Global Warming this!! (in Off-topic)
April 18 2009 5:46 PM EDT
Perhaps since Al Gore is not speaking anymore, less hot air is being produced.
Am I the only one that burst out laughing at their slogan?
April 18 2009 5:56 PM EDT
"Am I the only one that burst out laughing at their slogan?"
Here, let me post a related article that isn't from Faux News:
Arctic sea ice thinnest ever going into spring
I wish studies on this subject would all go in the same direction. It's science dammit, there can't be ten thousand conclusions if you don't let your bias influence the results.
What I meant, while simplifying it a lot, is:
If you look at a freaking rock, you should be able to determine it's solid, be you a Democrat, a Republican, a despotic tyrant or a Communist.
Ice melts, or it does not. Make up your damn mind.
yes d7, fox news - fair and balanced, did make me chuckle
April 18 2009 6:15 PM EDT
Ditto. There's a reason it warrants this spoof:
April 18 2009 6:47 PM EDT
As opposed to Keith Oberman and the MSNBC fairness doctrine?
There are plenty sides to this story of global warming and it seems only 1 gets play.
If you take ANYTHING on ANY 'news network' at face value, you most likely have a basement full of duct-tape, water bottles, and plastic sheets.
It's all garbage. Any network where ratings come into play are biased. (Hint: All of them).
Watch the daily show, get a good laugh, and move on.
(Fair and balanced made me chuckle.)
April 18 2009 7:13 PM EDT
meh... this side of the border Fox News plays on the comedy channel...
I wonder whatever happened to objective media in western society?
It used to be a prominent feature and it seems to be declining fast.
April 18 2009 7:16 PM EDT
The media relies heavily on the "Screen shot and it MUST HAVE happened!" mentality with the public and sadly, the masses accept it!
What? Fox news has a photo/footage of a baby seal dead next to a dolphin! The dolphins are killing baby seals, it's true, I saw the SCREEN SHOT.
Pictures and visuals drive everything home. Like in the first article, a computerized drawing with a large chunk shaded in red. As we read we keep looking at it going, "oh my... that IS big!! We're DOOMED". Did that picture really mean anything to me? No, not really. But it sure drove home the idea that all the ice in the universe is slowly disappearing.
This doesn't really mean anything.. just something I've noticed.
I despise the media. However Vanilla, when the end does come, don't come knocking on my plasticized and duct taped biologically safe domicile! And forget about trying to bum some canned goods or bottled water off me as well... Buddy Lee is out for NUMBER ONE! :D
(replacing tin foil hat)
April 18 2009 7:20 PM EDT
"As opposed to Keith Oberman and the MSNBC fairness doctrine?"
Ah, the Fairness Doctrine. That which NOBODY is discussing except for the conservatives and Fox news.
As for Keith Olbermann and the guys at MSNBC, they freak me the heck out. I tuned into Keith once expecting a nice Left-leaning talk program. But dang. He's as bad as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reily.
But I will note: nobody brought up MSNBC except you.
"I wonder whatever happened to objective media in western society?
It used to be a prominent feature and it seems to be declining fast."
Chomsky/Herman give an interesting analysis in the book manufacturing consent.
There is also a documentary based on the book - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730
April 18 2009 7:35 PM EDT
Well, its pretty sick that you need Al Gore to believe in global warming, but again, its the US media we're talking about, like anyone in the US have any motives talk about global warming, well the general public naturally, but nobody who actually have an input.
but foxnews, thats funny stuff, the name itself should be an oxymoron,rofl :)
Can anyone point to any examples of Fox News being unfair? (I must sound like a masochist.) ;)
I like how so many people talk about the bias from Fox news, but ignore how there is bias from every other news station out there. To be honest I'm just glad there's Fox just to counter a lot of the news stations that people listen to as if they were God.
April 18 2009 7:53 PM EDT
My complaint isn't with the story, but rather the source. Global warming falls into the same category of science as evolution -- scientists can't test the theory on demand, so anyone with an opinion can come up with a loose argument. In the end, you're left with biased people trying desperately to argue for their own opinions' sakes rather than for the sake of truth. At least evolution has pretty clear proof behind it.
Personally, I think that global warming is very much real, but not remotely as worrisome as the doomsday warnings pretend. It's a shame I have to question the sources, but Fox News is banned from my list.
That site is about as looney as you can get.
April 18 2009 8:21 PM EDT
Considering those who brought up Faux news.
April 18 2009 8:22 PM EDT
Fox is by far the most blatant news station for bias. I haven't watched it in a while, tv not hooked up, but when I have it usually takes ~10 minutes for someone on the network to say something completely stupid or at least slanted.
There have been times where they discredited people by altering their photos etc.
The only other news sources with the same reports are, "The Australian" "right-centre" according to wikipedia, and "The Economic Times".
So tell me how that story is probably not slanted somehow?
For the record most of my news comes from AP & Reuters
April 18 2009 8:23 PM EDT
^Sorry, that's the same Ice growing report
April 18 2009 8:30 PM EDT
I will say this once.
Fox is the counter to MSNBC, which is as left wing as you can get.
However, is anyone disputing the actual facts of this story?
That is the Australian side of the ice shelf is at its thickest in years.
The Wilkins ice shelf is in the news almost every month, however, it is only a small part of the total ice shelf. Something the left wing radical news organizations never type about.
"However, is anyone disputing the actual facts of this story?"
i think that is the point of most of the posts. there is a definitive lack of facts from that "news" source. hyperbole and exaggeration seems to be more of the order of the day. hmm... ; )
April 18 2009 8:40 PM EDT
So what actually is in dispute in THIS exact story?
Is anyone disputing that the Australian side of the ice shelf is getting thicker?
Is anyone disputing the fact that the losses on one side are compensated by the losses on the other?
I have yet to see anyone dispute the facts, just trying to slander the source. From what I have seen, typical MO of the left wing.
Almost all the articles I see about global warming only look at one side of the ice shelf. So what exactly in THIS story is in dispute?
""news" source. hyperbole and exaggeration seems to be more of the order of the day. hmm..."
Do tell where you get your honest and straight forward news from.
April 18 2009 8:52 PM EDT
Slander, or more generically, FUD, is used by both radical sides, not just the left, Ranger. Your bias is showing in that regard.
Hating blind fanaticism and bias? That's good. Hating fanaticism and bias, but only on one side? That's inconsistent and hypocritical.
(my comments have nothing to do with the actual article, I'm just speaking about posts I see on the thread...)
"Do tell where you get your honest and straight forward news from."
why? i am not the one claiming anything as fact in the forums of an internet game and attempting to disprove scientific theories. i am also not posting news stories trying to prove the other side either.
my post was actually a joke regarding the fact that sut often chided ranger for using exaggeration and hyperbole in many of his debates regarding cb game mechanics. that is why i ended it the way i did and with the smiley.
If I wasn't on dial-up I would do what I recommend you do, google it.
April 18 2009 8:55 PM EDT
I know it is on both side.
Part of the reason for my post.
But again, aside from ones bias towards the left or right, where is the inaccuracies in this particular article?
I am still waiting to see that.
And FYI, I read both MSNBC and Foxnews for my daily news coverage.
And I am able to filter the garbage both sources deal out. But as you know, my views are more towards the right in most things.
Marlfish, I haven't watched Fox for some time but I did recently see a clip of O'Reilly on newswipe where he describes the protesters at the recent G20 "as consisting of 3 groups of loons, anti capitalists who want universal communism, environmental extremists who have a litany of complaints and anti war folks who want to give peace a chance while Bin Laden and his crew cut off peoples heads"
Fair? um no.
"I read both MSNBC and Foxnews for my daily news coverage."
I watch both, but yeah, that's how it should be.
Ranger, just because someone is biased, doesn't mean every single thing they say is biased. The same can be said about the news networks, just because most of their stories are biased, doesn't mean every single article will be. As far as facts, who knows.
I wouldn't trust it though. Find the answers yourself, they are out there.
My local news reported on a story for about 7 months. My friend being the highlight. Over that 7 month period, I watched daily as lie after blatant lie (downright lie, no bias, just wrong) was spewed not only on the air, but on their website as well. (The local news station really didn't like my friend)
Not all the local stations, just one.
That being said, don't be shocked when you're outright LIED to.
If you want a really funny clip I suggest you youtube: Jon Stewart vs. MSNBC
You'll be looking for the clip where Jon Stewart calls out the guy from mad money or whatever, and sits him down, and completely obliterates him.
A very very good watch.
Even if ice is building up on Antarctica, what then is making the ocean water level rise? Not only that, take a look at the weather systems within the past 8 years and you'll see a trend of unordinary events. by June 1, 2007, tornado occurrences exceeded the historical annual average of 787 - in less than half a year. Many species are dying off due to rising temperatures. A U.N Environment Programme report in 2005 that included data from 15 of the largest financial institutions estimated that weather related damage losses will exceed 1 trillion by 2040 A.D. up from 210 billion in 2005. "By the end of the 21st century, large portions of the Earth's surface may experience climates not found at present, and some 20th-century climates may disappear . . . Novel climates are projected to develop primarily in the tropics and subtropics." -quote by scientist Jack Wilson.
With all this in mind, someone tell me global warming is not an issue and that we humans can go along merrily ever after with no care in the world about our sustaining and live-giving mother Earth?
I got this when I clicked on Ranger's link "This web site at antimalware-scannerv2.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences." Did anyone else get this?
April 18 2009 11:54 PM EDT
Well there are some apparant problems here, one is that someone puts up one reporting and think that cracks the whole idea about global warming, global warming is so complex and hard to actually "prove". I think thats because some people want to take anything that puts some dents into the idea of global warming and declare a full victory, well that doesnt make it/them right, but its somewhat disturbing.
Secondly, MSNBC isn't "as left as you get". They might back the democrats in the US but thats like saying that the least supportive minister that Hitler had was on the left, allright, thats a bit extreme, but still making a point. You should give social-democracy a shot ;)
April 19 2009 12:04 AM EDT
I would say I hate Fox News but I've never watched it.
Do yourselves a favor and forget to pay your cable bill. :P
April 19 2009 1:14 AM EDT
"I have yet to see anyone dispute the facts,"
I cannot dispute the statements set forth in the article. Frankly, I'm not an expert in the subject.
But regardless of whether ice volume has "remained stable" as actually quoted by Ian Allison, or increased according to Faux News, it doesn't change the facts asserted in my article (oh no! The Liberals!) that the north pole has been melting for some time. At best, this "balances out." But if Antarctica has indeed "remained stable," it means a net loss of ice. If you dispute the facts there, let me know, and back it up with some sources. Like I said, I'm not an expert. But when the vast majority of the scientific community backs the idea of global warming as a problem, and those that don't are usually employees of energy companies, and sea levels in certain parts of the globe are rising, I get a bit suspicious.
And I still don't have any idea what this has to do with MSNBC. You were really the first person to mention them here. It's not like anyone brought them up as a counter to Faux, until you did.
"If you want a really funny clip I suggest you youtube: Jon Stewart vs. MSNBC You'll be looking for the clip where Jon Stewart calls out the guy from mad money or whatever, and sits him down, and completely obliterates him."
Cramer was from CNBC, a much more right-wing branch of the conglomerate.
Would Australia's CCS program be related counter bias of the future?
Fear not clean coal! Fear the 6 billion gas bags flooding the eco-ball with carbon, methane, and hot air! Bomb terrorist doom bunkers there so they have to find caves here!
The Fox news slogan doesn't make me laugh when a large part of a declining world superpower preaches their truth. =(
April 19 2009 4:58 AM EDT
you've just entered the no-spin zone
April 19 2009 8:06 AM EDT
Yeah, I'm so left wing radical - haha.
I told you what I read for news. It's not MSNBC either.
I told you I checked who reported the story as well.
As for the facts of the story, it sounds to me, yet still - inconclusive. If you must know why, it's because studies get done with conflicting data all the time, and some are wrong. Until I actually read the methods of the study, I can't dispute the facts only the reputation of the source.
However, I am suspicious that it seems like one newspaper ran one story about one researcher with a conflicting opinion, and Fox cherry-picks and headlines it. Why am I suspicious? because no other news station reported it, and Fox has done this before countless times.
In fact, a few weeks ago - College Newspaper runs as a joke that Beer Pong spreads herpes; Local News picks it up; FOX picks it up and airs nationally. Some news team.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002j2b">Global Warming this!!</a>