Jon Stewart Rips fox and friends again for global warming poll.

[macfan881]

if you havent seen this recnetly fox aired a poll on peoples thoughst on global warming expet a funny thing with the numbers wich added up to 120 percent:rolleyes: anyway watch the clip its great

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912090014

[leekohler]

Haha! Well, just wait for the normal MR wackos to come in here and say that the poll is 100% correct. ;)

[Badandy]

It's only 110% correct.

[Zombie Acorn]

Jon Stewart has been ripping on both sides, he just made fun of Obama for not wanting to tip any hands about weatherization being one of his job creators at a private meeting... It then went on to show him announcing it about 5 times on the campaign trail etc. :D

Watch after the 120% clip though, it gets better.

[Iscariot]

My country is not equipped to view your videos successfully. Perhaps some day in the near future we will have the technologies necessary to interdigitate with your quantums.

[Surely]

My country is not equipped to view your videos successfully. Perhaps some day in the near future we will have the technologies necessary to interdigitate with your quantums.

I'm sure that you can find it on the Comedy Channel's website.


I thought it was even better a little later in that clip how Stewart was pointing out how ridiculous (and how much of a giant sell-out) Gretchen Carlson is. She acts like a person with little-to-no-education on the show, meanwhile she can play classical violin, was Miss America, and went to Stanford and Oxford.

Woah..... I just went on her wikipedia site, and it says that Michelle Bachman was her childhood nanny! That's nutty.

[macfan881]

It's only 110% correct.

60% of the time it works, every time:D

[Rampant.A.I.]

Her pretending to not know what "Double Dip Recession" or "Ignoramus" meant was just icing on the cake. Not to mention the comment about Tsars! :D

Dumbing herself down? Nah, not at all! :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

Shows you what Fox thinks is the intellectual level of its viewers, I guess.

One thing, though. If Carlson is gonna play the dumb blonde role, we're gonna need to see more cleavage.

(I googled it. Cleavage is:

1. Informal the separation between a woman's breasts, esp as revealed by a low-cut dress)

[CaptMurdock]

It's videos like that, where this woman is making an idiot out of herself (apparently on purpose!!), that remind me of a horrific irony:

Paddy Cheyefsky wrote Network a generation ago, as a farce.

Think about that for a second and let it sink in.

Have your cringe call my cringe, we'll do lunch.

[Gelfin]

Paddy Cheyefsky wrote Network a generation ago, as a farce.

Think about that for a second and let it sink in.

Oh, I have. It should be required viewing these days.

The saddest thing is what a pleasant fantasy it has turned out to be to think that an insane news commentator being exploited by his employer for ratings would ever apologize to his audience for having run out of ************.

[Zombie Acorn]

Fox knows what sells... obviously.

[Surely]

Fox knows what sells... obviously.

How sad.

To Fox:

Ratings>>>>>Integrity

[leekohler]

How sad.

To Fox:

Ratings>>>>>Integrity

Which brings me to this point:

Don't a lot of fundie "Christians" watch Faux News? And isn't lying a sin? If lying is a sin, why do they watch it?

[Surely]

Which brings me to this point:

Don't a lot of fundie "Christians" watch Faux News? And isn't lying a sin? If lying is a sin, why do they watch it?

Ha

Your problem is that you are using logic.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which brings me to this point:

Don't a lot of fundie "Christians" watch Faux News? And isn't lying a sin? If lying is a sin, why do they watch it?

Everyone watches fox news, thats why it gets high ratings. :D Also I don't think most watching are going to notice they are being lied to so if it was a sin they don't really know about it.

[leekohler]

Everyone watches fox news, thats why it gets high ratings. :D Also I don't think most watching are going to notice they are being lied to so if it was a sin they don't really know about it.

I don't watch it. I let you guys do that for me. I have enough problems. ;)

[MacNut]

Which brings me to this point:

Don't a lot of fundie "Christians" watch Faux News? And isn't lying a sin? If lying is a sin, why do they watch it?All the networks lie, so might as well watch hot chicks do it. Would you rather watch Wolf Blitzer lie to you.

[Zombie Acorn]

I have to admit I have never seen the segment of fox with that lady on it, it almost makes me want to watch now to see how dumb she can act.

Then again she could be one of those book smart people with no common sense.. I had one friend who scored nearly perfect on the ACT back in HS and I swear you could shoot a marble through one ear and out the other sometimes.

[Surely]

Everyone watches fox news, thats why it gets high ratings. :D

Well, not everyone watches it (I don't, and I'm a part of everyone), but yeah, a very high number of people clearly do watch.


Also I don't think most watching are going to notice they are being lied to so if it was a sin they don't really know about it.

Exactly. I actually agree with something you've posted....:p

All the networks lie, so might as well watch hot chicks do it. Would you rather watch Wolf Blitzer lie to you.

Ewww. Gretchen-> Not hot.

[leekohler]

All the networks lie, so might as well watch hot chicks do it. Would you rather watch Wolf Blitzer lie to you.

BS- other networks make corrections when they make mistakes. Faux News doesn't care. Stop trying to use this to get them off the hook.

And I don't care about hot chicks. If I'm watching the news, I just want information. And seriously, you think those women on Fox are hot? HONESTLY? That scares me. You straight guys will settle for anything. ;)

[MacNut]

BS- other networks make corrections when they make mistakes. Faux News doesn't care. Stop trying to use this to get them off the hook.

And I don't care about hot chicks. If I'm watching the news, I just want information. And seriously, you think those women on Fox are hot? HONESTLY? That scares me. You straight guys will settle for anything. ;)You don't watch cable news to get information, you watch it to get entertained. If you want information read the paper.

[Surely]

You don't watch cable news to get information, you watch it to get entertained. If you want information read the paper.

Pa-per?

What is that?

I get all of my news from the PRSI forums.......

[Zombie Acorn]

Pa-per?

What is that?

I get all of my news from the PRSI forums.......

PRSI as a news station would be hilarious... and now conspiracy hour with tesselator!.

[NT1440]

PRSI as a news station would be hilarious... and now conspiracy hour with tesselator!.

That and there would only be 4 or 5 topics ever covered seriously :p

[leekohler]

PRSI as a news station would be hilarious... and now conspiracy hour with tesselator!.

Oh god, please no....

[werther]

PRSI as a news station would be hilarious... and now conspiracy hour with tesselator!.

lol!

Brilliant.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Haha! Well, just wait for the normal MR wackos to come in here and say that the poll is 100% correct. ;)

You really get a kick out of insulting people and calling them names, eh? Seriously, almost every thread is PRSI has you insulting some faction you disagree with.

[NT1440]

You really get a kick out of insulting people and calling them names, eh? Seriously, almost every thread is PRSI has you insulting some faction you disagree with.
I guess you don't like calling a spade a spade...

There are several downright delusional posters in this forum. Pointing out their lies and twisted truths and calling them out for it is not insulting. They are borderline trolls with their refusal to address FACTS that destroy their world view.

I'm sick of them taking away from actual debate on this forum, so I will continue to support calling a spade a spade.

[leekohler]

You really get a kick out of insulting people and calling them names, eh? Seriously, almost every thread is PRSI has you insulting some faction you disagree with.

We have certain posters here who can't seem to recognize facts. What do you want me to call them- heroes? Sorry- I'll stick with telling the truth. There's no reason to be nice to those posters- NONE.

I guess you don't like calling a spade a spade...

There are several downright delusional posters in this forum. Pointing out their lies and twisted truths and calling them out for it is not insulting. They are borderline trolls with their refusal to address FACTS that destroy their world view.

I'm sick of them taking away from actual debate on this forum, so I will continue to support calling a spade a spade.

Damn right. I'm not putting up with it.

[NT1440]

We have certain posters here who can't seem to recognize facts. What do you want me to cal them- heroes?

I believe their term of choice is "real Americans"

[Zombie Acorn]

We have certain posters here who can't seem to recognize facts. What do you want me to cal them- heroes?

Clearly you've learned nothing from the last 8 years... freedom haters is the proper terminology. :D

[leekohler]

I believe their term of choice is "real Americans"
You're right- I forgot. :)

Clearly you've learned nothing from the last 8 years... freedom haters is the proper terminology. :D

I like that even better.

[Eraserhead]

so "real American freedom haters" ftw?

[Zombie Acorn]

so "real American freedom haters" ftw?

This reminds me of david cross's stand up on terrorism. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM202BVLf78

[Surely]

I believe their term of choice is "real Americans"

Here's their theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg). Hulkamania, brother!!

[macfan881]

Here's their theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg). Hulkamania, brother!!

post of the day:D

[Counterfit]

Woah..... I just went on her wikipedia site, and it says that Michelle Bachman was her childhood nanny! That's nutty.

Nanny? Unlikely, Bachmann is only 10 years older than Carlson.

[Surely]

Nanny? Unlikely, Bachmann is only 10 years older than Carlson.

Yeah, a 15 year old has NEVER babysat for a 5 year old in the history of the world. Or a 16 year old for a 6 year old, or a 17 year old for a 7 year old, or..... I think you probably get the point by now.

It is true........ Google it (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Gretchen+Carlson+michelle+bachman&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)......

[stubeeef]

probably came from adding the numbers up from all 57 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) states.

[XNine]

This reminds me of david cross's stand up on terrorism. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM202BVLf78

His stand-up is some of the most truthful, funny **** I've ever heard. Have both of his CD's.

[bobber205]

probably came from adding the numbers up from all 57 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) states.

Still stuck on that huh?

[stubeeef]

Still stuck on that huh?

Still bashing Fox huh?

[Burnsey]

My country is not equipped to view your videos successfully. Perhaps some day in the near future we will have the technologies necessary to interdigitate with your quantums.

It's called hotspot shield. Find it, install it, and watch.

[Counterfit]

Yeah, a 15 year old has NEVER babysat for a 5 year old in the history of the world. Or a 16 year old for a 6 year old, or a 17 year old for a 7 year old, or..... I think you probably get the point by now.

It is true........ Google it (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Gretchen+Carlson+michelle+bachman&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)......

Nanny ≠ babysitter, but that wasn't your choice of word anyway.
Nanny, at least to me, is more like Mary Poppins, minus the flying, singing, Dick van Dyke, etc. Basically, responsible for daily care over a long period of time.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Don't a lot of fundie "Christians" watch Faux News? And isn't lying a sin? If lying is a sin, why do they watch it?

Why do you have such a hate for Christians? What brought about this attack? There wasn't even anything Christian in this thread....

As for your "logic" I would hope that all people hold lying as a sin, not just Christians. Lee, wrong doing and sinning are the same thing, and it doesn't take a King James scholar to know that.

[bobber205]

Still bashing Fox huh?

Fox does stuff every day worth mentioning and frowning upon it seems like lately. That's a years old comment from Obama you keep bringing up like it's a big deal.

[stubeeef]

Fox does stuff every day worth mentioning and frowning upon it seems like lately.

I feel the same way if you substitute FOX and Obama.

I am an american, and I have the right to dissent with any administration. Because you don't like it, has NO BEARING on it.

The other media outlets ratings are the toilet for being in the bag with the administration. But like Hiliary said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0) - it is patriotic to dissent.

[rdowns]

I feel the same way if you substitute FOX and Obama.

I am an american, and I have the right to dissent with any administration. Because you don't like it, has NO BEARING on it.

The other media outlets ratings are the toilet for being in the bag with the administration. But like Hiliary said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0) - it is patriotic to dissent.


I have no problems with dissent. What I am unclear on is why was dissent against Bush treasonous?

[Rt&Dzine]

Dissent. It's only un-American when the other side does it. :D

Speaking of which, if someone like Palin becomes president, dissent will be an understatement.

[takao]

I am an american, and I have the right to dissent with any administration. Because you don't like it, has NO BEARING on it.

yet a lot of US conservatives disgreed ... 2 years ago on this very forum

[stubeeef]

Speaking of which, if someone like Palin becomes president, dissent will be an understatement.

Well with someone like Obama-you have like this (http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/) & this (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/09/march_on_washin.html) & these (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/massive-tax-day-tea-party-usa/).

So, I don't know what the understatement would look like. Obama has unified more folks in the US than Osama (opinion).

Most believe US is going the Wrong Direction (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart).

[Eraserhead]

Most believe US is going the Wrong Direction (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart).

Maybe they think Obama is too right wing for them. Maybe they want public healthcare, and stronger targets on climate change.

[sushi]

Maybe they want public healthcare, and stronger targets on climate change.
Or maybe they don't want public healthcare and don't believe that man affects climate change, and thus are tired of seeing the administration push these issues.

[bobber205]

Or maybe they don't want public healthcare and don't believe that man affects climate change, and thus are tired of seeing the administration push these issues.

People die every day just because we have a for-profit healthcare industry. This needs to stop now. I don't care if it raises everyone's taxes or makes us more "socialist" it needs to stop. Those people deserve to live more than anyone else in this country and just because they don't have enough "money" doesn't make their life any less valuable. That's my stance.

[stubeeef]

Maybe they think Obama is too right wing for them. Maybe they want public healthcare, and stronger targets on climate change.
Man, I want some of what your smokin!:p

[stubeeef]

People die every day just because we have a for-profit healthcare industry. This needs to stop now. I don't care if it raises everyone's taxes or makes us more "socialist" it needs to stop. Those people deserve to live more than anyone else in this country and just because they don't have enough "money" doesn't make their life any less valuable. That's my stance.

People die everyday in countries WITH a not for profit healthcare system.
In fact MOST hospitals in the US are nonprofit.
In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States, the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).[1] link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital)

Anyway, so why didn't Teddy use Mass Health care to live longer?

link (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/7751/you-wont-get-tedcare-under-obamacare-ted-kennedys-brain-cancer-dream-team/)
A wee bit hypocritical huh.

[Thomas Veil]

Maybe they think Obama is too right wing for them. Maybe they want public healthcare, and stronger targets on climate change.I had the same thought.

Conservatives think people who are "fed up" are on their side -- but only the Tea Party zanies are. Among the rest of us, some of Obama's most "radical" moves, like limiting salaries on bailout-receiving executives, have been very popular.

People want things like health care, but the Republicans have been successful in doing two things: (a) scaring people with boogie-man stories, and (b) watering down the public option to the point where it will be ineffective as a cost-control device.

So yeah, people want more change than they've seen. They want to see more positive action without the conservatives and Blue Dog Dems acting like a ball-and-chain attached to their government's leg.

[Rt&Dzine]

Well with someone like Obama-you have like this (http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/) & this (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/09/march_on_washin.html) & these (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/massive-tax-day-tea-party-usa/).

So, I don't know what the understatement would look like. Obama has unified more folks in the US than Osama (opinion).

Most believe US is going the Wrong Direction (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart).

I was talking about real Americans. :p

[paddy]

Fox news isn't dissent, it's fear mongering rubbish. To non-Americans it's laughable that anyone could take their trash seriously. Not that CNN is much better mind, but at least they don't appeal to nuts.

[CaptMurdock]

Well with someone like Obama-you have like this (http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/) & this (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/09/march_on_washin.html) & these (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/massive-tax-day-tea-party-usa/).


"Founding Bloggers"?
"Moon Battery"?
"Michelle Malkin"??

Oy vey. If this is the best you can come up with regarding Legitimate Dissent...

That reminds me...I need to pick up some tin foil at the store today...

[stubeeef]

Fox news isn't dissent, it's fear mongering rubbish. To non-Americans it's laughable that anyone could take their trash seriously. Not that CNN is much better mind, but at least they don't appeal to nuts.

Who, pray tell, isn't rubbish?

[bobber205]

People die everyday in countries WITH a not for profit healthcare system.
In fact MOST hospitals in the US are nonprofit.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital)

Anyway, so why didn't Teddy use Mass Health care to live longer?

link (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/7751/you-wont-get-tedcare-under-obamacare-ted-kennedys-brain-cancer-dream-team/)
A wee bit hypocritical huh.

People in single payer systems are not denied care because they don't have enough money. People in the country are. And I find your disrespect for Ted Kennedy sickening. You're acting like the people with the signs "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy". That's disgusting.

[bobber205]

Who, pray tell, isn't rubbish?

NPR.

[stubeeef]

"Founding Bloggers"?
"Moon Battery"?
"Michelle Malkin"??

Oy vey. If this is the best you can come up with regarding Legitimate Dissent...

That reminds me...I need to pick up some tin foil at the store today...

Are you suggesting they present doctored pictures? These are people showing dissent-I will bet they already believe you are wearing tin foil.
Atleast they aren't acorn!
Your feelings about them don't bother me or them, the polls are showing the dissent, these quick websites have pictures of them. You don't believe the federal media will show them do you? If so your tin foil is working very well.

[stubeeef]

NPR.

You can smell NPR across the globe they are soooo rubbish!

[bobber205]

You can smell NPR across the globe they are soooo rubbish!

Why is that? We have tons of evidence on why Fox is poison. Where's your evidence. They're as non biased as you can get.

[stubeeef]

The right has complained about NPR for decades, give me a break. It doesn't suprise me at all that the majority in NRPSI thinks they are legit, infact I bet some here will complain they are conservative!
I know NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, AP and others are "in the tank" for Obama. Heck thier ratings prove it (link (http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news)).
The country is turning against the present administration and cronies in congress, just like they are turning their backs on State Media.

An accurate quote for Joe Scarbourgh


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I've been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias - and I don't care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don't care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio. But for NPR - for NPR, the leadership at NPR to question the bias of Fox News is a joke. They have been biased - again, I still listen to them, because like "The New York Times" they are the best at what they do. But, please, that is a laugh. NPR -

[Eraserhead]

The right has complained about NPR for decades, give me a break.

Great, so I'm sure it should be really easy to find an example.

[skunk]

The right has complained about NPR for decades, give me a break. It doesn't suprise me at all that the majority in NRPSI thinks they are legit, infact I bet some here will complain they are conservative!
I know NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, AP and others are "in the tank" for Obama. Heck thier ratings prove it.
The country is turning against the present administration and cronies in congress, just like they are turning their backs on State Media.For those of us who (a) cannot smell NPR across the globe, and (b) haven't got a clue what you are talking about, how about a bit of plain English, with an explanation or two or an example to show what you mean?

[paddy]

Who, pray tell, isn't rubbish?

They're mostly all rubbish from what I saw when I was in the States, but at least none of them are as laughable as Fox. People actually consider the poison that comes out of that propaganda machine news?

[Iscariot]

It's called hotspot shield. Find it, install it, and watch.

I'm getting too old to keep up with you kids and your gadgets. I'll give that a shot, thanks.

[Thomas Veil]

NPR is National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).

NPR is a membership corporation. Member stations are required to be noncommercial or educational radio stations, have at least five full-time professional employees, operate for at least 18 hours per day, and not be designed solely to further a religious philosophy or be used for classroom programming.That right there is a reason not to trust them. :rolleyes:

Whoops! :D

In a Harris poll conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the U.S.[4]See? Like stu said...totally untrustworthy. ;)

Now, if someone could only explain in what way ABC, MSNBC, et. al. are "in the tank" for Obama, and what that has to do with ratings....

[stubeeef]

Great, so I'm sure it should be really easy to find an example.

Nor is this belief confined to the right: CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer (3/31/04) seemed to repeat it as a given while questioning a liberal guest: “What about this notion that the conservatives make a fair point that there already is a liberal radio network out there, namely National Public Radio ?”

bold is mine

[skunk]

bold is mineI'm sorry, is that evidence of something? :confused:

[stubeeef]

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/)

[Eraserhead]

50% of Americans don't believe in evolution, so a poll of Americans claiming anything doesn't prove it.

[skunk]

^ Which just goes to show how utterly pointless using polls as evidence is.

[stubeeef]

^ Which just goes to show how utterly pointless using polls as evidence is.
Of course where you vote is a "polling" station.

Polls are opinion. Bias is mostly opinion.

Polls are like statistics-they can be made to show whatever you want them to. They are snapshot in time, and other than elections (polls), they may sway a politician.

[stubeeef]

50% of Americans don't believe in evolution, so a poll of Americans claiming anything doesn't prove it.

strawman

[skunk]

Polls are like statistics-they can be made to show whatever you want them to.Indeed they can. So, can you actually provide any evidence or examples - other than ludicrously polarised opinions (I'm not talking about yours, natch) - to demonstrate what you personally refer to as "liberal bias"?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

strawman

Not at all. For a long time people believed the world was flat. Many people believe people are not contributing to climate change. Just because most people believe something does not make it true.

A survey or poll that checks what people believe as fact does not make something fact.

Keep the logical fallacies coming, stu!

[Eraserhead]

And the thing about our anti-Fox comments is that they revolve around stuff the channel has broadcast, like all Republicans in disgrace being Democrats etc.

[stubeeef]

Pla-lease---The major networks didn't ever if not weeks later cover the Acorn undercover scandal as it was bad for Obama and the other connections.

[bobber205]

Pla-lease---The major networks didn't ever if not weeks later cover the Acorn undercover scandal as it was bad for Obama and the other connections.

:confused:

[paddy]

Pla-lease---The major networks didn't ever if not weeks later cover the Acorn undercover scandal as it was bad for Obama and the other connections.

You should watch 'Dances With Smurphs'

[Zombie Acorn]

Not at all. For a long time people believed the world was flat. Many people believe people are not contributing to climate change. Just because most people believe something does not make it true.

A survey or poll that checks what people believe as fact does not make something fact.

Keep the logical fallacies coming, stu!

Believing the world is flat and believing that humans generated climate change aren't even on the same level. The IPCC is only 60-90% certain on issues regarding it, the top scientists studying seem to be unethical from my view, and the whole issue is a political fire storm.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Believing the world is flat and believing that humans generated climate change aren't even on the same level. The IPCC is only 60-90% certain on issues regarding it, the top scientists studying seem to be unethical from my view, and the whole issue is a political fire storm.

yeah, because there's only one group of "top scientists" studying it.

[Zombie Acorn]

yeah, because there's only one group of "top scientists" studying it.

As I said, IPCC is only 60-90% sure on certain issues. If I gave you a box and told you there was a 60% chance of you surviving when you opened it would you do it? 90%?

These scientists and politicians all have an agenda and the scientists are being employed to further it.

[Thomas Veil]

Pla-lease---The major networks didn't ever if not weeks later cover the Acorn undercover scandal as it was bad for Obama and the other connections.
Just because Republicans want to take down Obama does not make something a major story.

Remember Whitewater?

[bobber205]

As I said, IPCC is only 60-90% sure on certain issues. If I gave you a box and told you there was a 60% chance of you surviving when you opened it would you do it? 90%?

These scientists and politicians all have an agenda and the scientists are being employed to further it.

Bad argument unless not opening the box meant a 100% chance of dying then yes I would.

[Zombie Acorn]

Bad argument unless not opening the box meant a 100% chance of dying then yes I would.

No study has concluded we would die from man made climate change if we are even a big factor in changes.

[bobber205]

No study has concluded we would die from man made climate change if we are even a big factor in changes.

Lots of people could die when the seas are raised. And besides even a study did conclude, you'd made the ridiculous condition that the study prove it with 100% accuracy.

[Zombie Acorn]

Lots of people could die when the seas are raised. And besides even a study did conclude, you'd made the ridiculous condition that the study prove it with 100% accuracy.

I don't need 100% certainty, I just need an acceptable level above 60 or even 90% that we currently have.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Lots of people could die when the seas are raised. And besides even a study did conclude, you'd made the ridiculous condition that the study prove it with 100% accuracy.

Lots of people will die only if they're all 8 inches tall. Please stop listening to Al Gore.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)

[.Andy]

Lots of people will die only if they're all 8 inches tall. Please stop listening to Al Gore.
Unfortunately for the science deniers it's not just Al Gore. For instance changes in rainfall and effect on drinking water and range of tropical disease are likely to have significant consequences. Public health bodies the world over are studying and determining ways to track, predict, and handle such occurances.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)
This is an opinion piece by a hack that also claims asbestos is harmless, that passive smoking doesn't affect people's health, that BSE is harmless to humans, and supports intelligent design. The 'scientist' he references in the piece also believes in water divining. That's the calibre of the credentials of these 'skeptics' and an indication of their grasp of science which should make one wary of taking anything they write at face value.

[CorvusCamenarum]

This is an opinion piece by a hack that also claims asbestos is harmless, that passive smoking doesn't affect people's health, that BSE is harmless to humans, and supports intelligent design. The 'scientist' he references in the piece also believes in water divining. That's the calibre of the credentials of these 'skeptics' and an indication of their grasp of science which should make one wary of taking anything they write at face value.

Sorry, I figured the Telegraph was a fairly respectable publication. Then again, I generally don't read the British papers.

I also forgot that climate scientists on the Correct side of the debate are lily white and above reproach.

Oh, wait. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=825135)

It would seem there's fibbing going on all around.

[.Andy]

Sorry, I figured the Telegraph was a fairly respectable publication. Then again, I generally don't read the British papers.
Even respectable publications commonly employ trolls to driveup their page hits and revenue. It's exactly the appeal to authority you've fallen for here which lead you to swallow the article without critically appraising it that gives such talking heads their power and influence.

I also forgot that climate scientists on the Correct side of the debate are lily white and above reproach. Not at all. This is a terrible strawman which I hope you don't actually believe. Scientists are most definitely not Lilly white nor are they above reproach. They are people like everyone else. However what science has on its side is a means of objectivity that is completely lacking with sensationalist talking head opinion pieces like that above. Science requires independent verification. It requires data. And it requires modest conclusions based on the data. And at every step it requires criticism. Scientists arethe harshest critics of other scientists as are they the most vicious when there is proof of wrongdoing.

Oh, wait. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=825135)

It would seem there's fibbing going on all around.
I think you need to read that thread. The emails have flopped completely. Out of the thousand+ emails there has been no proof of anything dishonest as far as science goes. Unless you have something else to add to the thread. The only place the emails still have (and ever had) traction were in the echo chamber of ideologically driven opinion pieces.

[Thomas Veil]

However what science has on its side is a means of objectivity that is completely lacking with sensationalist talking head opinion pieces like that above. Science requires independent verification. It requires data. And it requires modest conclusions based on the data. And at every step it requires criticism. Scientists arethe harshest critics of other scientists as are they the most vicious when there is proof of wrongdoing.QFT.

If someone wants to look for a conspiracy, let them find it in the right wing media that constantly try to manipulate the public into believing crazy things, like the idea that the Bible is inerrant but the vast majority of learned scientists engaged in decades-long research are wrong or conspiratorial. :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

No study has concluded we would die from man made climate change if we are even a big factor in changes.

Wealthy nations will be able to mitigate some of the impact. Poor ones won't.

One thing often overlooked is how agriculture will be affected. Grain growing regions will shift northward into Canada while much of the southcentral US becomes too arid to support agriculture. California's central valley will be too hot and there will be too little snowfall in the Sierra Nevada to provide the runoff necessary for ag.

Our current agriculture system has an enormous built infrastructure. The costs of altering that will be enormous. That WILL drive up the cost of food and may not kill people directly but may certainly impoverish them. Poverty kills.

[Rampant.A.I.]

QFT.

If someone wants to look for a conspiracy, let them find it in the right wing media that constantly try to manipulate the public into believing crazy things, like the idea that the Bible is inerrant but the vast majority of learned scientists engaged in decades-long research are wrong or conspiratorial. :rolleyes:

How come there's no "clapping" smiley?

Well put.

[Counterfit]

I don't know how I missed this
Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias

Really? Who are these people, Fred Phelps and the like?

[bobber205]

I don't know how I missed this


Really? Who are these people, Fred Phelps and the like?

Some people see everything as having a liberal bias.

[NT1440]

Some people see everything as having a liberal bias.

Might be because reality has a liberal bias ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

Wealthy nations will be able to mitigate some of the impact. Poor ones won't.

One thing often overlooked is how agriculture will be affected. Grain growing regions will shift northward into Canada while much of the southcentral US becomes too arid to support agriculture. California's central valley will be too hot and there will be too little snowfall in the Sierra Nevada to provide the runoff necessary for ag.

Our current agriculture system has an enormous built infrastructure. The costs of altering that will be enormous. That WILL drive up the cost of food and may not kill people directly but may certainly impoverish them. Poverty kills.

The government pays California millions to grow agriculture in what amounts to desert like land already. So when those crops dry up don't be blaming it on climate change. The crops around here have never been better, probably because the ground was meant to be farmed. I don't know when this epic change of yours is supposed to start.

[hulugu]

Of course where you vote is a "polling" station.

Polls are opinion. Bias is mostly opinion.

Polls are like statistics-they can be made to show whatever you want them to. They are snapshot in time, and other than elections (polls), they may sway a politician.

There have been few statistical studies that have attempted to quantify political bias among news organizations. In fact the only one I know of was a UCLA study.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

This study was done in 2005, so I'd be interested to see if the landscape has changed and I think there are some assumptions that may make the study ultimately flawed, but nonetheless, it's one of the few attempts to actually quantify bias, as opposed to asking people what they think is biased which has all sorts of problems.

No study has concluded we would die from man made climate change if we are even a big factor in changes.

Wealthy nations will be able to mitigate some of the impact. Poor ones won't.

One thing often overlooked is how agriculture will be affected. Grain growing regions will shift northward into Canada while much of the southcentral US becomes too arid to support agriculture. California's central valley will be too hot and there will be too little snowfall in the Sierra Nevada to provide the runoff necessary for ag.

Our current agriculture system has an enormous built infrastructure. The costs of altering that will be enormous. That WILL drive up the cost of food and may not kill people directly but may certainly impoverish them. Poverty kills.

The government pays California millions to grow agriculture in what amounts to desert like land already. So when those crops dry up don't be blaming it on climate change. The crops around here have never been better, probably because the ground was meant to be farmed. I don't know when this epic change of yours is supposed to start.

According to a Scripps Institution of Oceanography review, Lake Mead has a 50-50 chance of running dry by 2021. The Lake has already lost 53% of it's volume of water in the last eight years, indicating a significant drop in snowfall in the Colorado basin. Various attempts to study this effect have resulted in a saw-toothed graph that shows an increase in temperatures and increasingly severe droughts, estimated to continue through 2050 because of climate change.

California valley continues to be so fertile has to do with 100 year-old land policies, and this may not continue throughout the next five years.

Moreover, similar effects will happen throughout the rest of the world, including India, where retreating glaciers mean less and less available water, and Africa. Droughts will become more prevalent and more severe, except in some regions where flooding is more likely to occur as weather patterns shift.

It's this shift that has everyone so worried. Human beings won't drown in a deluge, but food will become, as Ugg said, more expensive and this will certainly cause famines in the third-world, as well as conflicts as water becomes more scarce: see India/Pakistan, Jordan/Israel for such nasty possibilities.
For a better read on these situations, I'd suggest reviewing the Pentagon's report on such matters, which notes how and why conflicts might arise because of climate change.

[Zombie Acorn]

According to a Scripps Institution of Oceanography review, Lake Mead has a 50-50 chance of running dry by 2021. The Lake has already lost 53% of it's volume of water in the last eight years, indicating a significant drop in snowfall in the Colorado basin. Various attempts to study this effect have resulted in a saw-toothed graph that shows an increase in temperatures and increasingly severe droughts, estimated to continue through 2050 because of climate change.

California valley continues to be so fertile has to do with 100 year-old land policies, and this may not continue throughout the next five years.

Moreover, similar effects will happen throughout the rest of the world, including India, where retreating glaciers mean less and less available water, and Africa. Droughts will become more prevalent and more severe, except in some regions where flooding is more likely to occur as weather patterns shift.

It's this shift that has everyone so worried. Human beings won't drown in a deluge, but food will become, as Ugg said, more expensive and this will certainly cause famines in the third-world, as well as conflicts as water becomes more scarce: see India/Pakistan, Jordan/Israel for such nasty possibilities.
For a better read on these situations, I'd suggest reviewing the Pentagon's report on such matters, which notes how and why conflicts might arise because of climate change.

Why are we subsidizing people to farm in desert land with crops that aren't native to the area/wouldn't be possible without overabundant waste of water then? Is it surprising that we may have water troubles if we continue practices such as these? Lake Mead's water is used in California is it not? Vegas? Maybe we should stop wasting water and money subsidizing these farms that are better produced in areas actually made for growing things such as cotton.

On top of that Vegas and area farms water consumption has rose greatly over the years, is this supposed to be ignored completely? Do people in Vegas really need green grass in the middle of a desert?

[bobber205]

Might be because reality has a liberal bias ;)

Colbert: "And we all know reality has a well known liberal bias."

[hulugu]

Why are we subsidizing people to farm in desert land with crops that aren't native to the area/wouldn't be possible without overabundant waste of water then? Is it surprising that we may have water troubles if we continue practices such as these? Lake Mead's water is used in California is it not? Vegas? Maybe we should stop wasting water and money subsidizing these farms that are better produced in areas actually made for growing things such as cotton.

There's an incredible history of water usage in the west, I'd suggest delving into Cadillac Desert and Unquenchable if you're really interested.

As for Mead's water, it flows through a series of pumps over the Sierras to California, is tapped directly by Las Vegas, and indirectly downstream by the Central Arizona Project aqueduct which feeds into Phoenix and Tucson.

On top of that Vegas and area farms water consumption has rose greatly over the years, is this supposed to be ignored completely? Do people in Vegas really need green grass in the middle of a desert?

To be fair, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson have done a great deal to curb water-usage in the last decade, but the Colorado River system is essentially a candle being burned at both ends: there's less snowfall at one end and at the other are more and more thirsty customers.

The reason I mention this is because historical records indicate that snowfall and temperature are related and this is linked to climate change by several different measurements and models.