Far Left Attacks FNC for Telling Reporters Not to Take Sides in Climate Coverage
The total inability of the far-left Fox News haters to conjure up any real controversy about the cable channel demonstrates just how reasonable and measured Fox's coverage generally is.
The latest Fox "scandal": DC bureau chief Bill Sammon told staff to refrain from pronouncing one side of the climate change debate unequivocally correct. That's right, Sammon's insistence that Fox not make definitive judgments on contentious political issues is a sign of Fox's unethical journalistic practices, the Fox haters bizarrely claim.
The occasion for the latest bout of anti-FNC bloviating was the leak of an email from Sammon, sent during the height of the so-called Climategate scandal. It read:
Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism - skepticism and political neutrality, respectively - into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?
Politico, which reported on the leak, focused on the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the belief in antrhopogenic global warming. But fortunately for mankind, science is not democracy, and as long as there are still multitudes of credible and accomplished scientists casting serious doubts about climate change, the issue is not settled.
And there are plenty of such scientists dissenting from the so-called consensus on AGW, as detailed in a report by Climate Depot's Marc Morano:
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
"We're not scientifically there yet," Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, told Morano. "Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem.”
As long as the issue is not settled, it is not the place of the journalistic community to proclaim it so. The issue really boils down to whether reporters act as impartial relayers of the news, or as "activists" of a sort, who instruct readers, viewers, or listeners on the "correct" views, which of course mean the views of the reporter uttering them.
Isn't the latter exactly what journalists are not supposed to do? And isn't it what Fox's critics constantly, obsessively accuse it of doing? The usual meme is that Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and all their right-wing minions color the news with a conservative bent (that's putting it kindly - most of the Fox-haters are a bit more, er, animated), undermining the fairness and objectivity necessary for ethical and effective journalism.
But now the Fox-haters are livid that Sammon deliberately instructed his employees not to make inherently political judgments about scientific issues that are still the subject of hot debate among climate scientists themselves.
This is not the first time critics have demanded that Fox inject a political slant into its news reporting. But of course the Fox-haters don't mind when liberal opinion sneaks into political coverage.
The fact that Fox is taking flack for not slanting its reporting to be more friendly to one political position than the other speaks volumes not just about critics' lack of concern for journalistic ethics, but also about Fox itself. The email above is a showing of political neutrality. On climate reporting, other media outlets could take a lesson from Bill Sammon.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Thrree simple words
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:16pm.
Three words - Fair and Balanced only apply to one network and this memo/e-mail actually proves it.
Every story on the alphabets at night has a leftward slant on the story from STEP ONE.
Watch it for ten minutes and it is easy to see it.
Is it okay for Fox reporters
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 2:20pm.
Is it okay for Fox reporters to point out that the global temperature has stayed steady for the past 15 years, which goes against AGW dogma?
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Well, duh. Of course
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:45pm.
Of course the lefties are upset about this. Directing commentators and reporters to not take sides in the climate change debate goes against the "consensus" that there is no debate; it's a fact.
Can't have that now, can we?
In any given period?
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:05pm.
Even most sceptics acknowledge the fact that there has been a rise in global mean temperatures in the last decades.
not THIS decade trog
Submitted by wizardjr on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:02pm.
please update your news inputs, global temps leveled off around 1998 and went flat for a couple years then dropped like a rock wiping out nearly the entire 100 years of gradual warming
2) most of the "warming" turns out to be instrumental combined with UHIE, once you account for that the 'trend' is flat with cyclical variations around the fairly flat trendline
And that is because of CO2?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:30am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmes...
We Are The 53%
Yea, all 2500 of them
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:57pm.
"Even most sceptics acknowledge the fact that there has been a rise in global mean temperatures in the last decades. "
Yea, there has been a rise during the vast majority of all 2500 of those decades, ever since the last ice age ended and those HUGE glaciers that covered over half of North America began to melt.
It would help if you put actual NUMBERS in your statements.
You see, Trog, your statement is EXACTLY the kind that Fox is trying to avoid. You're stating something with ZERO references as to what you're implying.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So you and probably the rest of mankind
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:59pm.
would acknowledge and not dispute that the temperautres have risen (or fallen) in a specific period of time?
Thank you for arguing my point.
You make no point, Trogt.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:06pm.
Trog, you make no point. other than to highlight WHY Fox is trying to avoid making statements like that.
You didn't bother to define what the "last decades" are, you didn't tell us if there has been a continual rise or if there has been variances from decade to decade, you didn't even bother to list who says that and why. You made a statement of fact without including anything RELEVANT in which to establish that fact! That's the kind of sloppy journalism that Fox is trying to avoid.
Thank you for making Fox's point succinctly.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
cobraman
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:18pm.
Is it sloppy journalism to state that 20,000 years ago there was an ice age? Obviously no, because that is a very well established scientific fact. But apparently you shouldn't say that on FOX News without mentioning that some people question the data. There is a difference between sloppiness and cowardice or pandering disguised as radical scepticism.
By that standard FOX journalists should refrain from using the word "I" on air without mentioning that there are some people who consider everybody else to be non existent.
It is, trog.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:20pm.
It IS sloppy journalism to state "several decades" of global mean temperatures but intend to include several thousands of years of temperatures and not tell people that! That's misleading!
It's just as sloppy to claim that "over the last decades the global mean temperature has dropped dramatically" and not tell anyone that you're including the entire history of the earth, including the very formation when the global mean temperature was high enough to melt steel! Just like with your original statement, it is undefined and, therefor, misleading! It's incredibly sloppy journalism!
That is EXACTLY what Fox is trying to avoid, sloppy journalism.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And now Jon Stewarts favourite phrase:
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:42pm.
I'm not a journalist.
But obviously it is FOX policy that you cannot say that the earth has considerably warmed in the last 20,000 years ("any given period of time") without mentioning that there are critics (who? creationists?) who consider the data to be flawed. That is unprofessional!
By the way, it's still a theory
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:36pm.
"Obviously no, because that is a very well established scientific fact."
That's not a "fact," trog, It's still a theory. It's a well accepted theory, but it's ONLY a theory! To be a "scientific" fact it would have to be directly observed, at the very least. How many people have directly observed an Ice Age, let alone measured it and experimented with it (repeated it in the "lab")? The answer is NONE. That's why it remains a theory.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That is a very restricted definition
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:44pm.
of what is considered to be scientific fact and what is not.
Oh really? And who are these
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:11pm.
Oh really? And who are these skeptics?
So called global warming has been on the decline for more than 10 years trog. Al Gore knows it, the UN knows it, what is taking you so long to catch up?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
For example
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:53pm.
the thousands that signed and supported this global warming petition. In all fairness I'm assuming they also read and support this which is circulating with the petition.
Ha! Are you serious???? This
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:02pm.
Ha! Are you serious???? This is full of tripe that has been addressed by the e mail spill. Most of these people on this thing have with drawn their names and some have completely disavowed this thing.
This is very old news, that anyone with any knowledge would have known that this report has become a laughing stock. The whole thing is an exercise if fraud. Some of us knew that in 2000, those names on there did not catch on till 2009-2010.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
OK you probably know that side better than I do.
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:21pm.
Does Lindzen count?
You mean this Lindzen? MIT
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:42pm.
You mean this Lindzen?
MIT atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen testifies to Congress: “The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak.”
“Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.”
Is that the Lindzen your talking about?
This is what he told congress in 2010.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Yes the very same.
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:30pm.
"For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6° ± 0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming."
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/L_R-Exchange.pdf Or has he changed his opinion too?Really Trog? Your using a
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:30pm.
Really Trog? Your using a paper from 2005? Pre e-mail global warming fraud expose'?
When I just gave you what he said in 2010?
At least pretend to be up on the subject at hand.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
BnD
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:40pm.
he didn't say there was no warming. Just that carbon dioxide can't cause any or only few.
So don't pretend there is something in that quote which in reality isn't.
Trog! What has been the basis
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:44pm.
Trog! What has been the basis for all the global warming? What have all the global warmists been calling the boogie man gas? What is it that congress, in the defeated global warming bill want to regulate?
CO2! It is the one gas that the global warming crowd has been yelling about. In case you dont know it, CO2 IS carbon dioxide.
Next thing you know, you will be telling us we need to ban the most powerful solvent on earth!
Like I said, at least pretend to know what your talking about.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
BnD
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:51pm.
Please go back to the beginning of this thread and recapitulate what I'm arguing here. And although I don't mind I find it weird to save a sceptic from a sceptic.
Are you in the tank for
Submitted by BuffNBone on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:00pm.
Are you in the tank for sceptics? I thought the target audience were the skeptics.
That depends
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:06pm.
on your definition of sceptic.
Maybe Skeptic..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:23pm.
Skeptic
[...] represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly.
Then there is this little spotless ball, as of today...Stay cool...
You Didn't Build That.
Little Boy Liar gets busted again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:01am.
The Little Boy Liar keeps trying to equate global warming trends with Global Warming.
More Straw Men from the Little Boy Liar that thinks Straw Men drown.
No one is denying there are long term global warming trends.
What people are denying is that MAN is to blame for the global warming trends.
The Little Boy Liar is trying to get you to agree to the long term global warming trends so you there for believe in Global Warming.
Global Warming
Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.
Once he has you saying there has been global warming, he can now claim you have signed on to Global Warming. Pisant little boy liar.
Vet Read the Memo!
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:13am.
No one is denying there are long term global warming trends.
You gotta be kidding me right? You can find people here on this page arguing that the warming of the last several decades is due to UHIE and flawed data and that it didn't really happen. #
And now Fox News doesn't want the recent or any warming to be mentioned without invoking critics. Please stay on topic.
Once he has you saying there has been global warming, he can now claim you have signed on to Global Warming. Pisant little boy liar.
No,but concerning other subjects that would be your modus operandi I guess (and of course you'll invoke some butt).
And it would be nice if your crowd would actually come up with one narrative.
Oops. Trollie ketches me stupid again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:07am.
The Vet: No one is denying there are long term global warming trends.
Yes. I iz uh stupeed. I said trends. Not specifying a timeframe.
Catchee Catchee trollie troglodyt: You can find people here on this page arguing that the warming of the last several decades...
There can be short term trends within longer term trends. Such as oh I don't know, the long term trend of warming since the little ice age and then the short term trend of the cooling the last ten years especially since the sun appears to have gone into a minimum again.
But whatever, troglodyt ketches me again. Boy I is a dummeez.
How many times does it have to be told to your trollie. Please stay on topic.
YOU DON"T TELL THE VET WHAT TO DO. You wanna say something, say it. You got some proof, link to it. YOU DON'T ORDER ANONYMOUS STRANGERS ON THE INTERBOOBS AROUND. Dang, trollie, you are not very bright at all.
PS: The Vet don't walk in a crowd. He is one of a kind. Trollie oughta know that by now. Nothing like thowing out the bandwagon fallacy
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice):
Oh I know that you are your own crowd.
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:40am.
BTW: Is that a tacit admission of multiple account use?
It would be just nice if sceptics could make up their mind about whether their has been a warming trend in the 20th century or not. And it would be nice if sceptics wouldn't doubt the instrumental records and at the same time don't hesitate to use them when it suits them.
It's Christmas soon. So I have to wish something.
trog, Hide the decline, is the history lesson for the 20th cen.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:19am.
Here is a bit of history, COLD record set this month.
Even tho the warmers keep shuffling the thermometers to warmer places, the trend is still for colder weather, while this keeps up.
As much as you want to turn climate science into a pure history course, it's not.
New data pops up every day. More ice will mean more icebergs
You Didn't Build That.
And
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:43am.
I do tell you what to do. I can't make you stay on topic, but I'll tell you over and over again, if necessary.
I know. It is tough. It is tough being a trollie.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:32pm.
It is a hard scrabble life what with mumzie troll going days between diaper changes. The poor poor trollie bought into the whole fraud of global warming and is the last one in the room to still believe the lies. And it is tough because the monkeymen don't care any more.
It is just so tough because I don't care. Now why, little trollie with the full diaper, why would The Vet not care any more? It is tough. I feel for you really. Really I do. I have seen lots of trollies and I know you got it butt hard. But on this isssue, yeah trollie, I really don't care. You might have missed something these last few months trollie. It is called an election. And no trollie I am not talking about the Republicans winning near record amounts of seats in the House, and the various Governorships and state legislatures. I ain't talking about that at all trollie. What you missed is this. Politicians took notice during last election. Trollies missed it. I really didn't see it. But I read trollie. Yeah, that is tough, you got your fun you have to get in, how can you squeeze in some actual learning. Yeah, a hard hard scrabble life for the trollies. The people that wanted to pass a law or laws to change this economy. They don't have the numbers. Truthfully, little trollie, and yeah, truth sucks hard on trollies, the truth is they never had the numbers. Because politicians care about one thing, and one thing only trollie, the next election. They always have their eye on the next election. And to get reelected, they haved to please their constituents. And the constituents, most of them don't care about Global Warming either, they might have cared a few years ago when you thought it would be fun to lie at me in my Global Warming woodshed forum. But yeah, they don't care little trollie. They have seen the lies, the fraud, the fiddling ot the numbers, the swapping out valid hard data from accurate measuring devices with wrongly calculated tree ring data. And the people that vote, yeah hard luck scrabble trollie, they don't want to hear about insanely altering their lifestyle over numbers that were fiddled with. And it ain't the Republicans trollie, there is plenty of Democrats. That is why they did not get any laws passed these last 2 years. Democrat politicians from coal states don't want this either. And little trollie, there are a lot of coal states. U.S - number 1 in coal. They want to get elected again. And that is what it is about. The tipping point has passed. Global Warming is dead.
And now, I know you live in a cave in Germany, but now, right now in the United States, we have a lame duck Congress trying to push through a whole bunch of Uberleftist dream laws. Don't ask Don't tell, The Dream Act. A big ol' budget that will carry over well into the next Congress. Yeah, that one is pretty much dead. That Start treaty. They are trying to stuff the passing of laws that would normally take months into just a few days trollie. And guess what is missing. Come on. Put that little trollie brain to work. You can do it. Try. Yep. Global Warming ain't even close to being on the docket.
So sorry little trollie. It ain't gonna happen and I really don't care about any of your scientific arguments even if you suddenly decide to get all truthy on us. It ain't gonna happen and we really don't care about your struggle to get it happened.
Hey, is that mumzie troll? Well, it has been three days. Time for a diaper change trollie.
And this is post (or in the middle)-"climategate"
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:39pm.
Although he scrutinizes the data he still seems to believe there was warming.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Again, Trog. That is a 2009
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:46pm.
Again, Trog. That is a 2009 article. Guess he changed his position from then to now. Like I said. Congress, 2010. That is his latest position.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
BnD
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:55pm.
He doesn't say there was no warming. In fact he says that the opposite is trivially true:
The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in terms of alarm.
From this poorly edited document: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdfYou cant have it both ways
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:10pm.
You cant have it both ways Trog. Its either CO2 or its not. That is the position of the global warming bunch.
By the way, even the global warming people are backing off the warming. Even Al Gore has admitted that warming is not what it has been cracked up to be.
You really need to keep up.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
BnD
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:21am.
From the beginning of this thread on I wasn't trying to argue for or against AGW but tried to scrutinize the remarks of a FOX executive.
Surprise Little Boy Liar. The data IS garbage.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:19am.
We don't believe anything the IPCC or any of the university Global Warming centers put out. The data was fiddled with. Global Warming is a fraud.
Your Global Warming movement is dead. Find a new lie. No one one the planet will do a single thing to fix your fraudulent problem. SO GET OUT OF YOUR CAR, QUIT WHINING TO PASSERSBY ABOUT YOUR FLAT, AND FIX IT YOURSELF YOU DIAPER WEARING CRYBABY.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD THAT THE LITTLE BOY LIAR IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN.
It all comes down to a past and impending unprecedented redistribution of wealth – from taxpayers and consumers (rich, middle class and poor alike) in developed nations to:
* Political leaders and bureaucrats in poor nations that were enticed to sign the Kyoto and other agreements, by promises that they would receive billions, year after year; and
* Scientists, activists, bureaucrats, carbon traders and corporations responsible for the “consensus” and “settled science” about catastrophic climate change and cheap, eco-friendly renewable energy.
Their careers, reputations, institutions and cash flows are heavily dependent on keeping citizens alarmed by climate hobgoblins, and hence clamorous to be led to safety. Far worse, they are proposing that the world spend trillions combating global warming, and completely upending hydrocarbon-based economies, in favor of costly, unproven, unreliable, land-intensive “renewable” energy.
These climate cash recipients are terrified that governments, especially the incoming American Congress, will derail their global warming and renewable energy money train. That, of course, is exactly what should happen – for we are talking about serious money that could be put to far better uses. ExxonMobil was long pilloried by climate alarmists for allegedly giving $23 million over a ten-year period to organizations that challenged claims of an imminent manmade warming crisis. The Exxon grants supposedly bought “climate denial pseudo-science.” Spare me.
These Exxon grants are chicken feed, compared to the estimated $80 billion that the US government alone gave to the climate crisis community. To that must be added countless billions from the EU, UN, corporations, foundations and other sources. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, for instance, alone received $110 million during the last decade from Canadian taxpayers, to promote global warming crisis messages in schools and universities.
Tell us Little Boy Liar, how are you making money off this fraud?
We want the truth Little Boy Liar.
Do we really face a manmade climate crisis? Or are we just dealing with the same forces, the same changes, the same impacts (good and bad) that Earth, the wild kingdom and mankind have had to confront and adapt to countless times over the eons? What actual evidence do you have, and how was it gathered and peer-reviewed? Not computer models, assumptions, assertions, scary headline-grabbing press releases, imaginary consensus, et cetera. Real evidence.
You are in on the fraud. That is why you are one of the last of the trolls trying to sell it. Tell us what part of this fraud you are associated with.
And
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:31am.
surely you'll come up with some cogent argument, why all that blather about money matters here.
Trog did you read the paper?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:43am.
A quote
To be sure, these references
are one-sided. They fail to note that there are many sources of climate change
and that profound climate change has occurred many times both before and after
man appeared on the Earth; given the ubiquity of climate change, it is implausible
that all change is for the worse. Moreover, the coincidence of increasing carbon
dioxide (CO2) and the small warming over the past century hardly
establishes causality.
We Are The 53%
Probably?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:53pm.
"For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6° ± 0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming."
"Probably" Trog? Now THAT'S difinitive!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
It's Lindzen!
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:06pm.
Can you not even quote him without being critizised. Geesh.
May I ask
Submitted by jdlybrand on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:51pm.
Who was recording temperatures 3000 years ago? Just curious how they obtained that data.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Yes
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:15pm.
You may ask.
jdlybrand, A Two Mile Long Thermometer
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:51pm.
The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year. Differences in cores taken from the same area can reveal local wind patterns by showing where the snow drifted. More importantly, the make-up of the snow itself can tell scientists about past temperatures. As with marine fossils, the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the snow reveals temperature, though in this case, the ratio tells how cold the air was at the time the snow fell. In snow, colder temperatures result in higher concentrations of light oxygen.
You Didn't Build That.
Andrea Mitchell, meteorologist to the Pharoahs
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:36pm.
.
Balance, It's an unknown term in the LSM
Submitted by Deskpilot on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:14pm.
AGW: (^ - balance point, i.e. seesaw))
HEAT----------FOX----------COLD
____________^___________
IPCC+
AGW---LSM------------------------discussion----
__________________________________^
Those who worship at the Altar of Global Warming
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:50pm.
First, let me just note that there's a typo error - it's anthropogenic not antrhopogenic.
The question is not if "Climate Change" is real; the history of the planet shows the climate is always changing. For example, when an asteroid hit the Earth some 65 million years ago, about 90% of species became extinct because of the change in climate. However, that lead to a enormous growth of new species and positioned mammals to become the next dominate life form on the planet - good for humanity.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (APG) is junk science. I'm curious if the worshipers at the Altar of Global Warming can explain why the climate change drastically during the 'Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming" periods which ended about 1850? Surely they don't believe these changes in climate for over 700 years were a man-made caused?
BTW, do they know it took less than 100 years for The Sahara Desert to change from a "Woodland Period" with great lakes, mighty rivers, vast forest and inhabited by animals, (including humans) about 6,500 years ago. Those living there at that time fled to the fertile Nile region and were the ancestors of Egyptians and the mighty dynasties that reigned for over 5,000 years.
Did our prehistoric ancestors burn fossil fuels that increased CO2 in the atmosphere and thus created an greenhouse effect which caused such an eventful change in our climate so rapidly? I don't think so, but it doesn't matter because the belief in the myth of APG is political and not scientific.
Heresy!! burn 'em, behead 'em!!!
Submitted by wizardjr on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:57pm.
Billions of scientists all say we're killing Gaia. I read it on the web it must be so. How DARE Fox News give credence to Denialists??!!?? OMG, they've gone even further to the dark side. There must be millions of dollars from Big Oil flowing into Fox's coffers. The FCC must stop these people! Help us Annointed One, help us. Teh Won can do it. Now let's all form a circle and sing Kumbaya. [/sarc]
Dorothy can still save us if . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:19pm.
. . . she'd just give us the Ruby Slippers.
Damn Fox News!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:03pm.
Here I sit in the "warmest spot" in the continental US, and it is 30+ degrees below the average for this day in history. This is the tropics, man, and it's 40 something!
Why doesn't Fox just join the rest of the chorus and tell the world that the planet is warming, even if we are freezing. Have they no shame?
I'm still going to Happy Hour even if the beer freezes in my hand.
Why is it so difficult for you all to understand . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:14pm.
. . . anthropogenic climate change.
It's this simple:
1. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases (A-GHG) cause global temperatures to rise
- and -
2. A-GHG cause global temperature to fall
- and -
3. A-GHG cause global temperatures not to change at all.
Got it? Geez.
Now, let's go back to the standard Green question: Do you believe in climate change, yes or no? Yes --- or -- no? Yesser-no, yesserno, yezno . . . ?
C'mon, pee-pull (That's my Barbra Streisand accent)
A question for the troglodyte
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 5:41pm.
I have to ask the troggy troll a questa........
Would these same experts be many of the same experts that told us of the doom and gloom that was global............ COOLING about 30 years ago?
Or are they the ones that told of horror stories of the Killer Beezzzzzz that were going to destroy our crops and bite us until we turned liberal...
Those unbiased and just "in it to save the world while making millions experts?
Because Fox News actually has jounalistic integrity.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 6:09pm.
Obviously, the left feels threatened by this. They've lost their monopoly on information and thus the ability to control the message. A real, actual news organization that actually performs it's journalistic duties, rather than advocating for the left? Then people would know the truth about the left and their agenda! We can't have that now, can we? I mean, what would happen if people understood the AGW movement is just a scam to redistribute wealth and force people to lower their standards of living for no good reason? Most people would never vote Democrat again. So, the left keeps going after Fox News on the flimsiest and most nonsensical pretenses in order to regain control of the message. I just wish more people understood that. Far too many people won't even watch Fox News because of all the left's baseless attacks on it.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
The left hates FOX News
Submitted by Smartypants on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:42pm.
The left hates FOX News because it is a threat to the liberal agenda. FOX News is a threat to the liberal agenda, not because it is biased in its coverage, but because it is not. The other networks, to varying degrees, toe the liberal dogmatic line in their coverage. Tax cuts are bad; government programs are almost always good; Republicans are mean, evil or just plain uninformed, etc. FOX does not buy into this nonsense like the others, and so it must be discredited. This example with the global warming issue is par for the course. The liberal meme is that the earth is warming and it's all man's fault. FOX says let's not jump to conclusions in our reporting and it's a problem. Yet, the rest of the media can give a free pass to B.O. all the way to the White House and that is perfectly acceptable.
This makes the left a stunning 0-98 in the hype derby.
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:49pm.
Do you know any conservative who believes in AGW?
Hahahaha!
Submitted by proud2b4family on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:24am.
Trog got Pwned!
http://twitter.com/proud2b4family
http://therightofthepeople.wordpress.com
Hardly.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:18am.
pwned by yet another misrepresentation of what someone wrote?
AGW is part of Liberal 'Religion'
Submitted by Retired Geek on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:21am.
Global warming is part of the Religion of the Left.
Gore would NOT debate Lord Monckton - why not?
http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2010/12/lord-christopher-monckton-part-1-...