CNN's O'Brien Insists Global Warming Debate Is Over

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
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.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Go back to sleep, Miles.

July 23, 2007 - 00:10 ET by fitzfong

Go back to sleep, Miles.

MIles O'Brien

July 23, 2007 - 07:40 ET by PShannon

Immedistely after Katrina hit Chocolate City, Miles O'Brien was out in front of the TV camera denouncing the administration for not having rescuers and materiel all over New Orleans -- he was absolutely disgusting.

I place the blame for all the subsequent criticisims directly on him. 

global warming consensus?

July 23, 2007 - 00:52 ET by Pragmatic-Man

Some consensus opinions throughout history:

Flat earth

The Great Southern Continent (filling the South Pacific)

Witchcraft

Earth is the center of universe

Global warming

If Gore gets his way, and we have taxes levied in regards to global warming, I believe we can defeat the legislation in the Supreme Court, using the separation of church and state. Face it, this AGW is a religion.

It has a messiah, all persons are born into sin, and everybody has a path to redemption, before the end-times. It has all the bases covered. They even have a messianic text, an "Inconvenient Truth".

}}}----> One Exception Pragman

July 23, 2007 - 03:29 ET by Cool Arrow

Remember the Ozone Hole?  We weren't hard to educate when it was scientifically demonstrated that CFC's actually did have an effect on the environment.

In the face of real science, humans aren't all that hard to convince.  But start talking "consensus" and ears better be pricking up. 

Bend over here it comes again BOHICA

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

}}}----> Miles O'brien

July 23, 2007 - 03:20 ET by Cool Arrow

JC Watts kicked Texas' butt a couple of times as an OU Sooner.  We can respect a fair fight.  If he decided to take up residence in Texas, I'd vote for him for Senate in a heartbeat.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

I believe Oklahoma also hs

July 23, 2007 - 08:35 ET by danbo

I believe Oklahoma also hs David Deming. Geologist and geophysicist who stated before congress.  Source

In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science.  In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years.  The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio.  He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published.  I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change.  He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century.  Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades.  But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.  It had to be "gotten rid of."

In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature."

Let's see who said the science is settled. Scientists? Or, used climate salemen at CNN. 

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

In other words...

July 23, 2007 - 05:46 ET by goldenthroat

O'Brien might as well have been chanting the liberal mantra "Our minds are made up. Don't confuse us with the facts!"

"Yeah, that's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan

Leading to an Ossified society

July 23, 2007 - 05:55 ET by ThisnThat

This is an exercise in extreme journalistic prejudice and political correctness. This person has no desire for intellectual query, has substituted passion for reason, and is willing to march to the gates of hell for his gods: Al Gore, 1984, and the Progressive Way. I swear, he and his cronies must get up every morning, check their common sense and excuse for brains at the door, and go to work each day wearing electronic skull-caps so as to receive their constant, centralized instructions and talking points.

}}}----> MILES from nowhere

July 23, 2007 - 06:21 ET by Cool Arrow

STUPID PEOPLE!  There, I've said it.  It can no longer be denied.

When a person such as Miles Obrien can dogmantically proclaim "the science is settled" and the enlightened masses don't see a clear violation of "balanced reporting", we have a serious conceptual disconnect.

I don't recall Miles Obrien ever presenting his credentials as a serious critic of science.  Maybe we have the scientific observations, but it is not illogical to question the existence, cause(s), or methodology.

Good to see JC Watts on the tube again.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

"Mr O'Brien, that's

July 23, 2007 - 06:58 ET by kg

"Mr O'Brien, that's Congressman Watts to you!"

}}}----> kg

July 23, 2007 - 07:07 ET by Cool Arrow

Miles Obrien feels no need to refer to former Congressman Watts by his title because to him, the Congressman is a danger to the Democrat cause on a number of levels.

The best way to lose an

July 23, 2007 - 06:59 ET by Gat New York

The best way to lose an argument is to not engage in it.

}}}----> Gat?

July 23, 2007 - 07:07 ET by Cool Arrow

No, it's not!!

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

I'm speaking of the "science

July 23, 2007 - 08:35 ET by Gat New York

I'm speaking of the "science is settled" crowd who refuse to engage in any debate over countervailing facts.

}}}----> You got me Gat

July 23, 2007 - 08:40 ET by Cool Arrow

No offense intended, Gat.  I was just arguing with your statement about arguing.  Arguing for the sake of argument, you might say.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

    The horse is

July 23, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Beowulf

 

 

The horse is dead. Quit beating it. 

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

"SHUT UP !!", he explained.

July 23, 2007 - 09:00 ET by djvang

"SHUT UP !!", he explained.

Miles O'Brien is a cave dweller.

July 23, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Dave R

MILES O'BRIEN: 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.

Sorry Miles, it is you who isn't paying attention. This debate, thanks to similar statements made by others like Heidi Cullen over it the Weather Channel, is now raging and far from over.

Exactly which cave have you been residing in, Mr. Obrien?

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Adjusted vrs RawTempertures.

July 23, 2007 - 09:36 ET by danbo

Just found this graph, page 2, for New York Central Park.

July temps from 1909. In the raw data (averaging) there was a change of less than one degree for Central Park. That was prior to about the mid 60's and 70's. Since then the July temps have been flat to down.

However in the adjusted tempertures. The adjustments were lowering the tempertures by about 6 degrees as recently as the 80's. Yet the variance is now only a little over 2 degrees.

So any temperture increases in Central Park was not due to actual temperture increases but rather adjusted tempertures.

I'm getting to the point of wanting not adjusted tempertures but rather actual raw data. There's too much funny math here.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

Adjusted tempertures

July 23, 2007 - 09:42 ET by dagda

The graph is very revealing, however, which figures are being reported as the daily temperature?

 

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

As far as on the evening

July 23, 2007 - 10:03 ET by danbo

As far as on the evening weather report and in the daily paper. I suspect it's the raw. Why listen them if you look at the thermometer at your back door and see it's off that much.

The problem is when they start giving us charts of temperture trends and give us adjusted data.

Just found this on the tipping points. Gore keeps telling us there's a tipping point. And that there are more and worse droughts. Including his testimony before congress in March.

findings of Narisma et al. (2007), who analyzed "global historical rainfall observations to detect regions that have undergone large, sudden decreases in rainfall [that] are statistically significant at the 99% level, are persistent for at least ten years, and .. have magnitudes that are [mostly] 10% lower than the climatological normal (1901-2000 rainfall average)."

They found 30 ...

Among this major drought directory was the sudden and prolonged Sahel drought of Africa in the late 1960s, the United States Dust Bowl of the 1930s and Southwest drought of the 1950s (which also affected parts of Mexico), the strong and persistent droughts that occurred in northeast China in the 1920s, in Kazakhstan and regions of the former Soviet Union in the late 1930s, in southeast Australia in the late 1930s, and in southern Africa and eastern Europe in the 1980s, as well as the World War II droughts of 1937-1945 and the droughts that occurred over large regions of East India and Bangladesh in the 1950s.

With respect to the temporal distribution of the 30 severe and persistent droughts identified by Narisma et al., seven of them occurred during the first two decades of the 20th century (1901-1920), seven occurred during the next two decades (1921-1940), eight during the middle two decades of the century (1941-1960), but only five during the next two decades (1961-1980), and a mere three during the final two decades of the century (1981-2000), which is not at all what one would have expected if the climate-alarmist thesis that is propounded by Gore and his followers was correct.

Source

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

Al Gore's figures

July 23, 2007 - 10:09 ET by dagda

When Al Gore is doing his math calculations which set is he using? The adjusted or the raw?

 

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Read the fine print, when

July 23, 2007 - 10:17 ET by danbo

Read the fine print, when they use it. Adjusted.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

Say what?

October 15, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Galvanic

C'mon, dagda.  Gore doesn't do any math calculations.  He waits for his AGW friends to feed him data and long scientific words, appears in public to utter them, then retreats to resouding applause when he refuses to debate what he said.

Flat Earth Society

July 23, 2007 - 09:46 ET by dagda

The science was settled on the Flat Earth and that Pangea did not exist. I always get nervous when "science is settled." That means that investigations have ended. Just saw a 2 hour thing on the Little Ice Age. Science is not settled on that. How can the science be settled on global warming.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

hey dag -- like Count Drac

July 23, 2007 - 09:57 ET by Jack Bauer

hey dag -- like Count Drac this canard about 'science being settled' just will not die.

The moment anyone utters these silly, ignorant words should instantly render any opinion they utter to be without merit.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

We're done?????

July 23, 2007 - 11:42 ET by jimpryor99

Did Miles really say "we're done"?  When did he become a scientist?

Miles Obrien

July 23, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Cool Arrow

He's not a scientist, but he plays one on television.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

It's Over?

July 23, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Viper

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.

In my humble opinion, anyone who utters the words, "scientific debate is over" cannot be considered a journalist and is even less of a scientist.  The liberals ability to view themselves as experts and above reproach has never ceased to amaze me.  I guess the study that shows if you hear something an average of 7 times you will accept it as truth may adress the liberals ability to latch on to many of their far flung ideas.  This study must have used liberals as test subjects.  I find such a majority of the liberals/democrats condecending in their manner and discussions and their ability to hold a meaningful (adult) debate.   

7 times - to Libs

July 24, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Conservative Blues

Hillary has no chance in 2008.  Hillary has no chance in 2008. Hillary has no chance in 2008. Hillary has no chance in 2008. Hillary has no chance in 2008. Hillary has no chance in 2008. Hillary has no chance in 2008.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

"The science is out there." Agent Mulder, call your office.

October 15, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Galvanic

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.

It's obvious from this exchange that

(1) O'Brien can't distinguish scientific theory from scientific fact.  It's a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.  It's a theory that GW is prinicpally or significantly due to human activity.  Ironically, the British government could not convince a British court that 9 of the major contentions in AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH are proven, and in some case, the counter-claims are the actual facts.  

(2)  O'Brien has read/viewed nothing but Gore's talking points and film.  He parrots Gore's declaration that "The debate is over," when he should know damned well that as long as a phenomena is explained by theory vice proven fact, the debate is OPEN.  It is the DUTY of science to constantly review assumptions and processes.  Had we not done so, we might have believed the Chicken Littles of the '70s who told us we were rapidly descending into a new Ice Age.

If O'Brien was at all objective, he might ask himself why the Nobel Peace Prize winning spokesman for GW is a former C student & politician and not a PhD in climatology.

I haven't heard a member of the IPCC say that the debate is over; in fact, their 2007 report revises their earlier estimates significantly downwards, indicating that there is ample reason for questioning not only the models and data used, but the theory itself.