I caught this on Drudge Report today. Seems like C-SPAN’s political analyst Steve Scully confused using ‘deficit’ and ‘debt’ in his interview with President Obama. Take a look of this screen shot off Drudge:
Here is the quote from Scully:
SCULLY: Yet, it all takes money. You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.
Is this mix-up significant? Probably not in the grand scheme of things. However, it does highlight the fact that a lot of people, even those that are well-informed, get ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’ confused and while Scully most likely knows the difference between the two, the sad fact is I doubt the majority of Americans do.
To see the entire transcript of the C-SPAN interview, click here.
Ever wonder where those nifty Drudge Report polls go after they are taken off the homepage? Well it seems that they are given a second life in random “Flash” articles on Drudge.
For example, remember that random “Obama vs. Putin – Shirtless” poll that was up back in December? Well it obviously wasn’t done become its back now with what seems to be the same results. Take a look:
If you haven’t been paying attention to the whole Rick Santelli fiasco, you should be. It started last Thursday when Santelli bashed Obama’s mortage plan on live television and continued with Chris Matthews trying to defend the White House’s attacks on Rick. Now it seems that Rick Santelli is gaining some momentum in the media with Larry Kudlow becoming just as livid when talking about the unprecedented attacks the White House is making against the press.
Wow. Am I seeing things or did Huffington Post actually post an article arguing against global warming alarmist? I am honestly a little shocked right now. By this article popping up on Huffington Post, one is led to believe the claim that the deniers did indeed win in 2008.
The phrase “climate change” is redundant and misleading. Climate has always been changing and always will. Gore wants you to believe the there is such a thing as a stable climate.
What came first: Temperature rises or CO2 increases? Ambler argues the former (In the past, CO2 increases have lagged 800 years behind temperature) while Gore will try to convince you the latter.
CO2 can only absorb a limited amount of infrared radiation and has already reached its maximum. Therefore temperatures theoretically shouldn’t rise any higher.
However, the mechanism of CO2 increases causing temperature increases has never been shown to exist
Henrik Svensmark lays out a theory of cosmic rays interfering with our atmosphere. More cosmic rays cause more clouds and more cooling and vice versa. (Read The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark for more on this theory)
The sun obviously has a very strong effect on our atmosphere and climate.
Volcano vents in the ocean floors also cause problems (especially in the arctic)
He finishes with a graph that shows record levels of ice in the Antarctic in 2007.
The whole article is pretty impressive and probably one of the better anti-alarmist pieces I have seen yet. It is well thought out and presents the evidence quite succinctly. Basically, the only thing else I can say is this: Read the whole article.
PS. Does anyone else think that it is funny that this article is posted under the “Green” section of Huffington Post (though I don’t know where else they could put it)?
Finallly, someone recognizes what global warming alarmism is about: increasing governmental power.
Its extent and scale may still be an issue among scientists, but politicians have latched on to this crusade fervently. The reason is simple. It increases the power of government
It has taken some time but now people are beginning to see that all the proposed government regulations are unnecessary and only lead to bigger government.
- Read more here
You remember the recent AP Story about how Barack Obama needed to do something about Global Warming because there was little time left? Well it seems that several scientists disagree with the article’s claims and one goes as far as calling the AP piece ‘propaganda.’
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
Deming said the article is further evidence of the media’s decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
“Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,”Deming said. “What he’s doing here is he’s writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that’s not right. It’s not reporting. It’s propaganda.
“This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It’s not fair and balanced.” (Emphasis Added)
It looks like climate change realism might be gaining some ground since CNN has dropped Miles O’Brien, a very vocal climate change alarmist.
-
Now, did they drop him and his entire segment because their theory of man made global warming is losing popularity with the public? Could it have been for some other reason, such as economic reason? Maybe CNN needs more money for all those flashy ‘holograms’ they had election night. Whatever the reason may be, it’s a nice move in the right direction.
- Click here for the whole NewsBusters article
Today, The Australian attacked its fellow media brethren, particularly ABC, for continually promoting gobal warming alarmism even in the face of mounting global cooling facts.
- Click here for The Australian article
Well it looks like Global Cooling is gaining ground in the MSM.
- Read HotAir’s article on this
-
TITLE CORRECTION: Never blog while watching TV. Typos will be frequent.
I find this fairly unbelievable that USA Today has an article in the paper today discussing how we are seeing some of the ‘worst storms on record’ in the United States but doesn’t blame in on Global Warming at all. In fact, they have a quote by Dr. Landsea saying that the evidence of global warming affecting our past hurricane seasons is ‘tiny.’ Instead, they blame the destructiveness of the past couple hurricane seasons on natural variations and the growing populations on the coast. Take a look:
“We’ve had quite an intense increase in hurricane activity,” said Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “We may be in this cycle for another 20 years.”
The increased populations in coastal communities and the loss of wetlands, which serve as a natural buffer against hurricanes, mean the USA is confronting one of the more dangerous and expensive hurricane periods ever, Trenberth said.
(…)
Some meteorologists say the increased storm activity is caused by a naturally occurring cycle of activity that hatches more storms in the Atlantic.
These are likely due to a natural climate fluctuation in the Atlantic,” said Chris Landsea, a scientist with the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
Kerry Emanuel, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied climate effect on hurricanes, says global warming and human-caused climate change is contributing. But Landsea has said evidence that global warming is affecting hurricanes “is pretty darn tiny.”
And I think it’s ‘pretty darn’ amazing that USA Today actually gave the last words about the global warming/hurricane connection to a skeptic.
