Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Business and Media Institute Report
7 years ago  ::  Mar 14, 2008 - 9:08AM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
I'm sure that this story will once again be accused of being just another Right Wing Conspiracy ... AND .. that NO challenge to the Data in will be put forth! .. BUT ...

http://www.businessandmedia.org/special … xecsum.asp

" Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions. ........

"• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1."



Well so much for there not being any media bias!  But the NEXT item is the one that gets me.


• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)


So .. it's clear that the AGW crowd is not dazzling the public with their science ... but their propaganda!
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:04PM #2
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,632
This is something I find hard to handle.

I'm going outside to check the tyres on the Prius.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:04PM #3
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,632
This is something I find hard to handle.

I'm going outside to check the tyres on the Prius.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2008 - 12:00PM #4
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=Bodean;356012]I'm sure that this story will once again be accused of being just another Right Wing Conspiracy ... AND .. that NO challenge to the Data in will be put forth! .. BUT ...

http://www.businessandmedia.org/special … xecsum.asp

" Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions. ........

"• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1."



Well so much for there not being any media bias!  But the NEXT item is the one that gets me.


• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)


So .. it's clear that the AGW crowd is not dazzling the public with their science ... but their propaganda![/QUOTE]

Whatever the merits of the mass media reporting on Global Warming, an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field believe that AGW is real and threatens to run away if CO2 emissions are not curbed. There is little scientific merit to the objections of the skeptics in my experience.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2008 - 5:46PM #5
JGBookworm
Posts: 241
Bodean, the problem I see here is that you are attempting to combine the media and proponents of AGW into one diabolical group.  Typically, the mainstream media will twist any information, no matter where the information comes from, in order to produce the most sensational, attention-grabbing story possible.  That's why we see headlines like, "Studies show such-and-such-new-drug causes Alcoholism!" or whatever, after a study shows a miniscule, statistically questionable increase that may or may not be related to the drug in question. 

I mean, were you seriously expecting them to accurately report the facts? ;)

I don't really see how a media bias in either direction is relevant to those on either side of the debate who are interested in the science.  I also don't see how it means there is some sort of AGW crowd conspiracy to "dazzle the public with . . . their propaganda."
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2008 - 8:15PM #6
eadler
Posts: 4,449
Just saw a news story on Fred Singer on ABC news.
They gave him a platform to express his opinion. He simply said that climate change has happened before, and the scientists who are blaming it on GHG's are just wrong.
They also interviewed scientists to counter what he said.

They characterized  him as a perennial skeptic.
This seems to be correct. Here is an article he authored in 1999 in Capitalist Magazine:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=15
Environmental Myth Report
by Fred Singer  (February 6, 1999)

He inveighs against James Hansen and his global warming theory, the idea that cigarettes smoke is harmful, and a host of other scares. He points out that in some cases, predictions of problems were wrong. He then puts in a link to the Heartland Institute a free market right wing propoganda group that has inveighed against all forms of government intervention.

The point is that his position seems  not to be based on science but rather on personal attitude of skepticism and a right wing political orientation, despite his background as a scientist.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2008 - 11:07PM #7
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
eadler ....

As Roy Spencer states ... there is NO science that supports AGW theory .. only models!
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2008 - 10:35AM #8
JGBookworm
Posts: 241
[QUOTE=Bodean;377942]eadler ....

As Roy Spencer states ... there is NO science that supports AGW theory .. only models![/QUOTE]

Roy Spencer was also named "the official climatologist of the EIB Network" by Rush Limbaugh.  Doesn't exactly inspire enormous confidence in his scientific abilities, if you know what I mean.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2008 - 10:57AM #9
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
[QUOTE=JGBookworm;378662]Roy Spencer was also named "the official climatologist of the EIB Network" by Rush Limbaugh.  Doesn't exactly inspire enormous confidence in his scientific abilities, if you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]


Bookworm ...

It that is what you judge a person by, then by all means ... go right ahead.  I won't stand in your way .... as you walk off a cliff!

Pretty shallow .. IMO!  But don't worry, you'll have lots of company!  The "oil shill", Limbaugh, conservative think tank, etc ... arguments get thrown up here all the time.

:)
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook