Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage

The Guardian

New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting.

There's a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There's a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.

Yet a new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report, rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst climate scientists.

Specifically, politically conservative news outlets like Rupert Murdoch'sFox News and the Wall Street Journal were responsible for the lion's share of the false balance, disproportionately representing climate contrarians in their stories about the IPCC report.

Because there are so few climate scientist contrarians to choose from, most of the guests casting doubt on human-caused global warming and the IPCC report were not climate scientists. It's important to remember that the scientific evidence has no political bias, which suggests that the disproportionate representation of climate contrarians is a result of the political biases in the media outlets themselves.

The only issue I think needs to be highlighted is that the scientific consensus agrees unlike what many groups are saying. One of the arguments I would here being parroted for a long time was that they couldn’t agree with each other on the issue. Maybe 1 in a 1,000 or 10,000 disagrees but it isn’t even close to being an even argument. People can have any opinion they want on the issue but they can’t have their own facts.

Thanks for reading.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Right, journalists are guilty of telling the truth.

in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

66.4% of abstracts expressed no position
32% endorsed AGW

97.1% (of the 32.6%) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

97.1% of 32.6% is 31.66%

This is the type of BS and doublespeak that makes near 100% of intelligent people have a deep mistrust of politicians posing as scientists.

I'd say the 0.3% were the only ones who were actually close to a factual answer.

greencmp
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Right, journalists are guilty of telling the truth.

Well that explains a lot. They must be freezing. Sorry but the IPCC wasn’t talking about hell. If they are telling the truth it must have froze over.

Anyway there is a consensus with climate scientists and the news has been misreporting the facts about it.

reply to post by badgerprints


Where did you find that at? Could you be getting your info from a oil funded site or a truthful site I can't tell if you don't post a link.

link Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

video

Oh yeah because consensus is always right. All throughout history it has been hahaha for awhile anyways..... Come on these scientist use computers to predict the future, that's not science, pure and simple. Furthermore, anyone who claims to have proof for global warming will present multiple graphs of temperatures all the way back to hmm early 1900's? I don't doubt for a second we are screwing the planet up with carbon emissions, but the fear these scientist and (mainly) politicians spew forth is sickening. How about we actually try to change our polluting habits instead of arguing about the future that none of us can see. The atmosphere is a complicated thing, we can't just write a little graph on a piece of paper and say it's 100% accurate and force people to accept it. Deforestation, plastic pollution in our oceans, these huge cities with millions of people living around it are all factors, there are so many factors that could effect the results. all i hear nowadays is fear based arguments with no real solutions just more doom and gloom to keep people from actually doing something. Or i see the "I'm right and you are wrong" argument, which has the same affect, no action just more talking and distraction.

reply to post by ForgottenRebel

Oh yeah because consensus is always right.

You seemed to have missed the point of the thread. It is about the press distorting the consensus figures, not about whether or not the consensus is correct.

these scientist use computers to predict the future, that's not science

How is that not science? Making predictions (and testing them) is a huge part of science.

Something about "peer-reviewed" aggravates the out of me. Sounds like a bunch of glad-handers in an echo chamber with even more yes men all in agreement about the agreement, but anyway. All in a huge concerted effort to convince people, that, if we just had more government control and more money the problem would go away. Sounds like snake oil to me. I'm not against saving money and saving the world. I'm planning to buy the LED bulbs as I am able. We don't drive as much as we used to. Open the windows when possible. Little things add up and I'm cool with that. But the current human condition, such as it is, requires that we use energy. If we don't, people die. Our economy feeds a lot of people, who would otherwise freeze or starve or both. Bring the better energy sources on and people will use it. Try to make it better yourself before you try and sell me on more BIG GOV, cause I ain't buying.

reply to post by rbnhd76

Something about "peer-reviewed" aggravates the out of me. Sounds like a bunch of glad-handers in an echo chamber with even more yes men all in agreement about the agreement, but anyway.

If scientists findings were not checked for accuracy by other scientists in that field just how do you propose they should be checked and by who?

That is what peer review is.

It isn’t an echo chamber of yes men I don’t know where you heard that. Maybe the media?

Grimpachi
reply to post by rbnhd76

 

Something about "peer-reviewed" aggravates the out of me. Sounds like a bunch of glad-handers in an echo chamber with even more yes men all in agreement about the agreement, but anyway.

If scientists findings were not checked for accuracy by other scientists in that field just how do you propose they should be checked and by who?

That is what peer review is.

It isn’t an echo chamber of yes men I don’t know where you heard that. Maybe the media?

Peer review by like minded psychopaths is completely worthless. Peer review by objective science is worth everything.

MMGW is nothing more than hysteria brought on by liberals and greedy politicians who think they are going to tax us for breathing at some point in the future. Hows that for predicting the future??

reply to post by Grimpachi


This should be no surprise seeing how Fox News actually fought for the right to lie on air and won.

www.dailykos.com...

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Lawyers paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.

It's their right under the 1st Ammendment

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

www.dailykos.com...

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

They're NOT an actual "news" source. As is clearly demonstrated in this video, they're a 24/7 political operation and a lying assed one at that.



F&S for the OP!

reply to post by Grimpachi


Global warming has proven to be a hoax. It's just a NWO agenda to implement carbon taxes to shut down their competitors.

Grimpachi
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Where did you find that at? Could you be getting your info from a oil funded site or a truthful site I can't tell if you don't post a link.

I got it from the link within the OP.
You assume that we have to go to another source or a biased set of information to counter the global warming argument.

All of the information necessary is contained within the same "Studies" and "Research" that is used to support the argument.

Politicians set the agenda and scientists find what they want for two different sides of an argument within the same set of data.

You might want to read the available links within the OP before embarking on a finger pointing campaign. If you can't study the information presented by the OP then why are you arguing it?

By the same token, if you don't want to even read the OP and see what it's linked to then why should I need to give you a source that's already there?

You might also want to stop assuming that people who don't agree with you are stupid.

double post

Grimpachi
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Where did you find that at? Could you be getting your info from a oil funded site or a truthful site I can't tell if you don't post a link.

link Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

edit on 12-10-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Are people not reading their own posts anymore ?



OP, you shot yourself in the foot with your own linked post in an attempt to shoot badgerprints foot.

reply to post by badgerprints

97.1% of 32.6% is 31.66%

Doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely as that big fat 97% picture in bold white text surrounded by a big red circle, now does it ?!

Context is everything.





Edit to add:

And to put it into even better perspective, of that 31.66% (97% 0f 32.6%), the IPCC is 95% confidently in agreement with it.

CranialSponge
reply to post by badgerprints

 

97.1% of 32.6% is 31.66%

Doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely as that big fat 97% picture in bold white text surrounded by a big red circle, now does it ?!

Context is everything.

I had the paint shop open and was in the process of making a very Stalinesque poster stating the same thing.
Bright red and black on a kitschy off white.
Big, bold, not-to-be-denied.....

It looked pretty spiffy.

Then I thought better of it.

I rarely agree with Grimpachi, but I read most of his OP's.
I think he's pretty sharp.
He's not always right, but he's pretty sharp.

And he contributes.
So he's got that going for him.

reply to post by badgerprints

I rarely agree with Grimpachi, but I read most of his OP's.

I think he's pretty sharp.
He's not always right, but he's pretty sharp.

Agreed.

It's unfortunate that this BS doublespeak crap (as you beautifully pointed out) is slipping over the heads of even the most intelligent of people.

Proof that propaganda works like a charm.

Unfortunately this is a classice case of the headline writer not actually reading the story and this causing confusion .....

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming.

That headine is refuted in the story below.

And the Guardian were the last UK newspaper whose weather/climate stories were not guaranteed to be made up nonsense.

The simple fact is: don't believe anything you read in the papers. Check the sources youself.