Fox News, right-wing media deserve a snowball in the kisser
I grew up in Los Angeles, so the notion of living in or around snow was romantic -- the thing of movies. Living in Washington, D.C., this past week has proven to be something entirely different.
Don't get me wrong, the calm quiet brought to my neighborhood by several feet of fresh powder blanketing the streets and sidewalks made for some amazing photos and an impromptu snowball fight or two.
It's the right-wing media that have spoiled the Rockwellian images that I associated with snow in my youth.
Like clockwork, every time even a few inches of snow falls, out come the conservative media's anti-science crazies. To them, cold weather proves what they already believe: that there is no global climate change, and even if there were, we humans certainly aren't even partly to blame.
This is as a good a moment as any to note that there is a very real difference between weather (what we experience outside over a short period of time) and climate (the study of weather over a relatively long period of time). Got that? Conservative media figures telling you that this week's blizzards (short period of time) disprove global climate change (relatively long period of time) are either lying or shockingly misinformed. I'll let them choose which is a more apt description.
Leading the anti-science idiocy is a host of conservative Fox News figures.
Over on the network's right-wing morning show, Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson maintained her long-held passion for dismissing climate science, saying she wanted to talk about the "dichotomy" created by "big snowstorms" occurring while "the Obama administration [is] talking about creating a new federal office to study global warming." Co-host Steve Doocy added to the nonsense, claiming that it was "interesting, though, given the fact that the weather is so rotten right now, and people are going, 'How can there be global warming if it's snowing and it's fairly cold?' "
Interesting observation? Hardly. Idiocy worth ignoring? Absolutley.
Fox News' Sean Hannity dug in deep as well, adding to his extensive history of science denial. The conservative host found it absolutely hilarious that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had "tunneled his way through two feet of snow in D.C." to announce the proposed creation of a new Climate Service office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The very next day, Hannity was back at it, saying, "Global warming, where are you? We want you back" while discussing recent winter storms.
Ironically, Rupert Murdoch -- CEO of News Corp., Fox News' parent company -- stated in 2007 that News Corp. "can set an example" and "reach our audiences" when it comes to fighting climate change, promising to make all of News Corp.'s operations carbon neutral by this year.
Perhaps it's time for Murdoch to call an all-staff meeting and discuss just how they are reaching their respective audiences on this issue, which he has said "poses clear, catastrophic threats."
Of course, it's not just Fox News. Conservative newspapers, talk radio hosts, blogs, and other online outlets are in on the science-denial scam as well.
The reigning king of right-wing radio, Rush Limbaugh, never misses an opportunity to use cold weather to dismiss climate science, often attacking former Vice President Al Gore in the process. This week was no different. El Rushbo called recent snowstorms a "nail in the coffin" for climate change science before asking, "Where is Al Gore?" Like Hannity, Limbaugh also found it "absurd" that the Obama administration has proposed a new global warming agency amid "record-setting cold weather," saying that D.C.'s snowstorm was more proof that "man-made global warming" is an "ongoing hoax."
The right-wing written word doesn't fare any better. In an editorial, the conservative Washington Times claimed that "Snowmageddon" is "undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time." And Andrew Breitbart, Internet gossip Matt Drudge's protégé, used his BigGovernment.com website to host a blog entry stating, "[A]nother 10-20 inches of snow. ... Now THAT is some climate change."
When I hear news reports that forecast snowfall, I grimace. Not because I don't love making a good old-fashioned snow angel as much as the next guy. It's the conservative media absurdity that follows that makes me cringe.
Ultimately, the science-mangling reports from right-wing media outlets big and small say just as much about their practice of journalism as their views on peer-reviewed climate science. Their disregard for the practice of science mirrors their disregard for the practice of journalism.
What, then, is the logical conclusion? They just can't be trusted on this or any other important issue.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.
Well, Mr. Frisch, why do you think the earth is warming? What facts or data do you have?
Just for you, I have a link to actual pictures - I know printed words hurt your brain.
Uh oh, here come the tr0ll bots
Sorry first time here and didn't realize it takes a few posts to get started. I didn't see any of my posts show up, so I put test. I have learned quite quickly what a troll and it is sad to think that there are people that "post" for agenda reasons but also sad that there are those that are called trolls if they post opposing views to a debate
I also hear all this tripe about water levels rising. Hel-LO, what about NOAH? Water levels have dropped SIGNIFICANTLY since the ark!! How come you never hear Al Gore worshippers mention this?
And I also hear about how man has caused the extinction of lots of animals. But the dinosaurs drowned in the flood- that was GOD'S fault, not Man's! If it's warm, it's because the sun is hot, stupid! Rain is God crying and thunder is the angels bowling.
It snowed here yesterday. That means it's cold and it's always BEEN cold. And none of you stupid science type atheists can tell me otherwise. Stupid unbelievers.
<snip>
Ever heard of the "Little Ice Age" that nearly wiped out the European population in the 1500s? It lead up to the Black Plague that pretty much finished them off.
<snip>
"It snowed here yesterday. That means it's cold and it's always BEEN cold. And none of you stupid science type atheists can tell me otherwise. Stupid unbelievers."
Errrrmmmm, where's here? It snowed here in SW IN as well this week and has been gosh-darn cold all week. Yet, a couple of years ago, we experienced another EXTREME CLIMATE in that we had 60 degree weather in January and no snow whatsoever that winter. So, what was your point?
Stupid unbelievers? Mighty Xtian of you, my friend.
Oh, and if this was an attempt at satire, I apologize for this response.
I agree with that in general, like with something as bad as slavery for example. But this country has lost so much industry due in large part to environmental regulations, that there is an audience very well primed to receive a counter argument.
That's patently false. This country has lost industry because labor costs here are much, much higher than they are in other countries. Environmental regulations really don't enter into the discussions.
But if there were a company that said "Well, we'll build a plant in your country, but only if you allow us to pollute to our heart's content", I'm hard-pressed to think that we should let them. Such a company is just passing on the economic cost of its pollution to the taxpayers.
I'm not advocating roll backs of existing laws...just fewer fights in this area...a lower profile.
The writing has been on the wall about OS manufacturing for well over 20 years. Any company making, say, car tires here where they may cost 8 bucks a piece to make is going to go out of business when its competitors are manufacturing in Asia for 2 bucks a piece.
Les Philling said: "but it's my understanding that they often save more from reduced overhead such as less OSHA type compliance, less environmental compliance, and less exposure to law suits. "
Care to give some cites to back up your "understanding" please?
Just cede to ignorant whiners? Why bother being in office in the first damn place?
Sweet Moses. I've heard everything now.
Is this a call for violence Mr. Frish? Is this extremist rhetoric meant to incite violence from the liberal masses? Seems pretty irresponsible and hypocritical on your part. I'll be looking forward to the next time a conservative yells out "We need to stand up and fight!", and you try to turn it into an invitation to assassination.
Remember, when a person on the left uses in the 'R' word in private, it's offensive and grounds for dismissal. When a sweaty demagogue yells it 4 times to 20 million idiots, it's satire, good radio even.
Snowballs...
Bet you didn't know snow causes dozens of more accidental deaths then guns did ya?
wit: "Until then, you just sound like a petty, ignorant little person that really needs a refresher course in reading comprehension."
Typical condescension yet again from the left. – ironic that MMFA’s Foser just wrote an inane article asserting Lefties are not condescending, eh?
I know guns cause more intentional deaths than snow does.
(Stop whining about condescension. It's weak.)
<sarcasm alert>
Particularly as the person whining apparently has no idea what the word "condescending" means. Nobody was being condescending. A bit insulting, perhaps, but not condescending.
What is this "wit: <quote>" posturing anyway? Is he expressing the opinion that the quotes represent
</sarcasm>
Condescending?
He's a Greek parachutist, isn't he?....;p0)
What Foser wrote was that right-wingers are at least as condescending as those on the left, and that right-wingers EARN the condescension they receive.
The next time the Washington Post wants to promote an inane column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?" (and, sadly, I'm sure there will be a "next time") they should try it in a week in which the nation's leading conservative media voices aren't quite so busy demonstrating why liberals have reason to be more condescending.
And here you and egb prove both his points without even realizing it.
~
~
Now, it;s his turn to provide the "accidental death by snow" tally. This should be good.
I must ask: how have you managed to stay alive this long?
Are you completely deluded, Mr Jpeagle21?
You've caught on! You've finally accepted that pumping tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will indeed increase the greenhouse effect.
That whole kids ratting out their parents over the soda can thing seems a excessive for me (a tad too Cheneyesque), but I support your call for stronger efforts to educate all about the consequences of much of the wasteful thing we have done without thought and how making a few, small changes can benefit us all and reduce the man made emissions that are, without question, driving the forces that are triggering the global warming effect that is, without question, causing climate change.
You've earned a cookie!
You been snookered, OldFake. You'd know that if you read more and listened to Fox/hate talk radio less.
Hahaha !! LOL !! It's called two different things ! I've seen that gag about 20 times in a couple weeks but it just gets funnier every time.
You do understand that it was dumbed down for you, right? And every time you zombies repeat that joke, it's like you're pointing at the pee stains on your own pants and laughing ?
If a conservative pushes tax cuts for the rich, I'd pull out my usual talking points. But it'd be just as effective to say "aren't you the one who said that a cold day disproves global warming?"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Oh, what fools they are! With their talk of zones, and currents, and jet streams, and such. It's snowing in Atlanta. That's proof enough. After all, we have come to expect snowfall in Atlanta. It's a perfectly understandable, every winter occurrence, that in now way suggests that the extra moisture from the melting icecaps are a factor in creating more powerful storms in the winter, summer, spring, or fall.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/datasources.html
" Warm air doesn't make it snow. "
Give that man a statue. I would highly suggest you do a little research into what causes precipation (yes, snow is a form of precipation), before uttering something like that again. Really. Any arguments you have made and might make in the future have all just been struck null and void by the very stupidity of your comment.
2 - Extreme weather, even on the cold end of the spectrum, points to the problems, not away from them. You are literally mocking further proof that you are too willfully stupid to understand.
Maybe you could just admit that you really haven't got a clue about how things work and that you have never really considered the world outside of your neighborhood.
And yes it does seem like climate scientists can prove their theories no matter what the weather is, which is pretty convenient for them. But they are climate scientists.[*] I am going to take the people who work at NASA's word for it over yours.
As much as you are lead to believe by your talking heads on Fox, the world really does not revolve around you or solely around the US.
The average ocean temperature has increased - that is the temperatures of several markers in the ocean around the globe.
This change is manifested by both cooling and warmint TRENDS seen around the globe, and by catastrophic drought and flooding.
If you can't wrap your tiny head around this idea, do the world a service and stay out of the conversation.
Here is a good article that I'm excerpting that tells some of the major fallout of this very real and deadly problem:
Climate change presents a "global ethical challenge" as most of its health impacts will be felt in countries least able to face them and least responsible for causing them, say researchers.
Reviewing evidence linking climate change and human health in Nature today (17 November), they warn that sub-Saharan Africa and coastal regions along the Indian and Pacific Oceans could be most seriously affected.
According to the World Health Organization, human-induced climate change already causes 150,000 deaths a year.
The two main ways that climate change affects health are: directly, through heat waves and droughts; and indirectly by increasing the spread of infectious diseases.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/climate-change-to-hit-health-in-poor-nations-hard.html
You had earlier said that climate isn't static and never has been. Well, that's not true. The climate conditions in certain regions has been, season to season, consistently static which is why the weather forecast will offer normal high and low temperatures for your region on any given date, why no one has started trying to grow coffee in Iowa, and why the NFL picks warm weather locations in those years the Superbowl is held in a stadium without a dome.
Yes, there are abnormal weather extremes caused by perfectly normal conditions. This is why responsible voices are not saying the warm Winter Olympics or the ice box east coast proves or disproves anything.
It the data compiled over the decades that causes the concerns. It's the consistent, gradual changes being observed that have sounded the alarm.
The global warming deniers can make all the arguments they wish, but the undeniable fact that the worldwide temperatures have climbed during the past decades where industrial powers have pumped an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the air cannot be challenged. It the long term effects that are causing the worry.
Just as one cigarette doesn't cause lung problems, but a lifetime of smoking certainly increases the risk. Y'know, facts, science, compiled data. That kind of stuff.
Game. Over.
Do you find that contradictory ? If we have a hot summer and a cold winter, does one or the other prove that the Earth is flat to you?
Jeebus, you zombies are an embarrassment.
Just use some common sense and ask yourself "Is there some way this could not be doing something?" This is a very unscientific anecdotal way of doing things--but that seems the only way the people of the right (using "common" sense vs. science) can see anything.
And by the way, the difference is we believe in science. When 99 of 100 climate scientist say something we pay attention.
I would think if you and yours are so sure of your conclusions, that you would welcome an honest and open debate wherein all the raw data would be presented publically and the data models would be explained along with the reports of data being withheld that didn't support the man-made climate change theory.
There have been many reports of such data being suppressed and I think an open debate would be able to finally put these questions to rest.
Unless, you don't think the data supports your theory? That couldn't be it, Mr. Frisch, could it?
And the way scientific debates work is that people do research and submit peer-reviewed articles to accredited scientific journals.
I.e., these scientists aren't just making things up. You'd think "guynamedjoe" would at least know those basics.
I'm sure he imagines real scientists having a screeching contest with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck as a good way to settle a scientific issue.
I do appreciate the free comedy from the wingnuts who imagine some sort of challenge has been laid down by the nut jobs, and the scientists are avoiding it. It's cute.
Actually, I don't imagine a screeching contest. I imagine an honest debate between scientists to present their theories and prove that they are correct in their theories.
I don't claim it's settled science and tell the people who disagree with me to shut-up like some seem to be doing on this thread.
Personally, I believe there is climate change, I lived through the Blizzard of '78 and I was told we were entering an ice age and with the Blizzard of '10 I'm told we're in global warming. Huh?
I'm curious as to what's going on and I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who claims it is settled science.
So, I would like the scientists to explain it to us all rather than argue with the 'true believers' from either side.
No one has ever suggested that someone's "beliefs" should be shoved down your throat. Global Climate Change isn't a "belief". It's a scientific theory based upon factual information, research and testing.
The way scientists debate is NOT in a one-on-one 'contest'. It's by adding to the existing peer-reviewed and verified scientific knowledge. There's an existing storehouse of knowledge. Each additional piece of scientific research either adds to the foundation that already exists, shakes that foundation, or makes the whole thing crumble!
Your idea that we are going to start the debate, at this point in time, back at some beginning place, is crazy. That's not the way scientific debate works.
And it was an urban myth, with people who didn't understand the climate as well as they do now, that we were entering an ice age back in the 70's.
But see, if you REALLY wanted to have a fair debate on this topic, you'd already KNOW all this stuff.
Since you are so ignorant on this topic, you need to simply trust the experts who are educated on this topic. GCC is real, and LOCALIZED WEATHER extremes don't change that.
And we don't give a flip if YOU'RE a bit suspicious of that. You don't have any credibility and so your OPINION on this subject is less than worthless.
No, not the scientists, who are skeptics by nature and profession, and who have been questioning the science for decades. The "skeptics" who refuse to believe all of the science, and are confused by ice on their windshields in the winter.
I seriously have more respect for the flat-out Denial Cultists who link to ridiculous debunked blogs than the phony sensible cultists who pretend to want a debate about science that is several years in the bag.
Who do they think they're fooling ? Themselves?
As I said above, the way scientific research works is there are building blocks. It grows slowly, and it's a progression. It's a progression that is convincing.
AKA 'publish or perish.'
FERV888
There's snow EVERYWHERE, right? So can we all just admit that this thing called "Summer" has now been thoroughly debunked as a liberal myth?!!!
After the eruption of five major volcanoes over the past decade, it looks like any chance of Global Warming has been dwarfed by Nuclear Winter. Record cold is sweeping across the earth causing millions of deaths from prolonged exposure.
The estimated $4.5 trillion of lost production in the economy trying to stop Global Warming has been deemed a total failure. The silver lining according to one official is that we have identified hundreds of ways to make the earth warmer.
Funding is urgently needed to confirm whether or not carbon dioxide actually contributes to global warmth as previously thought before a $2 trillion plan is put into place to drastically increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
There is fear that increased CO2 may contribute to global cooling from something called the refrigerant effect. Government officials are not ready to relax CO2 emission standards until the results of the study are known, which may take another decade.
But we can't count on that to save us, and so we have to proceed as though they aren't going to happen.
I pay into Social Security even though there's a chance I'll die before I get to retirement age.
I paint my house and repair physical defects even though it could be destroyed by a tornado next month. I won't consider the investments I made in my future a waste even if my house is destroyed one DAY after I complete a major remodeling effort.
We can't live our lives that way.
You think your potential scenario justifies short-term thinking, but it doesn't at all. We have to plan based upon the most likely scenario, not some crazy less than 1% chance!!!
What if every penny you paid into Social Security goes to China just to pay interest on the debt?
What if your panic to GW made the problem worse? What if doing something is worse better than doing nothing?
Why should I live my life like you live yours?
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Link here