Printable View
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...-warmest-year/
(warning: article is longer and more difficult to understand than Fox; reader must be capable of mustering normal levels of attention)
I wonder if it would be possible to get a group of rich people to set up an official fund to shame Fox news through public advertising say with one ad every other week or so exposing their latest and most blatant idiocy.
and how would this advertising reach the suckers that fall for Fox?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Just when I think I can't be more astonished by the falsehoods which are vomited up by Fox. They thrive on the continued ignorance of their viewers and readers.
I agree, it'd be nice for each and every falsehood and lie to be published loudly and robustly.
There's a whole demographic that is impervious to any form of reason, but there's an even larger one that isn't but is only exposed to second-hand information from Fox. It's those people that would be reached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-refugees-2010
Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]
Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."
As Gavin Atkins of the Asian Correspondent noted Monday, the U.N. back in 2005 provided a handy map to identify "places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean."
**********
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
Here is a prediction from 2000 on how rare snow would be. ;)
When the people who are keeping the data are blinkered ideologists who resist efforts to be audited then you have a recipe for skepticism. If the predictions made in the 80s and 90s were actually accurate I'd change my tune but so far they have been off course. I've yet to have someone who can tell me what PPM about of carbon is the tipping point. I really would like someone here to make that claim that way in 5-10 years when we hit and are fine they can forever shut up about "global climate change."
Here is a link to the article you apparently did not read or possibly just failed to understand:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...-warmest-year/
We know for a fact that you are incapable of changing your tune based on facts. See for example physics, evolution, the age of our planet. Why do you lie to us? Are you really so foolish as to expect us to believe your lies? Or do you simply lie to yourself too? :bulb:
Using the NOAA numbers doesn't mean much. Global warming isn't real. Climate change is a possibility.
The past decade was statistically cooler in the contiguous 48 US states. Then 2012 was warmer. Oh noes, variation! But the data itself just covers the contiguous 48 US states, which is only a fraction of the Earth's area. Law of small numbers suggests that variation on a "small" area like the contiguous 48 US states is expected.
I much prefer more global data, instead of the media taking a relatively meaningless datapoint and trying to put meaning behind it.
PS- I'm ignoring the Fox part because I do not own a television and I have not watched more than an hour or so of Fox in my lifetime.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
;)
My prediction.
10 years from now the earth will be fine. CO2 PPM will be higher in the atmosphere. What is your prediction?
You do know that the false equivalence charge is one leveled against the entire mainstream media, and not just Fox, right? Fox might look bad in this particular instance, but all the channels do it, and not necessarily for ideological reasons. It's the obsession with appearing neutral that makes them interview creationists and the vaccines lead to autism crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'd say you're an idiot. Leave science to the scientists.Quote:
10 years from now the earth will be fine. CO2 PPM will be higher in the atmosphere. What is your prediction?
What a completely dishonest attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I've just read the link - and the original article linked from it that he attacks - and Fox does indeed quote the three people listed. All are named and all have their quotes properly in quotation marks etc
What this story dishonestly omits though is the other views provided also named and given their quotes. Such as this one:
Where does that fall under the Fox=biased conspiracy theory scale? Are you claiming that a news agency should totally and utterly ignore one side of a debate?Quote:
Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture.
"Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit this year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,"
"I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson -- finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It's like they keep finding new ways to say the 'glove doesn't fit' while ignoring the DNA evidence."
In fact the Ars Technica article totally and utterly lies as it claims that "Yet Spencer is allowed to point the finger at it unchallenged" which is completely untrue. Immediately after Spencer's quote is this one:
To read that link you'd assume that Fox only portrayed the three sceptics "unchallenged" and in a sympathetic light. Bullshit.Quote:
NOAA defended its adjustments to FoxNews.com.
Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity, said that there was consensus for the adjustments.
"These have been shown through at least three papers that have appeared in the past 12 months to be an improvement,” he said.
Exactly. Predictions made in 1975 by climate alarmists were completely off. Why do you think these folks should have any credibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorNorton
A quick search for NOAA on the Fox News site brought this article. Can someone point me to the conspiracy theory behind this Fox story?
Quote:
Last year left heat records and Americans deep-fried; temperatures soared off the charts
WASHINGTON – America set an off-the-charts heat record in 2012.A brutal combination of a widespread drought and a mostly absent winter pushed the average annual U.S. temperature last year up to 55.32 degrees Fahrenheit, the government announced Tuesday. That's a full degree warmer than the old record set in 1998.
Breaking temperature records by an entire degree is unprecedented, scientists say. Normally, records are broken by a tenth of a degree or so.
The National Climatic Data Center's figures for the entire world won't come out until next week, but through the first 11 months of 2012, the world was on pace to have its eighth warmest year on record.
Scientists say the U.S. heat is part global warming in action and natural weather variations. The drought that struck almost two-thirds of the nation and a La Nina weather event helped push temperatures higher, along with climate change from man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She said temperature increases are happening faster than scientists predicted.
"These records do not occur like this in an unchanging climate," said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "And they are costing many billions of dollars."
Last year was 3.2 degrees warmer than the average for the entire 20th century. Last July was the also the hottest month on record.
Nineteen states set yearly heat records in 2012. Alaska, however, was cooler than average.
U.S. temperature records go back to 1895 and the yearly average is based on reports from more than 1,200 weather stations across the Lower 48 states.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. last year also had the second most weather extremes on record, behind 1998. There were 11 different disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage, including Superstorm Sandy and the drought, NOAA said.
The drought was the worst since the 1950s and slightly behind the dust bowl of the 1930s, meteorologists said. During a drought, the ground is so dry that there's not enough moisture in the soil to evaporate into the atmosphere to cause rainfall. And that means hotter, drier air.
The last time the country had a record cold month was December 1983.
"A picture is emerging of a world with more extreme heat," said Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist. "Not every year will be hot, but when heat waves do occur, the heat will be more extreme. People need to begin to prepare for that future."
___
Online:
National Climatic Data Center: http://1.usa.gov/VN8hTO
___
Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08...#ixzz2Hq3FehS3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
:popcorn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You seem to have missed the point of the charge of "false balance" :confused: you also seem to have no idea of how a news article can be structured to convey a specific message. Who got the last word, in the article? What was that word and how was it presented? Gimme a break RB.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also note:
Re. Spencer:Quote:
the Fox News team felt compelled to go out and find three people who don't believe him or the scientists he represents.
One is a blogger who writes under the name Steve Goddard, who told Fox, "The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as." But Goddard doesn't explain why he thinks that's the case, nor why Berkeley Earth came up with similar results when they weren't using some of NOAA's adjustments. And Fox doesn't explain why they're putting NOAA's word up against someone who doesn't study the climate and has only bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. A cursory examination would have also revealed that Goddard has attacked climate researchers before, only to find out his criticisms were completely wrong and based on a trivial error.
Spencer's assertions do go unchallenged in that the article presents someone who says his objections miss the big picture when in reality the evidence to date is that his objections are baseless, wrong, not simply that they miss the big picture.Quote:
Unfortunately, that claim isn't consistent with the available data. People have tracked the impact of urbanization both globally and in the US and found that it doesn't influence the temperature record. The Berkeley Earth project, linked above, also found no influence of urbanization.
And finally:
Granted Fox isn't the only news source guilty of pushing false balance in various issues.Quote:
What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn't draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. It's a classic example of false balance, allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality. But the reporter does let Watts show his biases when he's given the last word, and he uses it to insinuate that NOAA's scientists should probably be in prison, saying, "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."
Compared to 99. And even then the northeast still increased. Take in the full range of data since I think ~1895 and the US is a hotter place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There is a gif floating around the net that shows how you pulled off this claim, there are cycles where we have smaller drops in cooler weather, but the complete trend over all shows a warming pattern.
edit:
no gif, but this breaks it down in the same manner.
edit 2:
found the gif
http://i.imgur.com/y2KfF.gif
and as a bonus, youtube to explain it.
Out of curiosity, why such deference to climatologists? The field is newer than poli sci or economics. The findings are at least as uncertain as those in the latter fields. The methods are no more advanced. The data is at least as unreliable. And yet a vast majority of the people who hold climatologists in high esteem would think nothing of dismissing economics findings just because they don't like the conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorNorton
Going to make a prediction on if the earth will be in 10 years despite more "green house" gases in the air?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
There is no false balance, it's a figment of the imagination by cherry-picking one article to give a false claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The main article about the NOAA had zero skeptics in response, not one. The main article ends with the following - where does it fall on the conspiracy scale?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Main Fox article, quoted in full above.
Not true. The assertions are immediately challenged by saying the following:Quote:
Also note:
Re. Spencer:
Spencer's assertions do go unchallenged in that the article presents someone who says his objections miss the big picture when in reality the evidence to date is that his objections are baseless, wrong, not simply that they miss the big picture.
Unless your saying that ponting out the evidence has been through 3 peer reviews doesn't count?Quote:
NOAA defended its adjustments to FoxNews.com.
Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity, said that there was consensus for the adjustments.
"These have been shown through at least three papers that have appeared in the past 12 months to be an improvement,” he said.
The article is an article specifically about the complaints raised where a few skeptics ate quoted, then a government spokesman and non-skeptic are. The quotes are all real.Quote:
And finally:
Granted Fox isn't the only news source guilty of pushing false balance in various issues.
The actual article about the science, the one entitled "Last year left heat records and Americans deep-fried; temperatures soared off the charts" is pretty clear.
So I can count multiple lies:
1: Ignores the actual article on the science and instead cherrypicks a different follow-up one as if the first doesn't exist.
2: Falsely claims that there's a policy of balance where articles must include contrarian view too - main article doesn't.
3: Falsely claims Spencer went unchallenged when he actually got challenged by a NOAA spokesman in the next paragraph.
4: Dishonestly omits all non-skeptic views.
So it seems the truth is that unless there's a total whitewash where only one side gets to speak then there's no way for them to win.
If 95% of economists came together and said, using multiple different models, we all with certainty believe this is going to happen, I'd give it a lot of weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The question here is how well do we know the science of how the earth gains and retains heat, if there is a working and tested theory, who has results to match then while we are never satisfied it is the best evidence to make decisions based on.
So far the Earth has been getting warmer.
A good question though is it getting warmer annually at the rate they predict, have they made a model that fits in with how the Earth started warming up from the onset of mass production of cars to where we are now in CO2 emissions. I haven't looked up that kind of stuff, it'd be great question to ask a climatologist.
There's a consensus in economics about far more issues you think. :noob: The role of economic incentives and importance of trade in particular enjoy widespread support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
We don't know with very high precision. The instruments used to measure it are flawed. The data is therefore flawed. The methods are flawed. The theories are only partially tested. The fact that the earth is getting warmer doesn't address most of those flaws. Now I'm not saying that the current findings are all wrong, but there are very good reasons to wait for the field of climatology to mature before we take their findings more seriously.Quote:
The question here is how well do we know the science of how the earth gain and retains heat, if there is a working and tested theory, who has results to match then while we are never satisfied it is the best evidence to make decisions based on.
There's a word missing. But I think you're looking at this from a narrow and short-sighted angle, to your own detriment. The earth has the potential to "outlive" humanity. No matter how badly we fuck it up, the planet will find a way to exist, even if it's as a 'dead' planet or a breaks into meteors or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The bigger question is how long mankind can survive and thrive, while global population grows exponentially, and resources are pushed to its upper limits. 19th century ideology doesn't work for the 21st century, and likely won't work in future centuries. We've learned that our planet is basically a closed-loop system, and our backyard (or NIMBY) now includes nations on opposite sides of the globe.
The exponential population growth is all but done. The global population is projected to plateau at about 9-10 billion and then quite possibly decrease.
What's the scientific basis for that projection? It's probably still a theory, right?
Yes, just like evolution. :rolleyes:
I believe Pew released a research paper on it a few weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A large part of the world's population growth came from developing countries. Those countries are now stabilizing. It took us longer to go from 6 to 7 billion than from 5 to 6 billion, so the slowing has been noticeable for a while.
Not quite the same. You're postulating theories based on economics or politics. While those frameworks include a degree of human behavior, they don't necessarily include climate or environmental sciences.
It's a paradoxical, self-inflicted, man-made nightmare. We use medical science to increase longevity, economic science to increase opportunity, and political science as adjudicators....but we neglect to give credence to environmental or climate sciences?
Gee, makes me wonder how we managed to put multi billion dollar satellites into orbit to monitor weather patterns, or invest billions in tectonic plate geo-sciences.....in order to give people early warning alert systems for tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes, tidal wave surges, earthquakes, mud slides, tsunamis, etc.
No, facts. We're already not growing exponentially and birth rates are collapsing across the globe. Most developed nations are breeding at below replacement rate (so would fall if not for longer life expectancy/net immigration) while developing nations are fast falling to replacement rates too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's not just one research paper. There was a massive UN project on this topic. And these estimates are shared by a vast majority of demographers working in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Uhm, the US is breeding at or above population replacement rates, if you include the undocumented workers and immigrants (who are propping up our service-consumer based economy).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We're also educating large number of students from developing nations, but don't extend a green card or work visa to keep them in the country, to utilize the education we've provided for our own growth. Even if they WANT to stay here and contribute to our economy and society, or become naturalized citizens, we make it too difficult. It's no wonder they leave, and take their ideas with them. :rolleyes:
The relation of the second paragraph to your point about exponential population growth is? :confused:
Actually its officially below (just) the replacement rate. Replacement rate is approx. 2.1 while total fertility rate is below that at 2.06 and is falling long term. However virtually every developed nation besides the USA, France, Ireland and Israel are below 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...tilityrate.svg
Even Mexico's fertility rate has fallen to just 2.24