Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Categories: '

(166) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Matthew

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM

   he Met Office, there has been a cooling trend for the last 15-16 years, which Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has admitted to, though he declared that a 15 year trend is not a trend, even though global warming is based on the 15 year trend that occured before it.

   “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

   Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

   BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

   Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

   Go on, Stan, show me the part where he said there’s a ‘cooling trend.’ I’m waiting for a single human being here to show me data that 2000 – 2009 was cooler than 1990 – 1999. Do you not understand the meaning of the word trend?

2. Stan T

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:05 PM

   Mark2
   Posted January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM
   ^MSNBC had the highest rating increases of any Cable News network.

   ************************************
   The problem is that MSNBC only has a third to a fourth the viewers of Fox News…so a smaller increase for Fox News means a heck of a lot more viewers than a big rise for MSNBC…but then, MSNBC is falling right back to the mediocre viewership they had before…notice not one MSNBC show broke 1 mil…which is where they were a year ago…attempting to break a million viewers…

3. Matthew

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM

   We could use DNA to prove or disprove evolution.

   BTW, it’s too late for that. You cannot ‘disprove evolution,’ it is an observable, scientific fact that evolution occurs. If you believe otherwise, feel free to read about antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

4. Stan T

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM

   Bsotgnw
   Posted January 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM
   Andies: You confuse FOX NEWS with FOX, Hanity is not News. Bret is news Shep is news the rest is entertainment

   *********************************************
   Andies confuses MSNBC with news…there isn’t a single new program on MSNBC they are all OPINION SHOWS…and their opinions are worth about half a cent…combined…

5. Mark

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM

   @Bobbyv
   ————————–
   I seem to remember some D’s on Fox on election night
   ————————–

   MSNBC had a couple Republicans(the former head of the RNC and campaign manager of John McCain) on election night does that make them balanced?

6. Stan T

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:18 PM

   Matthew
   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM
   he Met Office, there has been a cooling trend for the last 15-16 years, which Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has admitted to, though he declared that a 15 year trend is not a trend, even though global warming is based on the 15 year trend that occured before it.

   “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

   Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

   BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

   Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

   Go on, Stan, show me the part where he said there’s a ‘cooling trend.’ I’m waiting for a single human being here to show me data that 2000 – 2009 was cooler than 1990 – 1999. Do you not understand the meaning of the word trend?

   ********************************************
   You only read what you want to read…
   Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect:

   “We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.”

   SO he admits their models are imperfect and inaccurate…plus if you bothered to look at the chart recently released, it shows that the the temperature is NOT rising…

7. AppleStinx

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM

   Yes! Sub-freezing temperatures tonight with precipitation, maybe snow on the ground, only for the second time in the past 20 years.

8. Matthew

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:38 PM

   SO he admits their models are imperfect and inaccurate…plus if you bothered to look at the chart recently released, it shows that the the temperature is NOT rising…

   ‘Imperfect’ is not the same as wrong, and again, both you and the article fail to make the case that he said we’re in a cooling trend. That’s a phrase that is repeated here several times over (We’re actually in a cooling trend!), and is never verified by the data. 2000 – 2009 was warmer than the 1990s, which were were warmer than the 1980s, which were warmer than the 1970s. You have done nothing to refute this basic assertion.

9. Matthew

   Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM

   Welp, that fulfills my contractual obligation to get engaged in a completely pointless and endless non-expert argument with other non-experts about AGW for this month. That’ll be enough for me

10. Mark2

    Posted January 9, 2013 at 10:16 PM

    Liberal News rules TV and the Internet.

11. AppleStinx

    Posted January 9, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    Snow Surfin’ Matador

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv6ZIFaIsCU

12. Mark2

    Posted January 9, 2013 at 10:52 PM

    I just found this on the TVNewser site.

    Daily average for Broadcast Networks:

    NBC Nightly News = 8,896,000

    ABC World News = 8,475,000

    CBS Evening News = 7,241,000

    –Now I see why Obama won and Fox News failed in getting a Republican elected in the last 2 Presidential Elections.

13. Matthew

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:05 AM

    Suffering a bit of shift-work induced insomnia. Dang.

    Anyway, I don’t know how I missed this, but:

    You jump right to it being a belief not science. It’s scientific theory. Supported by the fact that life can not be created. The science of DNA has proven it. I.D. is how life started on earth and evolution is well it’s different things.

    NO, no, a thousand times no. I.D. is not an accepted scientific theory for ‘how life started,’ it’s supported by nothing, and there is nothing to distinguish it from creationism. Absence of a testable, verifiable theory for what ultimately caused lifeless matter to make the jump to ‘life-filled’ matter does not automatically validate your preferred hypothesis. There are multiple hypotheses that allow for the lack of a creator, including RNA world hypothesis, the hypothesis that early storms sparked amino acids to life, etc. It is beyond our means to test any of these at present, which means that none of them meet the threshold of ‘proven science.’ For you to refer to I.D. as such is an extraordinar leap.

14. Letmethink

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 2:56 AM

    Morning All
    Three inches of badly needed rain here in the last 2 days. It has been a slow continous rain that has almost filled our tank.
    @ Matthew
    Do your homework. That petition’s credentials have been thoroughly debunked – signatories have no burden to authenticate their claimed credentials, and even by that very low standard, less than one fourth of signatories even CLAIM to have PHDs, and fewer than 0.5% of signatories even CLAIM to have atmospheric sciences as their area of expertise. In other words, that petition is beyond meaningless, especially in comparison to the bulk of peer-reviewed work (of which, over 97% aligns with AGW theory).

    Good Morning Matthew, I like to debate, not argue or insult but to each his own. I have followed the global warming debate for some time. I remember when we were told we would freeze to death. How quickly things change. As the saying goes “Climate is what you predict. Weather is what happens.”
    I view AGW with a healthy skepticism for many reasons; not the least of which are the people/organizations involved and the amount of money on the line.
    There is a plethora of evidence supporting AGW but I would agree with Cathy that politics and money strongly influence the debate. I point to the falsified data in Climate Gate. Have you read the Climate Gate emails? They alone should give most people enough reason to be skeptical. It is well documented and mentioned often in those emails that those who have opposing views are to be denied research grants and are not to be allowed to publish in scientific journals? Here is just one of the emails indicating they were falsifying the data to exaggerate the global temperatures:
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90.
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich

15. 1966

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 3:04 AM

    good morning
    bbl

16. Letmethink

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 3:26 AM

    @Matthew (continued)

    In addition to fraud and manipulation of data, another area of concern is in regard to surface data collection. The number of stations collecting data has declined over the past 20 years. After the USSR disintegrated the Siberian monitoring system (a very integral part of the monitoring system) was dismantled. After 1990 there is little monitoring from China. The majority of monitoring stations are in the US. Additionally most of the monitoring stations are on land even though the ocean occupies more area. So we don’t really get a global representation of temperature.
    How accurate are the monitoring stations? You may remember this kerfuffle about surface temp measurement several years ago:
    “Temp record is unreliable
    We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
    In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.” (Watts 2009)
    Finally, the use of carbon credit offset as a remedial policy is dubious at best. Global corruption is already well documented. Look on NYT site and read article on Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a harmful gas. 3.3 million carbon credits were stolen from the ET ETS in 2011. Gaming the system is in full force. (Many articles about this in NYT) Ca

17. Sam

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 3:56 AM

    @ Cathy,

    If you’re talking about the earth periodic temperatures, that takes centuries for it to happen.

    Meaning that the increase in Earth’s temperature that we have caused from 1980 to 2012 would have taken 100′s of years to naturally occur. We instead achieved it in 22 years due to us contributing in polluting the environment. There are also short term periodic changes such as El Nino, I’m not talking about those. I’m taking about the consistent increase of temperature decade after decade since we industrialized the globe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE

18. Letmethink

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 3:57 AM

    @Matthew last post and then I quit. I think you had a good idea from one of your posts last night–something like–from one non-expert to another–enough.
    You mentioned stats from thinkprogress debunking the scientist skeptical of AGW and you stated that 97 % agree with AGW. In the report that you cited indicating 97% of the researchers support IPCC conclusions there were 1372 climate scientist involved. Fifty percent of those in the survey work for IPCC. Wouldn’t independents outside of their organization be more reliable? It seems this would skew the results. Then go down to the fine print marked Supplemental. The numbers are 903 climate researchers supporting and 472 strongly opposed. Maybe I am looking at this wrong–probably am– but how did they get 97% approve out of that?
    In regards to the credentials of the scientist signing the petition being debunked; if you look at the list and google as many as you have time, you will find many are from reputable universities and renowned research institution. They come from an interdisciplinary combination of computer modeling, atmospheric science, natural science and engineering—not just atmospheric science. Atmospheric science is but one of the disciplines involved in global warming studies.
    Have a great day all!!

19. d.d.

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 4:19 AM

    Good morning everyone ,

    I had to do a double take to see that Sam posted in the morning.

    —————

    Yesterday was nice & warm , but, gray & rainy . When I was on the road , a car drove toward me with LED headlights. The glare was so harsh that the light distorted my vision. That got me thinking about the new light bulb mandate .

    Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances. For example, low-intensity red LEDs, which were found to contain up to eight times the amount of lead, a known neurotoxin, and which, according to researchers, “exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead.” Meanwhile, white LEDs contain the least lead, but still harbor large amounts of nickel, another heavy metal that causes allergic reactions in as many as one in five of us upon exposure. And the copper found in some LEDs can pose an environmental threat if it accumulates in rivers and lakes where it can poison aquatic life.

    Don’t break one, but , if you do, sweep them up while wearing gloves and a mask, and disposing of the debris — and even the broom — as hazardous waste. Also, find a place that accepts this hazardous waste after you’ve cleaned up.

    Back to the headlights… if a crew is cleaning up an accident in which LED headlights are broken, protocol calls for wearing protective clothing and handling material as hazardous waste.

    Lately, we’ve been advised not to sit close to these lights because of the chance of damage from ultraviolet radiation.

    The EPA had to fast track LED lights before being fully tested. I noticed that G.E. makes a lot of LED lights which may , or ,may not, be relevant but as cathy & letmethink mused , money & politics fit like hand & glove.

    - – -

    Why not these ?

    New plastic light bulbs are cheap, bright, shatterproof, and flicker-free

    These bulbs seem to last forever. Furthermore, these plastic bulbs are about twice as efficient as fluorescent bulbs, on-par with LED bulbs, and — perhaps best of all — they produce a color and quality of light that “can match the solar spectrum perfectly.”

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142086-new-plastic-light-bulbs-are-cheap-bright-shatterproof-and-flicker-free

20. Bobbyv

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 4:38 AM

    Mark
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM
    @Bobbyv
    ————————–
    I seem to remember some D’s on Fox on election night
    ————————–

    MSNBC had a couple Republicans(the former head of the RNC and campaign manager of John McCain) on election night does that make them balanced?

    ——————————

    Only responding to a point that they were all upset about the R’s losing when there were people there calling out Rove

    BBL