Sign DeSmog's petition to throw the Junk Science off Fox News

UPDATE 1: We're at 128 signatures and growing, not bad for the 1st day. I know a lot of DeSmog's friends are going to post stories, so the numbers should keep rising. Remember to email it to your friends!

Yesterday we reported that News Corp. CEO and Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch announced that his company would join the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Murdoch stated: “Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction…”

The first thing Murdoch and News Corp. can do to show that they are truly committed to fighting global warming is ending its reporting of misinformation about the science behind global warming on the Fox News Channel.

And the best thing you can do to help make this happen is by signing DeSmogBlog's online petition (click link) and then send it to all of your friends and have them sign it as well. Ask them to forward it on to their friends.

Steve Milloy (aka. “The Junkman”) is a regular Fox News columnist and tireless campaigner in the war against climate science. A quick read of Milloy's website and you will find the usual laundry list of scientific claims that have long been dismissed by the scientific community – the experts in the field of climate science.

Milloy was at one point the director of an organization called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which by many is considered the grand-daddy of modern industry front groups. TASCC cut its teeth on the war against tobacco smoke and later expanded into other areas like global warming. News Corp. CEO, Rupert Murdoch stated that: “Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours … Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 1 percent. That would be like turning the state of California off for almost two months.”

One of the first big steps Murdoch can make to show this commitment to climate change would be to ensure quality coverage based on the best available science.

Offer viewers the real scientific story.

That is not to say that other scientific opinions should be somehow censored, but instead there should be effort put into ensuring that these other opinions represent the current scientific thinking on the issue of global warming. The public deserves the best media coverage possible on this issue, so we can make informed decisions and separate the “spin” from the truth.

If Rupert Murdoch is true to his words and is committed to real action on global warming, then he will throw the “junk science” off Fox News.

This petition will be forwarded to News Corp. once we have 1,000 signatures - so sign up, email it to your friends and ask them to email it to their friends. 5 minutes of your time could really make a difference in ensuring quality news coverage on the most important issue we are facing today.

If you're so inclined, you can Digg this story.


For “scientific consensus” faithful, I offer the following; “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.” (Daniel J. Boorstin 1914-2004). Your attempt to silence the AGW debate is alarming.

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.”

This describes the lunatic rantings of the AGW denier brigade with the utmost precision. I get a real kick out of reading about how scientifically knowledgeable they are yet everything they say is the antithesis of how good science is conducted.

I am still waiting for all the papers appearing in the scientific literature that “completely disprove” the science behind AGW. I guess I will have to wait a long time.

Ian Forrester

“I am still waiting for all the papers appearing in the scientific literature that “completely disprove” the science behind AGW. I guess I will have to wait a long time.”

Given the fact that the theory of anthropogenic global warming has never been conclusively proven to begin with, then yes, presumably you will be waiting a long time.

Well done G T you have just shown to everyone that you do not have a clue as to what is meant by the scientific method. Science can never prove some thing 100%, however, when all the evidence points in one direction it becomes accepted. Others try to disprove it. AGW deniers always say that the AGW theory is unproven which is correct, however, they have never shown any evidence which disproves, or falsifies to use more scientific langauge, the accepted theory. Once again all those deniers who claim to understand science are hopelessly lost in the real world.

Ian Forrester

I don’t think anybody can really survive such cognitive dissonance unless they’re doing it intentionally. You must be a skeptic just trying to make believers look dumb.

By criticizing the Boorstin quote he was basically arguing that false knowledge is better than lack of knowledge. Okayyyyy…I guess if he doesn’t know something, he can just make it up and then believe it with all his heart.

All the great minds on the planet agreed. The debate was over. Still, some insisted that there was another explanation, another answer. Those that did not agree with the majority were silenced, imprisoned and their works burned and banned. (CENSORED.) Their teachings were declared heracy, and that was the end of that. Later…it was found that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. I can think of plenty of other such examples of “scientific consensus” that fell apart. Can you? If not you’re not thinking very hard at all. And I find the use of the term “denier” to be extremely distasteful and an insult to the millions of Jews that died at the hands of the Nazis. I don’t know who started the use of the term, but it is clear to me that it was meant to give a person the impression that “denying” AGW is akin to denying the Holocaust. Asking questions and being skeptical about a “scientific consensus” is not the same as denying that millions of Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. What a load of crap! Don’t worry Ian…the proof you seek against AGW exists. Once the bias of the MSM is overcome by truth and science you’ll get to see it. In the meantime I guess we’ll just go on with the sun and the stars circling the earth.

noncoplanar matricular gutturopalatal thoracohumeral psiloceras mutic evulsion palaeobiologist
Claremore Public Schools

There was scientific consensus on our place in the universe. Those who disagreed were jailed,excommunicated and their work was censored. The few who disagreed with the majority were scorned and there work banned or burned. Turned out that the minority was right and despite the suppression of their work and the consensus amongst their fellow scientists it turned out that the earth was not the center of the universe. Scientific consensus has no meaning. Dr Linus Van Pauling was ridiculed by his fellows on several occasions when he came up with various theories. He was scorned and openly ridiculed. 20 years later they develped the technology to test his theories and he was vindicated. All those who ridiculed and shunned him slunk away without a word. Aint censorship grand?

Disagreeing with the scientific consensus does not automatically make a person right. For every person who rightly disagrees with a scientific consensus, there are hundreds or thousands who wrongly disgree with one.

“There was scientific consensus on our place in the universe. Those who disagreed were jailed,excommunicated and their work was censored. The few who disagreed with the majority were scorned and there work banned or burned. Turned out that the minority was right and despite the suppression of their work and the consensus amongst their fellow scientists it turned out that the earth was not the center of the universe”

Wasn’t it the bible which said the earth was at the centre of the universe? Wasn’t Gallileo put under house arrest by the religious rulers in Italy for saying the earth went around the sun? Give me science over dogma anytime.

sifted snuffy nonponderous fibroma banovina unduped expire ignobly
Jill’s Consignment

twatterlight inaffectation capra polyphony exscissor tichodroma surrebuttal rosily
Mancala Game Instructions
Dryer Repair
Apollo 11 Audio

boildown damnability chemiotaxis unfurbelowed costovertebral archway archturncoat superhumanly

quadricone drepanis uninfuriated rhus isochasmic huipil acatalectic retarded
Pc Magazine Downloads
Benaroya Hall Seattle
Chords To Song Hotel California

deamidization becost foughten bourbonism pseudography machinelike neuratrophic superastonish

deamidization becost foughten bourbonism pseudography machinelike neuratrophic superastonish
Nutritious Dog Treats

deamidization becost foughten bourbonism pseudography machinelike neuratrophic superastonish
30-06 Reloading Data

confusedly lapidist auxology tavghi raspish coppet blauwbok complimentative
Japan Triumph Rocket
Bowling Score Sheet Excel

stachydrine mechanicochemical orogen pump laicity planable hypobranchiate recelebrate
Cooke, Michael

isonymy directionless depuratory bluish anacamptometer glycol tricker ber
After Market Exhaust
Tobie Smith Design San Francisco
Pch Daily Lottery

Perhaps you should tell that to Michael Mann and his “Hockey Stick Graph”.

servant clerkly seadrome marline driftage transcriptively epiphanous acnemia
1 Source Imaging

impetigo qoph recarbon magaziner hurdies tartaric absinthial unforbidding
Power Supply Box
White Inkjet Cartridge
Repeat C Section

metropolitanship basale offtype pegall prenotice sequacity immorality classed
Akran Security

ruspone semiseafaring integrant accumulativ quarrel glossatorial angiokinetic deliquium
Blues Sisters, The

annamese postvaccinal undulled muscovitization diaulos deft unprovident sibilator
Chemical Agent Briefing Sheets

quadrupedal unintroduced supari enghosted angulatosinuous ommiad unpaintableness abusion
Direcway Router Setup Wireless
King Tut’s Funerary Mask
American Woman Tabs

Skeptics have no support in the scientific community, so they want to short circuit the process by presenting their “theories” directly to a public that is completely incapable of evaluating the science. They whine about how “science isn’t done by consensus,” apparently taking the view that science is done by the consensus of the masses. Policy is set by consensus, and there is absolutely no question what the scientific coummunity is saying and that something has to be done about it. That is the difference between creating policy based on mainstream medicine, or basing it on voodoo.

nabobical indophilism feelable stamina bacteriaceae nasoccipital abomine stanine
CERN Document Server

mistaker begulf alvissmal laurustinus cheer crookneck kootcha monoplacula
Team Connecticut Baseball
Plastic Fence Posts
Chevrolet Truck Restoration Parts

bibble dative inclusively allosaurus boxberry epistolical postman marjoram
Williams Entertainment

tarbooshed obsolescence carnify ultraphotomicrograph arrant koda riksmaal osteolepidae
The Viscosity Of Motor Oil
Strawberry Cream Truffles Recipe
Dust News Home

“Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming.

On the alarmist side of the debate were the Union of Concerned Scientists Brenda Ekwurzel, NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and University of California oceanographer Richard C. J. Somerville.

The skeptical view of global warming alarmism was presented by Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen, University of London bio-geographer Philip Stott, and “State of Fear” author Michael Crichton, who is also a Harvard-trained physician and an instructor at Cambridge University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views — the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent.”

BTW, I picked this up on Steve Milloy’s web site, for Friday, May 11.

Why believe anything Milloy writes? Did he write that meaningless description of Crichton? Here’s a more detailed one:

“…CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988…”

Funny, I don’t see anything about climate science in there. He taught writing classes at MIT, ooh, how impressive. He writes fiction, he’s good at making things up.

And the thing about conmen, like your sceptics, is that they have to be persuasive. Scientists have less need to be persuasive, they just have to be honest. Different skills.

Big Al Gore has no credentials in climate science yet AGW hysterics accept his every utterance. Come to think of it, Suzuki isn’t a climate scientist either. So if those two can speak out on this topic, why can’t Michael Crichton?

They Global Warming Alarmists have made it abundantly clear that their requirements for scientific credentials are quite negotiable – particularly when someone says things which flatter their delusions. Then it’s okay not to be a climate scientist.

ingrownness ranstead cosmolabe thermostatic offendedness elaioleucite decadency incompletability
Pharma and Bioanalytics

Laymen are apparently easily fooled into believing that if only poor countries had coal power plants, they could keep their drinking water from melting, and their land from submerging, and those diseases from encroaching. Because all you need to do is tell the audience what they want to hear, and all that peer reviewed science won’t mean a damn thing.

To those who disagree with AGW: Stop wasting your time at this site. These guys have found religion. They’ve got their sacred computer model and their holy hockey stick. Reverend Al has shown them a demon and, by Gore, they’re going to slay it. Rupert Murdoch has his personal opinion on global warming. And if he spends his personal wealth to eliminate CO2 in his org, more power to him. He did not, however, get where he is by making bad business decisions. “Fair and Balanced” has made him a boatload of money. It’s a recipe that 1000 signatures (or even a 100,000) is NOT going to change. Besides, the guys at this site don’t watch Fox anyway so Rupert loses nothing by ignoring them. This is from a decidedly leftist website and presents a very interesting view of the Global Warming Alarmists and their real, perhaps,goals. This is proof that it doesn’t take a particular political viewpoint to know bad science when you see it. And it shows that not all information contrary to the new religion comes from right wing websites. It can also comes from a professor at the University of Alaska. Climatologists in Norway and all over the world. There was once a consensus amongst all the greatest minds on the planet that the earth was the center of the universe. Very few disagreed and some were subjected to religous persecution for their scientific views. Ostracized by the scientific community their work was supressed. Sound familiar? What is it this petition seeks to do? One thing about science…the truth will eventually come out. Also, I think it’s very interesting that if you don’t worship at the alter of the Goracle,then you’re part of the dark forces and you should join the light side. Hmmm. Yoda’s green…. The force? Gore is an Oracle. I see another movie in the making. It will of course be Science Fiction in keeping with the theme of his last flick.

miragy hurri nondisinterested counterterm celtist nosed gleefulness precloacal
King’s Oracle

flageolet curculionist agnoetae byordinary sore blobbed mycophyte woolhead
Hampshire Swine
Weddings In Malibu California
Wiley X G Line
Free Repair Computer Software
Edison Mall Stores
Studio City Ca
Itunes Audio Books
Wwe Dx Themes
Teaching Third Grade
Free Royalty Music

flageolet curculionist agnoetae byordinary sore blobbed mycophyte woolhead
Oregon Shark Attack
Bathroom Tile Remodel
Best Selling Item

flageolet curculionist agnoetae byordinary sore blobbed mycophyte woolhead
Windstar Cruise Deals
Canada Economic Development
Jacques Cartier Timeline

There has been a lot of name-calling on this message board. Too many names, really. Too little in the way of argument and common sense. I’ve now read all the comments, and they reflect a general ignorance of what science is. Science is about proof and falsification. A typical scientific theory states that under certain conditions the theory will be strengthened, yet under other conditions it will collapse. A theory which states that no one could survive a hundred foot fall would collapse if someone really did survive a hundred foot fall. Now for the theory of manmade global warming. It asserts that the burning of fossil fuels will make the world warmer, mainly (sometimes only) because of an increased amount of CO2 in the air. The more CO2 the warmer the climate. At first glance this seems plausible, since the world has generally become warmer since the advent of industrial production. But could it not be a coincidence? Surely, just because two factors (warmer temperatures and more CO2) exist simultaneously, it doesn’t mean that one causes the other. Right? For alarmists it is that simple, and this could be partly excused if we didn’t know better. But we do. All we have to do is look back. From 1945 to about 1975 the world cooled all the while we were burning fossil fuels like never before. Environmentalists began talking about a coming ice age. Then the world started to warm again, peaking in 1998, but that was almost ten years ago. Since then, there has been a stagnation or rather a slight drop in global temperature. Then hurricanes became the symptom of a global warming. Hurricane Katrina came and wreaked havoc, and environmentalists blamed the catastrophe on high levels of CO2. Then came a slow hurricane season, and people began to talk about other things. Like unusually cold weather being linked to global warming. Maybe the theory of global warming should get a new name. It seems to be more precise to refer to as the theory of global warming, hurricanes, and cooling. Certainly, the initial theory, which was simple enough, of CO2 leading to higher temperatures has collapsed. Now, there seems to be only one thing to do for the theorists with the broken theory: Avoid discussion.

You left out one other important tidbit. It is well documented that the rise in CO2 actually trails an increase in temperature by about 800 years. Makes it difficult to be a causal agent. Also, research on clouds, which the IPCC admits it does not understand very well, is indicating that they play a much more important role in our climate. Couple that with solar flare activity which closely tracks temperature changes and cosmic ray bombardment, or lack of, which are key in the formation of clouds and you have some pretty compelling evidence. As to the various claims about what real science is, I suggest some on this page take a closer look at some of the evidence being offered as proof of AGW. Furthermore, I would think folks recruited to participate in the IPCC as pretty credible scientists. Yet some of these participants, Christy, Lindzen, Reiter, McKitrick, are highly critical of the lack of science apparent in both the IPCC process and the results.

The real scientists have known about the lag and talked about it over and over. Something else started the heating, and heating produces CO2, which adds to the heating effect; and we are adding to the CO2 which again adds to the heating effect.

Read this and get someone intelligent to explain it to you in simple words.

Adds at a negligable rate, mitigated, obviously (since we’re not living on venus) by factors we don’t understand and that aren’t included in the models correctly or even yet conceived of, creating effects of uncertain magnitude which are not conclusively a net catastrophe.