Australian Politics Forum - Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Apr 19^th, 2012 at 9:12am

Quote:

Brulle has been following television news coverage of climate change on the three major network stations -- NBC, ABC and CBS -- for decades. Last year, he found that the number of stories on climate change in the three nightly news broadcasts fell by more than half, from 32 stories in 2010 to 14 stories in 2011, and was way down from the peak of 147 stories in 2007.

The amount of air time also dropped by nearly two-thirds, said Brulle, from 90 minutes and 28 seconds in 2010 to 32 minutes and 20 seconds in 2011.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/home-garden-articles/earth-and-you/us-climate-cove...

We can only hope the weird weather they are experiencing over there might pique the interest of those responsible for the news. Perhaps then it might become news fit to broadcast. I find this trend disturbing to say the least.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #1 - Apr 19^th, 2012 at 3:33pm Not a bad thing. A carbon price, affecting all of the legal economies drive chain, will take time and be news in itself. No worries here!!! Australia is leading the world, well, apart from Europe! WE SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF OURSELVES!!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #2 - Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:47pm Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #3 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:10am Progressiveslol feels it is much better for people to remain ignorant. It's a blessing he would like to share.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #4 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:19am

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling.

2. The world has always experienced climate change.

3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear.

A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival? Undecided

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #5 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:53am MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:10am: Progressiveslol feels it is much better for people to remain ignorant. It's a blessing he would like to share. progressiveslol is irrelevant/has no say as BUSINESS IS BUSINESS!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Johnsmith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4716 Gender:	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #6 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:57am progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:47pm: Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong. Ingnorance is bliss ... ain't that right progressive?
Back to top	When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look. (Malcolm Turncoat) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #7 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:59am

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling.

2. The world has always experienced climate change.

3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear.

A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival? Undecided

Business Acumen isn't necessarily about strategically ripping people off/[b]getting-as-many-subsidies-from-the-taxpayer-as-you-can-whilst-privatising-the-re
sulting-profits ![/b]

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #8 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling.

2. The world has always experienced climate change.

3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear.

A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival? Undecided

We should be afraid, Uncle Meat. The world is warming, we're responsible and the consequences are dire. What people forget is that some wolves are real.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #9 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:24pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

We should be afraid, ...

It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

The world is warming, ...

Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... we're responsible ...

Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis. And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... and the consequences are dire..

Not necessarily so. It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

What people forget is that some wolves are real.

Absolutely. However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real. Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #10 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:30pm

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:47pm:

Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong.

Ingnorance is bliss ... ain't that right progressive?

I cant tell if you feel blissful, you may have to confirm.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #11 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:37pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

We should be afraid, ...

It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

The world is warming, ...

Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... we're responsible ...

Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis. And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... and the consequences are dire..

Not necessarily so. It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

What people forget is that some wolves are real.

Absolutely. However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real. Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

...you're a shyster!!

Business is business I suppose but that doesn't mean I have to buy!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Uncle Meat Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2434 Tasmania Gender:	Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US. Reply #12 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:55pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:37pm: ...you're a shyster!! Your ability to structure a cohesive argument is outstanding.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #13 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

We should be afraid, ...

It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

The world is warming, ...

Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate).

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... we're responsible ...

Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis. And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... and the consequences are dire..

Not necessarily so. It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

What people forget is that some wolves are real.

Absolutely. However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real. Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That focusses a lot of attention on the papers that don't. I'd love you to point me to the papers that you believe have stood up to rigorous analysis. I'm yet to find one that gives us an excuse to not act on the warnings that keep and keep on coming.

I'm posting a lengthy video which I hope you might take the time to watch. I apologise for it's length, but it will perhaps help you understand the position I have taken and why I believe we must act now to reduce atmospheric CO2.

Barry Bickmore is Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University. His research specialties are low-temperature geochemistry and geoscience education. In this presentation, he discusses how he moved from being a climate change "skeptic" to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. He then discusses how it is that people like him can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Uncle Meat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male

Re: Coverage of Global Warming falls in the US.
Reply #14 - Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Back to top

IP Logged