Mark Levin Radio Show Touts NewsBusters Story on Joe Scarborough

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
By Scott Whitlock | October 18, 2007 - 10:37 ET

On Wednesday, nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin picked up and expanded on the story of MSNBC host Joe Scarborough lauding Al Gore, first reported in NewsBusters. Levin described "Morning Schmo," what he calls "Morning Joe," as "a program I rarely watch" and railed against Scarborough's declaration that "Al Gore wins" on global warming. The host also cited "our friends at the Media Research Center and NewsBusters" for bringing the comments of the "MSLSD" host to light.

Levin derided Scarborough's assertion that Gore has been proved right. He exclaimed, "We have zero control over [weather cycles] and in about 15 or 20 years, the cycle will slowly be pushing in the other direction and Al Gore and all the other freaks will be very, very embarrassed..." A transcript of the segment can be found below. Audio can be found on Levin's website (about 15 minutes into the October 17 program.):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

6:30pm

MARK LEVIN: "Now, I often comment on a program I rarely watch, 'The Morning Schmo,' on MSLSD. 'Well, Mark, how can you comment on something you haven't watched?' 'Cause other people watch it and they grab the audio and I listen to it, like our friends at the Media Research Center and NewsBusters. And we have 'The Morning Schmo,' AKA Joe Scarborough on MSLSD and they're talking about Al Gore and I've told you this guy is a weasel sell-out. He was a Republican congressman, now he spends a lot of time putting down Republicans, not because they're being too liberal, he puts them down when they're actually right. Here's an example, and he's got a sidekick. Her name is Mika Brzezinski. I assume that is of the famous family of the failed Secretary of State, what's-his-ass Brzezinski? Anyway, listen to this exchange. Listen up for Al Gore and 'we Republicans.' He's always talking for 'we Republicans' now over there at MSLSD. Joe Scarborough, AKA 'The Morning Schmo.' Cut three. Go:"

[Clip begins]

JOE SCARBOROUGH: [Holding up copy of October 17 New York Times]: "You've got Republicans who are split now on global warming. It looks like it's inevitable soon enough. I think by the next presidential campaign, every candidate will be saying global warming is a phenomenon. Al Gore wins."

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "I think so. We're getting there."

SCARBOROUGH: "Yeah. We called him an idiot in 1992, we Republicans, and about 16 years later, we agree with him. It's the great thing about being a Republi--"

BRZEZINSKI: "Yeah, there you go. Well, it takes you guys a while."

SCARBOROUGH: "You know what the good thing about being a Republican is? Never having to say you're sorry."

BRZEZINSKI: "A little slow. Right."

SCARBOROUGH: "We'll be back with more 'Morning Joe' in a minute."

BRZEZINSKI: "You just don't, do you?"

SCARBOROUGH: "No. Not at all."

[Clip ends]

LEVIN: "Now, what a rambling buffoon. Rambling buffoon. Quite the contrary, 'Morning Schmo.' The meteorologist that used to run the Hurricane service, you may be familiar with that, he's all over the place making the statement that many have made, which is, This is baloney, 'Morning Schmo.' Yes, it gets a little warmer. Then it gets a little cooler. These are natural cycles. We have zero control over them and in about 15 or 20 years, the cycle will slowly be pushing in the other direction and Al Gore and all the other freaks will be very, very embarrassed. But they don't get embarrassed, but they will look stupid, nonetheless. You know, Al Gore, he's a guy that has a background in zippo, that is quasi-average intelligence, and he's an expert on this subject. And the 'Morning Schmo' is right with him! We'll be right back."

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for 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.

MSLSD!

I'm stealing that one, Dr. Levin!

I'VE BEEN EXPOSED...

My tagline is from Levin...I can't call him "The Great One" though. I'm a longtime hockey fan, that's Gretzkey's title as far as I'm concerned.

I've been using his term "Morning Schmo", like in the Mika story a stories earlier, now I've been exposed for stealing his material. So if Mark is looking at this, you don't need to say "THANK ME". Thank you.

He's right about MSNBC, they suck, they have no ratings, they lose money for GE shareholders, & John Gibson is right when he points out they take crap directly from the leftist whacko websites & put it straight into the telepromter. MSNBC is really not needed, & it's rating prove it.

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

Hey, Rush Limbaugh was a

Hey, Rush Limbaugh was a guest on Glenn Beck's radio show this morning.  I heard Rush use one of MY words, neoSoviets, this morning.  I don't mind.  We're all in this together.

neoSoviets

neoPRAVDA

neoCommies

neoPinkoes

neoReds

MSLSD

I don't know if he was referring to the drug LSD or have us interpret the LSD as liberal, socialist, democrat...either way they both work.

Interchangeable, I suspect

Interchangeable, I suspect ...

You'll note in the picture

You'll note in the picture on this thread, and the MSLSD/Mika/Joe thread a couple down, they hold up news papers with yellow highlighter on them ...

Yellow ... Highly appropriate for the newspapers and the news media in general.

Pretender

I first became of Joe S. during the Florida recount. He was on Fox news more than some of the talking heads. He was funny , articulate and convinced me that he was a real Republican. One of his funniest lines was that Democrats were parachuting operatives into towns that did not have airports. Now I am less convinced. Refers to himself as a Liberterian.

Joe S also refers to himself as a conservative

...a ridiculous assertion.

Almost daily, he actually begs the Democrats to defund the Iraq war. 

"It's what you were elected to do", he says...a premise I dispute.  

"74% of all Americans want you to defund the war" he says....an out and out lie.

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW...

RJ, The role of the House Of Reps in wartime is all about funding. He knows that, & he also knows why some Dems are preventing this. They don't want to reaffirm their label of being weak on war & military issues. Sorry guys, too late.

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

If only....

He exclaimed, "We have zero control over [weather cycles] and in about 15 or 20 years, the cycle will slowly be pushing in the other direction and Al Gore and all the other freaks will be very, very embarrassed..."

Unfortunately, he's only half right. Yes, things will trend the other way but, no, Gore et al won't be embarrassed. In fact, I'm betting that they'll take credit for it. 

"In fact, I'm betting that

"In fact, I'm betting that they'll take credit for it. "

 I think you are right. This whole thing has been a PR stunt for scientists to get richer on more grants and for Gore to get rich on reinventing himself. It has been a heck of a marketing job and there should be no doubt that they have their exit strategy.

 

 

And let's not forget all

those carbon offset $$$$ flowing into Algore's company!!  He isn't spending one dime for offsetting his carbon footprint...the dollars are just going from his left pocket into his right pocket.  How can any thinking person believe ONE word coming out of this guy's mouth?

Sample NYT...shrinking

Joe is holding up the REAL story, which is the paper he is holding is tanking.....wait another year, and he'll have to be holding up toilet paper, and no one will know the difference. 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Well, the page

is a little bigger than the "one square" we are currently being urged to use!

Pole Joe Flips the Bird

In Drudge continuously exposing the devil horn headlines on people in Time to the garbage CNN pulls in captions...........why has no one mentioned Pole Joe FLIPPING THE BIRD in this caption?

Nothing in media happens by accident and it is deliberate that Pole Joe in his quaint Bubbles manner is cleverly flipping the bird to the audience. No one holds a paper with their middle finger.........and certainly Joe's pointing finger on his right hand is not so weak that it can not hold up a piece of paper.

So the real story and question is who is Pole Joe flipping the bird to? Not the world who knows Al Gore is full of hot air can it be?

These types are way too clever to do it directly as they know they will get fired, but instead pull the Dan Rather cue of, "Connie is OFF tonight" with the inflection meaning Connie Chung is nuts.

 

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Scarborough Weighs 2.5 Courics ...

... which is about 5 Lauer's, 7.5 Blitzer's, 10 Dobbs', 1.25 Cullen's, 0.625 Sawyer's, 0.1 Rather's, and 0.05 Olberman's.

By the way, 1 Katie Couric is the European Fecal Standards and Measurements standard unit for a piece of crap.

For more info : http://mrtwig.net/ep/1109.html

What a neo-Soviet LSD BSA (liberal, socialist, democrat, bull-sh_t artist).

The REAL threat to Man is the alarming increase in GLOBAL RAIN and GLOBAL HUMIDITY.

Levin is pretty funny, and

Levin is pretty funny, and very smart. If you folks don't listen to him, you should. You can download replays of his show at http://www.marklevin...

Once again we are reminded

that NO ONE messes with Mother Nature! 

The good folks in Pensacola can certainly attest to the fact that Mother Nature can appear quickly without warning and with fury. 

And the failed predictions of "weather professionals" regarding the hurricanes both last year and this year once again prove that NO ONE can control or predict weather, no matter what their training.  And NO ONE can prove that man causes warming/cooling trends!

The debate is NOT OVER - and the arrogance of those who say so is very hard to digest.

Could it be true?

What is this Joe, could it be Peer-Reviewed papers discussing the 1500 year climate cycle?

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)
- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)
- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter
Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas,
Georges Bonani

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
- Richard A. Kerr

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)
- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, NO. 10, 1510, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

I must be in denial and work for Exxon because Al Gore says no such Peer-Review papers exist.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Nice reading list, but

Nice reading list, but technically speaking, one of the references is not a peer reviewed paper.  "Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model" is a letter, not a paper.  One difference is peer review.  Anothewr difference:  Letters are usually published for one of two reasons: (1) to criticize a peer-reviewed paper or (2) defend a peer reviewed paper from a previous critical letter.

So letters are not reviewed?

So no one reviews what is said in the letter and anyone can submit them and say anything they want? Letters to major scientific journals are reviewed they are just limited in length.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Letters are not subject to

Letters are not subject to the same peer review process that a paper is. 

All journals have a board of reviewers.  In theory, any paper submitted to a journal is reviewed by 3 to 5 reviewers selected at random from the pool of available peers in that discipline.  In practice, this panel is not drawn at random and is often not at all impartial.   If the publication is endorsed by some number of the reviewers, it will be accepted for publication in that journal.  Often endorsement is granted contingent upon 'corrections'.

Letters are written to the editors of the journal most often in response to previous peer-reviewed publication.  These are reviewed only by the editor(s) who may not necessarily be an expert on the subject matter covered.  In general, letters are subject to far less critical scrutiny than are papers but neither are they used as vehicles for opening new topics.

Letters published in the Journal of Nature are Peer-Reviewed

The Journal of Nature refers to both "Articles" and "Letters" as Scientific Papers and they both undergo the exact same Peer-Review Process:

2a Editorial process (doc 52KB)

"This document provides an outline of the editorial process involved in publishing a scientific paper (Article or Letter) at Nature, and describes how manuscripts are handled by editors between submission and publication."

3a Manuscript preparation and submission (doc 77KB)

"1. Formats for Nature contributions

Nature's main formats for original research are Articles and Letters.

1.2 Letters

are short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields. They have no more than 30 references."

6 The peer-review system and information for referees (doc 56KB)

"The following types of contribution to Nature are peer reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Reviews, Progress articles and Insight articles."

All the "papers" I listed underwent the full Peer-Review process.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

This is dependent on the

This is dependent on the journal.  You are quoting Nature's policies.  They are in general, unique in their terminology, and out of step with many other scientific publications.

'Letters' in Nature are research articles limited to 4 figures and is typically 4 pages long at most.  Articles are larger and are allowed to 6 pages and in rare cases more for very exceptional works.  All of these correspond to 'papers'.  They are all subject to the same peer review process.   They also have a category called 'Communications'.  Communications are also research tracts but are generally short of one or at most two pages in length.  Usually these are chosen because they present some new important result and are often precursors to a later letter or article.

I think if you look carefully, you will find that Nature refers to what you and I would call 'letters' as 'Correspondences'.  Correspondences do not receive the same level of scrutiny that Letters and Articles are afforded.  They are filtered only by Nature's editorial staff.

I notice your references don't cover these latter two categories of publication.

Review Science's policies.  They do not use the same terminology as Nature and have 5 categories of peer-reviewed publications, none of which is a letter.  A 'Letter' in Science is a 300 word or less comment, an opinion, subject only to editorial review.

These are the ACM's policies.  Notice they call what I am referring to as Letters, 'Technical Opinions'.  Again, these are opinions, not science.

Personally, I think some of the best policies may be found at GRL, which does not in general publish any editorial content. [and they also refer to their peer reviewed papers as 'Letters']

Now, reviewing your references again, I see that the 'Letter' was indeed from Nature and is therefore peer reviewed.  I had confused it with some of your other references which were from Science, where 'Letters' are not peer reviewed.  It probably doesn't help me that I have full access to the articles, not just the abstracts.

Your claim is falsified by the evidence

The paper:

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet

Is and has been Peer-reviewed.

 

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource