New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Alceste]

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.

Many of your factual claims in this post are false, as anyone who cares to read the study will easily establish. Also, it amuses me to consider that when it comes to supporting your own denialist position, you were happy with an anonymous, voluntary email poll sent to a list of subscribers to a climate skeptics newsletter by a blogger ten years ago. Suddenly your standards seem to have shot up pretty high - even the NAS isn't good enough for you.

I find this kind of thing tedious and it isn't really relevant to the thread. Unless of course you are a Fox viewer.

 

[Oberon]

Many of your factual claims in this post are false, as anyone who cares to read the study will easily establish.

I read the study. And the methods (a seperate section where the authors actually detail where they got there numbers and what they were). Feel free to point out anything I got wrong, and I will quote the study. Of course, the reason you didn't do that is probably because you couldn't find anything I did get wrong, but wanted to claim I did anyway.

Also, it amuses me to consider that when it comes to supporting your own denialist position, you were happy with an anonymous, voluntary email poll sent to a list of subscribers to a climate skeptics newsletter by a blogger ten years ago.

I wasn't "happy" with that study either, but it was better, in that it actually asked climate scientists their views. As for supporting my view, I do that by reading the research. If memory serves, you do that by reading wikipedea and sourcewatch.com.

Suddenly your standards seem to have shot up pretty high - even the NAS isn't good enough for you.

How ridiculous. This study wasn't conducted by the NAS. You realize there is a difference between studies published by a group, and studies conducted by a group? Apparently not. Let me explain: the NAS, the actual group, DOES research and publish. For example, they did a large study on paleoclimatology as a result of the criticisms of Mann et al.'s hockey stick graph.

This wasn't an NAS study.

Unless of course you are a Fox viewer.

I don't watch the news. But I'm more than happy to discuss this study in another thread, so that you can either apologize for claiming I misrepresented the study or point out where I did. Here.

 

[Alceste]

I read the study. And the methods (a seperate section where the authors actually detail where they got there numbers and what they were). Feel free to point out anything I got wrong, and I will quote the study. Of course, the reason you didn't do that is probably because you couldn't find anything I did get wrong, but wanted to claim I did anyway.



I wasn't "happy" with that study either, but it was better, in that it actually asked climate scientists their views. As for supporting my view, I do that by reading the research. If memory serves, you do that by reading wikipedea and sourcewatch.com.



How ridiculous. This study wasn't conducted by the NAS. You realize there is a difference between studies published by a group, and studies conducted by a group? Apparently not. Let me explain: the NAS, the actual group, DOES research and publish. For example, they did a large study on paleoclimatology as a result of the criticisms of Mann et al.'s hockey stick graph.

This wasn't an NAS study.


I don't watch the news. But I'm more than happy to discuss this study in another thread, so that you can either apologize for claiming I misrepresented the study or point out where I did. Here.

As I said, your factual errors are plain to anyone who cares enough to look. I've debated this issue with you before and haven't found it to be productive.

It is a proven, incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of published scientists in relevant fields agree that AGW is real. This thread is about Fox News' persistent campaign of misinformation on this subject, among others, and the effect their misinformation policy has on its viewers.

 

[Oberon]

This thread is about Fox News' persistent campaign of misinformation

Which is why I created a new thread and linked to it in my last post. Once again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/108897-bad-study-climate-experts-opinion.html

I'm not asking to debate climate science, merely for you to either point out where I was wrong in this specific study, or apologize for accusing me of lying or misrepresenting the study.

 

[Troublemane]

No, you're wrong. The CBO said the health care law would decrease the deficit.

Check your facts. Those numbers are out of date.
CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed - Political Punch

In addition, the CBO's numbers include an assumption that (according to the new healtcare de-form bill) Medicare would be cut in half and most of the people currently on Medicare would be rolled over into Medicaid. So they are essentially saying we can forget those numbers and put all that cost onto the states---this is currently being contested in the lawsuits by 20 states in federal court. In reality, the Federal Gov will probably NOT be able to cut Medicare at all, as it has become an entitlement oldsters are expecting. The real cost of the Obama healthcare travesty is going to be mind-blowing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Check your facts. Those numbers are out of date.
CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed - Political Punch

In addition, the CBO's numbers include an assumption that (according to the new healtcare de-form bill) Medicare would be cut in half and most of the people currently on Medicare would be rolled over into Medicaid. So they are essentially saying we can forget those numbers and put all that cost onto the states---this is currently being contested in the lawsuits by 20 states in federal court. In reality, the Federal Gov will probably NOT be able to cut Medicare at all, as it has become an entitlement oldsters are expecting. The real cost of the Obama healthcare travesty is going to be mind-blowing.

What???? Alceste said it would be so much cheaper. I was still trying to wrap my mind around people living longer and using more services for less money. I guess it was all smoke and mirrors. Who would have thought that? Wait a minute...... some hard headed guy named Rick!

 

[Alceste]

What???? Alceste said it would be so much cheaper. I was still trying to wrap my mind around people living longer and using more services for less money. I guess it was all smoke and mirrors. Who would have thought that? Wait a minute...... some hard headed guy named Rick!

Universal health care IS cheaper. The new US regulations are not universal health care. They simply compel people to buy for-profit private health insurance, and attempt to cut down on some of the most appalling, inhumane and lethal common business practices in the for-profit health insurance sector, such as "pre-existing conditions" exemptions etc. That's actually the opposite of the far cheaper and far more effective tax-funded public health care system we have in Canada.

 

[Alceste]

Which is why I created a new thread and linked to it in my last post. Once again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/108897-bad-study-climate-experts-opinion.html

I'm not asking to debate climate science, merely for you to either point out where I was wrong in this specific study, or apologize for accusing me of lying or misrepresenting the study.

There you go, I threw you a bone in your new thread, but here's fair warning: I lose interest pretty quickly in debating with creationists and climate change skeptics. Usually within two or three posts. We're already pushing it, but if you can throw me a bone - preferably a credible study by an institution with no ties to the energy industry that you feel provides a better-designed assessment of "expert opinion" on climate change - I'd be happy to discuss the relative merits and failings of each. Please, though, no bloggers this time, no anonymous polls to mailing lists, none of that kind of nonsense. Just an honest, good-faith, neutral effort by actual researchers to empirically determine the facts.

 

[Troublemane]

Universal health care IS cheaper. The new US regulations are not universal health care. They simply compel people to buy for-profit private health insurance, and attempt to cut down on some of the most appalling, inhumane and lethal common business practices in the for-profit health insurance sector, such as "pre-existing conditions" exemptions etc. That's actually the opposite of the far cheaper and far more effective tax-funded public health care system we have in Canada.

I seriously doubt we will see a viable public option in the US. The healthcare sector makes up 16% of the GDP, so if the Federal Government were to eliminate it they would lose a massive chunk of their tax revenue, PLUS have to pick up the cost for the healthcare people are used to getting. Simple math spells it out. It ain't a-gonna happen.

Also, the health insurance lobbyists were convinced to go along with this new law because they were promised that everyone would be forced to buy insurance. If this is thrown out in court (as it probably will be), we can expect premiums to rise dramatically if insurers are still required to take people with pre-existing conditions. (ne'er mind that there have been over 100 labor organizations which have opted out of the new healthcare law, because they would have to drop coverage otherwise...)

If we want a public option we would have to seriously overhaul the entire system, which is something congress is loathe to do. Is it a coincidence that the main companies to get a bailout when the economy took a dump were giant insurance companies?:help:

 

[Alceste]

I seriously doubt we will see a viable public option in the US. The healthcare sector makes up 16% of the GDP, so if the Federal Government were to eliminate it they would lose a massive chunk of their tax revenue, PLUS have to pick up the cost for the healthcare people are used to getting. Simple math spells it out. It ain't a-gonna happen.

Also, the health insurance lobbyists were convinced to go along with this new law because they were promised that everyone would be forced to buy insurance. If this is thrown out in court (as it probably will be), we can expect premiums to rise dramatically if insurers are still required to take people with pre-existing conditions. (ne'er mind that there have been over 100 labor organizations which have opted out of the new healthcare law, because they would have to drop coverage otherwise...)

If we want a public option we would have to seriously overhaul the entire system, which is something congress is loathe to do. Is it a coincidence that the main companies to get a bailout when the economy took a dump were giant insurance companies?:help:

You don't want a "public option". You want universal, tax-funded, single payer health insurance coverage, just like the rest of the Western world enjoys, which allows them to pay half the cost the US pays and live years longer to boot. You really mustn't settle for anything less.

What you would be looking at is a modest (compared to your wars and wall street bail-outs) transitional expense in the short term followed by massive savings in the long term. People who shriek and howl about the cost of a public option are no different from people who shriek and howl at the expense of ten bucks worth of plastic window sheeting even though it will cut the cost of their winter heating by hundreds of dollars per year.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You don't want a "public option". You want universal, tax-funded, single payer health insurance coverage, just like the rest of the Western world enjoys, which allows them to pay half the cost the US pays and live years longer to boot. You really mustn't settle for anything less.

What you would be looking at is a modest (compared to your wars and wall street bail-outs) transitional expense in the short term followed by massive savings in the long term. People who shriek and howl about the cost of a public option are no different from people who shriek and howl at the expense of ten bucks worth of plastic window sheeting even though it will cut the cost of their winter heating by hundreds of dollars per year.

In light of no Republicans voted for the health care bill, it has to make you wonder why the Democrats did not choose a better health care system for their health care bill.

Could it be they are in bed with the insurance industry?

I personally am against socialised medicine, but if I am forced into a health care system, I would at least like to have a good system and not this crappy mess Pelosi bestowed upon us.

No one can blame the Republicans here. :no:

 

[Magic Man]

I seriously doubt we will see a viable public option in the US. The healthcare sector makes up 16% of the GDP, so if the Federal Government were to eliminate it they would lose a massive chunk of their tax revenue, PLUS have to pick up the cost for the healthcare people are used to getting. Simple math spells it out. It ain't a-gonna happen.

That's too bad, then. I guess we're doomed to lag behind the rest of the civilized world. I had such hope that we could actually be as good a country as the midwesterners think we already are. You're right, though. It's hard to expect us to live up to the standards of countries like France, Canada, Sweden and Denmark.

If this is thrown out in court (as it probably will be)

That's mighty optimistic of you. It's a possibility, but far from a probability.

 

[linwood]

No one can blame the Republicans here. :no:

That`s debatable.

The health reform was watered down and geared toward corporate favor in a bid to get the Republicans on board.

So the Dems weakened their best legislation in an effort to attain the impossible...Compromise with Republicans.

Healthcare reform's bad compromise | Sahil Kapur | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Reverend Rick]

That`s debatable.

The health reform was watered down and geared toward corporate favor in a bid to get the Republicans on board.

So the Dems weakened their best legislation in an effort to attain the impossible...Compromise with Republicans.

Healthcare reform's bad compromise | Sahil Kapur | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Debatable? How? Why do you attempt to compromise to get Republican votes when you do not need those Republican votes?

At the time of the health care bill, Democrats had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and a Democratic President. :sorry1:

 

[Kathryn]

Rick - SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Comparing the challenges of healthcare in the US to Scandinavian countries is like comparing the challenges of a public sewer system in London to one in Magnolia, Arkansas.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick - SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Comparing the challenges of healthcare in the US to Scandinavian countries is like comparing the challenges of a public sewer system in London to one in Magnolia, Arkansas.

Actually it is similar, crap goes downhill.

 

[Magic Man]

In light of no Republicans voted for the health care bill, it has to make you wonder why the Democrats did not choose a better health care system for their health care bill.

Could it be they are in bed with the insurance industry?

I personally am against socialised medicine, but if I am forced into a health care system, I would at least like to have a good system and not this crappy mess Pelosi bestowed upon us.

No one can blame the Republicans here. :no:

It sure would be nice if you listened once in a while, so I didn't have to keep correcting the same claims by you over and over.

We didn't get a better bill because Obama wanted to achieve one that was at least somewhat satisfying to both parties. He wanted one that was bipartisan. It kept changing to try to achieve that, but then it finally dawned on him and his people that that wasn't going to happen, so they just went with what they had. So, yes, ultimately it's Obama and the democrats' fault, but it's still partly the republicans' fault for acting like little baby's instead of adding meaningful input to achieve a better bill.

Now, can you pay attention so I don't have to tell you this for the 8th time in another thread?

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, yes, ultimately it's Obama and the democrats' fault

Now, are you going to give us a weather report? I'm worried about you. :yes:

 

[Magic Man]

Debatable? How? Why do you attempt to compromise to get Republican votes when you do not need those Republican votes?

Again, how many times do I have to explain this to you? It's because you actually want to achieve a bipartisan bill to make everyone happy. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but some people actually want to compromise and make everyone as happy as possible. Technically they could have just gotten a bill through on dems votes, but Obama was trying not to shove something through without republican support.

 

[Magic Man]

Rick - SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Comparing the challenges of healthcare in the US to Scandinavian countries is like comparing the challenges of a public sewer system in London to one in Magnolia, Arkansas.

That's one of the worst and most inaccurate analogies I've ever heard. Good work!