New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[dust1n]

opcorn:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I see otherwise.
You cull that which suits you, imagine that your sources are better, & bend these "facts" to your needs.
We all do this to varying extents. Some just don't know it.

Don't tell us; show us. You claim Alceste is doing this, so show me the sources and facts which she has culled, which demonstrate Fox News does not misinform its viewers more than other news outlets.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't tell us; show us. You claim Alceste is doing this, so show me the sources and facts which she has culled, which demonstrate Fox News does not misinform its viewers more than other news outlets.

Oh, but I don't deny that Fox misinforms, although I think some over-estimate their purposefulness. I see that all media have their
news unconsciously colored by their own agenda. Tis an unavoidable thing. And our exchange (from my perspective) is more about
this contention. Moreover, we are all vulnerable to that which I say of Alceste....yes, even I am. It's useful to be aware of this,
so that we may each be skeptical of our own opinions. I only take real issue with her certainty.....well....her Canadianness
is objectionable too. But if sources & facts you want, I'll pass for today - holiday distractions, you know. Besides, facts seldom
change minds. Example: She says Clinton's legal woes were all about sex. I say that his suborning & committing perjury were
problems. Both are arguably facts, yet presenting them hasn't changed our views.

Enjoying the show, dust1n? I hope our delay didn't make you suffer stale popcorn. I care.

 

[Alceste]

I see otherwise.
You cull that which suits you, imagine that your sources are better, & bend these "facts" to your needs.
We all do this to varying extents. Some just don't know it.

Lol. Yes, I'm sure you know better than I do how I go about researching my factual claims.

 

[dust1n]

Enjoying the show, dust1n? I hope our delay didn't make you suffer stale popcorn. I care.

I got another batch while the lions had been caged off.

 

[Kathryn]

Facts abound - they're laying about all over the place. But they are like ingredients in the pantry - it's how we mix them that determines what we end up with in our heads.

The sources that we choose to glean our facts from mix them in varying ways. Face it - there aren't many sources out there which are agenda-free. That's why it's best to gather facts from a variety of sources.

Also - when making our little fact "cake," if we don't mix the right ingredients - which sometimes means shopping in places we're not as familiar with (some of the ingredients needed to determine truth are pretty exotic) - we can end up with a pretty lopsided concoction - which frankly, tastes terrible.

But - if one is accustomed to the taste, one doesn't realize sometimes just how bad it really is.

OK, enough of that analogy - I was getting tired of it! But surely you get my point.

That's why I took umbrage with the allegation that I gather my information from a plethora of right wing sites and sources. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. Though I do balance my fact researching with input from some right wing sources, as well as left wing and everything in between, as stated earlier I try first of all to find a source closest to the issue. For instance, if we're discussing the rights of Palestinians in Israel, I go first to Palestinian and Israeli news sources and editorials, and then branch out. I don't start out with something from the Christian Identity Movement or the John Birch Society.

I think if we're NOT reading from sources that we may not default to, we're doing ourselves and others a disservice.

And besides that, it's obvious pretty quickly anyway.

 

[Oberon]

Totally. I mean, when the U.S. National Acadamies of Science conducts a poll finding that 97% of scientists who study climate agree with the consensus on global warming, what does that even mean?

Can you link provide a link for this poll? Thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't start out with something from the Christian Identity Movement or the John Birch Society.

That's it....dis my favorite source of facts. At least you didn't attack
The Michigan Militia Picayune. Those guys speak the unvarnished truth!

 

[Alceste]

Can you link provide a link for this poll? Thanks.

It should still be sitting in several of your global warming threads. You've already read it. Remember?

 

[Oberon]

It should still be sitting in several of your global warming threads. You've already read it. Remember?

I've read several polls on the opinion of scientists on climate change. I can't recall reading one by NAS. I'm not saying I haven't, mind you. Just that I can't remember any such poll. Which is why I asked for a link.

 

[Alceste]

I've read several polls on the opinion of scientists on climate change. I can't recall reading one by NAS. I'm not saying I haven't, mind you. Just that I can't remember any such poll. Which is why I asked for a link.

Kind of a hassle on an ipod. I can get you a link later or you could try google. Or maybe Dustin will step out. Gotta go, turkey calls!

 

[Oberon]

Kind of a hassle on an ipod. I can get you a link later or you could try google. Or maybe Dustin will step out. Gotta go, turkey calls!

I tried google first, of course (I'm not that lazy). I didn't find it.

 

[Alceste]

I tried google first, of course (I'm not that lazy). I didn't find it.

Et voila.

Expert credibility in climate change — PNAS

 

[Oberon]

Et voila.

Expert credibility in climate change — PNAS

Only this wasn't a poll and it wasn't conducted by the NAS. The authors didn't poll experts for their views, they established who was skeptical or not by whether or not experts were members of particular groups or had signed certain documents, which seems a pretty poor way of doing it. For example, they put contributors and lead authors of working group 1 IPCC AR4 in the "convinced by the evidence" (i.e. support AGW theory) group, but John Christy is a noted skeptic and was a contributer to this group. So at least one of those included in the "supports AGW theory" camp is actually one of the most outspoken experts against the theory. Who knows how many more were placed in the wrong group given this methodology (I just happened to know off the top of my head that Christy was a contributor; actually examining the groups in detail would probably reveal others placed in the wrong group)?

Anyway, this was the "poll" referred to? So the NAS has not done a study on to determine expert views?

 

[dust1n]

Don't know about the NAS. Here some stats though.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science/AAAS

 

[Oberon]

Don't know about the NAS. Here some stats though.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science/AAAS

Thanks, but I've read most of the recent studies and I am aware that the vast majority of scientific organizations have issued official statements in support of AGW. I hadn't heard the NAS conducted any such poll, though, hence my question.

Consensus is certainly important, especially if you want to get an idea of the field without really reading the research, but the studies and basis for the theories is really the thing to look to.

 

[Reptillian]

A response to the topic/original post:

[youtube]wxlhyX-4qKI[/youtube]
YouTube - Iago, Jafar's parrot, is sarcastically surprised...

 

[Alceste]

Only this wasn't a poll and it wasn't conducted by the NAS. The authors didn't poll experts for their views, they established who was skeptical or not by whether or not experts were members of particular groups or had signed certain documents, which seems a pretty poor way of doing it. For example, they put contributors and lead authors of working group 1 IPCC AR4 in the "convinced by the evidence" (i.e. support AGW theory) group, but John Christy is a noted skeptic and was a contributer to this group. So at least one of those included in the "supports AGW theory" camp is actually one of the most outspoken experts against the theory. Who knows how many more were placed in the wrong group given this methodology (I just happened to know off the top of my head that Christy was a contributor; actually examining the groups in detail would probably reveal others placed in the wrong group)?

Anyway, this was the "poll" referred to? So the NAS has not done a study on to determine expert views?

No, true. It was a peer-reviewed study published by the NAS, not a simple poll conducted by the NAS. Interestingly, this same study was able to establish that the more accomplished and reputable a climate scientist was, the greater the likelihood she was convinced.

Regardless of whether "poll" was a technically incorrect term, the pertinent fact is the same. 97% of scientists in relevant fields are convinced by the evidence of global warming.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of whether "poll" was a technically incorrect term, the pertinent fact is the same. 97% of scientists in relevant fields are convinced by the evidence of global warming.

This is exactly why the term "poll" is problematic. They didn't go around asking what people believed. In fact, they didn't ask anybody anything. What they did was compile a list of over a thousand experts designed to already sort the experts into categories (read their methods sections). There are several problems here:
1) As already noted, this method could very easily mean placing skeptics in the "convinced by the evidence" group. Again, Dr. John Christy is among the foremost authorities on climate change, which was why he was asked to contribute to working group 1 by the IPCC. The problem is, his contribution to AR4 gets him sorted into the "convinced" crowd, when he isn't
2) The methods they used to get their list of names meant limiting themselves only to those scientists who have publicily come out and signed some list or joined some group, a method which got them almost twice as many people in the CE camp. It isn't a great way to assess the field, because there may be many published scientists who haven't sciened something like the oregon petition.
3) Here's the kicker: they then cut these two groups down to 817 to 93 and using google scholar they determined who were the "top" researchers. They did this not just by noting how much a given scientist was published, but how much they were cited. The problem is, guys like Mann, Jones, etc, all cite each other all the time. As the authors admit "our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community." Their methods predetermined their result. Unbelievable.
4) Finally, the one problem with ranking based on publications is that many skeptical experts find their funding dropped and their studies rejected, compared with the ease other experts get published (e.g. Mann still gets his studies published despite using proxies the NAS said were unreliable). The CRU emails show that there are gatekeepers to publication which limits the amount skeptics get published.

There are better studies which show that a substantial majority of experts believe humans are causing an increase in temperature. This certainly doesn't show that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. In fact, they found several hundred scientists who do whom they excluded from the study.

 

[Troublemane]

This is exactly why the term "poll" is problematic. They didn't go around asking what people believed. In fact, they didn't ask anybody anything. What they did was compile a list of over a thousand experts designed to already sort the experts into categories (read their SI section on methods). There are several problems here:
1) As already noted, this method could very easily mean placing skeptics in the "convinced by the evidence" group. Again, Dr. John Christy is among the foremost authorities on climate change, which was why he was asked to contribute to working group 1 by the IPCC. The problem is, his contribution to AR4 gets him sorted into the "convinced" crowd, when he isn't
2) The methods they used to get their list of names meant limiting themselves only to those scientists who have publicily come out and signed some list or joined some group, a method which got them almost twice as many people in the CE camp.
3) Here's the kicker: they then cut these two groups down to 817 to 93 using google scholar. However, as they admit "our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community." Their methods predetermined their result. Unbelievable.
4) Finally, the one problem with ranking based on publications is that many skeptical experts find their funding dropped and their studies rejected, compared with the ease other experts get published (e.g. Mann still gets his studies published despite using proxies the NAS said were unreliable). The CRU emails show that there are gatekeepers to publication which limits the amount skeptics get published.

There are better studies which show that a substantial majority of experts believe humans are causing an increase in temperature. This certainly doesn't show that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. In fact, they found several hundred scientists who do whom they excluded from the study.

:clap2:

I'd also like to point out, not only is the science being used in the propaganda promoting the idea of an imminent, man-made climate catastrophe being called into question; but we have to ask ourselves....is the solution really this new tax, called "cap and trade"?

I mean really, even if global warming were real, even if it were man-made, even if it were caused ONLY by automobile emissions (not airplanes or coal burning electric plants, etc) then how would "cap and trade" policies fix the problem?

If you were going to reduce the amount of carbon in the air, wouldnt you suggest someting more rational, like planting more trees? Or going completely with nuclear power?

The fact is "cap and trade" is not supposed to reduce global warming. It is only supposed to be a means by which the First World Nations keep producing carbon at the same rate, and pay Third World Nations to stop industrializing---thus keeping them as perpetual agricultural "slave states", producing the food for the industrial countries.:sorry1: