Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-08-14 12:00 PM - Post#167394
Accuracy varies significantly across major cable news outlets. All of them can take steps to improve their coverage of climate science.
Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science
I found this study interesting so I thought I would share. The article linked above sums it up - but the study itself found here tells the specifics in detail.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-08-14 01:01 PM - Post#167402
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Of course it says MSNBC was the most accurate and Fox was the least accurate. Al Gore is the far left Lib they worship.
Mother earth cycles through hot and cold and judging from some of the recent cold spells and lack of strong hurricanes this past season I'm just not too worried about the quacks on the far left of the global warming spectrum. Pretty hard to screw up Mother earth. She's weathered through a lot.
The variable deviation found throughout each news network is assuming the science on global warming is a fixed constant; solid evidence and 100% proof that there is global warming. There are mixed opinions on the science therefore you must have different opinions communicated through different mediums of media.
Some rich lib paid this kid to do a fruitless study.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-08-14 02:45 PM - Post#167414
In response to Allensince1993
"Climate Science" is dead.
"Climate Ideology" has replaced it.
If you agree with the ideology, there is no bias. If you disagree with the ideology, there is bias.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-08-14 03:00 PM - Post#167415
In response to Allensince1993
Of course it says MSNBC was the most accurate and Fox was the least accurate. Al Gore is the far left Lib they worship.
Mother earth cycles through hot and cold and judging from some of the recent cold spells and lack of strong hurricanes this past season I'm just not too worried about the quacks on the far left of the global warming spectrum. Pretty hard to screw up Mother earth. She's weathered through a lot.
The variable deviation found throughout each news network is assuming the science on global warming is a fixed constant; solid evidence and 100% proof that there is global warming. There are mixed opinions on the science therefore you must have different opinions communicated through different mediums of media.
Some rich lib paid this kid to do a fruitless study.
The sheer irony of your response has left me with nothing to say. You could not have proven the larger point any more effectively.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-08-14 11:22 PM - Post#167427
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global...
Science can't agree therefore the media can't agree. Is that easier?
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 06:47 AM - Post#167429
In response to Allensince1993
Are they covering my ideology favorably or not....no bias there.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 07:05 AM - Post#167430
In response to Allensince1993
Robert Carter??? You can't be serious.
 
It only took a couple of posts for this to evolve away from the paper on media coverage to citing the paid Heartland fringe.
I understand it takes a little effort to understand this type of thing - but I think it's worth it.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 07:33 AM - Post#167432
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
There is no such thing as cable news. That is the overriding glaring flaw in this study.
You have networks catering to a bias. Some lean one way, others lean the other. But none of them are news. They are corporate entities spewing endless streams of confirmation bias to their consumers.
The subject of the bias is irrelevant, the study will have the same conclusions whatever the topic is.
The study itself is just more confirmation bias.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 07:54 AM - Post#167433
In response to pup
I could agree that the study itself could be interpreted as confirmation bias if it was being used to make some other point than it is here. Do you see what I mean? By itself, it is what it is. You can over analyze this if you want. In fact, you have, in my view. But I don't see the point of that except to make some other point not related to the conclusions of the paper.
If you look at the paper, it's findings, and it's methodology for what it is, for how it was intended - it is simply making the point that out of three *mainstream* information portals - sources of information that a large portion of the general public refer to - none of them do the relative facts due justice. That's it. It's not any deeper than that.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 08:04 AM - Post#167434
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Name one topic that they do give it's due justice.
And how is it surprising in any manner that none of them do?
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
04-09-14 08:09 AM - Post#167435
In response to pup
There is no such thing as cable news. That is the overriding glaring flaw in this study.
You have networks catering to a bias. Some lean one way, others lean the other. But none of them are news. They are corporate entities spewing endless streams of confirmation bias to their consumers.
The subject of the bias is irrelevant, the study will have the same conclusions whatever the topic is.
The study itself is just more confirmation bias.
Exactly. Fox is Republican. MSNBC is Liberal. CNN has a left lean.
Name your topic and you'll see the lean. The study in question was a waste of money because the 'left' supports the fact we have global warming. The 'right' denies it. Fruitless study, period.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 08:26 AM - Post#167437
In response to pup
Name one topic that they do give it's due justice.
And how is it surprising in any manner that none of them do?
Exactly! So you agree. Why not just say that?
It's not surprising to me. The whole point is that it may be a surprise to those that rely on these sources for information about this topic. *That's* the point.
I might or might not be able to name another topic that they do or don't give it's due justice if this thread was about that. But it's not. It's about this papers conclusions relative to those network's coverage of climate science... and that a less than properly informed public hurts an honest debate, the democratic process, and decision making process.
; - )
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 08:54 AM - Post#167439
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
They assessed “accuracy” using their own biased (and disputed) definition of what is accurate. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a very leftward leaning group that has an alarmists global warming agenda) defined what they believed to be accurate information. (My pet name for them is the “Union of Liberal Scientists,” but that’s a different story, and I don’t want to get too far off topic).
CNN was criticized because they allowed balanced debates.
Most of CNN’s misleading coverage stemmed from segments that featured debates between guests who accepted established climate science and other guests who disputed it. Such debate formats represent a framing choice that suggests established climate science is still widely debated among scientists, which it is not. This debate structure also allows opponents of climate policy to convey inaccurate portrayals of the science to viewers
It’s a common technique in this field where disputed details are portrayed as fact. Claiming that these details are not widely debated among scientists is an example.
“Disparaging climate science” was listed as a category of inaccuracy!
Fox programs featured 12 instances of hosts or guests disparaging climate science by questioning the credibility of scientists and criticizing the study of climate science in general.
Wow!
A summary of the whole article could be: Global warming alarmist group agrees with media that portrays the global warming issue as alarmist.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 09:14 AM - Post#167440
In response to nomoon
Says a guy who, by his own statements on this site, has a known skeptic-bias on the subject of climate science to begin with. Which is, of course, perfectly fine. Just thought I'd point that out.
I disagree with your assessment for a couple of reasons which I may or may not get back to in more detail a little later.
But I will throw out just a couple of quick obvious points:
They assessed “accuracy” using their own biased (and disputed) definition of what is accurate.
Similar to how scientists use their own biased (and disputed) definitions of what is accurate as they relate to the science of "evolution", origin of species, etc. Or electricity. Or gravity.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (a very leftward leaning group
My pet name for them is the “Union of Liberal Scientists,”
They may exist - but I am not aware of any mainstream, reputable domestic or international scientific organization that, when seen through the lens of the political or policy spectrum, would not be viewed as left or liberal.
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
04-09-14 12:47 PM - Post#167459
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
I'm sure that there are folks who will claim the earth is flat. That makes it a disputed idea. The point is that climate change is widely supported and that some news portals, in an attempt to be balanced, give too much of a platform to positions that are not in wide dispute from credible sources. This distorts the news they present and has potential to sway policy responses.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 01:17 PM - Post#167460
In response to SB
Yep. Well said. I agree.
I assume that if it weren't for the observed reality that the public is not being properly informed by the mainstream information portals, then this organization likely would not have bothered looking into it in such a formal way. It makes sense to me that they likely knew going into it that their findings would be considerable and that if they looked into it formally, such as they did, they would be providing a benefit to those that might pay attention.
I decided long ago to refuse to look at this subject ("climate science" I mean) from a political or policy standpoint - and strictly from a viewpoint of "what are those that study this saying?" as I continued to gather information on my own. I don't doubt for a minute that if the science, at any point, points a different direction - then responsible members of the scientific community will reveal just that.
I also want to point out that the scientific method and the fact based conclusions that are yielded from that discipline on whole don't give a damn about policy or politics - they just are. What we do with them is up to us. Color them red, color them blue - the science remains the same. That could have been a Led Zeppelin song/album title.
whoops, gotta go...
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3859
Reg: 09-25-09
|
04-09-14 01:39 PM - Post#167462
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Am I off on this? I thought climate change was always well accepted by pretty much everyone. The climate is constantly changing. Global warming and cooling happens in cycles.
I thought the debate was always centered around man's influence on that constant climate change. That is in fact a very debatable subject. You could write the exact same paper in opposite depending on who's data you choose to look at. The same scientists have flip flopped on man's influence more than once.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
weblady
enthusiast
Posts: 147
Reg: 10-27-06
|
04-09-14 02:22 PM - Post#167464
In response to mgrayar
Reading this thread leaves me to wonder just how many of you have any scientific background or how many of you actually have done any real research into this subject. My spouse has a degree in Chemistry and is very experienced in quantitative analysis. Together we have read up on this subject and viewed the evidence. 97% of the scientists all agree that climate change is real and is caused by man. It is just a fact. Perhaps there is a real scientist on this thread who has actually done experiments, which can be repeated and up to peer review to disclaim this argument, but I doubt that very much.
It is sad to me that we spend so much time arguing about this subject and very little energy is put into solving the problem. The problem will just get worse, and it will affect us in a huge way. Hunger will be common place, as well wild weather and flooding of the coast lines. Our grandchildren and their children will indeed suffer, we only have ourselves to blame. These lame arguments against the idea that man has caused this are really about money and power. In my view this is very sad and shortsighted.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 02:39 PM - Post#167465
In response to weblady
The sky just fell on me and I can't get up.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/201 3/05/30/global-warming-al armists-caught-doctoring- 97-percent-consensus-clai ms/
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
04-09-14 03:00 PM - Post#167467
In response to pup
This might help you stand again.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environm ent/st...
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:08 PM - Post#167468
In response to Cheatham Parent
People have missed the point of this thread entirely.
That alone, proves the study invaluable.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:10 PM - Post#167469
In response to mgrayar
I thought the debate was always centered around man's influence on that constant climate change. That is in fact a very debatable subject. You could write the exact same paper in opposite depending on who's data you choose to look at. The same scientists have flip flopped on man's influence more than once.
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that a) the global climate is warming incrementally and that b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Weblady makes an excellent point - one that I have been repeating for quite some time now. It goes like this:
I am not a scientist; climate or otherwise. Therefore I look to the scientific community for there view(s) on the subject. Anyone can be skeptical for whatever reason about a) whether the Earth climate is warming and b) whether that warming is related to human activity - carbon emissions, in particular. Why any non climate science expert would make such an argument is beyond me, but I observe that they do (the 900 Forbes articles, for instance). What you can not plausibly or responsibly do is deny that an overwhelming majority of the international scientific community takes the above mentioned position. It's simply denial, as in "deny": state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
As I stated above - unless and until the international scientific community changes it's views on the subject or it becomes a much narrower majority opinion - I'm going to follow their lead. As opposed to say, James de la Garza or Rush Limbaugh.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:17 PM - Post#167470
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 03:20 PM - Post#167471
In response to weblady
Reading this thread leaves me to wonder just how many of you have any scientific background or how many of you actually have done any real research into this subject.
My research for my doctoral dissertation included lots work with infrared radiation and thermal modelling. I’m familiar with the technical issues related to climate science, though most of the technical problems that I’ve found can be easily understood with anyone familiar with basic scientific and engineering concepts.
97% of the scientists all agree that climate change is real and is caused by man. It is just a fact.
If you were really aware of this subject, you would also be aware that the sham paper making the “97% consensus” claim on this subject was retracted after fraudulent and misleading practices were pointed out by the same group of skeptics that the paper was attempting to marginalize.
The arguments from some of the advocates seem to be getting more shrill as evidence continues to show that the models do not reflect reality. One disturbing trend that I’ve seen is the attempt to reframing the debate by declaring victory (the debate is over), and scorning further discussion. Serious debate shouldn’t be allowed. John Kerry has been advocating that position recently.
I would encourage people to avoid the adhominem, “follow the money,” and authority arguments. Also, try to avoid the one-liners as a deciding factor. Stick to the science, and follow the back and forth of both sides of the argument. Don’t stop when you find an explanation that supports a point of view. Seek out the rebuttal of the other side, and try to understand that explanation. Then try to find a rebuttal from the other side, if there is one. In my experience, the alarmist positions tend to fall apart when the issues are examine in this manner. There are lots of websites out there that will give you one-sided strawman arguments for your position. However, it gets more interesting if you try to understand both sides.
As mgrayer mentioned, climate change is normal and constant, whether or not man has any influence at all. No one disputes that. Most people accept that the climate has warmed over the last 150 years as the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age. Most people accept that additional CO2 is more likely to cause warming than cooling. The critical issue is whether the additional CO2 will cause catastrophic warming. The basic physics says that is would be quite a hurdle to prove. The following facts are not disputed:
The greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly dominated by water vapor and clouds, not CO2.
Increased CO2 alone cannot cause the amount of heating needed to create the catastrophic scenarios promoted by the alarmists. This kind of heating would require a significant amount of warming caused by feedback (primarily feedback from atmospheric water). The warming with the feedback would have to be 300-450% of the warming predicted by CO2 alone.
Four very serious issues with the original and subsequent proxy temperature reconstructions are:
- They are heavily weighted on tree rings from trees from the western US, from cores that were mostly collected from a single researcher. This researcher (whose specialty is trees) said that this data should not be used for temperature reconstructions.
- The statistical methods used by the initial hockey stick studies has been shown to produce hockey sticks when any sort of red noise was used. In order words, you could replace the core measurements with noise and still get hockey sticks, based on the way the data was calibrated and weighted.
- The proxies are not calibrated to local thermometers. They are calibrated to global temperature averages.
- Every single reconstruction that I am aware of does not show warming in the later 20th century. This is the “divergence problem,” in case you are not already aware of the term used in these circles. If the proxies don’t show later 20th century warming, why would anyone believe that they would show earlier warming, such as during the Medieval warming period.
That is just a start. There are so many really really stupid practices and methodologies that seem to be mainstream for climate science would not stand a chance in the mainstream engineering world. This is apparently one reason why many are so reluctant to share their data.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:21 PM - Post#167472
In response to pup
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
I don't agree with any of that as it relates to the subject of climate science.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 03:23 PM - Post#167473
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that ... b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Sure there is. There is a huge debate about this, no matter how often someone says otherwise.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:39 PM - Post#167474
In response to nomoon
I would encourage people to avoid the adhominem, “follow the money,” and authority arguments. Also, try to avoid the one-liners as a deciding factor. Stick to the science, and follow the back and forth of both sides of the argument. Don’t stop when you find an explanation that supports a point of view. Seek out the rebuttal of the other side, and try to understand that explanation. Then try to find a rebuttal from the other side, if there is one. In my experience, the alarmist positions tend to fall apart when the issues are examine in this manner. There are lots of websites out there that will give you one-sided strawman arguments for your position. However, it gets more interesting if you try to understand both sides.
I appreciate your very lucid comments. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for a measured, balanced approach when attempting to fact find on this subject.
It has been my experience that of the large majority scientific community that have signed on to what you seem to generally agree with - that a much smaller group are actually suggesting catastrophe in a sky-is-falling sort of way. The majority seem to be pretty measured with their approach to getting their message out to the public.
On another note, does it not concern you in the slightest that there is such a HUGE bunch in this country that bite on the "ad hominem, follow the money, and authority arguments" in a dangerously and irresponsibly dismissive way?
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:50 PM - Post#167475
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
I don't agree with any of that as it relates to the subject of climate science.
Ok, 99 77/100ths when it relates to climate science. My bad.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:58 PM - Post#167477
In response to nomoon
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that ... b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Sure there is. There is a huge debate about this, no matter how often someone says otherwise.
Respectfully, I beg to differ. In the sense that the only serious debate, that I'm aware of, among the leading research groups with regard to whether "the cause is largely a human caused phenomena" is how much and how bad. I will consider that I may be wrong on that to a degree - but I have read too much and looked at this subject for too long to have any understanding other than that, to a very high degree, the "jury is in".
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
04-09-14 04:02 PM - Post#167478
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 04:08 PM - Post#167480
In response to Cheatham Parent
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 04:14 PM - Post#167481
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
For anyone interested in setting aside any possible preconceived notions and looking into this subject with a fresh POV - there are a ton of great learning resources out there - but MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change is a vast resource on the subject in general and a good place to start.
I would recommend to anyone to generally ignore CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and many other news sources and look to what the actual experts, academics, and scientists are saying, writing, etc.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-10-14 04:08 PM - Post#167533
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Broadcast live last Friday night... right here close by in Tyler, TX:
Neal Barton tells his audience that "global warming" is laughable.
|
