Shocking Headline: ‘Summer Chill Is One For The Ages’

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

Imagine for a moment that the capital of the most-populated state in the union was experiencing its warmest days on record. Do you think this would be headline, front page, lead story news?

Well, the capital of California, Sacramento, last week posted the lowest recorded highs for the days August 5 and August 6 since they began keeping records in 1877.

Didn't hear about this? Of course you didn't, because a media fixated on global warming don't care about cold temperatures anywhere unless they can somehow be blamed on - wait for it! - global warming.

For those interested, the Sacramento Bee reported last Tuesday to the high pitch of crickets chirping in newsrooms across the fruited plain (emphasis added):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest "highs" for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877.

Forecasters credit a deep marine layer and a potent low-pressure trough with funneling the cool air this way. It's as if Mother Nature cut herself a wedge of Santa Barbara weather and plopped it down on Sacramento's plate.

We're talking, for once, about the all-time lowest maximums, instead of the all-time highest. Monday's downtown high was just 74 degrees, 3 degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 degrees set in 1906, according to the National Weather Service. Sunday's downtown high of 76 frosted the previous low maximum of 78, set in 1962.

"These were the coldest highs for Aug. 5 and Aug. 6 that we've ever recorded," said meteorologist Cynthia Palmer of the National Weather Service office in Sacramento.

Searches of Google News and LexisNexis identified no other media outlet besides the Bee reporting this record occurrence. Think this would have been the case if last Sunday and Monday's highs in Sacramento were the warmest on record?

No, I don't either.

On a personal note, it was funny to see this headline, for I had business in Sacramento last Tuesday. As I drove there from the Bay Area in my convertible with the top down, I actually had to keep the heater on because of how cold it was...on August 7!

The following day, I asked in the Open Thread, "How's "global warming" impacting your summer?" My trip to Sacramento the previous day was the precipitant for this query, although I had no idea I was experiencing record summer cold for that area.

As I also mentioned in the Open Thread that day that where I currently reside in Northern California, we are experiencing possibly the coolest summer since I moved here in 1986. I think we've only turned on the air conditioner once, and have spent less time in the pool than ever before.

Normally by this time of year, we would have had several weeks of temperatures into the 100s. Although I was on vacation the week of July 4th when there apparently was a bit of a heat-wave, I'm not sure if we've yet experienced one 100 degree day here so far this year as we approach the end of summer. Most summers, we probably would have had ten by now.

I recently saw some statistics for a few Midwestern states also experiencing record cold summers, with Wichita, Kansas, if I recall correctly not having any 100 degree days so far this year either.

The point is that there are many skeptical scientists who believe that the warming cycle which began in the mid-'70s peaked in 1998, and that we are now in a cooling trend. The Southern hemisphere, as NewsBusters has reported, is experiencing an extremely harsh winter, with some areas seeing average temperatures five degrees below the norm.

Of course, the media don't report any of this because it doesn't fit their agenda. However, with last week's revisions to American climate history which once again established 1934 as the hottest year in this country since record-keeping began, and the likelihood that alterations will eventually be made to global historical data, isn't it possible that all the hysteria about climate change is coming at the peak of a natural warming cycle, and that absolutely no alterations in human behavior are necessary?

Furthermore, isn't it much like homo sapiens to recognize a trend just as it's about to end?

After all, this is why most people buy stocks at the top of a bull market, and sell them at the bottom of a bear market.

Something possibly to consider as governments across the globe ponder implementing Draconian solutions to a problem that could be solving itself as Mother Nature has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to accomplish without any assistance from the species under her auspice since the dawn of time.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


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.

Gore will never announce stuff like this

Gore knows that he has dug himself into such a big hole these days through his "theories" that he has probably instructed his staff to burn all copies of this article and write the online editors of content online of this article to remove it because it simply doesn't support his "theory".  Gore is an idiot.  Honorable "doctor" or not, Gore is a quack and has NOTHING to back up his theories.  And he refuses to even listen to the other side.  That's when you KNOW you are wrong. If he was right and really believed in his theories, he'd proudly meet with high celebrity and well-known citizens to discuss the issue in-depth.  But he knows if he does do that, meet with others in front of media to discuss other views of "global warming" that he'd be made a fool of and he'd have to cower in disgrace under a rock.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy!  We're not making a western here.
      ~ Uncle Junior
 
 (The Sopranos)

I agree that Gore is an

I agree that Gore is an idiot, but disagree with your reasoning why. Gore is in this for the money. Plain and simple. He has already cashed in on the Carbon Credit scam, and if thoroughly researched, I would bet he is also into all the "alternative energy" projects he can get. He, and most of the big-dog Globull Alarming soothsayers, stand to make gazillions of dollars if they get even a fraction of their "suggested" policies on energy passed. Why should they care that it will ruin economies around the world? They will have so much money it won't affect them in the slightest.

So, yes, he's an idiot (among many, many other choice adjectives) but not for the reasons you may think... 

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

This Won't Stop Them

Things like this won't stop the APGW alarmists...  their "theory" is tautological (I think that's the word) - i.e.  It can explain anything, and nothing can contradict it.

Unseasonably cold weather, droughts, above average precipitation, more storms, fewer storms....EVERYTHING can be explained by the APGW dogma...  So a cold summer in Sacramento won't deter the Warm-mongers...

It's "global

It's "global warming/cooling/climate change"

say it fast 5 times and poof you're a democrat

It was positively CHILLY

It was positively CHILLY here in the Arizona mountains two weeks ago.  almost NO days over 100 degrees this summer at all.

If this is global warming -- I say bring it on!!!!

Noel, you are absolutely

Noel, you are absolutely correct.  I live in the 'vicinity' of Wichita in the midwest and have been preaching all summer long about how cool it has been.  Usually the 95-105 temperature range sets in in late June-early July and lasts through August.  It wasn't until about a week to week and a half ago that we finally crossed the century mark---otherwise, with the exception it has been muggy, has been very nice and wet (good for the flowers and tomatoes) summer.  Furthermore, it appears as if things are going to get back below the century mark this weekend, and if it follows past trends, should be the end of our heat for the summer; therefore 2-2.5 weeks of heatwave during the summer time in the midwest!  Unheard of!  In addition, last winter was more like the winters I remember from when we were kids---cold and snowy.  Personal observation would lend me to believe that at least our local climate is in a cooling trend.  Of course AGW'ers would attribute that to 'climate change' as opposed to global warming so they could still have their angle on the environment---their veil to secretly tax and contorl our lives.

Heat warning in effect here..

Todays radio headline while hubby was leaving for work was Another heat warning in effect as temps are expected to reach 103 in the valleys... ooh ahh I am so impressed watch me cringe... YAWN. Nevermind that the warnings come daily and so far in spite of said warnings folks are not dropping like flies..

~lbcdawn Religion is about doing. Christianity is about done.

The weather here in

The weather here in Pittsburgh is downright stifling. Heat warnings galore!

Here is this weekend's typical-for-August forecast.

 

That's the weird thing, that

That's the weird thing, that a good chunk of the nation is sweltering, while some places are cool. It's odd. Or maybe it's not. But it being cool in Sacramento doesn't completely negate the fact that it's mighty hot elsewhere.

sweltering?

Did you follow his link? I live in the desert, yes its warmer here then many places but far from sweltering for this region. Thats like saying oh wow look its 122 in palm springs there all gonna die... hello thats normal in july and august. Where my brother lives in San Diego he thought he would die when it hit 81 and went out and bought an ac unit.. I laughed. Did you know its 48degrees in Melbourne? must be an ice age.

~lbcdawn Religion is about doing. Christianity is about done.

No, Bal, my friend. That

No, Bal, my friend. That means it's just a normal summer.

 

 

Yeah, it is normal. I just

Yeah, it is normal. I just don't think that presenting the fact of cool temps in Sacramento means anyone who believes in global warming has been proven wrong.

}}---> except for this Bal

You must disprove the null hypothesis in order to embrace the new.

Consensus don't cut it.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Bal

Bal,

Did I state in this article that cold weather in Sacramento means there is no global warming? Really? Could you cite that for me, because I just re-read the post, and couldn't find it.

That said, if abnormally cold weather during the summer doesn't disprove global warming, why do heatwaves during the summer and abnormally warm weather during the winter prove global warming? I'm dying to hear this answer.

Also, if this was the '70s when we were still cooling, and the media contention was that excess CO2 was responsible for a cooling planet, do you think the cold weather in Sacramento last week would have been reported nationally as an example of manmade global cooling? I'm dying to hear this answer, too. :-) ns

Noel

I guess I was projecting something I read elsewhere onto your post, which was more about the media not reporting on it because it doesn't fit the GW paradigm. My mistake.

Bal

Bal,

And that's why they won't report it because it doesn't fit their GW paradigm. However, if the currently in vogue bogeyman was global cooling, do you think it would have been reported? ns

Nor does it being hot

Nor does it being hot somewhere mean we have AGW.

With the new charts from GISS, thought I'd go looking for the warming.

 Acadia National park? Nope. Boston? Not for 22 years. New York Central Park? Not for 14 years. Washington? Not for 17 years. St Louis? Nope. Savannah? Nope. Miami? Not in 18 years. San Antonio? Nope. Albuquerqui? Not for 13 years. Grand Junction, Col? Nope. San Francisco? Not for 9 years. Yosemite Nat Park? Not for 25 years. Grant's Pass, Or. I may have found it. Only took 13 tries.

"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

RS -

Come on now ... That's because all those Steewers are practicing again, and their body heat is radiating into the `Burgh atmosphere!

 

Don't yunz all know the reason why it is cooler this summer, in general?  Why, it's the cold vapor rising up from those melting icebergs and glaciers cooling down the air.  This also `splains the rain and flooding in other parts of the country (and world).  (Watch and listen for this to be the end of season explanation ... and I WANT CREDIT FOR FORCASTING IT, darn it!) As soon as the ice masses have melted away enough then ... THEN ... THEN comes the dry heat where we will all burst into flames in the streets and on play grounds  ... bird eggs falling from nests to the ground and frying on the pavement ... bread baking in our SUVs ... water boiling in backyard pools ... the stench of charred flesh hanging in the scorching air we breathe!      . . .  Excuse me, I need to go cringe in the corner and whimper in fear!!! <oooohhhh!>      

THEN comes the dry heat

THEN comes the dry heat where we will all burst into flames in the streets and on play grounds...

Hey, I saw that happen already. Okay, it was in "Terminator 2", but still....

 

 

What you deniers are

What you deniers are forgetting is that there are natural factors that are masking the symptoms of glo.....BWAHAHAHAHAHA ....Oh I just couldn't do it with a straight face. That will be the headline though, Al's whole "Just wait till '09 crap," have no doubt. AGW will never be over till democrats have the executive and congressional wings firmly under their socialist thumbs. Then miraculously they'll start reporting on how the measures they put in place are working.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

1934 is NOT the warmest year on record - that is a lie

Noel Sheppard and fellow right-winger commenters, did you bother reading any REAL news reports on the NASA corrections (like on realclimate.org), or take your info from liars like John Gibson of Fox News?

From Media Matters item Sunday, August 12: "Summary: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings." 

Here's more irrefutable facts: "According to NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.

Angle further stated that 'five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.' In fact, this statement is true only for temperatures in the United States; according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989." 

Read all about it here:  http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001

Finally, Global Warming or Climate Change is about LONGTERM trends, not a snapshot of record low or high temperatures, so don't even try to say that the record low temps in Sacramento has any significant impact on this debate.  It will only be noteworthy if Sacramento continues toward a longer cooling trend over time (we're talking years, not days).

Did we have satalites in

Did we have satalites in orbit in 1921? To take the global readings? I would say if the US was having a hot year in 1921, the rest of the world was experiencing the same thing. And mediamatters.org is what? As for long term trends, we havent been taking global readings long enough to establish long term trends. Long term trends are comming from computer models. And they keep changing them. Now, the latest news, is with all this CO2 we have now, GW is taking a vacation till 2009, and thats when it will start.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I'm glad you acknowledge

I'm glad you acknowledge climate is about long term trends and will not insult us about Katrina or rain in England, or melting glaciers..

Of course it's been warming off and on since the end of the plistocene. Gee who's SUV caused that? In 1900 we were still recovering from the little ice age and the eruption of Krakatoa. It warmed a lot by 1930. But 10-15 years of questionable data and the sky is falling. (I for one am curious about data from an airport going back to 1880.)

Sorry. Your friends at RC also have a broken Hockey stick. From truncated data. To a model that will find a hockey stick in noise. And there's that censored file.  And of course GISS has also been fighting release of formulas and data. And Steve did find that error in US data. In the best and largest data set the world has. What will we find in places with worse data sets?

People sure do get testy when you challenge their religion.

If it's real, and it can be proven. Tell your friends as Mann and GISS to be open about their science. If what they say is accurate, the truth will come out. 

Sorry bass. This wasn't directed at you. 

"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

ignorance is bliss

I would say if the US was having a hot year in 1921, the rest of the world was experiencing the same thing.

You've got to be kidding me! You can't be that ignorant can you?

From realclimate.org:

"The net effect of the [NASA] change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

Furthermore: "More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC)." 

Notice that 1934 isn't in the following statements: "In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends)." 

And mediamatters.org is what?

Where I got this realclimate.org article from and just ONE source where I go to (pardon the pun) set the record straight on key issues like GW/Climate Change. 

Try MediaMatters, all of you. You don't have to agree with everything they write about (same with this site) but it's guaranteed that you'll be more educated on all things politics/election issues/media bias/stereotypes. So yes, I read NB and MM (and a registered member of both). You got a problem with that? I didn't think so, and nor should you (unless you're a lame partisan hack).

Yes, Chucko, ignorance IS bliss....

Media Matters has a political agenda.  Anyone who uses it for source material may as well be using Wikipedia....

More ignorance, more bliss

Anyone who says that obviously doesn't read it (MM) or care to get facts from anything or anywhere other than their comfortzone.

Look, there is liberal and conservative bias in the media everyday, and you should read sites such as MMFA and NB as often as you can to discover both. 

Been there, done that, el chucko

I've checked out Media Matters on several occasions.  It's a Soros-funded joke (but your denials are cute, nontheless), catering to all things left.   Anyone who accepts them as source material is not to be taken seriously.  

Been there, done that, el chucko

I've checked out Media Matters on several occasions. It's a Soros-funded joke, catering to all things left.

Really? Do they "cater" to the left when they blasted the NYT as they did today for publishing Rove's lies about Hillary?

Or the multiple times this year alone when MM criticizes CNN (Wolf Blitzer, Suzanne Malveaux, Carol Costello) for their bad journalism?

And don't even get me started on their near constant criticizm of the left-leaning (and often right-leaning editorial pages of the ) Washington Post and Chris Matthews/Hardball. They correct his falseities almost as much as do they O'Reilly's.  

So no you haven't really "been there" much - you probably read a few stories and then stopped reading the site cuz you're in denial about right-wingers lying or misinterpreting democrats and how much the lazy MSM buys their and Bush's spin on certain issues.

And I have the feeling you're not the only right-leaner here who gets turned off at the thought of an organization pointing out right-wing lies and bias.  

I used to be that way (from the left perspective) before I became an Independent (more dem-leaning than right, for full disclosure) - but at least I can see that there is plenty of MSM bias towards democrats too, and I'm not afraid to read about it, here or anywhere else.

Finally, progressives linked to George Soros funded Media Matters early on, but they have never received any money from Soros himself.

I know right-wingers hate Soros, but you can't go around discrediting everything he's linked to like some on the left do to Rupert Murdoch-owned media.  If you don't like something, dislike it on the merits of it.  

Great example, el chucko

"blasted the NYT...for publishing Rove's lies about Hillary"...

Well shame on the NYT for publishing "Roves lies"....hahaha....there's a fine example of not catering to the left...heehee

(that's the only specific you gave, so that's the only gloriously even-handed MM example I'll comment on)

And, el chucko, it's STILL cute, the way you "independently" defend that great "patriot", George Soros, while denying his involvement in MM.  I'd be interested in seeing a link, backing up your claim that MM has received no money from "Soros himself."   (That's a fine parsing, el chucko, but don't forget to show how they've not received any money from his other organizations, either)   ;^>    

 

Great example, el chucko

I was defending MM, not Soros (who I could care less for and never heard of until rightwingers started complaining about him).

It's YOU who has to prove Soros funds MMFA, not me - I don't have to prove a negative. 

It is however, true that progressive groups like the Soros-funded Center for American Progress helped out and funded MMFA.  So what? 

Does that make their articles any less true? I don't think so.

You rightwingers just want to demonize everything Soros is linked to and that's wrong.

Also, my point in referring today's NYT was that MMFA criticizes and corrects the left-leaning to politically mixed organizations, whether it's the NYT, MSNBC, CNN, WaPost, AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc all the time for their bad/lazy/biased journalism. And not everyone they defend would be considered the "left." Hillary for one is a moderate on national security issues and also considered a lefty on social issues. 

But don't forget, she was raised as a Republican and has never done a complete left turn in all things politics. 

el chucko

You never heard of Soros?  You could care less about him?   That's an amazingly niave thing to admit.  News flash, el chucko:  Soros is a BIG player in American politics. 

I love this: Soros gives money to organizations who give money to MM, but....wait for it....Soros has nothing to do with funding MM?   hahaha!  You're a funny guy, el chucko.

Your contention that MM proves itself to be balanced because they criticized the NYT is more proof of your full-blown left/progressive mind-set.  Come on, think about it.  MM blasted the NYT because they dared to print what you called Rove's lies about Hillary. 

I chuckled, chucko, over your defense of Hillary.   She's not a full-blown leftist because she's pretending to be tough on defense?  hahaha!  Wow, you really do live in a gullible lala land.

RJ -- sure, a guy who

RJ -- sure, a guy who admits he's never heard of Soros is just the person we need to tell us about Hillary Clinton.

Wonder if he knows she was married to Bill Clinton.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

The funny thing is, Jack,

The funny thing is, Jack, el chucko is trying hard to convince us that he's an "Independent" who leans ever so slightly left.  ;^>

accept and respect

If Hillary is such a socialist lefty who pretends to be tough on defense, how come she's been praised to the Pentagon by the likes of Jack Keane?

How come Lt. Col. Lou Leto says Hillary is one of the Reserve Officers Association's strongest advocates and was given its President's Award for her support for soldiers in 2005?

How come she was awarded the Military Coalition's highest award in Sept. 2005?  And she's a pretender? You're the one pretending to know what you are talking about.

As far as MMFA goes, they cover so much more media, pundits, and politicians than any watchdog group out there. Though their total volume is only a few years old and miniscule compared to MRC.

No, they don't stick up for Republicans when Democrats and the media lie or show bias toward  them (that's what rightwing watchdog groups like MRC and NB are for), but they will defend the records of liberal AND moderate Dems (ex. Hillary and Murtha) when necessary.

That's all I'm saying. They do a good job and so does NB. It's not hard to understand and accept that. 

el chucko, your ability to rationalize is marvelous to behold

Hillary's camp is trying their best to repackage her into a warm and fuzzy centrist position, but she has always been and always will be a hard-left Socialist.  Your admission that you worked for the DNC shows that you're probably part of that deliberate effort to fool America.   In other words, I don't believe you're as dumb and naive as you pretend....I think it's far more likely that you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Hillary has always been a prepackaged phony who hides her real beliefs, and having a few military personnel on her side does nothing to change that.  The vast majority in the military dislike and mistrust both Clintons.   

Guess what?  Awards are given to politicans by groups like that in hopes of getting something back for the organization.  Hillary is in a position to aid them, and even that hack, Mary Landrieu, who also sat on a military committee, was given an award.

Regarding your attempt to equate NB and MM, it's a false comparison.  MM is set up as a propagandist organization, while NB is set up as a place to debate.  NB is willing to be challenged, while MM exists mainly to influence the public.

 

bipartisan

Your admission that you worked for the DNC shows that you're probably part of that deliberate effort to fool America. In other words, I don't believe you're as dumb and naive as you pretend....I think it's far more likely that you're being deliberately disingenuous. 

I guess YOU don't believe there is such thing as impartial reporting (as I did at the DNC for a small independent newspaper). I guess you don't believe anyone can be bipartisan or agree with liberals on some issues and conservative on others.  I guess it's not believable to some of you that anyone can believably be a fan of Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough AND Keith Olbermann.  No wonder this country is so polarized. I guess I am a rare breed indeed.

Also, I shouldn't have to tell anyone here the times I've written or criticized MMFA or their readers - debates go on there all the time - for their spin and lack of coverage of Democratic gaffes to prove my bipartisanship when it comes to discussing politics. Respect for all media watchdogs is all I am saying. They're all trying to influence the public in some way.  And we need them all because the state of journalism in this country is terrible.

You're a fan of Buchanan, Scarborough and Olberman? hahaha!

You just keep stepping in it with your attempts to appear "Independent."  

Just like Hillary's handlers are trying to put the Big Lie over on the voters, el chucko, you're just another phony lefty, trying to claim the "middle ground", but you're so transparent as to be laughable.

Joe and Valerie Wilson are your "heroes?"

HAHAHAHAHA!

Jeez, el chucko, if you're gonna lie about your politics, you should at least clean the incriminating evidence from your blogsite....

Hillary a Republican...not even a RINO

Hillary could never pass as a Republican, not even a RINO.

She is a socialist and has paraphrased Karl Marx frequently. She is BAD for the USA...past, present, and future!

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

 (who I could care less

 (who I could care less for and never heard of until rightwingers (sic) started complaining about him).

You'd never heard of the multi-billionaire, ex-Nazi helper who single-handedly almost collapsed the British currency in 1992, in an event known as "black Wednesday."

Wow.  What more can I say.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Do a little reading,

Do a little reading, wontcha.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Woo! We're witnessing a

Woo! We're witnessing a rare treat here, folks: a Leftie who is too much of a dumbass to even know who is funding the propaganda he swallows like a Mardi Gras hooker.

Sorry Charlie. You're not ready for prime time yet.

I don't know, Roger

I think most lefties have little or no idea where the propaganda they swear by comes from....or who funds it.  

What is rare, though, is that chucko admits he doesn't know or care.

 

MM, are you telling me that

MM, are you telling me that there are hookers at the Mardi Gras? *GASP*! I thought they were all under water now. But I guess they have spent enough going down to learn how to hold their breath.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

LOL

No I'm not a Leftie. I believe I pointed that out elsewhere on NB the past day or two.

You don't know what prime time is, buddy! I worked as a professional, nonpartisan media analyst at the DNC a few years ago.

You don't know what propaganda is either. Michael Moore=propaganda.

Websites and media watchdogs  that hold the MSM/politicians accountable for bias, deliberate or unintentional omission of facts vital to our understanding of key issues in our lives=not propaganda.

By yours (and others') logic, if MMFA is propaganda because it's funded by liberal groups, then NB must be propaganda too, as its funding comes from a relative of Richard M. Scaife and other conservative-giving organizations like the Carthage Foundation, the Bradley Foundation (which gave money to GW skeptics at George C. Mashall Institute between 1985 and 1991) and others.

But I don't dismiss either because I have a basic respect for liberal and conservative views and authors (with few exceptions).

And political discourse in this country will continue to go nowhere if you can't offer basic respect to people and organizations with different political views than yours. 

And yes (responding to someone else), I am actually starting to like the idea of a Ron Paul presidency - he can't be any worse than Bush; but I'm open to a couple of the leading Dem candidates (minus Edwards) and even potential independents like Bloomberg too if he runs. I doubt many of you are this open-minded politically. Prove me wrong.

LOL chucko!!! Im not a

LOL chucko!!! Im not a lefty, but I did work for the DNC!!! What a maroon....lol. Thanks for the laugh there chuckie boy.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

right back atcha

The ratio of journalists to delegates at the DNC was 3:1. There were 15,000 of us, from all political stripes.  Do you really think that every journalist at the DNC is a Lefty and vice versa for the RNC?

Who's the "maroon" now. 

Chucko... Just

Chucko...

Just wonderin'...

How come your words are going out of the designated spaces?

Got problems? 

 

opera

I have no idea why this is happening and I've tried to correct that and apparently failed.  I don't have my laptop with me (its at work) so I'm writing on an old Windows PC that has Windows 98 on it.

It could also be happening because of this new browser I'm trying out called Opera.

It shall remain a mystery (until I can get back to my real computer).

Guess we will be able to

Guess we will be able to tell when you have something real then eh?

LOL....

Thanks for the answer though.

Sorry, but you are a

Sorry, but you are a "lefty", if only because, of all the links you offer on your crap blog site, 3 of the 6 point to left-wing sites, including the already-exposed-as-left-wing-crap Media Matters website, which you seem to hold in rather high esteem, which, in my book, makes you a real winner. You also get bonus points for pretending to be a "journalist", but not knowing who George Soros is.

In youur short time here, you have managed to do nothing but force us to narrow down our opinion of you to either:

a. a lying, full-of-sh*t loser

or

b. a real dumbass

Maybe you're both?

 

Only .15 degree C? May I

Only .15 degree C? May I ask what's the amount of increase they're claiming from 1900 to present? What percentage does this one error account for? How much of that increase was during and prior to the 30's?

"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

Very good "Finally, Global

Very good "Finally, Global Warming or Climate Change is about LONGTERM trends, not a snapshot of record low or high temperatures" so what is long term in the parlance?  6 years, 600 years, 6000 years, 6 Billion years?  You are right we must look at long term trends.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Chucko

Oh Chuckus,

Did I bother reading any real news reports about the NASA changes? Well, actually Chuckus, since I wrote one of the first articles published on the subject, it's more likely that these organizations read MY report!

As such, please take a giant step off that high horse you appear comfortable lecturing me from!

That said, you lose all credibility by citing RC and MMA, both propagandist rags in my view, the latter funded by the propagandist in chief George Soros.

However, thanks for the chuckle Chuckus. Have a nice day. ns

Wrong again, Noel

Nobody loses credibility reading MMFA, just like you wouldn't lose credibility sourcing from MRC/NB or Factcheck.org. They are a means to an end, though MRC/NB is more opiniated than sites like MM and Factchek.org. They're all respectable watchdog sites, right or left-leaning - and if you can't agree with that then you're just a partisan hack.

YOU lose credibility saying MMFA is funded by George Soros.  That is an often repeated lie by top name conservatives that has to stop.  If you've read that anywhere, it's crap.  Only people connected to Hillary gave some money to MM when they first started in 2004 - that's the only direct connection they had to democrats.

Well, actually Chuckus, since I wrote one of the first articles published on the subject, it's more likely that these organizations read MY report! 

(Chuckus? Don't know if that's supposed to be an insult or not but i kinda like it.)

Anyway, way to be full of yourself (link your own article) and dismiss an informative scientific report.  

Read That REALCLIMATE.org article I provided - it's very informative and takes lots of info and data from nasa.gov.

If you don't agree with something, debate specifics - don't be lame and just dismiss an entire report and call it or it's site "propaganda" because it doesn't fit your agenda.

You learn nothing if you just believe what you WANT to believe. 

 

Chuckus

Chuckus,

Thanks for the chuckles Chuckus. They were greatly appreciated.

That said, you will be ignored by me from this point forward, for if you actually believe MMA and RC to not be liberal advocates, and aren't honest enough to recognize their advocacy, you are neither worth my time nor the the bandwidth and disk space necessary to disseminate your comments to NB readers.

Please head back to MMA, RC, TP, DU, DKos, and HP where such mindless epithets are not only welcomed, but appreciated and expected. Have a nice life. ns

Where can you find a list

Where can you find a list of the 5 hottest years on earth?

Balboa

B,

Recorded recent history, or from ice core samples of the distant past? Huge difference that most liberals care to ignore, for there are MANY periods in this planet's history MUCH warmer than today WELL before CO2 levels mysteriously became problematic.

Regardless, as it pertains to recent data, wouldn't you rather wait until they're updated to reflect last week's GISS changes? After all, the global numbers today are likely just as cooked as the U.S. data before McIntyre informed Hansen of how wrong he was.  :-)   ns

 Recent history, since man

 Recent history, since man has been "civilized."

Ask and thou shalt receive

According to NASA, the 5 warmest years on record worldwide are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 (in that order).

This article was written in February (and updated 5/30/07), but even with the recent NASA revisions, which were U.S.-based, the annual temp averages worldwide stays the same.

Excuse me?!

That said, you will be ignored by me from this point forward, for if you actually believe MMA and RC to not be liberal advocates, and aren't honest enough to recognize their advocacy, you are neither worth of my time nor the the bandwidth and disk space necessary to disseminate your comments to NB readers.

Did I say or deny MMFA or RC (whom I didn't know existed until the othe day) are liberal? No. I said respect them, and respect their work.

You can't do that? That says more about you than me, and I will ignore your work from now on. And for the record, I don't read DailyKos or many liberal/conservative sites. Don't have time so I pick a couple on both sides TO GET both sides' perspectives on the issues of the day when I do have time. And I will cite sources from liberal or conservative watchdog sites to make an argument.

Do you and other NB writers (and commenters too) really have a problem with that? I hope not, because I believe in rational debate. Do you? 

'five of the hottest 10

'five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.'

You mean:

1) prior to Hitler firing up the ovens

2) prior to all the factories back in the states churning out steel and war machines

3) prior to said war machines burning dirty fuels, and causing things to blow up and burn

4) prior to the US dropping two A-bombs on two cities in Japan and heating up the areas to the surface of the Sun

5) not to mention prior to Germany and Japan, and all other countries involved in WWII burning dirty fuels in their war machines and causing things to blow up and burn on land and at sea

It's time to play one one

It's time to play one of my favorite games here at Newsbusters... Follow the Money!  

Let's see here... realclimate.org is run by Environmental Media Services.  

Environmental Media Services was founded by the Tides Center. 

Environmental Media Services is a tool used by Fenton Communications to promote their environmental agenda. 

Okay, we've established three organizations. Let's look at the funding for each, shall we?  

1. Environmental Media Services gets funding from places like:

a. Bauman Family Foundation (who get their funding from such left-wing groups like League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, NARAL, Natural Resources Defense Council)

b. The Turner Foundation (yes, Ted Turner)

c. The Ford Foundation 

d. The Packard Foundation and others

Environmental Media Services was run by Arlie Shardt, once Al Gore's press secretary during his 1988 presidential campaign.   

2. The Tides Center/Tides Foundation: Formed the "9/11 Fund", to be replaced by the "Democratic Justice Fund", which was also heavily funded by George Soros, who has donated over $7 million to Tides since 2001. they also are a major contributor to Media Matters.

 

3. Fenton Communications: Run by David Fenton, who does work for Moveon.org, and other nutjob groups. In the late 80's, David Fenton, along with the above-mentioned Natural Resources Defense Council, falsely accused apple growers spraying their crops with Alar were "creating a serious health threat". Sure it would, if you ate 50,000 pounds of apples a day. Apple growers lost $250 million.  

All three organizations have a serious leftist agenda, and that HAS to be taken into consideration when you begin using them as a source of information, taking it as gospel.

I think, without a doubt, that using realclimate.org as a viable, trusted source of unbiased information would be as smart as getting all your news from the RNC or DNC websites. 

 

But hey, don't let the Mack truck-sized hole in your argument stop you from believing what you want to believe. Carry on.

 

Shrub

Shrub,

You're bringing up facts to someone that can't possibly process them.

As I said above, anyone that can't recognize advocacy and propaganda therefrom is not worth the time or the bandwidth. This is just another AGW troll willing to cite any source to prove his point regardless of obvious agenda or disingenuous lack of scientific method employed.

This is why the battle is so heated, and why folks like me receive the kind of hate-mail with implied death threats that we do. ns

I hear you, Noel. BTW,

I hear you, Noel.

BTW, have you received my weekly death threat yet?

I spent all weekend cutting out letters from last month's Highlights, and am really proud of my work.

Shrub

Shrub,

Did you get any pictures of Woody Gremlin threatening to kill me? That would be priceless! :-)

You'll love this. Over a week ago, I got an e-mail message from some guy in England claiming that I was misleading readers regarding NASA's changes in climate data. His was one of the reasons I posted an update. Anyway, I sent him the paragraphs demonstrating how I specifically stated the changes were for American data, and questioned his reading comprehension skills. He sent back a ton of vitriol, to which I responded that I was blocking his e-mail address.

I got a new e-mail message from him a couple of days ago from a new e-mail address stating that I was worse than a pedophile, and hoping that when a bin Laden dirty bomb goes off in NYC, I will be there! Not kidding. :-) ns