Climate March Fans Faux Fox Fairness

September 24, 2014

How stale is this sounding – even to the Fox faithful?

11 Responses to “Climate March Fans Faux Fox Fairness”

  1. jimbills Says:

    Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science (2014):

    STUDY: Top Cable News Coverage Of Federal Climate Change Report Cast Doubt On Science:

    An important graphic is the final one in the second article. 86% of the people talking about climate change on U.S. cable news coverage in 2014 are politicians, think tankers, or pundits, while only 14% of the people talking about climate science are scientists.

    • jimbills Says:

      It’s preaching to the converted here, but Fox News should only be viewed as the media wing of the Republican Party – no more, no less. The United States has a long history of using media as a mouthpiece for politics:

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        There is a difference, though. A newspaper is a privately owned enterprise protected by the 1st Amendment and costrained only by libel law.

        Fox News, on the other hand, is a television show, using the bandwidth belonging to the public, and as such, falls under government review for content. If they are not serving the public interest, they can have their charter – their broadcast rights – revoked. That day can not come too soon, AFAIAC.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    “How stale is this sounding – even to the Fox faithful?”, Peter asks? Not stale at all to the “faithful”. This is exactly what they want to see and hear—-things that reinforce their beliefs and confirm their cognitive dissonance.

    It is classic Faux News and wouold be funny if it wasn’t so sad (and dangerous). Steve Doofey and the producers did the following:

    1) Doofey says right off that they are going to be ‘fair and balanced”—if he says it, it must be true, right? Does Faux News ever lie?
    2) He then proceeded to take the side of the denier by agreeing with him several times and spouting crap from the WSJ article, thereby making it two against one.
    3) They showed pics of Al Gore and other celebrities—that annoys Fauxies.
    4) They played an extended clip of the Flood Wall Street violence, and did it at the very end, thereby planting the impression that those 2-3,000 were typical of the 400,000+ Climate Marchers and by extension the CM were not good law-abiding Americans.
    5) Doofey allowed the denier to spout the same old lies without allowing rebuttal.
    6) Doofey gave the last word to the denier, who planted the closing idea that scientists who believe in AGW are living in a “fantasy world”.

    Goebbels would be proud of this production. The guy from the NRDC tried to sound reasonable and present the science, but had no real chance at success—-he was set up and not heard, and all he did was lend legitimacy to the crapola from Doofey and the Denier. He should have thrown some papers in the air, screamed “You’re both F***ing crazy and you are lying to everyone, I won’t be part of it”, and walked off camera.

  3. ubrew12 Says:

    In your video, Doocy mentions an opinion piece by Steve Koonin in the WSJ (at minute 2:38), which claimed that “human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%”. Comparing AGW to the natural greenhouse effect is like comparing the withering heat of the Sahara Desert to the surface of the Sun. Without that natural greenhouse, Earth’s surface would be a solid block of ice.

    But, forget all that. Koonin is still leaving out the natural positive feedback to CO2 known as water vapor. This water vapor feedback basically triples or quadruples the effect of CO2 alone. Why would Koonin leave this captive and inevitable source of follow-on warming out of his calculations? (no points for knowing: it doesn’t support his ‘don’t worry, be happy’ advocacy).

    Skeptical Science has a good discussion about this latest bit of WSJ misinformation.

    Sad to see yet another Physicist sell his training to purchase his ego.

    • Doocey said, “The big thing is how much of an impact do humans have on this gigantic thing called our climate? And the expected shift by the atmosphere in natural GHG’s, and stuff like that, by HUMANS is only impact 1 or 2 percent. The other 98 or 99 percent Bob would be from Mother Nature.”

      I can’t believe that Bob Deans let that setup get by him. Koonin’s statement was ““Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to DIRECTLY shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”

      The “greenhouse effect” is about 324 w/m^2, so Koonin is saying that additional downward forcing attributable to ONLY CO2 will be between 3 and 6 w/m^2?

      Incremental direct CO2 forcing is calculated to be dF = 5.35 x ln(C/Co). Is Koonin saying that CO2 concentration in 2050 will be between 488 and 855 ppm?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        We already know that CO2 will likely be over 488PPM before 2050. Do the math for a 2+PPM annual rise.

        All the “bright-sided” projections are just wishful thinking at this point. And how about the permafrost and seabed methane that appears to be ready to “bomb” us and what is being so busily released by the frackers?

        I won’t be here in 2050 (unless I live to be 110), but if the SHTF, I wouldn’t be surprised if GHG hits the equivalent of 550 to 600PPM CO2 by then.

        • The point is that that Koonin saying that “only” 3 – 6 watts per square meter of additional forcing is small, and Doocey amplifying that point by conflating pre-industrial forcing with climate change are in Koonin’s case misleading and in Doocey’s case is a lie. Okay. it is Doocey. We can assume ignorance.

  4. […] How stale is this sounding – even to the Fox faithful?  […]

  5. There’s a great interlocking of climate denial and other forms of denial going on with Competitive Enterprise Institute, which can conjure up ‘experts’ on their payroll to employ all sorts of arguments. I’m guessing these guys don’t get out of bed for less than a couple hundred K a year (between CEI ‘stipend’ and the tens of thousands they get per speaking engagement and ‘consultancies’ via Koch and other funders). You can’t use the ‘finite earth’ idea with them, because they’ve got people on payroll who say there’s trillions of dollars of new oil and gas in the Arctic that we can extract if only it weren’t for those damned regulations. They have funded this whole meme of ‘the US is an energy exporter’ without making clear we aren’t exporting oil and can’t under federal law.
    Myron Ebell doesn’t stand a chance here.There’s always some new ‘study’ or book or misreading of data that these guys spring at the enviro guy that twists them up.

  6. Global warming continues….and it is continuing at an INCREASING RATE. Take a look at the sea surface temperatures:

    Take a look at the Arctic Ice Sheet:

    It’s embarrasing that we humans call ourselves “intelligent life” when we allow a fake news organization like FOX to lie and deceive about an important issue like climate change.

    FOX News: “Where truth and journalism are dead.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: