Fox News: Trees Cause Global Warming

If only there were no trees, I'm sure the planet would be fine...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• fox
• news
• environment
• global
• warming
• propaganda
• misinformation
• Rupert
• Murdoch

[carr7676]

fox could turn any news 180 degrees around

[llachow]

I have just one message for Fox and its viewers: you are all assholes. Seriously.

[Wanda7771]

Coca cola causes carbon polution. Its CARBON-ated.

[AndyCorpful]

I'm flabbergasted. So many stupidity, in so little time.

[raymondmiloshIII]

im cutting a tree down now :)

[dwolfcoach]

Wow, Fox you're are a group of ignorant retards. Do you all read the same comic books?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

9) Re: "plants in colder climates might actually be part of the problem"

Again, EVERY CO2 source, by Fox "News" logic, "might actually be part of the problem". CO2 jumped from HUMAN activities. The natural carbon sources and sinks WERE in approximate balance before we started digging up carbon, then putting it into the atmosphere (causing a NET change in CO2 there). the problem is the INCREASE in temps from the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 - from HUMAN BEINGS. Trees are not "part of the problem"

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

8) Notice: the Fox "News" reporter's conclusion ( "further proof" there's a lot we don't know) is the same as the position attributed to the skeptics when their nonsense is first introduced at 2:16 ("that, global warming skeptics say, underscores the imperfect science behind the hype"). Had "both sides" even been given a chance to speak (the scientist seemingly had no clue the spin coming from Milloy), it STILL would've been a "reporter" giving both sides, then concluding that one side is right.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

7) Where's that fair and balanced reporting? Sure, they brought out the scientist to describe the paper, and also the skeptic Milloy (he isn't a scientist, but a lawyer, a registered lobbyist, and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, etc., who runs some impressively titled "organizations" out his basement). The problem is the scientist wasn't addressing or aware of Milloy's skeptical claims. The sham skeptic speaks unopposed. Had a scientist HEARD the Milloy/Fox spin, he'd DESTROY it

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

6) Just to drive this home, Fox could spin, in identical fashion, ANY science paper about ANY aspect of the climate system (say one with no hint of recent change, so not driving the recent temp increases). A paper comes out better quantifying the ultimate atmospheric CO2 consequences of, say, calcification on the ocean floor, and PRESTO, Fox rolls out Steve Milloy & skeptics for a "news" story providing "further proof that there's a lot about global climate change that we simply don't know."

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

5) ACTUAL journalism involves science editors who check that the phrasing of the reporting conveys the actual significance and meaning when heard by a scientifically ignorant public. With Fox "News", it seems the science editor's job is to make sure that the scientifically ignorant public understands that WHENEVER ANYTHING is published by scientists, it ALWAYS supports rightwing talking points - even when that means the public is mislead and misunderstands the scientific results..