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.
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
“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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
Most of them are not duped. Quoting from a comment at Prometheus:
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.
“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…
The credibility is absolutely stupefying.
Oberman = Baghdad Bob
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.
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)
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.
Here’s what happens when a famous CBS anchorman gets the memo too late:
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/black-box/
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.
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…
Michael Fury:
“Here’s what happens when a famous CBS anchorman gets the memo too late:
Must be Conspiracy Theory Saturday.
“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.
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.
I’m detecting some buffoonery happening on MSNBC’s timeclock.
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.
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
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!”
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.
Mike Nicholson; For the answer to your question go to http://green-agenda.com.