Upload

Climate Change Coverage Plummets On Broadcast Networks: Study

by The Young Turks • 21,111 views

Via Media Matters: "A Media Matters analysis finds that news coverage of climate change on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX has dropped significantly since 2009. In 2011, these networks spent more than twice...

Consensus: majority of opinion. In what world is 97% agreement not a consensus? So now you're generally illiterate instead of just scientifically illiterate.
Report spam or abuse
99% of species did die off and humans eventually will share their fate, and THAT is the only thing that MATTERS, doesn't it? Well, it doesn't matter to the people who are living today, it really does not. It only matters metaphysically speaking (if you care about such thing as your species surviving for a longer time period after you are long gone). Some people care a little bit, but mostly it's not an issue at all. Your ancestors didn't have a problem putting your into SS cabal for example.
Report spam or abuse
Missing Flight 175 NIST FOIA photos /watch?v=Wd3kyf4QQso
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
It wouldn't. As long as that excess carbon dioxide is up there, changes are more-or-less irreversible.
Report spam or abuse
Americans have a short attention span, first of all. And climate change is science, which the average American doesn't understand. Climate change ask people to sacrifice, which is another thing that Americans are averse to do. Most important, the news media has not done their job on this matter. They have treated the science of climate change as a matter of opinion rather than fact. They have treated all opinions as being equal, when they clearly aren't.
Report spam or abuse
.... and when you're instinctively scared like that, you're willing to believe any negative propaganda they throw at you. Fact is, PETA has done jack shit to put it crudely. The have as much to do with helping animals, as Uwe Boll has to do with making movies. As statistics point out they euthanize more than 85% of animals they "care for.
Report spam or abuse
ofcouse you can fake it, just bribe a few 100 thousand scientists.. oh nvm..
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
So, at the point where you show the facts you got mix up alittle bit. I know it happens to you two alot but. There is no coclusive data saying that the world is get warmer due to humans. It does say that we are going throgh a change. That is why they changed the term from global warming to climate change. Funny, you can't even come to terms with even a juge made Gore look like an ass by making them put a statement at the front of his film that it was a theroy.
Report spam or abuse
praytell, what are you're sources? where are you getting your information and is it current and conducted by real scientists?
Report spam or abuse
7 percent of Co2 is from man. Water wapor holds a ton more heat than Co2. I was saying that these people are screaming the end is coming when there is more climatolgist saying they are more worryed about an ice age or minny ice age like in the 1500. Co2 is produced naturly and is dealt with in the same way called photesyntis. I think cfcs are more harmful then Co2. Thank you for not throwing stones
Report spam or abuse
I'm with actual scientists on this one NOT armchair scientists!
Report spam or abuse
Nat Geo isn't a scientific source, that's what you're not getting. Its a popular magazine. NASA has covered the so-called warming of Mars and not only have they determined that their information is inconclusive, they've observed the other ice cap expanding. These are trends we DO NOT SEE on Earth. My comedy routine is terrible eh? Maybe that's the problem. You think science is a joke and you don't take it seriously. That's why you cite shit like Nat Geo.
Report spam or abuse
TV news seldom covers the most important stories.
Report spam or abuse
Media covers debates... there is no debate on climate change. The science is irrefutable, and regardless of whether you think it's man-made or not, what happens next needs to be discussed. I'm not really in favour of going back to a stone-age agrarian society, so we should be cutting back on EATING MEAT among other things until science can help solve the problem / provide a solution that let's us progress. I don't know what kind of person could be against that, except fat, lazy, dumbasses...
Report spam or abuse
That's not the concern, but about 200 years. The concern currently is the creation of a positive feedback loop which will trigger a mass extinction. We're already seeing two examples of this: the melting of permafrost in Siberia releases tonnes of methane gas (40x worse greenhouse gas than CO2) into the atmosphere and the bleaching of coral reefs due to zooxanthallae blooms caused by sea temperature changes.
Report spam or abuse
Rates =/= pattern. If you don't even understand that then there's no way you can see the other stuff and thus you're not worth arguing with.
Report spam or abuse
id say the instant and painless death would be a better fate to me. but what has this fictional scenario to do with anything? even if you believe that slaughterhouses produce such a calm and instant painless death, you reduce the animals and all their life to the moment they get killed, and thats just silly. of course any animal would choose to live in freedom in nature and with a long and suffering death over beeing caged and fatted and mutilated just to be killed comparatively quickly.
Report spam or abuse
There's three that studied the research on climate change. There are thousands of studies on man-made climate change, I just gave you three separate consensuses on the thousands of papers that are out there, you can no longer feign ignorance to the evidence that man-made climate change is happening.
Report spam or abuse
They play ball. Currently the U.S. is the only country to not sign the Kyoto protocols. If you had done a modicum of research on climate change this would be old news. Instead you're a typical ignorant American. You are literally 14 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to this issue.
Report spam or abuse
Right CHILD - see that QUESTION I asked THATS THE ONE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER. You aint supposed top answer the GOD AWFUL question you answered - now TRY A FUCKING GAIN - you MORON. Google: 'Climatic Research Unit email controversy' Then TAKE NOTICE of the 'Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.' The fucking IDIOCY - YOU CANT FAKE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON A *THEORY* - you unbelievably stupid human...
Report spam or abuse
It's an interesting cycle. Basically everyone has some blame in this, the public for not demanding more of themselves and each other, the government for things like the dumbing down public schools (and schools in general), and this consumerist culture.
Report spam or abuse
All level rises are over cities or engine exhausts. They are local transitory and have no global significance! An increase in global average carbon dioxide is biologically impossible! We get more life instead.
Report spam or abuse
Every single AGW supporter lies when they tell you, "all the scientists agree about global warming": Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says ht tp://news. national geographic. com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.ht ml
Report spam or abuse
I'm talking about the Marshal plan and World War II you dunce.
Report spam or abuse
And you're a forum troll spreading misinformation to intentionally deceive people. I don't know why idiots like you do it. Maybe you really believe the feverish conspiracy theories you tout like the global conspiracy of climate scientists who have nefariously come together to agree that man made climate change is a reality.
Report spam or abuse
It was never "global cooling". That was a premature conclusion of a handful of scientists. What they did incorrectly was apply a scenario that happens to SOME of the Earth to all of the Earth during climate change. "b/c it certainly wasn't the human race that caused the caps to melt 10,000 years ago" Protip: The atmospheric composition did not change 10,000 years ago nor did global temperature change. Nor did the caps melt nearly as fast or as much as they are now. Apples and oranges.
Report spam or abuse
Did that: 35 hits on climate change. 16 on "Joe," 2 of which were recent b/c he's running for Congress. What's your point?
Report spam or abuse
Ugh, I hate having to reduce myself to such rural sounding speech to make a point. But I live on the border between the city and the wild you could say. I've had a peacock wander through my back yard, among other animals (peacock farm). The fact is, that we're animals, we consume life to sustain life just like any other animal. We have as much responsibility to our well being as we do to the animals, if we didn't we wouldn't be fulfilling our role in the circle of life, and would be unnatural.
Report spam or abuse
But I would agree, at least theory, that maybe undoing ALL those changes would return the climate to its pre-industrial equilibrium. Frankly, I just don't know for sure. I'm just cynical that we could do it even if we tried. And I don't think simply stopping greenhouse gas emissions would do the trick, unless that by itself also undid all the other changes, which I doubt it would.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I disagree. On shorter timescales, thus excluding things like orbital eccentricity and rotational inclination which are currently tricky to predict, I think we can predict climactic changes with reasonable accuracy. Maybe not enough accuracy, but a decent amount to be sure that climate change is not necessarily a good thing. And that's why most climate projections only reach a few centuries at most into the future. Less uncertainty that way.
Report spam or abuse
Cenk is totally wrong at 3:35-3:45. The coverage that this gets is NOT "skeptic" coverage. Skeptics actually look at the evidence and question something if there is something out of place scientifically, and this is definitely not what is being covered. The coverage they get is denialist coverage, where they flat-out deny that it's even happening in a lot of cases by using "scientists" that cherry-pick data and are funded by the oil companies.
Report spam or abuse
im not worried about a handful of species that might go extinct, im worried about the individual members of the species that were bred by humans. their situation is a very bad one if you take the time to look into it, and their lives are just miseries. killing them in the end could be considered an act of mercy. if they go extinct in a meatless world it would just be logical. who in his right mind wants to bred creatures that cant survive on their own just to keep them alive? doesnt make sense.
Report spam or abuse
No, not really. Try critical thinking. The article was about a particular scientists work.
Report spam or abuse
And that's what this is about isn't it? You'll argue this to the fucking GRAVE. It wouldn't matter if all the permafrost in Siberia melted, as long as you think AP climate change means higher taxes you'll DENY it exists. Because that's the fact, this isn't about critical thinking or evidence. You're scared you'll have to pay something if people accept that its happening. That's why you're a dishonest shill.
Report spam or abuse
Are you still citing that blog? Do you have an actual citation, or are you just doing the "Discovery Institute" nonsense? Google "Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution". You'll never find the actual signatures, but you can still find the scientists furious that their names were added to that list.
Report spam or abuse
The reason ppl dont care for global warning no wait I meant climate change is because its a fucking hoax. They cooked the books and took fake pics. So lie some more yall pieces of shit
Report spam or abuse
Latest Gallup pole. A majority of Americans don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Report spam or abuse
You've read that from climate denialist forums. These rumors were based on 2 photographs taken 22 years apart. The funny thing is you climate denialists don't think we can accurately measure the earth's temperature but if it suits your agenda you'll argue to the death that we can track Mars' temperature.
Report spam or abuse
Cenk is right, he's fighting the fight.
Report spam or abuse
Do you ever feel like you're beating your head against the wall, trying to educate brainwashed liberals? I commend you for telling the truth to a bunch of liars.
Report spam or abuse
exactly the same here in austria. all the mass media accepted the fact of climate change long ago, there never was any denial but still coverage on it could be alot better. and only very few people really give a shit, but at least it seems to me they are getting more.
Report spam or abuse
I actually read it in National Geographic. ht tp://news. national geographic. com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.ht ml I like how you people think you just know everything. I like critical thinking. Critical thinking tells me that people are not going to stop heating their homes in the winter & cooling them in the summer. People aren't going to stop driving their cars. We will all simply be forced to pay more money to do so.
Report spam or abuse
Great news. Alarmists should go find some other fake apocalypse to whine about.
Report spam or abuse
There has never been an, "actual consensus" & most likely never will be. The only thing that the scientists agree on is that the weather changes - sometimes the Earth gets hotter, sometimes it gets colder.
Report spam or abuse
Tell me: have you been to college? Do you know what happens if you cite National Geographic on a scientific term paper? When you failed science did you say "but... but... the article was about a scientists work!"? You want critical thinking? Read the actual literature. Solar forcing is down, and Mars isn't heating up as far as we can tell.
Report spam or abuse
My opinion is worth much more to me than your political propaganda, and it is political propaganda. The 'experts' on the matter are politicised, their agenda is obvious. They have as much agenda in this nonsense, to push the ideology that PEOPLE are responsible for most of what is happening with this climate change as much as the so called 'economists' (Keynesians) have an agenda, that supports the willingness of government to print fake money. In political BS opinion counts more.
Report spam or abuse
Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (27): 12107–9. Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686 Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Let's see what NASA has to say about your article from a popular magazine (not academic source): "The south polar cap is vaporizing now, which means CO2 is rushing back into the atmosphere. "Remember, though," adds Smith, "there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing." You don't do critical thinking. You lie and mislead, use faux sources and act like they're legitimate.
Report spam or abuse
thanks for making my point, glad you finally understood.
Report spam or abuse
really i cant help you with your deranged world view. you obviously never heard of or saw an animal shelter, you never saw an average slaughterhouse from the inside, you think an animal wants to be caged and fatted and mutilated and they come freely from the wild to get all that treatment in the hopes of a quick death, we dont actually breed them. and all that beeing done to more than 60 billion of them you consider a better treatment than we humans get?
Report spam or abuse
Hey, Turkeys! er...HELLO! Wake up! The Climate Change fraud is done!
Report spam or abuse
Do you understand the difference between weather and climate? This seems to be the "it is snowing today, therefore the world can't be heating up" misunderstanding that some of the media like to use (when it's cold, "Global Warming is a hoax!", when it's hot "it was hot today, no further comment"). Check out the channel "greenman3610" here if you really want to look at the science and proof in detail.
Report spam or abuse
ana mixed up the numbers on Water and Air pollution.. Sorry.. just really picky right now
Report spam or abuse
I've read that Mars' temperature has been rising as well...
Report spam or abuse
both flatulence and reborn seem to have irrelevant nationalistic feelings they need to express.
Report spam or abuse
This international issue has only been happening for 14 years. It takes decades for countries to shift economically, this isn't about overnight change, its a change in trends in the long run. The only country currently standing and screaming with their hands over their ears is the U.S. You're one of the ignorant Americans doing this.
Report spam or abuse
"Great point." If ignoring my source material, going off on a tangent without citation and claiming victory is a great point then science is doomed.
Report spam or abuse
Isn't it said to be a drastic change in climate that killed off - as in rendered completely extinct - the dinosaurs? The Earth's climate has been changing since the planet's been around. Climate alarmists are simply terrified at the idea of humanity's time passing. What kind of clown has ever argued that the climate doesn't change? The argument has ALWAYS been whether or not humans contribute & if so, how much.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
So-called journalists don't care what the facts are and people generally have far too short an attention span and are far too scientifically illiterate to comprehend the real issue. In the end, it's a recipe for disaster.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Its a projection that's not the concern right now. The concern is the positive feedback loop and I don't believe for one second you've read a single paper on climate change so your opinion on the legitimacy of the research is inconsequential. You're scientifically illiterate and your statements prove it.
Report spam or abuse
yea if going against man made climate change wasnt career suicide there would be more that did. Do you have any clue what happens in the world ?? Most scientists dont spend their life becoming one than throw it all away for a story that will change to something else within their lifetime. In the early 80's there was a consensus in the scientific field that we may be heading into an ice age.The climate changes sometime more extreme than others no lack of industry is gonna change that
Report spam or abuse
......... no, the Marshall plan saved Europe's economy after WWII, ummm am I missing something, or are you missing a couple brain cells.
Report spam or abuse
These attacks by nationalistic foreigners are getting out of control. Don't forget, America had to revive the European economy after you assholes nearly destroyed yourselves, TWICE. And some of the best scientist have lived and worked in America. Don't characterize all Americans by our corrupt news media and politicians. Not only is it a travesty, but it reflects poorly on your filthy country.
Report spam or abuse
A skeptic is an honest person who has questions about something and says, "Hm, I'll look into it" after being provided evidence that supports what they were critical of. A denier is someone who, when provided evidence that supports what they're critical of, goes "Nuh-uh! All lies!" and discards the evidence or invents elaborate conspiracy theories to explain it away. A denier is someone who is already convinced something is false and is simply seeking to support their preconceived position.
Report spam or abuse
Climate change is a study of global temperatures over a period of time. What you're talking about is making an instantaneous guess about specific temperature. It's the difference between asking what a household's energy usage is going to be like this weekend vs. is the household's energy usage increasing. The later will give you a better indication of the trend.
Report spam or abuse
How's the crow taste douchebag? Must be pretty good for you to just avoid the fact that I just handed you your ass.
Report spam or abuse
The question is if you and we are responsible for it. For example, you don't go round treading on people's toes. That's what I mean. That's what global warming is. We can switch energy sources.
Report spam or abuse
Once again, the article was covering a particular scientists work. National Geographic is not a, "faux source." It is the actual source I referenced. Your comedy routine is terrible, man. It's terrible because you're not smart. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to be funny.
Report spam or abuse
What I got from that was "No, I don't care if I'm wrong", "No, I'm not up-to-date on the scientific literature on the subject", "No, I've ignored all the experts", and "don't worry about my profound ignorance, because I have an OPINION". This is my problem with people today. They know less than nothing but will be more than happy to act like experts, rationalize away the FACT that they're spreading misinformation and then when called on it, post 3 comments of rhetoric to hide their ignorance.
Report spam or abuse
OF COURSE they don't tell people the truth about climate change. That way they can blame natural disasters on Atheists, Homosexuals and the 'Book of Revelation'..
Report spam or abuse
But I disagree on predictability. Climate scientists know enough to predict consequences with reasonable accuracy. It all extends from understanding how heat affects climactic conditions. And how many generations do you mean? 10? 50? 100? 1000? 10,000?
Report spam or abuse
I'll give you that CONSENSUS can mean a majority of opinion. The idea that because a larger group of people agree to something it must be true remains a logical fallacy. I am completely correct in asserting that all scientists are not on the same side.
Report spam or abuse
Lovelock is 92 years old and is likely losing his mental faculties. He is known as an attention whore in the community and has never had a position that peers took seriously.
Report spam or abuse
What are these two idiots babbling about a "problem" for? There is no problem - there has been NO statistically significant warming since 1995.
Report spam or abuse
It's only to YOU that the information is somehow rendered irrelevant because I referenced one source & not another. I never had any intention of arguing the minutia with a clown like you. There's no point in that because you're a zealot. My point was simply that not all scientists have reached some global consensus. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with your crazy theory. You choose to play dumb & act as if you cannot understand the context in which the article was presented.
Report spam or abuse
That's what my comment was mostly meant for: irrational denialst zealots who simply already have their minds made up that it must be fake rather than skeptics with honest questions and criticisms. I think some people on the AGW side who are not scientists also complicate the issue - like Al Gore who has made something of a cottage industry by oversimplifying and sometimes misinterpreting global warming.
Report spam or abuse
If all the permafrost in Siberia melted it would most likely be because the sun caused it to do so.
Report spam or abuse
and as my OPINION goes, I am unmoved by the claims that humans have caused a significant impact upon the climate on this planet. YES, the climate is changing, NO, I do not share an opinion that people are the culprits here. YES, we have contributed to the change of climate that is ALWAYS happening. NO, I am NOT interested in ANY of the 'climate change' discussion that starts OR ends with politicians setting POLICY on this matter at all.
Report spam or abuse
Heres a better factual video, unless you not interested in the actual science.... Search for "The Science Behind The Theory That CO2 Does Not Drive Climate Change Part 2 of 2"
Report spam or abuse
These number are directly out of your ass. I'd rather have my logic be difficult to follow rather than completely ridiculous, as is yours.
Report spam or abuse
I don't know how long atmospheric CO2 actually lasts, and I don't know the intricacies of climate necessary to estimate how long it would take to achieve a pre-industrial state. But I doubt, considering all the various other changes (deforestation, ice loss, etc.) that have also occurred that it can ever return to such a state. Rather, a new equilibrium would be achieved. That would be more-or-less irreversible.
Report spam or abuse
If you truly believe that, then you don't quite understand animals very well, or the concept of "the lesser of two evils". How do you think we domesticated animals in the first place? Do you think we had cowboys thousands of years ago riding around on horses with lasso and pistol? We won them over, they chose us over the wild even way back then, even though we provided a lot less for them back then than we do now.
Report spam or abuse
Doesn't Al Gore partly own currentTV of which the Young Turks air? HUmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Report spam or abuse
Likely also because it's an emotional discomfort for many. People don't like the idea of climate change, along with like you said, it requires more personal responsibility. It's much easier to deny it. Just like Christians who deny the scientific evidence for evolution, but consider the Bible, a book of hearsay, "inarguable proof." It's emotional reasoning. Nobody likes the idea of climate change, but ignoring it won't make the problem go away. Acknowledging & fixing the problem, will.
Report spam or abuse
AL Gore's electricity bill for one of his mansions(24k/mo) seems to indicate that he really doesn't believe in this hypothesis on a personal level, but he sure knows how to bring home the bacon. Soooowie! When WAS the debate on this compllex scientific topic and who were the participants? I would bet a tankful of gas that Goldman Sachs and Maurice Strong are in the mix somewhere. And our first 'Lady' sure burns some jet fuel on her attempts to escape Amerika every month. Do as I say..
Report spam or abuse
Your argument is elementary. I don't need to read anything more than I've already read. I know for a fact that none of the scientists you worship are infallible & that none of them completely understand the sun/Earth/Moon system & how the climate is altered. Nor do they completely understand how much man MIGHT be affecting the climate. I know that before the global warming hype they started off telling us to be terrified of an impending COOLING of the climate. You are S-T-U-P-I-D.
Report spam or abuse
If you're not a denialist then I'm not describing you. Notice I made a distinction between honest skeptics and denialists? No need to take offense. "When are you going to present us with some real evidence and/or reasoned arguments" 1) I was responding to your comment where you claimed it's dishonest to call "skeptics" "deniers". I was stating most self-proclaimed "skeptics" are usually deniers. 2) Go to the Wiki article on Climate Change for an intro. It's very detailed and well-citated.
Report spam or abuse
Go google "IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud" You can find plenty of articles how they have been caught in lies and admit to faking it. Ignoring most of the facts that can not be disputed by scientists, and trust discredited reports on faith by scienits is a stretch. You can write more about how BS it all is than how valid it is. This entire thing is all political to tax people more so that the rich benefit. You trust TYT which the original ones inspired Hitler. Guilt by association
Report spam or abuse
You're ignorant.... America is the most advanced scientific society in the world. Almost every significant scientific advancement comes for America. Climate change is true... It's called WINTER, SPRING, SUMMER AND FALL. Anyone who still buys that lie ( AGW) and that there is a solution for it is a blithering idiot. How arrogant of you to think a paltry human being could do anything to impact a global climate system. Infinitus est numerus stultorum. ~Smirk!~ Get a clue, sheep.
Report spam or abuse
If you liberals are worried about it, then move to Mars or Uranas or something. Plenty of Ice on Uranas, you'll be happy.
Report spam or abuse
i saw a documentary about her. im all for making the situation as it is better for the animals in the industry. but that doesnt change the fact that the situation is horrible for the animals and theres no question in the mind of any sane person that any animal would choose freedom over this travesty of beeing a product.
Report spam or abuse
Your comment is little more than sweeping generalizations about people you don't know. Don't present yourself as an advocate of science - your biased attitude shows us how you think. You're correct on the last point, though.
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to