Here's what happens when a TV meteorologist speaks his mind

Gosh, according to many, I’m a far worse person for speaking my mind on the subject. But here is what happened to one TV meteorologist when he put a few notes about “global warming”  in his weather forecast. – Anthony

From tampabay.com “The FEED” blog:

Tampa weatherguy Paul Dellegatto named “Worser” person by Keith Olbermann

WTVT-Ch. 13 chief meteorologist Paul Dellegatto is such a mild-mannered guy, it’s hard to imagine him in a televised throw-down with one of cable TV’s most outspoken anchors.

But that’s what happened Wednesday night, when MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann named the Tampa weatherguy to second place in that evening’s “Worst Person in the World” listing, citing a recent statement by Dellegatto during a newscast saying there are some signs that runaway global warming isn’t happening.

In the Tampa Bay area to take in some spring training games, Olbermann dinged Dellegatto for “putting in global warming denial propaganda into the local freaking weather forecast of the local freaking Fox station.” He accused the weatherguy of downplaying “the whole global warming doomsayer theory,” noting sarcastically that global warming can make some areas on the Earth unseasonably cooler as well.

(UPDATE: After trading Facebook messages with Dellegatto earlier today, I had hoped to interview him about Olbermann’s criticisms. But Fox declined to make him available — instead, a spokesman released a two-line statement:

“Nobody cares about Keith Olbermann. He’s irrelevant.”

Judge that for yourself by checking the clip from Wednesday’s show below.

keith_olberman


If you would like to send some words of support to WTVT, here is the link to contact them.

There’s no point in complaining to MSNBC about Olberman, this rant is mild compared to his regular fare. The management there has heard worse I’m sure. – Anthony

Advertisements

114 thoughts on “Here's what happens when a TV meteorologist speaks his mind

  1. Keith who? I admit I have never seen the show, but I am sure that both members of his audience ate it up.

  2. Can anybody explain to me why the AGW industry becomes more irrational and shrill in its findings and demands given the logical arguments that appear to be gradually demolishing their belief and the evidence on the ground? Their intolerant attitude has lost any possible support from me.
    I’ve only just stumbled on this site and it is a good source of info to balance the propaganda from the AGW industry. Are there any sites where with forums where it’s possible to rationally discuss the issues?

  3. I’ve tried but I just don’t have the stomach to listen to MSNBC news, either this guy or the woman. What is scary is that they aren’t irrelevant, there is an audience or they’d get replaced. I don’t trust ratings, and it appears that MSNBC is the top place for liberal news slants – and there are a lot of liberals.

  4. Martin Mason. Rationally discuss? No. Have you found a forum where Creationism can be discussed rationally? In all my dealings with forums I’ve found the AGW believers to be so intoxicated on the idea that I’ve been verbally assaulted so many times. Either that or they don’t actually know what they’re talking about and just repeat what they’ve heard on the news. They’re even more infuriating than those who believe AGW! When you discuss anything there are facts. Facts are indisputable. Unfortunately, facts in climate change aren’t necessarily so. For example, you can say that the surface record is factual. But given Anthony’s revelation on monitoring stations, how can we accept the findings from very poor locations? Also, the AGWs will accept computer models. I will not. So there’s another conflict. Look at Antartica. Is it warming or cooling? Depends where you look and how you do an analysis. How about global temperature? Is it rising, or falling? Depends on what timeframe you use! What about the Arctic? That’s been warming recently. So what? It has before, fairly recently – doesn’t mean anything. Sea-level rise? Well it would do! What about ocean-acidification? Nope, just a little less alkaline. It’s hard to talk to people when they deliberately use words meant to deceive. BBC journalists are just great at that.
    Q. So what do we actually know about climate change?
    A.

  5. World’s Worst Persons talk about cognitive dissonance. I would have thought Osama Bin Ladin would have made the list.

  6. The AGW industry follows Goebbels’ maxim: ‘if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, eventually people will believe you’.
    The Times of London, this week, has moved into much more strident territory. Until now, it has given pretty equal coverage to all viewpoints. This week, it is openly talking of four to six degree temperature rises, without any reference to how likely this is to happen based on science rather than model prognostications.
    Given my respect for Mr Murdoch’s sense of how to make a buck, I am beginning to wonder if he has concluded that the political power frameworks now are so entrenched in this dogma that to break it will cause his business to fail?
    I hope not. It may just be he is giving blanket coverage to the Copenhagen conference. Perhaps he should have been invited to send journalists/TV anchors to the Heartland Institute conference also?

  7. Martin Mason asked:
    “Can anybody explain to me why the AGW industry becomes more irrational and shrill …”
    That’s easy. Like the most devoted believers of any religion, they regard any disagreement as apostasy, and do not react well to it. They are especially hostile to a former member who loses the faith.

  8. I agree with MattN–Olbermann should have stayed with what he knows. On my local cable lineup, MSNBC and Fox News happen to be on adjacent channels. Many, many times, I’ve seen O’Reilly on Fox talking about some issue of the day, and when I flipped one channel I’d see Olbermann talking about O’Reilly.
    Olberman with his righteous indignation, and Rachel What’s-her-name with her constant smirk are quite a pair. It’s not often you see so much arrogance and condescension with so little justification. What has either one ever done besides criticize people who are out in the real world accomplishing something?

  9. “Can anybody explain to me why the AGW industry becomes more irrational and shrill in its findings and demands… ”
    See Festinger and Cognitive Dissonance – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
    “I’ve only just stumbled on this site and it is a good source of info to balance the propaganda from the AGW industry. Are there any sites where with forums where it’s possible to rationally discuss the issues?”
    Umm. Global Warming is no longer a rational subject. It is either politics or religion. Do you know of any site where it is possible to ‘rationally discuss’ either of those two subjects?
    Steve McIntyre’s site http://www.climateaudit.org/ tries to keep a rigid focus on rationality, but is intensely mathematical, and the discussion will primarily be technical. You might be better off to look here – http://climatedebatedaily.com/ – which gives you the ‘headlines’ from both camps. Good Luck!

  10. The guy should get a job with North Korean State Television.
    He shares the “barking” character of the Korean news readers.
    With such a mentality you deserve to live under Communist Rule.
    Or in a garbage bin.
    And CNBC…?
    Don’t watch CNBC

  11. Olbermann may have shown his ignorance on this issue, but is still probably one of the best political commentators in the US. He recently attacked Dr Wakefield on the vaccine issue, based on the highly suspect article in the Sunday Times written by Brain Deer. The next day Olbermann effectively apologised to Wakefield after thousands of parents of autistic kids emailed in to point out that the vaccine science is far from settled, and that Brian Deer’s journalistic standards and alterior motives were far from transparent. Indeed, Olbermann then attacked Deer, (and ticked himself off for believeing what he read in a Murdoch owned newspaper). The problem is that Olbermann and his researchers destest Fox (which I don’t have much of an issue with), but Olbermann is a smart guy and it is people like him who realists need to reach out to to have any chance of turning the media around so that they begin the question the AGW mantra.

  12. Blimey, this is worrying. British television slavishly follows American television. In a few years time can we expect our presenters (I always thought an anchor was something used by a ship, but there you go) to become ranters like Mr Olbermann?
    Somewhat OT, I thought people might be interested to read an email I received at school recently. I have edited it to protect the identity of the person who sent it to me.
    Dear Colleagues,
    An important new film about climate change – “The Age of Stupid” – is coming to ****and the *** are offering free tickets to all *****Pupils for the schools showing on ***
    The film concerns a man looking back at 2008 from the wastelands of 2055 and asking why society did not stop Climate Change when we had the chance to. The film promises to be the most important environmental film since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Further details can be found at http://www.takeoneaction.org.uk/Age_of_Stupid.html
    After the screening there will be the opportunity for a Q&A session with *****, lead officer on ******** Climate Change strategy and *******, Sustainable Development Education Officer, plus others TBC. There will also be the opportunity for our young people to participate in some Vox Pops to express their thoughts on the film and Climate Change in general. I would encourage you to send some pupils to this event.
    I wonder what 3 questions readers of this blog would most want pupils to ask if they attend this film showing.
    My question would be: Why are all the predictions made by the AGW alarmists so far into the future that many of us will be long since dead (well I don’t expect live beyond 100) by the time these things are supposed to happen and won’t be able to check if they actually did happen?

  13. Sorry, I live in Spain. Can anyone explain who Keith Olbermann is exactly? From the video I can see he’s an idiot, but who is he?

  14. OT somewhat, but worth a look. The UK Daily Telegraph, which has been either sceptical or roughly neutral on the issue to date, has come off the fence big time today with its leader http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4987426/Capitalism-can-lead-the-way-on-climate-change.html“Capitalism can lead the way on climate change”. Having said that, there are some wee glimpses of balance and common sense in the article, but I’m afraid this means the UK MSM is now 100% sold on CO2 being a bad thing. I wonder where they’ll get their wood pulp from when we starve the forests to death?

  15. Sorry, but I trust a meteorologist more than computer modelers.
    We may poke fun at meteorologists, when they are wrong, but they are more humble and are constantly confronted by a thing called “Reality.” However when computer modelers project, with a computer model, fifty years into the future, they avoid being confronted by what actually happens, because it is too far in the future.
    Yet we can check out how their forecasts have done in the short term, for they have been making their doom and gloom predictions for 20 years. And what we have seen is that, for the first 10 years, their predictions were within the “margin of error,” but in the last ten years their predictions have veered far outside the “margin of error.” In other words, they don’t verify; they are WRONG.
    If you take the time to look at where they stated our planet’s average temperature should be by now, and where it actually is, you see that they blew the forecast. If you study the IPCC report you see other errors as well. For example, by now there was suppose to be noticeable heating of the upper atmosphere in the Tropics. Instead it is a hair cooler. They were WRONG.
    All Paul Dellagatto did was to point out the obvious. He doesn’t deserve to be smeared.
    When meteorologists blow a forecast they blush and admit their mistake, and then often eagerly point out why they were wrong, because their fascination with the weather is greater than their pride.
    When climate modelers blow a forecast they blame the public, or the clouds. In this way they resemble psychologists. (When a psychologist is wrong, he blames the patient. This may not be scientific, but it soothes his wounded ego, and protects his professional reputation.)

  16. The question I would ask is why isn’t it happening, surely something classed as a catastrophe should have obvious and defining characteristics? That is the question that I desperately need to get answered.
    What I’m worried about is that this thing is approaching critical mass and they could convince politicians to take ridiculous action based on nothing but harridan like rhetoric, bad science and weak theories. What a disaster.
    I saw a good debate on the subject from the US on BBC World News (The Intelligence2 debates) and the skeptics wiped the floor with the AGW side. Their arguments were based only on possible future events with no probability attached. I have tried to be as neutral as possible but they disappointed me.

  17. Mike:
    You asked:
    “Why are all the predictions made by the AGW alarmists so far into the future that many of us will be long since dead (well I don’t expect live beyond 100) by the time these things are supposed to happen and won’t be able to check if they actually did happen?”
    IMHO, it is a form of Millenial thinking that is a marker of many religions. It is the opposite of a readily provable proposition.
    I would propose an alternative question that will test the objectivity and the statistical acumen of the presenters: How many years of cooling or non-warming will it take for you to question the validity of the current AGW hypothesis? 10 years? 15 years? 44 years?

  18. It would take a contrarian religious-political agenda to make the requisite splash that would show AGW to be all wet…. on thier own level.
    Until then, you’ll have to wait for next winter’s cold hard reality to hit with vengeance. And it will get much colder next winter. SC24 is nowhere to be found. It’s not in the flux, it’s not on the MDI, it’s not in the TSI and it certainly isn’t in the hushed solar wind.
    Shuddering masses will make one heck of a racket.
    Congress shows signs of rebellion on AGW’s demand: Cap & Trade.
    Next winter will give much support to that rebellion.
    And back to the political front it will go, and there the fight will ensue.
    I believe AGW knows it is facing impending cold, and their agenda sees it’s time growing short. Such is the driving reason behind Gore’s astounding statement.
    Really, Mr. Gore.

  19. Olbermann says “nothing of value” — and does so obnoxiously. Its his “style”. His views are “irrelevant” to thinking people. But, they do indicate the bias and “low brow” approach of MSNBC.

  20. It is Paul Delgado that I watch for regional weather. His station, FOX 13, always has the most up to date radar system, he is pleasant, speaks comfortably, is easy to understand and is very accurate in his forcasts.
    El Sabio (02:54:37) : “Sorry, I live in Spain. Can anyone explain who Keith Olbermann is exactly? From the video I can see he’s an idiot, but who is he?”
    Oberman is a failed sports reporter. No one took him serioiusly, he was a clown. Apparently he decided his “career” needed to be taken seriously so he switched to “hard news”. He is a bitter man because MSNBC is a joke and very few watch him or his station.

  21. There’s an easy solution to all of this. Don’t watch TV! Well, at least don’t subscribe to “premium” cable channels (which include MSNBC). I refuse to get any premium cable channels from my cable provider (COMCAST) until they go a la cart, i.e. they allow the purchase of individual channels. It is only a matter of time before this happens – you can already order up movies on demand through NETFLIX. And frankly, I find much of the content on YouTube to be 100% more stimulating than anything on cable!
    For some reason, cable TV is still one of the few industries that forces you to buy 90% of a product that you don’t want to get the 10% that you do want. It’s like being forced to subscribe to 20 magazines just to get one!
    And I used to think it was worth subscribing to cable just to get the Weather Channel! Well, those days are long gone…

  22. What we need are some great ten second sound bites that people in the media can use. Maybe we can start a list here under “Resources”?
    “Good news, No weather catastrophes today!!!”

  23. @ timbrom,
    Actually, the Daily Telegraph has long been totally pro-AGW. As a long-time Telegraph reader I’m very sad to see its completely one-sided, ignorant and biased coverage. Twice I nearly lodged a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission, but after exchanging emails with the Deputy Editor, I didn’t follow through, which I now rather regret.
    You may have been thinking of its sister publication, the Sunday Telegraph, which has been far more balanced in its coverage, even verging on scepticism.
    Chris

  24. Well, what you have to realize is that the trigger that set off KO was almost certainly that it was a Fox station. Note that he even makes a point of saying so. The obvious implication KO is making is that the Evil Svengali Roger Ailes has expanded his plan for world domination for the f/a/s/c/i/s/t/ conservative cause from Fox News all the way to local Fox affiliates weather forecasts.

  25. The “worser” thing to do is give Olbermann any acknowledgment whatsoever. Any more of your time is wasted.

  26. I used to watch KO occasionally. One day his worst person in the world was an internet writer who he accused of publishing other writers names and home addresses. (Turns out the worst person in the world in fact linked to the other writers own internet site, which had their names and addresses). The same day a suicide bomber blew up himself and a woman and her two daughters at a bus stop (10 and 12 years old). Yet that day an internet blogger was the worst person in the world. I won’t watch him again.

  27. Just a few 10 second sound bites…
    According to NASA, the Earth has been cooling for ten years, but TIME Magazine is afraid to say anything because they had to apologize last time.
    The UN has decided that US taxpayers must send them alot more money, because the Earth is going to get real hot if we don’t. So, Pay up Americans!!!
    Have you noticed that the Earth is cooling? Satellite and ground based temperature sensors all say the same thing. Buy a coat while it’s still on sale!
    Do you live near an ocean, bay or gulf? Is the water level rising, other than high tide? You’re not imagining it, sea level rise is just another scare tactic…
    Some scientists are now saying that Global Warming was caused by the SUN, not your SUV. Now that the sun is quiet, temperatures are falling worldwide.
    Some people think that five dollar or even eight dollar a gallon gasoline will be good for the USA. If you agree. You want Cap and Trade. Tell your representative.
    If there’s a heatwave, it’s Global Warming. If the Earth gets colder, it is ALSO Global Warming. Global Warming can do ANYTHING! How can you stop something like that?!?

  28. So that’s Keith Oberman. I guess you learn something everyday, but from those couple of minutes it’s obvious I wouldn’t confuse him for a rocket scientist.

  29. Somebody, maybe the guys at NOAA who last week also said we are in for 30 years of cooling, should tell Olberman that the chill he feels up his leg now is not Obama, its just cold air.
    The man is a bombastic fool

  30. “Can anybody explain to me why the AGW industry becomes more irrational and shrill in its findings and demands given the logical arguments that appear to be gradually demolishing their belief and the evidence on the ground?”
    1. Reputations on the line and the funding of researh: House of Cards Effect.
    2. It provided an excuse to use euphamistic profanity: The “Freaking” Effect.
    3. Most prominant, I think: The “IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO!” Effect.
    😉

  31. I have repeatedly emailed MSNBC management that I have a solution to their mistake in hiring Olberman. I’ll get to it in a minute.
    For those of you who don’t know much about Olberman; he always boasts about graduating from Cornell. However, here’s the truth.
    If you’ve ever watched any three nights of his show, you know that Olbermann went to Cornell. But he always forgets to mention that he went to the school that offers classes in milking and bovine management. Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent “Ivy League” education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: “My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class.” Except Keith didn’t go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell. The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree. Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1.01 applicants). Olbermann’s incessant lying about having an “Ivy League education” when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a “Yale man.”
    [snip]

  32. ‘Olbermann should have stayed with what he knows.’
    Counting his toes?
    Hey, that rhymes!

  33. Olberman appears to be interviewing as anchor for the future Pravda Cable Channel. That was one of the stupidest rants I have ever seen.

  34. In 2005, Ted Turner compared Fox News to Hitler’s propaganda machine.
    The reply from Fox was a classic:
    “A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: “Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind — we wish him well.”
    And now, Keith Olbermann.
    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack

  35. NBC is owned by GE, and GE has invested a huge amount of money on the green agenda. You will see no balance from MSNBC. In Canada we have the CBC , which is publicly owned and supposed to be unbiased. What a joke that is. They even think their declining ratings are due to something other than the public being sick and tired of their totally biased programming. The election here for Prime Minister was a clear message from the Canadian people that we don’t believe the BS ( bad science) they are trying to shove down our throats. The CBC is in denial as to why no one is watching or listening. They had one of the best classical music channels (CBC 2,102.1 FM in Calgary) which had an elderly listenership. The ratings became so bad that they went to “indie” music targeting the younger generation. It is terrible now. They refuse to accept that their “unbiased” (*self snip*) is driving people away. Jay Ingrahm on the Canadian Discovery Channel is painful to watch as well. Supposedly science based journalism. When I watch any form of media, I am inundated (bludgeoned) by green propaganda. It makes me laugh when pro-AGWr’s post on this blog that our voices should be silenced. Haven’t they already effectively accomplished that? I only see that opposing view in the blogosphere, no where in the MSN is our voice being heard. As “The Clash” said, you have the right to free speech,as long as your not dumb enough to actually try it.

  36. One of the key signs of desperation and panic by those who oppose ones truth is that they start attacking the messenger rather than the message [the science] . They have no basis for attacking valid science so they attck and try to discredit any messenger.
    We are all behind you Paul. The American people are behind you as well as the majority of Americans [ now up to 44% per recent poll by Angus Reid Reports] reject the AGW science and their numbers are growing , thus the very desperate outburts as noted in this post .

  37. I quit watching all the news channels, except Fox, several years ago, because they are no longer presenting news on controversial subjects, just advocacy. Maybe they will eventually go the way of the liberal newspapers. Even my junior-high school grandkids can see the bias, anymore.

  38. El Sabio (02:54:37) :”Sorry, I live in Spain. Can anyone explain who Keith Olbermann is exactly? From the video I can see he’s an idiot, but who is he?”
    *****************
    KO was for years a sports commentator on American TV. A few years ago he joined MSNBC a failing cable TV offshoot of major broadcast network NBC. MSNBC and KO in particular are insanely jealous of FOX NEWS’ top ranked ratings and they pump up their ratings with their moonbat liberal demographic by trashing FOX and FOX’s Bill O’Reilly in particular.

  39. Anthony
    I put an earlier version of the following short story (which I wrote) into the comments section of one of your earlier postings, so I’ll understand if you zap this one. But judging from the comments by others here, I thought maybe some of them would enjoy the story. Its called “The Trial.”
    REPLY: It is a bit too large for comments. – Anthony

  40. Is it possible to include Dellegatto’s clip as well? Olbermann’s a famous ass, and much has been written about his miscasting, but it would be interesting to see what exactly Dellegatto did to raise Olby’s easily-raised hackles.
    REPLY: I looked but did not see any video of his weathercast for that day. – Anthony

  41. Martin Mason writes:
    “I’ve only just stumbled on this site and it is a good source of info to balance the propaganda from the AGW industry. Are there any sites where with forums where it’s possible to rationally discuss the issues?”
    Yes this is a good place to be.This blog is well moderated.Therefore irrational and trolling behavior are quickly snipped.
    Rationally discussing the issues with an AGW believer is really not possible anymore.In my forum we have not seen a single AGW believer post anything since early last year.That is because we banned the two for being hostile and offensive.Since then not a single new AGW believer has joined.
    If they are civil and reasonable.They would have my support in posting what they believe.But alas they never join.
    You can try MY forum where there are NO AGW believers present.
    or try this one where there is ONE who is persisting in his AGW based arguments.
    Climate Realists is the place:
    http://climaterealists.com/forum/
    Cheers

  42. Mike Ryan:
    “My question would be: Why are all the predictions made by the AGW alarmists so far into the future that many of us will be long since dead (well I don’t expect live beyond 100) by the time these things are supposed to happen and won’t be able to check if they actually did happen?”
    Because they are not thinking rationally.
    A true science researcher would refrain from making such long term predictions/scenarios.They would focus on the here and now and into the already recorded past.Research that can be reproducable and thus have at validated status to continue research.
    The IPCC report showed these long range scenarios/predictions of temperature increases to year 2050 and year 2100. Mostly based on the AGW hypothesis and the media runs with it.Since such proclamations are not validated or reproducable.They fall into the realm of climate religion.
    These IPCC reports are treated as “settled” science.It is stagnating and easily bypassed with better and updated papers.That is how good science research is practiced.Continuing to expand knowledge based on credible past published papers.
    So when someone tells you to have FAITH in those much talked about IPCC’s 50-100 years into the future climate models.That are not validated.Then you should move away and maintain rational skepticism.

  43. I liked Keith Olbermann back when he was at ESPN. He was funny. But behind the scenes at ESPN things were awry, “…Olbermann was the only former ESPN star not invited back for the sports network’s 25th anniversary”.
    http://nymag.com/news/features/30338/
    Now at MSNBC his show is a catharsis for those on the political far left.
    The political left is overplaying their hand in AGW. They must be getting frustrated. Al Gore’s movie didn’t convince everyone. “Consensus” didn’t work. Neither did “settled science” or “beyond debate”. So now they’re just coming out with their true colors. Yesterday we saw the article that tried to make it look like anyone that questions AGW is just an old white man from the right of politics. And now we see this Keith Olbermann story.
    The political left is doing their opponents in the AGW issue a favor by pulling away their mask of pretense and letting everyone know what is really going on with AGW. God bless them!

  44. Meteorologists probably present more science to the public every day than anyone else. They deliver the basic data, show patterns and associations, put it in context, illustrate changes with trend charts, extrapolate on the knowledge, explain the physics, and all in fairly simple terms that most people can understand. A meteorologist at a local station just retired after 30+ years of being one of the most trusted (according to numerous polls of the audience) tv-folk in the area. The station did 15 minutes of career review and a live interview with him on his last broadcast. What garnered him such respect? Consistent and honest reporting, community involvement, and a personal humility that his viewers could relate to. Olbermann and his ilk may make names for themselves, but they aren’t loved or respected.

  45. MattN (00:28:08) :
    Olbermann should have never left ESPN. He was funnier then. Now he’s just pathetic.

    I agree, Keith should have stayed with sports casting. I used to watch “Count Down” but Keith has gotten so rediculously biased and slanted that I just couldn’t stomache it anymore. He is nothing more than just another V-Jay cowboy doing anything for ratings. He is no longer credible in my book. MSNBC as a whole is just a joke.

  46. Hell, no wonder Olbermann is going postal… his viewership numbers are so low it’s pathetic.

  47. El Sabio (02:54:37) :
    Sorry, I live in Spain. Can anyone explain who Keith Olbermann is exactly? From the video I can see he’s an idiot, but who is he?
    El Sabio, there is nothing to add to what you have already deduced.

  48. Many thanks for all of the links and information. I’m not a meteorologist but a Chemical Engineer so can provide no climate expertise but I’ll enjoy reading nonetheless. In my job and at home I do what I can to minimise energy use because it makes sense but even with my limited knowledge of climatology I have realised that the AGW proponents have got it wrong and, frighteningly, the politicians have picked up the baton, they love it. Keep up the good work.

  49. The next day Olbermann effectively apologised to Wakefield after thousands of parents of autistic kids emailed in to point out that the vaccine science is far from settled, and that Brian Deer’s journalistic standards and alterior motives were far from transparent.
    Maybe these political commentators should stay away from science issues altogether. The “MMR vaccine/thimerasol causes autism” theory has been widely discredited. This is one issue where the science is settled. Much research into autism is now looking at genetics. There is definitely a group of parents who are desperate to place the blame somewhere. That doesn’t make their beliefs about vaccines any more correct than the beliefs of the AGW alarmists. Autistic people existed before the invention of vaccines. The majority of autistic people themselves don’t believe in the vaccine theory.

  50. Olbermann is simply a liberal Limbaugh. They’re both equally repulsive.
    I used to watch his Countdown show, it was amusing at first. But then he became another sanctimonius, rhetoric-spewing talking head.

  51. Steve Sloan (06:15:37) :
    “Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences”
    Would this not qualify him to speak on the problem of bovine flatulence?

  52. Mr. Dellagatto should feel a certain sense of pride. The roster of former recipients of Olbermann’s bile is a fairly select group including virtually anyone who has had the temerity to challenge any leftist dogma. The irony of Olbermann’s almost daily awarding of the Worst Person in the World honor is that the trophy should have long ago been permanently riveted to his own mantle.
    I remember his tenure at ESPN and he wasn’t that great there either, already displaying the penchant for pompous windbaggery that he has now developed to Himalayan proportions.

  53. I’d be wary of casting aspersions on specific secondary instutions. Any college, regardless of its alledged prestige, presents nothing more than a formatted roadmap to learning, and hopefully, critical thinking with a bunch of memorization and acronyms thrown in. Here is an example of one national ranking service for agricultural schools:
    1 University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL
    2 Cornell University Ithaca, NY
    3 Texas A&M University–College Station College Station, TX
    4 Iowa State University Ames, IA
    5 Purdue University–West Lafayette West Lafayette, IN
    University of California–Davis Davis, CA
    7 University of Florida Gainesville, FL
    8 Ohio State University–Columbus Columbus, OH
    Pennsylvania State University–University Park University Park, PA
    10 North Carolina State University–Raleigh Raleigh, NC
    The value of your education is based on decisions you make while learning, including effort, honesty, integrity, priorities, drinking, etc. Keith evidently focused on fame and money, not critical thinking.
    Incidently, most of the problems this country is experiencing were initiated by Ivy league grads.

  54. We hate it when we are called irrelevant by the other side. It is one way the AGW scare is so far ahead of the skeptics side. It is a tactic well-known for its effectiveness. If you have nothing to say that can be substantiated by an unbiased view of observations and facts, or you just haven’t done your homework, you call the other side irrelevant. Meaning you don’t have to debate the question. Win by default. The way out of this way-out-of-hand alarmism is dangerously hampered by each side calling the other irrelevant.

  55. re: Don S (09:18:55) :
    If the ulterior motive is discovered and exposed you can always switch to an alterior motive? Keep ’em guessing?
    re: Martin Mason (00:05:55) :
    Can anybody explain to me why the AGW industry becomes more irrational and shrill in its findings and demands given the logical arguments that appear to be gradually demolishing their belief and the evidence on the ground? Their intolerant attitude has lost any possible support from me.
    The explanation, Martin, is that it is not about science. I’m a sociologist and started researching AGW/CC over a year ago because of that shrillness. I wanted to see if there was a rational counter-argument to the consensus/settled science. The issue here is about equity, fairness and change. A radical change to a more just and sustainable society. It is a movement that is fundamentally anti-Western Culture and anti-American. People chortle in these “denialist” sites about how the wheels are coming off AGW science. That may be true, but the politics are settled. The current administration knows what it wants to do and is orchestrating events that will allow it do it. They also know that they have a limited window of opportunity. Look for 1960’s style radical action very shortly.

  56. Anthony
    Like Jerry Lee Davis (06:59:10), I also put an earlier version of a short story I wrote into the comments section of one of your earlier postings. But given the conjunction of the topics of Keith Olbermann and global warming, I thought it might be relevant here. If you deem it redundant or too long, just zap it.
    Keep up the good work,
    Reed Coray
    PMSNBC News Alert
    Dateline: Hell, 17 November 2008
    Editor’s note: In our ongoing search for sensationalism and stories that promote socialism, Keith Obermouth, who came sooooooo close to getting Tim Russert’s old job, has secured an exclusive telephone interview with the Prince Of Darkness Himself. A transcript of that interview is printed below in its entirety (well, maybe we did a little editing, but only to make the story more sensationalistic and disconcerting to our readers, and as always to further socialism). Note to the typesetter, please remove the immediately foregoing parenthetical phrase prior to printing.
    Obermouth: “Has anthropogenic global warming (AGW) impacted Hell in any way?”
    Devil: “Yes and no. No in that man’s impact on the temperature of the earth’s surface is at most miniscule, and to date the temperature of Hell hasn’t risen at all. In fact, over the last year our measurements tell us that Hell, like earth, has become slightly cooler; but that is obviously incorrect because the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] tells us the earth is getting warmer. We’ll have to modify our temperature measuring techniques. Fortunately, that will be easy because when Dr. James Hansen of NASA joins us in the near future we’ll use his expertise in the matter. I would like to add that people like Dr. Hansen who look for and find disaster in every environmental change, ascribe non-existent human causes to those changes, and promote societal programs that benefit themselves but not only don’t address the non-existent causes of the non-existent disasters do actual harm to mankind are kindred spirits of mine.
    “Yes in that the fear of AGW is producing early arrivals. Deaths from non-refrigerated spoiled food, malnutrition, freezing, etc. are increasing at a rapid rate, and we expect the trend to continue. The situation is similar to the DDT scare, which wasn’t perfect but on the whole was one of my better ideas. We netted several million early arrivals with that one. It would have been perfect, but the law of unintended consequences bit me on the butt. The early arrivals weren’t very good workers because their bodies and souls were racked with disease. Getting them into shape to do my work strained my resources. However, in the case of ‘AGW scare’ early arrivals, the outlook is brighter. Malnutrition is much easier to fix than malaria. And the thawing out of frozen bodies is trivial for us to handle.”
    Obermouth: “So you think the AGW scare will impact Hell in the future?”
    Devil: “Yes, in fact we’re making plans for the future. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], we use computer models and they predict the early arrival of 30,000,000 souls. Our models show that the transition of energy production from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, whatever the Hell those are, will result in the early deaths of 15,000,000 at a minimum and may reach as high as 45,000,000. As a result, we are expediting completion of our new wing to accommodate the expected 30,000,000 early arrivals. However, unlike the IPCC computer models used to predict global temperatures, our models accurately predict the future not the past. Of course there’s a downside to those early arrivals. It’s a well known fact that the longer a person lives the more likely he is to commit a mortal sin. Thus, shortening an individual’s life decreases the probability that he/she will join us in Shangri-La. But as the old saying goes, ‘a burning log in the stove is better than two on the wood pile’.”
    Obermouth: “From what you say and given the rhetoric of former Vice President Al Gore, Dr. Hansen and Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC, I infer they are spokespersons for your organization. Is that correct?”
    Devil: “No, and you can believe me on this one. That’s not to say they won’t grace me with their presence at some time in the future. I’ll accept help from any source; but hey, you insult me by implying I would consciously employ such incompetent boobs. Why just the other day, the organization headed by that idiot Hansen duplicated for October some September 2008 temperatures from Russia; and as a result his mouthpiece, Dr. Pachauri, claimed the earth’s surface was getting hotter faster than anyone expected. When this mishandling of the data became general knowledge, it set our work back several months. It wasn’t fatal to our cause, but it hurt. When I get my hooves on Drs. Hansen and Pachauri, I’ll teach them what for.”
    Obermouth: “Are you implying that Al Gore, Dr. Hansen, and Dr. Pachauri are headed to Hell?”
    Devil: “Duh! And I was told you were smart. I’ll have to reprimand my call screener. Of course they’re headed to Hell. Do you really think my Political Opponent wants to associate with buffoons that do MY work? He’s afraid that if the global warming alarmist crowd gets to Heaven, it will try to convince the inhabitants that Heaven is heating up and will soon be indistinguishable from Hell. In a secret protocol, I have agreed to take the lot of them off His hands when the time comes in return for which He won’t interfere with their earthly preaching.
    “Their arrival in Hell will, however, require that I change both my official name and my headquarters. With all the hot air messieurs Gore, Hansen, and Pachauri will bring to Hell, Hell will become so hot our walls will emit sufficient visible light so that I’ll be known as the Prince Of Lightness, not the Prince of Darkness. Then when energy production transitions from fossil fuel to ‘green’ sources, I won’t have enough power to run my personal air conditioner; and like Al Gore, just how much inconvenience can a savior of the world be expected to suffer? As a result, I’ll have to move my headquarters to one of the outer planets.”
    Obermouth: “Thank you for your time. I wish you well.”
    Devil: “You’re welcome. And by the way, as of today a permanent replacement for Tim Russert hasn’t been named. Maybe we can work out a deal–I’m known for that you know. Hold on a second while I check my records. (very short pause) Forget it. I don’t need to waste a deal on you.”

  57. Don S (09:18:55): – good question – I think it’s a spelling mistake.
    Chuck (08:28:38): I didn’t mention thimerisol (which isn’t in MMR and never has been) but that said it is still a big issue with regard to vaccine safety. This isn’t the place but I can assure you that the science is not settled. If you doubt me google for the minutes of the CDC’s secret Simpsonwood conference in 2000, where they decided to cover up rather than go public on the truth about thimerisol (ethyl mercury) in vaccines. As for your suggestion that it is all genetics – it’s true that there is very likely a genetic component, and that it will be the kids with this genetic susceptibility will be the most likely to regress into autism, but the evidence clearly suggests an environmental trigger. In any case you can not have a genetic epidemic, it is an impossiblity. Autism rates were about 1 in 10,000 25 years ago, they are now around 1 in 100. And this rise correlates very closly with the increased number of vaccines on the CDC’s recommdened vaccine schedule. If this epidemic was not vaccine related, there would have to be 100 of thousands of old people with autism, and there clearly isn’t. And before you say it’s all down to improved diagnosis, that’s not what they found in California. See http://www.jdeclanflynn.com/uploads/autismweb/index.html for a summary of a recent conference on mercury in Florida. Sadly climateology is not the only sphere in science which has been corrupted for political / corporate ends – http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/07/health.businessofresearch – and the supposed safety of mercury presrevatives and aluminium adjuvants in vaccines is far from proven.

  58. Its nice to see so many people making great , intelligent, questioning comments about AGW. We are all supposed to suffereing from some denial delusion, in the pay of Exxon or Flat Earth beleivers, when I truth I suspect quite the reverse is true.
    If somebody could demonstrate to me that AGW was significantly happening, and it was a problem, I would glady cut my Co2 emmissions ( altough I’m fairly good anyway– my Harley mcycle does about 55 mpg and my diesel VW about 45mpg, I have lots of energy effiecent bulbs etc and dont live a lavish lifestyle)
    During the build up to World War 2, the Nazi employed similar media tricks, any dissent was ruthlessly put down and you were only allowed to think the party line.
    I believe with AGW there are several forces at wotk, the left wing, tree hugger desire to have everyone live in a mud hut, but also the big buisness spinners trying to start another ” dot.com” rush in which some made millions and scarpered

  59. Tim, you turned your excellent remark, “I’d be wary of casting aspersions on specific secondary instutions”, into a hypocritical after-taste when you ended your post with, “Incidently, most of the problems this country is experiencing were initiated by Ivy league grads.”
    Substantiate, as you did with your excellent first remark, or call your last remark unsubstantiated opinion.

  60. At the moment Keith Olbermann’s overall viewers are 1.5 mil vs 4.0 mil for O’Reilly. Within the 25 – 54 age range the comparison is about 500K vs 800K. The four big cable news networks have very similar numbers. CNN: 96.93, CNBC: 95.13, FNC: 94.55, MSNBC: 91.59 (all in millions).
    I think he misses as often as he hits, but it is either ignorance or misrepresentation to say that Keith Olbermann or any particular news channel is “irrelevant”.
    The clip in question highlighted three people, #3 – a Fox News Channel commentator apparently equating stem cell research policy to a step towards eugenics and baby harvesting, #2 – the aforementioned “weather anecdotes as counter-proof of AGW” guy, and #1 a Democrat who thought “animal husbandry” is something unsavory (now that’s actually funny). So Steven Goddard’s focus here at WUWT is factual, but… selective.
    David Ball (06:43:23): “The election here for Prime Minister was a clear message from the Canadian people that we don’t believe the BS ( bad science) they are trying to shove down our throats.” (and various complaints about Canadian media) Ah, clarity. (Aside: there is no “election for Prime Minister” in the Canadian political system.) The Canadian federal election wasn’t really fought on environmental issues, was it? The Conservatives campaigned mainly on “leadership”, the opposition parties mainly on “economic failure”. On environmental issues, for better or worse all parties tripped over themselves to claim the CO2 reduction high ground. The end result was a roughly 1% increase in the Conservative Party’s popular vote (to 38%) but a significant improvement of their minority government’s number of seats.

  61. It is fascinating how perfectly rational people are duped by so-called scientists who insist the planet is warming up! The planet is cooling down, not warming up.
    All you have to do is look in your refrigerator: Does your food get more humid or less humid as it sits in your refrigerator? It gets less humid, doesn’t it?
    Now think about this: Lower humidity causes lower temperature (else your refrigerator would not be cold when your food dries up). Our snow mass is decreasing, which means our atmosphere is drying up (the snow is evaporating because the air is dryer), causing the temperature to drop (since less humidity causes lower temperatures – check your refrigerator!)
    One can only hope that in four years from now priorities will be set straight and science will once again return to the realm of common sense.

  62. You have idiots on both sides of the media. I’ve seen some pretty outrageous things from the O’reilly/Coulter crowd, and I have seen some outrageous things from the KO/DailyKos crowd.
    It’s like linking an article about the record cold in New England, and not saying a word about the record heat in Australia.
    The problem with the climate change conversation is that it is not a conversation at all. You get folks in one camp and folks in the other and they don’t talk to each other. They just write each other off because they are a “warmist” or a “denialist” and everyone losses.
    Ben

  63. The canard that global warming causes local cooling is so strange that the only thing more ludicrous is the explanations. For example, warming causes precipitation and rain is cold. Simply childish. does global cooling cause local heat waves?
    Here is a lay take on AGW skeptics being labeledhttp://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/03/global-warming-skeptics-under-attack-labeled-as-having-mental-disorder/ deranged.

  64. I would like to ask an open question, but before I do, I need to nail my colours to the mast. I have always been an ardent environmentalist, I respect this planet as I would hope others do as well. It is, after all our home ! However, I am also an ardent skeptic in this global warming debate. Skeptical in that I accept that the earth is slowly and imperceptibly warming, but I don’t accept that we, as a race are responsible for the emmissions that are causing this warming.
    That said, I am continually confused as to why the planets governmental leaders and high profile individuals such as Al Gore are so vehement in their belief that we are responsible and that the end of the world is nigh, despite the science that day by day seems to contradict them. My question is that if we like minded people are right and they are wrong, why are we being dragged down this potentially economically suicidal abyss of trying to combat this forecasted global disaster? Do they know something we don’t, or, and probably more appropriate, what do they gain over promoting what to me seems to be a myth of gargantuan proportions.
    I hope I’m not sounding too simplistic in asking this question, but as I said earlier, I really am confused.

  65. @ Domingo Tavella (12:40:42) :
    “Now think about this: Lower humidity causes lower temperature (else your refrigerator would not be cold when your food dries up). Our snow mass is decreasing, which means our atmosphere is drying up (the snow is evaporating because the air is dryer), causing the temperature to drop (since less humidity causes lower temperatures – check your refrigerator!)”
    I am not entirely sure you know how your refrigerator operates. Also, cooler air has less capacity for moisture, so its the other way around. Less humidity does not cause cooler temperatures, otherwise it would be pretty friggen cold in the Sahara.

  66. “Nobody cares about Keith Olbermann. He’s irrelevant.”
    I could not have said it better my self.
    I often wonder how it is that people who seem reasonably bright to me have any knowledge of what Olbermann or Sullivan had to say.

  67. Barry Foster (00:42:41) :
    I have noticed a recurring trope, your comment only being the latest example, of rhetorically pairing AGW true believers with creationists. I have not surveyed creationist publications extensively, but at least in the case of Answers in Genesis, they take a decidedly skeptical view of the interpretation of the evidence advanvced for AGW. And, it might be added, the invective hurled against creationists by the guardians of “settled science” is pretty much indistinguishable from the invective hurled against anyone who doubts AGW by the guardians of “settled science.” In many cases this is because the two sets of guardians of “settled science” are coextensive. (E.g. P.Z. Myers.)

  68. You do realize meteorologists aren’t the same thing as climate scientists?
    It’s like me asking my family doctor for their expert analysis on a global avain flu pandemic

  69. The MSM may not be willing to give climate moderates (a wonderfully loaded term!) any column space. But it may still be possible to use it as a pointer…. For example, here is a letter I just sent to our local paper (The San Gabriel Valley Tribune):
    The mainstream media drumbeat for climate calamity is getting a bit tedious. One should not have to go to the Fifth Estate (read ‘internet’) for balanced sources, but this seems to be where we’re at. Unfortunately there are a great many unbalanced sources on that venue. For readers who may be interested, here are three sites that at least attempt serious discussion, with what I think are typical viewpoints.
    realclimate.org
    The science is settled; we face a global crisis; we must act NOW.
    wattsupwiththat.com (Careful here, it really is “watt”, not “what”.)
    The science is not settled; human influence on global climate is likely swamped by natural
    variation; precipitate action on our part could do a great deal more damage than climate change.
    climateaudit.org
    The science should be publicly accessible; crucial parts of it are based on questionable data
    and secret computer programming; professional journals should exercise due diligence in
    enforcing scientific transparency.
    There is a lot of fascinating science here if you’re willing to wade through a fair amount of name-calling and flame-throwing. Visitors can read and form their own opinions. Not that anyone should be interested, but I’ll venture an opinion anyway: The stakes in this discussion are enormous and the science is definitely not settled. It is a good time to be thinking with our heads and not with our stomachs.

  70. Thanks Ben, for taking a small aspect of what I was saying and dispute it, trying to draw attention away from the main gist of my post. You did not address the biased reporting done by our “unbiased” publicly funded CBC , which was the central theme of my post. >In regards to what you think the “federal election” ( not the election for Prime Minister?the difference?) was about, I can tell you with absolute certainty that everyone I know stayed away from the liberals due to their carbon credit campaign (you will get the tax money back in another way, remember?). Your post has the wording of someone whose job it is to distract from and muddy the conversation. A reference from wikipedia? No bias there, either. Try again. I did enjoy the “animal husbandry” quip, though.

  71. It is fascinating how perfectly rational people are duped by so-called scientists who insist the planet is warming up!

    Most of them are not duped. Quoting from a comment at Prometheus:

    I remember one evening in the pub we got chatting to this woman whom it turns out worked for an environmental agency, buying carbon credits. I asked her, “why is there so much focus on CO2 when other things might be worse pollution, like mercury in the sea?”
    Her reply was, “yes, CO2 might not really be a problem, but CO2 covers everything about production. By reducing CO2, you reduce consumption. By reducing consumption, you reduce greed.”

    That mentality is why AGW proponents refuse to debate on the scientific basis; they’re not interested in the facts nor rational policies which would actually address the issue, what they truly want is a restructuring of society that has already proved a dismal failure in the few cases where it hasn’t been rejected outright as abhorrent, so they’ve simply repackaged it under the guise of science hoping nobody would notice.

  72. “Matt Dernoga (13:27:57) :
    You do realize meteorologists aren’t the same thing as climate scientists?
    It’s like me asking my family doctor for their expert analysis on a global avain flu pandemic”
    “global avain flu pandemic”?… Just another media scare campaign…

  73. Andrew P:
    “Olbermann is a smart guy and it is people like him who realists need to reach out to to have any chance of turning the media around so that they begin the question the AGW mantra.”
    Now there’s a delusion.
    Because Olbermann is in reality a fair minded middle of the road objective truth seeker?
    Please.
    Face it: Olbermann is a left-wing ideologue and in being so, has fallen for the party line, hook line and sinker. You arent going to get the truth from him.

  74. Harry (14:34:41) :
    Amen! I dislike Olberman, intensely. He is a male Rachel Madow.
    Slightly off topic: During Olberman’s rant he mentioned eugenics. For those of you who are not familiar with this hypothesis read here.
    I only mention it because it shares some of the same traits as AGW:
    1. Predicted a disastrous outcome (population overrun by mediocre or inferior human beings).
    2. Accepted by most mainstream scientists and educational institutions of the day (a concensus).
    3. Taken to an extreme it had unanticipated consequences (Hitler’s Germany)
    4. Found to be false. (we can only hope as far as AGW is concerned)

  75. As if on cue:
    Keith Olbermann and the Ring of Assassins!
    http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132236.html
    “On last night’s episode of Countdown, the always excitable Keith Olbermann led the show with a “bombshell allegation” from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh exposing a “covert executive assassination ring” run out of Dick Cheney’s office.”
    Oh yes. This is the guy we need to reach out to in order to question the AGW mantra.

  76. Oh, I forgot. Please, someone reference the study that verifies Olberman’s assertion that snowfall in Florida is a sign of man-made climate change.

  77. Stuff like this is why Olbermann won my Illiquid Asset of the Week twice last year before I stopped the series and stopped watching MSNBC. The man is unstable, uninformed and just plain wrong much of the time.
    Here was his last tirade on the world from the elections that got him an Illiquid Asset of the Week for the second time.
    http://illiquidassets.net/2008/10/21/ThisIsNotPoliticalItIsPatheticIlliquidAssetOfTheWeek.aspx
    I think I will restart that series…

  78. Michael Fury:
    “Here’s what happens when a famous CBS anchorman gets the memo too late:
    Must be Conspiracy Theory Saturday.

  79. “It is a movement that is fundamentally anti-Western Culture and anti-American. … The current administration knows what it wants to do and is orchestrating events that will allow it do it. They also know that they have a limited window of opportunity. Look for 1960’s style radical action very shortly.”
    Followed by an 80s-style reaction.

  80. TV Weathermen should just stick to telling me what the weather will be like tomorrow. Their recent record on that has been awful. If the idiot cannot even get tomorrow right then his pontifications on anything that is further into the future can only be construed as guess work and leaning towards idealism.
    As for Keith I find him an eloquent orator who invariably just shows people what they have said. If that proves embarrassing then that is the speaker’s problem not the messenger’s.
    I’m detecting some bufferism happening on this site.

  81. harebell:
    “As for Keith I find him an eloquent orator who invariably just shows people what they have said. “
    Does that “eloquence” include labeling a meteorologist the “Worst Person in the World”? Sounds a bit extremist dont you think?
    Just goes to show that hyperbole in defense of all things “progressive” is no vice.

  82. An alterior motive is like an ulterior motive, only powered by renewable energy.
    I’m an old hippie, so a lot of my friends are warmingists. Their motivations are okay. They are genuinely annoyed that I won’t “face the Truth”. They are frustrated (and shrill) because they see obvious impending doom, and “they” need to “do something” (apparently us denialists are blocking this). The motives of the folks who convinced ’em of this, I can not know. Is “illterior” a word?
    cap: freeze in the dark.
    trade: pay a poor person to freeze in the dark for me.
    Best,
    Frank

  83. Olbermann creeps me out with his constant infatuation with BIll O’Reilly.
    He didn’t make it as a sportscaster. He’s definitely no newsman. I see pushing a hot dog cart around Rockefeller Center in his future. He’ll be hollering, “These are the worse hot dogs in the wooooorrrrrlllldddd!”

  84. Obviously Olbermann took the kool-aid.
    Retribution will come when it will inevitably be proved that AGW is not real, and it was actually just a tool (maybe not at first, but certainly now) designed to tax more Americans out of their own money.

  85. Is Mr. Olbermann “big” in climate/warming research [papers]? I don’t read a lot of them, but have yet to see him cited as a source.
    Watched one of Mr. Olbermann’s shows; that was enough for me,
    …fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
    Seems to me that Mr. Dellegatto has the credibility edge here.

  86. harebell (17:20:21) :

    TV Weathermen should just stick to telling me what the weather will be like tomorrow. Their recent record on that has been awful. If the idiot cannot even get tomorrow right then his pontifications on anything that is further into the future can only be construed as guess work and leaning towards idealism.
    As for Keith I find him an eloquent orator who invariably just shows people what they have said. If that proves embarrassing then that is the speaker’s problem not the messenger’s.
    I’m detecting some bufferism happening on this site.

    Most weathermen know their limits.
    Apparently, they share these limits with other predictors of the weather future.
    As they see people confidently predicting what will be 100 years from now, when it is really impossible to predict what will be a month from now, it bothers some. So they point out the obvious. The idealism of the AGW is simply being pointed out.
    What in the world do you mean by “bufferism”?

  87. I used to be a meteorologist … a real one, not a TV weathercaster … and the question that often gets me into trouble is how come we can say what the weather’s giong to be like in 50-100 years’ time, when we can’t say for certain what it’s going to do next week?

  88. bufferism:
    buffer – to lessen the adverse effect of; ease: The drug buffered his pain.
    ism – a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice: This is the age of isms.

  89. Dave Wendt (09:43:03) :
    I remember his tenure at ESPN and he wasn’t that great there either, already displaying the penchant for pompous windbaggery that he has now developed to Himalayan proportions.

    ROTFL! Nicely put!

  90. I think we wallow too much in childhood name calling in this thread. Would anyone like to upgrade the thread to a discussion of what the weatherman said? What signs did he mention that global warming was not happening? Why would Keith say that global warming causes cooling? Where does that belief come from? Calling people we don’t agree with silly poopoo/peepee names just makes then look right, not wrong.

  91. There is something called the “dry-ice effect”, which plays a key role in the Gore propaganda machine to convince the American People that AGW is real. Gore and his cronies (which include such characters are Buffet and Soros – all well-known atheist socialists who use capitalism as a front) are not telling anyone that dry air causes a drop in temperature (the dry-ice effect) because they don’t won’t people to wake up and instead want people to trade carbon contracts through the corporations they control.
    Gore shamelessly open about it(http://www.gore.com/en_xx/). Ultimately, however, it is the people’s responsibility to elect wise and knowledgeable leaders. Let’s hope that in 4 years someone of the caliber of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh will be there to save the future of this country.

  92. FRANK KOTLER 18:33:08; “Is illterior a word?” It is now. My aging brain cells saw it immediately as the perfect modifier for the motives of the AGW and global government crowds. It fits so well with other “ills” such as: illation (a conclusion), ilth (poor) and illuminati (grandiosely enlightened). There’s even a Welsh saint Illtyd, patron of those with illlth illatives.

  93. mr.artday: Thanks for the link mate !
    Great insight into the “green” mentality, however, I think it just confirmed to me that there seems to be a desire to create a global trend through the climate change agenda, to try to achieve a “true” globally acceptable communist attitude in the minds of the general public, closer to the original ideas of Marx and Engels rather than Lenin or Stalin.
    Interesting times !!

  94. Andrew P:
    “Olbermann may have shown his ignorance on this issue, but is still probably one of the best political commentators in the US.”
    What a load Mr. P.
    “I didn’t mention thimerisol (which isn’t in MMR and never has been) but that said it is still a big issue with regard to vaccine safety. This isn’t the place but I can assure you that the science is not settled. If you doubt me google for the minutes of the CDC’s secret Simpsonwood conference in 2000, where they decided to cover up rather than go public on the truth about thimerisol (ethyl mercury) in vaccines. . . . It is true that it is not completely settled, but it is nearing it”
    I submit that you don’t have a scientific clue. You could not assure me of anything scientific. I won’t bother with the ‘Secret Conference’ that you can google. Sounds like typical fantasies of a conspiracy theorist.
    For those that are interested, the basis of the recent reports are likely based on the unfavorable rulings of the courts. The ‘Special Masters’ have been working towards resolving the many lawsuits surrounding vaccines and autism.
    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026

  95. Among the crowd that I run with, being named a worst person by Olbermann is considered a badge of honor.

  96. Sparky Z. (19:34:02) :
    …I submit that you don’t have a scientific clue. You could not assure me of anything scientific. I won’t bother with the ‘Secret Conference’ that you can google. Sounds like typical fantasies of a conspiracy theorist…
    You are entitled to your opinions on Olbermann, as am I. These opinions are primarily political and as such subjective, and as this is a science blog let’s leave it at that.
    I can however assure you that the CDC’s secret Simpsonwood Conference did take place. Here’s the link to the study which was discussed at Simpsonwood:
    http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/EXPERT%20PAPER%20-%20Thimerosal%20VSD%20study001%20-%20Internet%20File.pdf
    and here’s the 286 page transcript document from the meeting:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2887572/Simpsonwood-Transcript20Searchable
    I have a high regard for what Anthony has achieved with this site (and the surface stations project), but have to say that I am saddened by the tone and attitudes of some of the contributors. The often overtly right wing invective is painful for people like me who appreciate the science which questions AGW, but don’t go along with many (if any) aspects of the Republican/Neo-Con agenda. The CDC’s Simponswood conference did take place, and they did try to cover up the findings of their study, i.e. that using ethylmercury as a preservative in childhood vaccines was not a good idea. This does not make me a conspiracy theorist, because these are not theories, they are are facts. (That said, the simple truth is that occasionally, people in Government and in public and military agencies do conspire – e.g. Operation Northwoods, the USS Liberty, Operation Gladio etc.). So Sparky, please do some research into vaccine safety, rather than trust what you have been told by Fox and others in the MSM, and in the meantime you should refrain from such labelling and ad homenin attacks – it is ironic to suffer them here when they are tactics usually associated with the warmists.

  97. I don’t know Olbermann but have watched Delgato for decades. I am a moderate/ progressive who wants RE and not by any means rightwingnut.
    Delgato has been very accurate in his forecasts and explains the weather well. He is a very respected forecaster who is honest. This is not his first time talking about GW as I’ve heard him say, explain items about it before.
    I can say that it’s Fox station, a network I just don’t like, he has no bias I can see and look for nor does the other anchors, ect on it to my surprise. Recently started checking out National Fox and they are extremely different..
    I think Delgato has more integrity than 99% of people and I’d trust him myself. He didn’t have to stick his neck out but apparently felt it was info the viewers needed and the other local metrologist back him up from other stations even. In fact there is a large difference between them and climatologists I’ve been finding out on GW. The difference seems to be observers and theorists. I’m going with the observers myself.

Comments are closed.