|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Don’t look now, but concussions have become the new global warming: a debate where “consensus” trumps evidence, and heroes and villains are determined by their stances on an issue where the science is bogus at worst and murky at best. Enter NFL linebacker Chris Borland, who announced his retirement from the game after only one year, citing concerns about his health. Borland decided playing the game was no longer “worth the risk.” He said he didn’t want to end up like former NFL players Dave Duerson, Ray Easterling, and Mike Webster, all of whom were diagnosed with CTE and had either committed suicide or suffered otherwise early deaths. Borland’s announcement was greeted by the anti-football sports media with the kind of frantic clapping one only hears in the seal enclosure at the aquarium during feeding time—a cacophony of crazy that borders on hero/idol worship. Don’t get me wrong: the NFL is a revolving door, and Borland has the right to let that door take him in or out. I also give him credit for being one of the relatively few twenty-four-year-olds capable of comprehending issues more complex than whether their T-shirt is ironic enough. But Chris Borland shouldn’t be a hero. He made a career choice. Millions do it every day, and none gets a parade. |
There's going to be an hour long special report on this. Maybe some of your (and our) questions will be answered. I hope they address the conspiracy aspect.
Clearly a left leaning publication just as the Telegraph is Right leaning.
I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
FNC presenting NEWS that is fabricated? You are talking about news vs. opinion???
There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts.
I'd really like to know what you've lately heard there that's demonstrably untrue as fact.
I'm serious and not trying to call you out, but it would be interesting to see what is considered a fact and what isn't.
x meadowlander, this may make you puke in your mouth, haha, Rush Limbaugh listeners scored higher on actual knowledge of current political affairs than npr listeners. And shockingly, Hannity listeners are higher than most on MSNBC.
(I don't listen to any of these idiots. I like my life far to much to listen to any of this bullshit or anything like it.)
* * *
Knowledge of Politics and Current Events
Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.
People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).
Wall Street Journal readers fared the best on the quiz—51% of regular Journal readers got all four questions right; just 3% got none right. New York Times readers also fared well: 42% got all of the questions right. USA Today readers scored better than the general public, but not nearly as well as Times or Journal readers; 22% of USA Today readers got all the questions correct, while 6% got all four wrong. As a whole, 22% of daily paper readers answered all the questions correctly.
Looking at the talk shows, at least 30% of the audiences for Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow got all four questions correct. O’Reilly’s audience did about as well (29%). The regular Glenn Beck and Hardball audiences performed slightly worse, with 21% and 23% of their respective viewers getting all the questions correct. Daily Show and Colbert Report audiences fared about as well.
Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.
Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.
About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question.
It's near the bottom of this page, from 2010 - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12204284 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
don't seem to understand that it's not the fact that the channel has a conservative bias that bothers people, but that the network routinely presents things that are demonstrably untrue as fact.
There's nothing wrong with having a bias as long as the information presented is factual. There's also nothing wrong with providing counter-factual information as long as it's not presented as "news". FNC seems to split the baby on both counts.
EXACTLY!!! I have always considered myself conservative and I am still a registered Republican. I was happy that a conservative major news program was airing. But c'mon, its not the bias that's disturbing its the total lack of credibility that makes them a joke. Its hard for me to believe that intelligent people don't take their "news" with a grain of salt and check out the veracity themselves. Now I will bow out 'cause I think I am on the verge of becoming too political.
Who are we checking the veracity with/against? The other news outlets?
There are a number of fact checking websites such as Snopes.
x meadowlander, this may make you puke in your mouth, haha, Rush Limbaugh listeners scored higher on actual knowledge of current political affairs than npr listeners. And shockingly, Hannity listeners are higher than most on MSNBC.
(I don't listen to any of these idiots. I like my life far to much to listen to any of this bullshit or anything like it.)
* * *
Knowledge of Politics and Current Events
Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.
People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).
Wall Street Journal readers fared the best on the quiz—51% of regular Journal readers got all four questions right; just 3% got none right. New York Times readers also fared well: 42% got all of the questions right. USA Today readers scored better than the general public, but not nearly as well as Times or Journal readers; 22% of USA Today readers got all the questions correct, while 6% got all four wrong. As a whole, 22% of daily paper readers answered all the questions correctly.
Looking at the talk shows, at least 30% of the audiences for Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow got all four questions correct. O’Reilly’s audience did about as well (29%). The regular Glenn Beck and Hardball audiences performed slightly worse, with 21% and 23% of their respective viewers getting all the questions correct. Daily Show and Colbert Report audiences fared about as well.
Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.
Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.
About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question. It's near the bottom of this page, from 2010 - ( New Window )
Actually, the WSJ does about as well as any source in those polls. The other thing is that confidence in the accuracy and veracity of virtually every news source has declined over the 12 years the survey covered. Obviously, things have become more polarized.
That's not a very challenging challenge. Global warming skeptics are so devoted to their skepticism that they'd be unmoved by any evidence support GW even if they lived in the South Pole and observed that shit firsthand for twenty years.
Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.
Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.
Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time.
Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.
I stand by the consensus of Climatologists, and I stand by the fact that the Energy industry has a HELL of a lot more influence and incentive to mislead and manipulate. Take a look at Energy Industry Lobbying $$$ vs. Green interests. The media misinformation campaign has been tremendously effective, as reflected by the large disparity between public perception and the climatologist consensus.
Anyway.
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since Y2K. You don't think it's 'significant'. The Climatologist community disagrees.
2014 warmest year on record, say US researchers - ( New Window )
Quote:
There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil.
Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.
Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time.
Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.
MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject.
Quote:
In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil.
Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.
Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time.
Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.
MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject.
I'm not up on this debate, though I often hear of a "pause" in the last 15 years. Since you feel so strongly, Montana, do you have a credible link?
Any link posted will be dismissed by one side or another. You can google an article that says just about anything you want. I've seen a some that are relatively low on the ideological scale that says that the warming has not stopped, but has SLOWED over the last 15 or so years. You could have 14 out of the 15 hottest years since 2000 but still have a slowing rate if increase as you are starting out at a comparatively high temperature to begin with. Linked is an article from The Economist that discusses this without hyperventilating.
Link - ( New Window )
We're baking dude.
Here - see, in 08', deniers called that a 'pause'. (2014 isn't on this graph, and was the hottest on record)
We're baking dude.
Here - see, in 08', deniers called that a 'pause'. (2014 isn't on this graph, and was the hottest on record)
So that is one degree up and one degree down right (1- to 1), that's the whole graph?
Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 29, warning that women will be forced into “transactional sex” to get enough food and clean water — all because global warming will create “conflict and instability” in the world.
“Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,” Lee’s resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”
Lee’s document goes on to urge Congress to agree on the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and goes on to demand that Congress use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”
Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea of west Antarctica are losing ice faster than anywhere else on the continent and are the largest contributors to the rise of sea levels, researchers said.
Two other studies published in 2014 concluded that the melting of large glaciers in western Antarctica, which have enough water to raise sea levels at least one meter, will accelerate with global warming and the melting is likely irreversible.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
...which appeared to be abnormally high, took until 05' to be surpassed, but recent years have beaten it.
We're baking dude.
Here - see, in 08', deniers called that a 'pause'. (2014 isn't on this graph, and was the hottest on record)
So that is one degree up and one degree down right (1- to 1), that's the whole graph?
I'm not teaching a course on the subject.
You know what they call it when people degree with 97% of subject matter experts on virtually ANY other topic?
A CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Please understand exactly what the implications are in the case where you 'deniers' are in fact, incorrect. If the 97% and I am incorrect, it may arguably cause some economic strain. In the case where you're wrong? Incalculable human suffering. For the life of me, I can't understand how people wouldn't even support the Climatologists out of a sheer safety standpoint, but playing politics ALWAYS seems to trump every issue.
Kerry told U.S. ambassadors at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday about the threat climate change poses around the world.
“There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point, if not now, in the not-too-distant future,” Kerry said.
The secretary of state warned that there could potentially be 500-year long droughts.
“It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat,” Kerry said. “We’re spending billions upon billions — $110 billion last year on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be.”
Kerry stated that we have a responsibility to respond to climate change.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Secretary of State John Kerry warns U.S. ambassadors that they will be dealing with “climate refugees” in the not-too-distant future.
Kerry told U.S. ambassadors at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday about the threat climate change poses around the world.
“There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point, if not now, in the not-too-distant future,” Kerry said.
The secretary of state warned that there could potentially be 500-year long droughts.
“It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat,” Kerry said. “We’re spending billions upon billions — $110 billion last year on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be.”
Kerry stated that we have a responsibility to respond to climate change.
I rest my case.
Of course, anyone who uses an anomalous peak year in 1998 to do a trend calculation is either a liar or a fraud, but never mind. Hmm, looks like a trend to me. And as noted, the 2014 peak isn't included yet in most graphs.
Quote:
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Secretary of State John Kerry warns U.S. ambassadors that they will be dealing with “climate refugees” in the not-too-distant future.
Kerry told U.S. ambassadors at the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday about the threat climate change poses around the world.
“There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point, if not now, in the not-too-distant future,” Kerry said.
The secretary of state warned that there could potentially be 500-year long droughts.
“It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat,” Kerry said. “We’re spending billions upon billions — $110 billion last year on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be.”
Kerry stated that we have a responsibility to respond to climate change.
I rest my case.
500 year droughts - like the area around Macedonia (iirc) that used to be fertile ground around the time of Christ and then shortly thereafter became a virtual desert?
We are just now getting proficient at 5 day forecasts and hoping to get to 7 days and John Kerry is talking about 500 year droughts and you wonder why some people are dubious of this science.
Again, until China and India are reigned in, there is nothing we can do to touch CO2 reductions.
Yup, people who misunderstand the difference between weather and climate are going to be incredibly dubious. Gobsmacked, in fact.
But all of those fancy graphs and "facts" trying to prove him wrong are a waste of time - he and his Fox news watching friends just KNOW they are right and all evidence to the contrary is just part of a liberal conspiracy to profit from a fake "crisis."
And this is why my grandkids will get to live to see humanity implode when we hit something like a 6 - 8 celsius degree increase in global temperature - because we got a bunch of fucking morons like MM going around electing US Senators who disprove global warming by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate.
God help us all.
It's an affront to Skepticism.
They aren't Skeptics.
They're deniers.
Still me and misery and death. Probably more acutely in the short term since populations change and move over 500 year cycles.
But all of those fancy graphs and "facts" trying to prove him wrong are a waste of time - he and his Fox news watching friends just KNOW they are right and all evidence to the contrary is just part of a liberal conspiracy to profit from a fake "crisis."
And this is why my grandkids will get to live to see humanity implode when we hit something like a 6 - 8 celsius degree increase in global temperature - because we got a bunch of fucking morons like MM going around electing US Senators who disprove global warming by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate.
God help us all.
No, only if you ignore it.
Link - ( New Window )
Still me and misery and death. Probably more acutely in the short term since populations change and move over 500 year cycles.
The quote is 500 year droughts. Does not say worst drought in 500 yrs.
500 year drought - ( New Window )
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/fox-news-trusted-network-poll-115887.html#ixzz3VRcHeh7Q Quinnipiac University poll - ( New Window )
Ok probably that is what it means. Droughts are not uncommon. Georgia just had a one severe one a few years back. FL had one for a couple years. Lake Okeechobee almost "dried up". Remember the dust bowl era of the 30's through almost the entire mid-west?
Throughout history weather patterns have changed causing fertile areas to die. Man had nothing to do with those. That is where skepticism comes from. We take a few decades of data, pronounce the end of the world and move on. Again, in the 60's scientists were saying that we were 1 deg C from the return of the Ice Age.
Very hard to take things seriously when data is skewed, on either side of the agenda.
Quote:
is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen...
Thank you.
It is unparalleled by anything else in its ignorance
Quote:
Throughout history weather patterns have changed causing fertile areas to die. Man had nothing to do with those.
Man didn't have anything to do with the weather, EVERYTHING to do with over or improperly cultivating land in a manner that brings forth disasters like the dust bowl.
Again - 97% Consensus by the subject matter experts. What some of you are engaging in IS Conspiracy Theory and SHOULD be called out as such. Every time. Like - faking the moon landing 9/11 Truther level stuff. THAT bad. Call it what it is.
Despite skeptisism, I'll go with the 97% of scientists who agree climate change is (at least in part) man made and that it is an existential threat.
Chris's linked article was pretty convincing.
Quote:
In comment 12205355 Montreal Man said:
Quote:
In comment 12205254 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
There's a difference between accepting the premise of man-made global warning and the natural cycles of climate change on the earth. Nobody doubts that the climate changes... New York was under a mile of ice 10K years ago. There is clearly science there. The problem is that politicians and charlottes have claimed that it's un-natural change caused by man and then they seek to implement policies to make them rich and powerful. What's worse is that these same people make-up their own facts and accuse skeptics of stupidity. Come on... ANYONE who says there is scientific certainty about anything is selling you snake oil.
Is the Earth changing... Yes. Is Al Gore a credible source of scientific fact that man is causing these changes... hell no.
Nicely put. I hope people have noticed that the climate-sky-falling people is no longer calling it global warming. Why? The earth hasn't warmed significantly in close to twenty years. So now they call it climate change, which has been happening since the dawn of time.
Climate changers have created a nice industry for themselves. Okay, we're capitalists. They make money from grants, from schools, from private donations to continue their "scientific" studies. God could come down and say, hey, this is how I made things to go and you can't stop it one way or the other and these people wouldn't believe it because it would cut off their funding and their livelihood.
MM, you are 100% wrong regarding the Earth not warming over the last 20 years. I mean so far off with that claim that it makes one wonder how much you actually have read up on the subject.
I'm not up on this debate, though I often hear of a "pause" in the last 15 years. Since you feel so strongly, Montana, do you have a credible link?
Moondawg, the confusion over that claim comes from those using a one year abnormal reading (2013) as something as proof of climate change not being real. It was a record setting year of the caps melting. Because the next year was not worse in the yearly measured melt (it still lost more ice shelf though from the proceeding year) its been used as a claim of "see we are not getting worse, just look how 2014 was actually less seasonal melt" as an argument. When the 20 years as a whole is viewed there is a systematic rate of increasing of the actual total shelf melt.
As opposed to the people who deny climate change because policies to slow down CC cost them money and keep them from being richer and more powerful. Or they're denying CC because someone is paying them to say that.
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
uintentionally proves how stupid you become when you rely on Fox news. Just look at how convinced he is that he's right when he makes that statement. That's a truly scary combination of ignorance and arrogance.
But all of those fancy graphs and "facts" trying to prove him wrong are a waste of time - he and his Fox news watching friends just KNOW they are right and all evidence to the contrary is just part of a liberal conspiracy to profit from a fake "crisis."
And this is why my grandkids will get to live to see humanity implode when we hit something like a 6 - 8 celsius degree increase in global temperature - because we got a bunch of fucking morons like MM going around electing US Senators who disprove global warming by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate.
God help us all.
Thank goodness we have MSNBC for the unbiased truth on everything.
Who made that statement on this, or any other, thread?
Rolling Stone - ( New Window )