Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   New study finds fringe global warming deniers get far more than their share of media attention, greenlit Fark links   (theguardian.com) divider line 26
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

451 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Aug 2014 at 3:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-08-11 01:02:43 PM  
It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-11 01:05:25 PM  

SlothB77: It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.


So, in your world the majority of Americans are "fringe"?

You don't even realize that a majority of US citizens support more gun control and immigration reform do you?
 
2014-08-11 02:25:40 PM  

SlothB77: It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.


Neither of those is "fringe," since universal background checks and immigration reform are both supported by most Americans. Try again.
 
2014-08-11 02:37:31 PM  
PBS Newshour scores the highest on climate change reporting among mainstream U.S. media.
 
2014-08-11 04:02:44 PM  
Article has the word "the" misspelled in the opening paragraph, so why should I care what they say?
 
2014-08-11 04:05:05 PM  
Fair and balanced.

Next, is the world really spherical?  One expert says... "No!"

Has Big Science been lying to us all this time?

You decide!
 
2014-08-11 04:06:27 PM  
Wouldn't this be true of any fringe opinion that gets any media attention?
 
2014-08-11 04:10:14 PM  

vpb: SlothB77: It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.

So, in your world the majority of Americans are "fringe"?

You don't even realizecare that a majority of US citizens support more gun control and immigration reform do you?


Do you really think he doesn't know he's lying? That was the whole point of getting in at the top: disrupt the whole thread with bullshiat right out of the gate.

You don't have to be right if you can poison the whole argument so nobody else can participate, after all.
 
2014-08-11 04:19:36 PM  
Paging desertdemon and his graph.
 
2014-08-11 04:26:09 PM  
It's (partially) the same reason that "random backwater conservative hick with a microphone says something crazy" links are among the most commented-on articles in the Politics tab.  Hell, there's one there right now.

Everyone loves a good circlejerk.
 
2014-08-11 04:59:46 PM  

skozlaw: vpb: SlothB77: It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.

So, in your world the majority of Americans are "fringe"?

You don't even realizecare that a majority of US citizens support more gun control and immigration reform do you?

Do you really think he doesn't know he's lying? That was the whole point of getting in at the top: disrupt the whole thread with bullshiat right out of the gate.

You don't have to be right if you can poison the whole argument so nobody else can participate, after all.


You know how people say we will drag derpers and the deniers of progress kicking and screaming into the 21st century? My question is: WHY?

Why do we want these idiots in a better society, so they have something else to ruin due to ignorance and pettiness?
 
2014-08-11 05:52:30 PM  
What is the consensus on how much of global warming is caused by man?
90%? 50%?

And is there a breakdown if that by activities (eg breathing out CO2 vs running coal fired plants?)

I haven't seen anything but my google skills aren't that good.

Thanks!
 
2014-08-11 09:09:31 PM  

The sofa: And is there a breakdown if that by activities (eg breathing out CO2 vs running coal fired plants?)



Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?
A.No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as[RMC]
 
2014-08-11 10:10:44 PM  
Or maybe the sample was skewed in a way which included more high-visibility skeptics.
Or maybe the journalists are seeking out more skeptics to explain something which warmists can't explain.
 
2014-08-11 10:33:42 PM  
 
2014-08-11 10:51:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SlothB77: It stems from journalists believing it's "balanced" to give "both sides" of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.

There are plenty of issues where the fringe left gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage versus the mainstream supermajority right.  The gun grabbers, for example.  Or the pro-amnesty crowd.

Neither of those is "fringe," since universal background checks and immigration reform are both supported by most Americans. Try again.


Depends on how the question is phrased
 
2014-08-12 12:02:29 AM  

WelldeadLink: The sofa: And is there a breakdown if that by activities (eg breathing out CO2 vs running coal fired plants?)


Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?
A.No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as[RMC]

I've wondered about this, and whether world population growth parallels the "hockey stick" trend line used to argue against fossil fuel usage. Closed loop? Here's a graph from Wikipedia:
img.fark.net

 
2014-08-12 12:08:08 AM  

The sofa: What is the consensus on how much of global warming is caused by man?
90%? 50%?

And is there a breakdown if that by activities (eg breathing out CO2 vs running coal fired plants?)

I haven't seen anything but my google skills aren't that good.

Thanks!


All of it. The aggregate natural forcing functions are currently slightly negative.

That's the consensus.
 
2014-08-12 05:53:04 AM  

The sofa: What is the consensus on how much of global warming is caused by man?
90%? 50%?

And is there a breakdown if that by activities (eg breathing out CO2 vs running coal fired plants?)

I haven't seen anything but my google skills aren't that good.

Thanks!


The statement made in the recent IPCC report indicated a best estimate of ~ 100% of observed warming between 1951-2010 being anthropogenic, with 99% chance (extremely likely) that >50% of observed warming over this period has anthropogenic causation.

Cumulatively, coal burning is estimated to be responsible for about 30-35% of anthropogenic CO2 flux to the atmosphere since 1850. One problem with directly translating that into an impact on warming for this fuel type is that coal burning is also a primary source of sulphate aerosols, which have a cooling effect.
 
2014-08-12 07:55:43 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: Article has the word "the" misspelled in the opening paragraph, so why should I care what they say?


Absolutely! A highly respected news source makes a minor spelling error, so the whole article (no pun intended) is worthless. Good for you for standing up for ignorance!
 
2014-08-12 09:35:11 AM  

AMonkey'sUncle: Absolutely! A highly respected news sourcen incomprehensible British tabloid that touts about words like "boffin" and "bladdered" makes a minor spelling error, so the whole article (no pun intended) is worthless.


FTFY.

If a news outlet wants to be reputable, they should avoid slang.
 
2014-08-12 10:48:36 AM  

Feepit: AMonkey'sUncle: Absolutely! A highly respected news sourcen incomprehensible British tabloid that touts about words like "boffin" and "bladdered" makes a minor spelling error, so the whole article (no pun intended) is worthless.

FTFY.

If a news outlet wants to be reputable, they should avoid slang.


What are you talking about? The Guardian isn't a tabloid and neither "boffin" or "bladdered" are anywhere to be seen.
 
2014-08-12 11:28:03 AM  

dillengest: Feepit: AMonkey'sUncle: Absolutely! A highly respected news sourcen incomprehensible British tabloid that touts about words like "boffin" and "bladdered" makes a minor spelling error, so the whole article (no pun intended) is worthless.

FTFY.

If a news outlet wants to be reputable, they should avoid slang.

What are you talking about? The Guardian isn't a tabloid and neither "boffin" or "bladdered" are anywhere to be seen.


He's a Guardian denier.
 
2014-08-12 11:53:12 AM  

dillengest: What are you talking about? The Guardian isn't a tabloid and neither "boffin" or "bladdered" are anywhere to be seen.


The Guardian using the term "boffin."

The Guardian using the term "bladdered."

Also, IIRC, a handful of The Guardian's "journalists" were caught up in that News of the World "hackergate" scandal.

I'll tell you what.  How about we both just agree they're higher quality than The Daily Mail.
 
2014-08-12 02:02:00 PM  
But but liberal media!
 
2014-08-12 02:38:58 PM  

Feepit: dillengest: What are you talking about? The Guardian isn't a tabloid and neither "boffin" or "bladdered" are anywhere to be seen.

The Guardian using the term "boffin."

The Guardian using the term "bladdered."

Also, IIRC, a handful of The Guardian's "journalists" were caught up in that News of the World "hackergate" scandal.

I'll tell you what.  How about we both just agree they're higher quality than The Daily Mail.


They publish tens of thousands of words every day. Obviously you're going to find the word boffin used in some context in some sections of the newspaper in an archive stretching back at least to the year 2000. If you look you'll see that most of the entries are actually talking about use of the word "boffin" or using it in an ironic or semi-ironic capacity.

The only reference I can find to a Guardian journalist involved in phone hacking is this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070725/Guardian-journalist-D a vid-Leigh-admits-phone-hacking-ethical-reasons.html He hacked the phone of an arms dealer due to a perceived public interest. Not exactly what "Hackergate" was about. The Guardian were actually the paper who were publishing stories about tabloid phone hacking long before everyone else got interested. They're hipsters like that.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report