Here we present three different videos from Fox News to check the facts and dissect the reliability of the sources with a SMELL test.
The O'Reilly Factor: Is man responsible for climate change? (5/20/2014)
(Click photo to see video)
Fact Checking
Overview:
The video features Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently
campaigning to become the Republican Presidential candidate, discusses his
opinions on man-made climate change. Although the title of this video suggests
it’s focus is on man-made climate change, about the first 3 of this roughly
5-minute video utilize a logical fallacy called non sequitur. According to Merrium-Webster.com, non sequitur is a
statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said
before. The host opens the video telling viewers that Rubio made controversial
statements regarding climate change, but before asking a single question about
the topic, the faults of President Obama and his administration are what is
discussed. This discussion features another logical fallacy called ad hominem,
which is defined as attacking the man, not the issue. This tangent is within a
non sequitur, therefore, the issues don't even concern climate change. When 2
minutes of the video remain, Marco Rubio begins to speak on his views of
climate change.
Analysis:
- Statement: "Human activity is not causing dramatic
changes to our climate"
This statement is false. Upon a brief visit to
politifact.com this was found, “Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a potential 2016
presidential contender. He said in May that human activity is not ‘causing
these dramatic changes to our climate.’ We rated that claim False” (Carroll,
2014).
- Statement: "Earth's temperatures have stabilized"
This statement is mostly false, within the same article as
the prior statement, it says, “Rubio said Earth’s surface temperatures ‘have
stabilized’ a claim we rated mostly false. He has a point that there has been a
pause in temperature growth over the past 15 years, but scientists say it’s far
too early to say temperature has stabilized, and most believe growth will pick
back up again. Additionally, the past 15 years have been some of the hottest
years on record, despite the pause in temperature growth” (Carroll, 2014).
- Statement: Liberal proposals won't do anything about the
problem
This statement is false, in the past the Obama
administration has proposed laws pertaining to cap and trade, more
specifically, “in June, President Barack Obama unveiled tough new regulations
on existing power plants that seek to significantly curb carbon emissions in
the coming decades” (Carroll, 2014). Duke Universities energy policy professor,
Billy Pizer, has said "Europe, California, New England—they all have cap
and trade and nothing has been devastated,". "There is nothing about
a generic cap and trade that is devastating” (Caroll, 2014).
- Statement: One of the last facts Rubio presents is by 2050
China and India alone will emit 50 gigaton of CO2
This statement is false, “by doing nothing at all and
letting current energy consumption trends continue, the IEA projects that
worldwide CO2 emissions will reach 55 gigatons by 2050” (Magill, 2014). An
analysis done at The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Laboratory at Berkely University
in 2011 concluded that this statement is false. In recent years, China has
taken serious actions to reduce its energy intensity (energy consumption per
unit of gross domestic production) and carbon intensity (CO2 per unit of GDP)…
and in Nov. 2009, China also announced commitment to reduce its carbon intensity
by 40% to 45% percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (Fridley, Levine, McNeil, Ke,
Zheng, Zhou, 2011). It was concluded that “CO2 emissions under both scenarios
could experience a plateau or peak around 2030, with AIS peaking slightly
earlier at 9.7 billion tonnes of CO2 as a result of more aggressive energy
efficiency improvement and faster decarbonization of the power supply”
(Fridley, Levine, McNeil, Ke, Zheng, Zhou, 2011).
The Smell Test
Source
Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, columnist, television host, author
and a political commentator. Marco Rubio is the junior United States Senator
from Florida and currently a presidential hopeful.
Proximity
Independence
Expertise
Motivation
Evidence
Rubio primarily uses science and statistics to support his
views concerning climate change. However none of the science or statistics he
quotes are attributed to any credible source. If critical thinking skills are
applied, it leaves the question “is any of what he saying fact or fiction?” He
talks about how there is no consensus about how much of climate change is
directly contributed to carbon emissions. He throws numbers around along with
definite statements. But not one time is the viewer told where any of that
information, all presented as truths, comes from.
Logic
Marco Rubio is stating un-cited science as indisputable
truths. That is a problem. Anyone can fabricate statements/quotes or statistics
and present them as facts. It is crucial that when a statement is made or a
statistic is given there is a credible source that can be attributed with
deriving the information, especially when they are science based. Rubio
disguises his opinion as fact when he says proposals to reduce carbon emissions
will damage the economy.
Left Out
Rubio does say that there is a majority of scientists who
say CO2 emitted by humans causes some changes in the climate. He doesn't say
how many scientists support this claim. As stated earlier, he never cites where
he has gotten his information. Because the majority of the video is discussing
a topic totally unrelated to climate change, Rubio doesn’t have time to address
other claims that are made when supporting man made climate change.
Conclusion
Overall, this video is not an accurate source of
information. It begins straight away with 2 logical fallacies. The facts
presented come from a politician who is not a scientist. The 4 facts that have
been analyzed are all incorrect.
- Statement: "Human activity is not causing dramatic changes to our climate"
- Statement: "Earth's temperatures have stabilized"
- Statement: Liberal proposals won't do anything about the problem
- Statement: One of the last facts Rubio presents is by 2050 China and India alone will emit 50 gigaton of CO2
Fact Checking
Overview:
Appearing on The Kelly
File is John Coleman, who is the co-founder of The Weather Channel. He firmly denies that climate change is not
occurring. Claims that the climate debate does not welcome viewpoints like his
own. Every claim Megyn Kelly presents to him supporting climate change is
happening, he says each one is wrong. The banner at the bottom of the screen
says at one point “Colman: There is no climate crisis.” Briefly ad hominem is
used against Al Gore. Coleman states a lot of facts throughout the segment and
at the end of the video the host tells him that “she hopes The Weather Channel survives now”.
Analysis:
- Statement: Man-made global climate change is a myth
This statement is false. Factcheck.org says “in 2014, The U.S. Global Change Research Program
put out its third National Climate Assessment, which stated: U.S. Global Change
Research Program, May 2014: Long-term, independent records from weather
stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all
confirm that our nation [The United States], like the rest of the world, is
warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans
are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather
events are increasing. Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the
rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities”
(Schipani, 2016). The 2014 National Climate Assessment was produced by “a team
of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee” and reviewed by “the public and
experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences” (Schipani, 2016).
- Statement: CO2 is an
insignificant green house gas
This statement is mostly false. In factcheck.org, an article had statements from Michael Mann, who is
a climatologist and geophysicist at Pennsylvania State University, the article
read “one way to disprove climate change might be to disprove the greenhouse
effect, Mann told us. This would entail finding strong evidence that suggests
gases, like carbon dioxide, don’t trap the sun’s heat. But the likelihood of
this occurring is slim to none, as the theory has been verified time and again
since it was first proposed by the physicist, Joseph Fourier in 1824” (Schipani, 2016)
- Statement: Antarctic ice cap is at record high of coverage
and thickness
This statement is mostly false. An article concerning the
Antarctic ice cap from nasa.gov said “a study analyzed changes in the surface
height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European
Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to
2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation
Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008… the team calculated that the mass gain
from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200
billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West
Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year”
(Garner, 2015).
- Statement: Arctic temperature is the highest it has been in
several years
This statement is false. A report from arctic.noaa.gov
gathered information using multiple methods. The report says, “assuming no
significant change in snow depth, the decline in freeboard (the height of ice
floes above the water line) amounts to a mean sea ice thinning of 0.32 m, from
2.26 m in 2011 to 1.94 m in 2013” (Gerland, Hendricks, Meier, Nicolaus,
Perovich, Richter-Menge, Tschudi, 2013).
The Smell Test
Source
Megyn Kelly is a television host, news anchor, political
commentator, and former lawyer. John Coleman is a former news weather caster
and co-founder of The Weather Channel.
Proximity
The proximity for Kelly is low as she is hosting her TV show
from New York City. She isn't very close to the issue. She just receives the
information and gives it to the public. The proximity for Coleman is fairly
medium. He is retired and doesn't conduct tests or study the issue every day,
but in his past has been very closely associated with this topic and with
weather in itself.
Independence
The independence level for Kelly is also low. The Kelly File is broadcast via Fox News whose parent company is News Corp. She is closely associated
with people around her who advise her to skew her views in order to receive
more viewers.
Expertise
The expertise level for Kelly is again, low. She is a TV
host and former lawyer who hasn't spent a lot of time in experience with
weather and statistics of climate change. The expertise level for Coleman is
again, high. He has spent many years devoted to the study of earth's atmosphere
and weather and done much reporting about it.
Motivation
Kelly's motivation in this video is to present arguments and
issues. She is the face of a show owned by a corporation seeking to make money.
She needs to appease viewers and get ratings. Coleman, is trying to convince
the viewers that global, man-made climate change, is a myth. He is trying to
persuade the viewers that all claims made pointing to the fact that climate
change is happening - are wrong.
Evidence
Megan Kelly names 2 specific sources (Roger Ravel & EPA)
and one general source (the scientific community) that say CO2 is a greenhouse
gas. John Coleman refutes that claim with talk that a petition has been signed
by 9,000 PhD’s and 31 scientists. That is anecdotal evidence, why are these
9,031 people signing this petition? Coleman says that both the Arctic and
Antarctic ice caps are not melting but does not present any evidence to support
his claims.
Logic
The statements that John Coleman make do not compel his
argument. Kelly has to ask Coleman 2 times what his data contrary is concerning
man made climate change. After her first question, he speaks on how both sides
of the climate debate are not represented. After she repeats the question, she
ads named sources that say CO2 is a green house gas and it’s levels in the
atmosphere have gone up. He replies saying that the petition signed says CO2 is
not a significant greenhouse gas. He then corrects himself concerning what the
petition claims, and says its a “teeny itsy bitsy" greenhouse gas that
doesn't have any significance “and we are sure of it”. Which again doesn't
directly combat what Megan Kelly says. His comments about the ice caps are
general and don't have any substance because they aren't linked to a credible
source. He utilizes ad hominem against Al Gore, which is attacking a person not
an issue.
Left Out
John Coleman doesn't explain where or how he acquired his
facts. He doesn't say the name of the petition. He says 9,000 PhD’s and 31
scientists signed the petition, so does that mean the PhD’s are educated in
fields other than science? He doesn't ever approach the topics head on and uses
information that isn’t strong or convincing throughout the segment.
Conclusion
Although the guest on this video has potential to be a very
credible and reliable source of information, all 4 statements that were fact
checked were incorrect. Overall, he does not provide a convincing argument
simply because what he says true or not, is not attributed to a credible
source.
Overview:
- Statement: Man-made global climate change is a myth
- Statement: CO2 is an insignificant green house gas
- Statement: Antarctic ice cap is at record high of coverage and thickness
- Statement: Arctic temperature is the highest it has been in several years
Fox News All Star Panel: Debate over climate change gets
heated. (2/14/2014)
Fact Checking:
Overview:
Panel is hosted by Doug McKelway and features Steve Hayes,
Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer. Steve Hayes begins by saying that smart
climate proponents acknowledge that 17 years with no global climate
temperatures proves a problem with what they have been saying. Juan Williams
opens saying the climate is changing and it shouldn't be politicized but it
has, he says the warm and cold are just more extreme. Charles Krauthammer says
that climate change has become a religion, “if it proves everything it proves
nothing”. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Williams raise they're voices a little at the fact
that 97% of scientists agree climate change is happening. Mr. Hayes is using
principled persuasion wile Mr. Hayes is unprincipled persuading.
Analysis:
- Statement: Hasn't been appreciable change, increase, in
global climate temperatures in 17 years
This statement is false. Politifact.com
stated, “it is true that global surface temperatures have remained relatively
flat for 17 years, since 1998. However, both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than
1998… the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record” (Sanders,
2014). Also, found on polyfact.com, a
statement that President Obama made in the 2013 State of the Union address,
said, “‘the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.’ PolitiFact rated his statement True.
(Actually, it’s 13 or 14 of the last 15.)” (Sanders, 2014).
- Statement: 95% of climate scientists say we are experiencing
global climate change
This statement is true. There are many credible sources that
use this number. One example is from a fact checking website titled, politifact.com,
which had an article that stated “a May 2013 report analyzing all scientific
papers that address the causes of climate change showed 97.1 percent of the
studies that took a position on global warming said that there’s been a
negative human impact on the atmosphere” (Sherman, 2014).
- Statement: 2010 was the wettest years on record in
California
This statement is foggy. Due to many websites such as
www.cnrfc.noaa.gov and www.water.ca.gov,
2010 saw one of the wettest December in southern California. Particularly in LA, it was said to be the wettest year in over 100 years, but we aren't sure of the times earlier than that.
- Statement: What is done here (US) will have zero effect on
climate... it will destroy our own economy
This statement is false. “Emissions reductions by the U.S.
could indeed play a role in slowing the rise of global temperatures. The U.S.
could also have an indirect impact, because its leadership on the issue could
spur a global movement to cut down on the carbon dioxide emissions that are
warming the planet” (Levitan, 2015). “The U.S. is the second-biggest emitter of
carbon dioxide in the world, after China” (Levitan, 2015). “In recent years the
U.S. has been responsible for about 16 percent of all global emissions. In
2012, the U.S. emitted about 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and
other GHGs” (Levitan, 2015). “For example, The
Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules in June 2014 that would cut
power plant emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The power sector
is the biggest source of GHG emissions in the U.S. at 32 percent, so a
reduction of that size would have an impact. EPA estimates the proposal would
cut about 730 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year” (Levitan,
2015).
Smell Test
Source:
Doug McKelway is a TV host and journalist, Juan Williams is
a columnist for The Hill, and Steve
Hayes is a Senior Columnist for The
Weekly Standard. Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist.
Proximity:
On the Proximity level, McKelway ranks very low. As a TV host, he entertains and so
he isn't the journalist out investigating the issue. Williams is also low. He is a writer for a magazine, and
has a tie to what he says based on what his superiors advise him. Steve Hayes
is also a writer for a magazine and is in a similar situation as Williams – so
his proximity to the global warming issues is fairly low. Same with Krauthammer. They may write about it from time to
time, but they aren’t right up in the action.
Independence:
Expertise:
McKelway’s expertise on this subject of
global warming and climate change is low.
Being the host of a TV show, he doesn’t have a lot of time to devote to gaining
all the knowledge possible about the subject. Williams’s is low also. He hasn’t written very many
articles on the subject. Hayes might be a little more reliable because he has
more published works on the subject, but still not an expert. Krauthammer also
is medium because he has written a
few articles on the subject.
Motive:
Being the host of the TV show, McKelway’s motive in this
segment is to encourage viewership through entertainment and to promote discussion
amongst the panel – therefore informing the viewers. Hayes and Krauthammer try
to convince the viewers that climate change is not happening, while Williams is
mostly just informing listeners about his point of view and present the
information he has gathered while writing on this topic.
Evidence:
Steve Hayes doesn't cite where his facts come from, he
presents his opinion as facts at one point. The one time gives credit to and
quotes a Senator, it is regarding fish. Juan Williams also doesn't cite the
sources where he gained his knowledge until, bringing up multiple places where
he learned that 97% of scientists agree climate change is occurring. Charles
Krauthammer does not state many facts just speaks his opinion. The few
statements he presents as fact, the source is not given credit. He too presents
an opinion as fact while speaking about an attenuation fund.
Logic:
There is not much logic used in this video, it simply is
journalists speaking opinions on climate change while occasionally using
information that is not properly credited. What the panel says is not terribly
helpful towards proving climate change isn't occurring.
Left Out:
The panel leaves out cited arguments, facts, and statistics
that will aid there views. Their opinions need to be replaced with credible
sources that prove what they are saying is truth. They don't really touch on
the big topics of climate change such as, CO2 emissions, sea level rise, and
economic loss.
Conclusion
This video has more opinions than it does facts. It is not a
good source of information pertaining to climate change. The panelists do not
present cited facts as they should. As a whole it is poor journalism.
Overview:
- Statement: Hasn't been appreciable change, increase, in global climate temperatures in 17 years
- Statement: 95% of climate scientists say we are experiencing global climate change
- Statement: 2010 was the wettest years on record in California
- Statement: What is done here (US) will have zero effect on climate... it will destroy our own economy
McKelway’s expertise on this subject of global warming and climate change is low. Being the host of a TV show, he doesn’t have a lot of time to devote to gaining all the knowledge possible about the subject. Williams’s is low also. He hasn’t written very many articles on the subject. Hayes might be a little more reliable because he has more published works on the subject, but still not an expert. Krauthammer also is medium because he has written a few articles on the subject.