'Today' Blames Flooding in Britain on Global Warming

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by red states rule, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The liberal media is once again putting out the myth pf global warming is to balme for all the bad weather - no matter where it happens


    'Today' Blames Flooding in Britain on Global Warming
    By Geoffrey Dickens | July 23, 2007 - 09:28 ET
    The ever present boogeyman that, in the media's eyes, is global warming, reared its ugly head again today. Reporting from England on the rising flood waters there, NBC's Keith Miller, on this morning's 'Today' show, offered the following observation:

    Keith Miller: "The damage from the flood waters is already estimated to be more than $100 million. Roads are out, the electricity supply has failed and the water supply is now contaminated. The people of Britain are all asking the same question today, could this be global warming?"
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffr.../today-blames-flooding-britain-global-warming
     
  2. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Over at CNN - the global warming debate is over.


    CNN's O'Brien Insists Global Warming Debate Is Over
    By Brad Wilmouth | July 23, 2007 - 00:04 ET
    On the Friday July 20 The Situation Room on CNN, substitute anchor Miles O'Brien insisted that, regarding the role of carbon emissions in global warming, "the scientific debate is over," as he lectured former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts on the subject. In response to Watts' contention that "I don't believe the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions," O'Brien responded: "Well, you're not paying attention to the science, J.C. You're definitely not paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over, J.C., we're done." (Transcript follows)

    The exchange came at about 4:55 p.m. during a segment in which O'Brien, who also serves as CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent, was hosting a discussion with Watts and former Clinton advisor Paul Begala on the presidential race. The discussion turned to global warming after Begala suggested that McCain should run on his "progressive view" on global warming. The exchange between O'Brien and Watts occurred after Watts voiced his doubts that carbon emissions are responsible for global warming.

    J.C. WATTS: I can't talk for John McCain, but I can talk for me. I don't believe the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions.

    MILES O'BRIEN: Well, you're not paying attention to the science, J.C. You're definitely not paying attention.

    WATTS: You've got science on both sides of this.

    O'BRIEN: No, you don't. No, you don't. The scientific debate is over, J.C., we're done.

    WATTS: It's your position.

    O'BRIEN: No, no, no. That's not, that's science. That is science. The science is out there.

    WATTS: It's political science. It's political science.


    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/07/23/cnns-obrien-insists-global-warming-debate-over
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Did you miss the poll in the other thread? 56% of whoever the Hell they polled for this answer blame REPUBLICANS for global warming; therefore, the floods in Britain are Bush's fault.

    Try to get with the program ....:eusa_whistle:
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and that is an example of one reason that polls are trashed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    ITA. Why I don't consider them credible. At first I thought I wanted to know who that 56% was, then thought better of it. No, I REALLY don't.:eusa_wall:
     
  6. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    I believe it is called Bush Derangement Syndrome
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    it would be different if all polls came out with how many and questions, they don't. Then there are those that are quite transparent, with big names. The post sensational headlines. Then when called out, change them, without explanations.
     
  8. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Paper: Hot Temps in Reno Likely Result of Man-Made Global Warming
    By Pam Meister | July 25, 2007 - 14:48 ET
    In an article written for the Reno-Gazette Journal, the implication is that hotter temperatures in the city can be laid on the doorstep of man-caused global warming. The basis for the article is a nationwide study by U.S. PIRG, an "environmental advocacy group."

    Among its findings:

    In 2006, Reno experienced 74 days where the temperature hit at least 90 degrees -- 21 days more than the historical average.
    In 2006, the average temperature was 3.3 degrees above normal in Reno.
    Between 2000 and 2006, Reno's average temperature was 3.4 degrees above the 30-year average, the second-highest reading in the nation for the period.
    Nationally, the average temperature during the summer of 2006 was at least half a degree above the 30-year average at 82 percent of locations studied.
    There are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of this article -- the main one being U.S. PIRG. The name sounds really official, right? The kind of group you can trust to be impartial in its analysis? In reality, it's a group with an agenda. Their recent accomplishments include stopping Congress from opening ANWR for oil drilling "[d]espite the power and influence of the Bush administration and ExxonMobil," "standing up to the Bush administration’s attempts to remove protections for roadless areas in our national forests" and "stopp[ing] the Bush administration’s EPA from allowing partially treated sewage to flow into waterways across the country, including the Great Lakes." Can you spot a trend?

    Also, there is a noticable lack of opposite views from other scientific entities. Author Jeff Delong tried, but not hard enough:

    Kelly Redmond, a scientist at the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, was unavailable to comment on the report. But in an earlier interview concerning climate change, Redmond said last summer's high temperatures were part of a noticeable trend across the region.


    A "noticable trend." While this says nothing specific, the way it's worded seems to infer that were Redmond available, she would indeed agree with the study. And was there really no one else available for comment? Reno is home to the University of Nevada Reno. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists available for comment, and one or two of them might actually have a quibble or two with U.S. PIRG's findings. But, alas, we'll never know by reading this article.

    I have a few other questions about the findings of the study. (Note: I was born in Reno and lived there for most of my childhood.) While quotes about the study naturally focus on Reno (it's being reported in Reno's main newspaper, after all), I would be interested to know the stats for the rest of the state. Nevada is the 7th largest state in the union, and much of it is lightly inhabited. (In fact, over 90% of the state is under federal control.) The main population centers are the Reno and Carson City areas, and Las Vegas. All of these areas have seen population booms within the past 15-20 years. Now, according to the U.S. PIRG release,

    only a small portion of the temperature increases cited in the report can be attributed to the so-called "urban heat island" effect, in which heat is retained in the concrete of urbanized areas.


    Does this take into account the huge surge in population in these areas? The last time I was in Reno, I was shocked to see how much development there was since I lived there, and I'm sure it's even more surprising today. How would the "urban heat island" effect compare today with, say, 20 years ago?

    I'd say these questions are worth another article.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pam-me...ps-reno-likely-result-man-made-global-warming
     

Share This Page