• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

No, I am not choosing art/philosophy majors, per your analogy.

So you're smart enough not to choose an art or philosophy major for car repair when it pertains to your own life, for that we should all be somewhat relieved. Yet, you would opt for the non-scientist's opinion when it comes to complex scientific topics. Why?
 
Yeah, pretty much.

Myths busted at climate change conference | Human Events

Not sure if I'd call these folks 'knuckle dragging' through. That would appear to be awfully bold and needlessly and unfairly dismissive for a valid position.

Thanks finally an example of a scientist that doesn't believe in GW. The problem is that Joe Bastardi totale of lack credibilty. If the conference is so good at "busting myth" why then use scientist that lack credibility and not even a expert on climate change? Also if you want to have a credibility confence why have the conference hosted by an orgainzation known for helping tobaco company to deny health risk with smoking?

Why Is Fox Going To Joe Bastardi For Climate Change Analysis? | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Meh, just wasn't very funny. Being that methane is a far more sensitive greenhouse gas I suppose you should stop talking too.

You first...:devil: I just want to see how you fair....:mrgreen:
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

So you're smart enough not to choose an art or philosophy major for car repair when it pertains to your own life, for that we should all be somewhat relieved. Yet, you would opt for the non-scientist's opinion when it comes to complex scientific topics. Why?

You keep saying that I'm doing this, and have yet to prove that I am.
All the dissenting opinions from learned scientists in the discipline I listed are not as you falsely characterize them.
 
Thanks finally an example of a scientist that doesn't believe in GW. The problem is that Joe Bastardi totale of lack credibilty. If the conference is so good at "busting myth" why then use scientist that lack credibility and not even a expert on climate change? Also if you want to have a credibility confence why have the conference hosted by an orgainzation known for helping tobaco company to deny health risk with smoking?

Why Is Fox Going To Joe Bastardi For Climate Change Analysis? | Research | Media Matters for America

You are demanding credibility while citing a Media Matters posting? :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Pretty clear how? Because it doesn't fit what you want to see? We have to have some measurable way to determine bias. It should measured based on language (read any Weekly Standard article and you'll see what I mean) and inaccuracies without consequence (again, weekly standard folks are inaccurate all the time and keep their jobs). not by the illogical measures most of these so called studies use.

As I said, a journalist can only admit for him or herself, and not the majority. So, using only a few is hardly any evidence at all. Their is no reason to accept them as speaking for the whole. It's even illogical to do so.

There are studies and entire books substantiating that the media is in fact liberally biased, not journalists and how they self-identify, but analyticsal and statistical studies of the actual broadcast or printed content.

On the conservative side, the strongest case might have been made by Tim Groseclose, a political science and economics professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. Groseclose used a three-pronged test to quantify the “slant quotient” of news stories reported by dozens of media sources. He compared these ratings with a statistical analysis of the voting records of various national politicians. In his 2011 book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Bias Distorts the American Mind,” Groseclose concluded that most media organizations aligned with the views of liberal politicians. (Groseclose determined that The Washington Post’s “slant quotient” was less liberal than news coverage in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.)
How biased are the media, really? - The Washington Post

Gentzkow, who teaches at the University of Chicago, has just won the John Bates Clark Medal for an outstanding American economist under 40 (he’s 38). He has some interesting ideas about the modern media, which he culled by studying traditional media. Namely, newspapers.
Along with economist Jesse Shapiro, also of Chicago, Gentzkow examined the ideological “slant” of newspapers by identifying various words and phrases favored by liberals or conservatives. For instance, conservatives often say “illegal aliens” when liberals prefer “undocumented workers.” Another example: What liberals refer to as “the estate tax,” conservatives call “the death tax.” By tallying newspapers’ use of liberal and conservative phrases, Gentzkow and Shapiro determined papers’ political slant. This compromised their “objective” pursuit of the news.
. . . .
What actually happens is both more innocent and more insidious. Papers with more Republican readers tend to provide more conservative stories and language; papers in more liberal areas lean left in their coverage and story selection. (The study involved 1,000 phrases reviewed in 429 newspapers, representing about 70 percent of the nation’s circulation. To gauge the politics of newspaper readers, Zip code-level data on voting patterns and circulation were matched.)
Robert Samuelson: Media bias explained in two studies - The Washington Post


Another perspective on the Groseclose study.
A Measure of Media Bias, by Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago, presented last Ma

rch at Stanford University's Workshop on the Media & Economic Performance. These researchers set up an objective measure of bias in U.S. television networks, newspapers, and magazines. The main finding is that the liberal inclination is pronounced. Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left.

Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a strikingly liberal score of 80.
The Liberal Media: It's No Myth

So from a content analysis perspective, it seems reasonable to conclude that the actual content broadcast and printed in the main stream media are in fact with a liberal bias.

Further, I don't believe that it's logical to assume that journalists, who self identify by such a large margin as liberal, can and will report the news in a neutral and fair fashion. Especially when liberal / progressive ideology deals more with how you feel rather than logic. Is it reasonable to assume that an ideology based on feeling would suppress those feelings when engaged in news reporting and editorial decisions? I hardly think so, and the above studies seem to bare that out.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Think of media bias this way:

Here are conservatives ||||||||||||||| ||||| This is reality/here is the news media|||||| Here are liberals |||||| Here are socialists

x--------------------------------------------------------x---x-------------x------------------------------------------------------x
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Think of media bias this way:

Here are conservatives ||||||||||||||| ||||| This is reality/here is the news media|||||| Here are liberals |||||| Here are socialists

x--------------------------------------------------------x---x-------------x------------------------------------------------------x

Revised for accuracy? :)

|||||||||||||||Here are conservatives ||||| This is reality||||||||||||||| Here is the news media|||||| Here are liberals |||||| Here are socialists/progressives
---------------x-----------------------------x---------------------------x----------------------------x---------------------X
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Revised for accuracy? :)

|||||||||||||||Here are conservatives ||||| This is reality||||||||||||||| Here is the news media|||||| Here are liberals |||||| Here are socialists/progressives
---------------x-----------------------------x---------------------------x----------------------------x---------------------X


see? This is the problem. You see reality as being closer to conservatives than is true.

Again, I give you this thead as an example. Scientists say one thing about the science. Conservatives say another. The reality is that scientists know what they are talking about when they talk about science.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

You keep saying that I'm doing this, and have yet to prove that I am.
All the dissenting opinions from learned scientists in the discipline I listed are not as you falsely characterize them.

But your entire premise is founded on assumption that global warming, specifically human caused global warming, is correct.

I submit that this, as of yet, not a proven assumption, as would 80% of the people surveyed.

If you weren't doing this, you wouldn't give a damn about what 80% of people surveyed thought.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

If you weren't doing this, you wouldn't give a damn about what 80% of people surveyed thought.

The only observation that I made about the 80% were that it'll be difficult, if not impossible, to pass legislation / regulation with that small a consensus in the electorate. Surely that's not disputed.

Given that the climate models have yet to accurately predict very much, basing high impact legislative / regulatory decisions on their prediction can't be considered as wise and prudent. Surely that's not disputed.

Even so, acknowledging that this is the only Earth we have, I'm willing to support less impactful legislative / regulatory decisions along the lines of the 80% / 20% rule, focusing on the least impactful yet significant gains in reducing climate impact, as being a prudent measure. Surely that's not disputed either.

I believe that not giving a dam about the 80%, leaving them behind and shoving a predetermined solution down their throats, is surely not a reasonable and prudent manner of governance. Surely that's not disputed either.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

There are studies and entire books substantiating that the media is in fact liberally biased, not journalists and how they self-identify, but analyticsal and statistical studies of the actual broadcast or printed content.

How biased are the media, really? - The Washington Post

Robert Samuelson: Media bias explained in two studies - The Washington Post


Another perspective on the Groseclose study.
The Liberal Media: It's No Myth

So from a content analysis perspective, it seems reasonable to conclude that the actual content broadcast and printed in the main stream media are in fact with a liberal bias.

Further, I don't believe that it's logical to assume that journalists, who self identify by such a large margin as liberal, can and will report the news in a neutral and fair fashion. Especially when liberal / progressive ideology deals more with how you feel rather than logic. Is it reasonable to assume that an ideology based on feeling would suppress those feelings when engaged in news reporting and editorial decisions? I hardly think so, and the above studies seem to bare that out.

There have always been books perpetuating myths. Nothing new. So, that alone is not enough. And ailment doesn't mean anything. Some might say reporting the consensus on GW is alignment, but that would mean reality is alined. So, that too means nothing logically.

So I repeat, poor studies based on poor logic don't prove anything. I await a study that looks closely at language and inaccuracies without consequence because that is how you properly measure bias.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

There have always been books perpetuating myths. Nothing new. So, that alone is not enough. And ailment doesn't mean anything. Some might say reporting the consensus on GW is alignment, but that would mean reality is alined. So, that too means nothing logically.

So I repeat, poor studies based on poor logic don't prove anything. I await a study that looks closely at language and inaccuracies without consequence because that is how you properly measure bias.

The studies indicated are in fact measuring the language used in the reporting. Since no study seems to satisfy your ardent demands, from which expertise they stem from I have no idea, perhaps you should conduct your own study of the matter. I'd even lend it credence, provided it's not one with predetermined conclusions.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

The studies indicated are in fact measuring the language used in the reporting. Since no study seems to satisfy your ardent demands, from which expertise they stem from I have no idea, perhaps you should conduct your own study of the matter. I'd even lend it credence, provided it's not one with predetermined conclusions.

No, they are not. I've explained why each doesn't work. And I know of no study that does it properly. I can't change that for you, but the issue has not been tackled properly.

You might also look up study bias and viewer bias.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Hmm. This might throw a wrench into the 'this is the hottest summer' or 'month' predictions / reports.

10553378_904932802855406_3958084338640934522_n.jpg


You think that the global prediction models may need a bit more cooking / work?
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Hmm. This might throw a wrench into the 'this is the hottest summer' or 'month' predictions / reports.

10553378_904932802855406_3958084338640934522_n.jpg


You think that the global prediction models may need a bit more cooking / work?
As i understand things, "global warming" is a misleading term - the preferred term is "climate change", since "global warming" causes changes in weather that can make things colder or hotter depending on a ton of variables that I don't fully understand.

I'm still not personally convinced that AGW is as much of an issue as some say - but I do not dispute that the climate is changing. I just don't think it's as significant or as problematic as is claimed by some.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

As i understand things, "global warming" is a misleading term - the preferred term is "climate change", since "global warming" causes changes in weather that can make things colder or hotter depending on a ton of variables that I don't fully understand.

I'm still not personally convinced that AGW is as much of an issue as some say - but I do not dispute that the climate is changing. I just don't think it's as significant or as problematic as is claimed by some.

You know, that's a pretty reasonable position. There is climate change, as the system was never in a static state. It may be even that the climate is warming. I remain unconvinced that it's 100% attributable to human activity. Until the climate models are actually accurate enough to predict anything with some sort of certainty, I'm not willing to make large impact policy decisions using them.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

You know, that's a pretty reasonable position. There is climate change, as the system was never in a static state. It may be even that the climate is warming. I remain unconvinced that it's 100% attributable to human activity. Until the climate models are actually accurate enough to predict anything with some sort of certainty, I'm not willing to make large impact policy decisions using them.

There is no debate for climate change that says 100% of it is due to human activity. The debate is if the majority of climate change is due to human activity. I don't fall into that category. climate change is happening, and I'm not convinced the majority of it is due to human activity and even if it was countries like china and Russia are not on board which would nullify ANYTHING the U.S. can do to try and combat such change. The U.s. is taking the hits while China and Russia are on free for all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

There is no debate for climate change that says 100% of it is due to human activity. The debate is if the majority of climate change is due to human activity. I don't fall into that category. climate change is happening, and I'm not convinced the majority of it is due to human activity and even if it was countries like china and Russia are not on board which would nullify ANYTHING the U.S. can do to try and combat such change. The U.s. is taking the hits while China and Russia are on free for all.
Still though, there ARE things that can be done to minimize our impact on our own local ecosystem. Some of those have already taken place or are currently taking place...
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

Still though, there ARE things that can be done to minimize our impact on our own local ecosystem. Some of those have already taken place or are currently taking place...

There are things to minimize our impact (if there is some), however, even if we do the fact that other countries aren't nullify what we do and WE are taking the FULL impacts economically for it. In other words, we crumble and it doesn't do a lick of good anyway.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

There are things to minimize our impact (if there is some), however, even if we do the fact that other countries aren't nullify what we do and WE are taking the FULL impacts economically for it. In other words, we crumble and it doesn't do a lick of good anyway.
I was thinking more along the lines of preventing pollution of local ecosystems, not the large-scale anti-climate change measures I've heard some mention of.

Had an odd thought just now though...in the future we'll be bombing factories in china to stop carbon emissions?
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

I was thinking more along the lines of preventing pollution of local ecosystems, not the large-scale anti-climate change measures I've heard some mention of.

Had an odd thought just now though...in the future we'll be bombing factories in china to stop carbon emissions?

The U.s. is already doing most than any other nation. the fact the other nations aren't is going to nullify anything we do.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

The U.s. is already doing most than any other nation. the fact the other nations aren't is going to nullify anything we do.
To some degree, on a global scale. We can have more impact on our local ecosystems though - at least the inland ones.
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

To some degree, on a global scale. We can have more impact on our local ecosystems though - at least the inland ones.

We are already doing MORE than enough for OUR eco system though. We can't save the world by OUR actions alone theugh
 
Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over (part 1 of 2)

We are already doing MORE than enough for OUR eco system though. We can't save the world by OUR actions alone though
I'm not arguing that.
 
Back
Top Bottom