Fox News thinks pollution is good for the planet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not that it’s a HUGE surprise that Fox News has beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of true, but just FYI, they are now apparently telling viewers that pollution is good for forests. That means the REAL pollution is CLEAN AIR! It’s like you environmentalists don’t even WANT trees to grow.

It’s true that excess nitrogen, for instance, can help plants up to a point. But it’s still bad for forests, which is why it’s called pollution. Saying that “pollution helped grow forests” without adding “… until it killed them” is like saying “oh, you need water to live? Well, then you’ll love drowning.”

http://grist.org/list/fox-news-thinks-pollution-is-good-for-the-planet/

[X Factor 1,111]

What are these guys smoking?

[DaveE 178]

That ought to be at least a four Pinocchio headline. Fox news didn't say pollution was good for the planet, they reported the results of a study by Auburn University.

AUBURN, AL – As the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, a new Auburn University study suggests the Southeastern U.S. absorbs more carbon than it produces. And, at least in the short term, air pollution may actually be helping to speed the growth of young, carbon-absorbing forests in the region.

“Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake is much faster than other regions,” said Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburn’s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, and lead author of the study published in the journal Ecosystems. “This area has trees that are very young and the growth is very fast. So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere.”

While earlier studies have examined the effect of individual factors on carbon storage and climate change, Tian developed a computer model that takes into account multiple natural and manmade variables – such as land use, climate and pollution – over the past century.

The model suggests that moderate amounts of air pollution, in the form of carbon and nitrogen, had a fertilization effect on young forests. Many of these new trees appeared on abandoned agricultural land during the mid-20th century.

“In the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake,” Tian said. “But that’s not guaranteed for long.”

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[X Factor 1,111]

Some brains need to be washed since they are so polluted

[Teddy B 17,251]

Not that it’s a HUGE surprise that Fox News has beliefs about the environment that are the opposite of true, but just FYI, they are now apparently telling viewers that pollution is good for forests. That means the REAL pollution is CLEAN AIR! It’s like you environmentalists don’t even WANT trees to grow.

It’s true that excess nitrogen, for instance, can help plants up to a point. But it’s still bad for forests, which is why it’s called pollution. Saying that “pollution helped grow forests” without adding “… until it killed them” is like saying “oh, you need water to live? Well, then you’ll love drowning.”

http://grist.org/list/fox-news-thinks-pollution-is-good-for-the-planet/

I hope you didn't hurt your chin from your knee jerking so hard.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1727981695001/study-pollution-helped-grow-trees-in-southeast/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I hope you didn't hurt your chin from your knee jerking so hard.

The OP was referring to the infamouse Fox News Ticker, which says basically what the title of this thread says. To say that, "Oh, they didn't really mean that", is either turning a blind eye, or being obtuse.

[X Factor 1,111]

They all lie

Edited July 10, 2012 by kennard

[Teddy B 17,251]

The OP was referring to the infamouse Fox News Ticker, which says basically what the title of this thread says. To say that, "Oh, they didn't really mean that", is either turning a blind eye, or being obtuse.

The OP needs to take a reading course. Clearly the word "study" with a colon after it begins the caption. Which to be put in simpler terms for the OP and the rest of the kneejerkers, they were reporting on a STUDY.

[DaveE 178]

The OP was referring to the infamouse Fox News Ticker, which says basically what the title of this thread says. To say that, "Oh, they didn't really mean that", is either turning a blind eye, or being obtuse.

So this -- Fox News thinks pollution is good for the planet

Is the same as this - Pollution helped grow forests across the Southeast US.

[Teddy B 17,251]

So this -- Fox News thinks pollution is good for the planet

Is the same as this - Pollution helped grow forests across the Southeast US.

It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The OP needs to take a reading course. Clearly the word "study" with a colon after it begins the caption. Which to be put in simpler terms for the OP and the rest of the kneejerkers, they were reporting on a STUDY.

How about Fox News sheep take a course on critical thinking. The fvcking study does NOT draw the conclusion that Fox News Ticker displays! You got that? Or do you need me to fvcking spell it out for you? Fox News Ticker is a LIE!!!! Holy sh!t, you sheep are so far down the rabbit hole.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about Fox News sheep take a course on critical thinking. The fvcking study does NOT draw the conclusion that Fox News Ticker displays! You got that? Or do you need me to fvcking spell it out for you? Fox News Ticker is a LIE!!!! Holy sh!t, you sheep are so far down the rabbit hole.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's from Auburn University's actual report:

Over time, the southeast has transformed from a source of carbon to a carbon sink. This means that overall, the environment here removes carbon from the atmosphere rather than contributes it - which is unquestionably a good thing.

“For the last few years, people haven’t worried about this region,” Tian says. “They think it is not an immediate problem.” However, his team found that there is reason to tread carefully. Right now, changes in how land is used are causing a major shift in carbon storage dynamics. That is, cities are growing, and the southeastern landscape is changing at a rapid pace.

One of the surprising things that the study revealed was that air pollution – carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere –was one of the key factors in rapid forest growth that turned the area into a carbon sink. However, the study also suggests that there is a tipping point where this fertilization effect from air pollution will begin to harm rather than help regional ecosystems, especially when considered alongside urban sprawl, ground-level ozone pollution and heightened drought intensity.

http://content.auburn.edu/sfwsnews/?paged=2

Some of you yahoos don't know the difference between reporting news and editorializing. Fox News Ticker didn't just editorialize the study, they fvcking flat out LIED!