Faux News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DavesAlt"] Yes yes we know this already.Serraph105

That's extreme.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. DavesAlt

Yeah, KC_Hokie talking about global warming is like Mitt Romney talking about human emotions, they have no idea what they're talking about.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I'm simply pointing out that's an extreme viewpoint of global warming.KC_Hokie

That's extreme.

No it's not, it's the truth. Go smoke out with all your Gary Johnson buddies and come back when you're ready to have an intelligent discussion about global warming i.e. never.

This is their official stance on global warming....it's as biased as it gets: "The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impactssuch as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughtsare already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions."

KC_Hokie

All of that is supported by the science (except, as I said, possibly the bit about national security on account of national security being a pretty nebulous term), and, frankly, are common sense concequences of anthropogenic global warming.

C'mon hokie, make an effort here.

The report was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists....a hardcore man-made global warming group. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

This is their official stance on global warming....it's as biased as it gets: "The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impactssuch as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughtsare already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions."

Slow_Show

All of that is supported by the science (except, as I said, possibly the bit about national security on account of national security being a pretty nebulous term), and, frankly, are common sense concequences of anthropogenic global warming.

C'mon hokie, make an effort here.

Yeah Hokie, at least post a graph that shows humans are impacting climate change and then tell us how it shows that humans aren't impacting climate change.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] perhaps the truth of global warming is that it has extreme consequences and the truth reflects that.theone86

That's extreme.

No it's not, it's the truth. Go smoke out with all your Gary Johnson buddies and come back when you're ready to have an intelligent discussion about global warming i.e. never.

The mainstream climate scientist says humans may be contributing to climate change...to what extent is debatable. Adaptation is the key for the future not drastic and expensive plans that do practically nothing. And since when have politicians and bureaucrats been able to solve worldwide problem. That's a completely unrealistic pipe dream.

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

This is their official stance on global warming....it's as biased as it gets: "The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impactssuch as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughtsare already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions."

theone86

All of that is supported by the science (except, as I said, possibly the bit about national security on account of national security being a pretty nebulous term), and, frankly, are common sense concequences of anthropogenic global warming.

C'mon hokie, make an effort here.

Yeah Hokie, at least post a graph that shows humans are impacting climate change and then tell us how it shows that humans aren't impacting climate change.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

All of that is supported by the science (except, as I said, possibly the bit about national security on account of national security being a pretty nebulous term), and, frankly, are common sense concequences of anthropogenic global warming.

C'mon hokie, make an effort here.

KC_Hokie

Yeah Hokie, at least post a graph that shows humans are impacting climate change and then tell us how it shows that humans aren't impacting climate change.

Inb4 KC_Hokie posts a graph which disproves his argument.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah Hokie, at least post a graph that shows humans are impacting climate change and then tell us how it shows that humans aren't impacting climate change.

HoolaHoopMan

You don't have to be a scientist to see something is wrong with a hypothesis if predictions based on that hypothesis are always way off.

The people want graphs, KCDavesAlt

My whole point though is the source of the study is equally biased if not more.

No predictions based on the man-made global warming hypothesis have come true. They've been making predictions for 15 years and they're always way off.

You don't have to be a scientist to see something is wrong with a hypothesis if predictions based on that hypothesis are always way off.

KC_Hokie

Predictions like the Arctic Ice sheets melting? How has that not come true?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

No predictions based on the man-made global warming hypothesis have come true. They've been making predictions for 15 years and they're always way off.

You don't have to be a scientist to see something is wrong with a hypothesis if predictions based on that hypothesis are always way off.

HoolaHoopMan

Predictions like the Arctic Ice sheets melting? How has that not come true?

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"]The people want graphs, KCKC_Hokie

My whole point though is the source of the study is equally biased if not more.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

No predictions based on the man-made global warming hypothesis have come true. They've been making predictions for 15 years and they're always way off.

You don't have to be a scientist to see something is wrong with a hypothesis if predictions based on that hypothesis are always way off.

KC_Hokie

Predictions like the Arctic Ice sheets melting? How has that not come true?

I feel rather confident to say that KC_Hokie is a troll.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Predictions like the Arctic Ice sheets melting? How has that not come true?

HoolaHoopMan

And like I said every prediction based on human CO2 has been way off.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No...predictions like X amount of human CO2 will cause Y amount of temperature increase. They've been wrong 100% of the time. KC_Hokie

And like I said every prediction based on human CO2 has been way off.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] You said predictions, I just gave you one. HoolaHoopMan

And like I said every prediction based on human CO2 has been way off.

I feel rather confident to say that KC_Hokie is a troll.

Brosephus_Rex

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

I feel rather confident to say that KC_Hokie is a troll.

DavesAlt

I love comparing the IPCC's predictions and reality. Something is obviously very wrong with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

I love comparing the IPCC's predictions and reality. Something is obviously very wrong with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

KC_Hokie

[citation needed]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

I love comparing the IPCC's predictions and reality. Something is obviously very wrong with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

chessmaster1989

[citation needed]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

I love comparing the IPCC's predictions and reality. Something is obviously very wrong with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

KC_Hokie

[citation needed]

I meant a link...

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[citation needed]

chessmaster1989

I meant a link...

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]IPCC reportsKC_Hokie

I meant a link...

Not that hard to provide a link...

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I meant a link...

chessmaster1989

Not that hard to provide a link...

The IPCC data comes from the IPCC reports.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The IPCC data comes from the IPCC reports.KC_Hokie

Someone remind me again what the other media organization mentioned in the OP was?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The IPCC data comes from the IPCC reports.Slow_Show

Someone remind me again what the other media organization mentioned in the OP was?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The IPCC data comes from the IPCC reports.Slow_Show

Someone remind me again what the other media organization mentioned in the OP was?

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The IPCC data comes from the IPCC reports.Serraph105

Someone remind me again what the other media organization mentioned in the OP was?

Um, for projections of something as variable as climate (in the year-to-year sense of the term, not the long-term data actually relevant to climate change) that actually looks pretty okay? IPCC 1990 is obviously off, but the others are all reasonably close to the overall warming trend shown by the graph (especially considering the lack of error bars).

What I find more interesting, though, is the "HadCRUT3" down in the bottom left corner, since the "CRU" there stands for Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (AKA the climategate people). Not only does that beg the question of why climate skeptics suddenly find the CRU to be a trustworthy source of data, but it also means we can take a look at the straight HadCRUT3 data itself, and, well, it kind of looks like this:

link

Also, surprise surprise, the op-ed you linked to has been thoroughly debunked.

Um, for projections of something as variable as climate (in the year-to-year sense of the term, not the long-term data actually relevant to climate change) that actually looks pretty okay? IPCC 1990 is obviously off, but the others are all reasonably close to the overall warming trend shown by the graph (especially considering the lack of error bars).

What I find more interesting, though, is the "HadDCRUT3" down in the bottom left corner, since the "CRU" there stands for Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (AKA the climategate people). Not only does that beg the question of why climate skeptics suddenly find the CRU to be a trustworthy source of data, but it also means we can take a look at the straight HadCRUT3 data itself, and, well, it kind of looks like this:

link

Also, surprise surprise, the op-ed you linked to has been thoroughly debunked.

Slow_Show

Those aren't the IPCC predictions! Look at the actual IPCC reports and their predictions. They are way off every time. KC_Hokie

Covered in the second link, broski. The graph I posted was more about how the data being used in your graph demonstrated a clear and frankly kinda scary warming trend. For the IPCC thing:

FAR being First Action Report (1990), SAR being Second Action Report (1995/6), etc.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Those aren't the IPCC predictions! Look at the actual IPCC reports and their predictions. They are way off every time. Slow_Show

Covered in the link, broski. The graph I posted was more about how the data being used in your graph demonstrated a clear and frankly kinda scary warming trend. For the IPCC thing:

FAR being First Action Report (1990), SAR being Second Action Report (1995/6), etc.

Yea, the IPCC predictions have all been wrong. That's my point!KC_Hokie

C'mon hokie, what did I say about putting in a little effort? Even someone with your ability to creatively interpret graphs can grasp how trends and averages work.

The "!" undermines your seriousness.DavesAlt

And when a computer model is consistently wrong...something is wrong with your input or assumptions. In this case the current man-made global warming hypothesis is wrong.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea, the IPCC predictions have all been wrong. That's my point!Slow_Show

C'mon hokie, what did I say about putting in a little effort? Even someone with your ability to creatively interpret graphs can grasp how trends and averages work.

This is utterly surreal to watch. And I think I've said that before.Abbeten

I agree. Strange no one else noticed the IPCC's models predicting doom and gloom are consistently proven wrong.KC_Hokie

Hokie, effort. IPCC SAR, while still generally on trend, slightlyunderestimates the amount of warming.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I agree. Strange no one else noticed the IPCC's models predicting doom and gloom are consistently proven wrong.Slow_Show

Hokie, effort. IPCC SAR, while still generally on trend, slightlyunderestimates the amount of warming.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]This is utterly surreal to watch. And I think I've said that before.KC_Hokie