CNN's "Planet in Peril" two years in the making, and they manage to get a very important fact wrong.

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 05:55 PM
Original message

CNN's "Planet in Peril" two years in the making, and they manage to get a very important fact wrong.

It's CNN, so go figure.

Anderson Cooper's voice overlay is talking about the IPCC report from February '07.

He tells us that the IPCC report states with "90% certainty" that humans are causing global warming.

WRONG!

The IPCC report states that it's GREATER THAN 90% certain that humans are causing global warming"

It's footnote 6 on the bottom of page three, the definition of "very likely" as used in the report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

I've heard it from the skeptics and deniers before: "Oh well, that means there's a 10% chance that we're not causing it!"
No! Strictly translating the IPCC report (which is too conservative and allowed beaurocrats to water it down), then it means there's LESS THAN a 10% chance that we're not causing it.
EX. there may be a 0% chance that we're not causing it!!

Big difference.

As usual, contact CNN to let them know about this latest chip in what's left of the public trust for them.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catch22Dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message

1. Let me get this straight, I'm supposed to call CNN and bitch about this?

When at LEAST they're running the program?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. You liked the program?

The parts that I've seen of it were interlaced with "but it's possible natural porcesses could be at work here..."
and "some scientists don't believe"...followed by respectful interviews with some of said scientists.

You obviously do as you like, but it's not a small point. It's important they not be cavalier about the subject, and if they can't even quote the IPCC report accurately then what the fuck can we expect from them in the future?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jack Bone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message

2. I say sick Michael Moore on 'em again!!

:applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lisa

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message

3. thanks for posting!

I missed most of the show ... tuned in just before they gave Anderson his chemical exposure test results. He looked concerned, for real.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message

5. Yeah, how dare they say the report is 90% certain that humans are causing it,

when in reality they're 90% certain.

So you're saying the level of certainty might be greater than 90.001%--but then again, it might not, so the only certain certainty is 90%. That...does not make sense. Saying "greater than 90% certain" and "90% certain" really don't mean different things when you're giving an overview on TV.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. No, not "in reality they're 90% certain".

I clearly explained in the OP why it's a significant issue.

Saying that it shouldn't matter because it's just "an overview on TV" doesn't matter. It's about educating the public.

If the incorrect meme is allowed to persist, then what will you say when someone tells you "there's a 10% chance that we're not causing global warming"? Will you ask them if they got that idea from an overview on TV?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Then I'd say, "that's a slight misinterpretation."

"There is at maximum a 10% chance we are not causing it, because the IPCC report claimed there was a 90% certainty. I would believe that would be enough cause to begin fixing the problem as we wait for further confirmation."

Sure, there might really be a 95% chance we're causing it, or a 91%, or a 100% chance. But the only thing we're absolutely certain of is that it the chance not lower than 90%. Therefore saying we are 90% certain and saying we are "at least" 90% certain are the same thing.

Now, if CNN had said "a 90% chance," that would be cause for irritation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Sort of like NASA's recent recalibration of US temperatures?

Which caused all the deniers to shout and scream that proof of data fudging had been found?

We can't afford to tolerate anymore "slight misinterpretations".

Accuracy is required, and should be demanded. It's also a "slight misinterpretation" to call someone like Tim Ball a "scientist", when in fact he's retired and has never done any science related to atmosphere and climate.

Believe me when I say I've seen this misused before. To allow people to proclain "there's a 10% chance we're not to blame!" only sets us back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. You misunderstand, HiB.

Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 06:49 PM by Basileus Basileon

I believe your opinion of what the IPCC/CNN said is a slight misinterpretation, for the same reason your Hypothetical Freeper's opinion is, for reasons previously stated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Not I, you misunderstand.

I grasped perfectly what you were referring to when you said "slight misinterpretation".

You missed my point about the NASA temperature data though.

It is not some "Hypothetical Freeper's opinion" that the NASA data change is a big deal. It was real, and it was pushed from many quarters.

It's irrelavent that you and I understand that something is of little consequence. What's more important is the public understanding. That's the ball you need to keep your eye on.

In that light, this particular fuck up, and so many others like it (ex. the media reporting of the NASA data change) need to be treated as significant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

otohara

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message

8. I'm More Disappointed In The Gigantic Posters They Put

in every copy of USA Today (circulation #'s 3638600)- CNN put 13.8 million square feet of planetary peril into circulation today through the USA Today. http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/75231/detail/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harper_is_Bush

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-29-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #8

12. Didn't know that. Certainly unfortunate, but if the program is/was good....then that

...would be justified in my mind, just like Al Gore's plane trips are justified due to that offsetting positive effect he generates as a result.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 06:57 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.