February 21st, 2014
04:08 PM ET

The rundown for this Sunday's show

By Hardy Spire, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='hardyspire']

Coming up on this week’s Reliable Sources at 11am Eastern time Sunday:

Brian is off to get married this weekend, but before he left, the team put together this show!

This week’s BuzzFeed profile of would-be New York gubernatorial candidate Donald Trump turned out not to be the puff piece he anticipated.   Trump’s response was to take on reporter McKay Coppins who Trump had hosted aboard his private plane and at his Florida estate during the interviews.  Brian speaks with Coppins and Politico’s Maggie Haberman about the reaction and whether the media should continue to take Trump and his political ambitions seriously.

And there are some stories which do not have two sides.  The climate change debate is one of them.  Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.  This week NBC’s Meet the Press faced criticism for its debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.  We’ll talk to Michio Kaku from the City University of New York and CBS News as well as Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor at the Huffington Post.

We’ll also focus on an “Undercovered” news story – Bowe Bergdahl, the American soldier who has been missing in Afghanistan for five years.  Jake Tapper, CNN Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor of “The Lead” joins Brian.

Finally, Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott raised eyebrows this week when he took the stage with former rocker Ted Nugent whose recent inflammatory comments about President Obama have caused many to ask whether the media should call out hate speech when they see it.  Christy Hoppe, Austin Bureau Chief for the Dallas Morning News speaks with Brian.

Posted by
Filed under: Sneak Peek
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Hairstyles

    After I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the identical comment. Is there any approach you can take away me from that service? Thanks!


    December 2, 2020 at 2:30 am | Reply
  2. math tutoring franchise opportunities

    Appreciating the commitment you put into your blog and in depth information you present. It's nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same out of date rehashed information. Wonderful read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.


    February 27, 2018 at 11:46 pm | Reply
  3. Reuben Plant

    22001 Southwest Fwy Ste 1 Richmond, TX 77469


    September 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm | Reply
  4. Jesse Grillo

    A BIG hello from Utah! I really like your post. Thanks for the advice! Thank you for sharing your info. I was reading your post and my crazy dog threw a pitcher on my brand new browser.


    September 1, 2017 at 9:09 pm | Reply
  5. Jesse Grillo

    Are you a member of Facebook? You have the best ideas. Ever been to Pennsylvania?


    August 31, 2017 at 8:43 pm | Reply
  6. Jesse Grillo

    Certainly a lot of stuff to take into consideration. Exceptionally well written! Oh my gosh! A magnificent article. You saved me a lot of hassle just now.


    August 31, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Reply
  7. evaporative cooler installation

    The problems that u have discussed in this blogs is very much common nowadays . Thank You so much for providing me the tips


    July 3, 2017 at 10:15 pm | Reply
  8. air conditioning Melbourne

    I have been browsing online for over 4 hours today, but I haven't found any interesting article like yours. In my opinion, if all site owners and bloggers produce good articles like what you have done, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.


    June 22, 2017 at 3:05 am | Reply
  9. Jamar Lomba

    Utterly written content material , appreciate it for information .


    April 7, 2017 at 10:10 pm | Reply
  10. dsglddguiv

    http://www.macoutletmakeup.com/list-zfbf-286.html (11351).txt

    June 19, 2016 at 9:18 pm | Reply
  11. CJ Orach - peopleneedpower

    Far too often Climate Alarmists like CNN seem oblivious to the larger historical and cultural context. They see only one thing – their own, narrow agenda. I find fanaticism of this sort rather frightening.

    The REAL denialists are the Climate Change alarmists in CNN who ignore the new Holocaust caused by their anti CO2 Climate Change beliefs. Beliefs that are responsible for 33,000 dead from hypothermia in UK last year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html and 2 million Africans dead from starvation thanks to the ethanol program that lays waste land for food crops to plant biofuel crops.

    Moreover, thousands of birds, eagles and bats http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/15/study-shows-wind-turbines-killed-600000-bats-last-year/ are killed by wind turbines and solar panels. But what is inexcusable is that the solar and wind turbines require tax payer subsidies to exist which attracts corruption like a magnet http://greencorruption.blogspot.com

    What is even more alarming is that after dumping billions on failed renewable energy projects like solar and wind Germany and the EU is going back to coal as a source of energy due to the fact all billions they spent on wind and solar could not meet their needs.

    "Rotterdam 1 was expected to be the first of three coal-fired plants to come on line in the Netherlands this year. But the delay now puts its expected commissioning date behind those of Germany" http://www.argusmedia.com/pages/NewsBody.aspx?id=888045&menu=yes&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=sendible&utm_campaign=RS


    "Many people are surprised to hear that Germany only gets a tiny 2.0% of its total energy / 4.6% of its electricity from solar power (in 2012). [5,13)

    "Here’s the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany’s carbon output and global warming impact are actually increasing [5] despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned “renewables first” market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage — it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it’s used. [29] The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. [6] This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can’t run steadily enough to operate at a profit. [2,7] Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn’t hemorrhage money now. [8] The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution."

    February 23, 2014 at 8:21 pm | Reply
    • visionar2013

      Svensmark has a well documented effect of solar variations of solar wind and cosmic ray formed clouds controlling climate change. Our sun was the most active in 8000 years in cycles 22&23 now the least active in 170 years in cycle 24. Cycle 25 will be a Maunder Minimum worthy decline, famine from crop failure is more likely than any warming for the next 30-100+ years http://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

      February 24, 2014 at 6:38 am | Reply
  12. Bob Armstrong

    I am joining mild mannered Dr Roy Spencer , U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite , in labeling those who promulgate such anti-science propaganda as the watermelons' attack on the molecule of life , CO2 , nazis . Spencer lists a number of criteria of which CNN's claim of their being only one side fits nicely .

    In the face of such an attack on rationality and human , and indeed , ecological welfare , such a sobriquet is well earned .

    There is one effect of the increase of a molecule per 10,000 of air of the sole source of carbon to the biosphere which is provable , and in fact visible from satellites : the greening of the planet . CNN is palpably telling just one side of the story if it is leaving that vital to every living being on earth . That is worthy of Goebbels .

    February 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm | Reply
  13. SCP

    You do know Bill Nye's "science" background is an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, and that the whole "Science Guy" thing started on a Seattle-based comedy show, right?

    February 23, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Reply
  14. California Native

    Is this really a surprise, coming from the Communist News Network?

    February 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  15. David Jones

    10,000 years of temperatures from the Greenland Ice Core

    1.) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
    2.) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/gisp2_10ke1.jpg
    3.) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.jpg

    Temperatures from Vostock (Antartica) Ice Core
    Last 450,000 years

    Last 5 million years

    This, CNN is evidence, not some computer model producing GOGO.

    This is well worthy of debating.

    February 23, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Reply
  16. Miner49er

    Neither fossil fuels use nor carbon dioxide affect climate. Carbon dioxide IS NOT a 'greenhouse gas". CO2 is in perfect equilibrium in the environment. A high-school sophomore can compute a mass balance for carbon dioxide using credible public information sources. Do your homework!

    We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Anthropogenic global warming is a textbook mania, based on falsehoods. The media continues to feed the mania by promoting false assumptions. We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Regulating or limiting human CO2 emissions is a colossal waste of money and effort.

    While carbon dioxide may show nominal greenhouse properties in the lab, it has no adverse effect on climate. Changes in atmospheric ambient CO2 are the result of natural temperature changes caused by other forces, likely the solar Maunder cycle. A warmer temperature results in a higher equilibrium CO2 content. Cooler weather means less ambient CO2.

    96.8% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. The earth reabsorbs 99.9985% of CO2 emitted from all natural and human sources. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 11 minutes. It goes into seawater, where it is quickly converted to carbonate rock, where it will remain for tens of millions of years.

    Limestone, for example = CaCO3. An acre of oysters or coral can form more than ten tons of carbonate rock in a single growing season. The carbonate formation process is voracious and robust, and will consume all the carbon dioxide that humans can generate.

    February 23, 2014 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  17. stewartiii

    NewsBusters: CNN Declares No Two Sides to Climate Change Debate

    February 23, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Reply
  18. Bob Lloyd

    The chair of Earth and Atmospheric science at Georgia Tech has serious problems with AGW, but I guess her point of view is unfit for discussion. Didn't Hitler and the Nazis burn books?

    February 23, 2014 at 1:38 pm | Reply
  19. revdrebuzz

    Solar winds are strong enough to literally peel Mars' atmosphere from the planet.

    And we are to believe that the huge ball of fusion has no effect whatsover on climate variability on the earth. The sun created life on earth, but we are supposed to believe, after a few decades of observation, that it now has no impact at all on climate variability.

    To understand the climate of earth thoroughly is to understand the hidden keys to the universe. But we aren't quite there, are we. The models are diverging, but we can still rely on them for prediction. Why not show that these models work everywhere all the time, on any planet?

    The Soviets had Lysenkoism...the lefties are trying again.

    No debate...spare me.

    February 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Reply
  20. Denver

    My side: "The polar bears will be fine". – Freeman Dyson.

    February 23, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  21. tom3230

    Advocates of climate change are asking the public to pay for hundreds of billions to prepare for the future their models predict. After watching the piece about climate change this Sunday, I am left asking why doesn't Reliable Sources bring on real climate scientists to talk about both sides. For instance Messrs Richard McNider and John Christy, both professors of Atmospheric Science, have much to say about the dangers of basing policy on non-predictive climate models. Mr. Christy shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former VP Al Gore. Both Mr McNider and Mr. Christy argue that it is wrong, and wasteful to base actions on computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe catastrophic global warming that have been proved to over-predict warming. Garbage in garbage out. If warming is assumed and models are build based on assumptions not science there is no scientific reason to believe that they will some how accurately predict the future.

    February 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Reply
  22. ZAW

    It seems that we're having the wrong debate about the environment. Of course the climate is changing, and that's beyond debate. Are we responsible for it? Most experts say 'yes.'
    But what about the economics of it? What about jobs? Suppose you close a dirty coal power plant, citing environmental concerns. Where do people now get their power? Where do the people who worked at the coal power plant now get their pay checks? It gets more complex when you consider a global economy. If we put new environmental controls on manufacturing here in the US, and a China doesn't – we stand to lose even more manufacturing jobs.
    What frustrates me about some environmental scientists is that they seem to pooh-pooh these concerns. It would be so much better if, instead of writing more and more papers about the devastating effects of environmental change, they teamed up with economists and public policy experts to show us how we can have a cleaner environment without sacrificing our economy.

    February 23, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Reply
  23. pokyrick

    Ted Nugent practices hate speech. Yup. Nugent should be regarded as an embarrassment and a pariah by any political candidate. Yup. Nugent, as a rocker, is a "has been." Nope

    February 23, 2014 at 11:55 am | Reply

    After watching this piece of garbage I suggest this program be more accurately named "Biased & Closed Minded Sources"

    February 23, 2014 at 11:42 am | Reply
  25. P Gifford

    your show of 2/23 on the Wilding of the weather and global warming was right on. There is no debate. after a life in science there is no debate. even though we are only touching the surface of big data, which is the source of climate change information, it is pointing for a disappointing future for humans if we do not respond. Just like the fundamentalist want to stop the porgress toward human freedom for all hman beings, they want to stop the freedom to recognize scientific truths, so they can contimue to have their way with our shared earth. keep up the great show.

    February 23, 2014 at 11:41 am | Reply
    • visionar2013

      Try opening your mind by investigating a new theory when current models all fail to match the data...http://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ

      February 24, 2014 at 6:46 am | Reply
  26. Rational Db8

    And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them. Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.

    You mean like the following tens of thousands of skeptics (far more than you can find who support significant AGW), all of which are accredited credentialed scientists, including many Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, some of the most eminent scientists of our time, and even IPCC authors?? I'd LOVE to see the authors of this bunk try to show how their supposedly not scientists.

    **1350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting skeptical arguments http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    **100 eminent scientists including Nobel winners and IPCC lead authors contesting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW-e.g., human caused) who wrote the U.N. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360

    **31,000+ scientists disavowing AGW, including over 9,000 Ph.D's

    **Over 1000 scientists worldwide disavowing AGW signed onto USA Senate report http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

    **100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming, March 30, 2009
    [ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]

    **Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

    **Professor Lindzen has systematically destroyed every CAGW argument:

    **Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

    **eminent "Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from the American Physical Society, writing:
    "The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake."
    from: NoTricksZone by Pierre Gosselin http://notrickszone.com/

    **One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

    Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

    Conclusion: Climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.

    **Dr. Lawrence Solomon, once a believer in AGW, realized belatedly, that he was wrong, because he found out that there were too many eminent Professors, who were skeptics and he decided to write a book, titled: “The Deniers” and he explained that he was sad about the enormous corruption among the doomsday “scientists”, especially when they were in the management of institutions like universities and weather-departments. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/

    **Like Professor Emeritus Robert Tennekens, a Dutch professor in meteorology, who after a 10-year stint lecturing in the U.S. was asked to lead the Dutch meteorological department in the Bilt, Holland. After he found out about the corrupt way his staff was following the I.P.C.C.’s computer-modeling, he tried to stamp this habit out, but because too many of his staff and colleagues had powerful friends in the then Dutch government, he was sacked from his job.

    **Professor Bellamy the British botanist also received the sack, when he decided to speak out against the AGW corruption on B.B.C. That is not science, that is corruption, when honest people dare to speak out for the truth and then get sacked from their job/career.

    **Professor Tim Flannery who was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister and who is paid Audlrs. 180,000 in tax-payers’ money to advise her on climate change, predicted over and over again for the last 5 years, that Australia by 2009 would be a total arid and barren place, with all the dams in the major cities totally empty. Well, since last year a number of states saw huge floods destroying their properties and crops as dams in Queensland overflowed and the same now is happening there and we in Sydney, New South Wales experienced the coldest days in our summer since 1916! [text from last three items copied from another commentator]

    February 23, 2014 at 11:26 am | Reply
    • Fred B

      Your Michio Kaku obviously hasn't read many papers. Have him take a look at a few of these 1350 Peer Reviewed papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html.

      Anybody that says the science is settled is lying or naive. Just ask Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Get yourself some more reliable soources.

      February 23, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
  27. asokasus

    "And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them"


    Hardy boy, kinda hard to have a "debate" with only one side. I think you meant to use the word "dogma" instead of "debate". Otherwise, your "debate" would be pretty much just mental masturbation, which BTW, is what so-called global warming (oops, I mean "climate change") is really all about.

    February 23, 2014 at 11:25 am | Reply
  28. Medbob

    You are correct insofar as the fact that there IS NO evidence for anthropogenic climate change. CO2 was linked to temperature until the Industrial revolution. After that, the evidence is incontrovertible that CO2 was a DEPENDENT factor.
    AGW is about power and economics.

    February 23, 2014 at 11:23 am | Reply
  29. pat

    Kaku is a crackpot. An opportunistic crackpot totally untrained in the field.

    February 23, 2014 at 11:17 am | Reply
  30. John Swenson

    Hardy Spire is a pathetic brainwashed liberal, spouting the usual pathetic liberal brainwashed talking points.

    CNN is completely discredited and i s no longer a viable news organization. According to polls, it has the same news organization credibility as Comedy Central. People like Hardy Spires are the reason why.

    February 23, 2014 at 11:17 am | Reply
  31. Mark

    Q: Only one side to this story?
    A: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

    February 23, 2014 at 10:55 am | Reply
  32. Amy Shulkusky

    The only "... stories which do not have two sides" are those you self proclaimed gatekeepers close your minds to!

    February 23, 2014 at 10:35 am | Reply
  33. JoAnn

    All you global warning extremists should walk the walk or just be quiet. All of you starting with Al Gore should get out of your cars and climb into a golf cart. Do not fly in those polluting airplanes. Get those CFL bulbs and buy solar panels. Redistribute your own wealth. Leave the normal people alone. The only truth about all of this is The Science is Not Settled no matter how often you say it.

    February 23, 2014 at 10:34 am | Reply
    • Erickdon

      wh0cd79905 viagra pills

      April 23, 2017 at 7:14 am | Reply
  34. DarPot

    "Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists."

    Talk about Bias. CNN supports those promoting Anthropological Global Warming by calling them "the scientists", while demeaning those who have also done research, analyzed weather data, applied physics, ect. as "the skeptics".

    Never mind "the scientists" have a vested interest in promoting AGW in that it's job security. Besides getting paid, "the scientists", get lots of funding to pay for new equipment ("toys"), new computers, new labs, and in NASA's case expensive planes, rockets, and satellites. Along with all money and funding, "the scientists" get expense paid trips (vacations), money from book deals, and fame.
    Whereas, "the skeptics" get what? Hint: Dissed for nothing.

    Noting who gets what and who doesn't, the fact that for last 17-years there has been no Global Warming, changes in CO2 lag behind changes in Temperature, Physics shows effects of increasing levels of CO2 on air temperature diminish due to limited amount of IR light, Hockey Stick graph was a fabrication, they had to hide decline in order to promote AGW – seems there is a more applicable term for "the scientists".

    February 23, 2014 at 10:31 am | Reply
  35. Timothy Lane

    So the many scientists (including climate specialists such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen) skeptical about the unproven theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming are inferior to such "scientists" as Bill Nye, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. How liberal.

    February 23, 2014 at 10:25 am | Reply
    • scott

      Exactly, please tell Freeman Dyson, noted physicist, and Richard Lindzen, MIT, are "deniers" and not worthy of adding to the non debate. Lol
      Only if you cherry pick your "scientists" can you say science is settled. And yes, it was once settled science that the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the moon. Those damn deniers just didn't give up when someone called them deniers.

      February 23, 2014 at 10:44 am | Reply
  36. MimiR

    "Scientists"? You are seriously calling Bill Nye a scientist? He's an ACTOR and has been a paid public relations mouthpiece for a number of different organizations who count on suckers not being able to realize that he's an...actor.

    February 23, 2014 at 10:00 am | Reply
  37. jwp

    So called weather scientists can't accurately tell me what the weather will be two days from now, but I'm supposed to believe they can accurately predict it hundreds of years into the future...BS. Global Warming/Climate change/environmentalism are the latest tools being used by leftist to transfer wealth from developed to undeveloped countries...make everyone equally miserable. It is garbage, just like communism before it.

    February 23, 2014 at 9:56 am | Reply
  38. Doowleb

    The story about a news network that has be-clowned itself and has only immediate family as viewers, has only one side as well.

    February 23, 2014 at 9:51 am | Reply
  39. Bittman

    I understand Nugent's comment the Left leaning media is trying to make into an "Abbott-gate" scenario was made some time in January and not in the presence of Abbott - which is a critical fact which is frequently if not always OMITTED by the media. Unfortunately, not many Americans are shocked by anything our Pravda media does any more....except when they actually factually cover the news.

    February 23, 2014 at 9:47 am | Reply
  40. john anderson

    "And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them." Spoken like a true open minded and tolerant liberal! I love it when you fools show your true colors. Environmentalism: The next great, highly suppressive, intolerant and possibly murderous religion!

    February 23, 2014 at 9:37 am | Reply
  41. TexasJew

    Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated to suck grant money into mediocre scientist and crony capitalist pockets by the truckload

    February 23, 2014 at 9:34 am | Reply
  42. David

    They can't even run a Their own business but they know better then everybody else on global warming?

    February 23, 2014 at 9:33 am | Reply
  43. SteveinTexas

    CNN like all the other true believers can't be troubled with the actual data, let's just hide the decline, adjust our computer models to match our epic fails, and ridicule and silence anyone who asks "what's wrong with this picture?"

    February 23, 2014 at 9:24 am | Reply
  44. TheMadKing

    "And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them."

    The writer omitted the most important last three words of that sentence:"here at CNN."

    What stories at CNN or MSNBC ever show two sides, really? It's why they're both tanking. Even the converted get tired of beng preached to.

    February 23, 2014 at 9:12 am | Reply
  45. Govdonogoodccnknownothing

    Every "model" that now has history behind it has been completely erroneous. Every one of them. All the dire predictions – history shows us a fraction of a degree increase in the last 120 years, it being averaged down over the last 50 years.

    The shrieking grows louder as the public funding for "research" (I didn't say scientific research) goes down.

    February 23, 2014 at 9:10 am | Reply
  46. Shivers

    Well I guess we have all been put in our place by all the brilliant scientific minds at the failing "news" network CNN that somehow fancies itself a think tank. Weird how they want to end debate....do you think it's because NONE of the "evidence" they rely on ever stands up to REAL scientific scrutiny ......?

    February 23, 2014 at 8:52 am | Reply
  47. revdrebuzz

    So, it looks like the people at CNN cannot be bothered to pick up a high school science book.

    Guess the science is settled. A lot of great scientists always moved in that way, just called it good, you know.

    This is very infantile behavior, but expected out of the most trusted source of news?

    February 23, 2014 at 8:48 am | Reply
    • Steve

      We have frequent "Global Warming Updates" (pun intended) on Common Cents:






      February 23, 2014 at 8:51 am | Reply
  48. wwschmidt

    Yanukovych sends snipers to kill unarmed protesters? Oh, that story has two sides.

    Maduro sends his gangs out to shoot civilians, who kill a 17 year old beauty queen? Oh, that story has two sides.

    Hafez Assad slaughters thousands of women and children, just to hang on to power? Oh, that story has two sides.

    Climate Change? Oh No, CNN has proclaimed that there is ONLY ONE SIDE!!!

    This is the ranting of a religious fanatic, the follower of a Hellfire and Brimstone Religion tailormade for people who think they're too smart to fall for Hellfire and Brimstone Religions.

    This is the message of the warmists: REPENT! REPENT O YE SINNERS, OR YE SHALL ALL PERISH IN FLAME AND FLOOD! REPENT!!! (and give all your money to the High Priests of our Church, just to show how True your Repentance is!!!)

    February 23, 2014 at 8:40 am | Reply
  49. Bpbatista

    No wonder CNN ratings are lower than Death Valley.

    February 23, 2014 at 8:36 am | Reply
  50. 49erDweet

    Every story has multiple sides, many serving to inspire press competition. A network failing to comprehend this tenet sadly ceases to offer "news", but instead sinks to the level of a "views" organization. As a former newsman, I'm embarrassed by today's journalists' general lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity.

    February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  51. The Klown

    Every story has at least two sides.

    February 22, 2014 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • The Klown

      Now I see why CNN's ratings are in the toilet.

      February 22, 2014 at 11:15 am | Reply
    • Scott

      Agreed. Don't forget that columnist Ellen Goodman said climate change critics are just like Holocaust deniers. The left's behavior on this topic is just despicable.

      February 22, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.