How Liberals Debate

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course that will go unacknowledged.
Or someone will say NASA's an ultraliberal outfit with a vested interest in the wind turbine industry.

And


And please explain the logic behind thinking that pointing out one credible source proves there arent any other credible sources that might disagree

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Gee, will NASA do?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html

Right wing conservatives now DECLARE NASA A LEFT WING MEDIA WHORE!!!!


Just wait wiggles. Red State Rules will find some way to make this true. Even if he has to lie thru his teeth.

 

[red states rule]

The leader of the liberal media on CNN is living down to all expectations


CNN's Cafferty Calls Alberto Gonzales 'Waterboy' and 'Weasel'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 15, 2007 - 23:43.
Catching up on an item from Monday's The Situation Room on CNN, which has already been covered by conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, CNN's Jack Cafferty condescendingly labeled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "glorified waterboy for the White House" as he called for Gonzales to resign over the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys. After asking viewers to email him with their thoughts, Cafferty further called Gonzales a "weasel." Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Below is a complete transcript of Cafferty's comments on Alberto Gonzales from the March 12 The Situation Room on CNN:

Jack Cafferty, about 4:15 p.m.: "All right, for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should step down. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer also said Gonzales putting politics above the law and that he's shown more allegiance to President Bush than to Americans' legal rights. As examples, Schumer points to the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives, as well as the controversy surrounding the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors. Schumer isn't the only one questioning Gonzales. Democratic Senator Joe Biden says Gonzales has 'lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people.' A New York Times editorial says the Attorney General, quote, 'has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush's imperial presidency,' unquote. And it's not enough that the Attorney General of the United States is a glorified water boy for the White House. The Bush administration also is admitting now that its number one political hack, Karl Rove, passed along complaints from Republican lawmakers about U.S. attorneys to the Justice Department and to the White House Counsel's Office -- a political advisor playing a role in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. It's disgraceful. Here's the question: Should U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign?"

After providing his email address, Cafferty continued:

Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Blitzer: "You don't like him?"

Cafferty: "That's correct. I don't."

Blitzer: "Jack Cafferty will be back with your e-mail shortly. Thank you, Jack, for that."

Shortly before 5:00 p.m., Cafferty was back with viewer emails:

Blitzer: "Check in with Jack Cafferty for 'The Cafferty File.' Jack?"

Cafferty: "Several people in Congress, the United States Senate are suggesting that it's time for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. And we asked this hour if you thought that was a good idea. Don writes from Florida: 'Jack, a better question is: How soon should Alberto Gonzales resign? And what should be the punishment for his crimes?'

"Ralph writes: 'Nah. They'd just replace him with somebody more dangerous, somebody who knows how to run a police state without getting caught.'

"John in Philadelphia: 'Actually, he should have been fired. We all know how long that takes, though. Remember Rumsfeld? This worm is exactly the type of hatchet man that Bush likes. Don't ever do the people's work. Just do my dirty work.'

"Larisa in Seattle: 'Alberto Gonzales should have resigned yesterday or last year or two years ago. Look at the guy's legacy: torture memos, spying on Americans, and now substituting GOP cronies for lawyers who are supposed to be defending the public good and upholding the Constitution.'

"Robert writes from Ohio: 'Resign? He ought to be perp-walked.'

"J. writes: 'Jack, of course he ought to resign, but we both know he won't. His role right now is to cover the backside of the most corrupt administration in history, which is a tall order for such a little man.'

"Jody in Tennessee: 'Yeah, he ought to, but that won't happen. He's a Bush buddy. Every time I see him on TV, he looks like he's laughing at us.'

"And Jenny in New York: 'From this administration? No way. He's doing a heck of a job.'

"We got no letters suggesting that Alberto Gonzales was doing a great job, and that we were out of line by quoting some of the people, like Chuck Schumer in the Senate, who are calling for the man's resignation. Nobody wrote and said, 'This guy is doing a good job.'"

Blitzer: "Out of how many? About hundreds? Did we get thousands?"

Cafferty: "I don't know. Yeah, it was 800, 900 e-mails. I didn't read 800 or 900 of them, but I spun through probably a couple of hundred. There were none, none. Nobody wrote to say Alberto Gonzales is doing a good job as the Attorney General of the United States. I mean, that alone says something, doesn't it?"

Blitzer: "It certainly does. Jack, thank you very much."
http://newsbusters.org/node/11454

 

[red states rule]

And


And please explain the logic behind thinking that pointing out one credible source proves there arent any other credible sources that might disagree

Shame on you! Asking a liberal to use logic is like asking Ted Kennedy to go on the wagon

 

[red states rule]

Another example of the liberal media and how they ignore facts

CBS and NBC Pursue Gonzales and Rove, But ABC Raises Clinton and Lack of Illegality
Posted by Brent Baker on March 15, 2007 - 21:03.
ABC's World News separated itself from the media pack Thursday night. Though ABC's coverage was keyed to how e-mails supposedly show that Karl Rove was at “the center” of early 2005 discussions about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, anchor Charles Gibson pointed out how “these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?” Jan Crawford Greenburg answered, in a broadcast network evening newscast first, by informing viewers of how “President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration.”

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS continued the obsession on the story for the third night in a row. NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown breathlessly teased her lead, “The prosecutor purge: Did the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys start with inner circle adviser Karl Rove? If so, what now?” The CBS Evening News led with two stories on the subject, starting with Jim Axelrod on Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Next, Bob Orr looked at how Gonzales “was tangled in controversy" before becoming AG. “As the President's chief lawyer, Gonzales sanctioned the widespread use of warrant-less wiretaps,”Orr thundered, thus “allowing the government to snoop on Americans without court orders.” Plus, “he also approved the so-called 'torture memo'” and “under Bush-Gonzales policies, prisoners were allowed to be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay with no access to U.S. courts,” policies reflecting an “attitude,” Georgetown law professor David Cole charged, in Orr's words, which “led directly to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”

(My transcription of the CBS Evening News was impeded tonight by college basketball which aired instead of the CBS Evening News on the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, so I had to transcribe from the Web-cast.)

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the March 15 coverage on ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson announced:


"The Bush administration launched a new defense of its controversial decision to fire a handful of U.S. attorneys without making the reasons immediately clear. Today top White House aide Karl Rove said several of the prosecutors had been fired because they did not make administration policy their top priority. And he said the critics are motivated by politics."

Karl Rove, before a group in Alabama: "Now, we're at a point where people want to play politics with it. And that's fine. I would simply ask that everybody who's playing politics with this be asked to comment about what they think about the removal of 123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration, and see if they had the same superheated political rhetoric then that they're having now."

Gibson: "What Rove didn't say but we now know from White House e-mails released just tonight is that Karl Rove was more involved in the firing of U.S. attorneys than the administration has previously acknowledged. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg joins me now from Washington. Jan, I had a chance to read this e-mail that you first learned about today, and it does show that a lot of people at the White House, very early on, were discussing the firing of U.S. attorneys, including Rove, but do they show there was political motivation involved?"

Jan Crawford Greenburg, a former Chicago Tribune Supreme Court reporter who recently joined ABC News: "Well, the emails that were released tonight show that Rove was at the center of these discussions from the beginning along with Alberto Gonzales. These emails took place a month before Gonzales was confirmed as the Attorney General. Now, Rove was asking whether any decisions had been made about whether to fire the U.S. attorneys, whether they should just target certain ones, so these emails show he was in on that from the beginning."

Gibson: "But to come back to the point the White House makes, was anything necessarily wrong? These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?"

Greenburg: "Well, that's exactly right. And President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration. Of course, a President can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses. The problem for the White House now and the Justice Department is that these e-mails seem to suggest the White House, at least that's what Democratic Senators are saying tonight, the White House hasn't been forthcoming with how this whole plan began, and they show that Rove was in on it from the beginning."

Gibson: "This issue consumes Washington, and there will be many hearings on this with Karl Rove called to testify?"

Greenburg: "Karl Rove is unlikely to testify. The White House right now is discussing whether any White House officials will go up in the Hill and try to explain their role in the matter. The White House believes that goes to the core of separation of powers and executive privilege issues. So they now, there's a large contingent of people in the White House who think that they should not allow Rove or former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about those discussions. But as this email shows today, it will be difficult for them to resist because Democrats are stepping up the calls to hear from them."


My Wednesday NewsBusters rundown: “ABC and CBS Lead Again with Fired Attorneys, Paint Them as Victims of Bush Politics.” And my Tuesday posting: “Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11452

 

[red states rule]

Right wing conservatives now DECLARE NASA A LEFT WING MEDIA WHORE!!!!


Just wait wiggles. Red State Rules will find some way to make this true. Even if he has to lie thru his teeth.

CBS's Plante Claims No One Thought Clinton's U.S. Attorneys Firings Were Political
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 15, 2007 - 10:37.
CBS finally picked up the Clinton administration’s record of firing 93 federal prosecutors, but they still rushed to Clinton’s defense with false assertions. On the March 15 edition of "The Early Show," reporter Bill Plante sought to make this distinction between the Bush and Clinton firings.

"Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal."

Not true. The Washington Post reported on March 26, 1993 that Republicans did charge politics in President Clinton’s mass firing. An excerpt from the article:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe.

The transcript of the entire story is below.

HANNAH STORM: Thanks, Russ. There are growing calls for the president to get rid of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the wake of the prosecutor firing scandal. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more on that. Good morning, Bill."

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Hannah. That's right, all the Democrats on Capitol Hill and at least one Republican want the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales for the way the handling of the firing of those U.S. attorneys took place. The president is defending Gonzales for now, but he's leaving himself room to change his mind, if necessary.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH: Mistakes were made and I'm frankly not happy about them. Because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the president.

PLANTE: Democrats in Congress charge at least some of the eight US attorneys were fired for political reasons. The president denied that and said that he told Gonzales he needs to set the record straight.

BUSH: We talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made.

PLANTE: Congressional Democrats are threatening to subpoena former White House counsel Harriet Miers and political counselor Karl Rove.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We just want all the facts to come out. If some bad things were done, they should come to light.

PLANTE: Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal.

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOHN MCKAY: I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign and I was given no reasons.

PLANTE: Former US attorney John McKay was fired in December for reasons that he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but everything to do with how he didn't play politics.

MCKAY: Any individual prosecutor is replaceable. What's not replaceable is our reputation for fairness, our reputation for independence from political influences.

PLANTE: The 93 U.S. Attorneys are the government's prosecutors.

ANDREW COHEN, CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: They are the backbone of the federal legal system because they take the policies and the laws and they implement them and they enforce them.

PLANTE: The question now is whether the White House will allow Miers, the former counsel, and Rove to testify. Fred Fielding, who is now the White House counsel, went to Capitol Hill yesterday. He's a veteran of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to see what could be worked out. So we'll wait and find out soon, Hannah.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11439

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Ya know, if we wanted to read newsbusters.org, we could just visit the site.

 

[red states rule]

Ya know, if we wanted to read newsbusters.org, we could just visit the site.

Are the posts bothering you?

Ok How about the Hill? here is one story the liberal media is sure to avoid or at least play down

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC
By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this week’s annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-03-13.html

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Are the posts bothering you?

Not at all. Merely pointing out that if I wanted to read newsbusters, I would go to newsbusters. I realize you get some sort of high pasting every other story they put up.

Ok How about the Hill? here is one story the liberal media is sure to avoid or at least play down

Sure, at least it's a different site, though I'm not sure I should encourage your propensity for hitting you "Ctrl" and "v" keys any more then you already do.

 

[red states rule]

Not at all. Merely pointing out that if I wanted to read newsbusters, I would go to newsbusters. I realize you get some sort of high pasting every other story they put up.Sure, at least it's a different site, though I'm not sure I should encourage your propensity for hitting you "Ctrl" and "v" keys any more then you already do.

It is the posts are topic related or I strat a thread based on one of the atricles. I find the site very good at shwoing the liberal bias in the media

The bias is so slanted to the left, the media had given up on even a hint of objectivity

 

[wiggles]

And


And please explain the logic behind thinking that pointing out one credible source proves there arent any other credible sources that might disagree

show me one.

and I'll show you their ties to the fossil fuel industry.

 

[red states rule]

Consensus My Eye: Global Warming Skeptics Win NYC Debate With Believers
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 16, 2007 - 10:53.
You probably didn’t hear about a rather topical debate concerning man’s role in global warming that took place in New York City Wednesday night.

Want to know why the media will likely ignore this fascinating event? Well, because the panel of skeptics beat the believers.

How large was the victory?

Well, before the debate took place, the tough New York crowd was polled, and the results showed that they believed global warming was a crisis by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent. However, after the debate, this changed to the crowd feeling it wasn’t a crisis, with skeptics topping believers 46 to 42 percent.

So much for consensus, huh? As reported by Marc Morano at the EPW blog (emphasis added throughout):

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

[…]

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."

The evening was not without well-timed jabs at hypocrites like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his adoring fans in Hollywood who preach to the populace the need for a change in energy usage while they use the planet’s natural resources at a staggering clip:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.

My sentiments exactly. And, Crichton appeared to really want to drive this hypocrisy home:

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott stated:

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

And, MIT professor Richard Lindzen declared:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

Any questions about why the media ignored this New York, New York debate? After all, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra, if you can make your point there, you can make it anywhere!!!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11461

 

[wiggles]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html

 

[wiggles]

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

 

[red states rule]

New Gallup Poll: Americans Not Nearly as Concerned About Global Warming as Al Gore
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 13, 2007 - 10:46.
March 12, 2007, was a lousy day for soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of global warming alarmists.

Shortly before the publishing of a New York Times article discrediting some of the junk science on display in his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” a poll was released by the Gallup Organization with the damning headline:

To Americans, The Risks of Global Warming Are Not Imminent

Daniel Powter better get ready, for this certainly wasn't a fine beginning of the week for the man who would be global warming king (emphasis mine throughout):

[O]nly a small fraction of the public names global warming in unaided measures of perceived problems facing the nation or as a top government priority. Although a majority of Americans say they are at least fairly worried about global warming, the issue ranks near the bottom of other environmental issues rated.

Awwwww. And Al and his buddies spent so much time and money on this issue. What a shame. Yet, that wasn’t the end to Gallup’s findings:

Generally speaking, not much more than one-third of Americans are "very worried" about any of the seven effects of global warming measured in the survey… All in all, Americans don't seem to consider global warming an imminent threat to the welfare of the planet -- thus supporting the idea that while Americans may sincerely worry about the problem, it is not a burning or top-of-mind issue for them.”

It appears that regardless of the desk-pounding by the media, the left, and Dr. Gore about a consensus on this issue, America isn’t buying it.

Methinks Al needs a little Daniel Powter to cheer him up. All together now:

Where is the moment we needed the most
You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost
They tell me your blue skies fade to gray
They tell me your passion's gone away
And I don't need no carryin' on

You stand in the line just to hit a new lowYou're faking a smile with the coffee you go
You tell me your life's been way off line
You're falling to pieces every timeAnd I don't need no carryin' on

Because you had a bad day
You're taking one downYou sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lieYou work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
You had a bad day
Will you need a blue sky holiday?
The point is they laugh at what you say
And I don't need no carryin' on

You had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lieYou work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day

 

[wiggles]

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2523

 

[red states rule]

Al Gore’s Really Inconvenient Truth: Even the NY Times is Growing Skeptical
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 12, 2007 - 22:58.
Question: When you’re a liberal, how do you know if you’re on thin ice, especially the kind that you’re claiming is melting all over the planet due to global warming?

Answer: When even papers like the New York Times are publishing articles skeptical of the junk science you’ve been peddling across the questionably warming globe.

Sure, soon-to-be-Dr. Gore has kind of won an Oscar for his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” even though all he got to take home that evening was Tipper and all the food she was able to stuff into her pocketbook at the buffets thrown in his honor.

However, it must have been a quite shock to find out that the leftists working for Punch Sulzberger were going to publish a not so adoring article after all that oohing and aahing Gore received from the Hollywood elites just days prior (h/t Drudge, emphasis mine throughout):

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Real data? We don’t need no stinkin’ real data. We don’t need to show you our data. The article deliciously continued:

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

Amazing. The New York Times is suggesting that Dr. Gore might have exaggerated his claims and gone beyond scientific evidence? Somebody other than Punch should pinch me.

Yet, maybe even better were Gore’s absurd explanations for the disparities between his slide presentation and actual science:

In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”

We have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions? Excuse me, doctor, but didn’t you claim that the questions are over, and that a consensus now agrees with your views? Furthermore, isn’t anyone that questions man’s role in this akin to a Holocaust denier much as your friend Ellen Goodman stated? As such, who do you suggest should be asking these questions given answers you've already presented as being unassailable?

Regardless of the answers, conceivably the most shocking element concerning this article was not only how many skeptics were quoted, but also how much space was given to their views. Here is a sampling of the fifteen consecutive paragraphs of uninterrupted contrary opinions presented by the Times:

While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”

[...]

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

[...]

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Wow. That’s a lot of skeptics quoted by one of the most liberal newspapers in America, wouldn’t you agree?

I wonder what this means for the so-called consensus. Regardless, Dr. Gore must be wondering if he's back in Florida counting chads.

 

[wiggles]

Oooo! Gallup public opinion polls and more NewsBusters editorials. Yeah that totally discredits NASA and the National Academy of Sciences

 

[red states rule]

Libs bellow how Fox News is biased meanwhile these same libs have no problem seeing George Stephanopoulos having his own show and a ABC political expert

To libs, this is an objective reporter



Stephanopoulos's Double Standard: 'Something Smells Fishy' in Bush Firings, But...
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 16, 2007 - 12:31.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys on Wednesday, telling him that “something does seem fishy here,” suggesting that the Bush White House was punishing U.S. Attorneys who were not pursuing a GOP-friendly agenda.

But as a White House spokesman back in 1993, Stephanopoulos faced exactly the same question over President Clinton’s decision to fire U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens along with the other 92 U.S. Attorneys. “There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed,” a reporter told Stephanopoulos in a March 25, 1993 briefing. Referring to the investigation into House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski for embezzling money from the House Post Office, a reporter asked, “Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?”

From the podium, spokesman Stephanopoulos coolly replied, “I don't think so, no.”

In his political memoir, “All Too Human,” Stephanopoulos relayed the attitude Clinton insiders had toward Stephens, who said in March 1993 he was within 30 days of finishing the Rostenkowski investigation. (With Stephens off the case, the indictment came 14 months later, in May 1994.) Hearing that Stephens had been named by a government agency to look into the Clinton’s Whitewater land deal, Stephanopoulos recalled his rage: “How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen?”

Stephanopoulos voiced his outrage to Treasury Department official Josh Steiner, who told him there was no way to remove Stephens from the case. Stephanopoulos’ seeming attempt to affect the Whitewater investigation actually earned him a trip to the grand jury room, although he was never indicted.

MRC analyst Scott Whitlock took down Stephanopoulos’s accusatory questions to Gonzales from the March 14 Good Morning America:


Stephanopoulos: "But Mr. Attorney General, something does seem fishy here. Five of the eight who were dismissed were involved in high profile political corruption cases. Four were going after Republicans accused of corruption or had gone after Republicans. One was being complained about because he wasn't going after Democrats aggressively enough. So it really does appear here, at least, like you singled out prosecutors that weren't with the program."

Stephanopoulos: "And if it turns out that evidence of political interference does comes up in these e-mails and other communications, will you resign?"

Now back up to March 25, 1993, when the roles were reversed, with Republicans charging that the Clinton White House had fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in part to stall the Rostenkowski investigation. Here’s the relevant portion of Stephanopoulos’s White House briefing (unfortunately, the Federal News Service transcript retrieved via Nexis doesn’t include the names or news organizations of the reporters asking the questions):

Q It has been the custom in the past for holdover US attorneys to stay on until their successors were nominated or even in place. Why was that not done in this case?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, in this case, we thought it was most appropriate to make sure that everybody was clear from the start that the President would be making his own choices. There will be interim appointments in the meantime, largely from the career service.

Q There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed. In that case --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't know if -- I don't think that's true.

Q People in the field say that that is a tradition. And Jay Stephens --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And there are many others who say it's not.

Q -- Jay Stephens believes that there should be a presumption that he remain on until the Rostenkowski case is finished. Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think so, no.

Q Well, don't you have some concern that this might either damage that case or --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all. We expect -- not at all. We expect it will go forward. We expect that the investigation will continue to go forward. We expect that a good career person will be there in the interim until the President's appointment is in place and the investigations certainly will go forward.

Q Are you contradicting what Dee Dee said yesterday, that Janet Reno did not mean that all the US attorneys should clear out their desks immediately, that --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. There's a possibility that some won't have to do it immediately, I believe. I know that there is at least some people who are in the middle of trials right now who will not be replaced, but I think the bulk of them will be replaced over the next several weeks.

Q Well, we got the clear impression that we were being told yesterday that we had misinterpreted Reno's remarks, that while they were asking for letters of resignation, that it wasn't a wholesale clearing out all at once.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've asked for the letters of resignation. We will be looking at these at a case-by-case basis. I think the presumption should be that the US attorneys in place will go. There might be special circumstances where some will stay.

Q How soon, what kind of timetable are you talking about?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we're working on it right now.

Q Why isn't Stephens a special circumstance?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, there are investigations going on across the country. This is one of many investigations. We expect that it will continue with the career people in place.

Q (Off mike) -- worried at all about a question of appearances here with so prominent a Democrat, and the focus here? I mean, don't you think --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: We are confident -- we have confidence in the career attorneys at the US Attorneys Office to continue this investigation.

And here’s how Stephanopoulos recalled the U.S. Attorneys firings and his attitude toward Stephens on page 247 of “All Too Human.” Stephanopoulos was explaining his phone call to Josh Steiner, a call that was later investigated by Special Counsel Robert Fiske as a possibly improper attempt to influence the Whitewater investigation (emphasis in the original):

“I got something else off my chest to Josh. I had heard that Jay Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, might have been appointed by the RTC [the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to deal with S&L failures] to investigate the finances of Whitewater, and I couldn’t believe it was true. When Clinton took office, he had followed the practice of his predecessors and asked each U.S. attorney, including Stephens, to submit a pro-forma resignation. Instead of quietly submitting his resignation letter like his colleagues, Stephens had called a press conference and gone on Nightline to accuse Clinton of ‘obstructing justice,’ saying that the president was trying to derail his investigation of Democratic congressman Dan Rostenkowski. How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen? I blew up at Josh and demanded to know how such an unfair choice came to be made and wether the decision was final....”
So if Stephens should be regarded as “a Clinton hater” for publicly challenging his removal from a sensitive investigation of an important House Democrat, and therefore had “a clear conflict” that meant he was too prejudiced to be trusted with an investigation, what would Stephanopoulos say about fired U.S. Attorneys like Washington state’s John McKay, who are going on TV to complain about their removal? Are they obvious “Bush haters” who are so prejudiced that their complaining should be dismissed out of hand?

Or are we to trust that Stephanopoulos has purged every partisan instinct from his body, and is unencumbered by any kind of "clear conflict" that should worry conservatives today?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11466

 

[red states rule]

Oooo! Gallup public opinion polls and more NewsBusters editorials. Yeah that totally discredits NASA and the National Academy of Sciences

I see are obsessd with the myth of global warming

Right now I am getting ten inches of global warming - 48 hours ago it was 75 and sunny

If the Earth is burning up I wish it would start and get rid of this fucking snow