Fox Only Talks About Climate Change When It's Cold

[OrbitalDawn]

Snow-Trollers Lose The "Debate" On Climate Change

The recent Arctic chill has given Fox News an excuse to give "skeptics" a platform to deny climate change and bash climate science. But the network has been remiss to discuss the topic during periods of record heat.

During their coverage of cold weather from January 2 to January 8, Fox News brought up climate change nine times, casting doubt on it every single time. They also devoted a significant amount of coverage to a ship getting stuck in Antarctic ice to mock climate change during this period. But this strongly contrasts Fox News' coverage of extreme heat events, in which the network is typically silent on the topic of global warming. A previous Media Matters analysis found that, in a parallel week-long time period in 2011, Fox News did not mention climate change once while reporting on an unusually intense heat wave. And throughout the entire month of July 2012, which was the hottest month on record for the United States, the network discussed climate change in the heat wave's context once -- in order to deny it.

Meanwhile, MSNBC primarily featured the anti-scientific "skeptic" claims to dismiss them in its five segments on the topic. CNN meteorologist Chad Meyers rebutted the "skeptic" claims in one segment, but in CNN's only other segment on the topic, the network portrayed the science of global warming as up for a "debate" by non-scientists. As MSNBC's Al Sharpton put it, "It's times like these that you want a scientist around to explain things" -- he brought on Bill Nye "The Science Guy" to make the case:

*Video in link*

Some in the media may pretend that climate science is up for debate. But in the scientific literature, the debate has already been won.

Methodology: We searched Nexis transcripts for "global warming" or "climate change" between January 2, 2014 and January 8, 2014 for transcripts from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. Additionally, we searched an internal video archive for daytime Fox News segments on climate change and/or global warming, which are not included in Nexis. We included only the mentions and segments that were in the context of cold winter weather and/or the polar vortex.

 

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, well they intentionally muddy the waters to confuse their viewers. Its so strange watching a news network intentionally lie like that the whole time.

Interesting article, thanks for the share.

 

[yebocan]

Yeah, well they intentionally muddy the waters to confuse their viewers. Its so strange watching a news network intentionally lie like that the whole time.

Interesting article, thanks for the share.

Does not take much to confuse their viewership...-there will be denial, fuelled by industry support....until there is a massive event....in the order of Katrina times 3 or 4, ... will have to happen in the US...cause massive damage and lost of life, a in your face moment....I am sure, than you will hear...we were wrong, but that is the past, we must now work together to overcome this challenge...-scary some of the doccies on climate change...one system goes out of sync and the whole "world engine" goes crazy!

 

[Paul Hjul]

old news and the genuine climate change skeptics - particularly the guys who query anthropomorphic climate change - have been ranting for years about the idiocy of the "warming" component within the hypothesis because it undermines the cornerstone of the hypothesis namely that there climate is changing with more heat in the system - which leads to extremes.

Fox intentionally lies to the public about EVERYTHING and the tell the lies that their market research says will make them the most money at the time - so often the lies the consumer wants.

 

[w1z4rd]

old news and the genuine climate change skeptics - particularly the guys who query anthropomorphic climate change

By "genuine climate change sceptics" you mean unqualified people with opinions. The scientists (from many different fields, countries, ideologies) are close to unanimous on this.

- have been ranting for years about the idiocy of the "warming" component within the hypothesis because it undermines the cornerstone of the hypothesis namely that there climate is changing with more heat in the system - which leads to extremes.

Well, the world is warming which is causing extreme climate change. The fact that the world is warming and co2 levels continue to rise is empirical. This heating is aggravating extreme weather.

Fox intentionally lies to the public about EVERYTHING and the tell the lies that their market research says will make them the most money at the time - so often the lies the consumer wants.

Im really glad you can see it

 

[Paul Hjul]

no the scientists are nowhere near consensus on about 95% of issues
where there is scientific consensus it is on certain data numbers and certain simple demonstrable cause and effect issues; there is no scientific consensus on what C02 levels represent tipping points and the effects of smog on global warming are so horribly up in the air that there are thousands of paradoxes to draw
where there is absolutely no consensus is on whether releasing more energy nuclear sources is a good idea or not - reducing the carbon footprint by generating energy ...

there is also a massive amount of discord within the scientific community on questions of ethics and what represents consensus and if you really want to get bogged down into things the parallels with the medieval "scientific" acceptance of the existence and nature of God comes to mind.

And the science gets even more interesting when the economic sciences are added into the mix ...

- just for the record: I am beyond convinced in climate change and am actually in the pool of people who believe that the extent of climate change is under presented in the media; the problem is that the entire issue of climate change has been so uprooted because of assumed implications of the science that almost all policy reasoning is disastrous and religious in nature.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Im really glad you can see it

everybody with a brain can see it - this is why the Ron Paul campaign team politely told Republicans who were asking about Fox that they need to watch more news and less fiction

 

[ponder]

...I am sure, than you will hear...we were wrong...

No, then they will blame obama

 

[w1z4rd]

no the scientists are nowhere near consensus on about 95% of issues

Well if your argument is that not all scientists agree on everything then yes, you are right, but thats kinda a strange argument no one is making.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

where there is scientific consensus it is on certain data numbers and certain simple demonstrable cause and effect issues; there is no scientific consensus on what C02 levels represent tipping points and the effects of smog on global warming are so horribly up in the air that there are thousands of paradoxes to draw

We know CO2 levels are rising. This is empirical. You dont need consensus to empirical data. Its EMPIRICAL (caps for emphasis)
We know CO2 heats the planet. It has done so in the past and is doing so now. Again, this is empirical.
We know there has been a dramatic (and Im not exaggerating) increase in CO2 levels since the start of the industrial age. Again, this is is empirical.

We are talking about CO2 levels. It is not known as smog.

where there is absolutely no consensus is on whether releasing more energy nuclear sources is a good idea or not - reducing the carbon footprint by generating energy ...

Im not sure what you mean here. I dont even know what "Releasing more nuclear sources" means. Are you meaning "make more nuclear power plants" or something? This also has no relevance to whether or not there is global warming happening (I do understand it might have minor impacts on dealing with the symptoms)

there is also a massive amount of discord within the scientific community on questions of ethics and what represents consensus and if you really want to get bogged down into things the parallels with the medieval "scientific" acceptance of the existence and nature of God comes to mind.

Thats a philosophical debate. The philosophers can go debate that while the rest of science does their work. While there is always room for improvement, empirical evidence is empirical evidence. Also, in modern science, (which really is not old), there is no consensus on God. At all. The concept of God can not be empirically measured and observed so it outside the restrictions of the scientific method. Could you link to the GLOBAL consensus on God?

And the science gets even more interesting when the economic sciences are added into the mix ...

Again, completely irrelevant to my previous post and what I said.

- just for the record: I am beyond convinced in climate change and am actually in the pool of people who believe that the extent of climate change is under presented in the media;

Im not convinced by your responses that you know the globe is warming and that CO2 is causing that heating. Which are key points to this.

the problem is that the entire issue of climate change has been so uprooted because of assumed implications of the science that almost all policy reasoning is disastrous and religious in nature.

Pretty amazing what rich powerful men with almost bottomless pits of money can buy. Waters successfully muddied.

 

[w1z4rd]

everybody with a brain can see it - this is why the Ron Paul campaign team politely told Republicans who were asking about Fox that they need to watch more news and less fiction

Old Ron Paul.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=107

Well known for been part of the Republican machine that lied and muddied the waters Less regulation of big oil is both a libertarian and big oil pipe line dream Big oil knows this, thats why they sponsor so many libertarian groups.

 

[The_Assimilator]

There are few people I'd trust less than Ron Paul. The average bergie is not one of those people.

 

[Paul Hjul]

nope you have the wrong end of the stick entirely:
First climate change report was commissioned by the nuclear lobby in response to the disaster that was Chenoble - there had been scientists claiming climate change in the 60s and 70s and several people pointed out that state supported industrial complex development would cause climate change quite early on but the IPCC came about in 1988 and the current run has been in the mix ever since.

Ol Thatcher was instrumental in getting the WMO to support the idea - you'll notice that when Thatcher came to power the WMO was on the criticism receiving end of things - a waste of resources and what not - not so much when they lobbed to work over with UNEP to put together an integovernmental panel.

In 1990 half of the greenhouse effect was attributed to carbon dioxide - a position completely reversed by the second report as a host of industrial gasses provided the explanation in the mid 90s, with various of the noxious sulfur containing gasses becoming a priority. Moreover the 1990 report made some horrible assumptions - later established to be far off the mark - about forestation and it failed to identify the growth of "urban forests" into the "business as usual" predictions. They also gave figures of the temperature increases which have not borne fruit.

The current report is so far removed from the earlier reports that it isn't even funny. Several of the key authors of the 3rd report also advanced that cellphone radiation is a major concern ...

 

[icyrus]

old news and the genuine climate change skeptics - particularly the guys who query anthropomorphic climate change - have been ranting for years about the idiocy of the "warming" component within the hypothesis because it undermines the cornerstone of the hypothesis namely that there climate is changing with more heat in the system - which leads to extremes.

Why don't climate change deniers publish papers?

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

One. Yes, one

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...y_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

There's even a nice graph for the reading impaired.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Why don't climate change deniers publish papers?

most of the deniers will run the argument that the process of review is manipulated and reviewers are biased and what not. I think they are lazy and wrong, but its beside the point.

Moreover a 1 year period is a really small in scope - you have to look at the 15 year scope to establish things and then compare research funding onto things. There is big money in spilling FUD on climate change but that money goes to writing FUD rather than actual research.

Also take a look at a number of the 9136 authors who have gone on record to say that their findings have been pushed further than what the empirical data supports. You also need to look at what is taken as a finding in support of whatever hypothesis is given especially on confirmatory studies.

 

[w1z4rd]

For someone like me, who love science, I am confused by the arguments presented here. They honestly dont make much sense to me. I will try break down some of the confusing information you are presenting here.

nope you have the wrong end of the stick entirely:
First climate change report was commissioned by the nuclear lobby in response to the disaster that was Chenoble - there had been scientists claiming climate change in the 60s and 70s and several people pointed out that state supported industrial complex development would cause climate change quite early on but the IPCC came about in 1988 and the current run has been in the mix ever since.

Yes, climate change has been researched for a long time. How this invalidates anything I have said is perplexing.

Ol Thatcher was instrumental in getting the WMO to support the idea - you'll notice that when Thatcher came to power the WMO was on the criticism receiving end of things - a waste of resources and what not - not so much when they lobbed to work over with UNEP to put together an integovernmental panel.

Thats awesome. Irrelevant to anything I have said but awesome. To many the criticism has not changed.

In 1990 half of the greenhouse effect was attributed to carbon dioxide - a position completely reversed by the second report as a host of industrial gasses provided the explanation in the mid 90s, with various of the noxious sulfur containing gasses becoming a priority. Moreover the 1990 report made some horrible assumptions - later established to be far off the mark - about forestation and it failed to identify the growth of "urban forests" into the "business as usual" predictions. They also gave figures of the temperature increases which have not borne fruit.

This makes no sense again. Im not sure what your point here is. Or how it relates to anything I have said. Is your point that Co2 level measurements were unreliable or something?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

Do you perhaps think its not a major green house gas? I really cant make out what you are saying.

The current report is so far removed from the earlier reports that it isn't even funny. Several of the key authors of the 3rd report also advanced that cellphone radiation is a major concern ...

Whaaaat? Is your argument now that cellphone radiation increases global warming or what? Are we still talking science here or conspiracy theories?

I think the only sensible thing I can make out of this is that that our scientific knowledge has advanced greatly since the 80`s. Which is 100% correct. Institutions (government and private) around the world are putting more resources into studying global warming due to the size and possible consiquences of its impact.


Im sorry, you are not putting together arguments that make sense to me in relation to what I am saying. I honestly dont know how to respond to these.

 

[w1z4rd]

Moreover a 1 year period is a really small in scope - you have to look at the 15 year scope to establish things and then compare research funding onto things. There is big money in spilling FUD on climate change but that money goes to writing FUD rather than actual research.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I don't understand what you're saying, Paul. The consensus seems to be there among scientists on the core point.

 

[Paul Hjul]

the point is that there isn't consensus amongst scientists on any actual contestable point or consensus in a particular theory of climate change (as there is with evolution)
what there is is a broad scope of views and research that support various hypothesis that are flobbed together as climate change when massive amounts of fudging and bull**** is added

Have a good read at 5 peer reviewed academic articles that relate to climate change in some way or another and then go and read the IPCC 3rd and 5th reports - even just extracts - and you'll get this horrible sense of unease coming over you.

Looking at how the climate change brigade treat Arthur for example on this forum reinforces the problem and how Ivo Vegter is called all sorts of things based on his promotion of environmental skepticism and the rot in the state of Denmark becomes all the more clear. When a tenured professor in a field that is within the scope of climate change indicates that he doesn't wish to supervise a masters students thesis because of the headaches the hypothesis will bring you have a big problem.

 

[Paul Hjul]

View attachment 93631

the point is that the attachment is wrong - 30 years ago that was the case, today there is BIG money supporting climate change "research" especially on the issue of "business sustainability"

 

[w1z4rd]

the point is that there isn't consensus amongst scientists on any actual contestable point or consensus in a particular theory of climate change (as there is with evolution)

]

There is no international official consensus on evolution like there is on climate change. There are different levels of support and most scientific institutions have rejected intelligent design, but no international panel has worked together with all respected scientific institutions (private and governmental) to form a consensus. Paul, Im sorry dude, love your posts but you need a lot more understanding in these issues. I wish you had been here when the big debate was evolution as it armed many of us with an understanding on how science works.

I gave you the points they have agreed on. I showed you a 95% consensus by world scientists on the important points.

what there is is a broad scope of views and research that support various hypothesis that are flobbed together as climate change when massive amounts of fudging and bull**** is added

No, there are thousands of papers from many different fields backed up with empirical research that just about all support each other. What you dont have is a real alternative theory that can withstand scrutiny. Your over use of adjectives like "flobbed" indicates a lot.

Have a good read at 5 peer reviewed academic articles that relate to climate change in some way or another and then go and read the IPCC 3rd and 5th reports - even just extracts - and you'll get this horrible sense of unease coming over you.

IPCC reports are based on these peer reviewed academic papers afaik.

Looking at how the climate change brigade treat Arthur for example on this forum reinforces the problem and how Ivo Vegter is called all sorts of things based on his promotion of environmental skepticism and the rot in the state of Denmark becomes all the more clear.

Im sorry we keep correcting him, but if the argument is that we are wrong because we keep correcting him... then yeah.... whatever.

When a tenured professor in a field that is within the scope of climate change indicates that he doesn't wish to supervise a masters students thesis because of the headaches the hypothesis will bring you have a big problem.

The information we have on climate change is fully testable and verifiable. Its not a hypothesis except to people like you.

Paul, can you not recognize you are not debating facts? your not debating science. Your arguments are all over the place and kinda show to people here your knowledge on the topic. I hope you learn more as we go along... but that kinda requires reading and responding to the evidence people are actually providing. You basically ignore just about every counter point I (or others) have provided.... or get into debates on philosophy, economics or peoples feelings. Debate science with science.