The Fox News "Effect": A Few References

Wed, 2011-05-18 10:29Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Fox News "Effect": A Few References

It is no secret that many in the climate science world are critical of Fox News. The prevailing view seems to be that the conservative network, although claiming to be “fair and balanced,” is in fact quite biased in its treatment of this and other issues.

The opinion isn’t without foundation. It’s not just Fox’s coverage itself (see image at left, courtesy of Media Matters): Last year, Media Matters exposed an internal email from Washington bureau chief Bill Sammon, commenting on the network’s coverage of global warming and seeming to demand a misleading treatment of the issue. The email told reporters they should

…refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

Given that warming is indeed a fact, it’s little wonder that when it was released, this email drew a lot of attention.

Clearly, there’s much concern about Fox coverage. But many critics of the network seem unaware of what may be their best argument: the existence of several public opinion studies showing a correlation between watching Fox and being misinformed about one or more public policy issues.

These studies tend to take the same basic form. First, they survey Americans to determine their views about some matter of controversy. Inevitably, some significant percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the core facts of the issue–but not just that. The surveys also find that those who watch Fox, or watch it frequently, are more likely to be misinformed.

Here are five such studies—and note that this list may be incomplete. This is just what I’ve come across so far:

1. Iraq War. In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been involved in 9/11, or that it possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion. But not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,” PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80 % of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers, and especially NPR and PBS users.

2. Global Warming. In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.” Notably, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60 %) and those who watch no Fox news (85 %) in whether they think global warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”

3. Health Care. Earlier this year, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform. The survey asked 10 questions, and compared the “high scorers”–those that answered 7 or more correct–based on their media habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or more right, compared to those who report mainly watching Fox News (25 percent).”

4. Ground Zero Mosque. In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking to build the mosque as terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. The result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.” Respondents reporting a “low reliance” on Fox News believed .9 rumors on average (out of 4), but for those reporting a “high reliance” on Fox News, the number increased to 1.5 out of 4. 

5. 2010 Election. Late last year, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that “almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the misperception that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.”

It’s important to note that these studies do not prove causation. In other words, they do not prove that watching Fox makes people believe incorrect things. After all, it could be that those who are more likely to believe the incorrect things listed above are also more likely to watch Fox, to seek out Fox, etc. The causation could go in the opposite direction.

Still, the evidence above is striking.

Previous Comments

“even the worst tyrants in our history have never attempted”

Will you listen to yourself? The worst tyrants in history never attempted what? Relinquishing their power and giving freedoms to their people?

You have zero idea what you’re talking about. Zero.

Libertarians are only for their own freedom, hang everyone else. Their Holy Writ is that anyone with money has been given it by God and that their rapacity (far in excess of even Stalin’s rapine of the planet and his people) is Supernaturally Sanctioned.

Zero.

No intelligence, no thought, no shame, no truths.

Big fat zero.

Most Heroin addicts drank milk when young. THerefore, Milk leads to Heroin addiction. See the problem there?

I watch FOX News. I also watch MSNBC, CNN and even Russia Today, for Gods sake, among many others. Does that make me a gullible dupe of FOX News, as your twisted logic asserts? Or perhaps the fact that I watch FOX News (or any other channel) means that I blindly accept whatever facts are spoon fed to me by ANY source- be it the Wall Street Journal or Media Matters. That is hardly the case. Pollsters, Pundits and just plain hucksters have been using the Propaganda Tactic known as False Analogy to sell their bilge since time immemorial. A preceded B, which led to C, so A MUST lead inevitable to C. To the gullible, lazy or woefully uninformed, it makes perfect sense. But for anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills, it is pure BullWash.

Or, as Mark Twain once said: There are three kinds of Lies; Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics!”

Why so defensive about Fox news? Can you point me to a blog where you have so vociferously chastised anyone for saying CNN or MSNBC had a liberal bias?

Sounds like your views are “fair & balanced” to me.

And let me guess….you just happen to independently arrive at the decision you think AGW is a hoax/scam too?

You aren’t then a Fox viewer, if you view other channels and don’t watch them just to say “MSNBC is a liberal crackpot haven!”.

The huge majority of Fox viewers watch nothing else for their news.

“The huge majority of Fox viewers watch nothing else for their news.”

How do you *know* this? Half of their viewers are Democrats. Who did you listen to? A PR firm?

“How do you *know* this? Half of their viewers are Democrats.”
Where do you get your figures from Nik? Besides, the difference between conservatives & democrats watching fox is, democrats watch Fox because they think it’s comedy. Conservatives watch it because they think it’s news.

“Who did you listen to? A PR firm?”

No Nik, you do, that’s why you have your unfounded, unchecked, non-verified beliefs about AGW.

It’s fun to be allowed to comment on this PR firm owned web site.

Fox news has babes.

I hereby present Patti Ann Browne:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc

CNN doesn’t get so jiggy, ever.

I have some climate news for you too:

http://oi55.tinypic.com/5z0c2v.jpg

P.S. Why on Earth does your web site lock me out by saying I’m already a “registered user” and yet there’s no log-on link? I keep having to change my “user name” just to post here.

THIS BLOG IS A PR FIRM.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

“I spend too much money on art, fine wine, skis, and high-end bicycle part, and I am in recovery from my habit of buying luxury cars.” - James Hoggan (“Climate Cover Up”, 2010)

“People who are taking Exxon’s money are often in public relations.”

Wow Nik, have you stopped hyperventilating & frothing at the mouth yet?

So your a drooling fox news watcher, I’m ok with that mate.

It’s always nice to see these stellar posts, Chris.

I recall PIPA’s “Separate Realities …” report and I’ve been pondering the implications since then.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealitiesOct04rpt.pdf

I think Drew Westin’s comments are appropriate here:

“- Neural network models of motivated reasoning suggest that in affectively relevant situations, the brain equilibrates to solutions that simultaneously satisfy two sets of constraints: cognitive constraints, which maximize goodness of fit to the data, and emotional constraints, which maximize positive affect and minimize negative affect. -” - unpublished writeup, Drew Westin

My feeling has been that the emotional constraints for the right wing have devolved into a sort of ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ state. I’d always associated this state with situations in which the desire to believe is so powerful that it shapes reality. It first struck me when reading about late 19th century immigrants to America who wrote back to relatives about how idyllic it was despite the fact that they were actually suffering. It could be explained away but there were indications that they believed their fictive narratives.

It’s clear that many people have a vested emotional interest that is constraining their ability to determine or accept objective truths but it’s difficult to lump this attitude in with those produced by trauma, such as the Dolchstosslegende born out of Germany’s humiliation. There isn’t a single big lie that’s being accepted for emotional-psychological reasons but a pattern of lying. It’s this willingness to substitute aspirational realities for empirical realities that’s difficult to figure out. As it was said: “you live in a reality-based community,” which is quite true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

I have no good answers to the phenomenon. However, as it was for Festinger’s original study of cults, powerful emotions help produce motivated reasoning. Much of the right wing now overlaps with a type of evangelical Christianity that vilifies anyone outside their belief system. And the daily eliminationism (Niewert) of figures such as Limabaugh provides the emotional fodder for any form of reality-denying belief system. The “maximum negative affect” that Westin speaks of allows for denying a lot of reality.

I usually attend to the tone of comments more than their substantive aspect, because this is how affect is communicated. I credit Erving Goffman for this approach. Another way of looking at it is through transactional analysis type of analysis, in which semantic content is glossed over in favor of it’s broad emotional message. People are ‘explaining themselves’ in terms of how they’d like to see themselves. It’s an aspirational self that’s modeled out of western folklore or Ayn Randian myth and it’s emotionally true for them, even though it fails empirically.

Are any of these posts real, or just AstroTurf?

Oh, you posted a lobbyist-quality link, and a Wikipedia page too.

Dude, you need to “get out more”.

Advice: go ask REAL people about what they think about whatever you are interested in. It’s not easy to do that, I know, but you will find that curiosity wins the day, almost every time, and when they freak out just say to yourself “it’s just a numbers game”…”I can’t save everyone”.

“objective truths”

There are no such things existent in our stringy thingy Bible thumped Universe. Shame on you to think there is. The only think that has Absolute truth is mathematics. Not even God can make 1 + 1 equal 3.

You are humble in a most powerful fashion.

“I usually attend to the tone of comments more than their substantive aspect, because this is how affect is communicated.”

Tell me women are not crazy attracted to you.

“I have no good answers to the phenomenon.”

That is because you are not taking in *real* data points, out in the real world. Flesh can be boring, yes, but data bits, online, that’s hell, nothing here, nothing there, as self-selected people (who have nothing better to do), say one thing always: BLAH BLAH BLAH.

The people online? They are *afraid* of you. You are trying to understand them. But they are chock full of shame.

Your problem is that your mind body and soul are one in a million. .

It comes from a conflict between reality and his comforting self-deceptions.

Diddums.

PS HBGary sells its services for quite a bit of cash. Cash that the oil industry funnels through secretive channels like the Heartland Institute.

Odd how your rabid fears don’t go as far as skeptically assessing the provenance and funding of, for example, Morano, McIntyre and Monckton.

the warming since the little ice age, that fact, or the non existent warming for the past 15 years. Which were you disengenuously referring to? and there hasnt been problems with temperature records? really? I must go hide my decline in knowledge and get my news elsewhere (altho the fox news babettes are well babe-like)

So why is it warming? It doesn’t just decide “Hey, ho. End of an ice age. I’m bored of that, so I think I’ll warm up now”. There has to be a reason.

And that reason is anthropogenic production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. The warming effect of which causes what is observed as AGW.

Or maybe titas is anthropomorphizing the climate system and giving it a God within. He likes Gods.

“the non existent warming for the past 15 years.”

The warming definitely exists. The trend from the IPCC of 0.17C per decade is still shown by the data. This despite the earth being in a massive Maunder Minimum, where the last time this happened, we were 0.4C cooler than today!

But I guess titas thinks that only CO2 has any effect on temperatures and thinks that the sun has absolutely no effect when cooling.

Like I said, he’s in deep denial.

PS why is it the further we get away from the LIA (therefore the nearer we asymptotically approach “normal” temperatures if AGW doesn’t exist), the faster those glaciers retreat? Surely they should be approaching the level they had before the LIA, except it looks like we’re well beyond that.

The alternative (one that is an anathema to titas) is that AGW is happening.

because it is and we dont know why, it must be…..scientific method msnbc or mann

So that isn’t any proof of anything other than that.

Alternatively, you can ask scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using ‘Stefan’s law’ (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius’ greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

This simplified expression is still used today:

ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

So YOU don’t know, but other people do.

I guess some are just smarter than you, rum.

i certainly wasn’t attacking you. wtf. so this dude has a theory that takes the warming since the lia from increases in CO2? mann would be proud of the sensitivity. and to think he didnt even consider feedbacks. and just because he had a theory makes him right? more scientific thought from the religion of agw. and if you want to attack me personnally find me. we can discuss things further and then we will see if you have the same balls you seem to think you have on the web.

“and just because he had a theory makes him right?”

You think it’s Mann alone in the world who has this theory?

“we can discuss things further and then we will see if you have the same balls you seem to think you have on the web.”

Ahhh the tried & tested “I have a colt 45 that says I’m right & your wrong”.

When you have no argument left, try violence. While I like the lack of censorship on this site, sometimes I think it should screen for potential psychopaths like this. Rum is the type of person that can potentially turn into another Jared Loughner. Surely mods, people like rum are a red flag.

i was referring to arrhenius not mann.
i wasnt referring to my gun ( no colt for me. i prefer my kimbers but any 1911’s are great) nor violence. the guy attacks me for posting by name calling. thats when you know that he has nothing constructive to say. why would you take his side when he was being a douchebag? if he were to meet me i doubt he would be such an asshole is all. let’s stick to arguing about the topic and forget about the name calling. funny how your thought goes right to guns and violence and trying to red flag me when it wasnt my thought at all. that is how psychopaths think.

rum now: “i was referring to arrhenius not mann.”

rum then: “mann would be proud of the sensitivity. and to think he didnt even consider feedbacks. and just because he had a theory makes him right?”

But as long as you have no shame and an unshakeable faith in your own inerrant correctness, along with the ability to ignore anything you don’t like the look of, you can change history.

Pity that all it takes is a look back up the thread to find run lying again. again.

“let’s stick to arguing about the topic and forget about the name calling”

It would be a first when a denialist sticks to the topic and doesn’t resort to name calling like, oh:

“the warming since the little ice age, that fact, or the non existent warming for the past 15 years.”

Which is Off Topic and a lie. Or

“Tell me women are not crazy attracted to you.”

From Nik.

But, since Nik is a denier like rummy here, and they MUST stick together, no mention against him will be heard. So shh.

Odd how denialists keep banging on about a conspiracy to keep quiet but are themselves practicing a level of Omerta that would have the Mafia looking like gossip columnists.

no wonder you are being duped by the agw crowd. “so this dude has a theory that takes the warming since the lia from increases in CO2? mann would be proud of the sensitivity.” how do you get that i was talking about mann? this dude (arrtenius) has a theory that would make mann proud…..apology accepted.
“the warming since the little ice age, that fact, or the non existent warming for the past 15 years.”

Which is Off Topic and a lie. thats off topic? its in response to mooney saying that ”
Given that warming is indeed a fact”…so its off topic to respond to the writer? and a lie? whats a lie…no warming for the last 15 years??? from one of your heroes phil i dumped the data to save space on my computer jones…http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2973-climate-scientist-admits-no-warming-in-15-years he must be a liar as well.

rum avoids seeing a mistake. Again.

The theory of CO2’s effect on the climate is over 150 years old and stood a longer test of time than the theory that makes your computer work.

But you don’t like it.

So you make up stuff and when it’s shown up as a pack of lies, retreat into denial.

“how do you get that i was talking about mann?”

Because you talked about mann and how he’s had one theory and that just means he’s right.

Since no change in preposition, it’s the same person.

Or is English not your language? Bullshit, maybe.

“and a lie? whats a lie…no warming for the last 15 years???”

Yes. There is a positive trend and the trend doesn’t exclude an increase of 0.17C per decade, DESPITE the sun being extremely quiet.

You know, the sun. Big hot burny-thing up in the sky during the day?

So your claim IS A LIE.

“from one of your heroes phil”

Phil Jones didn’t say there’d been no warming trend.

Did statistics pass you by?

Just because you roll a 6 on a die doesn’t mean the dice is fixed.

Well, to a denier who wants to get out of paying up on a losing roll, it does.

rum avoids seeing a mistake. Again.

The theory of CO2’s effect on the climate is over 150 years old and stood a longer test of time than the theory that makes your computer work.

But you don’t like it.

So you make up stuff and when it’s shown up as a pack of lies, retreat into denial.

“how do you get that i was talking about mann?”

Because you talked about mann and how he’s had one theory and that just means he’s right.

Since no change in preposition, it’s the same person.

Or is English not your language? Bullshit, maybe.

“and a lie? whats a lie…no warming for the last 15 years???”

Yes. There is a positive trend and the trend doesn’t exclude an increase of 0.17C per decade, DESPITE the sun being extremely quiet.

You know, the sun. Big hot burny-thing up in the sky during the day?

So your claim IS A LIE.

“from one of your heroes phil”

Phil Jones didn’t say there’d been no warming trend.

Did statistics pass you by?

Just because you roll a 6 on a die doesn’t mean the dice is fixed.

Well, to a denier who wants to get out of paying up on a losing roll, it does.

“i wasnt referring to my gun ( no colt for me. i prefer my kimbers but any 1911’s are great) nor violence”

Rum, its there in writing, you said:

“we can discuss things further and then we will see if you have the same balls you seem to think you have on the web.”

Sounds like a threat to me. What would have happened if he did have the balls off the web that he had on the web? What then? What was the plan?

“the guy attacks me for posting by name calling. thats when you know that he has nothing constructive to say. why would you take his side when he was being a douchebag?”

You came onto this blog & your first comment was:

“the warming since the little ice age, that fact, or the non existent warming for the past 15 years. Which were you disengenuously referring to? and there hasnt been problems with temperature records? really? I must go hide my decline in knowledge and get my news elsewhere”

Did you expect high fives from people who oppose your views or what? I mean, the majority of the worlds scientists from hundreds of countries disagree with you & 100% of the worlds scientific institutes disagree with you, yet a fringe few right wing blogs & news channels backs your ideology & confirmation bias & that is what you choose to believe…without checking any of those “facts”?

And you are angry at HIM for having nothing constructive to say? You are being provocational & you know it.

And in the 150+ years since, ACTUAL SKEPTICS have tested it.

And just because YOU think it’s wrong, you think that makes it wrong?

And the religious ALWAYS sees any argument in religious terms, don’t you, rum.

Didn’t have a chance to look at all the studies but the healthcare one is interesting in that, although Fox News viewers did worse than the CNN and MSNBC viewers, they were still exactly average. That would suggest to me that while Fox News is obviously not informing people well on healthcare, they are likely not misinforming people either, otherwise you would expect their viewers to be worse than average (although it depends on where the average person gets their information).

It does also suggest, on this issue, that we should maybe be more worried about people who apparently know less than Fox News viewers and not worry about Fox News viewers themselves.

1) 1940s study of driftwood

2) an open letter from Christopher Monckton to 2 U.S. Senators DEMANDING they apologize to ExxonMobil

Hardly seems like it’s a set of peer reviewed science papers refuting AGW claims.

Sean Hannity has made a career out of portraying Obama as the angry black radical man. In the runnup to the 2008 election, Fox seemed to be showing Reverand Wright clips about every half hour, for weeks on end. I’m not sure if they ever actually showed Obama’s complete response on the Rev. Wright, issue. Typical fare from Fox.

Fox is without a doubt the most biased news organization ever on television.
Fox is like reading a tabloid, rather than a major city newspaper.

The ‘Liberal Media’ is something of a myth. MSNBC is about it, as far as large TV networks.

When asked to modify their climate change reporting, by cutting back on the false balance, ABC’s chief executive refused, saying the science wasn’t conclusive enough, or something to that effect. (another person who thinks the science is up for popular opinion)

Tim Lambert at Deltoid now has 61 articles titled “The Australian’s War on Science”. “The Australian” consistently publishes innacurate and misleading articles on climate change. Another Murdock - NewsCorp media outlet.

The Wall St Journal also now owned by NewsCorp, published an article with the headline: “Science Has Spoken, Global Warming is a Myth.” that was created by Robinson of Oregon Petition infamy, and was not a peer reviewed paper. Yet the Journal puts that trash out like it’s real.

Your comment is one sided. Can I suggest that you add some balance by talking about how the media reacted to George Bush when he was in power.

Your examples are childs play compared with what he had to deal with.

This is not a political point. Just trying to add some perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

You know how all those maths teachers keep teaching how 1+1=2? SO unbalanced.

And the geography teachers? WHERE’S THE FLAT EARTTH!!!!

You’re not trying for perspective. Sometimes there is only one answer.

George Bush was possibly the dumbest politician ever allowed to be elected, let alone elected as president!

The world looked on in true amazement & felt embarrassed for the Americans who actually have intelligence.

How can you tell?

By the shift of the political spectrum needed to make his self-perception of his rightwing politics look like centrism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

By his parroting of rightwing talking points taken almost verbatim from Murdoch press releases.

By his certitude that AGW is false, but he ain’t no denialist, no siree.

By changing his story to fit the situation.

And why does he listen to Fox? Because it tells him:

1) God Is Great. He loves this. More in america, hardly ever done in the UK
2) Government Is Bad. Makes him feel important “Standing up to The Man”
3) Greenies and Environmentalists are Evil. ‘cos God gave him the planet.
4) He’s a balanced centrist person. Because he doesn’t want to recognise he’s a rightwingnut. That makes him feel special in a bad way.
5) He’s smarter than all the scientists. Because science doesn’t have a God, he must be smarter ‘cos he knows there is one. And Fox agrees he is!

This is how Fox keeps its audience despite more desperation and lies as time passes that it spews forth: it tells the audience what they want to hear and lets them know they are smart when in reality, they’re dumb as bricks.

You need to have a television to watch Fox.

As I have not got one the rest of your comments are superfluous and total nonsense.

Actually my home page is BBC and I listen to their radio broadcasts and subscribe to many of their podcasts. It’s a great resource……

And what’s all this linking to God and missions etc. all of a sudden? You’ve past it…

You’re having a bad Friday…….

“You need to have a television to watch Fox.”

I’m starting to gain some respect for you Titus. However, I do wonder what led you down your initial path of information seeking on the subject?

Doesn’t it make you wonder why there is no where near the opposition to AGW in Europe that there is in Australia, Canada & the USA? There was some in the UK, but the conservatives there have pretty much killed that off now. Ever wondered why the majority of the most popular websites for & against AGW are either owned or run by mostly Australian, Canadians or Americans? When most of Europe has pretty much moved on with acceptance & China is on the way to leading the world in renewable energies. Not right now, but not far away & thats despite the world basically exporting their emissions to China while at the same time pointing the finger at them & telling them to cut down.

This is the power of the combined efforts of the largest FF companies in the world, which are virtually all based in Australia, Canada & the USA to manipulate the viewpoints of the general public for their profits & that’s it.

If it’s an economical complaint then I agree. There will definitely be a hit to the FF companies in Australia , Canada & the USA. But that’s an argument of economics & not science.

Respect for our fellow men? I agree wholeheartedly. And I think you have something to think on with that nugget.

I believe that Applegate has a very good comment before mine. Read that first as it’s a basis of thought I can build on.

There is little wonder why US, Canada and Australia are the only countries you mention. The answer is very easy: they are the only countries in our modern world that have not been subdued by their leaders. The people still have a voice.

You need to understand some history and I cannot do it justice on a blog. Put very simply; Catholicism ruled Europe with an iron hand and England escaped its control. England then became controlled by the Protestant Church and folks fled to the US, Canada and Australia to be free from its control. Then came along the Enlightenment and the church lost control. Then came along the EU which England has resisted with all it’s might for 50 odd years and still the bureaucrats relentlessly force the process. The UK will soon disappear under the EU. I lived in the UK through these years and can vouch that the people never wanted it and still don’t and it has taken years of wearing down to get them to submit. Throughout its history Europe is used to having these controls so it’s not surprising about your observation. The rest of the world is in a similar shape whether it’s communist, muslim or whatever. Remember when I make comments I have the greatest respect for my fellow man. My remarks are against the controls they are under.

You ask me what led me down this path. I mentioned that I had taken a role to put Environmental Stewardship into my company. I had the executives wanting to keep the business on the rails and a workforce with the full spectrum of views which we see on this blog. I now have a much better understanding of the motivations and drivers behind the whole subject. So thanks to everybody here. I hope I can do a better job for my company as a result.

Lets keep freedom alive and respect our fellow man.

“There is little wonder why US, Canada and Australia are the only countries you mention. The answer is very easy: they are the only countries in our modern world that have not been subdued by their leaders. The people still have a voice.”

Oh come on! That has to be one of the weakest excuses I have ever seen. I’m actually starting to think you are a lobbyist Titus to say something so ignorant. You don’t think there is any political lobbying going on from the largest FF companies in the world? All the other conservative governments around the world have subdued their people? The advertising, lobbying, astroturfing & media penetration & funding by the fossil fuel companies is just an honorable need to help their fellow man to escape the clutches of government control?

It’s clear by this statement of yours that you are willing to ignore logic & evidence to justify some preconceived belief.

Please do not pigeon hole me as a lobbyist. What you are saying is that you need reassurance that my views fit with some group that you have previously factored and demonized and can now rest peacefully because all is explained.

Well Phil. I’m disappointed at this juncture. I thought you were opening your mind to the fact that we are individuals with very very complex make ups. Pigeon holing is a trait of the insecure. You focus on a tiny few years of the present and miss the course of history.

As Applegate and I have said many times, an extreme example but understand my point when I say: “I’d sooner live in a den of thief’s and vagabonds than under this type of cynical, divisive, subliminal control that gives you comfort to rest assured in.

BTW1: I have no preconceived belief. I just do not feel comfortable flying in your plane at 35k ft. Until you can match what an everyday airline needs to do to reassure its public you are toast. I’ve been amazed that something this important is so badly managed. Its basic stuff and you are clearly in infringement of even bringing a basic product to market.

I’m becoming more convinced that this is a power struggle and AGW is a convenient vehicle. IMO it’s now the only explanation that explains the massive focus with such a minor issue. Even if it were true we have many years to sort it out if need be.

BTW2: I have never watched Fox in my life. I just read what folks say about it and that’s enough. Same with most others as well.

Titus, nice dodge. You just managed to completely avoid answering my question & proving your delusion , while at the same time waffling on with something altogether different.

So I will bring you back to our original discussion & my question you are so keen to avoid.

“You don’t think there is any political lobbying going on from the largest FF companies in the world? All the other conservative governments around the world have subdued their people? The advertising, lobbying, astroturfing & media penetration & funding by the fossil fuel companies is just an honorable need to help their fellow man to escape the clutches of government control?”

You provide no evidence but just pure opinion & I am expected to take that on as a plausible argument? Yet I supply you with cold hard facts & you not only refuse to address it, but come up with an unfounded conspiracy theory to back your assertions.

“I’m becoming more convinced that this is a power struggle and AGW is a convenient vehicle. IMO it’s now the only explanation that explains the massive focus with such a minor issue”

That’s right, it is only your opinion, as you have not a single fact to back you up, just conspiracy theories. So the conservative governments from around the world that have implemented a carbon tax have all gone to the dark side & they have lost the power struggle? Who are their masters now? Which countries who have implemented this tax are now socialists? Which one is a country that is in ruin?

“Even if it were true we have many years to sort it out if need be.”

I’m sorry, but this is why I had suspicions you were a lobbyist. This is the same sort of tactics & language that the smoking lobbyists used to hold up legislation against smoking laws & law suits for 40 years. There is no evidence, there is doubt, the case is shaky at best, there is no 100% proof, you are infringing on peoples rights, we don’t need to act now, lets wait & see.

It was people like you back then that prevented us acting when we knew we had to. We know we need to act now. Its like discovering termites in your house in one wall & saying we have time, we will fix it later if it becomes a problem. If you do something about it NOW there is far less to do later & much less expensive.

I know Ive just got up but I cannot see a questions. Happy to try if you can prompt me.

I will be showing my ignorance here: what is an FF company? Did a Google and could find anything that made sense.

You seem to be talking about political lobbying and tobacco companies. Not sure what your point is. Political lobbying is a fact of life in our current world. Every man and his dog does it. I’m not getting into the rights and wrongs of that.

And as for my opinion. Thats my opinion. Take it or leave it.

I assume he means Fossil Fuel.

You know, companies which exploit fossil fuels.

Or do you get your fuel from the fuel fairies?

“And as for my opinion. Thats my opinion. Take it or leave it.”

You’re allowed your own opinion.

However, you’re not allowed your own facts.

Stop denying the facts.

The bigger the government the bigger the lobbying and when you have an enormous institution like the UN you have got the platform for even greater level of corruption (e.g. ‘Oil for Food’).

Look at the problems that folks have in getting aid to those that need it. Vast amounts get creamed off by the bureaucrats and government leaders/war lords etc.

The larger and broader the government the more we open up for our taxes to be creamed off into political agendas, off shore bank accounts and increase the size of the playground for the lobbyists.

Minimal government for the people. Then lobbyist will have to find another playground.

The problem is you don’t want to admit you’re wrong.

Starvation and privation will get worse under climate change.

Burn a man’s home out and you make him poor.

Leave him to grow his own food and he won’t have to rely on your charity.

“when you have an enormous institution like the UN you have got the platform for even greater level of corruption (e.g. ‘Oil for Food’).”

I haven’t got a problem with getting rid of the U.N. After all it was created by the USA, it’s based in the USA & the USA can veto or ignore any decision that the UN makes anyway, like not to invade Iraq.

It’s a toothless tiger.

“Look at the problems that folks have in getting aid to those that need it. Vast amounts get creamed off by the bureaucrats and government leaders/war lords etc.”

Yes but not always do good intentions get abused by bad people. Would you say that happened in Haiti, or after the last few years of tsunamis?

“The larger and broader the government the more we open up for our taxes to be creamed off into political agendas, off shore bank accounts and increase the size of the playground for the lobbyists.”

No doubt it’s a tough balance, but the other end of the spectrum is there is no one to look out for the people & watch over the corporations milking us.

“Minimal government for the people. Then lobbyist will have to find another playground.”

Yes, they will no longer have restrictions & can plunder at leisure & they can self regulate! Fantastic idea!……not.

Looks like we broadly agree (apart from your last bit)?

The question you now need to consider is who will the lobbyists lobby if there is no government to lobby?

Then corporations can fend for themselves and not spend money on lobbyist influencing policy and returning favors on the cushion of our taxes. Sounds like a good deal.

“The question you now need to consider is who will the lobbyists lobby if there is no government to lobby?”

Oh yeah, sure. We just just run & skip around with joy at the new found freedoms for business & individuals. Because we know from past experiences when people & businesses self regulate they always do the right thing. We could save money on police & judges too as they infringe on our freedoms. Then the fairies can build our roads for us, supply our water & sewerage & our garbage disposal. The rich can be the only ones that can educate their kids like it should be & we should bring back eugenics, because we know the disabled & imperfect are costing us & they should be eliminated.

Oh the glorious society it would produce.

Errr, your another Libertarian aren’t you Titus?

Pages