Tag Archives: global-warming

New Viral Video: 16 F-Words in Under 4 Minutes

A new song by hip-hop star Cee Lo Green is making its way around the Internet, largely based on the shock value of the song’s title, “F**K YOU,” and its generous use of the obscenity in the lyrics. The song, which clocks in at 3:46, offers 16 instances of the “f-word” – that’s once every 14 seconds. The singer directs the curses toward his former girlfriend and her new beau. “I see you drivin’ ’round town with the girl I love, and I’m like, ‘f**k you,” Cee Lo sings at the start of the upbeat, catchy tune. The song also features 10 uses of s**t, two of a**, and two partial uses of the n-word. A  video posted on YouTube  Aug. 19 from the CeeLoGreen account displays the lyrics in rhythm with the tune. It gathered steam over the weekend, propelling it to over 1.4 million views as of the afternoon of Aug. 23. The video’s information promises a full version “next week.” Sometime on Monday, Aug. 23, YouTube began requiring visitors to sign in to view the video, noting it “may contain content that is inappropriate for some users.” But the embedded version is available for unrestricted viewing on numerous websites, including Cee Lo’s  personal website  and his MySpace page . Clicking on his Myspace page automatically activated the song. Cee Lo, a.k.a. Thomas DeCarlo Callaway, is a member of the popular duo Gnarls Barkley, known for the similarly catchy (but much cleaner) 2006 hit “Crazy.” The online release of “F**K YOU” is a promotion for his upcoming solo album “The Ladykiller.” This isn’t the first time pop singers have tried to use provocative lyrics to get attention. That’s been the story of popular music from the Rolling Stones’ “Some Girls” to Britney Spears’  “If U Seek Amy.” Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking  here.

See the article here:
New Viral Video: 16 F-Words in Under 4 Minutes

New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes

The Tea Parties are driving the liberals crazy. They charged that Tea Partiers were racists but that pretty much backfired on them when they were unable to collect on the $100,000 Breitbart prize offered for any video evidence of racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at congressmen on March 20 at the Capitol. Now it seems that they have gone back to the Nancy Pelosi charge of accusing the grassroots Tea Party of being an “astroturf” organization. And who is suposedly financing them? According to a New Yorker hit piece article written by Jane Mayer , much of the money is coming from businessmen brothers, Charles and David Koch. Of course, any article complaining about businessmen contributing to conservative causes will have a big elephant in the room in the form of George Soros who pours hundreds of millions into the far left movement. And that elephant is so large that even Mayer can’t ignore it. So what to do? Why, portray Soros as saintly. So start plucking your harps as you read the hilarious money quote Mayer employs to explain away this hypocritical matter by presenting the “benevolent” Soros floating upon his heavenly cloud: Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” A big tell as to where Mayer is coming from is presented at the get go in a photo caption that states: “David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes .” Much of the information for Mayer’s article comes from the “non-partisan” group, Center for Public Integrity. And how do we know it is non-partisan? Because Jane Mayer says so. Unfortunately for Mayers’ assertion, even a most basic Web search reveals Center for Public Integrity to be a left-wing group which is funded by the aforementioned George Soros. What is most laughable about the charge by Mayer about the Tea Party movement being funded by the Koch brothers is that there is really nothing much to fund. It takes almost no money to hold Tea Party rallies. How much has to be spent to post on Facebook that there will be a Tea Party rally taking place in, say, Sunrise, Florida at the northeast corner of University and Oakland Park Blvd. on a certain date? Pretty much the only costs consists of minor gas fare to get there and small expenditures on signs and flags paid by the participants themselves. No big league funding necessary but that hasn’t stopped Mayer from making the ridiculous charge of big money being poured into the Tea Party movement.  Other charges made by the transparently devious Mayer are that the Koch brothers don’t (EEK!) blindly buy into the Global Warming mythology. Bottom line is that all the Koch Brothers are really “guilty” of is that they support conservative (along with vast charitable) causes. In an alternative universe where those brothers were supporting liberal causes there would be no Jane Mayer hit piece on them. 

More:
New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes

Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

Multi-millionaire filmmaker James Cameron on Sunday backed out of a global warming debate that he asked for and organized. For those that haven’t been following the recent goings on concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite money-making myth, an environmental summit was held this weekend in Aspen, Colorado, called AREDAY , which is short for American Renewable Energy Day. Ahead of this conference, Cameron challenged three noted global warming skeptics to a public debate where he was going to personally “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.” One of the invited skeptics, Ann McElhinney of NotEvilJustWrong.com , wrote about Cameron’s surprise cancellation Sunday: His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur. Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet. They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage. “We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email. The AREDAY program listed the debate as taking place 5:30 PM Sunday (page 8): McElhinney continued: But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules. They wanted to change their team. We agreed. They wanted to change the format to less of a debate-to “a roundtable”. We agreed. Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed. Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds [sic] most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed [sic] Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out. He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference. No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way. We all agreed to that. And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.  Morano wrote Monday: Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists “came out of the woodwork” to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well. Romm making this suggestion is certainly no surprise, for last April he got trounced in a debate with Morano. Dismayed by his defeat, Romm barred any articles by Morano to be linked to at Climate Progress and attacked me for writing about the encounter.  Bad sportsmanship must be a common trait amongst climate alarmists, for after cancelling his AREDAY debate, Cameron still had harsh words for skeptics he refused to face: “I think they’re swine,” the renowned filmmaker told an audience member Sunday on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit in Aspen. It was during a series of talks Sunday about the strong effect the right-wing punditry – Cameron named the regulars: Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who are known for their sharp attacks on environmentalists – has on Americans. With campaigns like the production of his blockbuster hit “Avatar,” Cameron said people are starting to realize the gravity of the problem. “I think we did move the needle a little bit,” he said. Moved the needle, Mr. Cameron? By organizing a debate and then chickening out? It’s a good thing the characters in his films have more guts than he does or they certainly wouldn’t be worth the price of admission. 

See the article here:
Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

Last winter, as blizzard snowfalls piled up into several feet in the nation’s capital, conservatives mocked global warming alarmists for trying to link weather incidents to global warming. But as summer heat waves, volcanoes and sinkholes have appeared recently, climate alarmists proved they missed the point . A top Obama administration scientist attacked global warming skeptics during the winter by pointing out that “weather is not the same thing as climate.” ABC’s Bill Blakemore argued the same thing in order to defend the existence of manmade global warming on Jan. 8, 2010. But Associated Press, USA Today , The New York Times and The Washington Post have all promoted a connection between the extreme heat and weather around the world this summer and global warming. One CNN host asked if the events were the “apocalypse” or global warming. The Huffington Post proposed naming hurricanes and other disasters after climate change “deniers.” “Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It’s not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way,” the AP wrote, sounding more like Al Gore than an objective news agency. AP cited the World Meteorological Organization, NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that “extremes” were expected in a warming scenario. But its report didn’t include any other viewpoints or propose other possible reasons for the weather events. And it failed to point out the scandals connected to IPCC, NASA and the warming movement as a whole. The 2009 ClimateGate scandal and subsequent scandals undermined the very credibility of the climate alarmist movement , but were underreported by the network news media. AP left out meteorologists who explained some of those events based on jet stream activity. According to New Scientist magazine, the jet stream is being blocked right now and has consequently slowed down. Meteorologists say that the jet stream’s slower movements are responsible for the deadly fires in Russia, the floods in Pakistan and other rare weather events. “The unusual weather in the US and Canada last month also has a similar case,” New Scientist wrote. Discover Magazine expounded on the New Scientist article saying “this happens from time to time, and it sets the stage for extreme conditions when weather systems hover over the same area.” Despite other explanations and viewpoints, The New York Times also linked weather to climate saying, “the collective answer of the scientific community [whether global warming is causing more weather extremes]” is “probably.” Like the Times, many news outlets promoted the connection between warming and weather, but were careful to briefly note that individual weather events cannot be proven to have been caused by global warming. Out of the Times’ 1,302 word article, only 113 words were used to offer a caveat saying it is difficult to link “specific weather events” to climate change and to quote a NASA scientist who admitted he hasn’t “proved it” yet. Semantics aside, those mainstream stories were nearly as biased in their coverage as blatantly left-wing websites like the Huffington Post. Huffington Post argued that ” global weirding ” incidents such as landslides, sinkholes and volcanoes are “consistent” with global warming. The site interviewed David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, who said, “you ask is this evidence of climate destabilization, the only scientific answer you can give is: It is consistent with what we can expect.” The complete list of “weird” stuff was heat waves, floods, landslides, wildfires, ice islands, sinkholes, volcanoes, dead fish and oyster herpes. Dead fish and oyster herpes? Huffington Post said, “These are certainly stories to be filed under weird: Although climate change can’t necessarily be held responsible, some scientists are suggesting it as the instigator of strange ocean occurrences.” The fact is that the alarmists and the news media will find someone to support claims that just about everything is correlated to man-made global warming. MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan even claimed that Snowpocalypse (the nickname for the blizzard activity on parts of the East Coast) was consistent with global warming. Media Says Warming Predictions ‘Supported’ by Weather Events, Push Government Action It has been a summer of wild weather and related disasters from fires in Russia, to giant sinkholes, to floods in Pakistan and Europe. All of this has sparked the news media’s desire to reignite the climate alarmist movement after a scandal-filled winter. The headlines said it all: “In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming,” proclaimed one Times header. The USA Today warned, “Think this summer is hot? Get used to it.” The AP story hyping weather disasters’ correlation to warming was called, “Climate Change Predictions Supported By Summer of Fires, Floods And Heat Waves: IPCC.” “The weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists,” AP declared. The story criticized the U.S. unwillingness to cap carbon emissions. “The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation not to have legislated caps on carbon emissions, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week withdrew climate legislation in the face of resistance from Republicans and some Democrats,” AP said. A bit later, they quoted a UN “specialist” who argued “much more needs to be done.” Perhaps under the strain of working at CNN, meteorologist Chad Myers actually switched views since 2008, when he said “to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.” But on Aug. 10, Myers said “Yes,” when asked if the weather phenomena were manmade. Myers, however, offered this qualification: “Is it 100 percent caused by man? No. There are other things involved. We are now in the sunspot cycle. We are now in a very hot sun cycle. We are, we are – many other things going on …” CNN host Fareed Zakaria also used the crazy weather to promote legislative action on emissions – pushing Cato Institute’s senior fellow Pat Michaels to accept the idea of a carbon tax. After another guest warned of devastation if we fail to act on the issue of global warming, Zakaria turned to Michaels and said: “You hear all this. Doesn’t it worry you? I mean, I understand your position, which is, you know, we don’t have a substitute for fossil fuels right now. But surely that isn’t an argument for stand pattism?” MICHAELS: No. ZAKARIA: Don’t you want to do something about this? MICHAELS: What I worry about more is the concept of opportunity cost. We had legislation, again, that went through the House last summer which would have cost a lot and been futile. And when you, when you take that away, or when the government favors certain technologies and politicizes technologies, you’re doing worse than nothing. You’re actually impairing your ability to respond in the long run, and that’s my major concern along this issue. ZAKARIA: But if you were to have a carbon tax, if you were to have a gas tax – MICHAELS: YOU, can put in the carbon tax… Zakaria pushed Michaels further, arguing that it is a “simple” law of economics to tax a behavior if you want less of it. But Michaels stressed that the problem is how high the tax would have to be to reduce carbon dioxide enough to make a difference, and the “political acceptability” of such a tax.” The CNN host’s biased segment, which included three panelists (Michaels included), used the apocalyptic weather as a set up: “It has been a scorcher of a summer. Record high temperatures all over the United States, huge chunks of glacier the size of four Manhattan islands breaking off Greenland. One-third of Pakistan is now under water. Fires burning out of control in Russia. Floods in Europe,” Zakaria said on Aug. 15. “So is this just another summer on planet Earth? Or is it the apocalypse? Or is it global warming?” His panel of guests was stacked 2-to-1 (3-to-1 if Zakaria is counted) in favor of legislative action to stop global warming and failed to consider that weather is not climate. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Jeffrey Sachs , director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, were on the panel with Michaels. Zakaria accepted Schmidt’s views unquestioningingly, but then challenged and argued with Michaels’ points, going so far as to ask about his research funding. Schmidt is a favorite climate change expert for many news outlets, including the Times. He told the paper, “If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no – at least not yet.” Environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. responded to that on his blog saying: “This neatly sums up the first of two reasons why I think that the current debate over whether greenhouse gas emissions caused/exacerbated/influenced recent disasters around the world is a fruitless debate.  It is not a debate that can be resolved empirically, but rather depends upon hunches, speculation and beliefs. Debates that cannot be resolved empirically necessarily involve extra-scientific factors.” In another post, Pielke criticized the World Meteorological Organization (which was cited by AP) for issuing a statement saying that the severe weather events “matches IPCC projections.” ” The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate. Such nonsense is of course not going away anytime soon,” Pielke said, noting that the IPCC didn’t make any projections for 2010. MSNBC Snows Viewers, Along with the rest of the Media During the winter, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., poked fun at alarmists when his grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Fox News host Glenn Beck sarcastically made fun of an Al Gore “disappearance” (implying that since the snow started falling Gore wasn’t publicly warning about climate change) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy wrote in 2008 that global warming had resulted in “anemic winters” in Washington, D.C. The 2009-2010 winter and its multiple blizzards contradicted Kennedy’s claims, Beck noted. Despite media and lefty claims , conservatives weren’t trying to say that the snowy winter disproved global warming. Rather they were arguing that strange weather should not be used as evidence to support climate change (summer or winter). But that was exactly what the left and the news media had been doing, and it is what they are doing again this summer. Alarmists like Al Gore, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” and MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan had claimed the severe weather was “consistent” with global warming. Gore blamed three straight days of rain on warming saying, “Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.” Ratigan claimed that “these ‘ snowpocalypses ‘ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.” His rant continued: “Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth – a higher air temperature – has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature,” Ratigan said. “And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming – thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year.” [Emphasis added] Ratigan also criticized a TV spot by Virginia Republicans designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state’s job situation. Global warming alarmists in the media and academia proved last winter that they want it both ways: weather can “support” their opinions about global warming, but weather cannot disprove or discredit those same opinions. So they continue to link everything, even seemingly contradictory weather events like droughts and floods, to the problem of climate change. UN Climate Conference May Have Trouble in Mexico The recent media hype over unusual weather events may be designed to counter declining public fears over global warming. After all, unless the public thinks global warming is a threat they are unlikely to support costly government intervention or make drastic changes in their lives. After the flop at Copenhagen, proponents of global warming alarmism wanted the next UN Climate Change Conference, coming up this November/December, to move forward toward curbing emissions. But recent news reports indicate the Mexico meeting may not be as successful as they’d hoped . According to The Christian Science Monitor, the Cancun meeting scheduled to begin Nov. 29 and run through Dec. 10 seems “to have been thrown into reverse – at least for now.” “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from the progress made in Copenhagen and what was agreed there,” Jonathan Pershing, leader of the U.S. negotiating team, said according to the Monitor. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

See original here:
Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

2 largest liars/skeptics on climate change admit it’s happening and human caused

“Stu Ostro, Senior Meteorologist at the Weather Channel: “I changed my point of view from what it was in the days of the Fred Singer article, and would do so again if that’s what the evidence shows. But it does not. As I wrote back in 2006, global warming is not a religion. The chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics involved are science, not religion, nor are they liberal or conservative.”” http://current.com/1b9jn4c And from a different article: “CNN's long time climate change skeptic and purveyor of every wingnut talking point on global warming in the book, Chad Myers, finally admits the truth: “Is it caused by man? Yes. Is it 100% caused by man? No.”” http://current.com/179jn4c added by: TopScruffy

Water Scarcity Facing 1/3 of US Counties

One out of three U.S. counties is facing a greater risk of water shortages by mid-century due to global warming, finds a new report by Tetra Tech for the Natural Resources Defense Council. For 412 of these counties the risk of water shortages will be “extremely high,” according to the report, a 14-fold increase from previous estimates. In the Great Plains and Southwest United States, water sustainability is at extreme risk finds the report, which is based on publicly available water use data from across the United States. “This analysis shows climate change will take a serious toll on water supplies throughout the country in the coming decades, with over one out of three U.S. counties facing greater risks of water shortages,” said Dan Lashof, director of the Climate Center at NRDC. “Water shortages can strangle economic development and agricultural production and affected communities.” “As a result,” he said, “cities and states will bear real and significant costs if Congress fails to take the steps necessary to slow down and reverse the warming trend.” Counties shown in dark red are at greatest risk of water shortage by 2050. (Map courtesy Tetra Tech) The report, issued Tuesday, finds that 14 states face an extreme or high risk to water sustainability, or are likely to see limitations on water availability as demand exceeds supply by 2050. These areas include parts of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Sujoy Roy, principal engineer and lead report author, Tetra Tech, said, “The goal of the analysis is to identify regions where potential stresses, and the need to do something about them, may be the greatest.” “We used publicly available data on current water withdrawals for different sectors of the economy, such as irrigation, cooling for power generation, and municipal supply, and estimated future demands using business-as-usual scenarios of growth,” Roy explained. “We then compared these future withdrawals to a measure of renewable water supply in 2050, based on a set of 16 global climate model projections of temperature and precipitation, to identify regions that may be stressed by water availability,” Roy said. “These future stresses are related to changes in precipitation as well as the likelihood of increased demand in some regions.” The report also is based on climate projections from a set of models used in recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change work to evaluate withdrawals related to renewable water supply. Water withdrawal will grow by 25 percent in many areas of the United States, including the arid Arizona-New Mexico area, the populated areas in the South Atlantic region, Florida, the Mississippi River basin, and Washington, D.C. and surrounding regions, the analysis projects. added by: JanforGore

Of 351 Reports on Outrageous Bell, Calif. Salaries, Only One Mentions Employees Are Democrats

In late July, NB Contributing Editor Tom Blumer busted the Associated Press for neglecting to mention the party affiliations of scandal-plagued officials in Bell, California. The AP piece was one of hundreds of reports on the scandal. Of those hundreds, one solitary report mentioned party labels for the five officials. Can you guess which party they belong to? I’ll bet you can. The only news outlet that mentioned the officials were Democrats was the Orange County Register. And even that paper noted the absence of party labels only in response to reader complaints. “Our readers noticed one part of the story has been left out by virtually all media sources,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. “All five council members are members of the Democratic Party.” The most prominent of the officials in question, former Bell city manager Robert Rizzo, resigned after it came to light that he was making $1.5 million per year – in a town with a per capita income languishing at about half the national average. Ann Coulter noticed the amazing absence of party labels in virtually any news coverage of the scandal. She called this blatant instance of media bias “the greatest party-affiliation cover-up since the media tried to portray Gary Condit as a Republican.” According to my own Nexis search, there have been 351 stories run by newspapers, wire services, and television news outlets. Though 350 of those 351 stories neglected to mention Rizzo’s party, many went out of their way to label California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who’s also running for governor, a Democrat. Forty-one stories mentioned Brown’s party affiliation, but not Rizzo’s. Brown is investigating the lavish salaries in Bell, and his tough talk has made for some good populist campaign soundbites. Journalists have been more than happy to call him a Democrat, while leaving Rizzo and his colleagues’ party affiliations unmentioned. Only the noble, populist warriors are Democrats. The reprobate, quasi-corrupt city managers of a destitute neighborhood in Los Angeles have no party affiliation. In the fantasy realm of politically-neutral media, the Democrat label would be played up by the media, for reasons that Ace explains : When a Republican is caught in a sex scandal, his party affiliation is extremely relevant because the Republican Party stands broadly for family values and sexual restraint, so party affiliation is very relevant, as it shows hypocrisy, that is, it tends to undermine the public image of the party…. Now, what happens when a Republican is caught in a money scandal? Well, that’s not really hypocrisy, really, as Republicans have the reputation of being into dirty filthy money. But in that case — in the case of a money scandal — the media says noting the Republican’s affiliation is relevant because it reinforces widely-held public opinion about the party… If the Republican Party is supposedly money-grubbing and only cares about big business and corporate interest, then the Democratic party is, supposedly, the party that cares about the little guy, that stands stubbornly against monied interests in favor of Joe Six Pack. Is it not the case, therefore, that if hypocrisy dictates that party affiliation is intensely relevant as regards a sex scandal involving a Republican, then hypocrisy should dictate that in a scandal involving a Democrat taking money from big business that the Democrat’s party affiliation should be similarly intensely relevant? And yet, the media continues to report such stories without granting party labels to the villains. But the hero in the MSM narrative – AG Brown – earns a party label, as he upholds the “Democrat-as-friend of the little guy” narrative. By shifting the focus of party label onto him, the media avoid the hypocrisy angle Ace elaborates, and can go on neglecting to give party label to Rizzo and his cohorts. It’s all very circular. In fairness, it is true that candidates for city board in Los Angeles do not list their party affiliations on the ballot. But does that absolve news outlets from doing a bit of, you know, reporting? Even the OC Register, which noted the lack of party labels in the course of a lukewarm defense of its own sins, claimed: On balance, though, party affiliations of elected officials should be noted and easily accessible so voters can make informed decisions about who they elect to public office. Voter registration is public information, but it currently is somewhat difficult to obtain – you need to contact a county’s registrar of voters in person or by phone and provide a full name and city. That brings us to Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, who was quick yesterday to make political hay out of the Bell scandal, declaring he was starting an investigation. He was identified in most news stories as a Democrat. Does that make him a white hat while the Bell officials, whose party affiliations were unreported, become the black hats – from another party? Readers should know both.

Continued here:
Of 351 Reports on Outrageous Bell, Calif. Salaries, Only One Mentions Employees Are Democrats

For Climate Change Piece, ABC’s Dan Harris Fails to Mention Agenda of Global Warming Scientist

Good Morning America’s Dan Harris on Friday filed a report on extreme weather and failed to mention the agenda of a global warming scientist. Elizabeth Vargas teased the segment by fretting, ” And coming up next, from killer heat waves to fires to those devastating floods in Pakistan and in Iowa, why all the severe weather? Is it global warning?” Harris interviewed no skeptics of man-made global warming for the piece. He did, however, talk to scientist Gavin Schmidt, identified only as working for NASA. Schmidt predicted doom: “The unusual heat waves, the unusual rainfall events will not be unusual in 10, 20, 30, 40 years’ time.” Not mentioned by Harris? Schmidt also writes for RealClimate.org, a blog site that has been endorsed by Al Gore and is hosted by the liberal Environmental Media Services. Citing floods in Iowa and Pakistan, Harris wondered, “But these sorts of extreme weather events are getting more common and are predicted to get even more so. So we’re looking at a planet potentially where the unusual becomes quite usual?” He did pose one challenging question to Schmidt: “But, skeptics push back and ask what about the huge snowstorms over the winter that crippled Washington, D.C.? Doesn’t that seem to argue against this pattern that scientists talk about?” But, no one skeptical of climate change was featured and Harris ended the piece by warning, “And Americans and the world, [Schmidt] says, need to get ready for it.” For more on Schmidt, including some critical comments he made about NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard, go here . A transcript of the August 13 segment, which aired at 7:45am EDT, follows: 7:41 tease ELIZABETH VARGAS: And coming up next, from killer heat waves to fires to those devastating floods in Pakistan and in Iowa, why all the severe weather? Is it global warning? 7:45 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: This winter, we were walloped by snow. This summer, weltering heat. Pakistan fighting its worst floods ever. Russia, its worst wildfires ever. Both sparked by extreme weather. That has put the debate over climate change and global warming front and center once again. And Dan Harris put himself right in the thick of it. ABC Graphic: Summer of Heat, Fire and Floods: Is Climate Change to Blame? DAN HARRIS: It has been a long, miserable summer all over the planet. Here at home, we’ve had the hottest year on record. There have been killer heat waves and also those devastating floods in the Midwest. Over in Russia, the hottest summer on record with thousands dead and hundreds of brush fires destroying wheat crops. In Pakistan, the heaviest monsoon rains on record leaving 14 million people homeless. And in the arctic, the largest chunk of ice to break away from a glacier since scientists started monitoring. Add it all up and does it mean global warming is here? Well, scientists say you can’t blame any one weather event on global warming. But these sorts of extreme weather events are getting more common and are predicted to get even more so. So we’re looking at a planet potentially where the unusual becomes quite usual? GAVIN SCHMIDT PHD (NASA): That’s exactly right. The unusual heat waves, the unusual rainfall events will not be unusual in 10, 20, 30, 40 years’ time. HARRIS: And that’s a bad thing for a lot of people. SCHMIDT: That is a bad thing for a lot of people. HARRIS: But, skeptics push back and ask what about the huge snowstorms over the winter that crippled Washington, D.C.? Doesn’t that seem to argue against this pattern that scientists talk about? SCHMIDT: Well, nobody ever said that it would never snow again. I mean, you’re still going to get cold anomalies but they’re just going to happen less often. And soon they won’t happen hardly at all whereas the other anomalies will come more and more frequently. HARRIS: And Americans and the world, he says, need to get ready for it. For Good Morning America, Dan Harris, ABC News, New York.

See the original post:
For Climate Change Piece, ABC’s Dan Harris Fails to Mention Agenda of Global Warming Scientist

Pakistan Now Holds Record for "Hottest Reliably Measured" Temp in Asia

Photo via the Guardian It’s been a hot, hot summer — as if you needed me to tell you that. Dramatic heat-related stories grabbed headlines around the globe: The worst heat waves to hit Russia in a thousand years, the flooding in Pakistan, and 17 countries set or tied temperature records . Here’s another interesting record that was set over the summer, one that’s a little harder to fit into a sensational soundbite, but certainly no… Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the rest here:
Pakistan Now Holds Record for "Hottest Reliably Measured" Temp in Asia

Thailand Attempts to Solve Overfishing By Dumping Tanks, Trains and Trucks into Sea (Video)

Thailand has decided to dump 27 army tanks, 273 old train carts, and 198 garbage trucks into the sea. It’s a whole lot of scrap metal hitting the ocean floor, but it’s all in an effort to create an artificial reef to solve the problem of overfishing. Government officials believe that by providing more habitat for species, the fishing industry can be sustained. While skeptical at first, locals are also latching on to the idea. Video report after the jump. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Continue reading here:
Thailand Attempts to Solve Overfishing By Dumping Tanks, Trains and Trucks into Sea (Video)