Arguments
Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial
Posted on 8 August 2013 by dana1981
A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change.
The results suggest that conservative media consumption (specifically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening. In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.
The study also examined previous research on this issue and concluded that the conservative media creates distrust in scientists through five main methods:
1) Presenting contrarian scientists as "objective" experts while presenting mainstream scientists as self-interested or biased.
2) Denigrating scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals.
3) Equating peer-reviewed research with a politically liberal opinion.
4) Accusing climate scientists of manipulating data to fund research projects.
5) Characterizing climate science as a religion.
Media Matters provides examples of Fox News engaging in all five of these tactics. One prime example involves contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News who Rolling Stone awarded the #1 dumbest thing ever said about global warming for claiming that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere."
In reality we've known for nearly 190 years that rising CO2 causes global warming, and we know for certain it's well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, as illustrated by measurements from around the world.
The results of this study can be compared to the PhD research done by my SkS colleague John Cook at the University of Queensland. Cook surveyed representative samples of Australians and Americans regarding their political ideologies and the effect of consensus on their acceptance of human-caused global warming. After being shown evidence of the consensus on human-caused global warming, Australian acceptance of this scientific reality grew across the political spectrum, but especially among conservatives.
In the American sample, acceptance grew for most political groups, but especially among political liberals. In the American sample, there was also a small and extremely politically conservative group who actually became more likely to reject human-caused global warming in response to evidence of the expert consensus. Cook presented his data at the American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference on Climate Science Communication, shown in the video below at the 10-minute mark.
Cook's result appears consistent with the new study published in Public Understanding of Science, which found that exposure to conservative media decreases trust in climate scientists. In short, Fox News and other conservative media outlets plant the notion that climate scientists are somehow faking evidence for human-caused global warming. This makes viewers less trusting of climate scientists and less likely to accept that global warming is happening.
With conservatives tending to get their information from conservative media sources, this is increasing the political polarization on the subject of climate change. However, with the real-world effects of climate change constantly becoming more difficult to deny, this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually reality must break in, and there are signs that this is beginning to happen.
A growing number of American conservatives are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in crafting the solution. For example, the list of conservatives supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax continues to grow:
In reality we've known for nearly 190 years that rising CO2 causes global warming, and we know for certain it's well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, as illustrated by measurements from around the world.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with 190 years - I'd rather put 120 years (works of Tyndall and Arhenius), or even less, as these were first hypotesis.
MP3CE
190 years is about right given that Joseph Fourier published articles in 1824 and 1827 as Wiki accknowledges:
Non-conservative? That's a new one! Guess that makes me anon-libetal.
Non-liberal, I meant.
MP3CE & Lionel A, Fourier discovered that the Earth was warmer than could be explained by the amount of sunlight it received and suggested that 'something' in the atmosphere might act as an insulator, but he never determined that this was actually the case.
Tyndall demonstrated that the atmosphere was indeed responsible for the 'extra heat' and that the gases involved included water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide... in 1859. Also, Tyndall's finding that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases absorbed infrared radiation was an observation... not a hypothesis. That is, he actually measured the amount of infrared absorption rather than just hypothesizing that it might happen. Thus, the 'correct' figure for knowledge that 'CO2 causes warming' would probably be 154 years.
Thanks for posting this and thanks for your generous REPOSTING policy
"Fox News: A driving force behind global warming denial"
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/08/fox-news-driving-force-behind-global.html
These media outlets are not only"Presenting contrarian scientists as "objective" experts", but are in addition presenting pure lobbyists as experts, such as Marc Morano, Pat Michaels, and the like - people who accept money to make statements supporting their clients interests, rather than along reality or evidence.
I suggest that, if Volponoca wants to engage in worthwhile covnersation related to the topic at hand, he obtain more of a focused approach and less of one that resembles a drive-by attempt to inflame discussion.
[JH] Your observation is spot on. All of Volponoca's posts have been deleted because they violated three activites prohibited by the SKS Comments Policy, i.e., trolling, sloganeering, and excessive repetition.
I don't think "conservative" is the most accurate descriptor for Fox News. Limits, moderation, and restraint are conservative ideas. Respect for the truth is a conservative idea. The scientific method is the epitome of a conservative idea. Fox exhibits these rarely. More often, they loudly express radical, reactionary, antisocial ideas that deny science and disrespect the truth.
Change, the best recent piece I've seen on that observation is from Michael Fumento, a Reaganite, and it includes commentary on AGW.
Who owns Fox News? And the major newspapers in Australia?