Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

[Lord of Planar]

Extreme weather events and climate disasters are already getting more common all across the world.

"Extreme weather events, worsened by climate change, are taking a toll on people’s lives from Argentina to China and Ecuador to Malaysia. And the United Nations says these catastrophes are only expected to become more frequent, reaching a rate of one disaster per week, the Guardian reported.

Many natural calamities in various parts of the world, such as Cyclone Idai in Mozambique and widespread droughts in India, have garnered international attention due to the large-scale impact they've had on nearby communities. But “lower-impact events” are also causing death, displacement, and suffering at a much faster rate than predicted, Mami Mizutori, the UN secretary-general’s special representative on disaster risk reduction, told the Guardian."

A Climate Disaster Takes Place Every Week Around the World, UN Says

Oh... The UN says so. A corrupt political body... It must be true!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sadly the media continue to under-report about climate change and it's devastating effects.

"Climate change was responsible for the majority of under-reported humanitarian disasters last year, according to analysis of more than a million online news stories.

Whole populations were affected by food crises in countries ravaged by by drought and hurricanes such as Ethiopia and Haiti, yet neither crisis generated more than 1,000 global news stories each.

In Madagascar, more than a million people went hungry as corn, cassava and rice fields withered under drought and severe El Niño conditions. Almost half the country’s children have been stunted, but their suffering sparked few headlines."

Climate change 'cause of most under-reported humanitarian crises' | Science | The Guardian

Oh Look.

The Guardians says so. It must be true...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

 

[calamity]

Denial of what? Lightning?

He seems to think lightning strikes are caused by climate change. :lamo

Ah, two dishonest posts in a row. No surprise there.

The denial was ignoring the warnings. You'd know that if you bothered to read the post you quoted, Jack.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ah, two dishonest posts in a row. No surprise there.

The denial was ignoring the warnings. You'd know that if you bothered to read the post you quoted, Jack.

I read it. Not a very important article. "Avoid lightning" is a message we can all endorse.

 

[calamity]

I read it. Not a very important article. "Avoid lightning" is a message we can all endorse.

Except those who denied the reality seemed to not heed the warning. Didn't they?

 

[Jack Hays]

Except those who denied the reality seemed to not heed the warning. Didn't they?

A trivial matter.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Oh... The UN says so. A corrupt political body... It must be true!

You like to complain about other posters sources while at the same time often don't provide any sources of your own.

Also I have showed that the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge it.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The devastating effects of climate change are already been felt all across the world.

The Arctic Melting, Amazon Fire, And Record Temperatures: The Climate Emergency We Are Living Through Right Now

Photos: wildfires hit the Amazon, Brazil, Spain, France, Turkey, and Indonesia - Vox

Climate change threatens lives and futures of over 19 million children in Bangladesh

 

[PoS]

You like to complain about other posters sources while at the same time don't provide any sources of your own.

Also I have showed that the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge it.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

You want sources? Okay, here you go- these are the same level as the ones you provide:

Brazilian Government Equips Firefighters With Flamethrowers To Combat Massive Amazon Rainforest

‘Don’t Worry, I’ll Always Be Here To Fight Climate Change,’ Says Jay Inslee Before Ethereally Turning Into Majestic Oak

 

[Lord of Planar]

You like to complain about other posters sources while at the same time often don't provide any sources of your own.

Also I have showed that the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge it.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

I don't care what you believe. In my view, you need someone else to tell you what to believe. I understand the sciences very, very well. I see the fallacies of the alarming agenda.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I don't care what you believe. In my view, you need someone else to tell you what to believe. I understand the sciences very, very well. I see the fallacies of the alarming agenda.

Just like people before saw the "fallacies" in the warnings of the danger of smoking sadly many of those people died in lung cancer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just like people before saw the "fallacies" in the warnings of the danger of smoking sadly many of those people died in lung cancer.

What an idiotic comparison. I do complain about the health hazards of poorly burnt fossil fuels. What I don't tolerate are the scare tactics involving CO2.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What an idiotic comparison. I do complain about the health hazards of poorly burnt fossil fuels. What I don't tolerate are the scare tactics involving CO2.

It is a good comparison because both tobacco companies and the fossil fuel companies have sadly been very good at making people believe their disinformation.

Thankfully the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming today that the denier propaganda is getting less and less effective and climate deniers are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. Just like that the people that denied the dangers of smoking became far less.

How people worldwide view climate change | Pew Research Center

There more and more people are also taking and demanding action on climate change.

Teen Activist Greta Thunberg on the Climate Change Fight

Parents around the world mobilise behind youth climate strikes | Environment | The Guardian

There this hopefully can also influence the media to become better in reporting about climate change and it's devastating effects.

 

[marke]

Media have for a long time failed in their reporting about climate change.


“From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often.

In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that global warming—caused mainly by burning fossil fuels—poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth.”


Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

There you at the same time have had massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it | Graham Readfearn | Environment | The Guardian

That because of that we are now running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

Limiting Warming to 1.5deg Celsius Will Require Drastic Action, IPCC Says - Scientific American

There is little support for becoming enamored with silly science speculationism. Humans cannot stop volcanoes, forest fires, cow farts and hundreds of other things global warming alarmists claim are destroying our planet. Humans did not change the weather and humans cannot fix the weather if it becomes broken. Climate change 'fixes' are a hoax. No nation should waste its precious resources on a hoax.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is a good comparison because both tobacco companies and the fossil fuel companies have sadly been very good at making people believe their disinformation.

Not true. If anything, the AGW activists are lying as badly as the tobacco companies did.

Thankfully the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming today that the denier propaganda is getting less and less effective and climate deniers are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. Just like that the people that denied the dangers of smoking became far less.

How people worldwide view climate change | Pew Research Center

Not true.

I agree there is evidence we add to warming, but there is no overwhelming evidence. Lots of the same thing, repeated over and over.

In guess it's true. If you repeat a lie enough, people believe it.

There more and more people are also taking and demanding action on climate change.

Teen Activist Greta Thunberg on the Climate Change Fight

Parents around the world mobilise behind youth climate strikes | Environment | The Guardian

Indoctrinated fools...

There this hopefully can also influence the media to become better in reporting about climate change and it's devastating effects.

Playing right into the media's profits...

You don't get it. The media already hypes things up for ratings.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Not true. If anything, the AGW activists are lying as badly as the tobacco companies did.


Not true.

I agree there is evidence we add to warming, but there is no overwhelming evidence. Lots of the same thing, repeated over and over.

In guess it's true. If you repeat a lie enough, people believe it.


Indoctrinated fools...


Playing right into the media's profits...

You don't get it. The media already hypes things up for ratings.

You just make yourself look silly then you are calling the scientific consensus a lie. Because Bush was president for eight years and Trump have been president for over two years. So those Republican presidents could have ordered federal agencies to disprove that "lie". There the result is instead is that the evidence is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Trump have to acknowledge the urgent need for action on climate change.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

The same goes with the fossil fuels companies that have had many decades to disprove the need for action on manmade global warming that would threaten their enormous profits.

Greta Thunberg thanks oil cartel OPEC for climate change criticism

Saudi Aramco says climate lawsuits ‘could result in substantial costs’

There the result is instead that the evidence is so overwhelming that even they have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

 

[Bergslagstroll]

A sad part is that the transition away from fossil fuel could have easily have happen decades ago if it wasn't for the disinformation and other destructive influence from the fossil fuels companies and also media's failure to accurate report about climate change. That just ending fossil fuel subsidies and shifting the money to renewables could have really speed up the transition.

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition' | Environment | The Guardian

There you also have so many positive examples for that the transition away from fossil fuels is possible.

Renewable energy prices have fallen - this is how much | World Economic Forum

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

 

[bluesmoke]

Media have for a long time failed in their reporting about climate change.


“From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often.

In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that global warming—caused mainly by burning fossil fuels—poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth.”


Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

There you at the same time have had massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it | Graham Readfearn | Environment | The Guardian

That because of that we are now running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

Limiting Warming to 1.5deg Celsius Will Require Drastic Action, IPCC Says - Scientific American

Few "journalist" ever do a good job interviewing suspect claimers. Like the lousy job they did with the Trump campaign not calling him out for his lies until not all that long ago when his lies were just as false as during the campaign.

The thing is, these deniers false claims belong in the CT forum. The 97% of climatologist findings on AGW are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing. It comes down to the deniers calling those scientist being in mass delusion or purposely forming a community of false science. That is conspiracy theory. There is no other conclusion. It's like the fact that Obama accomplished pulling the economy out of the Great Recession back onto pre-recession economic levels, decreased the rise in trade imbalance from the Bush2 years, lowered illegal immigrant entry and increased deportation. Oil production increased and he approved Alaska oil drilling. The only thing left for the conservatives to be pissed about was that he was black.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . The thing is, these deniers false claims belong in the CT forum. . . . It comes down to the deniers calling those scientist being in mass delusion or purposely forming a community of false science. That is conspiracy theory. There is no other conclusion. . . .

No, it's just error.
". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. . . . The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics[/h][FONT=&quot]We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America David Wojick Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

 

[Lord of Planar]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/google-discriminates-against-conservatives-and-climate-skeptics/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America David Wojick Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/google-discriminates-against-conservatives-and-climate-skeptics/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

This has been obvious for years.

Yahoo bought Alta Vista. Alta Vista was the last great search engine. Google Yahoo, and Alta Vista is no longer.

I am as pissed at Goggle as was was with Starbucks when they bought out their competition Coffee People.

I know the libtards love Starbucks, but they are one unethical corporation in reality. they just put on a good face.

 

[bluesmoke]

No, it's just error.
". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. . . . The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

On a dollar per dollar funded basis, at least 10 time more!

The problem is, there is about a 200:1 ratio or more, of money spent showing the agenda, vs. showing the unbiased facts.

 

[Jack Hays]

You have to take a look at your own side and ask yourself: How many peer-reviewed scientific papers expressed an opinion in support of my position and how do I define that position?

You have just refuted the proposition that there are no stupid questions.

 

[Surface Detail]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/google-discriminates-against-conservatives-and-climate-skeptics/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America David Wojick Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/google-discriminates-against-conservatives-and-climate-skeptics/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Ah yes, of course. Google is part of the giant conspiracy too. Presumably all of the highly talented computer scientists working there are so terrified of losing their jobs that they are prepared to left-tweak their algorithms to support the great AGW myth. After all, how would they possibly find work elsewhere? :roll: