster on the globe is due in part to the drought in Sudan.
Today, there are numerous news items regarding the Ayles Ice Shelf which broke off a few months ago and contains 25 square miles of 3,000 year old ice. It's expected to cause damage next summer as the many icebergs it will break into will head for the oil fields in Beaufort Sea.
we are already seeing the effects of global climate change, but I was referring to that point where possibly a billion people become refugees, displaced by rising ocean levels, floods, droughts. etc.
Recently I met a friend I had not seen in a awhile and somehow global warming came up. He asked me if I was a "fan" of global warming. I was stunned. This is a smart guy, he manages multi-million dollar budgets makes critical decisions daily for the corporation he works for and he thinks global warming is based on faith. Thats how mis-information works, it's like a flu virus, once it takes hold it just spreads unless places like MMFA constantly call out misinformation whether intentionally spread or not.
Weather people rarely have serious discussions and it was suggested that it is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to call Willard out on this. (Geesh come to think of it news programs rarely have serious discussions - lack of entertainment value). Unfortunately for us they are all in positions of responsibility. They should know global warming is a fact and the critical question about global warming is what do we do about it. Choosing to ignore it is an option. Fine. Making believe it's a faith based inititive or a matter of opinion is not.
I must apologize to mefirst as I considered Scott's remarks to be innocuous on the surface but in realizing that he used such code-words in asking Viera whether she was a "fan" or "believer" , as others are attesting to these word usages, the insipid looks more insiduous. He did mention the warmer climes too (so obvious I did not notice, doh!).
Who the hell would be a "fan" anyway? " Fan" and "Believer" are code words to cast doubt on the science of global warming, further enabling politicians and media journalists to shirk their duties in addressing this problem of world proportion.
no apology needed. i was being my usual sarcastic self. actually, i do see the occasional article on here that i can possibly see as humor, so i don't argue when somebody says it's a joke. i just don't see this as good old willard saying something with a twinkle in his eye. have a good evening.
Why do people believe that an average tv weatherman is actually a graduated meteorologist? For three years, I was a tv weatherman in the midwest. I truly did not have a clue what Iwas doing or saying but I could read the scripts that came from the National Weather Service, as it was valled in the late 50's & early 60s. So I read the scripts, went on camera and repeated what I read and based on that I has become the trusted tv weatherman. And I was never Ronald MacDonald as Willard Scott was. I was Happy Patches, a kid's show clown. My God, if you want the weather from REAL weathermen, go to the weather channel.
What's so special about Denver? which by the way was slightly warmer than usual?
Pick New York instead. Or one of the many regions in which temperatures were warmer than normal
I don't know why I'm even arguing with the skeptics. Even if the whole nation were colder this year, one year does not indicate a trend.
If you haven't seen it yet today, visit the Thinkprogress.org website to see Fox News contributers arguing that the recent snowstorms in Denver shows a Northeast bias on globabl warming.
flying gradually higher as it went by.
That is, it was moving in the opposite direction that those gravity fans would predict.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my weekly scientist club meeting in Willard 's treehouse.
Who cares what's happening in Denver, aren't the glaciers melting??
MC
It melts and freezes again and again. Ask any geologist. You can see it in rock formations.
It also is happening on Mars:
[link to science.nasa.gov]
Are we to blame for Mars? Could it be the sun may be getting hotter?