John Stewart On Fox News

[bwh27]

That is not the point, it is your perspective despite seemingly not having looked into the issue that extensively. If you read (at least a summary of) the IPCC reports and still conclude that it's unknown and we are powerless to affect any change then that would be one thing. You can make money as a scientist either way, in fact skeptics in many cases make a hell of a lot more money - the status quo carbon-based economy is obviously extremely lucrative. You really think that joining the 97% consensus of climatologists at this point is giving them more money despite the fact that congress has taken no action on the issue for years? The one's making more money are the skeptics in almost all cases.

As for FOX, I'm not particularly more impressed by the quality of journalism from other network news either, so I'm not appalled by FOX being the root of all evil as some tree-hugging hippie liberals may be. However, I sincerely believe that their business model that has proven so successful primarily emphasizes entertainment and/or ideology instead of journalism which has in turn influenced other (potentially jealous) networks to adopt similar entertainment-based news. Look at CNN today, with the exception of a couple shows, it's a complete joke and in my opinion FOX is more responsible than any other station for starting/driving that unfortunate trend. If you really want to understand issues then you have to look beyond network news anyway, but journalism in the mainstream media has been gradually dying off for a while now. I also don't agree it's a straight up liberal-conservative thing. Granted, that's a big part of people's anger toward Fox or MSNBC, etc but I have plenty of conservative/libertarian friends who despise the example that FOX sets and feel their news (including daytime supposedly objective programming like Megyn Kelly, Fox & Friends) are more representative of the tea party than true conservatism. I really don't like more than one or two programs on MSNBC either because I think their lacking journalism is a poor representation of liberal ideology anyway. FOX isn't nefarious, but it's easily the most striking example of bias and deliberate dishonesty of the mainstream television networks.

[UGLY]

That is not the point, it is your perspective despite seemingly not having looked into the issue that extensively. If you read (at least a summary of) the IPCC reports and still conclude that it's unknown and we are powerless to affect any change then that would be one thing. You can make money as a scientist either way, in fact skeptics in many cases make a hell of a lot more money - the status quo carbon-based economy is obviously extremely lucrative. You really think that joining the 97% consensus of climatologists at this point is giving them more money despite the fact that congress has taken no action on the issue for years? The one's making more money are the skeptics in almost all cases.

As for FOX, I'm not particularly more impressed by the quality of journalism from other network news either, so I'm not appalled by FOX being the root of all evil as some tree-hugging hippie liberals may be. However, I sincerely believe that their business model that has proven so successful primarily emphasizes entertainment and/or ideology instead of journalism which has in turn influenced other (potentially jealous) networks to adopt similar entertainment-based news. Look at CNN today, with the exception of a couple shows, it's a complete joke and in my opinion FOX is more responsible than any other station for starting/driving that unfortunate trend. If you really want to understand issues then you have to look beyond network news anyway, but journalism in the mainstream media has been gradually dying off for a while now. I also don't agree it's a straight up liberal-conservative thing. Granted, that's a big part of people's anger toward Fox or MSNBC, etc but I have plenty of conservative/libertarian friends who despise the example that FOX sets and feel their news (including daytime supposedly objective programming like Megyn Kelly, Fox & Friends) are more representative of the tea party than true conservatism. I really don't like more than one or two programs on MSNBC either because I think their lacking journalism is a poor representation of liberal ideology anyway. FOX isn't nefarious, but it's easily the most striking example of bias and deliberate dishonesty of the mainstream television networks.

That is a fair enough point about fox and I would agree to a point. I would point out that the major news media has a clear liberal leaning.

On the other topic just to be clear, you believe it is only my perspective that climate change happened before humans had an influence and only my perspective that far more extreme climate change has occured?

[bwh27]

No, that's a fine point, though it hardly qualifies as evidence for skepticism. The evidence for climate change being heavily influenced by human activity isn't simply we're here and the weather is changing. I was referring to your quote "Whether or not climate change is man made is unknown or at the least how much man has affected the climate is unknown" - which is a separate, not indisputable opinion - that is unless your requirement for something being known is for there to be 100% consensus which will never happen for such an issue considering natural biases. The debate among peer-reviewed climatologists at this point is not between whether man has a slight impact or whether man has a serious impact on the climate - they just about all agree that it's extremely serious and urgent issue - the debate is basically whether the problem of human influence will be catastrophic in 50 years or 100 years. The far more interesting and important debate where there is much more disagreement is how specifically to address it. We emit roughly 57 trillion pounds of CO2 into the air per year in the United States alone - that's the equivalent of 143 million Boeing 747's for a gaseous element!!! There is extensive scholarship that shows a direct connection between that output and specific changes in the climate. The evidence was good in 1990, enough so that almost all scientists bought it - by the late 90s/early 00's the evidence had only been further reinforced and especially over the last 5 years the evidence has become overwhelming. Skeptics tend to pick and choose isolated incidents that support their point in a complex issue which just isn't very good scientific scholarship, and that's why so little of their research has gone through a peer-review process. None of them have given extensive research even approaching the IPCC reports, yet they have a ton of support from congress and money on their side so they're not going away anytime soon.

[Schlottke]

I mean, who is he being hateful toward?

Read my original post...

[bwh27]

Read my original post...

Yeah.. I did, you just said he was being hateful toward "Fox" which is a pretty vague assertion for such an inevitably subjective claim. It doesn't make sense for me to clarify after that whether he was being hateful toward Chris Wallace? He's just being "hateful" toward the whole network?? Being hateful is associated with personal matters, so a facial expression that seems to display hatefulness to a inanimate entity is at the very least an unusual accusation. It's a baseless claim, but you're welcome to your opinion. When conservatives get passionate talking about MSNBC or the mainstream media liberal bias I don't interpret it as hateful simply off a fleeting facial expression and their tone of voice... Personally, I need something a bit more substantive than that, such as actual hateful words.

[quinn14]

bwh27, I am not trying to provoke any fight here. But, to suggest that MSNBC or Jon Stewert don't hate FOX news is silly. They will even tell you they HATE it. They aren't trying to hide that fact. Which only makes me think that they (MSNBC) are trying to hide something else. I love the hypocrasy when a news station like that says that conservatives are hateful people, but then shout down any republican congressman or state rep just for being conservative. If they were so caring, they would see both sides. They don't. They are hypocrites, IMO. The right doesn't see both sides either, but at least they don't pretend to. Anthony Weiner is a prime example of this.

I admit to being a conservative, but if I had to label a party I mostly agree with, it would be Libertarian. I don't care what people do with their private lives. But if you ask me to vote on something, I will vote with my faith. Doesn't make me evil. Liberals need to learn that.

[arm-spin]

I've never watched fox news, but if the left-leaning posters on this board are any indication than Fox News is considered the Worst Thing Ever by a lot of people.

Regarding climate change, I talked about this with my dad recently, as he is a meterologist. When I was in high school and we first learned about global warminng, I asked him what he thought. He said the data was all over the place and scientists were very divided on the reality and possible effects of global warming (many believes fossil fuel consumption would lead to global cooling). When I asked hin more recently, he said that the scientific data now clearly points towards man-made global warming being a reality. The scientific debate is mostly about how much, how fast, and what the effects of a warmer earth will be.

Finally, I think pursuing alternative energy sources and minimizing fossil fuel consumption is a worthwhile cause, even without the spectre of global warming. Fossil fuels are a finite and nonrenewable resource. Buying fossil fuels gives money to unsavory governments (Saudi Arabia, etc). Burning fossil fuels releases more pollutants than just carbon dioxide into the air. Extracting fossilf fuels harms the environment.

(Getting off soapbox now, hoping I didn't hijack thread too badly).

[quinn14]

I've never watched fox news, but if the left-leaning posters on this board are any indication than Fox News is considered the Worst Thing Ever by a lot of people.
(Getting off soapbox now, hoping I didn't hijack thread too badly).

I don't think you hijacked anything. But if you've never watched Fox, I would suggest that you do so you can make your own interpretations. All I see them do is give the other side of any debate. When reporting news, they report news. When it is a question about how people feel about something, they have a liberal on one side, a conservative on the other and they debate it. You will be shocked at how even a debate they give each side, if you've never watched it before.

With that said, the opinion people like Hannity or O'Reilly, are conservative and they give their opinions on that. But, MSNBC has liberals who do the same thing so there is no real difference. The biggest difference that I see is that FOX gets something like 5X the viewers and therefore MSNBC and CNN has to attack them, hoping to get more viewers. It's nothing more than a money thing.

I am interested on "climate change", though. I assume your dad was working in the 1970's. I only assume that because for some reason I am assuming you are somewhere between 35-45. If I am wrong, I appologize in advance. But, if he was, ask him if he remembers "global coooling" in the 70's. It was all the rage back then. Then it became "global warming". Now it is "climate change". It all seems ridiculous to me. The names are changing, the reasons why change and it went from cooling to warming to just change. If you can, and he doesn't mind answering, ask him about that and what he thought in the 70's. It would be cool to hear from an actual meteroligist.

Also, didn't we have an ice age back in the day before man ever set foot on the ground? That's what scientists say. So how did all that melt if we weren't burning fossil fuels? Couldn't it be that we are just in a cyclical time in the earth's life? And how do we know there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer 2000yrs ago? We had no way of measuring it back then. So couldn't it be that it was always there? Just asking.....

[bwh27]

You seem to have two main arguments Quinn, but correct me if I'm over-simplifying.

(1) The climate has changed many times before.
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate?s sensitivity to CO2.
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

(2) The planet was considered to be cooling in the 70s, then known as a global ice age.
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

If you guys look into the issue, there's piles upon piles of empirical evidence that directly ties human activity to global warming. Specifically, direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

As for the ancient ice age, there are tons of factors that can contribute to something like that such as continental shifts, ocean currents, variations in the Earth's orbit and the Sun's energy output, etc. One of the major ice ages ended due to potential changes in the above factors and CO2 emissions from volcanoes which theoretically occurred because the abundance of ice inhibited photosynthesis (among other things) which is largely responsible for absorbing CO2. We know that we're not "just in a cyclical time in the earth's life" because the research goes many many layers deeper than simply observing temperatures have gone up and the climate is changing - especially over the last 10 years.

Edit: Found an interesting stat regarding the unlikelihood of global warming being a natural occurrence unaffected by other factors. AND since Hansen and Schmidt/Wolfe's research, 2010 was rated as the warmest year in the modern record.
20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end. The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion! (Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)