Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Keith Olbermann Lies; Says Climate Change Means “Where It’s Supposed To Get Cold, It Gets Colder"

Olbermann would have us believe that global warming is ONLY happening in places where it’s supposed to be warm. Doesn’t this completely fly in the face of ‘melting’ ice caps?

by Larry Simons
February 10, 2010

During his “Worst Person in the World” segment on MSNBC’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann gave the runner-up trophy to Molly and Jimmy Rapert, the daughter and son-in-law of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, for building an igloo at 3rd Street and Independence Avenue SE in D.C. after the big snowstorm this past weekend. On top of the igloo was a sign that read: “Al Gore’s new home. Honk if you 'heart' global warming”.

The Rapert family mocking Al Gore

Olbermann then says:

“You do realize that it’s climate change. Where, when it’s supposed to get warm, it gets warm-er, and where it’s supposed to get cold, it gets cold-er. You got that, right? It’s not a freaking whether forecast from channel 4…”

Hmmm, Keith, that’s interesting that you say climate change is “..where it’s supposed to get cold, it gets cold-er”. The entire foundation of global warming stands on the premise that it is getting WARMER in the areas where it’s supposed to be COLD and where there is ice. In other words, the complete opposite of what you just said, Keith. It’s supposed to be COLD at the polar ice caps, but global warming advocates like Al Gore continually tell us that the ice caps are melting.

Olbermann is intentionally attempting to divert away from the fact that areas of the country [and the world] are getting bombarded with deadly snowstorms by claiming that climate change is a completely separate issue from global warming. How does he explain Al Gore’s repeated insistence that the polar ice caps are melting and polar bears are dying off [which is also a massive hoax] if warming is only happening in places where it is supposed to be warm?
It’s supposed to be warm at the arctic ice cap, Keith? If it was supposed to be warm there, then what is shocking about the fact that it’s supposedly melting?

The liberal website Think Progress says this about global warming in direct response to the Olbermann/Inhofe segment, “In reality, winter snows do not invalidate the reality that the planet just experienced the hottest decade on record. Scientists have been warning for decades that global warming would increase the severity of winter storms. This just might be the single most ridiculous statement I have ever seen regarding global warming.

Winter storms do not invalidate the warming of the planet? It should if Olbermann’s statement is true, that “where it’s supposed to get cold, it gets cold-er”. Global warming is supposed to increase the severity of winter storms? That’s like saying if I turned the dial in my freezer down to a lower [warmer] number, it should increase the severity of the freezing air. How utterly insane.

Think Progress adds, “This past January was the warmest January on record for the planet” and within that sentence they link to, a sister website of Think Progress which belongs to the organization Center for American Progress, founded by Democrat and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, who served with global warming fraud, Al Gore. Yeah, no conspiracy there. Move along, nothing to see here.

If Olbermann’s claim about climate change is true, that “where it’s supposed to be cold, it gets cold-er”, then the clips of Al Gore [below] talking about melting polar ice caps are in complete contradiction to what Olbermann says climate change is.

Besides, how would it be considered climate “change” if temperatures in a certain area were exactly what they are supposed to be? That’s not “change”. That would be climate expectancy, right?

In this clip, Gore says:

“It’s hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in science, in the…science of ice felt when they saw this minimum in 2005, which meant that uh, the amount of ice that had melted, it’s been roughly the size of the continental United States, minus an area roughly the size of Arizona…”

In this clip, Gore says:

“…that vast expanse of frozen ice [arctic ice cap] is now melting before our eyes”

watch Olbermann LIE in this clip

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the words of the great Lord Monckton, "The fact is: The game is up, the science is in, the truth is out, the scare is over."


egbooth said...

I saw this last night as well and was also horrified. However, I disagree with you regarding the difference between storm severity and temperature change as a result of climate change.

First, let's remember why it is called climate change. Overall, the entire globe is predicted to get warmer over the next century. That is a prediction with a lot of certainty. But the reason scientists use the word climate change is that this warming will also include other effects such as changes in precipitation extremes. If it was just called 'global warming' those effects might not be as well understood by non-scientists.

But Keith was absolutely wrong in saying that climate change science predicts cold areas to get colder. That is absolutely, unequivocably wrong! But there is a lot of evidence to support the prediction that storms will become more intense (regardless of time of year).

But all of this general talk is unrelated to what's going on in the eastern US this winter. We are just experiencing a strange winter. Climate change science doesn't predict that winters like this will ever happen again. It does predict that cold winters like these will become less common.

Finally, keep in mind that the eastern US can be experiencing unusually cold weather while other parts of the world can be experiencing unusually warm weather. As a matter of fact, that is what is happening right now.

Climate change is complex. We need people that can adequately explain this complexity to the general public. Mr. Olbermann did a terrible job on this front.

Larry said...

Interesting thought. Thanks.

the_last_name_left said...

Odd you find it "interesting", Larry?

I made a similar point in response to your earlier posts wherein you suggested global warming was obviously "a scam" because you had personally experienced a severe winter.

I posted NASA's report saying that globally 2009 was amongst the warmest ever - despite examples such as a severe British winter, flooding, a poor summer etc.

But you insisted it was all "a scam."

Have you changed your view......or are you just pretending to find egbooth's post "interesting" as opposed to an example of "Al Gore's brainwashing" (which just happens to your more usual response)?

the_last_name_left said...

Jan 16th 2010, Larry said:

The global warming goons have EVERY reason to lie, they will make bilions, TRILLIONS from the taxes they will impose. What do global warming deniers have to gain by this? Theres no money in denying it!

Why does Larry believe he is capable of deciding that global warming/climate change is "a scam"?

L: You don’t HAVE to be an expert to debunk a “so-called” expert in any particular field.

One wonders quite what Larry thinks "expert" means.

Here's Larry's own "expertise" (I kid you not):

Would it snow AT ALL……ANYWHERE if global warming was happening??????? Id like an answer to that!

Larry thinks global warming/climate change is "a scam" because of such "reasoning".

Who needs experts when we have Larry?

Larry refers to a Global Warming Denial video as "brilliant" because it....

claims and BACKS UP the fact that “all the science from leading specialists in their fields” are basing their “facts” on manipulated data!!!! Are you retarded???
Same as always, Larry - cherry-picking data and poor reasoning. And lo - you get the result you want! Surprise?

Larry said...

The only reason I said his comment was interesting is because he was talking about a prediction for the future, which is not the same as someone claiming that global warming exists right NOW---especially someone like Al Gore [who YOU support] who buys a condo along the San Francisco bay [the SAME area where he said sea levels will rise 20 feet with flooding when the "warming" begins]. He doesnt believe his OWN prediction! If Al Gore believed his OWN words--I would think he would wanna stay as far away from the Bay area as possible---but apparently, he must scuba dive as a hobby!

I find it interesting that you were unable to find anything in my Olbermann story to debunk, so you resorted to postng segments from an OLD story----in which you also didnt debunk!

By the way, how does it feel knowing you can come to my site and express your opinion [despite it being nothing but bullshit diversion from the topic] and NOT get DELETED like this was Nazi Germany???

theonomist said...

Obviously the eco-freaks changed the name of their big scare from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because the globe is NOT warming. "Climate-gate" and other sources show that many rural and high altitude reporting stations that were formerly included in temperature calculations have been "discontinued" - which automatically raises average temps, especially when you consider that the remaining stations are subject to increasing outside influences such as paving (blacktop) and AC venting that raise local temps.
Of course "Climate Change" is a tautology, because that's what climates do - they change. In the past there have been ice ages - just like the one the environmentalists were warning about back in the 70's. (yes, I am old enough to remember that)
There was also the Middle Ages warming, when Greenland was actually green, and there were wineries in England.
If anyone is willing to consider facts instead of propaganda, it becomes clear that "Global Warming," "Climate Change," or whatever you want to call it is just a watermelon scam to promote One World Government.
Even if the world was still warming (as it seems to have been for about 20 years from the late 1970's to the late 1990's) there is NO credible evidence that it was caused by man or could be even slowed, much less reversed, by man.

Larry said...

Yeah, and computer programmer E. Michael Smith says that 4,500 temperature data sets between 1970 and 1990 have been removed –meaning they are taking world temps from LESS places and like you said, that would make average temps rise, especially since most of the data sets that were removed are from COLD places. This wingnut that keeps coming to my blog and repeating the tiresome talking point “2009 was one of the warmest years in history” doesn’t comprehend that that conclusion is based on false data---but that doesn’t stop the dick from parroting it. Ive read stories about the global FREEZING in the 70’s. TIME magazine did two cover stories on it in 1974 and 1979 [may have been more than 4, but I read about those 2]. Olbermann never explains why if “where its supposed to be cold, it gets colde-ER”, why are the polar ice caps “supposedly” MELTING? Is it SUPPOSED to be 90 degrees at the ice caps???

Thanks for your comment

the_last_name_left said...

This wingnut that keeps coming to my blog and repeating the tiresome talking point “2009 was one of the warmest years in history” doesn’t comprehend that that conclusion is based on false data---but that doesn’t stop the dick from parroting it.

If the data is "FALSE" as you claim, how do you know whether it is warmer or cooler?

And how do you know the data is false? You have been taking measurements around the world yourself?

Larry said...

Are you REALLY this stupid? If they were WARMER temps, they wouldn’t have needed to falsify the data! Da—duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Do you even THINK before you spew words? Apparently NOT! Yeah, ok, you’re right----it was WARMER temps, and since they are advocating global warming, they didn’t want it to appear TOO warm, so they falsified the data so that it was just a little warmer, not a LOT. LOL.

the_last_name_left said...

But the point remains - if the data is false, how do you know what the real situation is?

Larry said...

The REAL situation is, data is being manipulated and if you spent even 1 minute of your life listening to people like Lord Monckton, you would know that these people are going to be prosecuted for it—even if Monckton has to do it himself. But you just dismiss it and once again accept the official, received reality that global warming exists just like Christians accept the Bible without question. Its much easier to accept an “official” story isnt it? Because OTHERS have done the “work” for you—right? That means you can sit back and be lazy and not have to think for yourself. Not accepting official stories means you actually have to get off your ass an research stuff.

the_last_name_left said...

If you have come across a point of [Monkton's] that you think is worthy, then please let's hear it in the comments.
Go and look at the rebuttal of Monkton? You wanna disagree with it and continue trumpeting Monkton?

the_last_name_left said...

Skeptics proclaim that global warming stopped in 1998. That we're now experiencing global cooling. However, these arguments overlook one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

Larry said...

"Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt."

Ah ah ah----not according to Olbermann! He said climate change is "where its supposed to get cold, it gets cold-ER". That is in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to your above quote. Ice absorbs heat??? REALLY? But where there is ice is where it is SUPPOSED to be COLD---right?? Olbermann just contradicted that! The ice shouldnt be MELTING according to Olbermann, it should be getting cold-ER there! Why arent you global warming people all on the same page? Know why? Because your FRAUDS.

the_last_name_left said...

You are again thrashing a strawman.

What Olberman says is frankly irrelavnt to the facts.

The facts are what matter - not what Olberman says.

You want to attack Olberman - fine. But you are chasing strawmen when you think criticisng Olberman does anything to harm the science of climatechange/globalwarming. It doesn't.