Appearing on MSNBC's State of the Union coverage, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw praised President Bush for talking about global warming in his speech, lamenting that it was a subject the "Republican-dominated Congress has given very little attention to." Brokaw obverved that Bush had used the term "global warming" for the "first time since he's been President." Brokaw: "I think that you can give him an A for identifying the priorities that had been before this country for some time, and that the Republican-dominated Congress has given very little attention to. Global warming, he used that phrase for the first time since he's been President." (Transcript follows)
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of Brokaw's comments from January 23:
Tom Brokaw, 10:09 p.m.: "It's a tricky piece for the Democrats as well, Keith, as you know, because they do have power now through 2008, and the country's going to be looking to them to see what their solutions are to the problems that the President correctly identified tonight. I think that you can give him an A for identifying the priorities that had been before this country for some time, and that the Republican-dominated Congress has given very little attention to. Global warming, he used that phrase for the first time since he's been President. I would like to have seen the reaction of James Inhofe, who is the Senator from Oklahoma, recently displaced as the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who believes it's the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. Vice President Cheney is not a believer in global warming as it has been described by now a consensus of scientists around the country."
Brokaw later added: "I think in the last 18 months there's been a sea change in this country about alternative energy, about the impact of global warming -- not just a scientific consensus, but more grassroots people are signing on to the idea, mayors across the country are developing their own programs, and just yesterday we saw 10 of the most prominent corporate leaders in America saying we believe in it and we think that we have to have a national policy. It's also worth noting that the White House has not reached out to those corporate leaders -- so far, at least -- to get their additional thinking on all of this."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Brokaw gives him an 'A' for u
January 24, 2007 - 02:29 ET by mattmBrokaw gives him an 'A' for using a particular phrase. Thus proving that you don't have to actually DO anything to please the Liberal Media, all you have to do is SAY what they want to hear....
That's it, in a nutshell.
Are you insinuating that our
January 24, 2007 - 13:45 ET by blarsenAre you insinuating that our Commander-in-Chief is a liar?
blarson...just what are you t
January 24, 2007 - 13:51 ET by bassndudeblarson...just what are you talking about? President Bush never said the words "Global Warming" in the speech.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Here's what Bush said in his
January 24, 2007 - 14:01 ET by blarsenHere's what Bush said in his SOTU speech.
"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
He didn't say "warming" because all the anti-Gores would go berserk, but anyone with a full cranium knows exactly what he meant.
I know what he said. Climate
January 24, 2007 - 14:16 ET by bassndudeI know what he said. Climate change is a term, not for global warming, but a term to discribe the constant changing in the climate. He did not indicate that man was causing it, just that it is changing, and has been changing sence the creation of said planet. Mars, Juipter, Saturn and even some of the moons of Juipter have changing climates. Said planets seem to be warming. Even Pluto. At the present time, even the sun seems to be experiencing climate change.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I know what he said. Climate
January 24, 2007 - 14:17 ET by bassndudeI know what he said. Climate change is a term, not for global warming, but a term to discribe the constant changing in the climate. He did not indicate that man was causing it, just that it is changing, and has been changing sence the creation of said planet. Mars, Juipter, Saturn and even some of the moons of Juipter have changing climates. Said planets seem to be warming. Even Pluto. At the present time, even the sun seems to be experiencing climate change. The climate is in a constant state of change.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Maybe everyone here should wa
January 24, 2007 - 15:09 ET by blarsenMaybe everyone here should watch "An Inconvenient Truth" so they can refute Gore's facts with facts of their own finding. If you're going into a debate, isn't it wise to study the opposition's viewpoint to present the most informed discussion to your audience?
For example, in Gore's movie he presents the argument that there is a direct correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth. That is, as CO2 increases, so does the temperature. Does anyone have any opposing facts?
it takes no scientist
January 24, 2007 - 15:20 ET by tumbler_2007Anyone will tell you, blar. The oceans exude more CO2 over time than any of man's industrial activities. Just the sea's flora; all its seaweed and algae. More pollutants are vented into our atmosphere by volcanic activity than we can summon out of every factory on earth. Temperature is incidental to sunshine; it shouldn't take science to alert you to that truth.
My understanding. The oceans
January 24, 2007 - 16:33 ET by danboMy understanding. The oceans effect CO2 not just by algae flora etc. The sea's ability to retain CO2 in solution is tremendous. That ability is heat related. But there's a time lag in it. Consequently there are learned men who think the climate effects CO2 levels more than CO2 effects climate. Previous changes in the CO2 levels were probably caused by changes in the climate. Therefore this change in CO2 may as much be related to natural causes as man.
In short. There's a lot more going on than CO2. All the rest is being ignored.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo...Never mind, I had a b
January 24, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Clear thinkerDanbo...
Never mind, I had a brain fart.
"Therefore this change in CO2
January 24, 2007 - 18:40 ET by throatwobbler"Therefore this change in CO2 may as much be related to natural causes as man."
NB's expert on climate change gets it so, so wrong. CO2 has increased from the burning of fossil fuels. This has been determioned through the chemical equation of burning fossil fuels and looking at isotope ratios.
such a sheep
January 25, 2007 - 06:06 ET by UnsaneAnd if you have the audacity to disagree with guiltwobbler, he will pistol whip and beat you in public, and then stand on your throat until you accept that the United States, the root of ALL evil in the world, must be dismantled in order to prevent man-made global warming.
If guiltwobbler ever gets into power, how long will it be until he forces everyone who dares question global warming with sound science and critical thinking to wear thermometers around their necks to make it easier to spot the portion of the population he has deprived of their civil rights?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If you disagree with the fact
January 25, 2007 - 12:31 ET by throatwobblerIf you disagree with the fact that the recent CO2 increase is manmade, then you mght as well disagree with 2+2=4.
"Maybe everyone here sho
January 24, 2007 - 15:35 ET by RunningBeer"Maybe everyone here should watch An Inconvenient Truth..."
About as factual as F 9/11. Most people here prefer to think independantly rather than buy into the lies of Al I Invented The Internet Gore. Thank God school districts are beginning to ban using that propaganda film for educatinal purposes.
"Does anyone have any opposing facts?"
Ask and you shall receive:
William Gray James Span James Inhofe
Let me know when your done with those, this list can go on and on.
Hey beerman--you're out of to
January 24, 2007 - 16:17 ET by blarsenHey beerman--you're out of touch. It wasn't a ban, only a moratorium which is now over.
I read your links. There are also people that believe smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
Where's the anti-global warming movie? Why don't the wingnuts get their buddy Steven Baldwin and put out their own movie. Gore's movie was so successful it was nominated for two Oscars. Yeah, I know...LEFT WING LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD...blah, blah, blah...
Shady? Thoartpecker? "Th
January 24, 2007 - 16:47 ET by danboShady? Thoartpecker?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
blarson:Dont need a movie to
January 24, 2007 - 16:54 ET by bassndudeblarson:
Dont need a movie to tell the truth. Like those of times past, they make movies so they can place events where and when they want them so as to make belive it is true. That is called propaganda. See Global Warming movie. Thats all it is, is propaganda for the mentaly inane. You know who they are. Those who are easly lead, unable to think and reason things out, and will belive the first thing that they are told, and hold fast to it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You're just a mean ole skepti
January 24, 2007 - 17:14 ET by danboYou're just a mean ole skeptic bassn. Don't you know if you see it on the silver screen it has to be true. I, for one, would have loved to watch it when the real Mickey waved the scorcers wand and made the broom spout arms and legs.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I think that was the LSD, ma
January 24, 2007 - 17:47 ET by RunningBeerI think that was the LSD, man.
"Where's the anti-glob
January 24, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Jerry"Where's the anti-global warming movie?"
Conservatives are into fact not fiction. Reality, not fantasy land. Only the loony left confuses movies with real life, ie; The West Wing, The DaVinci Code, Farenfraud 9/11, An Inconvenient Truth, etc.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
You forgot "The Path to 9/11"
January 24, 2007 - 17:35 ET by blarsenYou forgot "The Path to 9/11". Oh, I forgot--that blames Clinton for the Iraq War and that fits your agenda.
We forgot, blarsen, that with
January 24, 2007 - 17:48 ET by UnsaneWe forgot, blarsen, that without Mr. Greatthings, who personally FED, CLOTHED, and SHELTERED every single American in the United States from 20 January 1993 to 20 January 2001, America would have become a Fourth World nation; and because of that, we should NEVER, EVER question anything he did, as that is just ingrateful picking on him. That, and he did hundreds of nonillions of GREAT THINGS every single day.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Clinton can't be blamed for 9
January 24, 2007 - 17:55 ET by RunningBeerClinton can't be blamed for 9/11. He so was busy preparing for that evil global warming thingy, there just wasn't time to go after terrorists. At least, that's what I saw in a movie.
Besides, if the earth burns
January 24, 2007 - 18:09 ET by JerryBesides, if the earth burns up, we can just go back in time in that DeLorean time machine thingy and warn everybody. I don't think outer space is an option, with all those acid-for-blood aliens lurking out there.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Who was that guy? Must be a
January 24, 2007 - 16:42 ET by RunningBeerWho was that guy? Must be a full moon or something.
So you've got a news piece on
January 24, 2007 - 19:06 ET by throatwobblerSo you've got a news piece on skeptics, a blog and a politician's website. Not too impressive.
The leading authority on hurr
January 24, 2007 - 19:20 ET by RunningBeerWilliam Gray - The leading authority on hurricane study (who laughed at the 2006 alarmists predictions), James Spann - a noted 35 yr meteorologist and James Inhofe - at the US Senate website. Your right, I'm wrong, I see it now, I'll call Bush in the morning.
What are you talking about? W
January 25, 2007 - 12:28 ET by throatwobblerWhat are you talking about? William Gray predicted a much higher than average hurricane season for 2006. In 2005 he predicted 11 named storms and there were 26. Can you even name his theory of the recent warming or are you just happy to read that a scientist somewhere disagrees with the consensus?
From your link: "They argu
January 24, 2007 - 19:11 ET by throatwobblerFrom your link:
"They argue not as scientists but as lawyers," says Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at NOAA in Boulder, Colo., where he examines bottles of air taken from monitoring stations all over the planet. "When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion . . . Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."
Amen.
Oh! And that makes it fac
January 24, 2007 - 19:16 ET by RunningBeerOh! And that makes it fact? Sorry, how silly of me. I read this as opinion.
RB...It's just wobbly wobblin
January 24, 2007 - 19:21 ET by bigtimerRB...
It's just wobbly wobbling again...sheesh, I thought he flew away for the winter.
Oops, I forgot, there is no winter, we are basking in Global Warming.
Drill Often!...Drill Everwhere!
When debate ends...
January 25, 2007 - 06:09 ET by UnsaneThe day there is no scientific debate is the day science dies. The end.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
There is opposing view of coo
January 24, 2007 - 15:41 ET by danboThere is opposing view of coorelations between CO2 and temp. Last time I looked at statistics coorelations are not proof of a cause effect relationship. So it's not very relevant.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
The overwhelming vast majorit
January 24, 2007 - 18:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberThe overwhelming vast majority of smart-thinking, prudent, clear-minded Americans (thank you Unsane) know that, if you went to Wikipedia, you will find that Global Climate Change... "...refers to the variation in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere — or average weather — over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes may come from processes internal to the Earth, be driven by external forces (e.g. variations in sunlight intensity) or, most recently, be caused by human activities."
Just because this phrase is the pc term du jour (because people weren't buying into the whole Global Warming thang), it doesn't make it mean what you want it to mean.
lock step
January 24, 2007 - 06:19 ET by foolnomoreWhoa 'tom-tom ,,nice of you, to say such nice things ,when will you be "putting" the knife in ?? We'll wait to see what tomorrow brings,,,"A" for effort 'ya.
3 billion dollars is a lot of money
January 24, 2007 - 07:29 ET by SportPolitics3 billion dollars is a lot of money, the Virgin records man "investment" much be "reaching out" to 10 corporate leaders, as well as the "government surplus" tackons and "alternate research billions" swaddled in glorious green that have now been spewing out from DC.
Tom B, so glad "the grassroots have signed onto the "idea" ".
It's an idea that needs more idealists. The idea is that if you can get enough dollars flowing by the big gorian scare, you can stop the war for oil and defeat the terrorists with total withdrawal, completely downsize the military industrial oil complex, loot the taxpayers pockets some more for clean energy payout incentives, and make cozy deals with big forward looking lib business, and "bring home the glorious clean energy bacon" to your home district, and lastly but not leastly - place a much deserved and long held back gigantic SLAP across the profitable face of exxon and it's attendant evil crude brothers, and before I forget, institute the era of world peace.
Funny, the idea is catching on, isn't it ?
Sing along with me: " Someone's safer now, Kumbaya...Someone's clean and warm, Kumbaya...Osama's fatwah's gone, Kumbaya.... liberal uptopia's here... Kumbaya. "
Our President
January 24, 2007 - 12:49 ET by frankmanowarOur President said it himself: We have to produce our energy locally to relieve our country of its dependence on foreign oil. If it means producing it by sustainable means, then so be it, as long as the power to sustain our entire economy is no longer dependent on the whims of OPEC et al. It is something that is going to take decades to achieve and Bush merely took a symbolic first step. If Exxon is not wise enough to move with the tide, or at least sign on partially, then they are sealing their own fate. This is capitalism, right?
Does this mean we can keep ou
January 24, 2007 - 14:56 ET by danboDoes this mean we can keep our oil and gasoline at home and not ship it to states that refuse to allow drilling? Including DC?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Three billion certainly is a
January 24, 2007 - 14:14 ET by blarsenThree billion certainly is a lot of money! Even at the most conservative estimate, it's about what we spent weekly on the Iraq War.
Why, that is $3 billion (for
January 24, 2007 - 15:07 ET by UnsaneWhy, that is $3 billion (for the Iraq War) that blarsen would much rather see spent by the government on spoon-feeding, coddling, babying and nannying the entire country!!!
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
What "we" spend.
January 24, 2007 - 18:33 ET by kathleenirishWhat "we" spend. Aren't you Canadian? You should be grateful: we cover your asses as you have no real military, and what you have is falling apart.
P.S. I didn't get a chance to respond to your note to me about Rush last week. I just want to say: if you feel so strongly about changing your mind about something, like you said you did about Rush and his supposedly changing from 'entertaining' to 'spouting garbage', you should be able to spell out why that is in your own words, and not refer me to use less-than-credible web searches.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Don't waste your time. the ma
January 24, 2007 - 19:30 ET by danboDon't waste your time. the man has nothing and is a parrot for what is wrong with science. He's the science that trys to quiet anyone who disagrees with his gods. He's the tabloid of science.
Talking to a delusional nutcases is a waste of time.
Going to try trashing 94 year old men again?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
yada yada yada
January 24, 2007 - 08:19 ET by blackrain4xmasGlobal warming....man, here in Cleveland, we can't WAIT for it to warm up!
Im for all the global warming
January 24, 2007 - 11:33 ET by bassndudeIm for all the global warming earth can muster! Cold here!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Global Climate Change
January 24, 2007 - 12:23 ET by rodneyvI looked up the transcript of the SOTU speech and the POTUS does not say global warming or suggest that humans cause it. He used the phrase global climate change, which any D-student in earth science knows that the Earth's climate is in constant change. It changed enormously 12,000 years before the Industrial Age. Species which can not adapt to this constant climate change, die out.
Either way, just so long as i
January 24, 2007 - 12:30 ET by bassndudeEither way, just so long as it warms up some.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Maybe we can Confuse the Glob
January 24, 2007 - 12:47 ET by JayTeeMaybe we can Confuse the Global warming Idiots, by asking for a Reading of the Temperature Averages on the Equator, over time. Then at least they would have to exercise enough Science to realize that with Global warming the Temperatures at the Equator will not change over time.
They might even read the book "Unstoppable Global warming every 1500 years" and Realize the SUN is a BIG player in warming the Planet Earth, and their Cousins have been thru this before, without SUV's..
I don't remember Bush saying
January 24, 2007 - 10:53 ET by RunningBeerI don't remember Bush saying global warming. They gave him a standing O when he said global climate change. Was warming something he said later that I missed? Too bad if he did, I thought it was great for him to address the issue AND snub the alarmists in the same breathe.
Runningbeer - I was going t
January 24, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Dee BunkRunningbeer - I was going to say the same thing - I heard what you did. I'm too lazy to read the transcript - but I think we are correct.
The evidence is mounting warm
January 24, 2007 - 11:20 ET by danboThe evidence is mounting warming may have passed. Rather we may in the early stages of a cooling trend. It's all natural. It happened before in the 50's to the 70's.
They're hedging their bets hoping no one notices when they start screaming about the unprecedented cold.
Which of course is caused by the warming. I'm learning from this and am icing down the beer in the oven. For ice cubes? Do I set the oven on broil?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
from 92-95 what did a democra
January 24, 2007 - 15:48 ET by buddycfrom 92-95 what did a democrat congress and democrat president do about "global warming"?
from 95 to 2000 what did clinton/gore do about "global warming"
from 92-2000 did clinton mention it in his state of the union address?
what has the democrat congress 2006 done about it so far?
the answers to all of the above is NOTHING or NO
in 92 assuming global warming was caused by man why didn't clinton make the case? why didn't he do something about it when little things might have made a difference. what has the curroent congresional leadership proposed. what did jim webb propose? i am anxious to hear.
blarsen Says: I read your lin
January 24, 2007 - 18:26 ET by entblarsen Says:
Classic liberal response; I run into this all the time. You try to reason with them ... they ask for evidence ... you provide the evidence ... they choose to ignore it. Chances are that he didn't even look at those websites. Any handy rationalization will suffice for ignoring any challenge to their cherished beliefs. Like "there are also people that believe smoking doesn't cause lung cancer." How's that for a juicy one? Talk about non-sequitors. Can you do no better than that?