DHS USES TERRORISM AS AN EXCUSE FOR SUSPENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES –A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF TYRANNY!
BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACK: WHAT WAS VALERIE JARRETT DOING IN THE SITUATION ROOM AND DID SHE ORDER THE STAND-DOWN FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?

Radical progressive socialist democrats offer up another global warming lie: "5 Ways Right-Wing Media Make Their Fans Fear Science"

It should not shock anyone that only science and scientists associated with global warming are suspect in this hyper-partisan divided-America era. There is no such disregard for physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other disciplines that are the underpinning of the “science” of global warming.  This phenomena occurs because of the introduction of radical scientists with a progressive political agenda that supports the tenets of international socialism. And, because progressive politicians are attempting to use science to justify public policies that will enlarge the size and scope of government, raise taxes and prices, enable wealth re-distribution, and insert the government into all facets of a citizen’s life. Not to mention the most onerous aspects of curtailing personal freedom and liberty.

The research abstract …

  • There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming.
  • Prior research suggests that the American public’s reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap.
  • However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming.
  • Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics.
  • Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming.
  • Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening. <Source>

The spin: once again, the radical progressive socialist democrats turn to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to demonize their opposition …

5 Ways Right-Wing Media Make Their Fans Fear Science -- A new study shows five ways conservative media decrease trust in scientists, leading their audience to doubt climate change.

A new study shows five ways conservative media decrease trust in scientists, leading their audience to doubt climate change.

It is not that the audience doubts climate change, it is the hypothesis of man-made global warming that they doubt.

Former Fox News host Glenn Beck once declared "Do I believe scientists? No. They've lied to us about global warming." But the study, by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, concludes that it's actually the other way around: conservative media consumers don't believe in scientists, therefore they don't believe in global warming.

Glenn Beck may appear clownish, but he is not blind and stupid. Anyone who read the leaked “Climategate” e-mails was provided with incontrovertible proof that the small number of leading climate researchers did everything in their power to subvert the peer review publishing process and to keep scientists with valid, but contradictory work, from appearing in peer-review scientific journals. Not only were these e-mails suggestive of academic fraud, they highlighted criminal activity involving the deletion of evidence and the manipulation of datasets. 

The study suggests that watching and listening to outlets like Fox News and The Rush Limbaugh Show may be one reason that only 19 percent of Republicans agree that human activity is causing global warming, despite the consensus of 97 percent of climate scientists.

Right there you have evidence of journalistic malfeasance. One, the author is apparently confusing Fox News, which is a straight forward news outlet – unlike the more mainstream NBC which appears to be the media voice of progressive politics – and their cable service commentators who have a political perspective. Pretty much why surveys show that more people trust Fox for “fair and balanced” news than other outlets. You need only check their ratings versus their competitors to see the difference.

As for Limbaugh, he bends over backwards to put opposing viewpoints on the air. Not only to challenge their assumptions, but as an object lesson in conservative thinking. You do not find this degree of openness at progressive media outlets – pretty much why most of them failed, including Al Gore’s Current TV, to attract an audience. Consider the hypocrisy of promoting the idea fossil fuels cause global warming and then selling your network to an oil-producing sheikdom for hundreds of millions.

The Yale researchers depicted five tactics used by conservative media to erode trust in scientists, which Media Matters illustrates with examples.

Right here you have the smoking gun of media bias. Media Matters is a corrupt, propaganda-producing disinformation campaign run by radical progressives to promote international socialism. An organization partially funded by George Soros. Check out the unbiased facts here.

Now to the so-called tactics …

1. Present Contrarians As "Objective" Experts

Conservative media typically turn to a roster of professional climate change contrarians and portray them as "experts" on the issue. What they don't mention is that most of these climate "experts" don't have a background in climate science and are often on the bankroll of the fossil fuel industry.

This is a telling point. If you check the roster of the climate scientists attached to the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) you would find that the majority of these people are not working climate scientists, but administrators, weathermen, scientists with backgrounds in other fields – all headed by Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, an Indian Railway Engineer. This is the organization that has introduced travel brochures as a peer-review study and bungled much of the real science. Everybody trots out their credentialed people and portray them as “experts.” The truth is that most of these people are experts in a very narrow area and their scientific findings cannot be validating as extending to wider planetary scenarios..

The joke is that most scientists associated with global warming do not work for the fossil fuel industry, they work for the government – a hyper-politicized government that has radicalized scientific institutions and scientists with their billions of dollars in grants, awards, and subsidies. Thus the overwhelming financial support comes from the proponents of global warming as a means to implement self-serving public policy.

2. Denigrate Peer-Reviewed Science And Scientific Institutions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together thousands of the top climate scientists to review and summarize the mainstream scientific understanding of global climate change. Yet conservative media often portray this UN agency as non-credible -- or even akin to terrorists. Fox News once tried to dismiss the work of over 1250 authors who contributed to the 2007 IPCC assessment report because one of the authors was a graduate student.

Fox News host Sean Hannity similarly claimed the IPCC has "stopped at nothing to sell its agenda":

As we have seen from authenticated climategate e-mails, complete with an evidentiary trail, some of the most prominent researchers conspired to thwart the peer-review process to keep accomplished, credentialed scientists from publishing valid work.  

What most people do not understand – and the corrupt progressive refuse to tell you – is that the peer-review process is a publishing process to insure that all of the illustrations are captioned, that the points being made are stated clearly, and there are no gross errors or omissions. The peer reviewers do not vouch for the scientific results reported, nor do the review or replicate the experiment. In many cases, they are not even supplied with the raw data and have no way of knowing if the science is valid. So publishing in a non-peer reviewed journal is not to be discounted or denigrated.

3. Equate Science With Simply A Liberal Opinion

A leaked email obtained by Media Matters in 2010 showed that a managing editor ordered Fox News journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." This directive is consistent with conservative media coverage that treats even the basic fact that the earth has warmed as merely an opinion up for debate.

Wow! … fair and balanced reporting that considers all sides of the argument. How many people know that the scientific process is one of controlled and continuous skepticism. A hypothesis is put forth, experiments devised, data collected and analyzed, findings are published … and then the scientific method takes over. Other scientists are openly invited to review the work, confirm or refute the findings, amplify the work perform or suggest alternative experiments or conclusions. That folks is real science. Fact-based with no allowance for consensus “opinions.”

This statement is a clear demonstration of ignorance – as it assumes the science is settled and the government should be granted great powers to extend their self-serving interests and political intrusion into our lives. The science is not settled because most of the hypothesis is involved with deeply flawed models that do not even account for current observations and climatological conditions. The input data is highly manipulated and suspect.

4. Claim That Scientists Distort Data In Order To Obtain Funding

In 2009, conservative media distorted hacked emails from climate scientists to suggest that they were falsifying data to show a warming trend. In the end, every investigation into the so-called "climategate"controversy cleared the scientists involved, and a study funded in part by the conservative Koch brothers confirmed the accuracy of the temperature record. But that didn't prevent conservative news pundits from seizing on this "scandal" and claiming that it debunked the science behind global warming, and revealed scientists' intent to "hide the real inconvenient truth that the evidence supporting manmade global warming is far from conclusive."

There was no distortion. The e-mails are there for anyone to see. They admit that scientists do not really know what is going on. They admit to the trick of splicing tree-ring derived data to a modern dataset when the latest  tree ring data failed to support the author’s conclusions. And, what better defense of the fallacious than to demonize those who are calling bullshit. I have read the e-mails and the investigation of those who were academically investigated. In once instance, the investigation was totally centered around a limited subset of e-mails, asked hypothetical questions that were never really asked, and produced a self-serving conclusion that was little more than whitewash. Coincidently, the same university that investigated a coach for sexual misconduct with a child in a shower room and found nothing wrong – only to be prosecuted later for shielding a pedophile.

To explain why scientists would do such a thing, some in the conservative media speculated that climate scientists were deceitfully manipulating their research in order to obtain funding, "turn[ing] global warming hysteria into a multi-billion dollar industry." Rush Limbaugh, for instance, swiftly waved off the consensus of scientists by saying "a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up," adding "they only get the money if they come up with the right result." Hannity had a similar theory:

Somehow, the commentators are missing the point of natural bias. That is, most institutions and scientists are more likely to perform research which has the highest probability of being funded. And when the funder’s essential conclusions on global warming are already known, it is likely that researchers and institutions will submit funding requests for research in line with the beliefs of the funders. This is not new or unusual as most scientists of yore had patrons trying to prove a point or gain some political or financial advantage. This is the natural selection theory of research bias.

Right. Because scientists make a living by performing research, "the temperature record of the earth is clearly rigged" to keep up the "multi-billion dollar industry" of testing tree rings and sampling ice cores.

First, the temperature record of the earth is clearly rigged. One, by the urban heat island phenomena, misplaced recording stations, and the increasing urbanization of raw land. Two, by the manipulation of temperature records and the loss of the original raw data. And, three – the scientists do not use the real temperature records, they use anomaly records; that is they are reporting deviations from a cherry-picked baseline. So what you see, is not really what you should believe.

As for the multi-billion dollar industry of climate science, that is a fact that billions have been poured into so-called climate research and “green solutions.” But, for scientists -- in many cases, it is not the money that is a consideration – it is the approval and acceptance of your peers. The fear of condemnation and ostracization against those who speak out.  Consider a scientist whose entire career is based on a speculative theory that is about to be proven wrong, or even worse, his research openly questioned and discounted. That is a motivated scientist to “keep the balls in the air” for the longest period of time, possibly until retirement. There is an entire group of scientists who will be judged by history to by activists promoting a nonsensical and hysterical viewpoint that is laughable. A reminder: people have killed for less.

5. Characterize Climate Science As Simply A "Religion"

Climate science has been described by conservative media as a "religion," an "indoctrination" into socialism, and a "cult." Limbaugh has claimed that "belief in man-made global warming is a lot like believing in Santa Claus." Al Gore was compared more than once to fringe preacher Harold Camping, for supporting the acclaimed IPCC reports showing the threat of global climate change -- or, in conservative jargon, the "Climate Bible."  By framing climate change science as an orthodoxy, contrarians implicitly characterize themselves as what the study called "brave dissidents against an oppressive set of beliefs."

Objectively, this is true – you are being asked by the politicians and others to accept the findings of a select group of activist/scientists on the basis of faith. Since their research cannot be replicated without the use of deeply flawed models or observed in nature, what is left but faith? To believe that by controlling carbon dioxide emissions, you can grossly affect global climate change.

First, carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, the major one being water vapor (clouds). Second, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature, so it can’t be causal. Third, we are living in a time of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, but declining global temperatures. Fourth, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be easily explained by the outgassing of dissolved carbon dioxide in our oceans as the oceans warm as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. Fifth, time scale involving global warming are thousands of years – not the thirty or forty cherry picked periods that appear to correlate the hypothesis with observation. And, those observational records have been highly manipulated and the raw data forever destroyed. Plus, there are weather stations located in the middle of urban heat islands – so the results are polluted.  

Look at the tenets of socialism, originally designed as the scientific management of scare resources to preserve non-renewable resources for future generations. With governments being managed by a group of “enlightened elites” who knew more than the rather replaceable and unexceptional units of population knows as citizens. Let’s ask the Russians, Cubans, North Koreans, and the Venezuelans how that all worked out. Then again, they point to a corrupt leadership and want to try again. Look around, is there any more corrupt and ineffective leadership than Barack Obama and his cadre incompetent fellow travelers? Apparently to Obama, climate change is one of the keys to socialism, the other is healthcare. Yet common sense will tell you that man cannot control the global climate any more than he can control earthquakes or the oceans. Common sense will tell you that Obamacare will cause delays and denials in healthcare because you can’t add millions of new patients without a corresponding increase in medical facilities, physicians, nurses, technicians, and diagnostic equipment.

Bottom line …

Global warming is a loosely-coupled conspiracy used to drive self-serving public policies that mean nothing by harm to consumers and citizens. Look at the dishonest manner that this article portrays and you have your answer.

As with the progressives, it is all about feelings. Some of the above cited studies above were not “scientific” studies – but statistically controlled surveys of consumer’s opinions – and in the day of the low-information voter, they are relatively worthless for making public policy or discussing science.  There is no such thing as science by consensus. There is only science as the process of controlled skepticism.  

Vote the progressive socialist democrats and their republican sycophants out of office. Return to an age of reason and reasonability.

-- steve

Reference Links …

5 Ways Right-Wing Media Make Their Fans Fear Science | Alternet


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Comments