SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (121582)9/22/2012 2:08:47 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
You may have a point on the dynamics of the situation on the ground. And btw, I am with you on the need to eliminate AQ. And let me be clear, I want our President to have the power to assassinate and detain indefinitely the AQ folks they find or any terrorist for that matter. However, I draw the line on American citizens. That may seem arbitrary to you, but it is part of our Constitution and all American citizens have EARNED the right to a trial by jury and to face their accusers. We shouldn't have to rely on the goodwill of our President to do the right thing, but rather we should be able to rely on the Rule of Law in this country. That way, no man, including the President is above the Law. It's a fine distinction, but I believe a very important one.

Anyway, as far as the Muslims, I know it's a tangled web, which is part of the reason why I believe we should mostly leave that part of the world to its own devices and stay out of their politics. We've meddled for too long. This is why I think we should just close our bases and get out. Let them kill each other.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (121582)9/22/2012 2:10:12 PM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 149317
 
Thought you'd get a kick out of this. I sure did. It's no surprise to me either.

---------------
Fox News Distorts Climate Science; in Other News, the Pope Is Catholic

By Philip Yam | September 22, 2012 | 5

For anyone with an interest in journalism, it’s no surprise that Fox News Channel and the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journallean well to the right. Editorially, these two jewels of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. have a long history of denying human-induced global warming, in keeping with certain ideological interests.

New data support the anecdotes and conventional wisdom. At a midday panel on September 21 in New York City’s Science, Industry and Business Library, the Union of Concerned Scientists released results of an analysis quantifying the media outlets’ distortions of climate science.

In the six months from February to July 2012, the UCS searched for the terms “climate change” and “global warming” during primetime Fox News Channel programs, which consist of political commentary shows such as The O’Reilly Factorand Hannity.

The UCS found that, in 37 of 40 instances, Fox News programs misled viewers about climate science—mainly, by broadly dismissing it. As an example, the UCS quotes an on-air statement from April 11, 2012: I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, we’re all going to freeze. (The report didn’t reveal the name of the actual source.) Fox News hosts and guests also mocked and disparaged statements from scientists and drowned out genuine scientific assertions with cherry-picked data and false claims.

The WSJ opinion pages fared a bit better: only 81 percent of the 48 references to the climate key words were misleading, according to the UCS analysis. Such instances included a reference to climatologist James Hansen as an alarmist and an assertion that we are only in a global warming “bubble” that raises questions about the veracity of climate science and the “credibility of its advocates,” WSJ editors wrote. The few accurate statements came from readers’ letters to the editors, remarked Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS climate scientist who presented the data at the panel. (The opinion pages are distinct from newsroom operations, which media researchers in 2010 actually found to lean left.)

You can quibble with the UCS analysis—it did not look at The New York Times or MSNBC programs such as The Rachel Maddow Show, for example. But the results stay true to past incidents, such as this doozy in which a meteorologist asserted that thermodynamics makes global warming impossible. Indeed, News Corp. goes quite far in toeing the right-wing line, so much so that it even tried to rewrite the history of the Internet to deny the U.S. government’s creation of it.

Rather than surprising, the results might be more of a disappointment—to Rupert Murdoch himself. Murdoch acknowledged in 2007 the reality of anthropogenic climate change and pledged that his company’s operations would become carbon-neutral—a goal achieved in 2011. Still, as the UCS data indicate, many of News Corp.’s most influential and powerful employees continue to perpetuate climate denialism.

Battles against antiscience are nothing new, of course. Groups that advocate scientific reasoning, such as CSICOP and the Skeptical Society, have long tried to combat paranormal and pseudoscience beliefs and claims. But the fight has been a slog. When I interviewed CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz in 1996, he said that “we thought that if you just provide information, people would reject” paranormal thinking. Clearly, that hasn’t worked. “The problem is more massive and complicated than we imagined,” he lamented.

Climate scientists face a similar challenge. As Angela Anderson, director of the UCS Climate and Energy program, stated at Friday’s panel, convincing people takes more than information. You must appeal to their values, too.

The shrill political programs on cable TV know that—I suspect that most of the 1.9 million viewers of Fox News primetime tune in to confirm their biases and bolster their belief that government and its regulations are forces for bad. The task ahead is to show that climate change is even worse—a tall order, for sure.