Fox News twists words of climate scientist Phil Jones in its continued assault on global warming science
Following a February 13 BBC Q&A with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Fox News' Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney and Fox & Friends have distorted Jones' comments to suggest that they undermine the consensus that human activities are contributing to warming global temperatures.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Varney, Hannity, Beck misrepresent Jones' comments on extent of Medieval Warm Period
Varney: Jones "says that the middle ages were warmer than they are - than the climate now." From the February 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
VARNEY: The story here, Alisyn, is that the conventional wisdom of the last generation is now in doubt. The man-made global warming theory has been seriously challenged. You mentioned Professor Jones, he's the man who created and organized much of the data that went into the UN's climate panel in Copenhagen. Three things on that issue there. Number one, he now says that the middle ages were warmer than they are - than the climate now, the temperature now. How did that happen way before industrialization? Number two, as you said Alisyn, there's been no appreciable warming in the last 15 years. Why not? It was supposed to happen.
Hannity: Jones said "the world may have been warmer in Medieval Times, that is to say up until now, which would undermine the theory of this manmade global warming all together." From the February 15 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: And tonight's "Meltdown" is brought to you by Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the ClimateGate scandal. Believe it or not, the scandal is bigger than you think.
Now keep in mind that Jones' findings have been used for years to bolster the U.N.'s findings on climate change. Now, in an interview with the BBC over the weekend Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, that the world may have been warmer in Medieval Times, that is to say up until now, which would undermine the theory of this manmade global warming all together. And that warming in recent times mirrors warming patterns from pre-industrial periods.
Beck: Jones said "to quote, obviously, the late 20th century was not unprecedented." From the February 15 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Phil Jones admits, yes, no real consensus on this one. Too much debate on whether an event known as the medieval warming period, yes, was global in nature and hotter than it is like right now.
So, to quote, obviously, the late 20th century was not unprecedented. Oh, good.
In fact, Jones said available data is insufficient to establish that Medieval Warm Period was "global in extent."
Jones: Insufficient data available to determine "whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent." During his Q&A with BBC, Jones stated that "[t]here is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent or not" and that "[f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." Jones further said, "We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere." From the Q&A:
[BBC:] G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
[JONES:] There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
IPCC report similarly notes that Medieval Warm Period data is insufficient. Contrary to the suggestion that Jones' remarks about the Medieval Warm Period are a new admission by climate scientists, Jones' statement is "fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report," as RealClimate.org noted. Indeed, Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in the 2007 report that "[i]n order to reduce the uncertainty" about the Medieval Warm Period, "further work is necessary to update exiting records ... and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage." From the IPCC report: [emphasis added]
In order to reduce the uncertainty, further work is necessary to update existing records, many of which were assembled up to 20 years ago, and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage. There are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth (Figure 6.11). There are very few long records with high temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH [Southern Hemisphere].
The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950-1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).
Jones said that if the Medieval Warm Period "was shown to be global in extent ... then obviously the late 20-th century warmth would not be unprecedented." Contrary to Beck's claim that Jones said, "to quote, obviously, the late 20th century was not unprecedented," Jones stated during the Q&A that "if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the [Northern Hemisphere] and [Southern Hemisphere]) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." He also stated that "[f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere" and that "we cannot ... make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
Beck and Hannity claim Jones said warming in the late 20th century is "not unique,"' "mirrors warming patterns from pre-industrial periods"
From the February 15 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Central figure of the leaked e-mail scandal known by some who actually read papers that report the truth - climate-gate. Along with his admissions now in an interview with the right wing organization, the BBC, this is what he said. The rate of warming in the late 20th century not unique. What? Really?
Yes, he goes on to say, "Yeah, it happened two other times in the past 150 years alone. Almost had you." Between 1860 and 1880, and then again 1910 to 1940, started to heat up and then it went down again. That seemed to work itself out. Oh by the way, those were both far before anybody had an SUV or there was a significant impact from man-made emissions.
From the February 15 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: Now keep in mind that Jones' findings have been used for years to bolster the U.N.'s findings on climate change. Now, in an interview with the BBC over the weekend Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, that the world may have been warmer in Medieval Times, that is to say up until now, which would undermine the theory of this manmade global warming all together. And that warming in recent times mirrors warming patterns from pre-industrial periods.
In fact, Jones said explanation of recent warming differs from previous warming periods
Jones: Cause of previous warming periods differs from "recent warming" which is "predominantly manmade." During his Q&A with BBC, Jones stated that "the warming rates" of previous warming periods after 1860 are "similar and not statistically significantly different" from the most recent warming period. Jones was later asked, "If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?" Jones responded, "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." He further stated that it would not be reasonable to conclude that "recent warming is not predominately manmade" from the evidence that there have been previous periods of warming since 1850. From the Q&A:
[BBC:] D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
[JONES:] This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
[...]
[BBC:] H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
[JONES:] The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
[BBC:] I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
[JONES:] No - see again my answer to D.
Beck: Jones "says" planet is "cooling in the last few years"
From the February 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Let's talk real quickly. There's a report out of the British tabloids -- newspapers yesterday that said that apparently Phil Jones is a professor over in England who has been overseeing a lot of this data and in fact is famous for the so-called hockey stick chart that shows that the earth has got a fever. Apparently he doesn't actually have the paperwork that supports it, and there's been no global warming for apparently 15 years.
BECK: 15 years. And it's now cooling. He says it's cooling in the last few years. I mean, I don't know why anyone believes this, but you'll notice that all of the supporters will all say, well it doesn't matter anyway. It doesn't matter anyway. If this was truly about science, especially at this critical time in our economic history, we'd be saying whoa, whoa whoa. We'd be doing what India's doing. Back off. Wait a minute, wait a minute. This whole thing is falling apart. We're not going to do this.
In fact, Jones said there has not been statistically significant cooling in recent years
Jones: Cooling trend "is not statistically significant." During his Q&A with BBC, Jones stated that from 1995-2009, there has been a positive warming trend that is "not significant at the 97% significance level." When asked, "Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant cooling?" Jones stated, "No," adding that a cooling trend during this period "is not statistically significant." From the Q&A:
[BBC:] B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
[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:] C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
[JONES:] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Fox & Friends claimed Jones "Hints 'warming' may not be man made"
The following on-screen text aired during a February 16 Fox & Friends discussion of Jones' comments:
In fact, Jones cited "evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Jones: "[T]here's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones was asked by BBC, "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?" Jones stated that "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and that "I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." As noted above, Jones also stated that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" indicates that recent warming is man-made. From the Q&A:
[BBC:] E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
[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.
Beck and Hannity suggest Jones' statement that warming since 1995 is not statistically significant is an "admission" that undermines man-made global warming theory
From the February 15 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Jones admits that there has been no significant warming since 1995, no statistically significant warming since 1995. Just doing the math in my head - that's 15 years. Fifteen years - that's weird.
Doesn't it go all the way back to when Al Gore was just a dull vice president and not a dull atmospheric scientist slash Nobel Prize- winning slash climate profiteer? Yes, I think it does - 1995.
[...]
BECK: The warming - not unprecedented. No significant warming since 1995. Is this the head of the global warming alarmist or a right wing think-tank? I'm not sure. After everything else that has happened lately, if this really was about science and we're really in a debt and the problems we're in now, wouldn't you already say, "Whew, we don't have to spend that money"?
From the February 15 edition of Hannity:
HANNITY: Now keep in mind that Jones' findings have been used for years to bolster the U.N.'s findings on climate change. In an interview with the BBC over the weekend Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, that the world may have been warmer in Medieval Times, that is to say up until now, which would undermine the theory of this manmade global warming all together. And that warming in recent times mirrors warming patterns from pre-industrial periods.
In fact, longer-term data establishes warming trend
Jones: "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms" is "less likely for shorter periods." When asked, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming," Jones stated:
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.
RealClimate.org: "It is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years." In a February 15 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, similarly stated that "it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years."
Met Office: Climate shows "continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages." The Met Office states: "In 1998 the world experienced the warmest year since records began. In the decade since, however, this high point has not been surpassed. Some have seized on this as evidence that global warming has stopped, or even that we have entered a period of 'global cooling'. This is far from the truth and climate scientists have, in fact, recognised that a temporary slowdown in warming is possible even under increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions." [Met Office, accessed 9/22/09]
The Met Office further notes:
After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability -- despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade.
Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.
In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature -- but that doesn't mean climate change has stopped, it's just another part of natural variability.
2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, and the World Meteorological Organisation have all stated that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record for the globe.
They misstated the factual conclusions that can be reached from what he said. That's distortion.
They left off relevant qualifications he added that don't support their conclusions. That's omission.
And that's the only way that they CAN portray these events, because if they don't distort, deceive, and omit relevant data, they've got nothing.
There will always be research - if it isn't about climate change, it would be about other aspects of the climate for these particular scientists. So for them, the money isn't really an issue at all.
Now, the people for whom the money IS an issue are those who control the industries dirtying up the place. If we start developing cleaner technologies, they will be out of luck and money. Guess who keeps pushing the idea that climate change isn't real?
All this seems pretty far-fetched when one considers how overwhelming the scientific consensus is across so many countries. Many scientists would have to be in on the conspiracy. And why they would need AGW theory specifically to do this is another baffling question.
When it comes right down to it, the idea that the theory of AGW is about grant money is a desperate attempt for deniers to make sense of their own story, in which 97% of scientists across a hundred countries are spreading a hoax.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://icecap.us/index.php
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html
http://www.surfacestations.org/
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
The message is quite clear that a lot of funny business has been going on to drive a green agenda and to make some people a lot of money, and worst of all, control everyone's lives and limit their freedom.
If we want to use less oil and create less pollution, let's do it for the right reasons, and provide a business environment where people can compete to make the products and industries of the future. This would create an R&D and manufacturing boom in the USA, and we can sell the technologies to the rest of the world, and save petroleum for more important purpose like feedstocks to make things like clothing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, polymers, etc., etc.
If Obama did things this way instead of trying to ram through CAP & TAX bill, we'd all be better for it, and he might get re-elected. Well, then again maybe not, unless he starts over with the healthcare reform bill.
It isn't? Why did Unprecedented Barry appropriate $2.6 Billion, that's Billion with a B for Global Change Research? It's all about the money. This is the gift that keeps on giving for thees scientists. A scientific question that deserves research but has become a political football with an ever moving goal line. It most certainly is about the money.
Without HUGE grants the so called "climate researchers" have NOTHING, no money, no life...
What I AM saying is that the "follow the money" line of thought is illogical. Read my comment again: There will always be research - if it isn't about climate change, it would be about other aspects of the climate for these particular scientists. So for them, the money isn't really an issue at all.
They don't need to manufacture an artificial crisis to study. If they weren't looking at climate change, they could be studying extreme weather events and how to predict them, effects of climate on growing seasons and crop production, paleoclimatology, ozone depletion, etc. Science doesn't end with climate change.
As for industries pouring huge amounts of money into clean technology - to whom are you referring?
No bill.
No treaty.
No budget.
Michael Mann is the one who lies, distorts, and omits, not to mention covers up. His agenda is selling books (bet you bought one), but he is an extremely poor salesman. What was once science is now a scandal.
The American people, including their politicians, don't buy it.
Obviously, you did.
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER....NOT EVEN CLOSE. UP YOURS AL GORE.
So, given the specific uncertainties, it makes sense to act given that most of the likely range of future projections is bad.
Certainly any sane person would realize that there IS "climate change". It's been real since the beginning of the earth...
Here are the two relevant questions that were asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Here are the results:
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2.
The first question is irrelevant. We have been rebounding from the Little Ice Age for over 200 years! That number should have been 100% and I bet that the 3 respondents who did not go with "risen" chose "remained relatively constant (if any chose "fallen" they should have their credentials checked). And notice the Gallup poll results to this question were not provided in the report.
Now the second question is where it gets interesting. Why do you think it was phrased in that manner? Why didn't they use a less ambiguous statement more in line with the IPCC claims? How does one quantify a "significant contributing factor?" What if the question had been this instead?
2. Do you think human activity is the most significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
I am willing to bet that fewer of the respondents would have answered yes, and that is admittedly my opinion. But at least the question would have more accurately reflected what is presented as the consensus. If anyone knows of any similar studies they can direct me to, I welcome the information.
Finally, a sampling of 79 climate scientists seems pretty anemic to me. Plus, NASA and NOAA were included in the survey. What do you think are the chances that James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt sent out a note making it mandatory that their underlings take the survey? 97%? Maybe I should file a FOIA request and find out. Cheers!
Unfortunately a majority of the people who comment on MMfA from all sides are too rigid to be swayed, though the case of AGW alarmism is textbook zealotry IMO and such an easy, and I might add, just target. Until it is exposed for what it truly is even in this joint, I'll keep battling.
I unfortunately do not have the time to entertain something like a website. My hands are thoroughly full and there are many, many voices out there already. I doubt I would add much to the broad discussion, though this was a recent highlight considering the parties involved.
I figure this joint is the next best thing for now for what I hope to accomplish. Dive headfirst into the belly of the beast and never stop swinging. Keep up the great work as well. We have the benefit of fighting from the side of truth and reality rather than the side of blind faith and fraud denial (and they say we are in denial?).
That makes it all the more appealing to keep going at it. It really must not be pleasant to be in the shoes of a Dolly or SLRTX. Knowing how vehemently they defended the indefensible, kicking and screaming all the way, will make our inevitable victory all the sweeter and the world will be a better place because of it. Thanks again. Stay safe out there. They're out for our heads.
Finally, it was a stupid poll in a magazine. It wasn't submitted to be a true random iid sample of climate scientists. Follow the literature. If there was much evidence against AGW, you'd bet your ass it'd be being published in Nature/Science/the big climate journals because that is juicy stuff. That sells books. And as long as the science is good it is all fair game.
But there isn't good science in that direction. All of the evidence against AGW is innuendo and arm-chair "science". There is no tested alternate hypothesis. The evidence points rather strongly at AGW. If it didn't, you wouldn't be getting AGW papers published in many general science and climate specific peer-reviewed journals. And sorry if this is putting words you did not say into your mouth, but I want to address it now in case someone does bring it up:
There is no cabal of scientists trying to make up AGW. Scientists are very combative and generally will not just follow the pack. In fact, just the opposite. They are highly likely to think their peers are idiots and wrong until proven otherwise.
Attack their science. You'll do better to convince them that they're wrong. But you can't attack it through innuendo. That isn't how this game works. Study the work, study statistics, study math, get the data (it is freely available), analyze it, and publish your results under peer review. Have your work torn to shreds by your peers. Fix it up, submit it again. Have it torn down again. Repeat this process until you and your peers have separated the wheat from the chafe. That is the way to combat an area of science. If you don't want to play by those rules (actually doing science instead of bitching about things), you don't really have any room to talk.
Talk about policy, sure. Attack that. But leave science to the scientists.
A cartoon seems the clearest way to get this through to you:
Since you apparently didn't comprehend this in the other thread I posted it in, I'll expound a bit:
I want to stop subsidizing the Sheiks in the Middle East. I want to preserve the forests we have left. I want the cities we live in to have clean air and water. I want my grandchildren to have less risk of asthma, not more. I want our economy to thrive with new technology and not see my nation sit back and watch as Germany and Japan and China surge ahead of us in solar and wind technology, while we stagnate because we refuse to give up our 'horses.'
I want all these things whether or not global warming is an issue. In short, I'm all in favor of making a better world for whatever reason you choose to desire it.
I support alternative energy source, starting with NUCLEAR, the only proven clean energy source...
When a VIABLE energy source is developed it will be by the free market, villains....
Both solar an wind are viable. And we are saving up to buy solar panels ourselves.
Another source that is frequently overlooked - Biomass methane recovery
Nuclear is better than coal and oil, but it is by no means clean. Unless you want to offer to store the waste in your basement?
It's a long term solution. And it is not a proven clean energy solution. True, no carbon emissions, but the costs are high. And high costs are not a viable solution. Better conservation.
This from the PBS program Living on Earth, an interview with a former member of the NRC.
http://tinyurl.com/ygjaywm
...
BRADFORD: Well the nuclear industry at the moment is unable to finance construction of any new nuclear plants. Early in the Bush administration, Congress passed legislation providing for tax credits to encourage new nuclear plants, and also several years ago provided 18 billion dollars in loan guarantee authority. And for the nuclear industry, things just haven't worked out as intended. A number of companies came forward with applications for a total of 31 new plants. They've all run into trouble of one kind or another. There have been cost overruns, cancellations, suspensions, delays, and in two cases in Florida and in Texas there have been scandals, as well.
So the nuclear renaissance has not been a great success to date, and in that context it seems a little eccentric to be tripling down and say, okay, if 18 billion in loan guarantees didn't do it, maybe 54 will.
...
RE: Solar
We have been working with them for decades. For a very long time solar has proven worthwhile in situations where other sources are too expensive. Now, with new types of solar cells, and new methods of manufacturing, solar may yet prove truly cost effective.
It has for a long time in heating applications.
Seems it's your side that keeps claiming the debate is over, especially in the past few days.
By the way that's a real mature statement about Al Gore, or is that just the way the deniers debate, personalize it to Al gore and then basically call him a jerk?
That might be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
Please enlighten all of us regarding what Al Gore has done to fit this definition.
--------------------------------------------
Accoutning FAIL. Economics FAIL.
----------------------------------------------
Add: Reading Comprehension FAIL.
Do you understand how partners are paid? Do you know what an S Corp is? Do you have a clue?
I'm talking about gross profit, which your paycheck comes from.
Next?
Welcome to Wal-Mart? Need a cart?
In accounting, gross profit or sales profit is the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service, before deducting overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments.
I sell a part for $98.53. It cost me $64.61 to buy the part. My gross profit is $30.92.
An employees paycheck is deducted from gross profit, among other things to determine net profit. Just as unknown1 says it is.
Your post makes no sense as written > "Your employee's paycheck doesn't come from your profit"
And, once again, you just can't resist the urge that comes from your personal animus to make a personal attack, can you?
Don't you have SOME CLUE yet how that makes you look? Your inability to control yourself is pretty darn pitiful!!!
You don't pay someone with your profit. You have profit AFTER you've paid people, after you've paid ALL of your expenses, including payroll.
This is not rocket science.
Please, don't post something that makes you look like a damn fool. It's cool by me, but I am trying to give you some friendly advice here.
Gross profit is NOT the same as profit.
The poster said that he pays employees out of PROFIT. He doesn't. The only people who get "paid" out of profit are sole proprietors or partners.
Again, since you didn't get it the first time, and your personal animus controlled your comments, GROSS PROFIT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO PROFIT, and the POSTER REFERENCED PROFIT, NOT GROSS PROFIT, AS HOW EMPLOYEES GET PAID!!!
You say this "The poster said that he pays employees out of PROFIT"
My god you can't post without lying, again.
He wrote "Business profits are good. If they're not paying for your groceries through your paycheck, they're being robbed by the government so they can pay for your groceries instead." He wrote that at 2:47.
And right after he wrote that, NGE posted that people are NOT paid out of "profits".
And THAT'S the post that I was replying to, you fool, where he said that people are paid out of PROFITS!!!
Man, your personal animus has a stranglehold on you. It must be a mighty unpleasant feeling. Too bad, so sad.
Another lie. It's getting pathological now. You will snap any minute, oh well.
You specifically did not either know, or acknowledge, that there is a distinct difference between gross and net profit. Salaries and expenses are paid out of gross profit, which results in net profit. unknown1 specifically said "I'm talking about gross profit, which your paycheck comes from.", to which you replied too. You can't juggle the posts now to fit your narrative, sorry.
Do you know the difference between gross and net profit or are you just being stubborn to argue with Right ON? Because if you do then your entire argument here has been cut off at the knees. If you don't, Right ON was right on.
I am sorry that MMFA's strings don't always show what post one is replying to in an easy to understand way.
That previous poster FIRST SAID that one gets paid from "profits". He later changed that to gross profits, acting like the two things were the same.
They aren't. They're quite different. Paychecks don't come out of profits! He said that they did.
How did you miss that?
Looks like YOU are the one who needs to admit that YOU'RE wrong.
But as a RightON booster, of course you won't.
Oh, and you're asking if I "know the difference between gross and net profit or are you just being stubborn to argue with Right ON?"
What do you think my post from last night that said "GROSS PROFIT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO PROFIT" meant? Or when I said "Gross profit is NOT profit" a couple of hours before that?
Can you explain how you missed the 3 times I said that gross profit and profit aren't the same when you asked me if I knew that gross profit and profit aren't the same?
Please, I'd like to see that explanation. That is, right after you admit that you're totally off base here. But I won't hold my breath.
You are lying. Look at where your reply is, it is not underneath his original post, it's under his clarifying post. Do you not think we can see that? You are a liar, a liar. Sorry it hurts.
Gross profits are not the same as profits. He used profits in one post, and then the same poster tried to replace it with gross profits. If we assume that he meant "gross profits" in his first post, then that first post is wrong in saying that you pay taxes on gross profits.
You have no leg to stand on in this argument, but please, keep making a fool of yourself here. At least if you're paying attention to THIS thread that no one else is, then you aren't spending time derailing another one.
And you hope nobody is paying attention to this so they won't see your lie, but I know.
I was REPLYING to the post that confused "gross profit" with "profit". The poster contradicted himself, and claimed that employees are paid from profits.
It's not MY fault he said that. It's his fault. It's YOUR flaw that you missed the contradiction in his posts that totally destroy YOUR personal attack on me.
But please, keep it up - that way you aren't derailing another thread.
Please. Keep exposing yourself for the jerk you truly are.
And please, let everyone who's anyone come back and read this string. Please.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001110062#comments
You're trying your darnest to make yourself look good, but all you're doing is making yourself look like someone who is consumed by your personal animus. Just eaten up by it.
You didn't 'win' this argument, and you didn't 'succeed' (besides confusing bintx, who was overtired and did her typical kneejerk jump to a conclusion two different times in that thread I linked to) in that original thread back in mid-January either.
It'd be you who apparently can't post and be honest at the same time.
$1000.00 revenue (what some people call gross.
- (minus)
$ 999.00 payroll
_________________
$
$1000.00 revenue (what some people call gross.
- (minus)
$ 999.00 payroll
_________________
$
But what's left? $1.00 profit. DOES NOT MATTER WHEN IT'S PAID IT IMPACTS THE NET PROFIT... duhhh
It does NOT come out of profits, though.
And taxes do NOT come out of gross profit. Taxes come out of profits.
And none of what you post here has anything to do with anything that anyone has been talking about!
Please don't feed this troll any more.
$1000.00 revenue (what some people call gross.
- (minus)
$ 999.00 payroll
_________________
$
"Profits" are taxed. "Profits" are not used to pay employees.
"Gross Profits" are NOT taxed. "Gross Profits" are what is used to pay employees.
It's not MY fault the original poster was confused.
His post is a logical contradiction. Both parts cannot be true at the same time, whether you use the term he used, "profits", or the term he later replaced it with, "gross profits".
This is NOT rocket science.
In accounting, gross profit or sales profit is the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service, before deducting overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments. Note that this is different from operating profit (earnings before interest and taxes).
Gross profit is found by deducting the cost of goods sold:
Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold.
I am 100%, undeniably correct here. You are 100%, undeniably wrong here.
gross profit
Definition
Calculated as sales minus all costs directly related to those sales. These costs can include manufacturing expenses, raw materials, labor, selling, marketing and other expenses.
So, no. Employees are paid from revenue before gross profit is calculated.
Definition from this site.
pre-school terms just for you dully!
There you go again. Mixing science and ideology.
Denialist twits don't know the difference.
Why should they? Ideological arguments are all they have. They can't argue the science, because they don't have proof, or consensus. Oh, that's right. "Whattsupwiththat" is the blogspot for all that great science collected by the McExpert denialists!
Heck, you guys can't even agree among yourselves.
Let's see... What is it now?
It's not warming at all... Is that it?
It's warming, but it's not caused by humans.... Is that it?
It's cooling.... Is that it?
Who speaks for the denialists? Beck? What is the denialist position? Go figure it out, then let us know.
The only reason there's still a "debate" is that you morons have been brainwashed by industry and their uneducated media whores into doubting every single pice of science that been published on the matter over the past SIXTY YEARS, and instead cling to relatively meaningless details as evidence that the BIG PICTURE is somehow completely wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------
Your side has nothing on it but liars and fools.
The brainwashing comes from special interests who want to impose cap-and-trade taxes.
You'd better do your own research about climate change than rely on what the IPCC says. They're not an objective organization.
source
BTW what about the IPCC do you not consier to be objective?
The IPCC panel collects research about a single topic: human induced climate change. Given that the panel is designed to look into only this topic, its conclusions might tend to be already written into its premises: that harmful human induced climate change is a reality.
This is, let us say, not the best basis from the point of view of scientific objectivity. Perhaps a symptom of this "objectivity problem" is noticeable in how the IPCC repeats (on its website) that it is "objective," without showing why or how, even though by its own admission it does not do scientific work. Obviously, it cannot claim objectivity by or through its own criteria, yet it does so.
CAP AND TRADE is a POLICY. POLICY is not always objective. CAP AND TRADE is NOT part of the IPCC report. It is just one possible way of DEALING with the problem, which is supported by the IPCC report. ANy other solution (including free-market solutions) would also be supported thus. The only position that is not supported by the IPCC report is DOING NOTHING.
But since you people have no policies that would be equal to the task of combating climate change you seek to politicize the SCIENCE, rather than discuss ANY kind of solutions.
The money interests are not is cap and trade dude. Their in the STATUS QUO. The big money is ALWAYS in the STATUS QUO. If you think there's more money to be made somewhere other than coal and oil your a fool. If there was, we'd already be doing it.
----------------------------------------------------
Fools following liars. That's all you got.
-----------------------------------------------------
You people don't even make any sense anymore.
I'm sorry but; you don't make any kind of sense with this statement.
Why, exactly, should he be called before congress?
What was the treasonous act?
Is it because he promoted a cause that you don't believe in?
All for the sake of lining his pocket with cash, as he flies around in the CO2 producing G2... hmmm... pathetic....
Wait, I've lost track. Are we talking about Al Gore or Dick Cheney, Iraq/Halliburton.
As the person quoted said, he doesn't think that many climate scientists say that. And the overall debate about whether manmade global warming exists IS over. But the exact mechanisms aren't totally identified and there are still questions out there.
But there are no questions as to whether or not GCC is real and mostly caused by man.
And exactly how stupid is it to say But the exact mechanisms aren't totally identified and there are still questions out there.
Which is it dully, exactly how can it be "caused by man" when you, yourself say the mechanisms aren't completely known... For example do YOU know that water vapor makes up a MUCH larger percentage of the atmospheric gases then CO2? DO YOU know that water vapor is at least 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas then CO@... hmmm why is water vapor ignored by the IPCC and the climate fearmongers? Hmmm... no money there.... pathetic...
You nitpick on DETAILS as if they'll undermine the BIG PICTURE. The nit-picky stuff might change the path of science 1 or 2 degrees this way or that, but it will not come anywhere near bringing bout the 180 degree turn that would be needed for you guys to be "right."
------------------------------------------------------
By focusing on these details as you do, and consistently misstating both their importance and their implications, all you do is reinforce our perception of your ignorance.
...so the science isn't settled? but the debate is over? or is the science over and the debate is settled? or is the science debatable and the settling is over?
[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.
But that doesn't give us carte-blanche to reject (or doubt) EVERYTHING (or ANYTHING) that HAS been proven - meaning that it is supported by evidence, has been tested, and has withstood educated scrutiny.
And these "debates" are not going to turn the earth upside-down. Every new discovery in this field has IMPROVED the models we have and further bolsters the case for AGW! Even the apparent factors that you lot cling to to "disprove" it do no such thing! By taking more and more non-human fatcors into accout, we have only further blostered the case that human behavior IS the primary binder, but that conclusion remaining even after the other factors are accounted for! THAT'S how science WORKS.
You guys talk about DEBATE and PROOF, but in doing so only demonstrate an ignorance about how science works, and the inherent strengths it has.
----------------------------------------------------
I'll say it again: All your side has on it are liars and fools.
Yes, Jones did say that, guess you didn't read what he ACTUALLY said later in the interview:
yea rrrrigghhttt, your side is the country. ROTFLMAF... keep telling yourself that slappy. You funny.
IF the MWP was warmer than today (which in most current models appears to have been true up to about 1995, when we matched it and kept warming,) we would still need to examine the causes to know if today's warming is similar or different.
But what IS settled, according to PHIL, is that it is certain that there IS manmade global warming.
Oh, and I am on no side. Traditionally, I have voted for Republicans for most offices. In the last couple of elections, I have voted AGAINST incumbency. Don't care what letter is in the ( ).
You want to keep the destructive "us v. them" game going, knock yourself out. But when our country falls apart, we'll all know who to blame. All of you folks, right AND left, who care more about "your side" WINNING than you care about your country.
I'd say that it is YOU who are funny . . . wait, not funny . . . sad and disgusting.
The only place I ever see those phrases is from the deniers trying to claim it isn't true, or the MSM trying to simplify things and write catchy headlines. I have yet to hear it from any climate scientist.
That said, while the science is not absolute, the evidence for AGW is very strong. Yes, it remains possible that there are other unknown causes of some of the warming, aliens could indeed be aiming microwaves at us to cook us and take over the planet. But I suspect it is more likely that the actual cause is an acceleration of the natural cycle caused by us pumping a millenia's worth of stored carbon back into the atmosphere in the span of a century.
I've figured out how to make sense of denialists rants.
Just end anything they post with, "in another reality."
Try it. ;-)
--- in another reality.
See, it works!
see it works!
I love being the center of attention for mindless twit trolls.
It really builds my ego.
Keep it up!
-- you really are an idiot.
Why don't you get some lotion and some tissues and go play with your ego. I'm sure he's your only friend.
what a maroon.
BTW, I thought you said you were going to ignore me? You just can't though, can you?
Ah, ego getting boost!
Troll grows angry!
Feels good! :-)
Found your picture!
I said I don't feed the trolls.
Never said anything about poking them with a stick once in a while. ;-)
I'm ignoring rrrrigghhttt from now on.
but you can't, can you?
and if you really think you're poking me with a stick, well then you really are delusional. go buy your ego a dinner before you take advantage of it again.
But, alas no. A troll's opinion is meaningless.
Call me what you want. But that won't change reality.
Learn the difference between ideology and science. Sorry, but ideology is NOT a science. When denialists can't argue the science, they resort to Al Gore!!! Al's an idiot. Big deal.
Me, deflect? HA!
Tell you what. Just because I am such a nice guy, I'll leave you with real urls where you can learn the truth.
Take a look at what real deflection looks like:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/dallastrees/potholer54-climate-change
http://sites.google.com/site/dallastrees/greenman3610-climate-denial-crock-videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded#
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
A general, all-purpose site. Loaded with links to the sources of the claims. You CAN follow links, right?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
And, how to do on-line research. I've noticed denialists have absolutely NO clue how to tell crap from the real stuff.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
Learn, then come back to us when you are all growed up and ready for a real debate.
Otherwise, you are a complete waste of everyone's time. A troll.
my dog has more brains than you, but you keep stroking your ego and telling yourself how smart you are. you didn't run out of tissues, did you?
One more question...was it fun and exciting riding the short bus to school?
you crack me up.
Thank you again, Media Matters, for what you do. I personally can't stand watching fox for more than 1 minute or so. It gives me a headache, and Beck with his mannerisms reminds me of a kid I used to beat up when we were children.
[BBC:] E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
[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.
And get a clue, Bill - you claiming that you're a "down-the-line liberal" gets you NO credibility here. This is the anonymous Internet, remember.
And on top of that, we liberals on this site don't CARE if you're a liberal or not. If you make sense, you get credit for making sense. If you're a fool, you get treated like one, regardless of your political persuasion.
FoxNews twisted his words. If you read some of the posts here, then you might better understand it.
And the rightwing has twisted his words in a variety of ways over the last couple of days. There are multiple examples in several MMFA articles on this topic and speaker. Check 'em out.
As I said already,
FoxNews twisted his words. If you read some of the posts here, then you might better understand it.
And the rightwing has twisted his words in a variety of ways over the last couple of days. There are multiple examples in several MMFA articles on this topic and speaker. Check 'em out.
And, as I already explained to you, why don't you try one of the MANY other posts that has already explained this?
He said that I can't say with a statistical certainty that there's been warming during the time period referenced - NOT that there was no warming. He says it's just barely below the amount of warming that WOULD allow him to say that we HAVE seen warming in that relatively short time period!
[JONES:] Yes, {I agree that there is no "statistically-significant warming} but only just {it's just barely too low to be significant statistically}. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive{it HAS WARMED during that period}, 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:] C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
[JONES:] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
[BBC:] B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
[JONES:] Yes, {I agree that there is no "statistically-significant warming} but only just {it's just barely too low to be significant statistically}. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive{it HAS WARMED during that period}, 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:] C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
[JONES:] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
hey, as extra credit, look up the word "IF" and when u make a news report remember that this word is an important part of the quote u intend to use and should not be omitted such as "like" or "umm." class dismissed.
Dolly, that's not quite accurate. What he said was:
So over those years we have seen warming to the equivalent of .12C/decade, which is indeed warming, just not enough in that short of time to be statistically significant on a geological scale. Look at his last sentence, it is the most import and and most ignored part of the answer - looking at short periods of time is less useful and less likely to give a clear picture of overall trends.
A more important point that he did not bring up with regard to those warming periods the interviewer ass about is what was happening on either side of those warming events. Yes, 1860-1880 showed a lot of warming - but both before and after there was equal cooling. That cannot be said about the warming periods in the 20th and 21st centuries.
A liberal who, when caught making a major goof that he could have avoided had he just read the article and a couple of the posts here, failed to ever acknowledge his error.
If anyone knows what a NON well-thought-out response is, it'd be YOU, Bill Wilson.
Another way for Faux to tell people that it's nothing but a joke to them.
Science and {Jones,IPCC] are orthogonal and don't mix well. As more revelations about how the IPCC works are brought out, the UN will eventually have to disband the IPCC and start over. No real thinking person trusts that political organization any more.
Darling, please!
Pop on over to NASA or FermiLab and see how "open" they are "to all for inspection". Believe it or not, there are standards, and they are there for good reason.
No offense, but your comment doesnt really speak of someone so "in-the-know" as you might hope to convey.
I'm sure we all remember Ingraham's callously bizarre and insultingly delusional re-vamp of the Niemoller poem. I mean, anyone who try that stunt in public, or who would accept that as valid (or even decent) absolutely could NOT cut-the-mustard in an 8th grade history class (let alone debate the intricacies of climate-science.)
Fox News continues to push Bush-era myths claiming the purported urgency for the invasion of Iraq... and they continue to do so despite all of those myths being exposed as unequivicol lies. The truth stares them square in the face, and they reject it (despite all the misery and carnage endemic to it.) That failure of conscience speaks as much to their lack of intelligence as it does to their lack of integrity.
And lets also not forget their tacit support for ex-gay brainwashing... er, I mean "therapy". At this point, the freaks at Fox are a stone's throw away from drilling holes in your head to let the demons out.
And on that note, their propaganda style is certainly quite Medieval, with an uncompromising smear-engine more appropriate to the "Witch Hammer" than it is to anything even remotely journalistic.
Anyone remember Fox's "REAL" 1940's Alien Autopsy, back in'95?
In a nutshell, the folks at Fox are in no place to offer reliable scientific commentary, and I am 120% sure of that.
Fox began broadcasting in 1986.
How could The Simpsons have just had a 20th anniversary if Fox didn't start broadcasting until 1996?
He was talking about Fox, not specifically about FoxNews.
Man, make it harder next time to show what a tool you are. That was too easy.
Nope, but you just could't resist the urge to make a personal attack.
The person was talking about how the whole Fox family is corrupt and stupid, and he gave one example.
Then YOU WERE WRONG. YOU claimed that someone else was LYING, but not only weren't they lying, but they were RIGHT TOO!!!
See, I haven't forgotten that the issue here is that YOU were wrong. I understand you were trying to distract us from your error with the personal attack and other derailments.
Didn't work. Too bad, so sad for you.
This LIE is at the top of the page....
Fox News twists words of climate scientist Phil Jones in its continued assault on global warming theory
What exactly are the words moonbat "FOX NEWS" hmmm.... pathetic....
It's that kind of anti-logic that cost the AGW fearmongers all credibility... ALL CREDIBILITY.....
See, YOU made the mistake by NOT realizing that the other poster was talking about Fox, not FoxNews.
And what we see HERE is YOU desperately trying to cover up YOUR mistake by distracting us!!!
Not working, tool.
YOU made an unfair and 100% inaccurate accusation towards anothe poster, saying that they lied, when they didn't. It was YOUR error that made you think that they were wrong about when an event must have taken place.
Alien Autopsy: (Fact or Fiction?) (1995) (TV)
Plot:This provacative FOX Network "prime time" television special investigates the purported "Alien Autopsy" footage that was allegedly filmed by the United States military after the legendary UFO crash near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
I'm usually not one to refer people over to Wiki, but to ease your doubts, check this out-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy
"Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction
Fox television broadcast the striking footage in the United States on August 28, 1995 under the title Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction. The program caused a sensation with Time Magazine declaring that the film had sparked a debate "with an intensity not lavished on any home movie since the Zapruder film. Fox re-broadcast the program twice, each time to higher ratings, with the November 1995 broadcast winning its time slot again with 11.7 million viewers and a 14% share. Although in the broadcast version some parts of the autopsy were digitized or edited out due to their graphic nature, the aforementioned editions have what Santilli claimed is the complete and unedited film, plus previously unreleased footage of a wreckage presented as the remains of the alien craft reported to have crashed in Roswell.
The Fox program features numerous well-known figures both in front of and behind the camera. Interviews with experts on the authenticity of the film include Oscar winning Special Effects Make-up artist Stan Winston, Cinematographer Allen Daviau, and noted forensic pathologist, Cyril Wecht, who considered the autopsy procedures in the film to be authentic but stopped short of declaring the being an alien."
Interesting that the issue of edits, blackouts and digitized make-overs CONTINUE to fall under Fox's rubric for "stunning video evidence," or "fair & balanced" reporting.
The video continues to inspire UFO enthusiasts to this day, most of whom remember its original broadcast date on Fox:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/714129/another_alien_autopsy_film_released.html
"Yes, another "Alien Autopsy" film has been released to a public still burned over the one Fox broadcast in 1995, which was subsequently admitted a hoax."
The video also continued to be parodied by those who remember it, consider this review from the NY Post:
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/343374/Alien-Autopsy/overview
"Director Jonny Campbell teams with screenwriter William Davies for this satirical look at the notorious, purportedly genuine "Alien Autopsy" video that fascinated viewers worldwide before being exposed as an elaborately staged hoax in 1995. Aired in America by the Fox network, the Alien Autopsy video caused an overnight sensation among UFO enthusiasts while proving just how susceptible to hype the media truly is."
I remember when Fox tried to pull that stunt. I remember getting the uneasy feeling that the network which brought us such greats as "the Simpsons", "In Living Color" and "The Tracy Ulman Show" was now taking a very disturbing turn... one that involved bold-faced lies and testing the public's gulliblity.
And speaking of which, ABBA, your testy dismissal not only shows your youth, but your inability to accept a very real event that anyone over voting-age in America remembers. That's very typical for a Fox fanatic, ---just re-edit the truth so that you dont have to come to terms with it's actual import. You've been caught sunshine. You really cant back-peddle on this one.
So yes, the point still stands: Between "real" Alien Autopsies, "120%" polling figures, the callously disrespectful mutilation of the Niemoller poem, the fantasticly mythic re-invention of WWII, the advocay of anti-gay "therapies", etc... the staff at Fox has no place to stand on ANYTHING academic, even as you, ABBA, have no place to stand with respect to whatever happened in the '90s.
BTW darling, sometimes human memory is more reliable than google, take a lesson.
You must be about as dim as dully... Can't tell the difference between "News" like "Fox News Channel" and Fox "broadcast TV" ENTERTAINMENT. Well I guess I can see where you are confused, msnbc claims to be news but all it is is "entertainment" sort of. hmmm......
Now, I agree that what is broadcast on Fox doesn't necessarily reflect on FoxNews. But you didn't say that, or anything like that.
You were wrong, and you just can't make yourself simply admit that, can you?
And NO, your "admission" above that you didn't specify FoxNews is irrelevant. It isn't ABOUT that. It's about YOUR kneejerk reaction that failed to recognize that the poster was talking about Fox. So your "admission" above isn't an admission of your true error.
Okay, now comes the bogus and unwarranted personal attack, after I honestly destroy any argument YOU have defending YOUR behavior.
Okay, now comes the bogus and unwarranted personal attack, after I honestly destroy any argument YOU have defending YOUR behavior.
YOU are infamous for name calling and personal attacks... PLEASE don't "project" your actions on others.
Facts are facts: I DID NOT SPECIFY FOX NEWS. for that I am sorry. HOWEVER the TOPIC as seen in the mmfa title is. Fox News twists words of climate scientist Phil Jones in its continued assault on global warming theory...
CLEARLY says "Fox News". I didn't see the TOPIC change, hmmm... too bad. HOWEVER you FAILED to point out to bigluv that the topic is "Fox NEWS", hows that work... about like that hopeychangey thing!!! pathetic.
If it was someone you disagreed with, you'd have called him a troll and told him to "stay on topic"... dully a paid mmfa shill!!!
The previous poster said that something was on Fox in a specific year.
They were right. 100% right.
And YOU had a kneejerk reaction, and jumped down their throat, like the doofus you are, for no good reason.
I am describing your behavior, and documenting that behavior, when I call you a doofus, by the way.
When I mock RightON or anyone else for making personal attacks, it's not backed up by the evidence in any way.
___________________________________
Weren't people accusing disbelievers the other day as "ignoring the science"?
Which is it, "fact" or "theory"?
Also, is it "global warming" or "climate change"?
I love the idea of spending billions of tax dollars to fight a theory. I wish that I thought of it. How could you ever be proven wrong? 'See we spent all of this money and New Orleans is still dry.' 'The polar bears still have ice'.