PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming?


GBMelBlount
11-08-2007, 09:12 PM
I just read where Al Gore said that "Global Warming" is so certain that there is no debate. So I did some research and found this:

Blogosphere Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

MasterOfPuppets
11-08-2007, 10:28 PM
but what about the melting polar ice stuff, the increased ocean tempertures, the increased cases of skin cancer ? :hunch:

tony hipchest
11-08-2007, 10:29 PM
well, im no "meteorologist" ( :chuckle: ) but this guy sounds like a nut job w/an agenda.

all i know is that the bengals suck,...

I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. .... so this guy could be right.

:rolleyes: (lemme guess... wiping out every square inch of the rain forest wont affect the oxygen supply either)

GBMelBlount
11-08-2007, 10:36 PM
well, im no "meteorologist" ( :chuckle: ) but this guy sounds like a nut job w/an agenda.

all i know is that the bengals suck,...

.... so this guy could be right.

:rolleyes: (lemme guess... wiping out every square inch of the rain forest wont affect the oxygen supply either)

LOL. It is also funny that many scientists in the 70's said we were starting the next ice age. :hunch:

Dynasty
11-08-2007, 11:08 PM
he does have a point. there is cyclical climate changes on the earth. if this was not true, we would all be hunter gatherers living in an ice age. it just happens that one of the climate cycles happens concurrently with the creation of advanced sciences that try to blame this all on human activity.

Preacher
11-09-2007, 02:47 AM
I also remember a report stating that Mars was getting warmer as well...

I guess we should stop sending the land-rovers there!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3362746.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Of course, if these scientists that are making a MINT on the "Global warming crisis" actually cared... they would join with NASA to possibly measure the radiation of the sun over the next 15 years... maybe the earth is getting warmer... and Mars is getting warmer... because the SUN is in ITS OWN HEATING CYCLE?:hunch:

TroysBadDawg
11-09-2007, 08:02 AM
I seem to remember the hole in the ozone that is getting bigger, why is it we nologer hear about it? Because it got smaller, that is why. It did not get so large that it was going to cause all this damage but it sold alot of products, didn't it. Big business did it to us again buying off the people that are supposed to protect us, by giving them countless amounts of money. Good old Government at it's best.

revefsreleets
11-09-2007, 09:24 AM
Global Warming and it's possible causes aside, I thought it was very revealing that Al Gore went on the Today Show and essentially said the media is being irresponsible by continuing to offer the contrarian opinion on Global Warming. He is basically saying that since HE proved Global Warming and that it's man-made, the discussion is over and the media should never represent the other side of the issue again. So it's okay for the press to be balance, as long as they only present HIS side.

Nice job, ManBearPig.

Click "View Video Here" under the paragraph

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/05/al-gore-comedian-medias-global-warming-coverage-too-balanced

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-09-2007, 09:57 AM
but what about the melting polar ice stuff, the increased ocean tempertures, the increased cases of skin cancer ? :hunch:

1. Climate Science
There are several reasons one can cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.
First, the “urban heat island effect.” In Which Greenhouse gases have caused rises in temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05?C of a increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990.
Second, global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising during this period. The fact that global temperatures were falling calls into question the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures.
The average temperatures declined, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, from 1940-1970.
Third, research after research shows temperature declines during the past century in
places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse (New York) and Navacerrada (Spain).

2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in that global warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, entertainment moguls, the
scientific establishment and general public. Many assertions are accepted as fact
without critical analysis by the vast majority of those who have views on this issue.
How many of those who hold this view have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? The American media provides a steady drumbeat of scary news on global
warming. It is telling that many critics of global warming are retired professors no longer seeking grants. Too often people use "consensus" as their proof but Michael Crichton said it best:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

3. Climate Models
The big global warming numbers come not from "real" measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists -- but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model "natural" climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards.

It is interesting that Climatologists & Meteorologists who oppose Al Gores claims have asked him to publicly debate his findings and to date he has refused every single one...but still finds time to tour and spread his pseudo-intellectual money-making rant.

fansince'76
11-09-2007, 10:14 AM
When these climatological computer models can accurately reverse-predict climate patterns THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED (and to my knowledge, they still can't), then I'll start putting a little more stock in them. There are literally hundreds of millions of variables that affect the Earth's climate. To say that human pollution alone is causing the Earth's temperature to rise is, IMO, ludicrous.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-09-2007, 10:34 AM
When these climatological computer models can accurately reverse-predict climate patterns THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED (and to my knowledge, they still can't), then I'll start putting a little more stock in them. There are literally hundreds of millions of variables that affect the Earth's climate. To say that human pollution alone is causing the Earth's temperature to rise is, IMO, ludicrous.

Until the weather man can be more accurate about wether it will rain TOMMORROW...I may not put alot of stock into what they are telling me will happen in the far future!!!

I just read an article that covered a Global Warming Debate...in which 66% of those polled before they went in stated they believed that global warming was a threat. After listing to both sides give their "proof"...only 32% still left as believers and 12% of those confessed to still believing, but having doubts about the "emperical" data that the pro-global warming advocates presented.

TroysBadDawg
11-09-2007, 10:43 AM
I once read a book and can not remember the name of it now but it stated that the sun had cycles and caused our earth climated cycles.
SO if we are going though a warming it would be a sun warming cycle per the book?

I think this is very interesting:
the tale of two houses:

House #1
A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. Who invented the internet. He said it, I didn't.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

MasterOfPuppets
11-09-2007, 12:37 PM
I also remember a report stating that Mars was getting warmer as well...

I guess we should stop sending the land-rovers there!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3362746.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Of course, if these scientists that are making a MINT on the "Global warming crisis" actually cared... they would join with NASA to possibly measure the radiation of the sun over the next 15 years... maybe the earth is getting warmer... and Mars is getting warmer... because the SUN is in ITS OWN HEATING CYCLE?:hunch:

so your saying the sun is going super nova !!!!....:pde:......:crying03:

Preacher
11-09-2007, 02:52 PM
so your saying the sun is going super nova !!!!....:pde:......:crying03:

Yep... The day the Browns win a superbowl!! :wink02:

TroysBadDawg
11-09-2007, 04:13 PM
Yep... The day the Browns win a superbowl!! :wink02:

I hope the Browns win the Superbowl before that...really, really I do.:yawn:

They darn well better do it before I die. I have waited this long but I can't wait that long.:jawdrop:

:cheers:

BurghZ0n3
11-09-2007, 04:32 PM
...rain or shine...may the better team win! My prediction is till B&G 31 DAWG 13 :helmet::tt02::tt02::tt02::helmet: You might see a lot of blitzes, but now is especially for # 3....:banana:

Preacher
11-09-2007, 11:11 PM
I hope the Browns win the Superbowl before that...really, really I do.:yawn:

They darn well better do it before I die. I have waited this long but I can't wait that long.:jawdrop:

:cheers:


:sofunny::sofunny:

Elvis
11-10-2007, 12:27 PM
I'm not that smart about global warnings.. but I also think that with all the people being on earth now is what is causing global warming. Just put about 6 or so people in a elevator for about 10 minutes and see how warm it gets. Now, this is just my opinions and maybe someone can make a better point than I can. How much has the earth gained in population in the last 20 years? Then you have that many more vehicles on the roads and that adds more polution to our atmosphere. Just look at the drought that we here in the south are having so far this year... we should conserve always.. not just when there is a shortage..
:coffee:

Hines0wnz
11-11-2007, 06:00 PM
I'm not that smart about global warnings.. but I also think that with all the people being on earth now is what is causing global warming. Just put about 6 or so people in a elevator for about 10 minutes and see how warm it gets. Now, this is just my opinions and maybe someone can make a better point than I can. How much has the earth gained in population in the last 20 years? Then you have that many more vehicles on the roads and that adds more polution to our atmosphere. Just look at the drought that we here in the south are having so far this year... we should conserve always.. not just when there is a shortage..
:coffee:

Droughts are cyclical based on cyclical weather patterns. :wink02:

Hines0wnz
11-11-2007, 06:05 PM
I once read a book and can not remember the name of it now but it stated that the sun had cycles and caused our earth climated cycles.
SO if we are going though a warming it would be a sun warming cycle per the book?

I think this is very interesting:
the tale of two houses:

House #1
A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. Who invented the internet. He said it, I didn't.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

Saw this on Snopes, good find!

GBMelBlount
11-11-2007, 06:23 PM
IMO, if the houses were reversed, both would have been headline news.

Borski
11-11-2007, 06:39 PM
IMO, if the houses were reversed, both would have been headline news.

yup, but the "news" inst allowed to say bad things about democrats

Hines0wnz
11-11-2007, 06:49 PM
yup, but the "news" inst allowed to say bad things about democrats

Nope, Dems are infallible. :blah:

Godfather
11-12-2007, 11:47 AM
:rolleyes: (lemme guess... wiping out every square inch of the rain forest wont affect the oxygen supply either)

You raise a very good point...the acceleration in global warming has coincided with the destruction of the rainforest, not with industrialization (which we've had for about 300 years). Green space of any kind is a great "sink" for CO2.

As far as the larger issue, human activities are definitely producing Co2, and higher concentrations of CO2, everything else being equal, will raise teh tempereature of the Earth.

What I'm skeptical about is how much of an impact we have. And the doomsday scenario in "The Day After Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth" is bunk...even liberal publications like Slate have said so.

GBMelBlount
11-12-2007, 01:18 PM
What I'm skeptical about is how much of an impact we have. And the doomsday scenario in "The Day After Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth" is bunk...even liberal publications like Slate have said so.

I think you're right, I think we have an impact as well. I just think there are so many variables that it is hard to isolate one variable and determine for sure how much that one variable is truly impacting the overall increase in temperatures.

revefsreleets
11-12-2007, 04:41 PM
Just to back up what some of you are saying, Harvard just did a study on the media. The report says it all.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT

Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues03110207.gif

MasterOfPuppets
11-12-2007, 04:54 PM
:rolleyes: (lemme guess... wiping out every square inch of the rain forest wont affect the oxygen supply either) yeah but with the lack of oxygen, fire can't burn, so we won't need the rain from the rainforest to put out fires....:thumbsup: so ya see, when one door closes another opens...:wink02:

Godfather
11-12-2007, 05:13 PM
In 2000, 2/3 of stories about Gore were negative and 2/3 about Bush were positive.

So the media must have had a conservative bias in 2000.

Hammer67
11-12-2007, 05:27 PM
In 2000, 2/3 of stories about Gore were negative and 2/3 about Bush were positive.

So the media must have had a conservative bias in 2000.

Where are you getting these numbers? I remember it a bit differently....

Godfather
11-12-2007, 05:38 PM
Where are you getting these numbers? I remember it a bit differently....

There was a study done on it. I'll see if I can dind it.

Here's another story that would have made W look bad, but the MSM didn't give it much play:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070726/NATION/107260064/1002

Another counter-point to liberal bias is the way Katrina was covered. If you listen to the media, you think Louisiana looks like the storm happened yesterday and Mississippi looks like it never hit.

The truth is Louisiana's ahead of Mississippi in a lot of ways. Louisiana replaced all its bridges in far less time than Mississippi. Its seafood industry is far more functional in spite of getting less federal assistance. Its unemployment rate is 4.4%, while Mississippi is just under 6 and is teh second worst in the country. Louisiana enacted some political reforms in the past two years and has more on the way. Mississippi still had downed light poles on I-10 more than a year after the storm. And Louisiana had a wore situation becaue its biggest city was devastated AND Rita hit one month later.

By painting a false picture, the media implies that the Republican governor in MS did a better job than the Democratic governor of LA (who did a terrible job with the immediate crisis), and further the difference in the states lets W off the hook. (I'd say most of the blame for any recovery problems is on the locals, though. I could give you plenty of examples of local government idiocy in both states.)

revefsreleets
11-12-2007, 05:44 PM
Ouch. VERY weak retorts to a study conducted by a neutral party . I don't think people will want to have to translate positions that aren't at all clear in response to a survey that clearly states, in hard numbers, that there IS liberal bias.

Godfather
11-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Here's a different study, came up with different numbers but the same general result.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0008a/pewbias.html

While googling, I noticed some studies that found the media to be pro-Kerry in 2004. Conservatives do have a beef in some instances, just not across the board.

revefsreleets
11-12-2007, 05:53 PM
This completely neutral study says differently.

Godfather
11-12-2007, 09:46 PM
This completely neutral study says differently.

Forgot the link :smile:

But the fact that studies can come to different conclusions shows it isn't as clear cut as some people make it out to be.

Another good example from Katrina coverage: The city government still hasn't replaced the street signs in neighborhoods like the Ninth Ward and Gentilly. That was causing problems because contractors couldn't navigate the neighborhoods without them. The residents fixed the problem themselves--they picked up large pieces of debris and made the street signs themselves. Even putcool decorations on them like fleur-de-lis, trumpets, etc.

That made the local news, but the MSM ignored it. Why? Dunno...I'm generally not one to accuse them of lying or having an agenda. Maybe they intentionally ignored it because they didn't want the country to see black people solving their own problems. But that's less likely than simple intellectual laziness or herd mentality (ie it didn't fit the narrative).

Preacher
11-12-2007, 10:27 PM
Forgot the link :smile:

But the fact that studies can come to different conclusions shows it isn't as clear cut as some people make it out to be.

Another good example from Katrina coverage: The city government still hasn't replaced the street signs in neighborhoods like the Ninth Ward and Gentilly. That was causing problems because contractors couldn't navigate the neighborhoods without them. The residents fixed the problem themselves--they picked up large pieces of debris and made the street signs themselves. Even putcool decorations on them like fleur-de-lis, trumpets, etc.

That made the local news, but the MSM ignored it. Why? Dunno...I'm generally not one to accuse them of lying or having an agenda. Maybe they intentionally ignored it because they didn't want the country to see black people solving their own problems. But that's less likely than simple intellectual laziness or herd mentality (ie it didn't fit the narrative).


My guess is that the press is wanting to make it an issue again... upcoming elections.

yes.. I beleive the press DOES get that involved. In the last elections, or the cycle before that, a survey was done asking who in the press voted for what... Unsurprisingly, 92 to 95 percent of what would be called the MSM voted democrat.

83-Steelers-43
11-13-2007, 09:50 AM
Thank you Dennis Miller. :toofunny:

ruuux4AuHfQ

Godfather
11-13-2007, 09:00 PM
My guess is that the press is wanting to make it an issue again... upcoming elections.

yes.. I beleive the press DOES get that involved.

Possible, but you'd think they would hire a decent political consultant if they were trying to rig the elections.

Plus there's a TON of difference between the MSM and Salon, Mother Jones, Project Censored, etc.

GBMelBlount
11-13-2007, 09:46 PM
Possible, but you'd think they would hire a decent political consultant if they were trying to rig the elections.

IMO they wouldn't do that because they honestly believe they are fair and balanced journalists just reporting the news with no political agenda or bias.