CBS's Smith to Bloomberg: 'Manhattan Will Be Underwater by 2050'

Photo of Kyle Drennen.

On Monday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Harry Smith interviewed New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg. The liberal mayor has followed in the footsteps of Al Gore and implored the government to take action to address an impending environmental crisis, saying "We need to do something now." To match Bloomberg’s alarmist rhetoric, Smith added "Manhattan will be underwater by 2050." Amusingly, even Bloomberg thought that assertion went too far, "There's a -- I don't know that Manhattan will be underwater, but certainly the environment's going to be a lot worse that we leave our children." Smith also pressed Bloomberg on a possible 2008 presidential run.

The interview began with Smith asking about Bloomberg’s proposal to impose a national carbon tax. Smith asked, "Who gets taxed?," to which Bloomberg responded, "People who generate carbon and put it into the air, that pollute the air that you breathe, and that I breathe, and that's causing worldwide changes over the long term in our environment." In other words, everyone. Far from challenging Bloomberg on how people would react to such a plan, Smith instead followed up with, "Something similar to this has been advocated for a long time, the sort of cap and trade...Why is yours better than theirs?" Smith’s assumption that Bloomberg’s plan is "better" is an interesting way of challenging such a policy.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Shifting into crisis mode, Smith next wondered, "Why this and why now, and how important do you feel it is to enact something like this as soon as possible?" To ease Smith’s fears, Bloomberg proclaimed that the debate was over, "Well, there's no question that we're damaging our environment...and I think everybody understands, the Administration, everybody else, that we are damaging our environment." An incredulous Smith quickly responded, "Do you think the Administration?" Perhaps Bloomberg’s best sound bite came at this moment with this great one-liner, "Yeah, I think that the dialogue has gone from 'this is a Communist plot,' to maybe we don't have to pay for it now..." That got a roaring laugh from Smith. Apparently anyone who is skeptical of Global Warming is just some paranoid right-winger who thinks it’s a "Communist plot."

In addition to helping tout Bloomberg’s big government solution to climate change, Smith also fawned over the New York Mayor as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. In a teaser at the top of the show, co-host Hannah Storm excitedly proclaimed:

Also coming up this morning, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is with us. He's on the cover of "Newsweek" out today as "The Billion-Dollar Wild Card" in the upcoming election. We'll ask him if he plans to be a candidate.

Smith hinted at the speculation to the "wildcard" himself:

Now, if I didn't know better, you could almost pull that out as a sound bite, and it could have sounded like something said by a presidential candidate....So, speaking of this notion of running for president and why these other candidates haven't said these very things, how frustrating is it for you that they don't say these things?

Well, that was about as subtle as a sledge hammer.

Nearing the end of the segment, a frustrated Smith continued to press Bloomberg, "You want to announce -- why won't you announce now?" What is it about liberal environmentalists that makes Harry Smith want to recruit them for the presidency? Like he did with Al Gore in May.

At the end of the segment, both Smith and co-host Julie Chen showed their approval of the environmentally friendly Bloomberg:

SMITH: Yeah, yeah. Alright, Mayor Bloomberg, thanks so much for being with us.

BLOOMBERG: Thanks for having me.

SMITH: Really appreciate it. I'm breathing easier already. Now here's Julie.

JULIE CHEN: Deep inhale.

All that breathing could be harmful to the environment and may be subject to tax under Bloomberg’s plan.

Here is the full transcript of the interview:

7:01AM TEASER:

HANNAH STORM: Also coming up this morning, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is with us. He's on the cover of Newsweek out today as "The Billion-Dollar Wild Card" in the upcoming election. We'll ask him if he plans to be a candidate.

7:21AM

HARRY SMITH: And New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, in our studio this morning, talking green and talking running for president.

7:30AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is taking on global warming, calling for a national carbon tax. He's also featured in the current issue of Newsweek magazine, and Mayor Bloomberg is with us this morning. Good morning.

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

SMITH: You gave this speech on Friday, the National Association of Mayors in Seattle, asking for a carbon tax. What is it exactly?

BLOOMBERG: Want to tax carbon and move the money over to reduce payroll taxes, so net-net we don't have any greater taxes, but we use our money more intelligently.

SMITH: Who gets taxed?

BLOOMBERG: People who generate carbon and put it into the air, that pollute the air that you breathe, and that I breathe, and that's causing worldwide changes over the long term in our environment.

SMITH: Something similar to this has been advocated for a long time, the sort of cap and trade. Big polluters would be -- have certain levels. If they get below them, then they could trade them to people who pollute more. A lot of people have said that's the way to go. Why is your's better than their's?

BLOOMBERG: Cap and trade says if you're a bad polluter, you can keep polluting and hurting the environment that your company is in, as long as somebody on the other side of the world reduces their carbon emissions. That may be good net-net for the world, but number one, I don't know wether they're going to do it overseas, and number two, doesn't help the people that live near your plant.

SMITH: Right. Why this and why now, and how important do you feel it is to enact something like this as soon as possible?

BLOOMBERG: Well, there's no question that we're damaging our environment. Here in New York City we've got a plan to plant a million trees, to reduce the number of cars on the streets, to make buildings pollute a lot less, to do a lot of things because we have a situation where our kids are going to the hospital with asthma rates higher than the national average, and I think everybody understands, the Administration, everybody else, that we are damaging our environment.

SMITH: Do you think the Administration?

BLOOMBERG: Yeah, I think that the dialogue has gone from 'this is a Communist plot,' [Harry Smith Laughs] to maybe we don't have to pay for it now, maybe I don't have to do it, let's argue about how to do it. Let's not do it unless everybody else does it. But the dialogue has switched from whether or not it exists, to what to do.

SMITH: On the other hand, you have states like California, New Jersey, even Florida, have said we want to reduce tail pipe emissions, everything else, and the federal government says, whoa, whoa, whoa, they're ready to sue the EPA.

BLOOMBERG: Look, Washington is immobilized, they are unable to do anything about it, and so you see governors across this country, and mayors across this country, saying we can't wait for Washington. Let's do something. Because the people we represent are breathing bad air.

SMITH: Right. Now, if I didn't know better, you could almost pull that out as a sound bite, and it could have sounded like something said by a presidential candidate.

BLOOMBERG: Well, you would hope that that's right, and you would hope that all of the Republican and Democratic candidates would address the issue and would say not just 'I'm in favor of motherhood and apple pie,' but how are we going to do it, who's going to pay for it, when can you get it in. They talk about -- Congress talks about -- goals to reduce carbon in the year 2050. How many people in Congress today are going to be alive in 2050? Just do the math, not very many.

SMITH: Right.

BLOOMBERG: We need to do something now.

SMITH: Manhattan will be underwater by 2050.

BLOOMBERG: There's a -- I don't know that Manhattan will be underwater, but certainly the environment's going to be a lot worse that we leave our children.

SMITH: Yeah. So, speaking of this notion of running for president and why these other candidates haven't said these very things, how frustrating is it for you that they don't say these things?

BLOOMBERG: Governors and mayors can't say 'I'm in favor of something, but I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it.' Governors and mayors have to be judged the next day of whether they got it done.

SMITH: Right.

BLOOMBERG: And it is frustrating for those that are in the executive branches of government to see people who just keep saying we'll do it, elect me, and then trust me, I will do it. We don't have that luxury.

SMITH: Alright. Your political adviser, Kevin Chiccy, says he actually has a plan, and the Newsweek article that's out today basically says if he can convince you you can win the electoral college, that you'll run, run for president.

BLOOMBERG: Look I have --

SMITH: You want to announce -- why won't you announce now?

BLOOMBERG: Because I have 787, 86 days left to --

SMITH: Oh, you always say that though. You always say that.

BLOOMBERG: But I have the greatest job in the world.

SMITH: Right.

BLOOMBERG: And I'm thrilled to do it.

SMITH: Well, you would take another one if you have the opportunity.

BLOOMBERG: Well, when I finish this, which is the end of '09.

SMITH: Right.

BLOOMBERG: Look, I'm not a candidate for president, but I do think --

SMITH: But might you be? Let's just, let's just --

BLOOMBERG: No, that's not the right question. The right question is --

SMITH: The right question?

BLOOMBERG: How do you get those out there to speak out and address the issues? And if you take a look, mayors have addressed crime in the streets. And in New York City we brought crime down. We've addressed public education, we've improved the public schools. They're doing something about the environment. And what we've got to do is somehow or another to get people paralyzed by partisanship to start working together. This country doesn't need somebody that's going to say my party versus your party, this country needs somebody that says 'I'm going to get the best from both parties and pull them together,' like Sarkozy did in France. Once he got elected, he really did pull people together. And we've got to do that.

SMITH: Yeah, yeah. Alright, Mayor Bloomberg, thanks so much for being with us.

BLOOMBERG: Thanks for having me.

SMITH: Really appreciate it. I'm breathing easier already. Now here's Julie.

JULIE CHEN: Deep inhale.

 

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


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.

Damn......Thats a LONG

Damn......Thats a LONG wait........

 

LOL.......jk...I had to say it......

OA... They are doing the

OA...

They are doing the same crap on msnbc with the sky is falling doom and gloom too...Markey has the same bull going on with kids in congress testifying today, I couldn't watch it at all..it was horrific, they leftist in the House using kids whose heads are filled with BS that they have (the leftists worldwide not just here) intentionally inserted in their noggins and some parents should be paying more attention to this BS....oops to late now.

Btw...I don't know if you listen to Rush but he had a snippet on of one of the gals testifying balling her eyes out and sniffling, it was pathetic, and I mean sickeningly pathetic)

2050 eh?

No worries for me...but we've got to think of the wittle children now don't we?

LMAO!

I heard that.....and I agree

I heard that.....and I agree with you. It is pathetic.

hey bigtimer, Yes, I

hey bigtimer,

Yes, I heard that on the way home today. Unreal, how pathetic was that display? The sad thing is that those on The Hill have already bought into the global warming farce and we will be paying for it out of our pockets.

Smith's tidal wave..

SMITH: Manhattan will be under water by 2050

Well, if it is, it's only because Harry Smith jumped off a bridge into the Hudson and his fat ass caused a tidal wave that swamped Manhattan.

 - What a stupid and ignorant thing for a national correspondent to say -

Settle down Harry.

Oh yeah, Mike definitely wanted to drop that "under water by 2050" idea as fast as possible. You don't attract much investment to your city if you run around telling everyone that it's not going to be around in 43 years.

I'm betting that's the real reason he's pushing a carbon tax as well. I'm pretty sure most of New York City's business is fairly low carbon. Shifting from payroll taxes to carbon taxes would only benefit them.

Which is worse, water or

Which is worse, water or the sand Smith's head is currently under?

WRONG QUESTION...

It's not a matter of what's worse between water or sand, Harry's head is in neither. Harry's head has been jammed up is backside for a while, & his ratings prove it.

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Why would this be a bad thing?

I mean, from an Environut stand point wouldn't this be good? 

You could replace all the cars with gondolas that are either manually powered or use a little minnkota electric trolling motor.

It would be the new Venice...

Most of the population would have to move inland, and we could build new, more environmentally friendly cities...

I just don't understand why Libs think all these disasters would be so bad...it's just Mother Nature spanking her naughty children...

He has proposed a universal tax

"BLOOMBERG: People who generate carbon and put it into the air, that pollute the air that you breathe, and that I breathe, and that's causing worldwide changes over the long term in our environment."

It's been awhile, but 'In with the good air (O2), out with the bad air (CO2)'  so, according to the esteemed mayor, I'm poluting!

BUT - and it was skipped over - we've been making BIG strides in curbing auto emmissions, YET, things are getting worse (according to the Global Warming enablers) - so don't you think we should go back to the "god old days"? - I'd like to have my '68 Vette again, a 327 - 350hp, pass anything but a gas station, and with 55 cent gasoline prices! Or, rent one of those  Hertz 427 Mustangs, bolt a roll bar to it and go racing, then wonder aloud  "don't know what those holes in the floor are". See - good old days - no Global Warming issues.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Snorkling Gear

Someone should send Harry Smith a snorkle, a mask and some fins.

This guy Harry Smith is an

This guy Harry Smith is an annoying twit.

Oh for crying our loud! Wait

Oh for crying our loud! Wait a minute, Rush has the count clock going on his website...according to Al we only have 8 years, 2 months and 21 days to end of the world as we know it. Someone has it wrong. LOL!

"Earth in the Balance"

"Earth in the Balance" written by Al Gore proclamed that we only had 10 years left before the damage was unrepairable. Well, he wrote that book in '92. Seems we should just eat, drink and be merry cause we have already gone 5 years longer than we should have. Cheers!

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bassndude, Oh really...I

bassndude,

Oh really...I had no idea that book was written that long ago.

Yeah, long long time ago.

Yeah, long long time ago. According to Al, were all dead. Pesky real science came along and ruined it all.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

This reminds me wasn't it

This reminds me wasn't it about 20 years ago that Ted Danson warned us we only had 10 years last if we didn’t stop polluting the oceans...and hasn't it been about 30yrs when all scientist were warning us about a new Ice Age?...so anybody want to lay odds on what's not going to happen in 2050?

 

"If we implement HillaryCare, Canadians will have no place to come for their health care." Rudy Guiliani

Get a glass. Put some ice

Get a glass. Put some ice in that glass. Now fill with water. Let stand.

After the ice has melted, notice that low and behold, the water is at the same level as before!

I'm not a scientist, so will someone explain to me how, if melted ice in a glass doesn't change the level of the water, how will it change the levels in the oceans?

In reality, Gary, it is

In reality, Gary, it is about 1/10 higher than it was before. Maybe a little less.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Gary, first measure the water, then add the ice. What happens?

Does the level go up? Also, does water expand when you heat it?

Now for the harder part: is there any ice melting that isn't already in the ocean? are the oceans warming?

Pres. Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

}}---> Ice water

The chrystallization process actually causes the an expansion in volume of the water.

Fill up a plastic water bottle completely, seal, then freeze.  You've seen this before, I assume.

Cool Arrow, two things about ice and water

First, of course you`re right that when water freezes it expands - that`s why ice floats on water. Pretty cool - that`s a rare phenomenon of water that other liquids don`t display when they change to a solid state. But do you mean to say that when water heats up, it doesn`t also expand? Try putting a pot of water on the stove, turning on the heat and seeing what happens. Why do you suppose the heated water rises? I imagine you`ve also been swimming before - is the colder water on top, or the warmer water?

Second, what about the part where you add ice cubes to a glass of water - do you disagree on that, too?

Pres. George Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

}}---> Heated water

I'm unaware of any such phenomenon that heated water expands other than it becomes steam.  The level rises as a result of bubbles forming at the bottom of the pot.  In its liquid state, water neither compresses not expands.

Cool Arrow, think - why are there ocean currents?

Of course water expands as it warms - that`t what heat does, not only to gases, but to fluids as well. This is an extremely basic phenomenon that it maybe worthwhile familiarizing yourself with. If the thought experiments (or looking at a pot of water before the bubbles start to push the water) are too difficult, may I suggest a bit of research?

Sincerely, BS

P.S. One last thought that may help you - how does a thermometer work?

Pres. George Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

}}---> You're right.

Forgot all about the cause of the convection in the oceans.  Something I knew once.

Sea level has been rising

Sea level has been rising since the plistocene.

A shift in sea level should also be reflected in length of day. LOD. As sea level rises the earths rotation slows slightly. As it lowers the earth speeds up. If this is correct the recent peak in length of day was in the 70's. 

Are the seas actually rising at present?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Yes, danbo, the ocean level is actually rising at present,

at an accelerating rate.

As I said on another thread (http://newsbusters.o...):

"Sea levels rose rapidly as we came out of the last ice age until about 8,000 years ago, but with sea levels still rising gradually until about 2,000 years ago, and then remained relatively constant until about 100 years ago, after which they have begun to increase at accelerating rates. The IPCC says:

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate
of about 1.7 mm/yr.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm/yr, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century.

"Christy's expectation for sea level change (16 inches/century is about 4 mm/yr.) is even greater than the accelerated rate of 3.2 mm/yr. over the past decade (precisely measured by satellites), which is greater than the 1.8 mm/yr over the past century, and that the average rate of change from 2000 years ago to about 100 years ago was near zero.

The Frasier Institute's "Independent Summary for Policymakers" prepared by Ross McKittrick and others,
http://www.fraserins..., notes that:

While global sea level rose by approximately 120 metres during the several millennia that followed the end of the last glacial maximum, the level stabilized between 3000 and 2000 years ago. Since then, paleo sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly: the average rate of change from 2000 years ago to about 100 years ago is near zero. The instrumentally-based estimates of modern sea level change provide evidence for an onset of acceleration at the end of the 19th century. Recent estimates for the last half of the 20th century (1950.2000) give approximately 2 mm/year global mean sea level rise. New satellite observations show that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of 3.1 mm/year.

More information here: www.pewclimate.org/d...

Pres. George Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

Manhattan Under water

We can only pray....

So, Global Warming is the

So, Global Warming is the new "Manhattan Project"? I mean, like, who knew?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Florida

I knew a guy who preached that Florida would be the nation's first ecological disaster and be uninhabitable by 2000. That was 42 years ago. He was pouring the environmental B.S. into young minds way back then. Now here I am enjoying the sunshine. Wha' happened fella?  Scheech!

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

***sigh...***I have

***sigh...***

I have stated here before that, based on corals, mangrove peats and intertidal dolomite crusts (as proxies for sea-level) from the Bahama Bank region to Hondurus, that sea-level rise has been on the order of 2 feet in the last 2000 years.   I don't think New York will be under water anytime soon.

"Dr." Smith should really do his homework and give up the Gore kool-aide.

edit/addition

here is one of many links:

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ARB/426-431/430.pdf

scroll down to page 12 and you will see their curve based on mangrove peats; there data shows between 2 and 3 feet rise in the past 2000 years.

This is an onslaught of

This is an onslaught of global warming drivel. Why the never-ending constant GW drivel. It may be my imagination but haven't the lefties ramped up the scare mongering on global climate change to a never-ending fever pitch. It is on every channel in every magazine day and night. What gives? What's the hurry and why now? Some kind of agenda thing I imagine but I don't know what. On the other hand they may have to hurry cause their heads are going to explode.

"Manhattan will be underwater by 2050."

Like with the boy who cried "wolf!", over-the-top predictions like this will be part of the GW alarmists undoing...

Wrong.  Most of the adults

Wrong.  Most of the adults of today who have heard these bogus predictions either won't be living at that time or won't remember they were ever made.  The same is true for most of the incompetents who have made these predictions.

Right. Don't have to wait.

Right. Don't have to wait. The thing about these people is they have to continually top themselves in dire predictions. After a while, people get numb and immune to it. If they haven't panicked by now, I'd say they're well on their way to that numbness. 

Newsflash to Harry and

Newsflash to Harry and Bloomburg: CO2 is not a pollutant. Not only that, 95% of the CO2 in our atmosphere isn't man made.

Harry Smith's worried about

Harry Smith's worried about all those Democratic voters being washed out to sea in 2050; that's long-term thinkin' for ya!

Without a paddle

I know how to use all that carbon tax money.  Let's buy every man, woman, and child in Manhattan a canoe.  It'll be a symbolic bit of revenge for the Native Americans who were swindled out of the island for a pittance.  </sarcasm> 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.