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

cuckoo cuckoo

You see everything liberal in a negative light. Correct me of im wrong but isnt it the liberals who want people to be allowed to do what they want, while conservatives want people to do what they say only. Isnt one group asking for a little much?

To build on your example:

Liberals have high jacked science and are using it to hide behind to forward their progressive agenda.

Conservatives are up front and open.

I know which side I’d choose no matter how much I disagreed.

Though from his religious knowledge, he “knows” that this must be true and therefore doesn’t have to actually investigate. He’s been told by a “Higher power” that it is so.

Sigh, its not hijacked. Start dealing with facts then you might be taken seriously.

Go back to conservapedia.

“You probably don’t even think you are on the left.”

From your position, I guess I am, but then again you are a right winger, so even if i was a moderate conservative I would be considered on the left to you.

“(You should read Liberal Fascism for a good discussion of the true pedigree of the progressive movement in America. Hint: it arose from American fascism.)”

No doubt any paranoid delusion fox fan would agree with you also.

“The MSM would have you believe that the left of decades ago is now the center.”

I don’t actually watch or read much MSM. But what you are talking about is people actually having morals & a conscience. Being a Fox news supporter, it’s obviously something you do not cherish.

“I don’t know much about Glenn Beck”

Wait, you know about Fox news enough to consider your opinion informed on this matter, but you don’t know much about Glenn Beck? I’m from Australia, don’t watch Fox news but know a lot about Glenn Beck. I can’t decide on whether you are totally ignorant or just playing ignorant & evasive because you know you are wrong.

“but did Fox organize this rally or did he do it as a private person?”

You could say Glenn organized it himself, but he actively promoted & praised it on his show on fox news. If he was organizing a fun run that would be different. He organized a political rally with conservative politicians which he promoted on a conservative news channel.

“Do you think he should not have been allowed to organize a rally? Why are you so afraid that some people express views opposed to yours? Are your views so fragile?”

Sounds reminiscent of the defenders of the Nuremberg rallies. What have you got against free people expressing their views?

“Democrats should have been embarrassed at the conspicuous fawning the MSM reporters did over Obama – actually cheering on camera when it was announced that he won.”

Examples?

You don’t feel embarrassed over the verifiable lies & conspiracy theories Fox news have been allowed to put to air? Are you a birther?

“I too grew up in a culture that took liberalism as the norm. When I was first able to vote, I voted Democratic - didn’t everybody?”

No, I was the opposite. I grew up in a very religious conservative family. Many of my family are still conservatives. I evolved. I’m now an atheist & a progressive. I’m not so easily conned now.

“I voted Democratic - didn’t everybody?”

Pretty ignorant stereotyping statement. What about the religious right? The bible belt? The “confederate states” . You telling me those people voted democrat at some stage?

Are you saying you are an American & have never heard of the red & blue states?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Strange how the red states correspond with traditionally lower education areas, e.g. country. Just saying.

“When you’re young and you’re not a liberal, you have no heart. When you are old and you’re not a conservative, you have no brain.”

I like this quote from John Stuart Mill: “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

“Liberals are fans of dissent except with the dissent is from their own ideology. Then it is dangerous hate speech - denial.”

Conservatives are against regulation, taxes, big government, bureaucrats,more spending……..except when they are in, strangely it’s all ok then & there is nothing to get worked up over anymore.

Funny you call me a right-winger. But if I am not a liberal, I guess I must be. I consider tax-and-spend, big-government Republicans to be left of where they were decades ago.

No doubt any paranoid delusion fox fan would agree with you also.

I’m a Fox fan? I do not watch Fox, or any other broadcast news for that matter. Fox is one of 5 internet news sources I routinely check. When Fox became a player, I found it refreshing that there was actually a new contrary voice to the left media. The trend had been in the other direction and I presumed that MSM propaganda would grow unchallenged. (I gather you haven’t and would never read that book.)

“actually having morals & a conscience”

You make an excellent point. You think that being liberal is the only moral option. Liberal = good. Non-liberal = evil. Some day I hope you realize how ignorant that is.

“I can’t decide on whether you are totally ignorant or just playing ignorant & evasive because you know you are wrong.”

I never defended Fox other than to express my surprise that you were intolerant of its existence. My original post was not about Fox, but about sloppy research aimed at vilifying a dissenting voice. Have you read those studies? Do you see an alternative evaluation?

“Sounds reminiscent of the defenders of the Nuremberg rallies. What have you got against free people expressing their views?”

Again with the non-liberal = evil. Now that you mention NAZIs, you do realize that Hitler was a socialist do-gooder who only wanted what was best for the German people. American progressives were very taken with him prior to the war.

“Examples?”

I wish I could find it. I saw a compilation of TV reporters proclaiming that they were rooting for Obama. Maybe someone else remembers it.

“You don’t feel embarrassed over the verifiable lies & conspiracy theories Fox news have been allowed to put to air?”

Again, I’m not defending Fox. But it scares the hell out of me that people like you think Fox should only say what you “allow” them to.

“John Stuart Mill: ‘I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.’”

I would agree with that. Conservative thinking is less nuanced and thus easier to grasp and apply. That is in contrast to all the nuance and doublespeak and correct thinking used by the liberals in their campaign. They just want to do what is right and thus to control people too stupid to think “correctly.” “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

In case you are in suspense, I am a libertarian. I agree with Thoreau that “The best government is that which governs least.” It is a principle that once made America the envy of the world. No longer.

“Republicans to be left of where they were decades ago.

I consider them to be far to the right of what they used to be. So I guess we agree on your position there.

“When Fox became a player, I found it refreshing that there was actually a new contrary voice to the left media.”

So did some of the countries biggest corporations & right wing lobby groups, who now have regular slots on the show to push their corporate views that is beneficial to only their share price & nothing else. When before, they only had limited access to this type of platform. They dominated & still dominate the commercial talk back scene, but they were never able to get their claws on T.V until fox came along. Ads weren’t enough. The public needed to have their opinion on everything from Obamas birth place to the war in Iraq & why billionaire companies that pay little or no tax, actually need subsidies & that money should be taken from the bottom end of town not the top end.

“You think that being liberal is the only moral option. Liberal = good. Non-liberal = evil.”

I don’t think that at all. As I said, I grew up in a conservative & highly religious family & many of my family members & friends are conservatives still. You think I believe my own family are evil? Plus I am an atheist. I don’t believe in “evil”? That is a term for religious nutters to use.

What I am drawing attention to is the Glenn Beck rally which was obviously a political rally in which he used his popularity to manipulate people. I’ve asked before, what personalities of the “liberal” media have had such extreme views as fox personalities? When have they taken things to those extremes as Hannity, O’Reilly & Beck? You cant name them or provide examples can you? Because the fox platform is ideologically appealing to you, you think the MSM is equally liberal biased, but cant provide equivalent examples.

“Now that you mention NAZIs, you do realize that Hitler was a socialist do-gooder who only wanted what was best for the German people.”

That is a misnomer that right wingers like to employ to make them feel good about themselves, knowing that most wont actually look up whether that is true. You talk to me about Liberal=good & non liberal=evil? Come off it! Glenn Beck & others are always dragging up socialists/marxists/communists/nazis & trying to pigeon hole them all into the same category. For those who want to actually look up “Nazism” & the “Nazi Party”, you will see it’s a far right political ideology. Fox & right wingers just like to play on the word “national socialist German workers party”. But here’s the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
“in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
“Political position: Far right”. Kind of like Fox.

“But it scares the hell out of me that people like you think Fox should only say what you “allow” them to.”

I don’t. I just think there should be some journalistic accountability & accuracy where there is little at fox.

“In case you are in suspense, I am a libertarian.”

So you are a TEA partier? An Ayn Randian fan? It reminds me of anarchy. It’s fine for billionaires but for the rest I just don’t get it. I mean, if you remove taxes, who pays for police, hospitals, schools, doctors, nurses, judges, roads, trains, dams, sewerage, water etc?

Didn’t Ayn Rand end up a public hospital at her death?

I think you understand very little about libertarianism. Or Hitler’s National Socialism either. They are at poles. One’s religion (I happen to be atheist) is irrelevant when government is limited. Libertarianism is about limited, appropriate government, not about no government. The NAZIs wanted government control over every aspect of life and thought. Sound familiar?

You really are frightened by Fox. As I said, I don’t watch Fox so have little exposure to the commentators you describe. From what I have seen their style is polemic and their goals apparent. This is less disturbing to me than the subtle socialist presumptions that pervade other media coverage. Political correctness (including the A in AGW) is not just a joke, it is a real conspiracy to change people’s assumptions and increase the power of government and the elite who control it. It is an incremental return to socialist fascism of the early twentieth century. If you don’t see that, it is because you are its product.

You see yourself as allied with that elite and against the corporate bogymen, and you presume that you will enjoy some privilege when the revolution comes. History has taught that this is not the case.

“I think you understand very little about libertarianism.”

I understand enough to know how useless it is in practice & why the libertarian party have no seats. But I still haven’t identified what part of the libertarian spectrum you occupy, as you wouldn’t say whether you are part of the TEA party. Which could arguably be called right-libertarianism or libertarian-conservatives. Koch & the TEA party certainly don’t back any democrats & are very aligned with the republicans. Your comments certainly don’t sound like that of a true centre of the road libertarian.

“Or Hitler’s National Socialism either.”

There you go again with the misnomer. You have obviously never bothered to actually google it & just cling to the word socialism as your political life raft. The nazi party formed on promise of socialism, but in the night of the long knives essentially killed off the left faction & in practice it is widely accepted that the Nazi’s were fascists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Excerpt: “–noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc

The political spectrum:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png

I’m sure if you read any conservative media they will say the opposite. Helps them sleep better at night.

“This is less disturbing to me than the subtle socialist presumptions that pervade other media coverage. ”
Examples?

“Political correctness (including the A in AGW) is not just a joke, it is a real conspiracy to change people’s assumptions and increase the power of government and the elite who control it.”

Oh no, not another Alex Jones fan. You really do sound like a tea partier now. No clue or logic. The European countries that already have a carbon tax & are run by conservative governments kind of kills off your paranoid delusional conspiracy theories now doesn’t it? Which one now practices socialism?

“You see yourself as allied with that elite”

Scientists are now the elite? I bet you thought those scientists were A ok until there was talk of a carbon tax. Then suddenly out of the cupboard comes the tin foil hat.

You are all too eager to pigeonhole me so you can stereotype. Fine if it makes you feel better, but I am not a Tea Partier or an Alex Jones fan, or Glenn Beck fan… I am a physicist/chemist/engineer by training and have arrived at my own views, both political and regards AGW.

By your reckoning, there could be no such beast as a center-of-the-road libertarian. The Tea Party seems mostly concerned with fiscal responsibility by government. That is part and parcel of libertarianism and is anathema to the left. That, to you, would make any libertarian “right wing”. How does the left imagine a $14T debt will be resolved? Inflation? And what will this do to the common man who ultimately has to pay the bill?

Do you somehow imagine that NAZI fascism was not big-government socialism? That it was some petty dictatorship with Swiss bank accounts? They controlled every aspect of German life, “for their own good”, of course. The early Italian variety was not racist and the American left was very supportive of it. There are clear ties between fascism and socialism and it’s no use repeatedly denying it.

The scientific underpinnings of catastrophic AGW are rapidly falling away and many on the left are realizing they have been lied to. Rather than rejoice at this good news for the planet, they are angry that they will loose their best hope for final control over corporations, the rich and the selfish.

Don’t worry. Even with communism gone and then anthropogenic global warming gone, you will still find another cause that requires “complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce” etc. Maybe overpopulation? You could start now.

“Fine if it makes you feel better, but I am not a Tea Partier ”

Although you have beliefs that are not only libertarian, but conservative as well, which is exactly the same as the TEA party, who are a conservative libertarian party.

“or an Alex Jones fan”

Then where did you get this theory? Please don’t insult my intelligence & say that you arrived at that assumption yourself & the idea just popped into your head. It must have come from somewhere.

“Political correctness (including the A in AGW) is not just a joke, it is a real conspiracy to change people’s assumptions and increase the power of government and the elite who control it. It is an incremental return to socialist fascism of the early twentieth century.

“By your reckoning, there could be no such beast as a center-of-the-road libertarian.”

Of course there is, I never said that. I’m just pointing out that if you find yourself agreeing with the views of republicans more than democrats then you are not a centre of the road libertarian. You are a conservative libertarian like the tea partiers.

“How does the left imagine a $14T debt will be resolved?”

How does the right? Like Bush did with his accumulated debt then a more debt on top of that with a $700B bail out? Now all of a sudden the right are all about debt reduction when they never did anything about it while in power. I must admit, I like Ron Pauls suggestion of ending the 700 US bases around the world & cutting the $1 trillion a year military budget. But the republicans will never let him through with such comments.

“Inflation? And what will this do to the common man who ultimately has to pay the bill?”

The world is seeing that the USA is no longer the responsible world leader it used to be & is allowing it’s politicians to be dictated to by massive FF corporations. The chinese have been slowly & peacefully making steps to remove the USD as the worlds reserve currency & replace it with the Yuan. With the oil backed USD no longer the worlds reserve, there can be no more borrowing your way out of debt. Damn right you have to pay down debt….by allowing corporations to pay nothing?

Libertarian values have been shown to be downright dangerous when actually applied to business. Monopolies, Mafia, unregulated banks, unregulated food supplies. No one has ever implemented Libertarianism because it’s so obviously dangerous & everyone can see that except the 1% of people that make up Libertarians.

“Do you somehow imagine that NAZI fascism was not big-government socialism?”
It was fasiscm plain & simple. I have provided you with independent evidence, you have provided me with opinion.

“The scientific underpinnings of catastrophic AGW are rapidly falling away and many on the left are realizing they have been lied to.”

Strange how this is only a phenomenon experienced by Australia, Canada & the USA though eh?

“Don’t worry. Even with communism gone and then anthropogenic global warming gone,”

Quick! Check for the reds under yer bed!

You just can’t give up labels to help with your name-calling, can you. Look up “logical fallacies.” You have to get past calling everyone who disagrees with you a right-winger, or conservative, or Tea Party, or stooge of some TV personality. I don’t rely on other people to tell me what to think - and you shouldn’t either. Most people are just sheep with attitude, but many can figure this stuff out by themselves. Try it.

In part I came to libertarianism through engineering. My last degree was in “applied dynamic systems control” which is the study of the mathematics of how complex systems are controlled, largely through negative feedbacks. Libertarianism embraces natural feedbacks and so does the climate, which is why life on earth persists for billions of years and always recovers from the most catastrophic external perturbations. My department was concerned with computer models of biological regulation. One lesson there is that modeling even a moderately complex system is easy - you measure what parameters you can and fiddle the rest. You can make the model say anything you want. You can replicate any outcome with the right parameters. The results are of course useless unless you perform experiments to validate every internal feedback system in vitro. The climate is far more complex and you can’t do such experiments on it. But I digress.

The world is made of feedback systems and human societies are not exempt. Libertarian economic values have not been tried since the US was formed 235 years ago. It worked fine but politicians couldn’t leave it alone. Libertarian social values - i.e. limited government interference in the realm of personal behaviors - has never really been tried. Your knee-jerk reaction to limiting government is that it would be opposite of what you want, so it must not work.

People can make stupid decisions when they live in a nanny state. They presume that someone is watching out and they can’t make a bad decision. What fool would accept a sub-prime interest rate mortgage when they can clearly see they will default? One who assumes it wouldn’t be offered if it wasn’t safe. Like taking Halloween candy. Perhaps few people alive today are mentally equipped to live with freedom.

It is no coincidence that the left abandoned the move toward Marxism after the fall of the Soviet Union and turned their energy into the environmental movement as a way to achieve the state control that will make them feel safe. Maybe it’s a herd instinct in some people. There may be a genetic test someday.

I think political views have to do with human nature. We understand human nature largely through introspection. When I look inward I see the desire to cooperate and achieve for the betterment of all, and need the freedom to do that. I suspect most libertarians see the same. When a leftist or rightist looks inside, do they see demons that must be controlled? Do they see sociopathic whims to steal and lie and rape? Do they assume everyone has those demons? Is that why they think only a powerful state can keep these demons in check? Maybe there will be a genetic test for that someday too.

You do realize that the FF companies eagerly embrace carbon taxes. The last thing they want is for the FF to run out, so raising prices and limiting consumption makes good business sense. Like the tobacco companies, they won’t have to pay the high taxes - the consumer will. Higher prices for the product are more easily hidden behind huge taxes.

“You just can’t give up labels to help with your name-calling, can you.”

No & neither can you with your pursuit of the evil left who are just trying to live some socialist all government control utopia can you? It’s paranoia of the highest levels.

Libertarianism is dangerous in practice & both the left & right know it. The 1% who support it don’t. We know what happens in a society where money is able to rule without rules, regulations, restrictions or law. That’s anarchy where the rich can afford private armies & do what they want. Where they can put whatever in our food & nobody watches them. There is no liberty in a society like that except for the uber rich.

“You do realize that the FF companies eagerly embrace carbon taxes.”

Oh come on, I don’t know what conspiracy theory blogs you hang out at to pick up all these baseless claims, but they are just ridiculous. The banks yes, but FF companies? Really? For someone in the profession you are in, I’m surprised at your lack of logic. Please provide me with evidence that FF companies or the lobbyists that represent them have lobbied for this tax to be brought in ASAP. For each example I will provide you with 10 where they have opposed any such tax, deal?

Applegate, you constantly bandy about your opinion, but never back it up with a citation or anything to reinforce your POV, why is that?

The AGW denier case is so weak & you guys know it.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/energywire/2009/01/exxon_chief_embraces_carbon_ta.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/earth/12oil.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/exxon-carbon-tax.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/10/exxon-mobil-carbon-tax

Oh, did I say oil companies were lobbying for a carbon tax ASAP? That must have been a typo. Or you putting words in my mouth.

Anarchy? You need to think it through. Reducing government does not mean eliminating government, anymore than reducing CO2 means eliminating CO2.

Are you a GW denier? Do you deny that climate is and has been changing due to natural causes? Do you deny the Little Ice Age? Do you deny the Medieval Warm Period? Do you deny the unexplained correlation between solar sunspot activity and climate? Do you deny that glaciers have been retreating since long before FF use? Do you deny that the ice packs are retreating on Mars? Do you deny that the ice core record shows that CO2 increase lags temperature increase? Do you deny that CO2 levels have been far higher in the past?

You have to deny a lot to think we can actually control our climate.

In response to the exxon wanting a carbon tax. Is this like when they spend a few thousand or a million in donations to a university or some green venture & then declare “we are not the bad guys! Look how green we are!!”…Then on the other side of the ledger, they donate tens of millions to right wing lobbyists & conservative politicians to oppose any legislation?

“Reducing government does not mean eliminating government,”

Reducing government is only one facet of the Libertarian ideology. I’m surprised you choose to focus on just that aspect. What part of government would you like to reduce & did you think I forgot about the libertarian desire to remove regulations & restrictions on business? Who isn’t thinking it through?

“Do you deny that climate is and has been changing due to natural causes?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

“Do you deny the Little Ice Age? ”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm

“Do you deny the Medieval Warm Period?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

“Do you deny the unexplained correlation between solar sunspot activity and climate?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sunspots-and-water-levels.htm

“Do you deny that glaciers have been retreating since long before FF use?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

“Do you deny that the ice packs are retreating on Mars?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

“Do you deny that the ice core record shows that CO2 increase lags temperature increase?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

“Do you deny that CO2 levels have been far higher in the past?”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Same old denier talking points I have been responding to over & over again for the past 6 years.

“You have to deny a lot to think we can actually control our climate.”

You have to be a denier to believe removing most of the trees off our planet, while at the same time vastly adding CO2 does nothing. We are not plants, we are humans & have only succeeded during the stable Holocene period. You don’t know what life would be like for us in a highly volatile environment. It’s fine for most of us westerners. But what about the billions of people that will most likely want to migrate due to global warming, where will they go? Would you prefer it that they all come to your country?

So yes, you are a global warming denier. Just checking.

Speaking of global warming refugees, what happened to the 50,000,000 that were supposed to be displaced by now? Where did they all go?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52758/50-million-refugee-claims-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-money-for-the-un/

Oops. The link to the map is dead. How did that happen?
History gets revised very quickly on your side of the debate.

“Speaking of global warming refugees, what happened to the 50,000,000 that were supposed to be displaced by now? Where did they all go?”

Well here is 19 Million alone.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/floods-displace-millions/2007/08/03/1185648146971.html

Here is another 10 million.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/pakistan_57168.html

Amazing what happens when you pull your head out of the sand & use google for 30 secs. What happens when the floods just keep happening? Do you think they will just stay there? Sorry I didn’t get to 50 million, but 29 million is more than the entire population of my country.

to deny that 30 billion tons of CO2 a year cannot have any effect on the climate.

If volcanoes had been pumping that out, it would change the climate.

Why is it you deny that humans doing the same would?

Because you’re insistent that capitalism is ALWAYS RIGHT and government ALWAYS WRONG.

It’s a religion.

Simply that.

CO2 caused a warming climate in the past. Only deniers deny CO2 can do so this time.

A small increase in one of the minor greenhouse gases should have some effect. And basic principles say the effect should be warming. The questions causing all the tumult is whether the effect will be significant enough to even be measurable and whether the effect on life or man will be positive or negative.

If there weren’t so many fanatics loudly clamoring for a particular result, and so much funding being lavished on anyone promising that result, I might have more confidence in this counter-intuitive result many of them come up with. To my original point: confirmation bias. If you know the result you want, your research requires a lot more rigor than we’re seeing in climate. If you desperately want a result, someone else should do the research.

Nowhere near a “minor” one.

You have absolutely no clue about the science, do you? And no shame with making stuff up.

“The questions causing all the tumult is whether the effect will be significant enough to even be measurable”

It already is.

Theory: 0.9C warming. Measured more than 0.8C warming. That warming supports a climate sensitivity of over 3C per doubling of CO2.

Clueless, you are. Completely clueless and shameless.

“If there weren’t so many fanatics loudly clamoring for a particular result”

Yes, stop clamouring for “AGW is false” When the data shows it’s not.

And stop lying, as shown with your “Cooling in the 70’s” echo.

PS it’s rich that you complain about doing research when you obviously have done none whatsoever)

Ad hominem is not an argument.

H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. If you didn’t already know that, it could explain why you post as “anonymous.”

Really, you need to sit down and explore your own motives. You may think that what is needed now is social action more than intellectual honesty, but later in life you won’t look back with pride.

It’s not an ad hom when you go “your arguments are wrong for $REASON, so you’re an idiot”.

However, idiots who don’t know what ad hom means, but just read that it was a useful catchphrase keep pretending to know what it means. They do this to try to deflect.

You have not a clue about the science. You’re an idiot.

That’s not ad-hom, since your lack of clue is the reason you’re an idiot and it’s not your idiocy being used to show you have a lack of clue.

CO2 is the biggest GHG after H2O which falls out as rain and therefore isn’t a driver of climate, being ~30 years accumulated data.

I think we need a ruling on this. If I called someone an idiot, I would know I was making an ad hominem attack since “idiot” actually has a definition. No one writing a blog post, however fatuous, could be one. Words have meaning.

So what are your scientific credentials? I have degrees in physics, chemistry, engineering. They do give one at least a clue about science.

This is merely plain fact.

If you’d even bothered to have a look at the papers in the 70’s (you can do a search, you know), you could have discovered *some* papers saying it would be warming and then, even with no other work, conclude that it wasn’t “all” scientists.

A quick google would have taken you to sites that have done more work.

Yet you didn’t do any checking, but put it out there as if absolute truth when it was in fact absolute bollocks.

That is the action of an idiot.

It’s a plain statement of bare fact.

Sky is blue, water is wet, applegate is an idiot (about science and climate science in particular).

“So what are your scientific credentials?”

I don’t need any. You can check the literature yourself, no science credentials needed. And even if all you found was a few papers saying “it’s warming”, you’d have known.

Science isn’t needed, just reading comprehension skills.

Something an idiot lacks.

See? More proof of the fact.

You know, I’ve had a look and I can’t find ANYWHERE where someone called “applegate” is an alumni.

Given you haven’t a clue about the science and state that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, you obviously have no clue about chemistry or physics (where you will have heard about CO2’s proportions in the atmosphere before finishing your “degree”). Engineering has no bearing on whether you know or can even understand climate science.

So you don’t need basic scientific training to understand scientific issues? You just believe what they tell you when it confirms what you want to hear and deny the rest? I hope you don’t vote.

You don’t need science training to read english.

And you have shown the reverse of understanding the science, so you either don’t have the physics or chemistry degree you claim to have, or it’s not necessary, since I understand the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without a chemistry degree.

Recalling my school chemistry classes, the proportions of the gasses was a part and the physics I took then explained about rovibrational states.

Yet you didn’t understand them.

Sorry, but you really do need more than the ability to read English. You are seriously out of your depth in trying to argue the science.

I understand your frustration. You really want to believe in catastrophic AGW for whatever reasons. You think it’s what the good people believe. But you’re feeling these pangs of doubt because reasonable people disagree. There are better ways of dealing with this than trying to shout them down.

And engineering does matter. My masters program at university was in “applied dynamic systems control” which is basically the mathematical modeling of feedback systems.

That there are skeptics who doubt catastrophic AGW should make you hopeful instead of angry. Do you really want badly to believe that catastrophe is imminent? Why would that be? Or do you just want other people to believe it?

More than the ability to read english is good. But you don’t need to do more than read english to read that there were lots of scientists who were proposing AGW back in the 70’s.

All you need to read is the words.

“And engineering does matter.”

Not when it comes to climate science. I’m sure you’re very good at building a meccano truck.

“That there are skeptics who doubt catastrophic AGW

no, there are deniers who make up “catastrophic” and then point to people still walking around as “proof” that AGW doesn’t exist. The problem is, they then drop off the “catastrophic”.

Hooray! You’ve proved catastrophic AGW hasn’t happened!

Pity the IPCC doesn’t mention CAGW or Catastrophic AGW at all.

That sort of thing is where you need to understand “English”. Without it, all you have is parroting words you’ve been trained to say, just like a Japanese actor in a US movie.

“You really want to believe in catastrophic AGW

No, I don’t believe in catastrophic AGW, any more than I want to believe in catastrophic sun-going-out theory.

AGW is a fact.

You believe it MUST be wrong.

So you make up stories and refute those stories but avoid noting that you’ve not refuted AGW, just your own ideology.

AGW is a fact.

Live with it.

Correct me, but did I ever say AGW was wrong?

The case for GW is strong, although no one can presently predict where it will go or when it will reverse - it may already have - since the causes remain uncertain. We are overdue for the next phase of glaciation, so on a multi-millennial timescale that’s doubtless where it’s going.

The case for AGW is very weak. And a billion zombie true believers don’t make the case any stronger. The case, as I’m sure you’re aware, is being made by computer models, not by empirical evidence. Not by actual measurements. Measurements show warming (with large error bars) and they show CO2 increase. But that’s all they can show; they are mute as to whether one causes the other. They are also silent as to whether GW will be beneficial or detrimental to man.

You just managed it there: “although no one can presently predict where it will go or when it will reverse”.

No, it CAN be predicted where it will go. What can’t be predicted is when denialists like you and titas will man up and clean up your act.

“it may already have - since the causes remain uncertain”

More denialist screed: the causes are NOT uncertain. They’re very well known.

“The case for AGW is very weak.”

More denialism. You’re denying AGW. It’s the same science that explains GW from non-human causes, like the PETM or the solar activity increase over millions of years.

You just deny the case for it because you’re a denier.

“The case, as I’m sure you’re aware, is being made by computer models”

False. False. False.

The case is made by scientific theory and the calculations done by computer, just like they are done with buildings and new bridges.

But you deny the case and deny your denial.

“not by empirical evidence”

HERE IS YOUR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Where is your empirical evidence that the causation is wrong and the physics weak?

IT DOESN’T EXIST.

Because you are a denier. So you deny the physics placed right in front of your face because your faith requires you disbelieve it.

“Measurements show warming (with large error bars) and they show CO2 increase. But that’s all they can show”

And the stress/strain measurements can only show stretching and force applied. So “as an engineer”, you can’t use it for anything else? Like, say, determining the elastic limit?

Bollocks. The graphs show the causation of CO2 is correct. This is how SCIENCE is done. The hypothesis “CO2 causes warming” gets modeled into an equation or law “Temperatures will increase with the log of CO2 concentration”, the calculations done to find the constant of proportionality “for each doubling of CO2 you will get 3C warming” and then the graphs show:

35% increase in CO2
0.8C increase in temperature
3*ln(1.35)=0.9C

This is called “testing the theory against evidence”.

Something a scientist would do, but a denier NEVER.

And, having passed the test, the theory is proved until someone can come up with a competing theory that explains BETTER THAN THE CURRENT EXPLANATION the evidence.

But you and titas are in deep denial.

“they are mute as to whether one causes the other.”

False. The CO2 increased first in the industrial era, just like it did in the PETM. There is no causation as to why CO2 would increase because of the 0.8C increase either.

You have a nebulous hypothesis: temperature increases increase CO2.

So be a scientist and work the remaining stages. Test it against the data. Prove your hypothesis is a better answer.

You can’t and won’t, you’ll just deny any evidence you’re wrong and deny any evidence for AGW as you have done just here, and, to top it all, deny you’re a denier.

No wonder titas who also denies he’s a denier but proven from his own words to be one starts stroking your ego here.

Seriously, you are out of your depth here.

If you want to believe that AGW is a fact, that is your right. But it is only an opinion and you cannot force me to accept your opinion.

Something is a fact only if proven by hypothesis testing AND it is falsifiable. Neither is the case for AGW. Because something is plausible and no one can prove it wrong, means nothing. It might be a good working model provided the risk of being wrong does not outweigh the benefits of using that model. That is where we are today. The believers think the model is near perfect AND that the predictions of the model are catastrophe. They are thus willing to sacrifice my grandchildrens’ future prosperity to prevent this catastrophe. Plus, it fits their own political agenda anyway.

Skeptics see this clearly. They also think the AGW model is likely to be wrong for a whole host of reasons, if you cared to read about them. (I won’t list any here since you’ll just trot out facile screeds dismissing them on propaganda blogs like this.) Skeptics also are uncertain of the predicted catastrophe if the AGW model is right, allowing that the effect may actually be positive for man in many ways.

What would settle this? Scientific investigation that determines the fact or falsity of AGW and its effect. This may well be impossible. The climate does not easily lend itself to that kind of testing.

As in astrophysics, there are many opportunities to observe and develop theories. A theory seems quite plausible until a new observation comes along and upsets it. This happens a lot. Unlike in climate, the astrophysics community is very excited and pleased when that happens. One cannot conduct experiments on billion year timescales and galactic dimensions, so theories are all we will ever have. Take general relativity. It gets confirmed over and over, and falsifiability tests are conceived and performed with good result. It is approaching fact. If it were considered fact, they would forbear testing it.

If you do not see the plausible alternative explanations to AGW, it is because you do not seriously investigate them - they are out there. There are also some significant aspects of climate that remain unexplained. Hand-waving may calm the herd of believers, but to a skeptic that’s not enough. For example, research into the mechanisms and impacts of cloud formation are just now being published, and hands will soon begin waving frantically among the AGW believers.

GW deniers like to compare AGW to a proven engineering principle. There is no analogy. You are not just talking about building a skyscraper with untested building materials, you are talking about building a hobbled future world. There is no due diligence.

The political elite behind AGW (you’re not one of them) are hoping that action can be taken now, before the root science is proven false, as they know it may well. They thus overstate the certainty of AGW and the extremity of consequence. This is admitted.

Really?

You, the person who said “It was all global cooling in the 70’s” thinks ***I*** am out of my depth?

Talk about projection!

“Something is a fact only if proven by hypothesis testing AND it is falsifiable.”

NO.

FALSE.

YOU are out of your depth.

Something is a USEFUL THEORY if proven by testing and is falsifiable. But it NEVER becomes a “fact”.

You’re a complete moron.

“Neither is the case for AGW

FALSE.

If the temperature changes out of line with the current understanding of climate that we have, then the current theories of climate are wrong. Since AGW is a consequence of that climate theory, it too may well then be wrong.

But it is MOST DEFINITELY falsifiable.

You merely throw that load of bullshit out there because you are a goddamned liar.

You lying sack of shit.

“Because something is plausible and no one can prove it wrong”

Just because YOU can’t prove it wrong doesn’t mean it CANNOT be proven wrong. But if it’s truth, then of course you can’t prove it wrong, because IT’S THE TRUTH.

This is the crapload of shite we get from denialists: they DEMAND that AGW is wrong and when they can’t manage to do that, “Oh, it’s not falsifiable!!!”.

BOLLOCKS.

“It might be a good working model provided the risk of being wrong does not outweigh the benefits of using that model. That is where we are today”

BULLSHIT.

You just come out with that complete and unvarnished pile of crap because you have NO SHAME about your lies.

PROVE IT!

YOU CAN’T.

BECAUSE IT’S COMPLETE BOLLOCKS!

“They also think the AGW model is likely to be wrong for a whole host of reasons, if you cared to read about them. (I won’t list any here”

You won’t list them here because it’s a load of crap. You think that the AGW model is wrong BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE WITH YOUR ENTIRE SOUL IT IS.

“If you do not see the plausible alternative explanations to AGW, it is because you do not seriously investigate them - they are out there.”

THE FUCKING WELL ARE NOT!!!!!

You haven’t managed a single damn true statement in your entire frigging life.

The other theories about it HAVE ALL FAILED THE TEST.

And you REALLY HATE that.

Stop spouting a whole pile of stinking bullshit, you worthless piece of crap.

Take a pill.

You misanthropic piece of crap.

Wait for it to take effect before posting again. You embarrass yourself.

Because now you’re completely comprehension-free.

And the hand-waving begins. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/

Wow. Look. A paper that proves that you can have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber !

So, applesauce, what is supposed to be proven by this?

The farce is string in this one. Pity he thinks it’s The Force.

If it’s so inconsequential, why is realclimate getting so worked up over it?

In case you don’t follow realclimate, it’s the premiere AGW apologist blog with strict (read that repressive) moderation. They post topics infrequently and do not allow dissent.

Good hand-waving yourself, BTW.

They aren’t. They’re reporting how YOU are getting worked up about it. Read the title. You even gave it in the URL:

an-incremental-step-blown-up

It’s the sheep of the denialists getting in a tither going “this proves CO2 isn’t the cause!”.

Why?

Because they’re nutcases.

For the interested, this is a good read, clicking on the link because it shows how applesauce makes his opinion of something without actually reading what his opinion is about. Question: What informs his opinion then? Faith? Dogma?


The word ‘cloud’ is also found in some of the titles of the publications in the citation list. And that’s it.

OK, so this study is really about a laboratory experiment. The results presented are of the impact of ionization on the formation rate of aerosols with size ~4 nanometers (nm), as shown in the figure below:

There is a significant amount of aerosol formation taking place with no ionization (“background levels”), and when the sample air in the experiment was replaced, this caused a large jump (seen as a shift along the vertical axis) in the formation rate (the different colours in the figure above). This clearly shows that the formation rate is also highly sensitive to factors other than ionization.

The figure further shows that the relationship between the ionization and the aerosol formation is not all that strong. There is a relationship, but there is substantial scatter and the slopes of the best fit are not very steep.

There has been a number of studies on the relationship between solar activity and earth’s climate, suggesting there is a solar signal. But the solar influence seems to be weak. GCR don’t come from the sun, but are charged particles from distant galaxies and stars that are modulated by the solar magnetic field. The solar magnetic field is closely linked to solar activity.

And the killer for this paper’s conclusion that GCRs explain climate:


However, there is another reason why there really is a weak link from Enghoff et al.’s results to clouds. The experiment conducted by Enghoff et al. examined the formation of ultra-fine aerosols with size of 4 nanometers. But clouds need particles of the size approximately 10000 nanometers (10 micrometers) to form cloud drops for air that is barely supersaturated, according to the Köhler curve (which is central to cloud micro-physics).

So there’s no way to cause more clouds because you need more water to form them.

But the extra water is appearing in the troposphere, where there’s already a superabundance of cloud condensation nuclei.

The GCR’s don’t have anything to work on: they compete with salt, dust, sulphates and other pollution, pollen, spores and so on.

Funny, isn’t it, how the deniers were all going on about how CO2 couldn’t have an effect because H2O was absorbing all the IR radiation from the ground before CO2 could do the job (the “saturated gas” argument), but here they’re ignoring that before the GCR’s can get hold of enough moisture to form a cloud, it’s already been taken up by all the other CCNs.

Seems they’ll change their tune to suit their purposes.

Slavery for everyone else.

Selfishness.

The core of libertarianism.

So the problems of AGW will affect the poor and the mitigation will affect the rich.

Hence IT MUST BE WRONG.

When you repeated the screed of libertarianism and repeated the comforting lies of the denialist echo chamber.

“The scientific underpinnings of catastrophic AGW

Uh, no.

a) there’s no mention of “catastrophic” and this is a shibboleth of the denialists.

b) the underpinnings have been solid for over 50 years

you just don’t like those facts, so you make up comforting lies.

Let’s see, 50 years ago these same underpinnings had them predicting global cooling and imminent glaciation?

During the 70’s, out of 77 papers concerning climate change predictions, 7 predicted cooling (though all added the caveat that the effect of CO2 could overwhelm the cooling effect of sulphur emissions).

But you have to repeat what you BELIEVE to be true.

In the face of all evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Or do you deny that you can go and count papers yourself?

It was all about how the German People could manage without anyone else. How they would be stronger because they were together. How the communists and leftists were The Enemy.

Just like libertarians.

Man, that’s a stretch. You’ll be sore tomorrow.

I guess they just can’t help themselves.

No one has ever attempted Libertarianism because commonsense dictates it is just anarchy. It’s an extreme on the political compass that even the worst tyrants in our history have never attempted, because it’s just dumb. Look it up sometime on the political compass applegate…it is anarchy.

The uber rich would quickly form private armies & it would create mini feudal systems. Where like the mafia gangs, they would just kill each other off taking many innocents with them because “it’s just business…nothing personal”.

Pages

[x]

Crossposted from PolluterWatch blog on Jay Lehr.

If you're John Stossel and you want to host a segment to rail against the US Environmental Protection Agency, who ought you call?

It turns out, a man who was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA!

Stossel's guest last night, Jay Lehr, was sentenced to six months–serving three–in...

read more