Fox so called "News" is NOT a legitimate news source. 1.) Fair and balanced / We report You decide? LMFAO! It's called: "Consumer Fraud" 2.) They have and continue to LIE / DISTORT the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative agenda. Yes other networks will at times tend to lean "left / right" BUT they aren't flat out LYING / DISTORTING FACTS, committing "consumer fraud" and so on... Fox News should be pulled off the air ASAP.
You guys are fools convincing fools to come over to your side of foolish thinking. At leaset their factual reporting is less bias than nbc, cbs, abc, cnn and their affiliates.
I found the source poll and Fox actually did make a mistake and did add the “very likely” to the “somewhat likely”, but in the end you are all assuming an intent to deceive on FOX's behalf, as opposed to an innocent mistake.
Even if Cenk is correct in what FOX did he is surely making a reach in assuming to judge FOX's intent, as are you by the way.
Climate is inherently not as predictable as we'd like it to be, as are all complex fluid dynamics systems. I read a book called 'Not by Fire but by Ice" as a recommendation by a geophysicist. If you take a broader look at the situation, in geological time, you'll notice that the bias is in the SCALE being used. Cycles have us entering an ice age. Worth the look. Author is Robert Felix.
@MrClintito actually, in the actual rasmussen poll, there was a 15% unsure category, which fox news threw away and didn't show at all. if they had shown that, it would have added up to 135%. Cenk is correct, he just didn't share the source of his information clearly.
@dhatraditya I searched for the original poll numbers and you are right that there was a 15% unsure. However that does not mean that Cenk is correct in everything that he says. He alleges that FOX lied intentionally. I doubt very much that he has any proof off this, there are no facts to back this up. Which means that he is also lying, even though he is in part correct.
If nothing else this shows the biases of the Young Turks in their own reporting.
Mistakes are made in journalism all the time. It's good that you caught it, and Fox should issue a retraction, but you little people on the Left and Right should spend more time on substantive issues. You wasted my 3 and a half minutes for misleading me in your headline. I expected to hear a report of Fox being scolded by a major player, not some vindictive no name. BTW, the news is that some scientists DID lie. Proven fact. Poll or no poll. And you avoided this bec you hate Fox. Disgraceful.
the problem is that people dont recognize the obvious effects of global warming right now because it does not directly affect us here in the US right NOW never mind what can be clearly seen in the lands of glaciers
The mistake is in the percentage, the numbers they actually displayed was the numbers of people that called in to their bullshit poll, it will take decades for some people to understand the science of global warming, some might never understand. There is no point in trying to covince the stupid to become smart.
Give them a break! The poll, though incorrectly displayed, still showed the correct outcome, that people think that it is "likely" that scientists have falsified research. Whether it's "somewhat likely" or "very likely", the common denominator is "likely." Why don't you call out every other news source and catch them in all of their liberally biased blunders?
@sikvenum82 So do I, sik, and I'm a Republican also. That's not the point here. This commentator glosses over the fact that several scientists have been caught falsifying/distorting findings to support global warming. This is news. Not a typo on Fox News. This guy, along with many on the Left, are so disdainful of Fox News that they will justify the bad actions of some scientists to attack a news organization. Lying or crafting results IS NOT SCIENCE. I just want to know the unadulterated facts.
@jumpinjakeflash1 Well honestly Fox really does lie for their own gain. The science behind global warming is irrefutable and its not like one can simply ignore it without a financial incentive. Business needs to go on but we really should start investing in cleaner energy.
@Dubcadillac Because Focks Noos panders to the ignorant and uniformed by catering to humanity's baser instincts like racism. It's a right wing echo chamber owned by very rich conservatives who use fear mongering to support their upper class agenda...like lower taxes for corporations, the abolition of the estate tax (which affects less than 1% of Americans.) I could go on but why. Glenn Beck is manic depressive (absolutely true)...which explains his crying fits.Oh yeah...BUY GOLD!
@Dubcadillac The problem is not that Fox leans right! The problem is they sell themselves as Fair & Balanced when they are everything but that. Also, they are caught time and time again lying and distorting crazily!
Small little problems in their data? Really? The email says that the statistics trick they used for their data worked and doesnt show that the data they gathers denies global warming. 80% of the scientists who signed their name on the statement originally proclaiming global warming, sued to have their names removed because further researched proved there was no human caused global warming going on
@Gijoe125 It's not weird that Fox has more viewers. You don't have to tell the truth to get viewers. Far from it. The opposite is what sells and gets attention.
Let's not report on the exposed Global Warming Hoax, let's concentrate on Fox's use of a botched Rasmussen poll, that both MSNBC and CNN used as well.
Maybe if TYT didn't have a history of getting soo many things wrong, I woudl care what they think of FOX. Still think the public wants government run healthcare guys?
@pimpdalyrical "...that both MSNBC and CNN used as well." No, they didn't. Anybody, outside of Fox News, saw that poll to be completely ridiculous based on the terrible math. "Maybe if TYT didn't have a history of getting soo many things wrong..." What has TYT ever said that has been wrong or inaccurate? Point out two things.
But you know how many people take Faux News as absolute gospel? I'll email this to my boss who thinks Faux News is the voice of America and he will completely ignore it. He thinks Glen Beck is the savior of America. I know more people who think this way than I can count. These people vote-this scares the livin' shit out of me.
So what can be done about it? The Rupert Murdock propaganda machine has a stranglehold on society and all a reasonable person can do is gawk in amazement.
A study published in 2008 reports that China (which was excluded from the Kyoto requirements) became the largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2006. (Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland, China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production, Geophysical Research Letters 35, 2008
I agree - look at that - Fox had no category "Not likely." They left that out. So when they take the poll, they ask their audience, you have three choices 1) agree with us a little 2) agree with us completely 3) slightly disagree with us
But where is choice number 4, "Disagree completely"?
Fox News's Fox and Friends had that one guy with the black hair today saying something like heads up to Jon Stewart "these polls don't add up to 100% b/c they're diff. questions." Was the fox guy referring to this poll earlier?? I don't remember any recent polls being exposed for not adding up to merely 100%. Of course, I don't really watch much tv anymore since I'm busy surfing the net and whatnot.
@gone556 actually global warming is real, but its not an urgent matter. I say its real because we are not in the ice age still and clearly it has warmed up since then :)
Martin Luther King Jr. Preaches Against Aggressive Wars according to the Bible (same as Ron Paul) /watch?v=AeME7Q6Oaj0
"There's nothing wrong with being a conservative and coming up with a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don't go to war so carelessly. ... Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."-Ron Paul
If FOX or Bill O'Reilly cared about Wounded Warriors they'd not trash Ron Paul President 2012!
The absorption rate of CO2 for an infrared photon of 14 micrometres wavelength is only about 5×10^-22 m^2.
Simply put, CO2 is a crappy greenhouse gas.
90-95% of the greenhouse effect is from Water vapor, which the greenies want all our cars to spew out instead of CO2. Hmmm
According to the IPCC, CO2 in the atmosphere is only 388 ppm, and humans produce 3.4% of it. To see the dramatic effects being hyped, we would all suffocate on that much Co2 before the water started rising.
Of course there is a greenhouse effect. If there wasn't we would freeze to death. The only thing protecting us from the harshness of space is the blanket of Gas around the Earth retaining solar energy.
(I know the Oceans are a huge part of it)
The other question is if "destroying" the planet is really what's happening.
Life flourished on this planet compared to now, during the Hylocene (check spelling) maximum, a time when the climate was much warmer than today!
LOL! That's cool. At least you seem willing to do your own homework. Couple things to keep in mind.
No, there is not consensus,
and just because someone is a "scientist" does not mean they don't operate out of self interest or towards an agenda. There's lots of money to be made producing science that supports pre-conceived notions out there.
@pimpdalyrical Saying that there is no consensus on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is like saying that there is no consensus on the theory of evolution. While there will always be skeptics on any theory, the two I have alluded to hold an overwhelming majority of scientists as proponents. True, scientists can have an agenda, but the methodical analysis and scrutiny involved in science, make it difficult to support false conclusions for personal gain.
Consensus said the Earth was flat and the Sun moved once too.
Do you say consensus because you know, or that's what you have been told?
Yeah, let's not take into account how scientists' opinions can be bought with grant money, or that the surveys used to justify this garbage is full of climatologists who never said humans were the cause of the warming they found, as exposed by the IPCC leaked E-mails and numerous lawsuits by those who's names were on the report.
@pimpdalyrical I'm not sure what you are trying to infer here. Because popular belief has been shown to be inaccurate in the past, it is certain to be inaccurate now? What you say about scientists being bought with grant money is true. The most vocal skeptics of AGW in the US belong to the Marshall Institute. This is the same institute that was funded by the tobacco industry to say "you can't prove that smoking causes cancer". Now they say you cant prove AGW, but they have done no research.
What I mean is "consensus," if that's even what we have here, doesn't mean they are right.
No, the leaked E-mails showed a trend, and it was more than just 3. They purposely disregarded and erased contradictory data, engaged in actively surpressing contradictory opinions from journals, and struggled to make the data they had support the conclusions they wanted to see.
Some of the most vocal skeptics have been environmentalists and the co-founder of greenpeace.
@pimpdalyrical I can agree that consensus does not mean right. What I do propose however, is that a consensus among professionals in their field, is worthy of merit. The consensus I refer to is one that includes the IPCC, NAS, AAAS, and NASA to name a few organisations. As for the leaked E-mails, what is your source of information in regards to this trend? I would be interested in learning more about the topic so that I may make an informed decision regarding any wrongdoing.
My source for information on the leaked E-mails? I went kind of an unusual route. I actually read them instead of taking some biased Mainstream Media talking head's word for it.
The UK sources, the Guardian and Telegraph posted links on their websites while this was still news.
Wall Street Journal and ABC news had a link to the Emails in full aswell, if I remember right. I'm sure you can find them somewhere online still.
@pimpdalyrical Thanks for the info. I have checked through the Guardian and Telegraph but have found nothing to verify the allegations regarding the emails. I did find an article in the guardian about a report that exonerated the IPCC from the email controversy. There has been scepticism about the validity of the report, which is why I searched some more and found another independent inquiry into the affair. It is due to publish it's findings on july 7. For now, submissions are posted online.
@pimpdalyrical While I am still looking into it, I have as yet found no evidence to suggest that data has been manipulated, or that contradictory opinions have been suppressed. If I find any information that suggests otherwise, I will reconsider my position on the topic. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. If you have interest in the inquiry I mentioned, you can visit the website cce-review(dot)org
for a starting point on the first two quotes you post. Those two are the most common examples that have been brought up in the media, and the video I refer to answers any concerns about them. I'm not asking you to take a youtube video at face value, just saying that it highlights the context of the emails in question. As always, it is best to research any claims on a matter like this before reaching a conclusion.
@pimpdalyrical As for the quote regarding "Climate Research", some background on the issue helps. The email was written in March 2003, after CR journal published an article by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which was funded in part by the petroleum industry. I haven't yet looked at the article, but I have learned that due to controversy over it, five of the ten editors of CR resigned. Thanks for the link to the emails. I am still looking to see if I can find anything suggesting fraud.
Look, you're mind is made up already. MSNBC says, so you believe.
You don't find it disgusting that two editors of a journal had to resign their jobs for doing what a scientific journal is SUPPOSED to do, publish opinions and research?
Why would I believe the reports funded by power hungry politicians any more than the one's funded by the petroleum iindustry? You don't actually think these politicians are in it for the people do you?
@pimpdalyrical I admit that I lean toward the side of the CRU here, but that is due to careful research, not dismissal of contrary evidence. I have never watched MSNBC, largely because it is not aired in Australia. In the limited space allowed here, it is hard to carry out a detailed description of the reasons for scientists holding CR in disdain, you can find that here historycommons(dot)org/entity.jsp?entity=sallie_baliunas_1
Such feelings toward the journal are not exclusive to the CRU.
@pimpdalyrical The link in my previous post says that 3 editors of CR quit in protest when the article was published! That seems like a big deal to me. In regards to politicians, I think that they do whatever gives them good press. Big business on the other hand, does whatever makes money. Neither is to be blindly trusted.
That should say something to you! What it says to me is that a scientific journal was soo infested with closed minded politco's, that a simple contradictory article forced them to throw a hissy fit and resign in protest. This is supposed to be SCIENCE! The OPEN exchange of ideas!!! Not the PC ideology of the day!
@pimpdalyrical after the paper is published, three of journal’s editors—including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch—quit in protest. Storch, explaining his resignation, calls the paper “flawed” because “the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper.” He adds that he suspects “some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”
@pimpdalyrical As for the IPCC leaked emails. That is 13 years of email correspondence, all of which corroborates with what the IPCC has been saying publicly. 3 particular emails have been called into question, all of which have since been found to contain no information that can implicate the author in fraud. These 3 emails were blown out of proportion by people who did not understand the context or the terminology.
@olimpicus "Climate-Gate"? You mean the story driven by quote mines and the mainstream media that underwent an investigation that found no wrongdoing at all? That one? Not that you heard any of that on Fox...
The emails prove that they were manipulating data, doing anything they possibly can to prevent releasing of publicly owned data (through FOIA requests), and programmatic incompetence to say the least.
Fox Noise... A new blog is up and running today that shows the true side of Fox News... foxnoise.wordpress (dot) com just opened today and is updated daily
Again: What does Global Climate Change mean? Well, you can se it with your own eyes out there. The atmosphere will hold much more moisture, which in the wintertime means snow. Apparently, there's a high pressure system locked over Siberia and the Arctic regions, pushing cold air down into Europe, North Asia, and even North America. It is what t is. None have much choice but to deal with it as best they can.
Demographically speaking, humans have had a tendency to settle near waterways and ocean fronts. This means that a great percentage of the world's life structures - human insect colonies, urban configurations of spatial organization and infrastructural functions - are susceptible to rising waters. Projections suggest that if all the icecaps melt down, the sea will, on average, rise with 60 meters. That's more than 200 feet. Lower East Manhattan won't like that.
What does this mean? It is estimated that for each rising centigrade of air temperature, the air will hold 4% more water. The humidity rises. If the air temperature - on a medium average of the year - rises with as little as 3 centigrades (which is hardly noticeable), the air will hold 12% more water. That, ladies and gentlemen, translates into quite a lot of rain. That is also the temperature rise over the last 100 years.
We might argue whether this is man made, but have to ask what significant vector have entered the weather system the last million years or so. Old icecaps. Not only Greenland and the Poles, but glaciers all over the world. This cannot be denied. Compare to 50 year old photographies. Then add the fact that all these icecaps provided significant - reflection of sun's heat away from the earth's surface. There is very little sense to doubt that global warming is happening, causing climate change.
this year we have had 16 record setting cold days for all of recorded time... the most ever recorded by jan. of the next year... how if its warming?
the polar ice caps have been reported to be melting faster than earths, and there are no factories or cars giving off co2
thousands of tonnes of co2 is pumped into dormant oil wells to get the domant oil... 10 + years and over 100 billion on these projects and now there saying its all done nothing its still cause of co2
Fox News is full of shit anyway with their brainwashing propaganda but on the other side there is NO EVIDENCE for global warming either. The truth is global warming was introduced by goverment which enabled them to take CO2 emmissions taxes from many large industries
Why bother responding to people who take Fox news seriously? If you watch Fox News, you obviously an unthinking individual lacking the capacity for basic logic.
Ive always known the earth was warming up. Nut I NEVER believed humans were the cause. The earth warms up and then cools down. Over and over and over and over. We are not the cause, we cannot stop it. Why should we pay extra taxes to try and stop it when we cant? Fuck the gov, they take enough taxes off my hard earned pay cheque already.
@bobby472 Yes, the earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. The worry isnt in that, the worry is that humans, with the inclining production of CO2, is causing a rapid spead-up of the p[rocess and we do not know whether or not we will recover (ie cool back down) and it will continuously get hotter with no way of recover.
@Yashendwirh You answered your own question. The earth has a natural cycle of heating and cooling. All we are doing is speeding up the cycle. Once it gets hot enough it triggers an ice age, which cools things down. So yes the earth will cool back down, there is no question in that. but bringing in all these special taxes, forcing us to buy "green" things is just stupid. Its only being brought in to take more of our money. We cannot stop the cycle, we can only sit back and watch.
@DonDark666 No i dont . Because even if we didnt put CO2 into the air. The earth's natural cycle would create an ice age. No matter what one will happen.
"The earth's natural cycle would create an ice age"
With all of the other disasters we have created in the world we are hardly prepared for an ice age. This would be the icing on the shit cake. Even if it's inevitable we should try to slow it as much as possible, not speed it up.
@DonDark666 Well we havent created any natural disasters. Those hapen all on their own. But as research has shown(if plossible) the north atlantic ocean current is already slowing down, and from what that research shows. Im pretty sure we are already past the tipping point. But it still wouldnt matter if we went 100% green tom. The earth will continue to heat until it triggers and ice age. Which I would say isnt to far along. Im not saying we shouldnt go green. But blobal warming isnt our fault.
I was trying to point out things like wars, poverty, famine and our inability to deal with epic problems whether they are natural or not.
"Im not saying we shouldnt go green. But blobal warming isnt our fault."
Regardless, we shouldn't accelerate the situation. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and we will run out eventually. So why not start now? Letting our dependency on oil grow will only make the change that much harder.
@DonDark666 I knwo we need ot get off of oil. I just think its stupid to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on carbon capture. When that money could be used to better our technology to become green faster. Give us the ability to get off of oil. but the govs dont want us to stop using oil. They want our money. So they will bring in carbon tax, but keep us on oil. We need greener tech, so lets go that way. But not by blaiming global warming on us.
We're not exactly blaiming outselves for global warming. Well, maybe some. But more-so, blaiming an acceleration of the warming and the natural disasters it creates, like hurricanes, depletion of certain resources etc etc. It will cause even MORE social problems among famine, war, economics etc etc. I still think we should move away from old technology of finite resources like fossil fuels and towards renuable sources of energy.
there have been NO MAJOR HURRICANS TO HIT COASTAL REGIONS katrina this katrina that katrina wasnt that bad it was the trash that lived in new orleans and the leves breaking that made it so bad sides that it was a weak storm
People DIED there, and to say that other than the Republicans making it 5 times worse it was WEAK?
Without the Republican degression, everybody could have survived the strong storm, but it's just ''natural'' that people don't have a chance, don't you think, with your half-ton ass?
It's not DIGNIFIED to give up, but to let it be commonplace in your mind is, to me, worse than death.
i lived through katrina luckly i was on the right side of the storm to not catch the worst but most people in the worst side evacuated
katrina was bad cause of all the stupit trash for people living in new orleans and dont blame what happened in new orleans on the gop cause the other retards were running our state during katrina
stroms like katrina are going to happen every so often that doesn't mean that we are causing it
Are you FUCKING retarded. Pardon my french, but do you REALLY believe that, lol xD One, I'm not even going to tell you how pathetic you are for not knowing anything REMOTELY about storm levels, but, really? You are going to call women, children, troups and people from texas to louisiana STUPID TRASH FOR PEOPLE because they died. Wow, I think any of your credibility, civility or... whatever it was you offered, went right out the window.
Fact: Katrina was a lvl 5 hirricane. False: It was a weak storm. Fact: It was one of the five deadliest in United States history. False: You know what you're talking about. Fact: That natural diaster costed millions of dollars and flooded neighboring state economies with extra pressure with thousands of displaced citizens. False: You have the capacity to grasp how ridiculous you sound and will know when to stop showing your ass.
@Yashendwirh Im with you on the last stuff. But for the first line. All the media and "scientists" are pointing the finger at mankind for global warming. I know that we are not the cause, we are only a small contributing factor. We cannot stop what is happening. But we can learn from this and stop being idiots. Yes we do need to get off of oil. We need to stop creating so much waste. Everything in the earth creates a balance with its ecosystem, why not us? thats what we need to do.
people who believe in global warming should be treated like people who deny the holocaust, people who think the earth is flat, and people who think aliens caused 9/11. global warming has been disproven by science and religion, and liberals think conservatives don't listen to facts
just because someone at fox news mistyped a few numbers does not discredit the fact that scientist have LIED about global warming, that there is in fact no evidence of it, and it is just a conspiracy to destroy american democracy and our lord jesus christ. i seem to recall that the nazis had many scientists who would do whatever they said as well
@tehant1liberal stfup asshole stop listen to assholes like ur parents or ppl in the white house 95% of scientist beleive dick head look at ur weather asshole record breaking shit is happening now 2012 pay attention before its 2 late cuz wen u c ur black god i hope he send u 2 hell with the rest of ur assholes
@tehant1liberal I think its hilarious that you say scientests are all lying. WHich ones? Please enlighten us as to which scientist has provided false evidence on global warming, lest you just be parroting something you were told and actualkly did not educate yourself on the matter.
whatever. there is no hard evidence that there is global warming. 20 years ago people were saying were headed for another ice age. now the earth is warming? its BS people are just trying to get money.
There is hard evidence for global warming. And the Ice Age fear thing is an old half-truth, blown out of proportion: there was never a consensus among scientists for it like there is for warming today.
wait whats your point? you didnt say anything with your comment about whether or not fox was clearly wwrong and perhaps lying all you did was suggest this TYT show of manipulating the facts but had nothing to say of foxs illegitemacy. the numbers didnt add up to 100%....its pretty simple 59+35+26= 120%
it's not Fox's job to check Rassmussen's data. And they were making a single topic issues now you want them to cover the other 90%. The only points of interest where the numbers, not the filler. I'm sure what CNN or MSNBC cover the numbers from the lefty ABC/Washington Post polls you don't question why they don't cover the 90% fluff. Even when the ABC/Washington Post pollers polled 13% more democrates than republocans.
No we both DIDN'T! What you posted was the tally of the poll. What I posted was the text that Rassmussen wrote on THEIR website. Try it! rassmussen(dot)com.
What your problem? I'm not adding or subtracting anything, neither is Fox. All they did was take the numbers EXACTLY as Rassmussen WROTE IT!!! All I did was state what Rassmussen wrote. Maybe you need to learn how to read what I wrote. If you can read you will see the error is with Rassmussen.
what the fuck Fox News. Seriously, Global Warming is a legit debate (when only debating the amount of it caused anthropogenically thats is because the greenhouse effect is a fucking indisputable fact), but 120%!?
Fox News has always beenm stupid (Licoln vs FREDERICK DOUGLAS debate anyone?)
But this global warming business not about science. All remember hockey stick graph : why there was no Medieval warm period? They should leave it and hided Little ice age :). Isn't not just few phrases from emails, it's rewritten climate history. And Al Gore comes along with droning bear and hockey stick just in case . It's a politics from start to the end. Obama wants COP15 , all world leaders want it , it's political interest.
this guy missing few points : CO2 version of global warming can be disproof in single lecture, if scientific debate would be in place. I am not talking about droning polar bears and rising sea levels. That's Al Gore. The scientific point of view would be : we still don't all mechanisms which drives climate and CO2 IS NOT MAIN driver of climate.
CO2 acts as an insulator. This is an indisputable fact. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased sharply at the same times as the increase of industry that release CO2. This is also a fact. The average global temperature has been increasing at the same rate as the buildup of CO2. Where is the debate?
umm u know that cool chart al gore shows in his debate well if u zoom in on allot of dates the tempature rises BEFORE carbon increases now im not scientist but i know water holds more gas when its colder idk?
also if u know that big ball of fire in the sky yeah it turns out solar activity is a better referance to the tempature than cO2 is ....
saying co2 is causing tempatures to rise is like saying lung cancer causing smoking
3 emails from 15 years. You couldn't be more wrong
Facts:
-Thousands of emails and programs with running scientific commentaries were leaked
-Hundreds i have seen are very damaging to the credibility of the scientists
-They relate to a few dozen KEY scientists in the IPCC and associating bodies, who reveal an unhealthy scientific process, casting doubt on the reliability of data
-Further show that even the data they have is problematic as it does not support their preconceived conclusions
Thousands of emails, and out of them only 3 seem the most damaging - and they were taking out of context by stupid people who had no understanding of the science in them, only that they didn't like the implications of them.
Fox News is a conservative, partisan news station that is incredibly skeptical towards climate change.
As to the emails: I read enough and heard enough from various sources to come to a general view on them. There's no conspiracy involved. Just stupid people reading too much into it, and trying to make it seem worse than it really is.
I didn't lie. I remember those reports on the evening news(Al Gore hadn't invented the internet) and articles in the local paper which even then was rumered to be edited in Moscow. You really need to talk to some old phartes and ask them what was going on back then without relying on what liberal media of today says it was.
A. More than anything... and ClassicFIHD is right. The error is credited to Rasmussen. However, this does not mean that this survey is falsified by the corporation. Many different people work with these numbers, and any one of them could have made the error.
Remember when the mantra was"Another ice age is coming" ? Go back to the late '70's. Now it's global warming. Has it been warmer? Yes Is it all man's fault? I think not.
in truth it dosen't really matter to Republicans whether global warming is real or not. If one party wants to do something about anything, the other party is honor-bound to oppose them
There is no way this isn't an intentional lie. Either they actually took a poll and falsified the results, or they didn't do a poll at all and simply made up numbers
and Fox took that poll for their show and not a single person noticed that the numbers which just happened to coincide with their message were completely fictional? That might be a little easier to believe if this was the first time this sort of thing had happened
This has been flagged as spam show
Fox so called "News" is NOT a legitimate news source. 1.) Fair and balanced / We report You decide? LMFAO! It's called: "Consumer Fraud" 2.) They have and continue to LIE / DISTORT the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative agenda. Yes other networks will at times tend to lean "left / right" BUT they aren't flat out LYING / DISTORTING FACTS, committing "consumer fraud" and so on... Fox News should be pulled off the air ASAP.
mrcardio9r 3 months ago
who is this dork?
enterprisevending 3 months ago
You guys are fools convincing fools to come over to your side of foolish thinking. At leaset their factual reporting is less bias than nbc, cbs, abc, cnn and their affiliates.
enterprisevending 3 months ago
@enterprisevending has that brainwashing treating you?
Killerjosh89 3 months ago
I found the source poll and Fox actually did make a mistake and did add the “very likely” to the “somewhat likely”, but in the end you are all assuming an intent to deceive on FOX's behalf, as opposed to an innocent mistake.
Even if Cenk is correct in what FOX did he is surely making a reach in assuming to judge FOX's intent, as are you by the way.
35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure
MrClintito 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrClintito 6 months ago
Climate is inherently not as predictable as we'd like it to be, as are all complex fluid dynamics systems. I read a book called 'Not by Fire but by Ice" as a recommendation by a geophysicist. If you take a broader look at the situation, in geological time, you'll notice that the bias is in the SCALE being used. Cycles have us entering an ice age. Worth the look. Author is Robert Felix.
goldeneggify 7 months ago
This is actually a typo.
If FOX added counted the very liklies twice then by taking 35% away from the total it should add up to 100%.
120% - 35% = 85% (not 100%)
Someone should have taught this anchor to do his own math before critisizing FOX's.
What probably happened is that FOX made an error inputing the data by adding two to one of the numbers in the 10's column.
Go back to school young Turks, and do your own math before you make fun of someone else's.
MrClintito 8 months ago
@MrClintito actually, in the actual rasmussen poll, there was a 15% unsure category, which fox news threw away and didn't show at all. if they had shown that, it would have added up to 135%. Cenk is correct, he just didn't share the source of his information clearly.
dhatraditya 6 months ago
@dhatraditya I searched for the original poll numbers and you are right that there was a 15% unsure. However that does not mean that Cenk is correct in everything that he says. He alleges that FOX lied intentionally. I doubt very much that he has any proof off this, there are no facts to back this up. Which means that he is also lying, even though he is in part correct.
If nothing else this shows the biases of the Young Turks in their own reporting.
MrClintito 5 months ago
Mistakes are made in journalism all the time. It's good that you caught it, and Fox should issue a retraction, but you little people on the Left and Right should spend more time on substantive issues. You wasted my 3 and a half minutes for misleading me in your headline. I expected to hear a report of Fox being scolded by a major player, not some vindictive no name. BTW, the news is that some scientists DID lie. Proven fact. Poll or no poll. And you avoided this bec you hate Fox. Disgraceful.
jumpinjakeflash1 8 months ago
the problem is that people dont recognize the obvious effects of global warming right now because it does not directly affect us here in the US right NOW never mind what can be clearly seen in the lands of glaciers
BeingNobody1956 9 months ago
@BeingNobody1956 lol in the lands of glaciers? do you mean polar ice caps? liberal commie cunt.
DinoMan05 8 months ago
Astroturfing for Jesus! Or for the corporations!
Shavarnarak 11 months ago
59% + 35% + 26% = 120% 'Nough said.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago 2
They should add one question to the poll: "Are you a scientists in any way in possession of a degree in the area of climatology or ecology?".
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
The mistake is in the percentage, the numbers they actually displayed was the numbers of people that called in to their bullshit poll, it will take decades for some people to understand the science of global warming, some might never understand. There is no point in trying to covince the stupid to become smart.
BraniusBalki 1 year ago
weather you left or right or whatever fox news is not good for the news
andytubeism 1 year ago
Give them a break! The poll, though incorrectly displayed, still showed the correct outcome, that people think that it is "likely" that scientists have falsified research. Whether it's "somewhat likely" or "very likely", the common denominator is "likely." Why don't you call out every other news source and catch them in all of their liberally biased blunders?
jckcism 1 year ago
omg, someone made a typo, there the devil...you people that think like this. are sick
kosard212 1 year ago
I seriously hate people who don't believe in science. And the biggest irony is....... wait for it......... I'm a Republican.
sikvenum82 1 year ago
@sikvenum82 So do I, sik, and I'm a Republican also. That's not the point here. This commentator glosses over the fact that several scientists have been caught falsifying/distorting findings to support global warming. This is news. Not a typo on Fox News. This guy, along with many on the Left, are so disdainful of Fox News that they will justify the bad actions of some scientists to attack a news organization. Lying or crafting results IS NOT SCIENCE. I just want to know the unadulterated facts.
jumpinjakeflash1 8 months ago
@jumpinjakeflash1 Well honestly Fox really does lie for their own gain. The science behind global warming is irrefutable and its not like one can simply ignore it without a financial incentive. Business needs to go on but we really should start investing in cleaner energy.
sikvenum82 8 months ago
lier
Hobedobe31 1 year ago
FOX NEWS. Not racist but #1 with racists! thank you Simpsons!
curtispsf 1 year ago
Money, money, money. Who's makes the most money. Those that report the phoney facts or those that report that the facts are phoney?
tock101 1 year ago
Why does everyone attack Fox news, its the 1 news station that leans right all the rest lean far left and thats OK......???
Dubcadillac 1 year ago
@Dubcadillac I highly recommend you watch the documentary Outfoxed...
dirtjumps 1 year ago
@Dubcadillac Because Focks Noos panders to the ignorant and uniformed by catering to humanity's baser instincts like racism. It's a right wing echo chamber owned by very rich conservatives who use fear mongering to support their upper class agenda...like lower taxes for corporations, the abolition of the estate tax (which affects less than 1% of Americans.) I could go on but why. Glenn Beck is manic depressive (absolutely true)...which explains his crying fits.Oh yeah...BUY GOLD!
curtispsf 1 year ago 3
@Dubcadillac The problem is not that Fox leans right! The problem is they sell themselves as Fair & Balanced when they are everything but that. Also, they are caught time and time again lying and distorting crazily!
THAT'S the problem!
auritone 1 year ago
Small little problems in their data? Really? The email says that the statistics trick they used for their data worked and doesnt show that the data they gathers denies global warming. 80% of the scientists who signed their name on the statement originally proclaiming global warming, sued to have their names removed because further researched proved there was no human caused global warming going on
ssjL3g3nd 1 year ago
thats so bias its stupid!
KangaKucha 1 year ago
If you watch fox news you should be destroyed for the good of mankind.
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic
What if you watch it as a sort of comedy show? Like a "let's see some trash that some people actually believe" type of thing...
That's what I do. I recommend it if you want some amusement and don't mind feeling a little depressed after wards...
peleproductions 1 year ago
The fact that global warming is anthropogenic is crap, always has been........End of story. Nobody on this planet has any conclusive evidence to
the contrary. But they do keep getting rich off the movement don't they?
luke55664 1 year ago
And yet... CNN is going down in flames, and FOX still has some of the highest numbers on cable television... That's weird, I guess.
Gijoe125 1 year ago
@Gijoe125 It's not weird that Fox has more viewers. You don't have to tell the truth to get viewers. Far from it. The opposite is what sells and gets attention.
mashupsNmore 1 year ago
@mashupsNmore I guess that would explain why CNN has lasted this long... But other than that, there's no real logical support for what you're saying.
Gijoe125 1 year ago
Let's not report on the exposed Global Warming Hoax, let's concentrate on Fox's use of a botched Rasmussen poll, that both MSNBC and CNN used as well.
Maybe if TYT didn't have a history of getting soo many things wrong, I woudl care what they think of FOX. Still think the public wants government run healthcare guys?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago 3
@pimpdalyrical "...that both MSNBC and CNN used as well." No, they didn't. Anybody, outside of Fox News, saw that poll to be completely ridiculous based on the terrible math. "Maybe if TYT didn't have a history of getting soo many things wrong..." What has TYT ever said that has been wrong or inaccurate? Point out two things.
GstateBALLER925 1 year ago
@GstateBALLER925
Well, I already stated that they expressed the opinion that the American public wanted the Obama Healthcare reform. Not even CNN polling showed that.
They also reported that Racist Tea -partiers brought signs depicting Obama as Hitler: That was a black democrat who brought it.
They reported the lie that democrat congressman were called the N word by Tea partiers. Never happened.
ANY of your news sources bother telling you code pink THREW THINGS at Pelosi earlier this week?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago 4
@pimpdalyrical No, the poll was not botched. It is available at : bit(dot)ly(slash)q19zYG
fox news botched it deliberately. CNN and MSNBC may have used the correct poll, they did NOT botch it.
I'd stick to the facts, but then, I am talking to a fox news fan. guess "facts" are an inconvenience to you.
dhatraditya 6 months ago
I guess Fox News does all their polls like that.
LittleRockElevators 1 year ago
Maybe that was a poll they let the Aliens from Area 51b in on? =.=
PainlessTragedy 1 year ago
I'm no Mathwiz but doesn't this Poll = 120%?
PainlessTragedy 1 year ago
59 + 35 + 26= FAIL
Bladewing10 1 year ago
But you know how many people take Faux News as absolute gospel? I'll email this to my boss who thinks Faux News is the voice of America and he will completely ignore it. He thinks Glen Beck is the savior of America. I know more people who think this way than I can count. These people vote-this scares the livin' shit out of me.
So what can be done about it? The Rupert Murdock propaganda machine has a stranglehold on society and all a reasonable person can do is gawk in amazement.
chowpappy 1 year ago
So Fox is bad with news AND math
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gore's pals China leading emitter of CO2
A study published in 2008 reports that China (which was excluded from the Kyoto requirements) became the largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2006. (Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland, China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production, Geophysical Research Letters 35, 2008
Cap & Tax on China? Yeah right. AGW=tax scam
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Comment removed
allenm541 1 year ago
I agree - look at that - Fox had no category "Not likely." They left that out. So when they take the poll, they ask their audience, you have three choices 1) agree with us a little 2) agree with us completely 3) slightly disagree with us
But where is choice number 4, "Disagree completely"?
So much for "fair and balanced news."
allenm541 1 year ago
Yes they do. :)
ShayminQueenReviews 1 year ago
Fox has already said that any poll by that polling company should be considered suspect.
Boneheads!
HisAnkh 1 year ago
I don't know what's worse; looking at that poll or listen to this guy :(
pjuske2 1 year ago
Fox News's Fox and Friends had that one guy with the black hair today saying something like heads up to Jon Stewart "these polls don't add up to 100% b/c they're diff. questions." Was the fox guy referring to this poll earlier?? I don't remember any recent polls being exposed for not adding up to merely 100%. Of course, I don't really watch much tv anymore since I'm busy surfing the net and whatnot.
whoo689 1 year ago
According to NASA 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record.. January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record..
lcwolfman 2 years ago
Global warming is fake
gone556 2 years ago
@gone556 actually global warming is real, but its not an urgent matter. I say its real because we are not in the ice age still and clearly it has warmed up since then :)
birthdaynick80 1 year ago
see that's why anyone who watches fox news is a complete idiot. What, its true.
stoneybologni89 2 years ago 40
Martin Luther King Jr. Preaches Against Aggressive Wars according to the Bible (same as Ron Paul) /watch?v=AeME7Q6Oaj0
"There's nothing wrong with being a conservative and coming up with a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don't go to war so carelessly. ... Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."-Ron Paul
If FOX or Bill O'Reilly cared about Wounded Warriors they'd not trash Ron Paul President 2012!
vechorik 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
global warming deniers=creationists
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago 21
@Eaglesfaninca
Global Warming Proponents = Commies.
Global Warming Deniers = Understand chemistry.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Lets hear the chemistry then
BluJugganaut 1 year ago
@BluJugganaut
The absorption rate of CO2 for an infrared photon of 14 micrometres wavelength is only about 5×10^-22 m^2.
Simply put, CO2 is a crappy greenhouse gas.
90-95% of the greenhouse effect is from Water vapor, which the greenies want all our cars to spew out instead of CO2. Hmmm
According to the IPCC, CO2 in the atmosphere is only 388 ppm, and humans produce 3.4% of it. To see the dramatic effects being hyped, we would all suffocate on that much Co2 before the water started rising.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical I appreciate your reply =)
You have conceded that there is a greenhouse effect though. Do you doubt global warming altogether or human involvement?
BluJugganaut 1 year ago
@BluJugganaut
Of course there is a greenhouse effect. If there wasn't we would freeze to death. The only thing protecting us from the harshness of space is the blanket of Gas around the Earth retaining solar energy.
(I know the Oceans are a huge part of it)
The other question is if "destroying" the planet is really what's happening.
Life flourished on this planet compared to now, during the Hylocene (check spelling) maximum, a time when the climate was much warmer than today!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical By now you realise my lack of education on the subject =P However, I choose to take the word of the climate scientists.
Perhaps I shall study this further =)
BluJugganaut 1 year ago
@BluJugganaut
LOL! That's cool. At least you seem willing to do your own homework. Couple things to keep in mind.
No, there is not consensus,
and just because someone is a "scientist" does not mean they don't operate out of self interest or towards an agenda. There's lots of money to be made producing science that supports pre-conceived notions out there.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Saying that there is no consensus on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is like saying that there is no consensus on the theory of evolution. While there will always be skeptics on any theory, the two I have alluded to hold an overwhelming majority of scientists as proponents. True, scientists can have an agenda, but the methodical analysis and scrutiny involved in science, make it difficult to support false conclusions for personal gain.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
Consensus said the Earth was flat and the Sun moved once too.
Do you say consensus because you know, or that's what you have been told?
Yeah, let's not take into account how scientists' opinions can be bought with grant money, or that the surveys used to justify this garbage is full of climatologists who never said humans were the cause of the warming they found, as exposed by the IPCC leaked E-mails and numerous lawsuits by those who's names were on the report.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical I'm not sure what you are trying to infer here. Because popular belief has been shown to be inaccurate in the past, it is certain to be inaccurate now? What you say about scientists being bought with grant money is true. The most vocal skeptics of AGW in the US belong to the Marshall Institute. This is the same institute that was funded by the tobacco industry to say "you can't prove that smoking causes cancer". Now they say you cant prove AGW, but they have done no research.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
What I mean is "consensus," if that's even what we have here, doesn't mean they are right.
No, the leaked E-mails showed a trend, and it was more than just 3. They purposely disregarded and erased contradictory data, engaged in actively surpressing contradictory opinions from journals, and struggled to make the data they had support the conclusions they wanted to see.
Some of the most vocal skeptics have been environmentalists and the co-founder of greenpeace.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical I can agree that consensus does not mean right. What I do propose however, is that a consensus among professionals in their field, is worthy of merit. The consensus I refer to is one that includes the IPCC, NAS, AAAS, and NASA to name a few organisations. As for the leaked E-mails, what is your source of information in regards to this trend? I would be interested in learning more about the topic so that I may make an informed decision regarding any wrongdoing.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
My source for information on the leaked E-mails? I went kind of an unusual route. I actually read them instead of taking some biased Mainstream Media talking head's word for it.
The UK sources, the Guardian and Telegraph posted links on their websites while this was still news.
Wall Street Journal and ABC news had a link to the Emails in full aswell, if I remember right. I'm sure you can find them somewhere online still.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Thanks for the info. I have checked through the Guardian and Telegraph but have found nothing to verify the allegations regarding the emails. I did find an article in the guardian about a report that exonerated the IPCC from the email controversy. There has been scepticism about the validity of the report, which is why I searched some more and found another independent inquiry into the affair. It is due to publish it's findings on july 7. For now, submissions are posted online.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical While I am still looking into it, I have as yet found no evidence to suggest that data has been manipulated, or that contradictory opinions have been suppressed. If I find any information that suggests otherwise, I will reconsider my position on the topic. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. If you have interest in the inquiry I mentioned, you can visit the website cce-review(dot)org
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
I knew I could find it! Eastangliaemails(dot)com. Some tidbits from page 1:
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years"
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
And when one editor dared allow 2 papers be published contradicting their AGW opinion:
" I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal"
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical I'd recommend watching /watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related
for a starting point on the first two quotes you post. Those two are the most common examples that have been brought up in the media, and the video I refer to answers any concerns about them. I'm not asking you to take a youtube video at face value, just saying that it highlights the context of the emails in question. As always, it is best to research any claims on a matter like this before reaching a conclusion.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical As for the quote regarding "Climate Research", some background on the issue helps. The email was written in March 2003, after CR journal published an article by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which was funded in part by the petroleum industry. I haven't yet looked at the article, but I have learned that due to controversy over it, five of the ten editors of CR resigned. Thanks for the link to the emails. I am still looking to see if I can find anything suggesting fraud.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
Look, you're mind is made up already. MSNBC says, so you believe.
You don't find it disgusting that two editors of a journal had to resign their jobs for doing what a scientific journal is SUPPOSED to do, publish opinions and research?
Why would I believe the reports funded by power hungry politicians any more than the one's funded by the petroleum iindustry? You don't actually think these politicians are in it for the people do you?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical I admit that I lean toward the side of the CRU here, but that is due to careful research, not dismissal of contrary evidence. I have never watched MSNBC, largely because it is not aired in Australia. In the limited space allowed here, it is hard to carry out a detailed description of the reasons for scientists holding CR in disdain, you can find that here historycommons(dot)org/entity.jsp?entity=sallie_baliunas_1
Such feelings toward the journal are not exclusive to the CRU.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical The link in my previous post says that 3 editors of CR quit in protest when the article was published! That seems like a big deal to me. In regards to politicians, I think that they do whatever gives them good press. Big business on the other hand, does whatever makes money. Neither is to be blindly trusted.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
That should say something to you! What it says to me is that a scientific journal was soo infested with closed minded politco's, that a simple contradictory article forced them to throw a hissy fit and resign in protest. This is supposed to be SCIENCE! The OPEN exchange of ideas!!! Not the PC ideology of the day!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical after the paper is published, three of journal’s editors—including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch—quit in protest. Storch, explaining his resignation, calls the paper “flawed” because “the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper.” He adds that he suspects “some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger
Here, reports like this tend to get stomped on by those who don't want you to turn away from the government as the solution to all your problems.
watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical As for the IPCC leaked emails. That is 13 years of email correspondence, all of which corroborates with what the IPCC has been saying publicly. 3 particular emails have been called into question, all of which have since been found to contain no information that can implicate the author in fraud. These 3 emails were blown out of proportion by people who did not understand the context or the terminology.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@Eaglesfaninca what´s your opinion on Climategate?
olimpicus 1 year ago
@olimpicus "Climate-Gate"? You mean the story driven by quote mines and the mainstream media that underwent an investigation that found no wrongdoing at all? That one? Not that you heard any of that on Fox...
Eaglesfaninca 1 year ago
120%...give it your all fox news
americanmanx 2 years ago
Have the young turks even read the leaked emails?
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
anyone who read the emails would see that they dont prove anything.
fornss 2 years ago 2
... please stop lying.
The emails prove that they were manipulating data, doing anything they possibly can to prevent releasing of publicly owned data (through FOIA requests), and programmatic incompetence to say the least.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
@PonguigPeopinn Watch the videos on YouTube by potholer54.
DeadFishFactory 2 years ago
@ponguigPeopinn
Except that saying the e-mails don't show an effort to deceive isnt' lying.
They don't.
And even if they did, this data is hardly the only ones used. So if they had been innaccurate, it would have been spotted out long ago.
booley 1 year ago
(Comment removed by the IPCC)
PonguigPeopinn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fox Noise... A new blog is up and running today that shows the true side of Fox News... foxnoise.wordpress (dot) com just opened today and is updated daily
FauxNewsReporter 2 years ago
Again: What does Global Climate Change mean? Well, you can se it with your own eyes out there. The atmosphere will hold much more moisture, which in the wintertime means snow. Apparently, there's a high pressure system locked over Siberia and the Arctic regions, pushing cold air down into Europe, North Asia, and even North America. It is what t is. None have much choice but to deal with it as best they can.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
Demographically speaking, humans have had a tendency to settle near waterways and ocean fronts. This means that a great percentage of the world's life structures - human insect colonies, urban configurations of spatial organization and infrastructural functions - are susceptible to rising waters. Projections suggest that if all the icecaps melt down, the sea will, on average, rise with 60 meters. That's more than 200 feet. Lower East Manhattan won't like that.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
What does this mean? It is estimated that for each rising centigrade of air temperature, the air will hold 4% more water. The humidity rises. If the air temperature - on a medium average of the year - rises with as little as 3 centigrades (which is hardly noticeable), the air will hold 12% more water. That, ladies and gentlemen, translates into quite a lot of rain. That is also the temperature rise over the last 100 years.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
We might argue whether this is man made, but have to ask what significant vector have entered the weather system the last million years or so. Old icecaps. Not only Greenland and the Poles, but glaciers all over the world. This cannot be denied. Compare to 50 year old photographies. Then add the fact that all these icecaps provided significant - reflection of sun's heat away from the earth's surface. There is very little sense to doubt that global warming is happening, causing climate change.
Kinkspace 2 years ago
this year we have had 16 record setting cold days for all of recorded time... the most ever recorded by jan. of the next year... how if its warming?
the polar ice caps have been reported to be melting faster than earths, and there are no factories or cars giving off co2
thousands of tonnes of co2 is pumped into dormant oil wells to get the domant oil... 10 + years and over 100 billion on these projects and now there saying its all done nothing its still cause of co2
mzdamx3rs 2 years ago
Fox News is full of shit anyway with their brainwashing propaganda but on the other side there is NO EVIDENCE for global warming either. The truth is global warming was introduced by goverment which enabled them to take CO2 emmissions taxes from many large industries
Piotrasdabadman91 2 years ago
Why bother responding to people who take Fox news seriously? If you watch Fox News, you obviously an unthinking individual lacking the capacity for basic logic.
straightfacedfsu 2 years ago 2
haha what kind of percent is that? hahahaha fox news making up polls
chrisgangsta 2 years ago
Fox news is full of shit and doesnt deserve to be on the air.
YaikonMetal 2 years ago
@YaikonMetal
u know we can say that bout our government for the past 20 years too <;
GodAthie 2 years ago
what is FOX's agenda? Why do they do this crap?
bigz008 2 years ago
Stupid ppl on FOX cant even count.
sskrewdriver 2 years ago
120%?
How is that possible?
Nancysissypants 2 years ago
Ive always known the earth was warming up. Nut I NEVER believed humans were the cause. The earth warms up and then cools down. Over and over and over and over. We are not the cause, we cannot stop it. Why should we pay extra taxes to try and stop it when we cant? Fuck the gov, they take enough taxes off my hard earned pay cheque already.
bobby472 2 years ago
@bobby472 Yes, the earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. The worry isnt in that, the worry is that humans, with the inclining production of CO2, is causing a rapid spead-up of the p[rocess and we do not know whether or not we will recover (ie cool back down) and it will continuously get hotter with no way of recover.
Yashendwirh 2 years ago
@Yashendwirh You answered your own question. The earth has a natural cycle of heating and cooling. All we are doing is speeding up the cycle. Once it gets hot enough it triggers an ice age, which cools things down. So yes the earth will cool back down, there is no question in that. but bringing in all these special taxes, forcing us to buy "green" things is just stupid. Its only being brought in to take more of our money. We cannot stop the cycle, we can only sit back and watch.
bobby472 2 years ago
"All we are doing is speeding up the cycle. Once it gets hot enough it triggers an ice age, which cools things down."
You don't see a problem with that?
DonDark666 2 years ago
@DonDark666 No i dont . Because even if we didnt put CO2 into the air. The earth's natural cycle would create an ice age. No matter what one will happen.
bobby472 2 years ago
"The earth's natural cycle would create an ice age"
With all of the other disasters we have created in the world we are hardly prepared for an ice age. This would be the icing on the shit cake. Even if it's inevitable we should try to slow it as much as possible, not speed it up.
DonDark666 2 years ago
@DonDark666 Well we havent created any natural disasters. Those hapen all on their own. But as research has shown(if plossible) the north atlantic ocean current is already slowing down, and from what that research shows. Im pretty sure we are already past the tipping point. But it still wouldnt matter if we went 100% green tom. The earth will continue to heat until it triggers and ice age. Which I would say isnt to far along. Im not saying we shouldnt go green. But blobal warming isnt our fault.
bobby472 2 years ago
"Well we havent created any natural disasters"
I was trying to point out things like wars, poverty, famine and our inability to deal with epic problems whether they are natural or not.
"Im not saying we shouldnt go green. But blobal warming isnt our fault."
Regardless, we shouldn't accelerate the situation. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and we will run out eventually. So why not start now? Letting our dependency on oil grow will only make the change that much harder.
DonDark666 2 years ago
@DonDark666 I knwo we need ot get off of oil. I just think its stupid to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on carbon capture. When that money could be used to better our technology to become green faster. Give us the ability to get off of oil. but the govs dont want us to stop using oil. They want our money. So they will bring in carbon tax, but keep us on oil. We need greener tech, so lets go that way. But not by blaiming global warming on us.
bobby472 2 years ago
We're not exactly blaiming outselves for global warming. Well, maybe some. But more-so, blaiming an acceleration of the warming and the natural disasters it creates, like hurricanes, depletion of certain resources etc etc. It will cause even MORE social problems among famine, war, economics etc etc. I still think we should move away from old technology of finite resources like fossil fuels and towards renuable sources of energy.
Yashendwirh 2 years ago 2
@Yashendwirh
ur kidding me right?
there have been NO MAJOR HURRICANS TO HIT COASTAL REGIONS katrina this katrina that katrina wasnt that bad it was the trash that lived in new orleans and the leves breaking that made it so bad sides that it was a weak storm
GodAthie 2 years ago
How DARE YOU TELL ME IT WAS A WEAK STORM!
People DIED there, and to say that other than the Republicans making it 5 times worse it was WEAK?
Without the Republican degression, everybody could have survived the strong storm, but it's just ''natural'' that people don't have a chance, don't you think, with your half-ton ass?
It's not DIGNIFIED to give up, but to let it be commonplace in your mind is, to me, worse than death.
nametakencallmeDude 2 years ago 3
@nametakencallmeDude
NO U SHUT UP HONEY
i lived through katrina luckly i was on the right side of the storm to not catch the worst but most people in the worst side evacuated
katrina was bad cause of all the stupit trash for people living in new orleans and dont blame what happened in new orleans on the gop cause the other retards were running our state during katrina
stroms like katrina are going to happen every so often that doesn't mean that we are causing it
GodAthie 2 years ago
Are you FUCKING retarded. Pardon my french, but do you REALLY believe that, lol xD One, I'm not even going to tell you how pathetic you are for not knowing anything REMOTELY about storm levels, but, really? You are going to call women, children, troups and people from texas to louisiana STUPID TRASH FOR PEOPLE because they died. Wow, I think any of your credibility, civility or... whatever it was you offered, went right out the window.
Yashendwirh 2 years ago
Fact: Katrina was a lvl 5 hirricane. False: It was a weak storm. Fact: It was one of the five deadliest in United States history. False: You know what you're talking about. Fact: That natural diaster costed millions of dollars and flooded neighboring state economies with extra pressure with thousands of displaced citizens. False: You have the capacity to grasp how ridiculous you sound and will know when to stop showing your ass.
Yashendwirh 2 years ago
@Yashendwirh
fact!! i lived throught that damn storm i lived in lousianan!!! and it was mostlyt trash for pplz that died
GodAthie 2 years ago
@Yashendwirh Im with you on the last stuff. But for the first line. All the media and "scientists" are pointing the finger at mankind for global warming. I know that we are not the cause, we are only a small contributing factor. We cannot stop what is happening. But we can learn from this and stop being idiots. Yes we do need to get off of oil. We need to stop creating so much waste. Everything in the earth creates a balance with its ecosystem, why not us? thats what we need to do.
bobby472 2 years ago
I use to believe in global warming to heart. Now after doing extensive research I don't know anymore.
blank404 2 years ago
people who believe in global warming should be treated like people who deny the holocaust, people who think the earth is flat, and people who think aliens caused 9/11. global warming has been disproven by science and religion, and liberals think conservatives don't listen to facts
tehant1liberal 2 years ago
just because someone at fox news mistyped a few numbers does not discredit the fact that scientist have LIED about global warming, that there is in fact no evidence of it, and it is just a conspiracy to destroy american democracy and our lord jesus christ. i seem to recall that the nazis had many scientists who would do whatever they said as well
tehant1liberal 2 years ago
@tehant1liberal stfup asshole stop listen to assholes like ur parents or ppl in the white house 95% of scientist beleive dick head look at ur weather asshole record breaking shit is happening now 2012 pay attention before its 2 late cuz wen u c ur black god i hope he send u 2 hell with the rest of ur assholes
flow267 2 years ago
wow you made no seance at all. You are so brain dead. Try not to swear so much, use full and correct sentences, and i don't know words
Wodinswolf 2 years ago
@tehant1liberal I think its hilarious that you say scientests are all lying. WHich ones? Please enlighten us as to which scientist has provided false evidence on global warming, lest you just be parroting something you were told and actualkly did not educate yourself on the matter.
Yashendwirh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
global warming is BS
NOKTURNALMB 2 years ago
@NOKTURNALMB
Well, tell that to the Maldives and to Greenland. For a start. :)
Th3Minx 2 years ago
whatever. there is no hard evidence that there is global warming. 20 years ago people were saying were headed for another ice age. now the earth is warming? its BS people are just trying to get money.
NOKTURNALMB 2 years ago
@NOKTURNALMB
There is hard evidence for global warming. And the Ice Age fear thing is an old half-truth, blown out of proportion: there was never a consensus among scientists for it like there is for warming today.
Th3Minx 2 years ago
Oooh, I am truly sorry, I thought I had memorized the numbers after watching the video and didn't check again after writing...
Well, at least I'm not trying to be a news organization...
ultranol1983 2 years ago
Fox didn't make a mistake... TYT are wrong again...
If Fox is siting a poll, maybe they should check the poll before they go off attacking Fox because of their poll not adding up to 100%...
There's a reason they only showed a snapshot instead of a video clip lol
TheEllipsis731 2 years ago
wait whats your point? you didnt say anything with your comment about whether or not fox was clearly wwrong and perhaps lying all you did was suggest this TYT show of manipulating the facts but had nothing to say of foxs illegitemacy. the numbers didnt add up to 100%....its pretty simple 59+35+26= 120%
wispnoak 2 years ago
@TheEllipsis731
Well if you want the video you can view it on Youtube
it was
Fox & Friends, I saw it happen live.
So I dont know what you talking about.
they literally said it without even counting.
zacky89 2 years ago
And where did Fox deliberately lie?
Fox said 59% Somewhat likely
Rassmussenn said 59% Somewhat likely
Fox said 35% Very likely
Rassmussenn said Very likely
Fox said 26% Not very likely
Rassmussenn said 26% Not very likely
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
it's not Fox's job to check Rassmussen's data. And they were making a single topic issues now you want them to cover the other 90%. The only points of interest where the numbers, not the filler. I'm sure what CNN or MSNBC cover the numbers from the lefty ABC/Washington Post polls you don't question why they don't cover the 90% fluff. Even when the ABC/Washington Post pollers polled 13% more democrates than republocans.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Fox news must have run out of fingers and toes, thats the only explanation, I mean, really, they wouldnt just make this stuff up now, would they?
Peanutof85 2 years ago
No we both DIDN'T! What you posted was the tally of the poll. What I posted was the text that Rassmussen wrote on THEIR website. Try it! rassmussen(dot)com.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
What your problem? I'm not adding or subtracting anything, neither is Fox. All they did was take the numbers EXACTLY as Rassmussen WROTE IT!!! All I did was state what Rassmussen wrote. Maybe you need to learn how to read what I wrote. If you can read you will see the error is with Rassmussen.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Fox did not add or subtract anything. It was exactly as Rassmussen wrote it.
You can see what it said in my last posted comment.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Yet another example of Faux News playing loose and hard with facts and numbers.
82Pumpkinfarms 2 years ago 2
what the fuck Fox News. Seriously, Global Warming is a legit debate (when only debating the amount of it caused anthropogenically thats is because the greenhouse effect is a fucking indisputable fact), but 120%!?
Fox News has always beenm stupid (Licoln vs FREDERICK DOUGLAS debate anyone?)
but wow... fucking morons. lolk
knowledgethief 2 years ago
But this global warming business not about science. All remember hockey stick graph : why there was no Medieval warm period? They should leave it and hided Little ice age :). Isn't not just few phrases from emails, it's rewritten climate history. And Al Gore comes along with droning bear and hockey stick just in case . It's a politics from start to the end. Obama wants COP15 , all world leaders want it , it's political interest.
777strangelove 2 years ago
this guy missing few points : CO2 version of global warming can be disproof in single lecture, if scientific debate would be in place. I am not talking about droning polar bears and rising sea levels. That's Al Gore. The scientific point of view would be : we still don't all mechanisms which drives climate and CO2 IS NOT MAIN driver of climate.
777strangelove 2 years ago
I believe that's the counter argument by the oil/energy industry. :X
EdyKelDev 2 years ago
CO2 acts as an insulator. This is an indisputable fact. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased sharply at the same times as the increase of industry that release CO2. This is also a fact. The average global temperature has been increasing at the same rate as the buildup of CO2. Where is the debate?
tehreporter 2 years ago
@tehreporter
umm u know that cool chart al gore shows in his debate well if u zoom in on allot of dates the tempature rises BEFORE carbon increases now im not scientist but i know water holds more gas when its colder idk?
also if u know that big ball of fire in the sky yeah it turns out solar activity is a better referance to the tempature than cO2 is ....
saying co2 is causing tempatures to rise is like saying lung cancer causing smoking
GodAthie 2 years ago
3 emails from 15 years. You couldn't be more wrong
Facts:
-Thousands of emails and programs with running scientific commentaries were leaked
-Hundreds i have seen are very damaging to the credibility of the scientists
-They relate to a few dozen KEY scientists in the IPCC and associating bodies, who reveal an unhealthy scientific process, casting doubt on the reliability of data
-Further show that even the data they have is problematic as it does not support their preconceived conclusions
Dave26851 2 years ago
Thousands of emails, and out of them only 3 seem the most damaging - and they were taking out of context by stupid people who had no understanding of the science in them, only that they didn't like the implications of them.
EdyKelDev 2 years ago
Have you actually read the emails? Or have you just relied upon fox news, the station you call stupid?
Dave26851 2 years ago
Man, I have no idea what your going on about.
Fox News is a conservative, partisan news station that is incredibly skeptical towards climate change.
As to the emails: I read enough and heard enough from various sources to come to a general view on them. There's no conspiracy involved. Just stupid people reading too much into it, and trying to make it seem worse than it really is.
EdyKelDev 2 years ago 2
I didn't lie. I remember those reports on the evening news(Al Gore hadn't invented the internet) and articles in the local paper which even then was rumered to be edited in Moscow. You really need to talk to some old phartes and ask them what was going on back then without relying on what liberal media of today says it was.
8x56 2 years ago
'Cause I was there. You weren't.
8x56 2 years ago
A. More than anything... and ClassicFIHD is right. The error is credited to Rasmussen. However, this does not mean that this survey is falsified by the corporation. Many different people work with these numbers, and any one of them could have made the error.
prpentest 2 years ago
Remember when the mantra was"Another ice age is coming" ? Go back to the late '70's. Now it's global warming. Has it been warmer? Yes Is it all man's fault? I think not.
8x56 2 years ago
Funny how all you people believe that there is any difference if you get a republican or democratic president.
The only thing that changes is the face, Obama is just following up on what Bush would also have done if he was in office.
Its a two headed one party system, the federal reserve own the whitehouse.
xurbancampx 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually those are the exact numbers from Rassmussen (not FOX) on December 03, 2009. I just checked.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Ahahaha, just the tens column adds up to more than 100%.
I'm asking comment-readers; Does Fox suck?
A. More than anything
B. Yes
C. Kinda
oaktea 2 years ago 2
Actually those are the exact number from Rassmussen (not FOX). I just checked.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
That would be A.
82Pumpkinfarms 2 years ago
Haha, the good ol' folks at FOX did it again!
I really don't know how/if they think at all...
dagrimmreepa 2 years ago 2
in truth it dosen't really matter to Republicans whether global warming is real or not. If one party wants to do something about anything, the other party is honor-bound to oppose them
tehreporter 2 years ago
There is no way this isn't an intentional lie. Either they actually took a poll and falsified the results, or they didn't do a poll at all and simply made up numbers
tehreporter 2 years ago 2
Actually those are the exact numbers from Rassmussen (not FOX) on December 03, 2009. I just checked.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
and Fox took that poll for their show and not a single person noticed that the numbers which just happened to coincide with their message were completely fictional? That might be a little easier to believe if this was the first time this sort of thing had happened
tehreporter 2 years ago