Yet another example of media bias on "human caused" global warming....

[Cazzo]

On Jan 20th, CNN and other biased news media outlets put out this "alarming" "fact" that a "vast majority" of "scientists" believe in "human caused" global warming.....
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html#cnnSTCText

What's interesting about this article, is CNN and other news media outlets don't want to interview or ask the other scientists why they don't think humans are causing global warming.
Yet, typically liberal news media outlets like CNN almost always give the minority points of view in their articles, but not in this case......
Nor does CNN point out that the majority of "scientists" that voted in favor of the "human caused" scenerio were brainwashed since college that this is a "fact". It's kinda like polling Christians, asking them if they think God exists...

I'm a skeptic on the "human caused" global warming hype, mainly because of all the blatently obvious media bias, and the fact governments can use it as an excuse to control people. Once they start providing BOTH points of view and evidence, then I'll have more respect for the news media.

 

[Enmos]

Even if you're right, shouldn't we stop, well minimize, pollution in general ?

 

[Cazzo]

Even if you're right, shouldn't we stop, well minimize, pollution in general ?

I don't like pollution, but I don't like obvious bias reporting on this topic either.
This "human caused" global warming hype is giving real science a bad name.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Perhaps the Corals dying will help you understand what impact humans are having on a whole organism around the world.



Corals damaged by anchors Fishing, diving, and cargo boats Install moorings
Over fishing Poverty, inappropriate fishing techniques Establish fish reserves, halt spear,, dynamite and poison fishing, develop mariculture
Corals smothered by sediments Erosion of soils, dredging Reforestation of coastal watersheds, no-till agriculture, terracing, contour plowing, silt curtains
Corals overgrown by seaweeds Over-fertilization of the coastal zone by nutrients from sewage and agriculture Tertiary treatment of all sewage to remove nutrients, more efficient use of fertilizers
Corals turning white, "bleaching" Excessively high temperatures Global agreements to halt global warming and greenhouse gas buildup in atmosphere
Progressive tissue death Infectious diseases, possibly affected by pollution and climate change Still too little known to identify solutions

So now that over half of the Corals are dead and many more are dying does that give you a hint as to what just the tip of the iceberg human polluytion and stupidity is having?



http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm

 

[Enmos]

I don't like pollution, but I don't like obvious bias reporting on this topic either.

Well, pumping ghastly amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere counts as pollution in my book, even if it doesn't cause global warming.

This "human caused" global warming hype is giving real science a bad name.

I think it is pretty much proven that human activity at least adds to global warming.

 

[Cazzo]

For both of you, this isn't about proving "human caused" global warming.

This thread's about the obvious news media bias on the topic, which, as a (deliberate) result, has brainwashed much of the public. Much of the news media has deliberately shut out other points of view, which isn't very professional of them.

 

[Enmos]

For both of you, this isn't about proving "human caused" global warming.

This thread's about the obvious news media bias on the topic, which, as a (deliberate) result, has brainwashed much of the public. Much of the news media has deliberately shut out other points of view, which isn't very professional of them.

I think you have your own bias. You assume they have a bias, or are brainwashed, because you don't believe in it yourself.

 

[cosmictraveler]

For both of you, this isn't about proving "human caused" global warming.

This thread's about the obvious news media bias on the topic, which, as a (deliberate) result, has brainwashed much of the public. Much of the news media has deliberately shut out other points of view, which isn't very professional of them.

Because other points of view are wrong, based on scientific evidence, that's why they are being excluded. In other words to just make up a reason with no facts to prove your point, then why even discuss your point to start with. Before other points of view were allowed to be stated but after many years of investigations the scientists have found many facts about what pollution is doing to our planet and those facts are now at the forefront and lead the way to change our polluting ways in order to help the planet instead of trying to damage it even more.

 

[Cazzo]

I think you have your own bias. You assume they have a bias, or are brainwashed, because you don't believe in it yourself.

I'm biased because I'd like to see BOTH points of view and evidence.
Sounds like you're the one who's biased and not open-minded.

 

[Enmos]

I'm biased because I'd like to see BOTH points of view and evidence.
Sounds like you're the one who's biased and not open-minded.

Why do you say that ?

 

[Cazzo]

Because other points of view are wrong, based on scientific evidence, that's why they are being excluded.

Based on "science" or politics ?
The bias is clear and blatent, you can't deny it.

For the last 20+ years climate "experts" and the news media have jumped to the conclusion of "human caused" global warming whenever something goes wrong in the environment. That's not science, that's bias.
It reminds me of the religious "science" of 300+ years ago, when christians were quick to blame "WitchCraft" on anything they couldn't explain.....

 

[joepistole]

The article was reporting the results of a study. And it reported the study results accurately. So there is no bias here..just facts that run contrary to Republican dogma.

 

[cosmictraveler]

It reminds me of the religious "science" of 300+ years ago, when christians were quick to blame "WitchCraft" on anything they couldn't explain.....

But in todays world we have scientists that evaluate what is happening and find facts that support their findings. Since the majority of scientists think that humans are creating pollution and can back up their claims with evidence, then why is it you can't understand that?

 

[swivel]

I hate pollution. It drives me crazy when I see trash on the roadside, or I can't swim in a body of water. But I also think it is crazy to throw trillions of dollars at something if it isn't a problem when that money could be used to fight disease, hunger, or lead to wonderful technological advances.

If we are fighting CO2 for no good reason, we might as well spend trillions of dollars picking up the sand from the East Coast and West Coast and transplanting them to the other side. If we are fighting CO2 and it is even having a minimal effect on preventing the next ice age, we are a bunch of dumb monkeys wasting our frickin' time. And if people are using bias and fear to win a grant, get a vote, or secure a donation, we are the height of evil.

 

[Cazzo]

The article was reporting the results of a study. And it reported the study results accurately. So there is no bias here..just facts that run contrary to Republican dogma.

Yes, it is a study, BUT, CNN typically gives the minority a say in their articles to give their point of view. In this case, they deliberately didn't.
Additionally, when's the last time you saw CNN or another liberal news media outlet put out a story giving the other side their point of view on the global warming topic ?
I never have.

Clear, blatent bias.

 

[Cazzo]

But in todays world we have scientists that evaluate what is happening and find facts that support their findings. Since the majority of scientists think that humans are creating pollution and can back up their claims with evidence, then why is it you can't understand that?

Once again, this thread's about the news media bias........
Not if global warming is caused by people.

 

[joepistole]

Yes, it is a study, BUT, CNN typically gives the minority a say in their articles to give their point of view. In this case, they deliberately didn't.
Additionally, when's the last time you saw CNN or another liberal news media outlet put out a story giving the other side their point of view on the global warming topic ?
I never have.

Clear, blatent bias.

Again, it was reporting the results of a study. It reported that x number had one position on the subject another group had opposing positions. It did not debate the merits of either side.

 

[joepistole]

ps if i want biased on sided reporting i just go to fox, hanity or limbaugh.

 

[Cazzo]

ps if i want biased on sided reporting i just go to fox, hanity or limbaugh.

I thinking you're mixing COMMENTARY with news.....
Yes, Fox is biased in their COMMENTARY, but their news reporting typically gives BOTH sides of view on all topics, which of course drives radical leftists crazy. They call that "biased"...

Come to think of it, Fox News does give BOTH sides of the global warming debate, unlike other news media outlets.
If you think Fox giving BOTH sides of the global warming debate is "biased", then you must be way off in lala land.

 

[spidergoat]

People like Cazzo try to falsely give the impression that there is significant doubt and controversy over the global warming issue. There isn't. The tiny minority of scientists that disagree do not amount to a legitimate counter argument, they are mostly driven by religion and conservative ideology.

There is a legitimate concern over the proper approach to solving this problem, but that's a separate issue.