UN Global Warming report is out

[Robjr83]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0w099fw4lw

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXRjaLR2L3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz1gTSsb_Yc

[Robjr83]

Charlie Murphy was so dam funny on that show.

[papasmurfbell]

Charlie Murphy was so dam funny on that show.

[oldcrow]

hell yes

 

when they went back to the slave era as pimps was good one

 

 

 

ILC two snaps

[dc.]

No my statement on snl was spot on..'re read what I wrote, never disputed tat it's not a good p r ogram

 

You go re-read what you said. In one sentence you said you hadn't watched the show since Eddie Murphy. In the next you said that the crew with Murphy was the best ever and the recent can't compete.

 

Well, I've never read Dickens or Poe... but Poe is easily the better author.

[deeshopper]

Well, I've never read Dickens or Poe... but Poe is easily the better author.

 

lol.

[cravnravn]

 

You go re-read what you said. In one sentence you said you hadn't watched the show since Eddie Murphy. In the next you said that the crew with Murphy was the best ever and the recent can't compete.

 

Well, I've never read Dickens or Poe... but Poe is easily the better author.

No I stated the earlier versions were the best with john belushi, Bill Murray, Dan akroyd, etal...and haven't watched the program since Eddie Murphy's days..

 

And have read both Dickens and Poe, they were both good.

Edited April 10, 2014 by cravnravn

[dc.]

You still don't see the hypocrisy?

[cravnravn]

How is my opinion hypocrisy? Just because I don't care for the new cast members doesn't make it hypocritical. The truth is its still on the air after 40 plus years, so apparently it's still a successful show.

[oldcrow]

Cravn,

you gotta throttle it back a little man.

You're gonna blow a gasket by getting all agitated and defensive over your closed minded opinion about SNL.

You just can't keep lashing out at others because they have watched more recent episodes than you.

Your stubbornness of even going and watching some is a red flag of your disdain to the Youth of the entire world.

 

I'm not sure if it's the coffee or the Florida sun or sand in yours drawers or what?

[papasmurfbell]

How is my opinion hypocrisy? Just because I don't care for the new cast members doesn't make it hypocritical. The truth is its still on the air after 40 plus years, so apparently it's still a successful show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDtgnQ0fy4

[deeshopper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDtgnQ0fy4

 

Spot on.

[papasmurfbell]

 

Spot on.

I try.

[dc.]

Everyone else said it nice but I can't help but say it straight... How can you judge the new cast without watching?

 

By the way - I agree they aren't as good and I prefer several casts to everything over the last 15 years. But I've watched both.

[oldcrow]

really!?!

 

snl sucks

 

 

really!?!

 

really you CAN'T be so hypocritical

 

REALLY!?!

[cravnravn]

Everyone else said it nice but I can't help but say it straight... How can you judge the new cast without watching?

 

By the way - I agree they aren't as good and I prefer several casts to everything over the last 15 years. But I've watched both.

I'll dvr it saturday

[cravnravn]

really!?!

 

snl sucks

 

 

really!?!

 

really you CAN'T be so hypocritical

 

REALLY!?!

Apparently you can fn read either, I said it must be a good show caus it's been on the air for 40 some years, he'll I said it twice in this tread

Edited April 11, 2014 by cravnravn

[oldcrow]

I really liked Wiig and Sudekis in

 

The A-holes

 

Babe, Hey babe, you wanna go there babe?

 

only a few times but it was funny as hell especially the on with Kevin Spacey

 

 

also

 

Kaitlin and Uncle Rick

 

 

Rick

rick

rick

hey rick

rick rick rick rick

[thundercleetz]

I was never a fan of SNL (outside of some old Chris Farley best of) but I watched a recent episode guest hosted by Drake and Drake killed it.

[papasmurfbell]

You should check out the Louis CK ep. He was very good.

[papasmurfbell]

http://mashable.com/2014/04/02/exxon-burn-oil-gas-reserves-climate/

 

On the same day that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its new report warning that global warming will raise the risks of a host of potentially costly and deadly consequences, from sea level rise to food supply disruptions, Exxon Mobil Corp. released its own set of climate reports.

Exxon’s reports to its shareholders amount to an unprecedented disclosure of how the company views its risk exposure to climate change, specifically to potential greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandates that would curb oil and gas use between now and the year 2040. The company told its shareholders — some of whom spent years trying to get the company to disclose its climate-related risks — that it does not need to plan for aggressive carbon emissions cuts before 2040, because governments are unlikely to impose such expensive regulations.

Exxon cited a report by the International Energy Agency, which found that it would cost up to $45 trillion to cut global greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2050.

This finding is striking because, as the IPCC said, just such aggressive emissions cuts are required in order for the world to limit manmade global warming below dangerous levels.

 

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/08/fox-news-28-percent-accurate-climate-change

 

Fox News climate change coverage is now 28% accurate, up from 7%

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has just published an analysis of 2013 climate coverage by the three major American cable news networks. The report and data are available online, and the results are summarized in the figure below.

UCS reviewed nearly 600 segments mentioning "global warming" or "climate change" across the networks' most prominent evening and weekend programs during the 2013 calendar year. Segments that contained any inaccurate or misleading representations of climate science were categorized as misleading; otherwise they were characterized as being accurate.

UCS also put the misleading statements in sub-categories that reveal the problematic tendencies of each network's climate coverage. Aaron Huertas, a science communications officer at UCS who led the analysis said of the difference between network climate coverage,

"Sometimes, it's like the networks are covering different planets. Unfortunately, too many politicians, interest groups, and pundits continue to dispute established climate science and cable shows sometimes give them a platform to do so."

The UCS analysis found that Fox News Channel hosts and guests were the most likely to accuse scientists of manipulating or hiding climate data. Fox hosts and guests often conveyed misinformation about scientific findings, including many false claims that global warming is not occurring.

However, Fox did have some accurate climate coverage, including interviews with policymakers and fact-checking segments. Special Report with Bret Baier and The O'Reilly Factor were responsible for almost all of the network's accurate coverage, though both shows also had segments that featured inaccurate representations of science. The Five was the main culprit behind Fox's climate inaccuracies, and was responsible for 53% of the network's misleading coverage. If not for this program, Fox would have had a climate reporting accuracy rating of 45%.

Despite just 28% of Fox's coverage being accurate in 2013, this was a significant improvement for the network. A 2012 UCS report found that Fox News' representation of climate science was accurate just 7% of the time over a six-month study period.

On CNN, most of the segments that included inaccurate climate statements were from debates featuring guests who reject aspects of established science. Many networks like CNN and BBC that try to be 'balanced' in their climate reporting fall victim to false balance, giving the minority view disproportionate coverage, often in debate-style segments. However, two prominent CNN hosts condemned false balance this February, and since then CNN has not held a misleading debate onclimate change.

MSNBC's climate coverage was far and away the most accurate. On a few occasions, hosts and guests overstated the speed and severity of sea-level rise as well as the link between climate change and some forms of extreme weather, such as tornadoes. However, they also accurately conveyed science on those topics in other instances. 57% of MSNBC's accurate coverage featured some criticism of politicians or other public figures that dispute established climate science. MSNBC also had the most frequent climate coverage of the three major cable networks. Chris Hayes' coverage particularly stood out for the frequency and depth with which he approached climate coverage.

These findings help explain why Americans tend to be relatively poorly informed about climate change. 38% of American adults watch cable news, with Fox News having the largest viewership. Only two-thirds of Americans accept that climate change is occurring, and less than half of Americans recognize that it is largely due to human activities. This is a stark contrast to the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Inaccurate climate coverage on cable news networks, especially Fox News, can account for some of the American public's lack of awareness of human-caused climate change. While Fox News' climate coverage has improved over the past year, the network has a long way to go if its goal is to accurately inform its viewers. CNN's coverage is better, but the network needs to stop approaching climate science like a political debate. MSNBC provides a good example for the other networks to emulate in terms of factual accuracy and volume of climate coverage, though the network needs to be careful not to gloss over important nuances when discussing the links between climate change extreme weather.

 

[vmax]

That's interesting papa. Thanks.

 

Control the media and you control the people.

Same goes for education in our schools.

 

Maybe the people at Exon and Fox don't have children.

[thundercleetz]

You should check out the Louis CK ep. He was very good.

I heard him on Stern, seems like a really cool guy.