CNN's Glenn Beck confused over "global" warming concept
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann named CNN host Glenn Beck as his runner-up for the "worst person in the world" after Beck made the claim that the hottest year in global history was 1934.
Olbermann:
Glenn Beck in trying to deny global warming, told his sheep that the hottest year in global history was 1934 - actually 1934 was the hottest year in American history, whereas the globe, where all of us live, the hottest year was 2005, followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. I mean I know facts aren't mandatory in what you do, but isn't it embarrassing when you get them wrong every night."
On a technical note (a very minor one), according to NOAA, the organization charged with officially monitoring US surface temperatures, the hottest year on record in the United States is still 1998. Minor point though, because as we all know, expect for maybe Glenn Beck, it's called "global warming," not "American warming."
But... I thought America WAS the planet. Is there more out there?
I got the feeling some Americans allready thought that way before Beck
That helps the argument.
Well just take what I say with a grain of salt its not meant to be serious. Though just look further down and consider how many people think US warming is global warming, the issue continues to be a problem......why?
C'mon most Americans can't identify that blob of land just north of them. I was in Montana once - 25 miles south of the US - Canada border and the kids there couldn't identify Canada on a map.
I had closed this tab in Firefox, but I had to restore it just to come back and tell you how hard I laughed when I read your comment.
On October 22, Beck, on his CNN show, discussing the right and left in America (what else does he talk about?), said:
"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." - a digustingly insensitive - and beyond pointless - reference to those living amidst the wildfires in Southern California...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710220003?f=h_latest
I think he was likely referring to this guy he had on his show. The man was a radical environmentalist (nothing wrong with caring for the environment, gotta admit some people take it too far) and they were discussing how radical groups like the Sierra Club have helped make it impossible for us to either clear out the underbrush of our forests and/or let natural fires burn it out. The result is that 2/3 of our forests are or dying and then the underbrush accumulates only making fires like those currently in California all the more severe.
As they got further into the conversation the guest started talking about how these people shouldn't be living there and interfering with the environment and how he thought it was horrible all the new developement going on in the area, Glenn's response was to point out that his guest lived the same area (which he tried to justify by saying it was diff. bcz his house has been there nearly 100 yrs, so everyone else but not him were at fault).
Anywho, I think that's the context of the statement.
I tend to believe most environmental groups with any scientific knowledge would subscribe to regular controlled burns. Most conservation advocates and researchers I know, all suggest and promote the idea that fire is a natural and important process in systems and should not be eliminated. In fact many suggest that fire is required in many types of ecosystems for proper nutrient cycling and rejuvenation. Course fire prevention does allow material to build up and you get a serious fire, which is not the desireable situation by any means.
I absolutely loved it when Glen Beck interviewed the pedophile guy who liked little girls, and slammed him. But everything other than that has gotten on my nerves.
I change my channel when it comes to this guy called Beck. I dont want to ruin my evenings,so i just change my channel. He never gets anything right and that's what happens when you are not possitive.
Glen Beck is the man. Olbermann is an idiot who needs to go back to espn.
Glenn Beck is a fear monger who is trying to bring us back to a radical and ignorant form of thinking. Statements like that are only going to make you look just as bad as him.
Let me guess, Tony: You're an NRA member, you go hunting, you are an evangelical Christian, you love NASCAR, and you drink beer. Oh, and yes, you're a devout BUSHIE!
I am no fan of Glenn Beck but he is correct on this one.
The temperature data used to claim that 2006 is the hottest on record has been being calculated incorrectly all these years by NASA. The corrected data indeed shows 1934 as the hottest.
Reference story:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
Corrected NASA data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
such a tool
GLOBAL warming... not US warming
I love how people try to dismiss the MASSIVE shift in the numbers, after a "denier" (as the global warming alarmists like to call us, because they're fascists and can't allow for dissent because they can't defend their alarmism with honest science) busted them. Most of the hottest years were before WWII, for gosh sakes!!!
But yeah, the argument becomes "but that's just the US"... To which I say, "Wouldn't you say we probably have the most reliable records and readings?" The point being that if such a major change in the numbers can occur here, why should we accept without question the "world" figures? Especially given that most of the world isn't what you'd consider "the developed world". And let's not even get in to the unscientific nature of the numbers because they will show increased temperatures due to the fact that the measurements are taken from equipment sitting in hot parking lots, etc.
By the way, we just had a historically low hurricane season... but I'm sure that's what Gore meant by placing the hurricane (spinning the wrong way, by the way) on the cover of his DVD and on his posters, no? "Global warming will cause increasingly strong storms... except when it doesn'! That's just global warming folks, look it up!"
Randy, are you actually still trying to argue that the earth ISN'T getting warmer? Maybe you missed the memo, but the "deniers" have had to concede that ground because the proof is visually overwhelming involving glaciers and permafrost that has been frozen for thousands of years all happening to start melting shortly after humans industrialized the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale (100 years counts as shortly after for geology).
The only room for debate is not even that humans have an impact on global environment (remember the hole in the ozone layer the size of antarctica caused primarily by CFC's and how it's thankfully on its way toward establishing its previous equilibrium state after we regulated use of CFC agents?), but how much of a factor is that impact.
It's down to risk assessment. We need to stop relying on fossil fuels eventually anyway because they are a finite resource on this planet. It's better to investigate ways to phase them out now regardless, and even more necessary if it's as likely to contribute to global warming as it possibly could be. Contention for that resource also causes some unpleasant political stressors in places like... oh, I dunno... the Middle East.
Do you think that the earth has inexhaustible resources and that it's a good idea to keep exploiting them until something serious breaks? Do you think that all natural systems will automatically revert back to their previous equilibrium states after we push them to breaking points humans find intolerable (hint, sometimes tipping points exist from which there is no easy return to previous states)?
We haven't run this experiment of global industrialization on this planet before and we really don't know what effects it can have. We definitely can't rewind time and ask for a do-over if some of the consequences are negative.
Up to what maximum probability of humans being a dominant causal agent that you feel comfortable with ignoring when doing risk assessment for the consequences of something like global warming? Especially when the corrective measures involve such win-win conditions as investing in greater energy efficiency and rationing our finite oil supply so that it still might still exist hundreds of years from now (or even thousands)? Don't you think a semi-advanced species all trapped on a single rock hurtling through space should plan that far ahead?
Very well said!!!
I would really like to see us " cut to the chase".
1. We can't keep on using fossil fuels for energy forever.
2. Why can't we start phasing-out coal fired plants ASAP?
3. To answer 2 above, we can't because we don't own them.
4. If "we" are serious about this, we have to buy "Exon-
Mobil", and start closing it down. They AIN'T GONNA DO IT
AS LONG AS THEY ARE MAKING MONEY.
5. Has anyone really thought this through??
6. BAD scenerio; Somehow, terrorists get enough bombs to
"dirty-nuke" ALL of our refineries, and fossil-fuel
electric plants, (can't repair them). How many Americans
would die as a result?? In a month people would be starving; yet enviromentists sound like they would like to
shut down these things immediately. It isn't going to
happen.
7. I don't know the answer.( I am not sure what the real question is). ANYONE??????
correlation is no reason to assume causation. Science does not work like that. CO2 is good for mother earth.
May I say that Tropical Cyclones (or as you call them, Hurricanes) actually spin in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere due to the angular momentum caused by the Earth's rotation. Also it should be referred to as climate change as the climate is not predicted to warm up everywhere and may actually make some places like Europe colder, as it will disrupt the thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans.
"To which I say, 'Wouldn't you say we probably have the most reliable records and readings?' The point being that if such a major change in the numbers can occur here, why should we accept without question the 'world' figures? Especially given that most of the world isn't what you'd consider "the developed world'."
You're failing to realize that it's not the U.S.'s readings of the World's tempuratures, it's the U.S.'s readings of the U.S.'s tempuratures, and nowhere else. The cummulative average of the world's tempurature is what we're talking about.
Sorry sir, but you must read the headlines in each of those webpages. They BOTH say U.S., not THE WORLD. Nice try, though.
but not the rest of the world. We are talking about GLOBAL warming here.
I agree. before you post to your shitty blog, make sure you got ur facts straight. He WAS right. Slanderer
To ALL disussing Global Warming:
Unless you have a Doctorate degree in a related "field" of study, you do not "KNOW" a DAMN THING about global warming.
Some one ELSE'S theory is NOT your "knowledge".
And if you "BELIEVE" a particular theory, that's fine. It's called FAITH. And it doesn't matter whether you believe Moses, Jesus or Sagan. It's still religion.
yeah because "faith" and empirical data are the same thing Beck. what a flawed argument.
That is why there is a 95% consensus among the scientific community. But people like you attack science yet go to the doctor, plead for a cure when you have cancer, yet do not fund or give your time. Denounce science, but take medications to cure you from ur impotence, IBS, and heartburn. Not that science has cured most of the diseases that plagued man through the ages, polio, smallpox, malaria, and it currently on the way to cure the diseases man has created through his own doing. Of course people like you a couple of hundred years ago were running around claiming all these diseases were from the wrath of god for our sins....i guess some people never change or evolve.
And clearly you do not need to have a doctorate degree to discuss matters which concern the entire future of the human race. You probably think you know religion, doubtful you have doctorate in theology, but you still burden us with you 2000 year old fairy tales....if you were thinking man you would probably analyze all theologies and the more you study them the more you would find how much they have in common. Especially the solar avatars. So why don't you do some real research for once and see how the story of Jesus plagiarized from the Egyptian God Horus. (christians are so pathetic, close-minded and unoriginal, if they just stepped out of their lil' fantasy world for once and take a look at the bigger picture, they might even realize that the bible is not to be taken literally. GASP! And you would find you have a common fundamentalist friend in the other wacky bizarre stories of mysterious religions...)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/09/healthscience/snfat.php
Yeah, having over 90% of scientist agreeing on something like "A fatty diet leads to heart disease" makes it so...
We don't need no stinking science. We just need a theory that everyone agrees with....
It is really refreshing to see someone say what you are thinking with twice the effectiveness. I work in an environment where Right Wing is King and it is really nice to see you call people out on their lack of research and applied knowledge. Just yesterday I had a discussion (if you can call it that) with a coworker about Obama's citizenship and it puzzles me how we have gotten to this place of ignorance. If everyone researched at least three different RELIABLE sources (you know like we did in school and FYI Glenn Beck NOT a reliable source because he has stated in the past and I quote "to take what I say with a grain of salt") we wouldn't be having these taxing arguments. The scary part of the Global Warming discussion is that it has exposed all the uneducated Right Wing people out there in this country. What is scary about this group you might ask? They can vote and if the Bush administration has taught us anything it is this group is strong and growing. I don't want to segregate our country like the political parties would like I just believe we should think twice before we get rid of a part of our educational system to sure up our budget. What we really need to do is start pumping money into our educational system like our lives depended on it because the future looks as though it might.
Accepting a theory based evidence and experimentation, is not religion its call the scientific method. There is no blind faith, but emperical weight.
"I mean I know facts aren't mandatory in what you do" apparently the Truth isn't mandatory in what Olbermann does because Glenn Beck never said he didn't believe in global warming. Check YOUR facts Olbermann.
Glenn who?
I had never heard of him until he popped up here. Some nobody on a network no one takes seriously, I guess.
Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean Glenn Beck is a nobody. It is true that he would get higher ratings on a different network, but why don't you look at the millions of people he reaches everyday on the radio.
It is pointless to focus so much on the temperature records that we have because the last hundred years are a very small percentage of the earth's life. These changes in temperature were happening long before humans were driving cars and they will continue after we stop.
I listen to Glenn as much as I can and I would suggest that all of you try it before you bash him. He doesn't suggest that global warming isn't happening. He doesn't even rule out the idea that humans influence it. He pushes the alternative view because no one else is doing that. He thinks that both sides should be examined. I applaud him for that.
Everyone loves to call Glenn, and other conservatives, FEARMONGERS. That is exactly what Global Warming is. We should change everything about our way of life on an unproven theory that it will save our little children from certain destruction. Please!
After seeing what is said about the scientists who don't agree with the majority on global warming, I think that I would have a hard time going against the grain on the issue. The fact that the majority of scientists agree on something, doesn't make it fact. It is merely peer pressure.
Let's see.. Global warming in 1934. Ok, how many cities do we have temp data from in 1934? How many were not in the US? 10, 20, 100 Worldwide? I am willing to bet we have just a 'guess' as to the "global" temp in 1934. And then we will only have it to the nearest 2 or 3 degrees F (digital thermometers did not exist back then). There was once a sea in the middle of the US and that was millions of years before cars. Global climate change is *natural*. So what?
1. Volcanic activity produces more "Green House" gas's then all the cars in the world.
2. The arctic is actually getting colder (but i thought it was melting)
3. The thermometers they use to record temps are sitting on asphalt, on top of tar roofs. Of course there gonna be high asphalt/tar gets hot.
4. The sun itself is getting hotter every year.
5.A Patch of grass about the size of your front yard (actually smaller then that i just forgot the exact size)produces enough oxygen for your family to live there entire life.
I believe that there is some "Global Warming" but not to the extent that
"1. Volcanic activity produces more "Green House" gas's then all the cars in the world."
- False and illogical: false because "According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes - the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes the size of Hawaii's Kilauea." (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/01/global_warming_methane_could_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm).
Illogical because even if volcanoes produced more greenhouse gases....clearly adding to them doesnt make a difference right??...its not the volcanoes will stop if we started doing their job.
2. The arctic is actually getting colder (but i thought it was melting) ...false "http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm"
3. ...if global warming wasnt happening then those thermometers would be warmed by asphalt the same way every year...i mean were clearly not experiencing global asphalt warming are we?
4...this idea is still debated...its one of many theories and not the most likely scenario since global cooling was not observed when the sun cooled (it goes in 11 year cycles)
5. Unfortunately, that doesnt take into account the driving you do or any of the ridiculous processes that need to be used to create any of the products you use everyday...ur true environmental footprint is usually huugeeeee. (assuming ur an average person...ofcourse you could easily be living in a farm producing everything you consume and have essentially no footprint)
Like a dagger in a persons eye. Painful is a good summary of what you attempt to consider points. In fact half of those points are so gross that I cant believe you actually think you are correct about them.
1) However, human activities currently release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons)
Source USGS
2) The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.
Source NASA
3)Urban sites are adjusted using rural sites to remove effects of the urban heat island effect and to which I believe (urban sites are not used in calculating the global average temperatues, could be wrong) Anyways..going with your idea, lets assume the surface temp record is complete crap, which is a serious gift am giving you, the
a) satallite temp record shows warming of the troposphere (ie is not influenced by urban heat islands)
Fu et al. show a +0.19 °C/decade and Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade(1978 - 2004)
b) Ocean temperatures have generally risen over the last 50 years as the atmosphere warms. (As the oceans are free of urban heat islands, there is no excuse to be made about why they are warming)
Source NASA
4)While I wont "deny" the sun plays a huge role in climate, the sun has been extensively studied such that
a) There has been No net increase of solar brightness over the last thousand years.
b) Solar cycles have only lead to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last 30 years.
and have concluded that this effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming.
Source Foukel et al. 2006 (Nature) and Lockwood and Frohlich 2007 (Proceedings of the Royal Society)
5) I highly doubt that a patch of grass can remove a families total co2 emissions over their life time.
Average CO2 emission per person in a year for Canada was 22 tons. Thats not just breathing btw...thats total for all activities.
Assuming that average carbon content in a plant is around 45% or so, (a best guess for North Americans grass) that means you would need to have ohh, 48 tons of grass in your yard to remove the CO2 that one person generates in a given year.
Volcanic activity is actually a planet cooler..
The more particular matter a volcano spews into the air the less heat makes it to the earths surface.
Seems funny though the cleaner the air gets with less particular matter the warmer the earth will get. Take off the scrubbers and start sending particulate matter into the atmosphere....
But then we would have acid rain and worldwide smog. But less global warming...
You are completely right in asserting that Global warming includes the entire globe. So why do you try to exclude the United States's numbers? If the Earth were warming up wouldn't the WHOLE EARTH be getting steadily warmer? You can't take the numbers from the US that disprove this and call them irrelevant just because it doesn't include the numbers of the rest of the world. That would be like looking at only one corner of an unbaked cake and saying "Well we can't see the rest of the cake so the data that tells us this part isn't cooked must be wrong because we think the cake is cooked." If one part of a cake is unbaked then the chances are that the whole thing is the same. The US IS part of the world therefore it's statistics matter as well. If the Earth were getting warmer than the US temps would be rising as well. If they're not then obviously the Globe isn't warming. The US is part of the globe!
Yeah, because the whole thing has to warm up homogenously. There's no good reason to think that one small part can heat or cool in contrast to other parts! Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that people in the southern hemisphere have winter whilst we experience summer. What a lot of hooey that is!
It's figures, reckoned in with the rest of the globe, are consistent with the warming trend in 2005. Statistically, 1934 was a fraction of a degree warmer in the US than in 2005, but that fraction of a degree in the US (only 1.888% of the earth's total area) doesn't change the overall data to any appreciable extent.
The numbers from the US were not "ignored" when taking the average global temperature for any of those years. The affect of a slightly higher temperature in one piece of the globe was simply not enough to make the average temperature of the entire globe hotter in 1934 than it has been recently.
jayson - we call them hurricanes because that is whatthey are called. they spin the opposite direction of cyclones. so your little jab at whoever with, "or as you all call it" doesnt make any sense. if it spins one way, it is a hurricane. if it spins the other, it is a cyclone. Then there are Typhoons (the ones I encountered the most since i lived in Guam). These are just hurricanes in the Micronesia Pacific.
as for this, we all know Beck is an IDIOT! Olbermann is the MAN!
I'd like to point out that the melting of glaciers isn't a result of our burning of fossil fuels.
Now, if you weren't so ill-informed, you'd know that once - the entire planet was covered in ice.. and we weren't around to burn fossil fuels. How did that melt?
Glenn Beck has stated many times that he does not dispute that the earth is getting hotter. His argument with this whole global warming craze is that he correctly states that nobody can prove that mankind is one of the causes of the warming.
That's why he talks about this so much, he is very concerned with the facts, and you are being fed lies by Gore and Obermann
Are the scientists feeding us (and Gore + whoever) lies?
The scientists have no facts to back up what they're saying. Just because they have the title scientist doesn't make them all knowing.
The only thing the scientists prove is the peer pressure put on them to agree about global warming. Have you noticed how those who don't agree are treated in the media?
I hate Glen Beck. His views on almost anything should be thrown out. Instead of getting the view from both sides of an argument he gets the people that are on his side and questions them. How one can just dismiss the fact that humans ARE having an impact on climate is truly astounding and quite frankly terrifying.
To the person that asked what happened to the ice that covered our planet before Homo-sapien, read a book. Just because Nature melted the ice then, doesn't negate the fact that we are a contributing factor. You cant sit back and tell me all the the carbon be produce just idle sits by in the environment and does nothing.
Co2 is good, but too much, and Earth could one day resemble Venus.
Global warming is a scam created once again by the central bankers to creat a global carbon Tax and system of carbon credits that they can manipulate and gain power from. Also emerging markets can be supressed by the already industrialized super powers with the claim that there is far too much carbon in the atmosphere for them to take the same path as in previous days. "Global" warming and "Global" terrorism are the Trojan horses of "GLOBAL" government, something these filthy bankers have been working toward for over 200 years. There is plenty of evidence for this argument. All that said, Glen beck IS a retard but then again so are most of the sheep who believe that Carbon is responsible for Global temperature fluctuation. Central bankers are far more powerful than oil companies however many of these oil men are also big bankers as well as some of the biggest proponents of a Soviet style world government based on "Global" threats.