Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Warning: “Greater exposure” to Fox News will lead to “increased misinformation” on policy issues, especially climate science

Posted on  

"Warning: “Greater exposure” to Fox News will lead to “increased misinformation” on policy issues, especially climate science"

Share:

google plus icon

THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:

WPO

A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that.  Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.

This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”

Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:

Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”

WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

- Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)

- Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)

- The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)

- Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)

- The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)

- Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)

- The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)

- When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)

- And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)

As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that.  The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:

Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”6

The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.

In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found””after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers””that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7

In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for””and in many cases is already affecting””a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8

Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems”¦.

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.

ThinkProgress cross-post.
« »

62 Responses to Warning: “Greater exposure” to Fox News will lead to “increased misinformation” on policy issues, especially climate science

  1. Thanks Joe, I am sure Fox will be happy to hear this…This just proves they are successful at influencing opinion and promoting fantasy news…this only helps their business.

    It is a perverse blessing that Fox News can move opinion, not fact. It has absolutely no influence on the laws of thermodynamics. Things are still unfolding as they must.

  2. Mitch says:

    Of course, there is the standing point that correlation does not equal causality. We don’t know if people who are misinformed choose to watch Fox or they become minsinformed by watching. Or both.

  3. Prokaryotes says:

    CNN and Tea Party Express Schedule Presidential Debate

    The Tea Party Express will now join the ranks of major news organizations or political parties who have sponsored past debates. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/cnn-and-tea-party-express-schedule-presidential-debate/

    Are there any standards?

  4. cervantes says:

    People who would actively promote a lie, that threatens to enable one of the greatest catastrophes humanity has ever endured, purely to serve the infinite greed of people who are already obscenely wealthy, render the label of psychopath grossly inadequate.

  5. MarkB says:

    I agree with Mitch in that a causal relationship is not clear. There is some anecdotal evidence that at least on the issue of global warming, Fox News is causing people to be mislead.

    1. Fox News coverage on the issue has gotten more crazy since Republicans lost the White House. Before that, personalities like Bill O’Reilly were more supportive of the science. Journalists have also been ordered recently to cast doubt on the science.

    2. Republicans and conservative independents make up the vast majority of Fox News viewers.

    3. Public belief in the science has dropped a bit, but it’s almost exlusively among Republicans and conservative independents.

    We might say those prone to misinformation flock to Fox News, which creates a feedback. Fox News doesn’t have to work that hard. Just mention Al Gore, Obama, liberal, socialist, government, U.N., tax, winter weather, and many will begin foaming at the mouth on cue.

  6. Colorado Bob says:

    Leading House climate skeptic Jim Sensenbrenner appears to have landed a perch to lead investigations into global warming science.

    The Wisconsin Republican is set to become the vice chairman of the House Science Committee under incoming Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas), Hall told POLITICO Thursday.

    “With his background, his insistence, he can do the mean things that we don’t want to do,” Hall said. “I’m a peaceful guy; he likes combat.”

    Politico

  7. BillD says:

    My guess is that most scientists use NPR and PBS as important sources of news. I’ve watched fox news except youtube exerts that show its off the wall nature and while passing through fast food restaurants.

  8. Jon says:

    The numbers are interesting – I wonder whether it’s a coincidence that the two worst scores, 60 and 59 respectively, are for people who watch Fox News almost every day and people who never watch network TV news broadcasts or whether those are almost identical sets of people. And I’ll be damned if I know quite what to make of people who read newspapers and news magazines almost every day doing so much worse than those who did so 2 or 3 times per week – are obsessive cranks out only to confirm their preconceptions that large a fraction of the population of heavy news readers?

  9. Barry says:

    Mitch (#2) that was my first thought: maybe the “selfish kids” who don’t want to clean up their own mess all flock to the Faux News neverland where you don’t have to grow up.

    But when I looked at the full list of facts that Faux News folks misunderestimate it just stops being very likely that Faux isn’t causing a big part of it.

    How long you can run a nation on false data without running into the rocks is something the GOP need to start thinking about seriously. “Stay the course” is a bad choice when you are heading into a reef.

  10. BB says:

    That’s too bad…because that question that’s asked is so simple and straight-forward, that even people who disagree on things related to climate change still agree that the climate changes (and is changing).

    The way the question is worded, it doesn’t matter what you think is actually driving the change, it’s just whether it’s changing or not. I can’t even think of any scientist out there that thinks the climate has not (and isn’t) changing in some way, regardless of the influencers.

    Even the phrase “Natural Climate Variability” speaks to “Change”. I haven’t watched FoxNews in almost 5 years, so I guess I don’t know exactly what’s going on over there, but it appears viewers there aren’t paying much attention to the issue.

  11. Dan L. says:

    “We don’t know if people who are misinformed choose to watch Fox or they become minsinformed by watching. Or both.”

    Whichever it is, the ones I know (alas, I know many) are passionate in their belief that Fox tells them the truth and all other media are liars. They find just the misinformation they are looking for at Fox, and Fox knows just how to give it to them.

    Fox’s model of shameless pandering is one of the most brilliant business ideas in the history of broadcasting. It’s given the network a monopoly. It’s gold mine, and they will mangle facts to whatever extent necessary to keep exploiting it. They don’t care if they are caught out, their viewers want to be lied to. The only thing they need fear is competition: another network willing to out-wingnut them and steal viewers.

  12. Mike says:

    Mitch (#2) and Barry (#6) make good points. Part of Fox News mission is to misinform people, but another part is to rally like minded people.

    It would be interesting to find the educational level of Fox News viewers vs other media. It is important for progressives, or just rational people be they conservative or liberal, to figure out how to attract a broader audience.

  13. AB says:

    Jon,

    Re: newspaper and magazine readers — I wonder if age might be a factor here. It might be true that older people are both less likely to accept global warming and more likely to read the newspaper everyday, while youngsters like my friends and I (20-30′s) are more likely to accept global warming but don’t read newspapers/magazines as often because we are getting our info from the internet (i.e. Joe).

  14. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    This is a ‘chicken and egg’ argument. FoxNews reflects its audience, and plays to their ignorance, stupidity and appetite for rancour. The Right is determined to oppose any action on the multifarious ecological crises facing humanity because to do so will threaten Big Business profits and prerogatives. Denialism is all about money, the Right’s God. The denialist industry decided to paint climate science as a Right versus Left controversy for tactical reasons. The average Rightwinger is more stupid, more ignorant, more vicious and more amenable to hatemongering than those of the opposite character type. The Rightwing authoritarian personality thrives on hatred, antipathy, paranoia and egotistical arrogance. Dunning and Kruger have elicited the mechanism by which the stupidest and most ignorant imagine themselves the most intelligent. And the whole sordid process is exacerbated by the deliberate fomenting of disinformation and ideological hatred by the Rightwing mainstream media. Here in Australia the media is totally dominated by the Right and, in Murdoch’s apparatus in particular, the denialist lies and disinformation totally dominate the ‘discourse’. One particularly sad and savage illustration of the synergy between Rightwing morons and Rightwing media agitation is occurring in regard to preserving the Murray-Darling river system, which was at the point of collapse during the recent record, ten year plus, drought. An expert scientific committee recommended that a certain amount of water be returned to the river to avert its total collapse, whereupon the Murdoch pathocracy began a typically hysterical media campaign. Before long public meetings were being held where belligerent imbeciles, screaming abuse for the cameras, attacked the science and scientists for ‘destroying them’. The entire process has now collapsed, driven by vicious Rightwing ideologues and cretins who imagine that they can ignore the biosphere, loot it for money forever, and somehow survive when it collapses. And this is how every environmental crisis is treated here-as an excuse for the Right to mount yet another campaign of fear and hate mongering.

  15. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    [blockquote]And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.[/blockquote]

    A conspiracy minded person might suggest that the low number of NPR/PBS viewers who believed in all three misconceptions about the war (4% vs 45% of Fox viewers) was behind the GOP funding cuts to PBS in 2006. Can’t have people too informed or they’ll see through your lies. ;)

    boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/08/gop_takes_aim_at_pbs_funding/

  16. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    oops, quote fail. Wrong symbol.

  17. catman306 says:

    Barry, I’ve always thought that Fox News truly wants to steer America into the rocks so that they can be the Ministry of Propaganda for the nation or nations that will replace the USA. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are subversive, the 21st century electronic equivalent of yellow journalism telling the masses what to think and when to think it.

  18. Jon says:

    AB,

    A generational split is a possibility but it might have to be over reading versus other media – not reading online versus hard copy – or over what is chosen to read (maybe the young avoid newspapers and magazines even online) since the poll wording, according to the table, included reading newspaper and magazine content online.

  19. dhogaza says:

    Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)

    So 49% can’t even read their own tax returns?

  20. Andy says:

    Without a doubt, watching FOX news makes one ignorant and rabid. I’ve seen good folks go bad. After a few years of it they’ve totally checked out for la la land. It’s like being addicted to pain.

    The surprise for me, and I guess after reading Dot Earth enough it shouldn’t be, is that printed newspapers weren’t much better. 40% of those who read the paper every day got the question wrong. This result is much more likely to be a generational bias as only 24% of those who read it 2 to 3 days thought most scientists disagreed with global warming.

    So then, why are so many older people wrong about global warming facts? Inertia against change and guilt? My experience is that they’ve lived most of their lives during a time when man wasn’t able to destroy the physical world and they can’t get their mind around that times have changed. That and when you get old you’re cold all the time.

  21. Colorado Bob says:

    Various conservative Christian leaders have united with the Cornwall Alliance for the release of a shocking new 12-part DVD series, “Resisting The Green Dragon,” that attempts to debase and discredit the environmental movement by portraying it as “one of the greatest deceptions of our day” that is “seducing your children” and “striving to put America and the world under its destructive control.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/resisting-the-green-dragon_n_798387.html

  22. btc43 says:

    Cervantes, your comment says it all.

  23. Bob Evans says:

    14. Mulga Mumblebrain , great comment. Spot on.

  24. Will Koroluk says:

    A friend who teaches high-school science in Arizona, suggests, with only the barest trace of a smile, that if you watch Fox often enough, your brain begins to soften and ooze out your ears.

  25. Raul M. says:

    Some group could do a study on the
    percentage of people who like disinformation
    and who have family troubles over basic
    concepts of right and wrong.
    For family members could easily see if
    Stated beliefs were in line with actions.

  26. cr says:

    Mike @12:

    A lot of the Fox News watchers at work are MD’s (and other college grads). I also find it interesting that in the doc’s lounge, if there’s a majority of non-American born docs in there, it’s not on Fox.

    And I know that the Fox News watchers have convinced themselves that what Fox tells them is the truth.

  27. paulm says:

    New U.S. guidelines aim to prevent politics from messing with science
    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/life/sci_tech/new-us-guidelines-aim-to-prevent-politics-from-messing-with-science-112097554.html
    he Obama administration released long-awaited guidelines on Friday aimed at protecting government scientists from political interference, a state of affairs that has long irked the American scientific community.

  28. Leif says:

    Today a fellow stated to me that he was disgusted with both parties.

    My response: Both Parties? I guess that leaves it in the hands of the PEOPLE!

    Or the military?

    What does the military do when confronted with a faction of its own citizens that promote policies that are clearly suicidal to the long term health, of not only the Nation’s remaining, clearly concerned, majority, population, but all the earth ecosystems as well?

    Can the military morally allow society to self destruct? Who does the military stand by in a show down? Science? The President? The obvious majority of non-FOX citizens? Tea Baggers? Fossil Corporate Amerika? If you are the Military do you want your troops with orders to KILL, facing down starving climate refugees. Knowing full well that your Nation was at least 25% responsible for their plight. Will your sons and daughters sleep well that night?

    There Answer is CLEAR. The military must declare a war to end all war. The “WE ALL WIN WAR,” in which victory is defined as continuation of the species and viable ecosystems. World Wide.

    Our Past is now the Enemy of our Future…

  29. Wit's End says:

    LEIF…thems are radical words…

    yum!

  30. Colorado Bob says:

    There was a young fellow seeking advice about the future here the other day. I had no advice at the time, I had to sleep on his questions. I came up with some advice.

    First , I ran off to the woods in 1970 assured that the western world was about collapse.
    Now, I quote Lisa Simpson :
    ” Oh another ‘Springfielder’ leaving for a better life in Detroit. ”

    Kid , go to Detroit and be a farmer. Watch the lead in the soil you get, but I’m sure they will give you land in a city. For me back then, it was it was all about escaping them, now it is about reinventing them.

  31. Leif says:

    Gail, @29: Mike Roddy and I had a nice long walk in the woods this morning. I cannot take full credit.

  32. Colorado Bob says:

    If I was young, I would go to Detroit, and for very little money I would become a 21st century farmer.

  33. David B. Benson says:

    Faux News is a fount of unreality.

  34. Colorado Bob says:

    I would have lots of company by the way.

  35. Roger Wehage says:

    Admitting that there is a global warming problem would mean we’d have to do something about it. Since we have no intention of doing anything, fix noise allows us to feel no guilt. So get over it you alarmist liberals. :)

  36. quokka says:

    BBC Director General: Britain needs a channel like Fox News

    I really don’t know what to say other than quote from the most recommended comment:

    “The last thing we need is a channel full of splenetic gobshites unloading lies, prejudice and distortion on the public, and lowering the level of public debate even further.”

  37. Colorado Bob says:

    I think Detroit is perfect place to go if your young . It’s so laid low, there is no place to go, but up. Huge areas of abandoned land, and the price of food is not going down.
    10′s of millions of mouths near by. Get 1 block of abandoned Detroit, and make a farm. It’s my understanding that there are several square miles of the city that are available for this.

  38. Colorado Bob says:

    To that young fellow the other night, ask Brad Pitt to help you buy 2 blocks in Detroit. Bring your friends.

    I’m not joking.

  39. RB says:

    Yeah, Fox rots brains. Only simple minded repugs give it any attention.

    One thing puzzles me though. I remember reading on this site a while back that Joe was saying we shouldn’t be paying attention to web based polls anymore. IIRC he said they were too unreliable. I agree web polls can be skewed easily, and they aren’t really full samples because they only get people who choose to participate, instead of doing random calls like Gallup.

    Why is this one better? How do they get a good sample?

  40. Colorado Bob says:

    Back to nature in Detroit makes perfect sense somehow. “Detroit” was what the 20th century can be summed-up in . The fact that it is in ruins, and no one batted an eye lash, makes perfect sense as well. Oh there was a fuss, but the place that defeated the Axis Powers is just a junk yard now.

  41. Colorado Bob says:

    “Detroit” was what the 20th century can be summed-up in .

    The cars, the gas tax, the highways….. The heart of that is vacant land now.

  42. Colorado Bob says:

    I have a very rich uncle in Dallas, he was shocked the day I explained how “Detroit” had conspired to kill the rapid transit system in L. A.*, and that they used this template to kill other systems all across America. That story in ” Roger Rabbit” is true.

    “Detroit” has completely rotted away. And the rapid transit needs remain.

    *the rapid transit system in L. A.

    The people at Douglas Aircraft during WW II, rode to Long Beach on one of the great trolley systems in the world.

  43. David B. Benson says:

    As goes Detroit, so goes the nation…

  44. Colorado Bob says:

    “Detroit” -
    General Motors, B.F. Goodrich, and Atlantic Richfield. They did it to sell buses, tires, and diesel .

  45. Colorado Bob says:

    The ” Market” at work.

  46. Colorado Bob says:

    Ask your friends if they know this little page in American history. This is the one conspiracy that Jesse Ventura won’t ever get to, that really happened.

  47. Colorado Bob says:

    It’s important , because hundreds of thousands of Texans sit in traffic in Dallas today because these men choose to buy the system in LA, and then kill it. Just a few men changed the world, and no one has ever heard about it.

    Dallas had great trolleys too.

  48. David B. Benson says:

    In Portland, Oregon, its called light rail.

  49. Colorado Bob says:

    If they had failed , you could get on a train in Dallas , and be in Houston like the French move from Paris to the Med.

  50. Colorado Bob says:

    David -
    Portland reinvents the wheel. Go Portland.

  51. Colorado Bob says:

    God this stuff is so depressing. One stupid choice after another.

  52. 350 Now says:

    8th commandment? You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    Resisting the Green Dragon? Lies, more lies and damned lies. I suspected that the Big Oil Party or their patriotically-named spin offs would launch something like this immediately following the few glimmers of hope from Cancun.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU&feature=player_embedded#!

    We need talking points – one page of them – simple, direct, and powerful that can be distributed to churches that still have a few reasonable thinking people of faith that don’t drink the koolaid.

    Post your suggestions/comments here with the words- 8th commandment- in the message and so we can create an 8×11 sized handout sheet. Do not use large words. Do not mention polar ice core data. If your 11 year old can’t understand, then rewrite it.

    - – -

    As the tremendous film The Eleventh Hour that was produced by Leo DiCaprio in 2007 stated, it’s 11:59. If you haven’t seen this film yet, it is available for free viewing online at:

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/11th-hour/

  53. Peter M says:

    At my health club, they have the treadmills/Stair-masters with TV’s. I see quite a few people watching Fox News- most are older white males.

    A few times I have engaged them in general conversation- first of all they seem, yes- very uninformed. I talked to one older man (around 70) about global warming- he said it was a ‘cycle’- I tried to persuade him otherwise- but his understanding of GHG, and science in general made him a willing sucker for the propaganda that Fox spews to their gullible listeners. Many have no basic idea about what global warming is-only the false information Fox tells them- they are also likely to have harsh views on racial issues, gay marriage and DADT- and believe that Obama is a Marxist.

    I told this same man, that AZ would likely be deserted by the year 2030 by heat and lack of water- he said nothing- but a few weeks later he admitted I was ‘probably right’- but still refused it would be caused by climate change.

  54. Here’s a very well written essay by Clive Hamilton on why people resist the reality of climate change

    http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_resist_the_truth_about_climate_change.pdf

  55. dhogaza says:

    David Benson:

    In Portland, Oregon, its called light rail.

    We have streetcars/trolleys too. The major differences are that the streetcars share the street with traffic and obey regular traffic signals, while light rail runs on dedicated track (one of two lanes on one-way streets are sacrificed for that portion which runs downtown) with dedicated signaling. And of course the light rail trains are capable of much higher speeds, though they run at typical urban street speeds within the city (25 mph).

  56. dhogaza says:

    Portland reinvents the wheel. Go Portland.

    or redeploys it, perhaps …

  57. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Qokka, cobber, (no.36)the UK already has a ‘nitwork’ like FoxNews, and it’s called the BBC and its Roger Ailes is Mark Thompson and its Murdoch is Murdoch mediated through his agents, Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron.

  58. caerbannog says:


    Colorado Bob says:
    December 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Various conservative Christian leaders have united with the Cornwall Alliance for the release of a shocking new 12-part DVD series, “Resisting The Green Dragon,” …

    And guess who’s on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance — none other than one Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville. (Linky: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/ ).

    This is pretty-much smoking-gun proof that Spencer is too nuts to be considered scientifically credible in any way…

  59. 350 Now says:

    Additional info re #52. A comment from the Huffington Post Green page (re Resisting the Green Dragon) at
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/resisting-the-green-dragon_n_798387.html
    says it all about their 3 minute video, (much less the 6 hour DVD series):

    I can throw away my ears. Because now I’ve heard everything.

    As of 11pm 12/18, there are over 2200 comments. Comments suggest their funding is from Big Oil. Others think the Religious Right is using Oil money to push their Rapture agenda as much as Big Oil using the RR to push their pollution/profit agenda. So who’s using who? Or is it one of those rare symbiotic relationships? The real question is how many members of energy and commerce committees are sympathetic to this message.

    A glance at the link below will show these enraptured people are serious regardless of how laughable their premise is:
    http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/usa/index.html#about

    The False World View of the Green Movement Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
    Rescuing People from the Cult of the Green Dragon Dr. Peter Jones
    Logos vs. Mysticism: Environmentalism’s Flight from Reason Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi
    From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth Dr. Michael Farris
    A Brief History of Environmental Exaggerations, Myths and Downright Lies Dr. Steven Hayward
    Putting Out the Dragon’s Fire on Global Warming Dr. David Legates
    How “Going Green” Impoverishes You, Your Church, and Your Society Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop
    Ravaging the World’s Poor Dr. James Tonkowich
    The Green Face of the Pro-Death Agenda: Population Control, Abortion and Euthanasia Dr. Charmaine Yoest
    Threats to Liberty and the Move Toward a Global Government Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
    A Biblical Guide to Genuine Creation Stewardship Dr. James Tonkowich
    Go Therefore and Make Disciples: Advancing the Gospel in a World Permeated by Environmentalism Dr. Peter Jones
    ** BONUS 30-minute Documentary; ** Electronic Discussion Guide

  60. with the doves says:

    @Stephen Leahy – thanks for that link to the Clive Hamilton essay. A very thought-provoking piece. I did not know that Einstein faced media-driven relativity denial in his day.

  61. Fox says:

    Outfoxed: Fox News technique: “some people say” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

  62. monkey says:

    Most media that editoralize be it Fox News on the right or MSNBC on the left simply preach to the choir. The people who listen to the stuff already agree with the view presented and simply want it re-enforced. I’ve found most people’s views on global warming has little to do with the facts, more with which course of action fits their political ideology. Those on the left want bigger government, higher taxes, and less economic freedom thus they will jump on this bandwagon since it is an easy way to achieve this goal as the public since the late 70s to early 80s has largely abandoned socialism as a failed ideology. Those on the right on the other hand are skeptics/deniers since they want less government, more economic freedom, lower taxes, less regulation, and as much sovereignty as possible (pretty tough to deal with the issue without internal cooperation and some surrender of national sovereignty). Few promoting climate change have discussed any option other than doing things the right hates so no surprise they take the skeptic side. While I suspect a lot of scientist study it from a neutral point of view, as most humans have built in biases, I suspect many on both sides of the aisle try to get results that suit their view. I guess the best thing is to look at who is funding the scientists get and their previous political background. Those that are political activist I generally ignore regardless of which side they come from.