Extreme, Extreme, Extreme, ahhh-phooooiee!

[JSE]

What's with all the Extreme this and that today, especially in the media. Everything is EXTREME!!!!!!

My main gripe is with the weather and/or "Global Warming". Today at lunch every channel was covering the extreme weather in NE and other areas. When has the NE not had bad weather in the winter? Have there never been bad winters before? Snow? Ice? Rain? Wind? What are those? I have never seen such thing until recently. With the hype fo Global Warming these days, it seems the media just can't "cover" the weather without making it sound like the end of the world is near. When a Tornado touches down in an area for the first time in the 20 years, it's EXTREME or it's Global Warming. So tell me this, was the tornado that touched down 20 years ago due to Global Warming? It happened then, why can't it happen now?

I'm not trying to start a Global Warming debate but the media's weather coverage these days is ridiculous. You would think we have another few years until we get wiped out by Global Warming. Again, I am not trying to debate the "merits" of GM but just stating how it has become a boom for the media. Does Al Gore own stock in the media? Hmmm?

JSE

[basite]

I haven't heard the word extreme that much lately...

oh wait, I did...

since we still don't have a real government here, elections were half a year ago, so it's taking extremely long


keep them spinning,
Bert

[Rich-n-Texas]

What's with all the Extreme this and that today, especially in the media. Everything is EXTREME!!!!!!

My main gripe is with the weather and/or "Global Warming". Today at lunch every channel was covering the extreme weather in NE and other areas. When has the NE not had bad weather in the winter? Have there never been bad winters before? Snow? Ice? Rain? Wind? What are those? I have never seen such thing until recently. With the hype fo Global Warming these days, it seems the media just can't "cover" the weather without making it sound like the end of the world is near. When a Tornado touches down in an area for the first time in the 20 years, it's EXTREME or it's Global Warming. So tell me this, was the tornado that touched down 20 years ago due to Global Warming? It happened then, why can't it happen now?

I'm not trying to start a Global Warming debate but the media's weather coverage these days is ridiculous. You would think we have another few years until we get wiped out by Global Warming. Again, I am not trying to debate the "merits" of GM but just stating how it has become a boom for the media. Does Al Gore own stock in the media? Hmmm?

JSE

Al Gore = liberal
Media = liberal
Global warming is the fault of the republicans and the current administration. So, 2 + 2 =...

[Feanor]

What's with all the Extreme this and that today, especially in the media. Everything is EXTREME!!!!!!

My main gripe is with the weather and/or "Global Warming". Today at lunch every channel was covering the extreme weather in NE and other areas. When has the NE not had bad weather in the winter?
...
I'm not trying to start a Global Warming debate but the media's weather coverage these days is ridiculous. You would think we have another few years until we get wiped out by Global Warming. Again, I am not trying to debate the "merits" of GM but just stating how it has become a boom for the media. Does Al Gore own stock in the media? Hmmm?

JSE

It's ridiculous to blame individual weather events on global warning, and it is wearisome to hear it said that this or that storm or draught is caused by it. Nevertheless global warning is happening -- regardless of whether human activity is the main culprit. Human beings need to be careful not to make it worse than it is necessarily going to be.

Do we need to go through the list of problems G/W will, (not might), cause? Let's not. Sufficient to say that many key indicators and benchmarks of change are occurring much sooner than anticipated. The effects could be worse than even the most pessimistic pundits have predicted. Kudos to Al Gore for acting as a publicist for concerned scientists and world citizens.

I'm not forgetting that Gore is a "liberal". Frankly it scares me the way "liberal" has be made into a bad word in the United States. To smear someone, or make them guilty by association, all you have to do is label them "liberal". But let me tell you that the wholesome conservative, George W. Bush, is universally regard outside the U.S. as the worst American president of the last 100 years if not in history. And not just for his administration's head-in-the-sand attitude towards G/W.

[topspeed]

What JSE, you've never heard of sensationalism in the media?

The news media is a sales organization, not an information depot. The more headlines they can create, the more people will watch. The more people watch, the better their numbers look. The better the numbers look, the more they can charge their advertisers.

It's business.

[JSE]

What JSE, you've never heard of sensationalism in the media?

The news media is a sales organization, not an information depot. The more headlines they can create, the more people will watch. The more people watch, the better their numbers look. The better the numbers look, the more they can charge their advertisers.

It's business.

I know it's a business and it's all about sensationalism but it's really gotten bad lately. What really scares me is the number of people out there who think the media is looking out for them and providing "neutral" coverage.

[Rich-n-Texas]

If you watch Fox news, you'll get "fair and balanced" reporting.

[Feanor]

If you watch Fox news, you'll get "fair and balanced" reporting.

I haven't watched Fox in a long time, they must have changed in the meanwhile.

[Feanor]

I know it's a business and it's all about sensationalism but it's really gotten bad lately. What really scares me is the number of people out there who think the media is looking out for them and providing "neutral" coverage.

Do we really have to give creationism equal time with evolution? Turth trumps neutrality in my books.

[herm0016]

truth can be neutral. but there is a difference between science and knowledge and politicians or religious "leaders" telling us how something works. i am with the science and knowledge. gw may be happening but i have yet to see conclusive proof that we are the cause, and we have no way to know what really happened before we started recording history. some scientist believe that we are still on our way out of the last ice age. i do not belive in the doom and gloom. just the fact that the sun puts our a small amount more energy each year as it evolves, and that the magnetosphere is weaker than it has been in the past making it easier for radiation to enter the atmosphere. There are a lot of different reasons that the earth can warm up, only one of which is human interaction.

[basite]

If you watch Fox news, you'll get "fair and balanced" reporting.

oh yeah, really

isn't fox's boss family of George Bush? really fair that is
and they spend about 30 seconds a day on news from other countries...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Feanor]

truth can be neutral. but there is a difference between science and knowledge and politicians or religious "leaders" telling us how something works. i am with the science and knowledge. gw may be happening but i have yet to see conclusive proof that we are the cause, and we have no way to know what really happened before we started recording history. some scientist believe that we are still on our way out of the last ice age. i do not belive in the doom and gloom. just the fact that the sun puts our a small amount more energy each year as it evolves, and that the magnetosphere is weaker than it has been in the past making it easier for radiation to enter the atmosphere. There are a lot of different reasons that the earth can warm up, only one of which is human interaction.

The problem is that it's the people with a vested interest in the economic status quo who demand "conclusive proof". This happens all the time: sometimes the people with the vested interest are the ones who actually have the conclusive proof but conceil it. The classic example is the tabacco industry.

The problem is that it's the people with a vested interest in the economic status quo who demand "conclusive proof". This happens all the time: sometimes the people with the vested interest are the ones who actually have the conclusive proof but conceal it. The classic example is the tobacco industry.

Conclusive proof is often not required when it comes to the prudent course of action. If a recently introduced drug show signs of causing serious harm, let's say, do we require conclusive proof before it's withdrawn? No, the burden of proof is clearly on the drug maker to demonstrate a completely adequate level of safety.

I reach for the bull**** repellant when I hear the conclusive proof is necessary before prudent action.

[Rich-n-Texas]

oh yeah, really

isn't fox's boss family of George Bush? really fair that is ...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

But Bill O'Reilly said so!!! "...because we're looking out for you."