General discussion

MSM climate reporting wrong 93% of the time

Discussion is locked
Reply to: MSM climate reporting wrong 93% of the time
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: MSM climate reporting wrong 93% of the time
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Don't know if you know this Grim, but News Corps. employees

in Britain routinely refer to it as News Corpse. According to some of them it is where the Facts go to Die.


- Collapse -
Since you used two different terms

"climate' and 'global warming'. Global warming has already been debunked a number of times so now the tree-huggers are calling it 'climate change'...........climate change isn't any different than what was normally happening all along since the earth began. It has nothing to do with man.......and nothing some wing-nut can spout will alter those actual facts. Until they can blame the Ice Age, the Great Melt after that, etc. on man, fewer and fewer people are believing it. And as long as we have countries like China who totally ignore it no matter what efforts tree-huggers make to inflict the crap regulations on the rest of the world, only the die-hard believers/listeners will be the ones in la-la land. Unfortunately for the tree-huggers, without complete WORLD cooperation at extremely expensive costs to each country, this is an argument going nowhere because too many like me have stopped listening to the people preaching it when it keeps getting debunked....and it isn't just FoxNews, I hate to break it to you.

- Collapse -
Re: climate change

Nobody denies that climate changes used to have natural causes only during the first 4 billion years the earth existed and their were no or only a few 10,000's of humans around.

But that, of course, doesn't rule out the possibility that 6,000,000,000 humans with the current "ecological footprint" (or whatever word you would want to use for the influence of human actions on the non-human world) are a factor also. What makes you say it's impossible? Or, in other words, why is it impossible? Or, in still other words, can you prove it's impossible?


- Collapse -

Actually, it's up to the REAL scientist to prove that we ARE causing dire harm to the environment not me to prove wrong a bunch of agenda minded people who are looking to rake in huge bucks with a massive environmental scare like they tried to do with KYOTO a few years back and idiots like Gore who has amassed millions/billions personally over this while jetting around in one of the most 'polluting' modes of transportation according to environmentalists and nearly every one of his 'statistics' in that million dollar making movie of his that went into his pocket and wasn't donated to the environmentalists from what I remember was debunked AFTER the bucks got made. The hypocricy makes me half crazy with this many 'leaders' on this issue got together not long ago and every single one of them flew in to the meeting and the rented those "GAS GUZZLING" SUVS??? AND even if it ONE day CAN be proved that we are causing harm, NOTHING will change until you can get every single country on the face of the earth to go along with those changes and that's not gonna happen. People have been trying for over 40 years already but so far, saner people prevail and keep beating the quacks back. When these idiots decide that I have to buy a lightbulb that costs $50+ EACH and actually contain a POISON, I'm out of the climate saving loop obviously.........

- Collapse -
So we agree it's possible ...

that human actions have influence on the climate.

Let me take an example. It's well known that the average temperature in cities is higher than in the country. Quite explainable: people, cars, electricity, all providing heat. A lots of car, a lot of electricity, that's a lot of energy, and that causes a higher temperature.
Isn't that an example of human influence on the average temperature on earth, so on the climate?

Some say there are other mechanisms, like CO2 and deforestation. You don't need to believe in those mechanisms to acknowledge that my example is a proof of the existence of human influence on the climate.


- Collapse -
Actually the higher heat in large cities is

caused by all the concrete/asphault/steel/masonery absorbing and holding more heat from the sunlight as much as it is by cars.

- Collapse -
My sister

had a hard time believing me when I first moved here when I kept telling her that my days average in the 80's in the summer and will drop many times nearly 30 degrees that same night and I hardly ever use my A/C...ceiling fans are enough. When I explained that the sun doesn't have concrete roads and buildings all around me to absorb the heat and reflect it back all day and take all night to even begin to cool down. Here, the sun is the same but it goes right into the ground with nothing to keep it 'in your face' the whole day and night.

- Collapse -
Certain times in the year...

... it is common to use both the AC and the heat in WV. The woods can hold the cold air for most of the morning and it will collect in the small hollows between the tall ridges.

Then there are places like these in Appalachia...

However, these are all caused by local microclimates caused by the terrain. It can't be used to explain the larger climate extremes that are turning topsy turvy right now, like the melting permafrost in Canada and Siberia, or the arctic ice caps extreme melting that occurred this past summer.

However, none of this has anything to do with the OP that basically gives proof that Fox News presents misleading reporting about certain subjects almost 100 percent of the time - rounding up, that's aloud in these issues, right.

- Collapse -
The left

has one set of figures and stats regarding climate issues with their experts, the right has their set of figures and stats with their experts. Just because neither side agrees, doesn't mean that Fox is presenting misleading reporting. I could say the same thing about the left's experts, couldn't I?

- Collapse -
The lost of glacial ice on Kilimanjaro is insignificant?

I'm not sure of how much is man affected, although it seems obvious to me we affect the environment. Indeed, one aspect of mankind is man adapts his environment to him instead of adapting to his environment.

Anyway, in the 1880's, the crown was completely ice capped. Since 1012, 80% of the cap has been lost. Other glaciers show similar losses I believe.

I think warming is indisputable, I will grant how significant man's contribution is highly debatable. I believe we contribute, but I think it's exaggerate in support of different agendas, nothing unusual there.

- Collapse -
your altitude makes for faster night cooling also

higher altitudes mean thinner air and make it easier for the earth, or structures also, to radiate heat back into space.

And that's not just at night, even while sunlight is heating things up, there is some heat radiation back into space, just nowhere near as much as the sun is beating down with.

Actually if you're in the mountains or even near them, you probably don't get as much direct heating either due to mountain shadows.

- Collapse -
Mountain shadows

In the winter, I refuse to drive out of my mountain unless it's been above 40 for a week solid (day time temps) because there are so many winding curves throughout the mountain that never see the sun that as things start to thaw, the curves stay frozen with ice because it freezes again so quickly at night. We rarely have guardrails up here so the chances of skidding off the road are commonplace occurances and even the mailman has done it and he drives it every day. Careful doesn't mean much on ice covered have to hit that curve at just the right speed to not spin out but still have enough momentum going to finish the curve and keep going until tires hit something dry again beyond the shade all without tapping the gas even a little bit....some curves start off going downward, but the other side of the curve is in an upward angle. Tricky stuff even though it doesn't appear at first glance to someone not used to it to be much of anything. I know I was pretty cocky when I first got here and figured that if I could drive through the snow and ice in Cleveland, Ohio, I was a pretty good driver and knew the ropes.....boy was I wrong. I spun in a circle twice here years ago.....that rude awakening was enough for me. I got to where I would have a panic attack if I knew Derek was driving around in the winter.....and still do when they come to visit after a snowfall of any significance. It's beautiful here every season.....but it can be pretty deadly. Derek in his senior year alone went to four funerals for friends of his who all thought they were invincible, and they all grew up here from infants and didn't seem to have the common sense of winter driving 'built into them'.

- Collapse -
nobody needs to prove the unlikely

It's up to those who advocate the unlikely to make the proof. So far, they've failed, and miserably, not to mention caught in deliberate fraud. It's time to shut down the global warming climate changing racket.

- Collapse -
Why do you think it's unlikely?

So far you failed to explain. I think you didn't even try.


- Collapse -
Yeah, the climate changes every day, LOL.

they like that new term because nobody can challenge it without also qualifying what they are challenging. We need to quit letting those "chicken little" idiots define the terms.

CNET Forums