Archives

Not to start a holiday flame war, but Fox News' Washington Bureau chief sent out a memo (http://www.salon.com/news/fox_news/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/15/fox_new_climate_memo) to Fox reporters telling them to always counter any news about climate change with denialism. Evidently, he sent the memo out fifteen minutes after a reporter reported that the past decade had been the warmest on record.

And in other Fox News news, their viewers tend to be more confused about current events (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=) than people who get their news elsewhere. (Please note: I think all cable news is bad, so I'm not urging that anyone watch CNN or MSNBC.)

Just follow a variety of news sources and sort it out.

A disturbing trend I see is reporting legislation without really detailing it's contents - just the debate.

For instance, I've heard news about the arms-reductions treaty, but not about what it does and give some idea whether or not it's a fair deal between America and Russia.

Just follow a variety of news sources and sort it out.

A disturbing trend I see is reporting legislation without really detailing it's contents - just the debate.

For instance, I've heard news about the arms-reductions treaty, but not about what it does and give some idea whether or not it's a fair deal between America and Russia.

You're absolutely right about this. It's much easier to "report" on the petty battles and sniping in DC than it is to deal with the substance of legislation. So they don't even bother reading the legislation, much less reporting on it.

Thanks Booferama, great post. I have a group I go out with, on Wednesday nights and a couple are big Fox news supporters.

I really just want the news reported and basic analysis.. I love Reuters for that reason.

Where in Cincinnati do you live? I spent my first 28 years there.

Just follow a variety of news sources and sort it out.

A disturbing trend I see is reporting legislation without really detailing it's contents - just the debate.

For instance, I've heard news about the arms-reductions treaty, but not about what it does and give some idea whether or not it's a fair deal between America and Russia.

While I've found overseas sources (esp. BBC) to have better reporting, I also try to go to the horse's mouth when possible. THOMAS (Congressional legislation database) is my friend.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

PS- I should note I've done this ever since reading an AP reporter's recounting of how he fell asleep at the switch RE: US-Soviet negotiations and failed to understand the significance of them debating over a single word for three weeks.

What Fox distorting the news :eek:

What Fox distorting the news :eek:

What? News is distorted?

I don't watch fox but they aren't the first.

What? News is distorted?

I don't watch fox but they aren't the first.
Ditto.

While I've found overseas sources (esp. BBC) to have better reporting...

Emotion in news is the biggest problem for me. Just give me the information and I'll react to it myself, thanks.

While the BBC is less sensational than US news channels it still has the same problem of excessive emotion and opinion.

Thanks Booferama, great post. I have a group I go out with, on Wednesday nights and a couple are big Fox news supporters.

I really just want the news reported and basic analysis.. I love Reuters for that reason.

Where in Cincinnati do you live? I spent my first 28 years there.

Actually, my wife and I moved away from Cincinnati in July; now we're in upstate New York. (Thanks for the reminder to change my profile. :) )

We lived in Mt. Washington. We had great neighbors, but there wasn't much to do in the area. That city needs better mass transit.

I like MSNBC for two reasons. Unlike Faux News, it doesn't pretend to be unbiased. Second, unlike virtually all of the other broadcast media, it reports more than 30 or 90 second sound bites. I get most of my news from the Internet and print media.

(Please note: I think all cable news is bad, so I'm not urging that anyone watch CNN or MSNBC.)

I agree with you there. As a human product, news will always carry some kind of bias. Always take your news with a grain of salt and from multiple (preferably diverse and opposing) sources. Global Warming/climate change/whatever name du hour it carries now specifically is a topic subject to immense amounts of distortion from both sides, though, so it's tricky to navigate even with multiple sources of information.

It is one thing for a journalists bias to creep into objective reporting that attempts to be "fair and balanced" but another to blatantly distort the news for political gain. I find the Murdoch/Koch brothers propaganda machine particularly disturbing because of its intent. At some point will the American people realize they are being hoodwinked by their quest to be entertained.

Booferama: Another view of the World Public Opinion article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/poll-fox-news-misinformation/

"There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)

– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)

– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)

– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)

– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)

– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)

– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)

– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)

– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)"

It is clear that Fox is effective in changing perceptions on issues.

I get my daily news from a multitude of sources including: CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Huffington, USAToday, CBS, Wis. State Journal, Time, BBC, The Guardian and others. ( I find the British view particularly interesting. May be my roots?)

Fox news leans right. Wow, startling revelation?
CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN lean left. Wow, startling revelation?

As has been said, most all media sources come standard with bias. If you are a hard ideologue for either side, then you tend to not see the bias in the news that reflects your views. I tend to be more centrist, so i see the bias in all of them, and use many more sources to try to filter the facts from the spin. It is not an easy thing to do, but being informed is important to me. Most people don't bother, or simply don't care. I am glad those who are that apathetic tend to be "too busy" to vote, because i would much rather see a smaller but well informed group of people vote.

Hi Green Blues,

I agree that Fox is the worst of the bunch. I wasn't trying to make a false equivalence. That's what's so funny about people acting like this is no big deal. Fox is clearly a propaganda organization, whereas other outlets are biased but, for the most part, either announce that bias or try to minimize it. Fox, on the other hand, creates its own reality, where heavy snow "proves" that global warming isn't real, where Obama is a socialist, where the economic downturn was caused by the CRA and Freddie and Fannie.

Hi Green Blues,

I agree that Fox is the worst of the bunch. I wasn't trying to make a false equivalence. That's what's so funny about people acting like this is no big deal. Fox is clearly a propaganda organization, whereas other outlets are biased but, for the most part, either announce that bias or try to minimize it. Fox, on the other hand, creates its own reality, where heavy snow "proves" that global warming isn't real, where Obama is a socialist, where the economic downturn was caused by the CRA and Freddie and Fannie.

I have to disagree on this one Boof. CBS and NBC are every bit as biased as Fox. Every once in a while, one of them get blatant(think Dan Rather). ABC doesn't seem quite as bad, but they do have their moments.

I have to disagree on this one Boof. CBS and NBC are every bit as biased as Fox. Every once in a while, one of them get blatant(think Dan Rather). ABC doesn't seem quite as bad, but they do have their moments.

If that were true, then why are Fox viewers so misinformed by such a wide margin?

And there's this: PolitiFact's lie of year (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/) happens to coincide with how Bill Sammon, the same bureau chief who sent out the directive about climate change, directed reporters to frame the health-care debate (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003).

If that were true, then why are Fox viewers so misinformed by such a wide margin?

And there's this: PolitiFact's lie of year (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/) happens to coincide with how Bill Sammon, the same bureau chief who sent out the directive about climate change, directed reporters to frame the health-care debate (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003).

Again, this goes on constantly on both sides of the aisle. Does anyone remember the phrase "risky scheme"? Saying Fox news viewers are "misinformed" is an opinion. One can just as easily say that MSNBC viewers are "misinformed". I see the bias on both sides, and i find it all disgusting. There really aren't any true investigative journalists around any more, save for John Stossel.

I have to disagree on this one Boof. CBS and NBC are every bit as biased as Fox. Every once in a while, one of them get blatant(think Dan Rather). ABC doesn't seem quite as bad, but they do have their moments.

Don't forget NPR.

Again, this goes on constantly on both sides of the aisle. Does anyone remember the phrase "risky scheme"? Saying Fox news viewers are "misinformed" is an opinion. One can just as easily say that MSNBC viewers are "misinformed". I see the bias on both sides, and i find it all disgusting.

Actually, I'm calling Fox viewers biased based on a study. That study also looked at the news awareness of MSNBC viewers; while not perfect, MSNBC viewers are better informed. (Please note: this is not an endorsement of MSNBC.)

Actually, I'm calling Fox viewers biased based on a study. That study also looked at the news awareness of MSNBC viewers; while not perfect, MSNBC viewers are better informed. (Please note: this is not an endorsement of MSNBC.)

"A" study? what was the methodology? Who performed the study? Are they completely unbiased? Can you be sure?
When you want to believe something, then you will believe it when it is presented. I am not saying this is the case here Boof, but it is pretty common. I watch Fox news from time to time, and i am not "misinformed". I know when i am being spoon fed bull****, and i reject it. That's all. People on the far left(note, i am not accusing you of that Booferama) tend to look at Fox news as the "boogeyman". Fox news was the inevitable result of media that slants left. It offers a "yin" to the left leaning medias "yang". Personally, i wish all media was unbiased, but thats not going to happen.

NPR runs hot and cold. I thought their firing of Juan Williams to be a chicken **** move. I don't agree with Juan on everything, but he is a fairly centrist guy. If he gets canned, so should Nina Totenburg. The double standard bothers me a little, but i do listen to NPR and get a fair amount of useful information from it.

Actually, I'm calling Fox viewers biased based on a study. That study also looked at the news awareness of MSNBC viewers; while not perfect, MSNBC viewers are better informed. (Please note: this is not an endorsement of MSNBC.)

I've seen a couple of studies with that jist. Here's a recent one:
Link (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=)

Fox News' response to the substance of the study was pretty amusing too ("they're a party school") .

Also, what constitutes better informed vs. a difference of opinion?

Also, what constitutes better informed vs. a difference of opinion?

Here's an excerpt from the link I provided from above...

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican. "

They link to their survey and methodology from the link I provided. Other studies of issues where Fox appears to have pushed counter-factual positions (i.e. lies) have been completed in the past with similar results.

It's disingenuous of Faux News' supporters to claim all media are as blatantly biased as Faux. We have the smoking gun in the memo, and the dead body in the surveys of Faux News' viewers. The other media they accuse of bias have, at worst, weak circumstantial cases against them.

But you can't argue with mere logic against BELIEF. Faux News supporters BELIEVE those corporate media giants are all liberally biased, therefore they must be. Meanwhile, they're secure in their BELIEF that Faux is fair and balanced, because Rupert Murdoch says it is.

Senate's repeal of the Clinton-era ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces is a milestone, advocates say, as they wait for Obama and his top military advisers to certify that the ban won't put troops in jeopardy.

This is the first paragraph of a Fox News article after the Senate voted to repeal DADT.

This is the first paragraph of a Fox News article after the Senate voted to repeal DADT.

What's wrong with that statement.? It's the truth.

the bill stipulates that the policy will only be discarded after the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that changing it will not hurt the armed services' readiness, morale or cohesion. After a 60-day review by Congress, the Pentagon is to develop procedures for ending it altogether, a process that could take months or years to complete.

Oh, and as to the silly term "Faux news". :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Things such as that tend to diminish your argument, at least in my eyes.

Those who may think i love Fox news miss my point. We NEED Fox news to counter the left biased networks. It is up to US to filter and question and research things. Fox DOES present a lot of facts along with their slant, same as NBC, CBS, et al.

I find that i am repeating myself, so i will bow out of this discussion, but i have enjoyed it , have learned a few things from it, and have found it to be very civil. Thank you!

What's wrong with that statement.? It's the truth.

It's not.

Gays were already barred from serving openly in the military by policy. DADT was an Executive Order that should more correctly be called DA: Don't Ask, since that's the only thing it changed. Outed gays are still dishonorably discharged. DADT made it easier for gays to serve in the military.

Now read MSNBC's first paragraph:

In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

See the big difference. This paragraph correctly describes what Congress has done. For the first time in US history gays will be able to serve openly in the military. They didn't remove a "Clinton-era ban". They removed an historic ban.

Note that MSNBC also simply write "17-year policy", instead of "Clinton-era". This is a much better way of putting it since Clinton was actually trying to remove the ban. Saying "Clinton-era ban" could easily deceive the reader into thinking that Clinton instituted a ban instead of avoiding the Republican Congress putting the existing ban into law.

Thanks for filtering, questioning, and reserching INATM. I think that many Fox News viewers would have missed that.

What do you think the odds are that Fox will correct its mis-statements?

I really don't have anything to add to what ItsNotAbouttheMoney and ILAveo have said above. I looked into the study; it's sound work. As for claims that the media slanted left and Fox was created as a response, I'd be curious to see evidence of that. It's a claim that seems to have become true merely through repetition.

Maybe this is a topic for a separate conversation, but I'm honestly not sure what a centrist believes in. It always sounds to me like a term one uses to make oneself sound reasonable, but I have a hard time reconciling someone who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change as a centrist.

It has been a while since I have been on this site and it appears to have moved dramatically to the left. I used to be more in the centrist and open to all political views.

For instance the OP sites a study, and treats it as gospel or something. The OP takes this study as absolute fact without the possibility of error. He uses this study to belittle the other political side namely FOX News viewers.

So, I will check in from time to time and see if the discussion is on a more fair and balanced footing. :lol:

... As for claims that the media slanted left and Fox was created as a response, I'd be curious to see evidence of that. It's a claim that seems to have become true merely through repetition.

...

When television news was ruled by the 3 networks there wasn't much diversity of opinion on TV, so nearly everybody thought it was slanted one way or another. I always thought it was slanted in favor of selling razor blades. ;)

Radio and print always had more diversity--for example with conservative points of view pretty well represented by Paul Harvey and the Wall Street Journal. I was a fan of both of those, but these days my primary trusted news source is the Economist magazine.

I enjoy the diverse news market (when I have time), so I don't mind people watching or quoting Fox News. To me Fox is more commentary than news so their crediblilty ranks equal with the leftish Daily Show on Comedy Central or libertarian Bill Maher on HBO. People just ought to be more aware that Fox is very aggressive about making their news segments fit their commentary and supplement it with outside sources of news.

It has been a while since I have been on this site and it appears to have moved dramatically to the left. I used to be more in the centrist and open to all political views.

For instance the OP sites a study, and treats it as gospel or something. The OP takes this study as absolute fact without the possibility of error. He uses this study to belittle the other political side namely FOX News viewers.

So, I will check in from time to time and see if the discussion is on a more fair and balanced footing. :lol:

Its the same people on the left, just the people on the right got disinterested, got busy, or got burnt out. The center tilts very far to one side if you remove an opposing force.

Once it degenerated into name-calling & nobody had called out Greenblues for his "variety of sources" all being anywhere from center-left to leaning-so-far-left-they're-about-to-fall-over, I figured my libertarian leanings weren't wanted.

I will admit that Fox (which I don't watch), tends to be overly aggressive in reporting the old-style conservative viewpoint. Of course, as one of the few center-right or right leaning major media organization, that isn't unexpected.

You lose me when you say that your news channel, the one that supports your world view is the only correct one and all others are wrong. I surely don't favor Fox, but Fox didn't get to be the biggest guy on the block without the vacuum left by the others.

It has been a while since I have been on this site and it appears to have moved dramatically to the left. I used to be more in the centrist and open to all political views.

For instance the OP sites a study, and treats it as gospel or something. The OP takes this study as absolute fact without the possibility of error. He uses this study to belittle the other political side namely FOX News viewers.

So, I will check in from time to time and see if the discussion is on a more fair and balanced footing. :lol:

Please, chime in. I don't think anything I've written in this thread or on this forum threatens or demeans opposing views. And I don't take the study as gospel; I take it as evidence. If you or someone else wants to point out flaws, please go ahead. But the study found that Fox News viewers tend to be more misinformed than people who get their views from other places. GreenBlues and others have cited a few examples. If you disagree with the examples or the study, chime in. I'm here for the discussion; as Blackbelt said, this has been a civil, as most of them have been for a while. . .

That said, Warthog mentions people name-calling. I don't think I've seen much of that, though I'm happy to be corrected. I've seen a little name-calling on multiple sides of issues, and I've probably been guilty of it myself at times, but what I've seen here for a while seems pretty harmless. (Again, if I'm wrong, let me know.)

And I'm genuinely curious: are there ways that other media operations are systematically left-wing? And how far so? I try to resist the whole "left-center-right" argument for a lot of reasons, among them:


It oversimplifies a very wide range of views; for example, someone can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and even those two categories are pretty broad.
Left-center-right comes from how French Parliament was divided after the French Revolution.
Left-wing and right-wing serve more as slurs than as fixed, recognizable categories.
Political views change over time. The health-care reforms that were passed not long ago are largely a hybrid of Nixonian and 90s Republican counter-proposals to the reforms that Democratic lawmakers argued for. John Boehner and Orrin Hatch helped bring the individual mandate to the table, even though they both claim it's a left-wing/socialist policy now.


So I'll ask again: what is the center?

You lose me when you say that your news channel, the one that supports your world view is the only correct one and all others are wrong. I surely don't favor Fox, but Fox didn't get to be the biggest guy on the block without the vacuum left by the others.

I didn't see your reply before I sent my long one. But I don't support a single channel (in fact, as I said before in this thread, I have a low opinion of all the cable news channels) or media outlet. I think we're all better off when we use diverse sources of news. (Of course, as I've made pretty clear, I don't think of Fox as a real news source.)

I wonder if the poll cited might for some of the questions be more reflective of people's reaction to who is currently in office instead of News source.

A few things that weren't mentioned by those here who posted some of the findings from the poll were where the non-fox watchers also got it wrong.

"Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates."

Does that mean the MSNBC, NPR or PBS actually reported this support? Or did those viewers just think this was true because it could be a negative to republicans?

"Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama."

"Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP."

I suppose those that think highly of Obama and TARP would incorrectly think that this was the case, without network TV every reporting such.

From the same view point I would imagine if Bush was in office and the economy was exactly as it is now there would be more Democrats that don't watch Fox saying the economy is not getting better regardless of what is being reported on their news source.

I don't think since the poll was finananced in part by George Soros that it should be thrown out. Some here think anything from CATO or REASON or the Wall Street Journal should be thrown out.

WW, good catch on the Chamber of Commerce bit. I remember not being impressed by the evidence that they had taken foreign donations. I don't know whether those outlets ran stories on the CoC claim or what; I'd be curious to know (but am too lazy/busy to google it right now).

Just for a bit of background, and not to pile on: the University of Maryland reached similar conclusions about Fox with a survey in 2003, as did Pew Research in 2007. Of course, I think most people are misinformed. It's not because people are dumb, but because life gets in the way, so it can be harder to pay attention, and because our media in general aren't very informative.

As for Cato, Reason, and the WSJ, I don't reject what they report. I do find the news analysis at Reason and the op/ed work at WSJ bizarre, but their news reporting and investigative work is often quite good.

"According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo: "frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States (Good read on media bias.)
(Suppose wikipedia is too liberal for some.)

We might be better off if the Fairness Doctrine were still in place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Interesting read on the history of Murdochs empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
To me the great numbers of holdings and thus the ability to control events is alarming. I think that is what antitrust laws were written for.

As for NPR, I listed to WPR and in many cases they have guests of opposing view points discussing the subject matter.

WW, you sure have an obsession with Soros. As if the Koch brothers are not trying to use their vast wealth to influence politics.

WW, you sure have an obsession with Soros. As if the Koch brothers are not trying to use their vast wealth to influence politics.

No obsession, I notice when it's either Soros or Koch. I just see Soros as no different than Big Oil, or Big Pharma, he buys influence in a big way.

And I didn't have to be told FOX is biased, I see it's pretty obvious, that they slant against AGW is no surprise.

Centrists might be someone who, for instance, is pro gay rights but is also for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in other words, someone who doesn't tote the whole party line. Most people are like this IMHO. I would be pigeonholed there too by most even though I have some very strong beliefs about almost everything.

Centrists might be someone who, for instance, is pro gay rights but is also for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in other words, someone who doesn't tote the whole party line. Most people are like this IMHO. I would be pigeonholed there too by most even though I have some very strong beliefs about almost everything.

I agree. I consider myself pretty centrist.

I am for gay marriage
I do not believe in AGW
I am pro choice
I think the government spends too much
I am against amnesty
I am for protecting our borders
I am for the repeal of DADT
I was against extending the Bush era tax rates for those over $250K
I believe the federal government to be too intrusive

Since i have been called names by people on the left AND right, i figure that MUST mean i am a centrist.;):):woot:

Can the title be changed to "Faux News caught distorting on climate change"? :p

Can the title be changed to "Faux News caught distorting on climate change"? :p

Just as long as we start a thread titled PMSNBC distorts info on climate change! :p:p:p

Just as long as we start a thread titled PMSNBC distorts info on climate change! :p:p:p

Um, when did MSNBC distort info on climate change?

As for the centrist label, I see where you're coming from. Your beliefs point out the whole problem with tags: you're more of a fiscal conservative and social liberal, but even five or ten years ago, if we had a graph, your positions would have occupied different spots on the "left/right" spectrum.

The problem with that spectrum, at least with how it plays out in the media, is that no one actually talks about the ideas or the ideology. It's all about following party lines. So Republicans don't vote for the 9/11 responders bill for something--tax cuts--that doesn't have anything to do with the issue.

Um, when did MSNBC distort info on climate change?

.

I was making a joke.;)

I was making a joke.;)

Sorry. I'm visiting family, so my humor detector is even more off than normal. :)

As mentioned, people will listen to that which they already believe. Those whose views align with MSNBC will watch MSNBC and ridicule Fox, and vice versa. Rather than ridicule this, embrace it, listen to what the other guy says, and do research on topics which are important to you. The answers are probably somewhere in between where the two media biases put it, and infinitely more complicated.

As to global warming, National Geographic says one thing, Al Gore another, and I've heard nary a true word or study on it from either side of the aisle. Until politicians of all stripes quit ruining the entire subject, I'm just going to live my life how I already live it.

As to global warming, National Geographic says one thing, Al Gore another, and I've heard nary a true word or study on it from either side of the aisle. Until politicians of all stripes quit ruining the entire subject, I'm just going to live my life how I already live it.

Two points:

1. When did National Geographic and Al Gore disagree about global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html)? Did I miss something?

2. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating the correlation between rising temperatures and increased greenhouse gasses. Of course, one could always turn to the scientists themselves, among whom there is a broad consensus (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract).

As mentioned, people will listen to that which they already believe.Confirmation bias defined.

Two points:

1. When did National Geographic and Al Gore disagree about global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html)? Did I miss something?

2. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating the correlation between rising temperatures and increased greenhouse gasses. Of course, one could always turn to the scientists themselves, among whom there is a broad consensus (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract).

I've read not one but two National Geographics (one from the 90's, one more recent from about 2007 or so) pointing to a natural cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere on, IIRC, about a 500k year cycle. The timing of the current spike roughly matches that cycle. Artificial point sources are contributing to it, they admit, but there's sort of a reasonable doubt they've cast which I don't hear anywhere else. Considering the source, I'd say that's something to consider. I don't possess either issue, but I have read both articles.

I've read not one but two National Geographics (one from the 90's, one more recent from about 2007 or so) pointing to a natural cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere on, IIRC, about a 500k year cycle. The timing of the current spike roughly matches that cycle. Artificial point sources are contributing to it, they admit, but there's sort of a reasonable doubt they've cast which I don't hear anywhere else. Considering the source, I'd say that's something to consider. I don't possess either issue, but I have read both articles.

I find this hard to believe. If you go to National Geographic's website, they devote several pages (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes) to explaining (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview)how global warming is caused by human activity. Also, they have a quiz on global warming; here's the first question:

True or False? Global warming is caused only by natural factors.

The answer contradicts the "reasonable doubt" you claim they once presented.

I'll have to dig them up. The overarching point I wanted to make, though, is that so many studies both "for" and "against" global warming have had holes poked in them that it's unconscionable for any of it to be called science anymore. Most of this, as I have said, relates to demagoguery on the parts of both of the parties in this country who, sadly, legislate in a royal atmosphere of grandiose and exclusive facilities in DC and sadly, I feel left behind by the average legislator in this country on this issue and most every other.

Just out of curiosity... what would it take to convince you one way or the other, JCP123?

We do have two agencies who have the vehicle emissions part of the problem within their boundaries: the EPA and the DOT. I consider both of these agencies relevent, scientific and non-political in their actions

They each have separate methods to arrive at the same conclusion of how much CO2 a vehicle produces each year": (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm)


CO2 only numbers
A: Using EPA MOBILE6.2 fuel economy numbers
Average passenger vehicle = 5.20 metric tons CO2e (1.42 metric tons CE)
B: Using DOT fuel economy numbers
Passenger Cars = 4.78 metric tons CO2e (1.30 metric tons CE)
Light Trucks = 6.00 metric tons CO2e (1.64 metric tons CE)
All passenger vehicles = 5.23 metric tons CO2e (1.43 metric tons CE)
Recommendation: For CO2 only estimate, use 5.2 metric tons CO2e, or 1.4 metric tons CE


Here is the EPA's summary of greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html). Its a great, and sobering read.

I suggest we look past the politics and educate ourselves. More of us sending mail to our politicians, talking to them and using our power of voting to keep engergy policy and environmental concerns in focus.

Just out of curiosity... what would it take to convince you one way or the other, JCP123?

First, the politicians have to withdraw themselves from the "debate". Without them, lobbyist money will quit funding studies which find a predetermined answer for their "lackey". Then, we will go from there. The evidence will have to speak for itself.

I'll have to dig them up. The overarching point I wanted to make, though, is that so many studies both "for" and "against" global warming have had holes poked in them that it's unconscionable for any of it to be called science anymore. ....

This belies a misunderstanding of how scientific research is conducted. Any result worth talking about has its data probed and weaknesses discussed. In most cases a consensus emerges about the general validity of a result and directions that need further investigation.

My feeble understanding of GW is that the informed consensus is that AGW is occurring, but that its extent is hard to pin down due to an excess of variables that contribute to climate/weather and due to the incompleteness of the (pre)historical record. Many of the studies cited by deniers as "poking holes" could also be interpreted as "filling gaps" (for instance by detailing natural CO2 cycles to include in the climate model). Media story-telling prefers controversy so it covers debate not consensus.