Fox News Distorts Climate Science, In other news, the Pope is Catholic.

[futurecurrents]

For anyone with an interest in journalism, it’s no surprise that Fox News Channel and the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal lean well to the right. Editorially, these two jewels of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. have a long history of denying human-induced global warming, in keeping with certain ideological interests.

New data support the anecdotes and conventional wisdom. At a midday panel on September 21 in New York City’s Science, Industry and Business Library, the Union of Concerned Scientists released results of an analysis quantifying the media outlets’ distortions of climate science.

In the six months from February to July 2012, the UCS searched for the terms “climate change” and “global warming” during primetime Fox News Channel programs, which consist of political commentary shows such as The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity.

The UCS found that, in 37 of 40 instances, Fox News programs misled viewers about climate science—mainly, by broadly dismissing it. As an example, the UCS quotes an on-air statement from April 11, 2012: “I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, we’re all going to freeze.” (The report didn’t reveal the name of the actual source.) Fox News hosts and guests also mocked and disparaged statements from scientists and drowned out genuine scientific assertions with cherry-picked data and false claims.

The WSJ opinion pages fared a bit better: only 81 percent of the 48 references to the climate key words were misleading, according to the UCS analysis. Such instances included a reference to climatologist James Hansen as an alarmist and an assertion that we are only in a global warming “bubble” that raises questions about the veracity of climate science and the “credibility of its advocates,” WSJ editors wrote. The few accurate statements came from readers’ letters to the editors, remarked Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS climate scientist who presented the data at the panel. (The opinion pages are distinct from newsroom operations, which media researchers in 2010 actually found to lean left.)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/09/22/fox-news-distorts-climate-science/

 

[jem]

a midday panel at a new your city science library found that fox news questioned the idea that man made co2 was causing warming?

whats next the bronx PTA voting that that the mets are not as good as the yankees.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

a midday panel at a new your city science library found that fox news questioned the idea that man made co2 was causing warming?

whats next the bronx PTA voting that that the mets are not as good as the yankees.

You're such an idiot troll. You don't even know what the UCS is do you? Of course not. You wouldn't know real science if it kicked you in the nuts.


"The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. Our members understand that scientific analysis—not political calculations or corporate hype—should guide our efforts to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices."

UCS Board Members
James J. McCarthy (chair) is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past director of Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. His research and teaching focus on ocean processes and climate. He was the founding editor of the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, has participated in several studies on climate change, and has served as the head of an IPCC Working Group and as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2008. (See full bio.)

Peter A. Bradford (vice-chair) teaches and advises on utility regulation, nuclear power, and energy policy in the United States and overseas. A former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and chair of both the New York Public Service Commission and the Maine Public Utilities Commission, he has taught at the Yale School of Forestry and currently is adjunct professor at Vermont Law School. He is the author of Fragile Structures: A Story of Oil Refineries, National Security and the Coast of Maine.

James A. Fay (board member emeritus) is professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Fay is former chair of the Massachusetts Port Authority, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. His published works on the environmental impact of energy technologies include (with Dan Golomb) Energy and the Environment.

Richard L. Garwin is a National Medal of Science laureate and Fellow Emeritus at IBM. For 10 years, he was Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. He contributed to the first thermonuclear weapons and photo-intelligence satellites, and has served on the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee, the Defense Science Board, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. See also: www.fas.org/rlg.

Kurt Gottfried (board chair emeritus) is emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. A co-founder of UCS, he has served on the senior staff of the European Center for Nuclear Research in Geneva, is a former chair of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society, and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has published widely on theoretical physics and national security issues. (See full bio.)

Andrew Gunther is executive director of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. He has published research in the field of ecotoxicology and has extensive experience in applying science to the development of air, water, and endangered species policy. Dr. Gunther served as the assistant chief scientist for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Program from 1991 to 2002, and is currently the executive coordinator of the Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium.

Geoffrey Heal is a professor at Columbia Business School and a leading expert on economics and the environment. He chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee on ecosystem services, co-authored a report on economic performance and social progress for France’s president, and is a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His 19 books include Nature and the Marketplace and Whole Earth Economics (forthcoming). He also established and chairs the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.

James S. Hoyte (treasurer), currently a fellow at Harvard University’s DuBois Institute for African and African American Research, was associate vice president for equal opportunity programs, lecturer in environmental sciences and public policy, and member of the University Committee on Environment at Harvard from 1992 to 2009. Mr. Hoyte is a lawyer who has served as Secretary of Environmental Affairs for Massachusetts and as chairman of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

Anne R. Kapuscinski is the Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Professor of Sustainability Science at Dartmouth College. A world-renowned expert on fisheries conservation, ecological risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, and sustainable aquaculture and agriculture, she is the recipient of a Pew Marine Conservation Fellowship, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Honor Award, and the Society for Conservation Biology’s Distinguished Service Award.

Jessica T. Mathews, a molecular biologist by training, is president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She has held posts in the White House’s National Security Council (director of the Office of Global Issues), the State Department (deputy to the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs), the U.S. House of Representatives (professional staff), the World Resources Institute (founding vice president and director of research), and the Washington Post (columnist and editorial board member).

Edward L. Miles is the Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs at the University of Washington (retired). He is also a senior fellow in the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, specializing in climate change and international science, technology, and marine policy.

Mario J. Molina is a professor at the University of California–San Diego and president of the Mario Molina Center for Strategic Studies in Energy and the Environment. He is currently serving on the U.S. President’s Committee of Advisors in Science and Technology, and is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Molina and two colleagues shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their research on the depletion of stratospheric ozone.

Stuart L. Pimm is the Doris Duke Chair of Conservation Ecology at Duke University. His work focuses on conservation biology and the protection of biodiversity. He is a Pew scholar and the author of The World According to Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth and The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. Dr. Pimm was awarded the Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences in 2006.

Lou Salkind serves on the Executive Committee of investment and technology firm D.E. Shaw & Co. and is president of the nonprofit Bright Horizon Foundation. He received his Ph.D. from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University in 1990, and is a recipient of the USENIX (the Advanced Computing Systems Association) Lifetime Achievement Award and the NYU Distinguished Alumni award for his work in finance and technology.

 

[jem]

My scientists are not paid to be agw whores...
and they are better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes



Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[15]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]

 

[futurecurrents]

^ Really? Is that supposed to mean something? We know about 3% of climatologists disagree. The problem with that list of yours is none of them are even climatologists except one. It's like asking a plumber to do electrical work.

The one atmospheric scientist above, John Christy, has said this....

In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true.

"Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [11] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#Career

So which is it John? He thinks it's natural, he thinks it's man. He just doesn't know. He's really not even that tiny sliver in the pie chart of climate change publications.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

My scientists are not paid to be agw whores...
and they are better.

If any of them are paid whores it's the tiny denier minority, by the Koch bros and Co. And they can't even get published their science is so bad.

 

[jem]

that 3% is more like 30 to 40 percent of climate scientists ... once you survey the non paid whores.

Besides this is not even an argument anymore... the leaked UN paper just admitted their models have been wrong...

how you could still be arguing is beyond me.

You have have to wait for you team to put out new models.

You have nothing right now.

Quote from futurecurrents:

If any of them are paid whores it's the tiny denier minority, by the Koch bros and Co. And they can't even get published their science is so bad.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

that 3% is more like 30 to 40 percent of climate scientists ... once you survey the non paid whores.

Besides this is not even an argument anymore... the leaked UN paper just admitted their models have been wrong...

how you could still be arguing is beyond me.

You have have to wait for you team to put out new models.

You have nothing right now.

Yeah, sure jem.

 

[Lucrum]

So...this is what it looks like when a heat and air installer jumps the shark over AGW.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

^ Really? Is that supposed to mean something? We know about 3% of climatologists disagree. The problem with that list of yours is none of them are even climatologists except one. It's like asking a plumber to do electrical work.

Even the survey you posted in the other thread shows that only 82% of climate scientists support the concept that man causes global warming. And this survey was of a group of 3000+ scientists who work for universities and foundations that are funded by 'global 'warming' money.

Stop pushing the absurd 3% number. You have no proof of it and the number is obviously fabricated and pulled out of thin air.