I did say that that was part of it. But the MSM has historically presented liberal concerns and liberal agitators in a more sympathetic light and with more gravitas than it does the conservative side of the equasion, which usually comes in for relative short shrift. Sort of like the media’s attitude is, “Okay, since we have to give both sides here’s what the rightie said.” As a result the viewer or listener gets quite a different impression of which side should be listened to.
Even if one granted that (and as many previous discussions before showed, the issue of bias in the media has volumes of contradictory evidence pro or con) that has diddly squat to do regarding who is wrong with this issue.
Many on the right are grossly misleading or wrong regarding AGW. The “give both sides” a fair airing supposes that there are good proponents of the denial side, in reality the very few remaining scientists against the consensus are discrediting themselves now and deniers from the right continue to prop up true hacks like Lord Monckton to make their sorry points.
Correct. So the right gets short shrift in the media’s coverage. I remember watching news coverage years ago (I believe it was on ABC) of a Hollywood political rally which had a number of leftie celebrities on a makeshift stage ranting and raving about some alleged misdeed of the Bush administration. The rally, it’s speakers, and the enthusiastic response of its audience got full camera coverage including interviews and so forth that lasted twenty or twenty-five seconds, followed by a terse reading by the anchor that the White House denies the allegations.
Now, there is no way that anyone watching that (apart from righties hip to their tricks, that is ;)) is going to come away with the impression that the conservative side of the equation has anywhere near the merit that the left’s side has. This is a perfect example of some the ways the media covers the issues which has resulted in accusations of media bias that favors the left.
And besides, back in the days when the news was reported in a more sedate or perhaps boring way, newscasters such as Huntley-Brinkley, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather still managed to slant their news reports to favor the left.
Nah, what you are describing is likely the rallies against the Gulf War, as it turned out most of what they said turned to be correct, Bush was wrong or lying about the WMD.
Sorry, just like today, I have to conclude that reality had a liberal bias. But that IMHO is an accident of the history so far, if this had been on the days of Teddy Roosevelt I would had said that reality had a conservative bias, as in conserving the environment.
(And Roosevelt would had punched the ones funding the current denialist propaganda in their noses)
You’re making inferences out of thin air here, O believer.
Buck, point taken, I just wanted to throw out that burden of proof lies on those arguing against the null hypothesis, and that we can’t simply say “the Earth is warming, man is emitting CO2, therefore all warming is due to man; I dare you to prove otherwise.”
Really? Do tell… actually if you are in favor of the evidence and AGW, I can say that my inference is directed to the ones supporting the denier side here in this thread, they show where are they coming from and one can indeed make a good guess of where they are coming from.
And of course, just to be sure, my position is not based on religion.
Actually, I believe it predated the Iraq war (as opposed to the Gulf war ;)), but are you suggesting the media knew beforehand that there were no WMD in Iraq? That would be quite a feat since most every country’s intelligence services thought they existed, and that Hussein was taking deliberate pains to convince everyone that he had them.
Still, it’s a typical example of how the MSM slants the news, regardless of the story.
As you might imagine this comes as no great surprise. Still, you’re free to conclude whatever you like. Reality has led me to conclude that liberalism accomplishes little and creates damage way out of proportion to whatever good comes of it. To that degree I have found that reality does indeed have a bias toward liberalism.
And it’s justified. 
Meh, as it seems you completely missed post #34, lets see if you can justify yourself after checking what the Republican, Scientist at BYU had to say about who is more wrong on this and who is and will cause more damage by the inaction that many conservatives are proposing doing with this issue.
But consider http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C2ZF20110113:
So, okay, the US rates 2005 as warmer than 1998 – and the UN rates '05 as cooler than '98. If the UN likewise rates '10 below '98, what then? If it’d be relevant to note that '10 was warmer than '98, would it likewise be relevant to note that '10 was cooler than '98 just like '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 were cooler than '98? (Or: if the latter would be irrelevant, would the former be irrelevant?)
I get the distinct feeling that if you came into my store and asked for change, I’d find my till $20 short at the end of the day…
After a very cold winter some people think, that global warming is a joke and does not exist.
For Ireland snow, ice and minus degrees over 1 month is unusual and this was the second time around, which puts a total dent into this global warming therory.
We had a very good summer for Ireland, lots of days in the degrees of the 20’s.
Which makes 2010 one of the warmest years in a long time, even with the coldspell we had here.
What these people do not realise is, that this change is due to climate change on a worldwide scale. Icecaps melting and releasing a lot of cold water into the sea is contributing in changing the currents as do the places where the water gets hotter than it got before.
So - Yes, people are living in denial about Global Warming.
That is perfectly reasonable – but, don’t forget to apply it both ways. The anthropogenic-climate-change-denial industry (and yes, “industry” is the right name for it) might employ or involve many people with no personal vested interest beyond ideological concerns similar to your own; but it would not exist if certain rich and powerful interests did not regard the public-policy implications of the theory as threatening to their bottom line. There is a lot more money on the denial side than on the “warmist” side here. Koch Industries alone has outspent ExxonMobil on denial-agitprop.
Absolutely true, and I always take that into account. But at the end of the day, you have to look at the data. And unless you buy into the notion that reams of scientists have actually falsified data, you can`t help but conclude that the evidence points to human-augmented global warming.
There are still plenty of questions about the severity, the impact, and likely future trends. We`re still discovering new contributors to climate that should give us a little humility in deciding what we can know about the climate 50 years from now, and especially what we know about where the economy and technology will be in 20, 50, 100 years into the future. The IPCC does take that uncertainty into account, which is why their range of predicted temperatures is so wide.
But with each passing year, the scientific evidence for man-caused global warming has gotten stronger. That wouldn`t be the case had the original data been cooked.
I guess everyone else thought this post was just too idiotic to respond to, but here goes anyway…
The average annual temperature variation between winter and summer here in Connecticut is 48 degrees F.
So if typical summer temperatures (low of 63 to a high of 84 degrees F here in Connecticut) were occurring right now in January, what kind of temperatures would we expect to occur in July? If we assume the same 48 degree variation between winter and summer, we’d expect the new summer temperatures in Connecticut to range from 111 to 132 degrees F.
Absolutely nobody has suggested that GW has progressed to that point. Instead we have “only” experienced an increase of a few degrees F.
If we get the point that there is no winter any more here in Connecticut, I doubt that any of us will still be alive to appreciate it.
Most of us can recognize sarcasm.
Have you had a conversation with a global warming denier lately? I’ve heard so many variations of the quote from OP over the last couple of months that I’ve lost count. Nothing they say would surprise me any more.
Yes, they know they’re lying. I’ve also been told that the fact that millions believe it’s so is evidence that climatologists are frauds. No, I can’t believe a grownup think that makes sense either. This is what passes for critical thought amongst the anti-science lying right, I suppose.
Everyone thought it was funny. I’m glad you pointed it out, because it hadn’t gotten enough love.
The thing that scares me the most about AGW is that by the time we have absolute, incontrovertible evidence, it will be far too late. We have to make our best judgements and govern our actions without 100% certainty, because the consequences are so great.