I've watched the channel for other shows and programming as well, though I have to admit some of their programming is inappropriate and therefore I don't watch everything they broadcast.
Watching the channel there are a few things I've noticed:
- When evolution is discussed,it is discussed as a scientific fact, and not the theory it really is.
- When the age of the earth is discuss, it is assumed that the earth is 4 billion years old.
- When global warming is discussed it is discusses as not only a fact, but that it has been determined beyond all doubt that it is caused by humans.
Now I could speculate as to why these biases are present in their programming, but I think most of us already know what those typical reasons are. The one I would like to focus on now is the last point.
Nothing highlights the bias towards global warming more than this article from National Geographic:
Even the title of the article shows the bias! But how Nat-Geo explains this phenomenon away is where the real heart of the matter lies:
To sum this up, shrinking sea ice proves global warming. But so does increasing sea ice. Really?! So what evidence would prove that global warming is a myth?This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozonein the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.
Oh but they go on:
Oh the bias! See what Nat-Geo is doing here? It is called "running interference". They know this report deals a blow to their pro-global warming agenda, so they try to point out, without any evidence sited mind you, that arctic ice continues to shrink. And notice their use of the word "slightly". Nope no bias there!While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.
Nat-Geo is lying. Arctic ice depletion is cyclical. In fact, global warming alarmists have been predicting that arctic ice would disappear during the arctic summer for several years now. Maybe you remember this famous picture trying to highlight it:
Want to know the truth? Arctic ice does melt. But that is during the northern hemisphere's summer. During the winter the ice reforms. Again this is cyclical thing and the predictions of a complete melt have never come to fruition.
Nat-Geo either forgot that, didn't know that, or purposely left it out. I am pretty sure it is the latter, as the first two would seriously draw into question the scientific knowledge of Nat-Geo. My guess is that it is their integrity that should be questioned.
Sad that an organization that tries to claim scientific integrity on such issues would deceive on this level. But even the "About" text on their website shows their bias:
The National Geographic Society has been inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888. It is one of the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institutions in the world. Its interests include geography, archaeology and natural science, and the promotion of environmental and historical conservation.Apparently the promotion of environmental conservation, and inspiring people to care about the planet are more important than accurately discussing scientific facts.