AGW: Fox WSJ inaccurate at least 81% of time

[Texoz]

This may have already been posted in one of the global warming threads in the last week, but let's give it the "sunshine" it needs.
The Link

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

wow! that IS shocking! I would have expected the UCS to find something altogether different as they are such an incredibly unbiased and scientific group with no agenda at all!

(for the record, I am sure that Fox and WSJ ARE inaccurate in their reporting on this issue from the right, as are MOST of the other articles from the Left I read.)

 

[Bevo Incognito]

There was a really interesting study done at the University of Michigan (I think) which showed that whenever most people are presented with facts or data that runs contrary to their own opinion ---- particularly if it is a position to which they have an emotional attachment ------ they will consciously or unconsciously reject the new information, employing a variety of methods or rationalizations for doing so.

 

[Namewithheld]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

Texoz- First, UCS is not a charity.

Is this really a "study" you want to stand behind? Did you actually read it? I hope not because I would think you would be embarrassed. The "study" is done by a press secretary and an intern. No joke. It has never been checked for its veracity, largely because it is generally accepted as a big joke.

The study fully admits it takes its positions from the op-ed section of the WSJ and from "prime time" host moderated opinion shows on Fox. Its that pathetic. Here is a great example of what this "study" found. This quote is directly from the study and typical of its findings:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TaylorTRoom]

Do you realize how many social scientists are in the UCS?

 

[Texoz]

The percentages are certainly open for debate. However, the obfuscation has been painfully obvious to any objective observer paying close attention to this debate.

Common sense dictates that increased CO2, a HEAT TRAPPING GAS, would LIKELY have be driving factor in a warming climate. The contrarians rarely attacked the science, it was the messengers who were lambasted, and when there were legitimate counter-theories, i.e. solar radiance, NONE of them rose to the level of scientific acceptance that merited additional studies. NO peer-reviewed papers exist to counter the theory of AGW, and none of them came close.

EVERY major scientific organization now supports AGW and many have done so since 2005.

History will not be kind to those who willfully and intentionally misled the public. I'm 100% certain of that.

 

[mop]

wow Bronco, you annihilated this thread. I guess the only response is to go back to sound bytes about why AGW is true. There is a very interesting new peer-reviewed study out that I may be starting a thread on after I do some research on it to make sure it has some credibility.

 

[Texoz]

good grief, the delusion is strong in the "atta boy" circle group.

 

[mop]

Texoz, you have the analysis of a politician's speechwriter. You go about 1 mm deep and act as if the entire question is settled. You are only satisfying those who are as dogmatically committed to the AGW as you are. Others of us are open to being convinced (I have softened my stance a bit in the past 4 years), but you are so weak in your points that you force us to look elsewhere.

I am convinced of the following:

1. CO2 is a helping the earth retain heat
2. the earth has warmed around .7 to .8 degrees Celsius in the past 150 years
3. Mankind is responsible for some of that, but possibly not much (?).
4. Other factors are poorly understood and still represent quite a huge possibility for blame.
5. Leftists do seem to be trying to overcapitalize on the issue and burning many of us out.
6. the earth has done precious little warming in the past 10-15 years.
7. The earth does have cycles of warming and cooling which appear to be at least part of the cause.
8. the sun's role is still poorly understood, but doesn't by itself tell the entire story.
9. a few scientists have made a disproportionate amount of noise and all but silenced honest dissent among those who fear for their careers if they disagree.
10. the public has turned against the AGW crowd starting with Climategate and without some serious warming (could be coming any year now i realize) this trend will continue or at least remain flat.

those are some of my thoughts as someone who has done a ton of research on the issue and who has done a lot of thinking and posting about this issue. your bumper sticker responses are quite weak in terms of convincing your dissenters. I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. Have you noticed how few people you have saying "amen" these days? The ones who are, appear to have always been convinced. I am actually just fine with that. I think there are some compelling reasons to be convinced if one only does a particular type of research on the issue. The IPCC looks quite impressive and convincing until you look into their history and their methods. I still think it has some very useful stuff in its analysis, but much of it is merely a vehicle for a certain type of globalization. As someone who lives in Africa, I am more offended than ever at what the IPCC wants in terms of holding back countries like the one I am living in. It is immoral and inexcusable.

Why not Thorium Nuclear? Is that something you and I can agree on would be a worthwhile approach? Wind and solar are still roughly 4 times as expensive as coal and oil and that's a lot to ask.