'

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, January 10, 2013

Categories: '

Written By

January 11th, 2013

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, January 10, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC        1,197        258         468
CNN           370        110         151
MSNBC           520        149         240
CNBC           148         42           73
FBN             53           7           25
HLN           198         99         113
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC        2,201        398         804
CNN           640        182         270
MSNBC           979        257         455
CNBC           143         81           67
FBN             60         12           23
HLN           371        158         194
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends           988        234         422
CNN Early Start/Starting Point           258         92         114
MSNBC Morning Joe           437        139         237
CNBC Squawk Box           125         36           66
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade           212        153         164
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE        2,129        423         855
CNN Situation Room           596        149         170
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           954        228         404
CNBC FAST MONEY           214         31           85
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           101         32           32
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER        2,152        342         786
CNN Situation Room           428        168         176
MSNBC POLITICS NATION           805        190         334
CNBC Mad Money           162         71         107
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           158         56           89
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH        1,704        310         628
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           429        158         170
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           853        222         358
CNBC Kudlow Report             96         22           38
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL           275        100         139
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        3,162        587       1,160
CNN Anderson Cooper 360           611        170         255
MSNBC Ed Show        1,035        228         452
CNBC PIXAR STORY             91         37           34
HLN Nancy Grace           456        170         275
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity        2,005        377         737
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight           783        188         317
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show           982        291         476
CNBC PIXAR STORY           143         88           57
HLN What Would You Do           365        172         158
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,401 225 498
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 528 186 238
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL 914 253 433
CNBC AMERICAN GREED 196 119 110
HLN What Would You Do 292 132 150
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        1,151        323         525
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           347        123         154
MSNBC Ed Show           422        148         224
CNBC Mad Money           114         63           76
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT           264        108         143

-
For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)

CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs

CNBC: 97.497 million HHs

FNC: 97.981 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs

Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs

60

 
  • Matthew

    Just one more for the day, I promise. IM NOT AN ADDICT

    By all means show us where Piekle Sr or Watts says CO2 is the main cause of GW. You ramble about what HB does or doesn’t do & never once mention CO2. Stop speaking for me!

    From Pielke Sr., in his article “Erroneous Presentation of My Views on Climate In the Media:”

    “As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!”

    Note that I didn’t mention CO2, I said human activity. AGW is not just about CO2.

    I’ll grant you that Watt’s comment is a bit more gray, and doesn’t specifically give primary significance to human activity:

    (From his interview with PBS)
    “And so now I’m in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.”

  • Letmethink

    Matthew–Of course I am. I’m human, aren’t I?
    That is pretty hypocritical to get on your high horse and demean and accuse others of what you are guilty.
    Thanks Hillbilly for setting the record straight on Pielke and Watts.
    Actually, do you want to debate the theory of gravity or the law. Theories change and laws don’t. There is still debate going on about dark matter.

    @Hillbilly–no bulldog but cats. How do you feel about cats?
    Have a good one all–Enough for tonight.

  • 1966

  • Matthew

    That is pretty hypocritical to get on your high horse and demean and accuse others of what you are guilty.

    My very first sentence in my original confirmation bias post says ‘we’re all guilty of this at times,’ so I don’t see what you’re talking about. I didn’t meant to imply I’m guilty of that in this debate, merely that we all fall short on occasion. I stand behind my accusation – you are not ‘debating’ this issue honestly, and you’re not a skeptic.

    It was you, days ago, who said that temperature records show ‘some cooling.’ This is not a matter of opinion, it’s not a viewpoint, its wrong. It’s false. By revised records, by further downward revisions by ‘skeptics,’ by any standard at all, it is false. There were cooling cycles, AKA La Nina in the 2000s, and even those cooling cycle years were warmer than any year in the 1990s except for 1998, the exceptionally hot El Nino year. The reason I’ve quoted skeptic scientists here over and over is to point out exactly this: even the skeptics don’t agree with what you’re saying.

    Sorry, but you don’t get to say something that’s flat out wrong, and when I call you on it, try to hide behind the “oooh, you just don’t respect people’s opinions” defense, which is all too frequent around here. Not everything, even on very contentious issues, is a matter of opinion.

  • Doug Z

    At least 233 have now died in north India where temperatures are running ten degrees below normal.

  • Mark2

    ^ That’s what climate change is all about you knucklehead…extreme changes in the weather both cold and hot.

  • Hillbilly

    Letmethink
    Posted January 12, 2013 at 1:34 PM
    Hillbilly do you know if he is published? I looked up his posts and they were pretty unpleasant.

    —————————–

    I don’t know if he published on GW. I don’t recall him saying he ever published on anything. He was here before i was so he might of mentioned it before i got here.

  • Hillbilly

    Matthew – Anthony Watts, a ‘meteorologist’ who flunked out of college, and thus has no degree in his field, whose biggest claim to fame is being a blogger.

    ————————

    Who has peer reviewed papers…you seem to always leave that out. Have you debated him on his site? A ‘meteorologist’ who flunked out of college should be easy picking for you.

    It wasn’t revised from warming to cool, it was revised from warming to 20% less warming than expected.

    20% less warming is still colder..ie equals cooling. Technically you have to wait to see the cooling, but its a projected cooling. Just as technically projected warming is not actual warming until it happens.

    In other words, if your fever is 101 degrees today, your doctor predicts it will be 104 degrees by Sunday, and revises it down to 103 degrees, that doesn’t mean you cooled.

    What the heck does it mean then? Is 103 less than 104? His revised projection is for my temp to be lower than he projected. Their projecting cooler temps. On Monday the five day forecast says on Friday it will be 82 degrees. Friday comes & it’s only 80 degrees. Its 2 degrees cooler than they projected. No need to try to spin it into something else.

    Your trying to (my guess) say if the temp doesn’t go below the temp 5 years ago then its not cooling. It doesn’t have to go back to the baseline or below to cool. It has cooled since 2010 for 2 years, but the temp is still above the baseline. Whatever the baseline is. I can’t find anybody who agrees on it. Regardless it has cooled.

    They haven’t ‘failed,’ they’ve overestimated the severity.

    SMH!! Over estimating is not a failure? Try that in the real world & see who claims its a success.

    Now, depending on how important regulatory policy is, that might be a failure to you, but the data itself confirms that AGW is occurring.

    So if they over estimate GW & cause undo regulations & taxes that’s not a failure to you? You will be fine paying (visual numbers ahead) $6 a gallon for gas & a $50 monthly increase in your electric bill, because the data confirmed GW? It doesn’t matter it was confirmed it to high?

    Well golly gee shucks then. Let’s just cut all fed govt spending except defense & SS by 75%. There’s solid evidence (not projected by models that have already been proven to have failed) backed by many economist that the deficit is to be big so its OK. Heck we’re not talking about 50 or 100 years from now. The data is here today no sense in waiting.

    From Pielke Sr., in his article “Erroneous Presentation of My Views on Climate In the Media:”

    I asked for Pielke Sr saying CO2 as the main driver of GW. That was in response to you speaking for me. You then provide evidence he said “radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. I never said CO2 was the only man made thing contributing to GW. My view is a good many of the scientist say CO2 is the main driver.

  • Hillbilly

    Letmethink – @Hillbilly–no bulldog but cats. How do you feel about cats?
    Have a good one all–Enough for tonight.

    ——————–

    I never owned a cat. I don’t see one in my future. My only experience with cats is from other folk’s cats. They didn’t do nothing for me. :???:

  • Hillbilly

    Search “Global Warming: A Fair and Balanced Debate” on you tube. There’s a 59 minute video if you are interested.

    This is what the 3rd(?) time we have beat this horse. It’s fun each time. :) I’m done beating the poor horse for at least a month. :razz: As the last 3 times only time will tell who was right. I’m retreating, running like a scared dog, I’m a hit & run chicken..etc etc. On to the next subject for me..whatever that might be.

    C’ya

  • Jeff

    You really can’t have a climate change debat with folks that link their knowledge to the internet.

    The growing majority will see and feel the effects of climate change in their own environment or on TV broadcasts. But of course the same idiots will say that’s all rigged too. It’s really no longer a debate, it’s simply denial for the sake of what ever small world they choose to live in or silly propaganda information source(Fox) they subscribe too.

    Science and common sense…

    If you turn up the temp in your freezer the ice will melt and food will spoil….

    If you pour toilet bowl cleaner in a glass of water, it will become dangerous for consumption……

    If you smoke a cigar in a room the air will be filled with toxins……

    If you trap sunlight under a mirror it will reflect and heat up the surface below…..

    100 degrees is much hotter than 90 degrees……

    Higher water levels means the water came from some where…..

    To challenge the science is one level of stupidity, to challenge the reality is plain delusional.

  • Letmethink

    Morning All, busy day ahead church and day with family. One of our favorite days of the week.
    Just a quick post and then need to go.
    @Matthew
    My very first sentence in my original confirmation bias post says ‘we’re all guilty of this at times,’ so I don’t see what you’re talking about. I didn’t meant to imply I’m guilty of that in this debate, merely that we all fall short on occasion. I stand behind my accusation – you are not ‘debating’ this issue honestly, and you’re not a skeptic.

    “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
    Four.
    Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”?— Abraham Lincoln
    Just because you say I am not debating honestly and say that I am not a skeptic does not make it so. That is your opinion.
    I wasn’t implying that you were guilty of confirmation bias. I was stating that you are guilty of it while accusing others of it.

  • Letmethink

    @Matthew
    It was you, days ago, who said that temperature records show ‘some cooling.’ This is not a matter of opinion, it’s not a viewpoint, its wrong. It’s false

    From Dr. Fred Singer
    The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled – a total of 184 months. This cooling trend took place during a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
    This slight cooling trend is opposite of what the IPCC (and NASA’s James Hansen) predicted for global temperatures.
    The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it’s very difficult to eliminate this–what’s called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites.

  • Letmethink

    @Matthew (more)

    From BBC dated 9 October 2009
    For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
    But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
    To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

  • Letmethink

    @Matthew (More:)
    The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published – this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent
    Over the last 180 months (15 years) the atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase at a rapid pace, but the globe (land and ocean) has cooled during that same time.
    For the 15-year period ending September 30, 2012, the world experienced a very slight cooling trend of -0.12°C per century.
    In contrast, for the 15-year period ending September 1997, the globe was warming at a +1.18°C pace.

  • Letmethink

    @Matthew Sorry, but you don’t get to say something that’s flat out wrong, and when I call you on it, try to hide behind the “oooh, you just don’t respect people’s opinions” defense, which is all too frequent around here. Not everything, even on very contentious issues, is a matter of opinion.

    Again, that is your opinion based on your confirmation bias that what I stated was wrong. I have presented sources above to support what I stated. You may disagree with data I present or not have confidence in the source. I am good with that as I have little confidence in many of the sources you use.
    I’m not hiding behind anything Matthew. You started your sentence “With all due respect” and I was simply pointing out that you are generally not respectful of others opinions if they don’t agree with yours.
    BTW hope your dog is still doing well.
    Bye All
    Have a great day!!

  • Letmethink

    Hey Hllbilly just saw your post. I will see my step daughter at church today.Can’t wait to see what she says when I tell her I just set her up on line–

  • Letmethink

    I’m right behind you Hillbilly after this one last post

    @Matthew They haven’t ‘failed,’ they’ve overestimated the severity.
    Whatever you want to call it, up to 2011 they failed 11 of 12 times–always too high.

  • Matthew

    Who has peer reviewed papers…you seem to always leave that out. Have you debated him on his site? A ‘meteorologist’ who flunked out of college should be easy picking for you.

    I haven’t made a career out of presenting myself as an ‘expert’ in a field. I’m saying that his opinion has far, far, far less credence than the people he’s criticizing, so why should he be treated as an equally valid source?

    20% less warming is still colder..ie equals cooling. Technically you have to wait to see the cooling, but its a projected cooling. Just as technically projected warming is not actual warming until it happens.

    No, Hillbilly. No. There’s just no way around this: You are scientifically and statistically illiterate. I’m not calling you stupid, but your knowledge of the subject is shallow, and you are saying something that is simply incorrect.

    The revised projection is above the 2000 – 2009 decadal anomaly, but not as far above it as originally forecast. GET IT? That’s why I made the fever comparison – 103 is less than 104, but greater than 101. It’s not just above the long-term average, it’s above the near decadal average. That’s not cooling.

    SMH!! Over estimating is not a failure? Try that in the real world & see who claims its a success.

    This is my mistake for taking what you said at face value, instead of arguing it: you were, in fact, incorrect. I’m pretty sure Boris posted a graph of this before, but this will have to do. Here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/model10.jpg

    See the large gray cone? That’s an aggregate of all the models run for projected temperature scenarios, from the high range to the low range, and as you can see, actual temperatures over that same period have remained in that range. So no, the projections aren’t ‘failing.’

    So if they over estimate GW & cause undo regulations & taxes that’s not a failure to you? You will be fine paying (visual numbers ahead) $6 a gallon for gas & a $50 monthly increase in your electric bill, because the data confirmed GW? It doesn’t matter it was confirmed it to high?

    No, because, AS I SAY EVERY TIME WE HAVE THIS DEBATE, I don’t believe in fossil fuel taxes or the Kyoto Protocol – I believe in investment in technological progression. Having said that, I don’t see why your argument doesn’t apply to inaction. Okay, the projections are wrong, we enter a period of cooling, and you’ve paid higher energy costs for nothing. Now, what if the opposite is true? What if it gets worse, and worse, and worse, and we’ve done nothing, because voters placed confidence in the shoddy science of skeptics?

  • Matthew

    From Dr. Fred Singer
    The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled – a total of 184 months.

    False. Why are you taking Singer’s word for it, instead of looking at the RSS data for yourself? The RSS decadal trend is positive, as in greater than zero, as in ‘not cooling.’

    All of your cited sources make the same mendacious argument, because they are counting on their target audience not understanding the data, and that’s especially disappointing from Fred Singer. He even gives the game away in his statement: 1998 was extraordinarily hot due to a super El Nino forcing, a natural forcing, which puts it well above the trend. If you were to graph 1990 – 1999 you’d see a steady linear climb, followed by a sharp spike in 1997-1998, followed by a reversion to the mean.

    Thus, to make a claim of ‘cooling’ (despite a positive temperature trend), he is comparing the mean positive anomaly to a single, extraordinary year. This would be like me using August being warmer than January is evidence of global warming – you can’t use such a limited data set to talk about trends. Were several years in the 2000s cooler than 1998? Yes, but the decade was warmer than the 90s, with not a single year being cooler than any year in the 90s EXCEPT for 1998. So, if you’re being truly honest, what do you call that – cooling, or a reversion to the mean level of warming?
    _________________________

    Now, you want me to believe you’re debating honestly, so, as a matter of integrity, I consider it imperative that you explain to me why you don’t find the BEST Project to be compelling enough to shift your views?

    Keep in mind, the BEST Project was prompted because of ‘Climategate,’ it was transparent, it had no government funding, many of the scientists involved were critical of data gathering methodology, as well as modeling projections. Their results? Not only did they not find fraud or manipulation, but they re-confirmed global warming.

    Now, you quoted Fred Singer, and so did I, on a previous page: Particularly, Fred Singer applauding the work of BEST (before they’d actually released their results). Watts, applauding their work, saying he’ll accept their results…when he thought the results were going to confirm his biases. Oops, they did just the opposite.

    Now, I can understand why a professional ‘skeptic’ would scramble to ignore a project that they’d previously praised, but how about you? What do you make of the BEST Project? Do you not find that more compelling than random bloggers misleading interpretations of data? If not, then what we’re having here isn’t an honest debate.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures