Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Post Reply New Topic

Where is the bias here?:



or here?:



And this one's for you, ruveyn:

Of course he can't easily find the original emails. Either can I. The problem is that none of the right-wing attacks give the dates to the emails they quote.

Apologies for how obnoxiously large those images are. I haven't figured out how to re-size.

I'm sure some sites do, however the fact this these emails are even in existance validates the decision to treat the global warming data with skepticism.

I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked!

Fox News says it's "fair and balanced" and I, for one, totally believed them before this came out!

The accounts I have read suggest that those quotes were patched together and taken out of context. Only way to know for sure is to go to the primary sources and find out what is actually said.

So, go on. You are the one making accusations of malfeasance, so you must be the one to provide hard evidence. We will all be waiting.

Here is a good site...

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp28.htm#_Ref222638260

Particularly this graph...

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp28-4.jpg

The black line is the estimated observed global mean temperature. The thin red lines on the top graph are numerical simulations using a variety of GCM climate models with anthropogenic forcing (increasing CO2 and other gasses). The thin blue lines on the bottom graph are numerical simulations using the same models without anthropogenic forcing since 1900.

If you people spent half as much time actually digging into stuff CBS, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc. report you guys would all be having heart failure.



Fact of the matter, is what the Fox News boss did was make a judgement call that is perfectly reasonable and easily argued as responsible to treat the climate data with skepticism based on the fact the scientists' credibility was thrown into question. That is a completely logical stance to take.

The problem is the skepticism isn't really reasonable. Not unless you misrepresent the data.

theres a documentary out exposing the bias and manipulation on fox news that suddenly took off after murdoch took charge, changing the format & dictating what the journalists could & couldnt say, its full of whistleblower testimonies from former staff. I think it was called 'orwell rolls in his grave'

On a related note john pilger has just released a eye-opening film called 'the war you dont see' about how the mainstream media propaganda machine operates.

^^^^

John Pilger is not any better than the muppets on Fox news. You invariably know what side of every discussion he is on and he slants evidence in much the same way. In Australia, the style used by Fox is termed: John Pilger style journalism and it is considered a major insult if it is leveled against a reporter.

Seriously, what sources did you use? And remember just who all is being accused of manipulating data here. Furthermore, you are suggesting I go through several thousand e-mails that are in no particular order, knowing full well one person cannot sort through them all on their own. I found a place with some quotes from the e-mails.

http://www.examiner.com/climate-change- ... and-emails

Not going to bother quoting stuff I'm just going to let you read it, but it quotes from various e-mails.



You know what's kinda ironic, your username which refers to 1984 yet you are for the very government one sees in 1984.

@ number5

Because of the accusation that the data was tampered with, everything you posted as far as graphs are in question. That means every chart to support global warming may have used data that had been tampered with.

@ Orwell

You claim to be a biology major, do you understand what these scientists supposedly violated? This is a basic rule for research in general, and I'm wondering if you know it.

A variety. This whole issue was from a while ago, so I don't recall off the top of my head where I read about it.


Actually, Marshall asked you to provide dates for the "incriminating" e-mails so they could be looked up and examined in context. This seems like a reasonable request.


Your source is blatantly biased. Anyways, I don't see anything terribly daming, at least not in the first batch they had.


Not in the least. You are letting your imagination get away with you again. And how is my request for "evidence, please?" anything like 1984?


In other words, any amount of real or perceived malfeasance by anyone will be used by you to justify rejecting any and all facts that are inconvenient for your worldview.

Basically just a continuation of your earlier theme on rejecting any fact that happens to be reported in a source you dislike.


Yes, I do, which is why I demand hard evidence for such a serious accusation. You do realize that if these accusations are true (or even perceived as true) these people's academic careers are over? It is not something to be taken lightly at all.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in serious scientific research (I have), but internal conversations within a research team will often include comments that, when taken out of context, could seem suspect. Hell, I've written e-mails that would be misconstrued as me falsifying the data if these climategate people got hold of them.

Orwell, I probably read just as much as you do if not more so, and like yourself it has been a long while from reading the climategate stuff. However, I'm digging for sources, the least you can do is find your sources.

Furthermore it is not my job to do marshall's work for him. If he can find the e-mails in question more power to him.


If you understand the seriousness of the accusations then you have admitted you understand the reasoning as to why the decision was made at Fox News to show skepticism concerning the climate data.

Furthermore, unlike you I actually have some knowledge of the events due to my internship over the summer just outside DC at Goddard Space Flight Center. Some climatologists (sp? it is 1:00 AM), at Goddard were upset cause their credibility and all their research was thrown into question due to these guys in the UK. They were not mad at Fox News, they were mad at the crackpots in the UK.

You are the one making accusations; thus the burden of proof lies on you. Not on Marshall.


That is incorrect. I demand much stronger evidence than I have seen before lending credence to these sort of accusations. As such, Fox's "skepticism" is not justified by the allegations that have been made. Especially since their "skepticism" was about different research that the "climategate" people weren't involved with, and was not in question. They are employing the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" along with the fallacy of composition.

Oh, enough with the "climategate" nonsense. As Orwell mentioned, internal conversations between scientists over research can sound suspect to an uninvolved and uneducated (on the subject matter) person. If you're interested in the response from the scientists, here it is:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

For me, the argument is completely moot. I studied meteorology and climatology back in the 90's and in the early 2000's. The data I posted is the same data (minus the most recent years) I worked with back then, before "climategate." I was very interested in data integrity during my college years as I was also skeptical about the recorded warming trend. I did a research paper on GMT's (global mean temps). My hypothesis was that the data was somehow skewed, or inaccurate based on either varying data collection methods, or urban heat island effect, etc. The result of my research was that not only was the data accurate, but it was completely backed-up other natural indicators. I can't remember the specifics (10 years and 2 kids later), but seeing it all laid out for me, after personal, and in-depth research, I consider the case to be closed. I have no problem with skeptical and varying opinions on what the future may bring, but to argue over past data is just a waste of time and efforts. It's been recorded, verified, and backed-up.

I've worked at NOAA. It's a very boring and completely scandal-free environment. If you, Inuyasha, have also worked amongst these scientists, then did you even bother to ask them what their thoughts about global warming are? Or did you just ask them if they were mad at Fox?