MSNBC Debunks Their Own Anti-Trump Global Warming Segment

MSNBC shows a slick animation claiming Arctic ice is at all time lows when it, and the NASA data it cites, shows ice has increased since 2012.

Despite Chris Hayes sensationalist MSNBC “All In” segment tonight the actual NASA data he cites debunks his own report.


MSNBC’s All in with Chris Hayes segment on Donald Trump’s decision to return NASA’s mission to space exploration from Earth study’s painted a grim portrait on Climate Change.

The segment cited Trump stating that Climate Change theory is based on “bunked data” and went on to cite series of series of visual that would lead any uneducated viewer to believe there is no doubt that Climate Change is real.

The segment culminates by comparing 1984 Arctic ice data to 2016 arctic ice as Chris proclaims the “difference between 1984 and 2016 is startling” as he walks through visuals of the NASA data.

The segment leaves the viewer with their jaw dropped with a sensation that is nothing short of “Wow. What the hell is wrong with Donald Trump. Why is he so stupid. The data is so overwhelming. Why won’t he just accept that facts?”

Chris bombards the viewer with more graphs and more data proclaiming that the arctic sea ice levels have reached all-time lows in building his case for attacking Trump.

Here the underlying problem with Hayes’ report is revealed. It is sensational. Absolute sensationalism designed to invoke sensations in the viewer that any educated viewer should immediately suspect the report is sensationalist in nature and as such it should be fact checked.

Following that rule of thumb let’s review some actual NASA reports and data without the sensationalism.

Last year NASA called out the IPCC, the international body which promotes Climate Change theory on behalf of globalists, revealing NASA’s own studies on climate change do not align with IPCC’s findings.

Specifically, while the IPCC has long cited loss of ice in the Antarctic and Arctic regions to support their claims of Climate Change and Global Warming NASA’s own study found that the amount of ice in the Antartic was in fact increasing.


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

Antarctic Peninsula
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
Credits: NASA’s Operation IceBridge

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

The study finally gave credibility to the long discredit so-called “Climate Change deniers” who pointed out the same data for years claiming the IPCC was manipulating their data.

To be fair the “deniers” claims were not just conspiracy but previously leaked emails from IPCC scientist revealed many instances of the scientists manipulating and even outright altering historic climate data to fit their narratives.

Donald Trump has repeatedly pointed to the leaked emails to point out that Climate Change research isn’t what the public has been lead to believe it is.

As the well respected Forbes magazine reports:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.


Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.


Read Full Article…

Whether or not you think the Climate Gate emails are a smoking gun, they at minimum raise doubt as these scientists are the same the same that the corporate media continues to cite.

Regardless, continuing on with Chris Hayes segment which now focuses now on Arctic ice levels since, thanks to NASA, data no longer supports the IPCC’s position that the Antartic is losing ice.

Hayes sensationally compares 1984 ice levels to 2016 arctic ice levels, leaving viewers with a wow “the end is near” feeling.

Here’s a screen shot from the segment.


However there are several problems with the animation Chris Hayes decided to show.

For starters, ice levels shown aren’t a true representation of  actual sea ice levels. Instead, the animation shows extrapolated data of areas if the arctic with “15% of sea ice” which calls into question matters of subjectivity and why the “15%” metric was chosen.

Furthermore the graphic appears compare ice levels from the winter of 1984 against ice levels of the summer of 2016.

As NASA makes clear in their own studies there 1984 represented all-time highs for recorded ice levels in the arctic and 1986 had nearly as high ice levels..

Arctic sea ice cover has not fared well during other months of the year either. A recently published study that ranked 37 years of monthly sea ice extents in the Arctic and Antarctic found that there has not been a record high in Arctic sea ice extents in any month since 1986. During that same time period, there have been 75 new record lows.

Furthermore, NASA has research shows that c2015-2016 sea-ice levels in the arctic were actually being affected not by climate change but instead by the tropical cyclones in the Pacific pushing warm water into the arctic causing the ice to melt and break up.

Extremely Warm 2015-’16 Winter Cyclone Weakened Arctic Sea Ice Pack

A large cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 brought so much heat and humidity to this otherwise frigid and dry environment that it thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time of the year when the ice should have been growing thicker and stronger, a NASA study found.

A large cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 brought so much heat and humidity to this otherwise frigid environment that it thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time when the ice should have been growing.

The cyclone formed on Dec. 28, 2015, in the middle of the North Atlantic, and traveled to the United Kingdom and Iceland before entering the Arctic on Dec. 30, lingering in the area for several days. During the height of the storm, the mean air temperatures in the Kara and Barents seas region, north of Russia and Norway, were 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) warmer than what the average had been for this time of the year since 2003.

The extremely warm and humid air mass associated with the cyclone caused an amount of energy equivalent to the power used in one year by half a million American homes to be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface of the sea ice in the Kara-Barents region. As a result, the area’s sea ice thinned by almost 4 inches (10 centimeters) on average.

At the same time, the storm winds pushed the edges of the sea ice north, compacting the ice pack.

“During the cyclone, the sea ice retreated northward, causing a loss in coverage equaling the area of the state of Florida,” said Linette Boisvert, lead author of the study and a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Boisvert and her colleagues used data from NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument aboard the Aqua satellite to study the atmospheric effects of this storm on the sea ice, specifically the evolution of air temperature and humidity during the storm. They also compared the cyclone to other extreme events from past winters since 2003, the year AIRS began to collect data.

“Measured against other extreme winter events that have happened in the Kara-Barents seas region over the AIRS period, this one was the warmest,” Boisvert said. “The AIRS time period also coincides with the warmest decade on record, so this storm being the hottest is a big deal.”

The researchers also used a reanalysis of wind speeds, satellite passive microwave data of Arctic sea ice concentration and a sea ice thickness model to study how the storm impacted the sea ice cover.

This visualization starts with a global view of the Western Hemisphere. The viewer then moves in over the Arctic on Dec. 27, 2015. Winds and air temperature fade in as time moves forward. A low pressure system then moves in pushing warm air ahead of it. The warm air moves over the Arctic sea ice, contributing to dramatic melting of the sea ice concentration in this region.

Credits: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio/Alex Kekesi, data visualizer

Usually, during the Arctic winter the atmosphere and surface of the ice are very cold, while the exposed ocean waters are warmer, so there’s a heat transfer from the ocean to atmosphere. During the cyclone, the pattern was inverted and heat traveled from the atmosphere to the surface of the ice. After the storm, the weather in the Kara-Barents seas region remained warmer than average for January, leading scientists to believe this cyclone prevented the sea ice from recovering.

Read Full Article

And per NASA’s own satellite video 2016 ice winter ice levels, while not as high as the near all-time highs reached in the winter of 1984 certainly are of a similar magnitude.

This NASA video shows the change in ice levels from summer to winter.

Now if your confused as to why the NASA video actually shows a 2016 ice area larger than the area shown in Chris Hayes’ graphic the answer is because the graphic above shows ice levels for which “15% of the Arctic was ice” while NASA’s  video shows actual satellite footage of arctic ice. If we are to trust MSNBC’s graphic then area covered in NASA’s video that is not covered in MSNBC’s graphic would represent areas of the arctic which in which the percent of ice is less than 15%.

Regardless, factual conclusions cannot be mad on speculation, so instead let’s focus on Haye’s comments in MSNBC’s segment tonight claiming that arctic ice levels are now at all-time lows.

Regardless of the percentage of ice in the sea in MSNBC’s report being 1% or 15% their animation shows the following area of coverage arctic ice in 2008.

In the segment, MSNBC shows each clip year by year up until 2008 in which their video skips from 2008 to 2012 and then skips to 2014 before showing the shocking comparison between 2016 and 1986.

However’ what keen eyed viewers and readers will realize is that arctic sea ice levels in fact rose from 2012 to 2016 while Chris Hayes is claiming the ice levels are at an all-time low.


MSNBC’s satellite imagery 2012

MSNBC’s satellite imagery 2016

Just to make it clear, if you are not seeing it MSNBC sensationalizes their segment claiming levels of arctic ice are at all-time lows while their own animation, which has been deceptively cut after showing every single year to showing 8 years in between frames, in fact shows 2016 ice levels are higher than 2012 levels.

To  make it more clear to those that can’t pick out the difference in the screenshots above here are the 2012 ice levels overlaid on the 2016 ice levels.


Of course, this increase of arctic ice levels just happens to coincided with NASA’s findings that ice levels in the antartic are now in fact increasing despite the IPCC’s data claiming the Antarctic is losing ice.

Perhaps, more coincidentally is NASA’s data is now falling in line with Solar scientists which have been previously discredited by the IPCC and who have recently reported the spike in temperatures at the turn of the millennium was in fact due to a cycle increase in solar activity of the Sun.

According to these scientist’s this solar activity has peaked and the earth will now actually see a gradual cooling over the next 30 years.


Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*